Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:KDE will fork (Score 1) 22

by Kjella (#47924471) Attached to: Digia Spins Off Qt As Subsidiary

And? Part of being a cross-platform toolkit is that you must keep up with the underlying platforms, if you start failing to look native or behave native or integrate nicely or lack interfaces to new functionality you'll quickly cease to be useful for that. It'll still function as a toolkit for building KDE though since they define their own native, but then it will gravitate back towards being a Linux-only thing.

P.S. Despite Qt being cross-platform, most KDE SC applications don't seem to be. There's been an ongoing project to make them cross-platform for years, but many still have trouble compiling or working correctly.

Comment: Re:Virtual Desktops (Workspaces) (Score 2) 293

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#47923055) Attached to: What To Expect With Windows 9
Aside from price, which makes accepting multiple monitors rather compelling(you can get physically big ones for relatively small amounts of money, because of TVs; but if you want resolution the cost goes up fast and things really start to misbehave if you go high enough that DP MST or the like is required to drive the thing), it mostly comes down to how good your windowing system is at tiling and how well applications that expect 'full screen' can handle playing with others.

A good window manager makes carving up a single large monitor into chunks suitably sized for your various programs easy and painless. If you are enduring a less obliging one, it can be a fairly ugly business, actually less pleasant than getting some help from multiple physical displays, which are more widely respected even by poorly behaved programs.

That said, the 'two side by side, giant bezel in the middle' configuration is not my favorite. A larger primary screen, with ancillary screens on one or both sides gives you plenty of room for assorted lesser windows; but also avoids annoying bezels in the center of your field of view.

Comment: Re:Virtual Desktops (Workspaces) (Score 2) 293

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#47922835) Attached to: What To Expect With Windows 9
You don't choose between workspaces and physical screens, you just have multiple physical screens so that each workspace can be even larger and more pleasant to use...

You do eventually run into diminishing returns; but being able to display more than one monitor worth of stuff simultaneously definitely has its uses, and is something that being able to switch between workspaces, be the transition ever so elegant, cannot replace.

Comment: Re:Mixed units (Score 2) 43

by Kjella (#47922009) Attached to: Micron Releases 16nm-Process SSDs With Dynamic Flash Programming

Well, you must also know the HTML entities, even in plain text mode... writing æøå doesn't work, but æøå works. In this case µ doesn't work though. And I think all languages have Unicode support good enough to strip control characters and shit if you're not lazy. My impression was that it was more to sabotage the ASCII "art" than anything else.

Comment: Re: Lifetime at 16nm? (Score 2) 43

by Kjella (#47921941) Attached to: Micron Releases 16nm-Process SSDs With Dynamic Flash Programming

Well, sometimes they make convenient little assumptions about the write amplification and other things in coming up with that number. Also it's the number they use for warranty claims, so it may not reflect the kind of endurance you'd normally expect. The latest trick is to basically use part of your drive as a semi-permanent SLC cache and only write it to MLC/TLC NAND later, if ever so what you actually get will depend on your usage pattern. If you just keep on rewriting a small file it'll probably not leave SLC at all, while if you use it as a scratch disk filling it up with large files and emptying it you'll hit the MLC/TLC hard. The rating is just to give consumers who don't want an in-depth look something to relate to.

Personally my first idea was, if they can deliver us a MLC drive at 45 cents/GB doesn't that mean they should be able to deliver us a SLC drive at 90 cents/GB? That's not disturbingly much, considerably faster and should have all the endurance you'll ever need. That said, TechReport got 3 (out of 6) consumer drives they've written >1 PB to, so I'm guessing most drives fail from something else than NAND exhaustion. And I don't reinstall my OS disk every day.... I just checked and I've used up 50 of my 3000 P/E cycles after 150 days of 24x7 running so at this rate it should take 25 years.

I know people who turn on their computer maybe 2-3 hours a day on average, just streaming no heavy media usage. Any SSD will last them forever, it's all about $/GB. Now if you want a guess they said 5000 P/E -> 3000 P/E (60%) for 25nm -> 20nm MLC, so I'm guessing 3000 * 0.6 = 1800 P/E for 16nm. And TLC is probably like 500 P/E, though this drive doesn't use that.

Comment: Re: Car Dealers should ask why they're being bypas (Score 1) 145

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#47916055) Attached to: Court: Car Dealers Can't Stop Tesla From Selling In Massachusetts
In addition, Tesla(whether or not you see this as an improvement is a distinct issue, it simply is so) sells cars much more like an enterprise IT hardware vendor sells hardware: at least within the warranty period, there is very much an ongoing interaction between the hardware and the vendor. System health information gets sent directly back, on site techs with specialized parts and firmware get sent out and so on. More traditional car companies are closer to buying a PC: the dealer will offer (often absurdly priced; but available) maintenance; and the vendor may become involved with certain warranty or recall cases; but they are otherwise largely out of the loop, with third parties handling the ongoing interaction with the hardware.

Comment: Re:Not much different than the fire starting laser (Score 1) 177

How is blinding someone with a laser worse than killing or maiming them with a bullet?

The assorted 'laws of war' are heavily leavened by what their framers suspect that they can actually get at least some people to agree to; but the overall theoretical foundation always seems to be an attempt to steer weapons in the direction of "Kills outright, or leaves a wound that, if treated, will heal with comparatively limited permanent damage."

It's not an easy standard to maintain(both in terms of convenience, mass-maiming is a hell of a shock to morale and logistics, and engineering, something that will kill if it hits you as designed will likely cause serious tissue damage and/or amputation if it scores a sub-par hit); but it's not really a terribly strange shared desire, from the perspective of the warring European powers of the 20th century that wrote most of them.

Comment: As a layman... (Score 2) 104

I'm fairly out of my depth with this stuff, so this is an honest inquiry: how do the magnetic nanoparticles fit into the equation?

I realize that, once coated with a suitably tailored binding protein, the particles will collect whatever target the binding protein was specified for (presumably this could even be tailored, for any target where a suitably tame binding compound is available), and probably fairly efficiently because of the absurd surface area of nanoparticles.

What I don't understand is the necessity of using the nanoparticles. It was my understanding that, outside of seriously immunocompromised victims, T-cells(and possibly other flavors of phagocytes, I'm fuzzy on the details) are extremely adept at engulfing and destroying foreign bodies, including 'clumps' produced by targets bound to the antigens produced by B-cells. This technique appears to be using a synthetic/introduced antigen(which makes sense if the immune system isn't producing the necessary antigen, or not ramping up production fast enough); but it also introduces the nanoparticles so that the antigen clumps can be magnetically scrubbed from the bloodstream, rather than cleaned up by the T Cells.

What is the peculiarity here that would make introducing the novel clump-scrubbing mechanism necessary and worthwhile?

Comment: Re:Not much different than the fire starting laser (Score 5, Interesting) 177

The Protocol contains a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, never mind some photons:

"Article 3 Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol."

As long as the blinding is a side effect (mitigated by "all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision") of a non-blinding purpose(setting things on fire, destroying machine vision/optical sensor gear, 'dazzling', and basically anything else you might feel like using a laser for, it's all legal. That is not exactly fertile ground for any sort of serious arms control, even if lasers weren't comparatively cheap and trivial to build, especially at the modest powers that will really boil your eyeballs but aren't subject to the engineering challenges of aspirational air-defense and antimissile systems.

It gives me no pleasure to say so; blinding is a pretty ugly thing to do; but the Protocol as written is about as effective as forbidding murder; but making it legal to put a bullet through any hat you see, regardless of whether it contains a head or not.

Comment: Re:It's not Google's fault. It's Mozilla's. (Score 1) 129

by Kjella (#47908319) Attached to: Chrome For Mac Drops 32-bit Build

In other words pretty much exactly what some tried to say when Google first launched Chrome, except for OSS zealots who were blinded by their Mozilla support and "do no evil" slogan.

For Google open source is not a goal, it's a tool. Google funded Mozilla to run a browser war by proxy, as an open source and non-profit organization Mozilla could get massive support from organizations and volunteers that Google never could and a much higher tolerance of bugs and broken functionality. And I mean that both with respect to internal bugs as well as broken web sites due to MSIE-only code. As a means to an end to push a standards compliant web for Google to profit from it was a success.

With Android Google again used open source as a battering ram against an entrenched monopoly, this time against Apple in smart phones. Once again a host of unlikely allies - pretty much everyone except Apple and Nokia, really - jumped on board along with the open source rah-rah and low cost clone manufacturers looking to get a free ride. That you could have things like CyanogenMod and get root on your phone was new - even though some manufacturers blocked that it was a step up from the all-closed platforms.

I'm not saying those are bad things, but those mutually beneficial interests come to an end. Once we've been released from the old stranglehold, Google wants to make a new one with themselves in control. I don't think I can make a catchy acronym for it like embrace-extend-extinguish but it goes something like commodify-bundle-obsolete:

1. Commodify the functionality through open source
2. Bundle it with Google APIs/services
3. Let the open source version toil in obsolescence

Search results are still a major driver of Google's revenue. The default search engine is defined by your browser, the default browser is defined by the platform so from their perspective pushing Android and Chrome both makes very much sense - if you're using a Google product you'll never be pointed anywhere but a Google service. Chrome is also a vital part of that "all-or-nothing" bundle Google is selling to make companies use Google Play which is now their second cash cow.

Firefox is no longer a partner against MSIE, they're a threat against the OHA bundle. If you can take AOSP and install Firefox with no further strings attached that's one of the many pieces you need to replace filled. The less alternatives you have, the more power Google has over the Android ecosystem. If you're still stuck in the mindset where MSIE had 95% market share you'll fail to see that your one-time ally is no longer on your team. They're on their own team, as every for-profit company eventually end up being.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 324

It's also an overcomplicated solution. OBD can get pretty nasty if you want access to esoteric stuff or manufacturer proprietary crap; but a basic, bluetooth-capable, OBD dongle that'll report the rough outlines of how a vehicle is being used is quite cheap indeed and not especially complex. I wouldn't necessarily want to try dead-reconing with nothing but that output; but answering "Am I driving right now?" is considerably less demanding.

Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the things in the world that just don't add up.

Working...