Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: 68000 (Score 1) 24

by squiggleslash (#49795625) Attached to: New Freescale I.MX6 SoCs Include IoT-focused UltraLite

Seems a shame that the heirs to the 68xx legacy these days just put out commodity standard architecture (ie ARM, PPC, etc) chips.

Is Freescale doing anything with the 68000 series these days? I assume the related but not quite the same ColdFire is still in production, but last I looked that hadn't advanced very much since the last 68060s in the 1990s.

Comment: Re:Russian rocket motors (Score 1) 62

by Bruce Perens (#49787045) Attached to: SpaceX Cleared For US Military Launches

Russia would like for us to continue gifting them with cash for 40-year-old missle motors, it's our own government that doesn't want them any longer. For good reason. That did not cause SpaceX to enter the competitive process, they want the U.S. military as a customer. But it probably did make it go faster.

Also, ULA is flying 1960 technology, stuff that Mercury astronauts used, and only recently came up with concept drawings for something new due to competitive pressure from SpaceX. So, I am sure that folks within the Air Force wished for a better vendor but had no choice.

Comment: Context (Score 3, Informative) 62

by Bruce Perens (#49782349) Attached to: SpaceX Cleared For US Military Launches

This ends a situation in which two companies that would otherwise have been competitive bidders decided that it would cost them less to be a monopoly, and created their own cartel. Since they were a sole provider, they persuaded the government to pay them a Billion dollars a year simply so that they would retain the capability to manufacture rockets to government requirements.

Yes, there will be at least that Billion in savings and SpaceX so far seems more than competitive with the prices United Launch Alliance was charging. There will be other bidders eventually, as well.

Comment: Re:reasons (Score 1) 323

by squiggleslash (#49781275) Attached to: Why PowerPoint Should Be Banned

It's not the same thing three times though, and the context of this very discussion should tell you that.

Each of the three components is radically different, but there shouldn't be much redundancy - each of the three serves an entirely different purpose and only one actually contains the core information you need to remember.

The introduction ("you tell them what you are going to tell them") is warning you what's coming. That means giving you context and a road map for the information that follows. Think of it as, say, the marketing blurb for the book you're about to read.

The second ("You tell them") is the information. This is long, and your brain under normal circumstances isn't going to be prepared for that information. Hence the warning and roadmap.

The last ("then tell them what you told them") is the reminder, the overview that makes it easier to remember the information. It's the roadmap for returning here, rather than the simplified roadmap for finding your way there for the first time.

If someone is repeating the same thing three times, they're doing it wrong. As you saw, it's easy to set context without being overly redundant, and a reminder of what you just heard is always helpful.

Out of interest, while this was a little TL;DR (doesn't matter if you're stuck in a meeting ;-), did you feel it was overly redundant? The "Each of" paragraph was "you tell them what you are going to tell them", the "If someone is repeating the same thing three times" was the "then tell them what you told them". The bit in the middle was the core information. I'm not a great communicator, but I doubt you spent the entire thing saying "Why does he keep saying the same thing over and over again? What a jerk!" But if I'd launched into just that middle part, and not provided context, it wouldn't have immediately clicked as to what relevance it has to your concerns.

Comment: Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted (Score 4, Informative) 121

I think there's a sense of defeat amongst most Wikipedia editors right now, that if they revert the removal of sourced, no-BLP-problems, negative information from Wikipedia, they're going to end up in a fight that leaves them banned for "edit warring" or "incivility" by admins and arbs more keen on the appearance of dealing with conflict than on resolving real issues with off-site organizing of vandalism and harassment.

I wouldn't recommend anyone get involved in that hole for a while, and as such I reluctantly discourage anyone from reading Wikipedia for anything but the least controversial articles - unless they're also willing to put the work in and examine page histories, checking references, etc.

Comment: Re:Ho hum (Score 1) 253

Actually the legal difference between hard core and soft core, is that the latter is simulated, the former is technically "real". That is, for example, showing an actual erection would count as hard core pornography.

But yeah, porn is inherently unrealistic: the pizza delivery guy never arrives that quickly after you place your order...

Comment: Re:Why do this in the first place? (Score 1) 90

Because of the three existing mobile platforms, two have gatekeepers with a veto on what can and cannot be installed. This makes it exceptionally difficult for Mozilla to make mobile browsers with any chance of success.

This is only not important if you think:

1. Mobile devices will never become the most common way of accessing the Internet
2. Android (the sole platform that allows the user and only the user to ultimately decide what's allowed to be installed on their device) will always have a huge market share, so big that iOS and Windows Phone/Mobile/whatever it's called today will always have a negligible marketshare.

I suspect (1) is already false. (2) is laughably false. So this is important for Mozilla.

Comment: Re:FAQ (Score 1) 134

by squiggleslash (#49750009) Attached to: Pre-Orders Start For Neo900 Open Source Phone

From what people are writing here, there are multiple definitions of "perfectly well". Someone in an above thread complains that capacitive screens require only the lightest touch, ensuring that they make mistakes when trying to use their fingernail to accurately press a specific pixel.

That, to me, says that the N900 and Neo900 do not have "touch" sensitive displays, they require pressure. I'm finding it improbable (and I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I'm increasingly sceptical as this videophilesque discussion continues) that the usual range of gestures we've come to know and, yes, love, are going to work nearly as well on that type of screen.

If I'm wrong and a light tap will always work, and a swipe will never be broken up into multiple gestures or ignored altogether, and so on, then I'd be delighted, albeit surprised the technology isn't being used anywhere else.

Comment: Re:FAQ (Score 1) 134

by squiggleslash (#49748049) Attached to: Pre-Orders Start For Neo900 Open Source Phone

I'm going to be honest, the more I read this discussion, the move I'm thrown back to old "debates" between advocates of rear projection and plasma TVs, and LCDs, all bemoaning the rise of the latter against such superior technologies as a TV that can only be viewed from one angle (and then not all at the same time), or a TV that requires all 4:3 content be shown in stretch-o-vision to avoid temporary burn-in issues. "But LCDs have a tiny bit of light visible when they're supposed to be black!" screams the videophiles, apparently oblivious to the fact that normal people rarely watch TV in rooms with no ambient light.

The resistive screen they're describing is clearly inferior to capacitive when applied to real world applications. Nobody in their right mind uses their cellphone to "paint" pictures. But everyone uses it to dial numbers, browse websites, and other activities that require a finger, or two, rather than a stylus.

But, hey, for the 0.01% of users who do actually use their cellphones more as an easel than a phone, I guess it might be useful.

The life of a repo man is always intense.

Working...