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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Switching (Score 2) 147

I know that we've all heard it before somewhere, but I'm firm in my belief that people really don't seem to have a clue how to format MS Office documents properly. You should not depend on spacing. You should style, anchor and otherwise set everything up so that when spacing does inevitably change, things still work. That's very much doable - heck, I've had wonderful, LaTeX-like lab reports done in ~1998 that gasp open fine and look right on LibreOffice 5 on Mac. We're talking of 17 year old .doc files with nice flow, equations and drawings, last edited on Windows NT 4 and Office 95...

Comment Re:The question is 'why' (Score 1) 308

As someone who sometimes has to use the POSIX "API", let me tell you this: it's a piece of a fucking joke. As much as it pains me to say it, the functionality provided by the core winapi, even with its idiosyncracies, is way ahead of anything POSIX lets you do. Sure, you do want to use a decent C++ wrapper around either winapi or POSIX, but still: POISX doesn't do the very basics of what you need to develop actually useful applications: you need to provide lots of your own, or library, code to get where you want to be, foundation-wise. People hail POSIX as something wonderful, but all I see is a bunch of very much anti-UNIX philosophy codified for no good reason. Even Linux APIs are much nicer than POSIX - the modern "everything is a file descriptor" is much closer to what Windows provides with its universal object handle metaphor. All the while POSIX has special approaches to everything: when you wait on one thing, you can't wait on another thing, everything needs special treatment - it's disgusting, frankly said.

POSIX api was designed by people who never seemed to realize what the needs of modern, responsive application and server design are.

Comment Re:You really make it hard (Score 1) 308

Frankly said, I'd use Windows on RPi simply to have access to decent documentation. Linux is a very loosely tied bunch of stuff, there's no overarching design and no single source of documentation - heck there is really no documentation for a lot of things, apart from the code itself. As much as I enjoy reading code, sometimes I'd rather read English and be sure that the API won't magically change overnight...

Comment Re:Avoid the Microsoft tax! (Score 2) 308

I can't develop an iphone app without enduring a multi gigabyte download/install of "XCode"?? are you for real?

LOL. When you install any development platform, do you think that the compilers, libraries and "documentation" just materializes itself from thin air? You had to download all of that stuff anyway.

Comment Re:Avoid the Microsoft tax! (Score 1) 308

I think that this is bullshit. VS 2015 works fine on Windows 7, and I don't see what's so special about building for the arm targets that would require Windows 10. I build for ARM using VS 2105 on Win 7 already, I just haven't deployed the stuff on RPi yet... shouldn't be hard, but I really don't see what's the outrage here. People, let's try it before you spew nonsense, mmkay?

Comment Re:Engineers did the deed (Score 1) 569

There was a guy somewhere higher up who could orchestrate the specs so that nobody below them knew what was going on. In complex systems it's fairly easy to engineer emergent behavior even if no subpart of the system shows that behavior alone. Source: wrote plenty of "easter eggs" in large systems that were there to detect hardware/firmware copying. No single part of the system would show the easter egg behavior, but when the pieces were all together in a particular fashion, you'd get the revealing behavior that wouldn't occur if the system under test wasn't a copy the protected design.

Comment Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... (Score 3, Insightful) 569

Dafuck?! EPA does not mandate stupid engineering. The automaker fucked up. What, their ansys or nastran licenses ran out and they couldn't fucking model what was going on, and/or experimentally validate the engine block/head design? This is a noob mistake - whether precipitated by stupid management, or noob designers, or both, who knows. Blaming it on EPA is going full retard.

Comment Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... (Score 1) 569

Maybe, instead of worrying about it, we just accept the reality: small-engine diesel is nonsense. It makes no sense either environmentally nor economically. Just as everyone who should know it knows that small turbines are inefficient and don't belong on passenger cars (but make all the sense on large airplanes), we all know that small diesels don't belong on passenger cars. How much evidence would you need to understand that it's not about the regulation, but about the reality of these engines. They make zero sense when they're small. Sure they are reliable, but almost any car would be more reliable without majority of common emission controls.

Comment Re:Speaking as an engineer... (Score 3, Insightful) 569

The especially egregious aspect of that is: this fundamentally flawed testing regimen isn't free in terms of resources either. Not only it costs us, the car owners, money, but that money, and everything it's spent on downstream, is pure waste. The energy used to perform the tests? You might as well run the same number of kWh through a heater into the sea. The personnel costs, and the amortized resources they need? You could just dump those into the sea with the same overall benefit to the society.

The make-work tests are worse to the environment than none. All the resources and productivity they consume could be better spent elsewhere.

Neutrinos are into physicists.