Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Pallet ecosystem (Score 1) 248

by n7ytd (#48656011) Attached to: The Magic of Pallets

(Aside: I have been witness to what happens when a Walmart store runs out of pallet wrap. It is... awkward.)

You'd hope someone would think to just go and unpallet a pallet of plastic wrap, but this is Wal-Mart we're talking about.

Are you thinking of the food-grade plastic wrap that a Walmart might have sitting in the warehouse? That stuff is wimpy compared to the stretch wrap that is used on pallets. It would be like saying if they're all out of cardboard cartons, why not open up some Christmas wrapping paper or tissues and build a box, it's all paper, after all...

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 123

by n7ytd (#48655191) Attached to: "Infrared Curtain" Brings Touchscreen Technology To Cheap Cars

Standard resistive Touchscreen tech is dirt freaking cheap. I can get 7" resistive types for $9.00 each all day long at single quantities. If I was a car maker I could get them at less than $1.00 each in 1000+ quantities.

Honestly this IR system is a rehash of really old tech that is just not needed.

What is needed is the important buttons existing as REAL HARD BUTTONS. the systems that are 100% touch are complete crap. Yes I do want my hard buttons back on android, the on screen home button is really 100% crap.

Resistive touchscreens also don't care if the user is wearing gloves, which would be a plus for automotive use. But, they are not as durable as capacitive, which I would argue is a reason to not use them in a car.

But IR systems are also not a good choice because the sensors can be swamped by sunlight.

IR systems still find uses in industrial settings because they can be completely sealed, respond to gloved fingers, and have no flexible/moving parts like a resistive screen, but IR is hardly the new, groundbreaking technology that the sponsor of this article claim.

Comment: Re:Touch screens in vechicles = bad idea (Score 1) 123

by n7ytd (#48654809) Attached to: "Infrared Curtain" Brings Touchscreen Technology To Cheap Cars

I recently test drove a Chevy Volt. I was very excited about this car and its technology. But then I tried to turn on the climate control. Way too much touch screen interaction is required to do anything. If not for the touch screen, I might have bought the car, but now I won't even consider it.

I had the exact same reaction to the 2009 Prius that I test drove a couple of years ago. If I have to look down to find a button to change the fan speed on the A/C, Toyota has failed on it's UX.

Comment: Re: Marketing? (Score 1) 239

by n7ytd (#48653771) Attached to: Anonymous Claims They Will Release "The Interview" Themselves

As I've said in other threads, Sony won't benefit from the publicity if it doesn't release the movie. Now I suppose you'll claim that Sony owns Anonymous too, and is having them release a torrent version of the film that secretly includes a better version of the famed Sony rootkit.

No, but The Cause* would benefit from the publicity around yet another valuable, copyrighted movie stolen by evil hackers.

-----
*The Cause being the movie studios' upward battle to convince the populous that torrented movie rips are starving children in Hollywood.

Comment: Re:yea but (Score 2) 580

by n7ytd (#48626955) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Keep in mind that Sony is only pulling the release after the five largest theater chains refused to show it. And the reason they refused to show it is because they could potentially be liable should anything happen anywhere in any of their theaters. Given the poor reviews the movie is getting they presumably decided that it just wasn't worth any risk as they're probably not going to make much anything off showing it anyway.

I propose a much simpler reason aside from potential liability that they are pulling it. Looking strictly at the bottom-line (and setting aside the idea that Sony might actually have a corporate conscience, somewhere..). The rule-of-thumb is that the opening weekend box office numbers are the best indicator of which movies are hot and which are stinkers. Ticket sales usually taper off week by week, and never surpass the numbers at the opening. If a movie has a weak opening weekend, everyone assumes that the movie is crap and even fewer people go to see it the next week. By not having an opening weekend in the top 5 chains, Sony would pretty much guarantee they have a flop on their hands, never mind the fact that all signs point to a crappy movie to start with.

Comment: Re:Very relevent for small target embedded stuff. (Score 1) 641

by n7ytd (#48557457) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

Heh, when I did embedded development we were always forbidden from using bitfields. Load, operate, store is the correct way to access a hardware register. "Let the C compiler do something probably based on the assumption the target address is in RAM" is the wrong way to access a hardware register :p

Load, operate, store is the correct way to access a hardware register, except when it's not. Some hardware has side effects when reading from or writing to a hardware port. On some devices, using bit-manipulation instructions is the correct way to do things.

Comment: Re:Very relevent for small target embedded stuff. (Score 1) 641

by n7ytd (#48557439) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

The thing is, if you use structures with bit fields, C will not optimize the manipulations with them correctly. So you end up doing a lot of hand-holding in driver development in C. You have to be very much aware of the code being produced. It is not uncommon that you check specific inner loop sections to see exactly how they are being compiled and then based on the result and number of instructions might need to rewrite the C part or even just insert the assembly code directly.

No, the C standard does not guarantee that bit fields are implemented in a portable way, but if a compiler is not optimizing correctly, that's the fault of a broken compiler, not C.

If you are accessing hardware registers using bit-mapped structures, then yes, you need to understand the machine code being spit out by the compiler.

Comment: Re:C is very relevant in 2014, (Score 1) 641

by n7ytd (#48557325) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

Because bug-free automatic memory management is silly, who would want that?

Actually, it's still possible to have some bugs if you improperly use auto_ptr and shared_ptr, etc, but it's still much better than the classic method of allocation.

To be bug free, it has to be on-par with something like Java, where you can't break memory management no matter how hard you tried. This won't happen as long as there's the need to deal with raw pointers or if you have to dodge misaccessing elements (e.g. bounds checks...)

"It's harder to shoot yourself in the foot with C++, but if you do, you blow your whole leg off."

Really? Are you saying it's not possible to have a Null Pointer Exception in Java? Hmm...

Comment: Re: C is primordial (Score 1) 641

by n7ytd (#48557235) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

Yes but you would not be able to actually empress this in C. Not possible! The best you could do would be something like:


void set_class_to_blue(Element* ele)
{

        set_class(ele, "blue");
}

foreach(dom, "a", set_class_to_blue);

Any if you inline the code, you can see what it does line for line and translate it to ASM.

That's not C. What is this "foreach()" you speak of?

Comment: Re:In my experience - (Score 1) 488

by n7ytd (#48508581) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Non-Coders, Why Aren't You Contributing To Open Source?

Because maybe the evolution team realized that top-posting is an abomination? Sometimes people refuse to actively support people at doing something wrong.

+1 to the evolution devs for not implementing this.

Well then kudos to the evolution devs for sticking up to their principles, and a reminder to myself to have no sympathy for the lack of adoption of their product.

Very apropos; this is a perfect example of the type of self-righteousness that drives people away from a FLOSS project.

Comment: Re:I must be the outlier (Score 1) 234

by n7ytd (#47567011) Attached to: Comcast Confessions

This is my exact experience as well. I couldn't convince the customer service rep that their "system" also showed that I was an Internet customer for 2 years before they started trying to charge me a modem rental fee. How was I receiving service before that time? Did their system show me ordering a modem? Did their system show them shipping me a modem? All of these questions fell on deaf ears.

After cancelling service with them, their automated phone service would no longer recognize my account number as an active account, but then 4 months later the attempted billings for not returning this mystery modem began again.

The very helpful person I chatted with on their website last month assures me the problem is fixed. We'll see about that.

Comment: Re:I must be the outlier (Score 1) 234

by n7ytd (#47566703) Attached to: Comcast Confessions

I wouldn't consider your journey done just yet.

If your experience pans out like mine has, in about 4 months you will start getting e-mails and letters from Comcast attempting to bill you for the equipment you haven't returned yet.

Attempting to explain that you don't have any more equipment to return, will get you empty promises that they will fix the error in their computers, along with another e-mail and bill next month.

In my case, they continue to attempt to bill me $70 for a cable modem that I have never rented from them. Their system still shows a credit of $42 they owe me, but no one seems to know when that money will be returned to me, 6 months after cancelling.

If I never hear from them again, I'll consider it $42 well spent.

"Show business is just like high school, except you get paid." - Martin Mull

Working...