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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Ah... (Score 1) 168

by togofspookware (#44221285) Attached to: The Dangers of Beating Your Kickstarter Goal
Are you able to get networking to work well under Wine? When I try it the cursor moves around at about half a frame per second and makes it completely unplayable. This is the only reason I have left for keeping Windows machines around (though I am hoping Planetary Annihilation can take its place, and that will supposedly be designed to run on Linux).

Comment: Re:Incorrect headline. (Score 1) 135

by togofspookware (#43497517) Attached to: Java 8 Delayed To Fix Security

It makes me a bit sad that Java in the browser never really took off to the extent that JavaScript did. These days we have people coming up with monstrosities like asm.js to make it possible to write fast, cross-platform applications, whereas the JVM is a compiler target that's been much better suited to the task for a decade and a half. I suppose its downfall was in its proprietary nature, lack of integration with the DOM, and slow start-up time. If the browsers had included an easily sandboxed subset of the JRE (simply leaving out any classes that could possibly interact with the rest of your system, for starters) in place of JavaScript I think frontend web development would be a lot nicer today. At the time, though, I doubt that Sun would have allowed such a thing. :(

Hindsight FTW.


Excessive Modularity Hindered Development of the 787 200

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the why-pay-engineers dept.
TAGmclaren writes "The Harvard Business Review is running a fascinating article exploring the issues facing Boeing's Dreamliner. Rather than simply blaming outsourcing, as much of the commentary has been focused on, the article delves into the benefits of integration and how being integrated when developing a new product gives engineers more degrees of freedom. From the article: 'Historically, Boeing understood that, and had worked with its subcontractors on that basis. If it was going to rely on them, it would provide them with detailed blueprints of the parts that were required — after Boeing had already created them. That, in turn, meant that Boeing had to design all the relevant pieces of the puzzle itself, first. But with the 787, it appears that Boeing tried a very different approach: rather than having the puzzle solved and asking the suppliers to provide a defined puzzle piece, they asked suppliers to create their own blueprints for parts. The puzzle hadn't been properly solved when Boeing asked suppliers for the pieces. It should come as little surprise then, that as the components came back from far-flung suppliers, for the first plane ever made of composite materials... those parts didn't all fit together. Time and cost blew out accordingly. It's easy to blame the outsourcing. But, in this instance, it wasn't so much the outsourcing, as it was the decision to modularize a complicated problem too soon.'"

Comment: Re:Oh I just love (Score 1) 475

by togofspookware (#41939617) Attached to: On Daylight Savings Time:

If you're going to go that far, ditch 24 hours and go metric.

If you're going to go to all that trouble, you may as well switch to a numeral system with a base that's evenly divisible by more than just 2 and 5. 12 would be a good choice. Try 30 if you *really* like being able to easily divide by 5 as well as 2 and 3.

I once had this argument with my (at the time) girlfriend. It didn't end well.

Comment: Re:IDE pros & cons (Score 1) 586

by togofspookware (#41820577) Attached to: The IDE As a Bad Programming Language Enabler

Some things you didn't mention that I am used. Pro:

  • Easily rename methods, move classes around, and otherwise refactor code.


  • Eats up all resources on my computer (though this may be specific to Eclipse, but Eclipse also has the best refactoring tools of any IDE I've tried, so meh).

Code I've written using Eclipse is *much* easier to follow than code I wrote in Emacs* because refactoring is so much faster. Yeah, you can search-replace and hope you didn't get any unintended matches and use unit tests and the compiler's error messages to help you out, but it's a pain compared to {<select name>, F2, <type new name>, enter}, so I find myself avoiding it until I'm at a machine with Eclipse.

*for all I know, there's scripts for Emacs that would help with refactoring, but they're not as obvious to me.

Comment: VirtualDimension (Score 2) 359

by togofspookware (#39446603) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which Multiple Desktop Tool For Windows 7?

Back when I was still using XP (I've since switched to Linux and am getting by without multiple desktops on my home Windows 7 machine), VirtualDimension worked pretty well for me. You can give shortcut keys (I used Win+1-0) to switch between them, and it works by hiding all windows except those on the 'current desktop'. Some applications (most notably web browsers) would get sometimes get stuck on all the desktops if they were summoned to appear by another program while you were looking at a different desktop than the one you had put them on. Reason would seem to hang if I switched desktops while its file open dialog was open. But once I learned to avoid these situations it was perfectly useable.

I also used SlickRun and had each virtual desktop span 2 monitors and didn't run into any conflicts.

RAM wasn't built in a day.