Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Actually, its because... (Score 1) 226

Actually, I think its because many of the comments disparage the reporters writing the articles. Usually for good cause... the quality of most news articles these days is pretty horrible. But news organizations don't like to be told that they are idiots.

But there are certainly also lots of instances where the commenters start fighting among themselves... usually it devolves down into politics or religion. People with very strong views often come up against the hard, harsh wall of reality and the result is typically fireworks.

-Matt

Comment Re:How much RAM is enough for developers? (Score 0) 350

Firefox has lots of memory leaks, particularly if you run javascript-heavy sites or flash-emulated javascript.

You need to kill and restart your firefox if it is eating 21GB. It will return to eating ~1-2 GB, but then start building up again over time. I usually have to completely close my firefox browsers at least once a week.

-Matt

Comment As much as conveniently fits (Score 2) 350

Honestly, these days if it has two memory slots I stuff it with 16GB of ram. If it has four, then 32GB of ram. Simple as that. Hell, I just put together a 'gaming box' for the son of a friend of mine a few weeks ago and thought 16GB would be enough (4x 4GB). I didn't even follow my own rule because I was being cost conscious. The first thing he did with it? Run minecraft with a visibility setting that ate up all 16GB of ram.

Even more important than ram, stuffing a SSD into the box is what really makes everything more responsive. And even if it has to do a bit of paging it's hardly noticeable when its paging to/from a SSD. And if you do both, the box will stay relevant for a very long time, probably 10 years.

But more to the point, why not?

-Matt

Comment Re:And all they wanted was a faster horse (Score 1) 732

That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight.

Wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the F-35 is designed as a multirole aircraft: the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter, but the F-35 is supposed to be able to look after itself in the air and hit ground targets too.

The "look after itself in the air" would seem to agree with my assertion that one of the metrics for which it was designed was aerial combat. I did not say there were not others. The F-35C adds carrier landing and storage. If it is really bad at that you can't excuse it away with, "but it's a multirole aircraft, so it should be judged only as a FB, even if it splits apart on deck when it catches a hook." For one thing, single flight planes get *really* expensive.

Sure it's a multirole aircraft. In fact, each type has a different focus. But one of the roles it is currently intended to fill *is* aerial combat. But I disagree that it will necessarily be bad at it forever. These airframes can sometimes see a lot of changes over their lifespans. And if it is, it still will likely be useful. Look at the B-1B conventional munitions conversion: aircraft do shift roles as needed.

Comment Re:And all they wanted was a faster horse (Score 1) 732

What you're saying is it's a bad tool for dick measuring games like Russia with its bombers or Greece and Turkey with their US provided fighters play? Well that I agree, it might hurt the exports if F16s beat it at it.

And tsotha already answered but I believe it's worth repeating: it's not a fighter. It's a design-by-committee everything plane.

I didn't say it's a bad tool, and I don't think we really see the final iteration of the concept, so the problems today aren't what the problems with it will be in 15 years. They will be different and exciting new problems. But it'll likely serve well.

I almost dropped in the multipurpose/multibranch aspect, but I was addressing specifically the assertion that it is stupid to be judged as an aerial combat plane. It is an aerial combat plane by designation and it is designed to fill that role. As has been pointed out several times (which quite gratifies me; there are some smart folks here), it is a multirole aircraft that has the primary designation of fighter, but it certainly isn't *only* a fighter.

But it is indeed questionable to say aerial combat is *not* a role it is intended for. Multirole does not preclude the metric, it merely adds more criteria for the aircraft. The person to whom I was responding was saying that it was ridiculous to judge it's merit in that role. You might as well say that the F-35B should not be judged as a military craft as it has the role of a VTOL aircraft, so it's moot if it can carry munitions. Sure the F-35 series is also FB, but it *is* designed for an aerial combat role *as well*.

Comment Re:And all they wanted was a faster horse (Score 1, Interesting) 732

I disagree that dogfighting is relevant in modern warfare, at least with USA as one side.

That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight. That is the metric upon which it is being judged here.

Similarly, an ICBM is a poor tool to handle smugglers off the coast of the US. You can judge the concept of a fighter plane as irrelevant in 2015-2037 (the period over which they are being delivered), but your initial statement, "Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?" can be simplified down to, "Why is aerial combat a parameter in assessing a plane intended for the role of aerial combat?"

The answer to that simplified question is: Because that's the slot of functionality it is intended for.

But you probably meant to ask, "Why are we making 5th generation fighters anyway?" That's a good question, but I'd suspect that the answer is primarily because they are still used worldwide today in shows of force and occasional engagement. They are scrambled now when commercial jetliners go radio silent, ever since they were used as weapons on US soil.

Another aspect is that military forces are intended to be functional -- but also showy, so they can be used to intimidate. And intimidation is a tool of emotion, not logic. There are strange quasi-engagements between many countries on their borders to show intent to defend, and fighter planes are often used in that capacity. Being intimidating also helps your own forces. Fighter pilots are perceived as badasses, and a young person's gut instinct is to want to have the badasses on your side when you're being ordered to throw your body into armed conflict.

This is also related to why all branches still have swords as a ceremonial part of their formal uniforms, and they are used in situations like honor guards and events of historical or great personal importance. Military might is not a video game or board game with simple stats. It's sloppy and human, and involves more diplomats and mistakes affecting it than simple white room simulations tend to account for.

Comment Best bugs (Score 1) 285

Most time consuming bug - The AMD cpu stack corruption bug. Errata 721. It took me a year to track it down. Half that period I thought it was a software bug in the kernel, for a month I thought it was memory corruption in gcc. And most of the rest of the time was spent trying to reproduce it reliably and examine the cores from gcc to characterize the bug. Somewhere in there I realized it was a cpu bug. It took a while to reduce the cases enough to be able to reproduce the bug within 60 seconds. And the last week was putting the whole thing together into a bootable USB stick image to send to AMD so they could boot up the test environment and reproduce the bug themselves.

Bug that was the most fun - The 6522 I/O chip was a wonderful multi-feature chip with a lot of capability. There was a hardware timer bug which could jam the timer interrupt if it timed out at just the wrong time.

My general advice: Add assertions for complex pre-conditions instead of assuming that said complex pre-conditions are always properly in place. The more non-stupid assertions you have in your code, the earlier you detect the bug and the easier it is to fix.

-Matt

Comment Re:Thank the gods (Score 1) 151

Yup, they sure do. Not only is HTML5 video in ads happening a lot more these days, some sites insert the ads in-line with the article making it difficult for adblock software to distinguish them from graphs and other things that are part of the article.

I've got adblock installed in chrome, but not firefox yet. For some reason some sites think I'm on a chromebook when I use chrome, instead of DragonFly, which I find hilarious. Adblock in firefox is next.

No flash for ages. Last thing I would ever do. HTML5 or nothing, baby! I complain to sites like Pandora that still have flash requirements for certain browsers, but not for others.

-Matt

Comment Thank the gods (Score 3) 151

We finally get video and sound working properly and it's just been driving me BATTY when I have 30 firefox tabs open and can't figure out which one is making all the noise.

My absolute favorite is actually when a video site has video ads on the side bars that play over the video in the article. Sometimes more than one at once.

On the bright side, it finally caused me to get off my duff and map the mute and volume keys into X.

-Matt

Comment Re:No it is not (Score 1) 351

Mea culpa. I did not read my own second paragraph. I meant to (and remembered writing) a point to the effect that the carrier does exert control, and that discretion or lack of concern is *certainly* part of their final product. That is implied (but not explicitly stated) in my original comment where I note that I will leave and no longer patronize a site with popups or any ad that makes noise unprompted.

And of course, as I *do* state in the second paragraph, some scammers will get annoying ads that violate the site's rules or are criminal in intent now and then, even with a genuine effort on the part of the carrier. Thus the occasional prominent note similar to "Sorry about the autoplay video ads; I'm working to eliminate them with my ad service." So long as it is handled promptly and in good faith, I have no problem, any more than a health hazard being handled at a restaurant in a prompt and safe manner is fine.

Comment Re:No it is not (Score 1) 351

While my initial point of puzzlement is why you would ever click on an ad, the core issue you're bringing up seems flawed: I'm not quite sure why the product is the responsibility of the carrier. A newspaper isn't responsible for the food in a restaurant that advertises in them, nor is PBS responsible for what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does -- even though they namecheck them as sponsors quite often. The telephone company and postal service carry scams without intent to do so, but Verizon is not generally seen as culpable for the mess a computer can get in when "Microsoft called" somebody in the house to walk them through "free support."

You are of course correct in that carriers do bear an onus to reasonably and in good faith remove scams when they are brought to them. There's always a struggle there, and there will likely always be, as the scammers are adept at countering such effort.

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."

Working...