Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:No source, no future (Score 1) 74

by caseih (#49802137) Attached to: Emulator Now Runs x86 Apps On All Raspberry Pi Models

Not sure where you're checking. ARM has been supported as a target for some time now, and as a host. Of course we aren't talking about the ARM target; we're talking about the x86 target on an ARM host. And it will definitely compile and run on an ARM system. Both full system emulation (a virtual machine) and user-mode emulation, though it's not really that fast yet. The latter mode is closer to the software described in the article. Years ago I used the QEMU x86 user mode system on my PowerPC to run a few x86 binary-only linux programs and even browser plugins (Adobe PDF reader, Adobe flash, and wine). User mode emulation often appears faster because only the program itself is running through the emulator. All calls to the kernel are thunked through to the real kernel. So you get native I/O speed, for example.

Comment: 3.11 hit the sweet spot. (Score 3) 387

by caseih (#49756835) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0

I remember my neighbor running a brand new installation of Windows 3.0 a 386. The only native app was, if I recall, was Word, and it was pretty crappy back then. Windows 3.0 would UAE at the drop of a hat and hang completely. It wasn't until 3.11 that Windows became actually usable, though the architecture (cooperative multitasking) was so bad that I'm surprised any programmers stuck with the system long enough to develop any apps. I guess the promise of a stable GUI API and a standardized hardware abstraction layer (printers, etc) was enough. And Windows 3.11 introduced truetype fonts, which were pretty amazing compared to what we had before that time in Windows and MacOS.

At college we used to say that only a fool would have win at the end of his autoexec.bat. The rest of us would run windows when we needed it, from the DOS prompt as God intended. I had a friend who ran OS/2 2.1 with a text-mode shell that multitasked MS-DOS apps, and that was far more useful at the time than Windows was, since all our apps were DOS apps back then.

Comment: Re:All using ancient devices (Score 2) 92

by caseih (#49750285) Attached to: Factory Reset On Millions of Android Devices Doesn't Wipe Storage

Meh. Android 4.4 broke SD cards completely. My phone runs android 4.2, and it works, so I don't want to mess with it. I think that's how a lot of people are, despite security bug risks. I like Android in general but there's a lot I don't like. One of them is that updates are dependent on the vendor. The other is the murky world of semi-legal firmware distributions that rely on crappy forums for developer interaction with no public version control, no nice spots for download. Who knows what's in Joe's firmware posted on some random forum post? Leaves a bad taste in my mouth the way most android development is done.

Comment: Re:Anecdotal evidence (Score 2) 241

by caseih (#49710963) Attached to: How Windows 10 Performs On a 12-inch MacBook

Hardly. Windows Me (and Win 9x), as bad as it was, was lightyears ahead of classic MacOS from an architecture pov. It was fully preemptive, multitasking. And it was to a large degree really 32-bit, though it was bootstrapped from a 16-bit environment, and some of the drivers appear to have been 16-bit. But it did run in protected mode. Wasn't nearly as good as Windows NT of course, which was also pretty darn good, based on the venerable VMS operating system's architecture.

As for Vista, under the hood it was similar to XP and Windows 7. There were horrible UI decisions (the UAC mainly), but the core was solid and stable, and fast. Windows 8 was just fine too. It was just a UI mess.

OS X, while not particularly speedy under the hood, is solid and stable also. Of late their UI has started to suck more and more though.

Comment: Re:It's not limited to the US (Score 4, Informative) 220

In Australia and western Canada, neonic-coated seads are typically placed in the ground via a gravity-fed metering system (box drill), or via an air drill that blows the seed into the ground behind shanks that open the soil. So dust particles laden with neonics get buried in the soil where bees won't be exposed directly to them. In the midwest US and eastern Canada, where the crops are predominantly things like soybeans or corn, they use vacuum planters which suck the seeds from storage one at time and drop them into the ground. Unfortunately the vacuum planters blow a lot of dust from the seeds into the air. So neonic-laden particles get blown everywhere and we know they affect bees and any other insect. So it could very well be that widespread use of vacuum planters is a part of the problem. Unfortunately air drills don't work very well for row crops that do best with rows of singulated seeds.

The Alberta Bee Keepers Commission refuses to back any attempt to completely ban neonic use in Canada as it would decimate their industry. Fewer crops means fewer bees are required by farmers.

The reason neonics are used is that when the plant is young, the neonics are taken up through the plant and make the plant toxic to pests that would eat the little leaves, killing the plant. On one of my dry bean fields last year was seeded without neonic seed treatment, and we did see some yield reduction from pests eating the plants at an early stage, including from works eating the shoots underground. If there's a chance neonics can be used safely, then for sure they are a huge benefit.

There is the other issue of neonics present in the pollen, leading to bees getting a bit of a buzz. It's not clear to me how much neonic there is in the flower at that late stage of the plant's growth, or what the consequences of that are. Bees around here are heavily used to pollinate hybrid canola, all of which was treated with neonics. So it's really hard to say what the consequences are.

It's true we can control the use of pesticides, and we should and do. This doesn't have to mean an outright ban. A complete ban would mean the return to more toxic insecticides being sprayed at more regular intervals on a crop, which none of us wants.

Comment: Re:Take A Bow For Your Accomplishments (Score 3, Insightful) 220

In Alberta, where there are more commercial bee keeping operations than anywhere in Canada, of honey and other types, and where neonic use is higher than in many other places. Bees are simply are not having the problems seen elsewhere. The bee keepers association here in Alberta is strongly opposed to an outright neonic ban because it would severely hurt their pollination and honey business. Without neonics there would be a lot less Canola and other crops to pollinate.

Now, this isn't to say that neonics aren't a big part of the problem of bees dying elsewhere. It could have to do with how the neonics are being used. In Alberta they are used when treating the seeds with fungicide, and typically they are placed in the ground with a gravity-fed drill, or an air drill that blows them into the ground. So all the neonic residue gets placed under the soil. In other places, they use vacuum planters (corn, soybeans) which blows neonic-laden dust into the air. So it could be this that contributes to the problem.

Comment: How one drives is a big part of the story (Score 4, Informative) 395

by caseih (#49646403) Attached to: 25 Percent of Cars Cause 90 Percent of Air Pollution

It's easy to meet EPA standards on test bench. Out in the real world it becomes a lot harder. Heavy acceleration is bound to dump all kinds of particulates, NOx, and CO, despite pollution controls like catalytic converters. Things like catalytic converters and other pollution controls run best under constant conditions, with the proper amount of fuel to air, temperature, etc. All of which probably works well while cruising at constant speed down the open road. The moment you start doing stop and go, all bets are off. Hit the gas pedal hard and the fuel mixture goes fairly rich as the engine tries to keep up. I'm not a hypermiler freak, but I do tend to accelerate and brake conservatively (I have a CDL and drive big trucks occasionally as well, which influences my habits) which seems to anger people in city driving, unfortunately. I also try to take curves in a manner that makes things as smooth as possible.

Most people on the road seem to not care one bit about fuel consumption and race from light to light, without actually getting ahead of anyone doing that, nor actually getting anywhere faster. I'm sure emissions could be curtailed quite a bit if everyone just slowed down and cars limited their acceleration to something realistic.

I imagine these horribly-bad 25% of cars emitting the most pollution would do a lot better if people would drive them properly.

Comment: Re:The grid needs storage - not battery storage (Score 1) 334

by caseih (#49568579) Attached to: Why Our Antiquated Power Grid Needs Battery Storage

That doesn't change the fact that on the power grid itself, there is no storage, so any efficiency, even bad efficiency is better than nothing.

As to your used battery idea, it is not a good one. Most used batteries are car batteries. And no they are not an excellent way to add more storage capacity. A used car battery won't hold a charge, or deliver current. That's why they are replaced after all.

Comment: Re:systemd, eh? (Score 1) 494

by caseih (#49546073) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

Linux audio sucked before pulseaudio. I would never go back to the old days.

What is undebuggable about systemd? What problems are you having? It's modular and verifiable, and it's quite a bit easier to debug service problems than init scripts (am I the only one to have to turn on set -x in an init script to find out what is going on with hacked scripting logic?). There are lots of reasons to dislike systemd particularly with how it deals with syslog, but your arguments seem a bit tired.

Comment: Re:DAB or DAB+? (Score 1) 293

by caseih (#49502281) Attached to: Norway Will Switch Off FM Radio In 2017

Had a year's worth of Sirius satellite radio with a new vehicle. Couldn't stand to listen to it. the sound quality was awful, just like you describe. Even talk stations were tinny and clipped and grating on the ears. Anything remotely "classical" as far as music was concerned was utter garbage. Analog FM sounds way better. And as you say, it's a codec issue more than a digital issue. A modern MP3 encoder such as LAME can create pretty good audio with a 64 kbs stereo stream.

I guess most people aren't discerning listeners though, because I know of many people who love their satellite radio.

Programmers used to batch environments may find it hard to live without giant listings; we would find it hard to use them. -- D.M. Ritchie