Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Thanks for all the Fish Wrapper (Score 1) 1521

by after.fallout.34t98e (#37208392) Attached to: Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda Resigns From Slashdot

me too :(

I have actually signed up for this site at least 5 times now. I remember the logins for 3 of them but not the password and the email accounts they were linked to no longer exist (2 at yahoo that I didn't log in to for several years and when I went back they didn't let me in, and one at eudora.com).

Comment: Re:How did this article make it? (Score 1) 166

by after.fallout.34t98e (#37173940) Attached to: GA Tech: Internet's Mid-Layers Vulnerable To Attack

There are very many ways to differentiate them (I would hypothesize an infinite number of different ways), most of them are just not efficient.

The trouble I have is understanding why we need so many. A transport protocol is a mechanism for ensuring the delivery of data from one point to another. Surely it would be far simpler to optimize a network (or write faster software for routers/switches) if there were only a few standard protocols (granted there are only a few in wide use and most network hardware is designed for that fact).

Comment: Re:That's good news for consumers. I hope (Score 1) 177

by after.fallout.34t98e (#37106846) Attached to: Samsung Hires Steve 'Cyanogen' Kondik

Try looking at the bigger picture.

If you can get a bunch of people to prefer using a particular piece of software on any hardware, and at the same time you make that software better on specific hardware (say a premium line of samsung phones), you are likely to get some people to buy said hardware.

It would be in Samsung's best interest to get Cyanogen to work (in a basic sense; perhaps require rooting and not to be actually optimized for given hardware) on as many phones as possible.

Comment: Re:Wrong (Score 1) 368

by after.fallout.34t98e (#37106256) Attached to: The Post-Idea World
Google

+ - Google going native, just like Microsoft->

Submitted by derGoldstein
derGoldstein (1494129) writes "This year Microsoft kept signaling that it's going back to lower-level code with a C++ renaissance. It would give C++ programmers the same priority that was, up until now, reserved for .Net programmers. They even launched a new show about it on their Channel9. Now Google wants to appeal to native programmers with their Native Client for Chrome. It seems that both companies want to cover both the higher-level JavaScript and lower-level C/C++. I dare hope this will give seasoned C/C++ programmers a place along JavaScript programmers at the web development table."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Not Skynet enough (Score 1) 220

by after.fallout.34t98e (#37060704) Attached to: Iron Man-like Exoskeleton Nears Production

It wouldn't be a single agency.

Everyone would have the capability and simply decide to not use it. Many governments currently do.

Today that functionality is nuclear weapons. Tomorrow it might be orbital kinetic bombardment. Or an engineered virus. Or an atmospheric toxin. Or satellite based microwave emission system. Or another radiation system.

There are too many ways to destroy entire populations of humans to defend against them all. One thing we are really good at is killing each other.

Comment: Re:the 'closest' thing (Score 1) 220

by after.fallout.34t98e (#37060378) Attached to: Iron Man-like Exoskeleton Nears Production

The power source is irrelevant and inconsequential (it would be a side affect of creating the kinetic energy dispersal system, consider siphoning the energy off the evaporation process of a black hole as an example energy source that would be available)

this would need:
1. AI built in to it
2. lasers than can instantly cut through just about anything
3. personal jet engines / rockets and the stability software necessary for flight (ignoring acrobatics)
4. palm based energy blasters
5. kinetic energy dispersal system (whatever it is that makes Stark's insides not flatten when he comes to a stop like that; this is by far the most important aspect)

I doubt we can get an AI powerful enough before 2050 even with the singularity.

The lasers might be possible if we can come up with a powerful enough power source and miniaturization processes (they are basically industrial cutting lasers with a couple of orders of magnitude more power).

If the propulsion system ever happens, it will be someone's fantasy as we would have already come up with far better transportation systems (due to having a solution to #5). The AI would be necessary for adjusting the system to maintain stability.

The palm blasters are an interesting concept. It might be possible to emit a waveform with enough power to break molecular bonds and enough direction to be useful and not to leave behind harmful radiation. However the effect would be more like a lightning bolt than any energy weapon depicted in the movies. The AI would be necessary for the targeting estimates. The kinetic dispersal system would also be necessary for dealing with the recoil of the system.

To say whether or not such a kinetic dispersal system is possible would require a deeper understanding of physics than what we currently have. Newtonian mechanics would prohibit it, but perhaps there is a way to construct something akin to a mass effect field (warp field, spacetime relocation mechanism, etc.), thus reducing the mass of the suit and contents to the point where the momentum is negligible. Such a construct would permit things like FTL travel (useful for time travel only as other uses would be covered by non-euclidean environments), non-euclidean environments (and the nearly incomprehensible energy sources and advancements available with them), and the warping of space-time to exhibit effects like teleportation (teleportation would be the act of moving in a non-euclidean environment; we wouldn't have a need for travel by motorized propulsion systems as we could simply ignore the space between points A and B).

In short, to create the Iron Man suit, we would necessarily already be at least a type III civilization on the Kardashev scale and the concept of why we might make the suit wouldn't make sense. For weapons, lasers, bullets, rockets and blasters are quite useless compared to simply relocating the spacetime in which the opponent occupies. The concept of serious machine assisted locomotion would be equally laughable, devices that would exist would only be for our amusement.

Comment: Re:No? (Score 1) 688

by after.fallout.34t98e (#36981650) Attached to: Was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET All a Mistake?

as an aside:

My favorite language is JavaScript, followed by Perl then Python.

C# is nice, but dealing with tons of really poorly designed libraries drags it down. It is amazing what crappy developers can do to make working on a program not fun.
Ruby, PHP and Java also have this problem but I don't like those languages in the first place (Perl and Python probably do too but it is relatively easy to avoid bad libraries there due to superior packaging facilities, and I have yet to attempt to use a js library where I didn't have clean source code).

My preferred language order would be something like (out of languages I have ever written something that a non-developer used in):
js > Perl = Python > C# = Haskell > C++ > C > Objective-C > Ruby > PHP > Java > VB.NET > VB6

Comment: Re:No? (Score 1) 688

by after.fallout.34t98e (#36981474) Attached to: Was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET All a Mistake?

On the contrary, I have found it quite difficult to take a given C or C++ program which depended on a significant number of external libraries and port it from one platform to another.

For example, the effort maintained in the libraries for Firefox is far from trivial.

If I wrote a C# application which didn't use significant external libraries (IE, only use libraries either defined in the standard or which only use functionality from the standard), I could port it just as easily as a similar C++ app.

The core problem is that the line of what is a documented standard and what is not is very blurred from a .NET developer's perspective.

Comment: Re:Was this article all a mistake? (Score 1) 688

by after.fallout.34t98e (#36981178) Attached to: Was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET All a Mistake?

On top of this, many of the libraries have bugs which prevent your code from working even if the library dif have all the classes you were using. For example you might have a class which inherits from the library class and overrides a method. In .NET this class may compile fine, and in Mono it complains about the method not being virtual, so the resulting code doesn't function properly.

btw, the only thing I am using in .NET 4 are the new expression types (ex: StatementExpression). However my code is all ASP.NET.

Comment: Re:SATAIII is great, but unstable (Score 1) 129

by after.fallout.34t98e (#36747676) Attached to: Six-Drive SATA III SSD Round-Up Shows Big Gains

You obviously haven't had the pleasure of seeing your compile times drop 10x (or you aren't doing work on something big enough to notice).

The projects I work on take about 12 minutes to compile on a 7200 rpm drive; 8 on a 10k and 1 on my intel SSD. Visual Studio itself shows noticeable performance gains as well. These improvements are enough to translate to extra features in a release cycle.

Comment: Re:However, something important to keep in mind (Score 1) 129

by after.fallout.34t98e (#36747538) Attached to: Six-Drive SATA III SSD Round-Up Shows Big Gains

Take notice that Atwood says they are worth it even with the failure rates he is experiencing. Also consider that he may not be the norm when it comes to failure rates.

I purchased my X-25M G2 the day it became available on newegg (mid 2009 sometime). Several of my friends also have various drives(all still running with no indications of problems):
X-25M G2 160GB
Vertex 2 120GB
another Vertex 2 120GB
several others that I don't know the names of offhand. All were purchased immediately when they first came to market.

The point is personal experiences are not indicative of statistical means.

What is now proved was once only imagin'd. -- William Blake

Working...