Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment He is right. Mods are wrong. (Score 1) 25

Yes, if you really did something bad, it needs to be addressed.

No, the system cannot be counted on to address it proportionally or responsibly.

No, you should not ever, and I mean ever, freely converse about anything within the context of our (note USA-centric presumption) current legal system. A lawyer should do that. You can make your situation much, much worse in very short order with as little as one "yes" or "no." Worse in a context where "worse" can be far more severe than anything that was actually appropriate.

Confine your responses to politely agreeable responses to specific commands for compliance WRT your custody from the officers. Anything else: "That will have to be addressed to my lawyer, sir." First thing -- and the only thing -- you really need to say, politely, contextually, WRT to any accusations or charges, is "Lawyer."

When they say, as they almost certainly will, that your compliance with them may ease your penalties, you say "Thank you, I understand that, and will convey that to my lawyer as soon as possible." Nothing else. Nothing. Until you do, in fact, discuss it with your lawyer.

Comment Re:try me (Score 1) 146

No, it isn't 4.91% of their OS market share. It's 4.91% of all the machines on the net, of which Windows and OS X are both going to be pretty much mostly there. Read again. "Desktop Operating System Market Share" -- OS X has 4.91% of the desktop market against other operating systems and the billion computers is a likely very conservative number for "desktop market."

Your fail, fails, I think.

Comment Math error, apparently (Score 1) 146

Lemme see. Sigh.

2nd link says OS X 10.10 has 4.91% of overall market share, which they figured from browsing stats, which seems to me to be a sane proxy for the vast majority of computers running Windows and OS X both.

This link says there were over a billion computers out there (in 2008, no doubt more now, but I used the 1,000,000,000 figure anyway.)

So. 1,000,000,000 * 0.0491 = 49,100,000 computers running OS X 10.10.

Maybe I'm just being (repeatedly) dense but I don't see the problem with the math. You (or anyone who cares to correct me) can be snarky if you like and I won't complain, but would you please point out where I went wrong?

Comment Re:what does that even mean? (Score 1) 114

There's no such thing as a WIFI amplifier. At least not for commonly used WIFI modes (i.e. everything that is doing MIMO).

Sure there is. It's called a "cantenna." :)

Or more broadly, any sufficiently broadband / multiband antenna with more gain (and probably more directivity) than those nasty little probes sticking up on the back of most people's hardware.

Cheap, effective, etc. For some use cases.

Also, has the benefit of adding gain in BOTH directions, whereas a transmit amplifier would get the signal to the device better, but will not help (and may hinder) on the receive side.

Comment No. (Score 1) 114

That remark is disingenuous tripe.

The heartbleed bug demonstrates exactly why router code should be modifyable. The word "prevention" doesn't address the problem. Heartbleed demonstrates that after-the-fact remediation can help -- a lot. The argument here is essentially that (a) bugs and vulnerabilities happen / turn up, and that when they do, those with the skills (the dd-wrt project is a fine example for this particular instance) can go after it, and that's a good thing.

Comment Jumpers aren't necessarily costly (Score 2) 114

Engineer here.

Adding a chip, or even a jumper, would be prohibitively expensive in terms of losing the market share.

Chip: yes (adding to assembly complexity typically incurs additional manufacturing costs, reliability costs, and inventory costs), jumper: not necessarily.

And it's going to get worse, because they way they get lower cost (driving to IoT models) is by increasing the level of integration.

This is where the jumper comes in, more or less for free. This is because a "jumper" can be nothing but a trace on the board that can be cut (closed jumper), or conversely (open jumper), a couple extra through-holes in the PCB where a wire or a pin rack can be soldered in later. Which doesn't have to come WITH a pin rack, nor, really, does it have to have pins at all, although that tends to imply a bit more commitment about adding the jumper, especially on modern PCBs. And if this a logic input to an SOC, it makes no difference if you choose open or closed -- the software can see it as true or false in either physical state with no penalty at all.

The only question is, at the time of "increasing the level of integration", will they have an input available on the SOC (or wherever) that can read the state of the jumper and respond accordingly?

That's harder to say, but it is probably safe to say that if the SOC has been respun for any reason, odds are excellent that this can also be added for an extremely low, one-time cost. This is because as integration climbs, more is inside the chip as opposed to outside it, and so pins that were in use can be repurposed, presuming more-or-less the same SOC/pinout configuration, which is also a somewhat reasonable assumption if we are actually talking about "lower cost (driving to IoT models) ... by increasing the level of integration."

In any case, it's definitely not a given that a jumper is a high-cost change when implemented as part of a re-design that's happening anyway.

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.