Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Keep the phone ban (Score 3, Informative) 221

I like to use this ABM1 - Passive Air Band Monitor when flying. I keep it discreet as I'm sure most flight crews won't understand how it's different from a typical radio receiver. I regularly hear that "bzz bzz bzz" of cell phones with this device. I then ask my girlfriend sitting next to me if she put her phone in airplane mode. If she hadn't and does it the noise usually goes away. If she had her's in airplane mode then I assume it's someone else sitting near me. Phones do cause interference in the aircraft frequency bands (at least at short range).

Comment Re:Waitaminit... (Score 1) 233

No, the argument is that it can happen if someone decides that it's worth doing. Just making the code open doesn't mean that anyone will read it. It does, however, mean that:

  • You can build it yourself, so you know that the code that is audited is the code that is built (modulo toolchain trojans)
  • You can audit the code, or pay someone else to do it, without permission from the original authors beyond their original license
  • You can fix any security holes that such an audit turns up (or pay someone else to do it, again without requiring permission from the original authors beyond their original license

And, if someone else does an audit, there's a better chance that they are not bound by NDA and can therefore speak freely about what they find.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 2) 381

Do you re-use your functions, or do they only exist to break apart a single operation into smaller blocks? If it's the latter, then he may have a good point

I disagree, strongly. Breaking a large routine into smaller ones abstracts away what those smaller routines are doing. It puts a boundry around their interaction with the rest of the code, and puts their code away somewhere that I don't have to worry about, unless there's some reason I want/need to know the details of how that routine accomplishes what it does.

Both approaches have merit and should be used where it makes sense. When abstracting away some lower level detail, a separate method may be best, but when breaking a higher level method into it's higher level steps (if that makes sense), keeping it all in one method keeps it linear which can help with reading/review.

It matters though how a method is broken up. Use whitespace to separate logical sections. Have a short comment at the top of each section to indicate what that section does. Write the comments first as an outline of the method. Declare variables where they are first used. Declare them in a limited scope where possible. Declare them const where possible (especially if method-global) to limit later misuse. In some languages you can introduce a nested scope for no other reason than to isolate local variables if you like.

And note that breaking the method into separate sub-methods doesn't necessarily solve the problem of changes near the beginning breaking things later on. It just makes it harder to know where the "beginning" and the "later on" are.

Comment Re:Could we achieve 1G of thust. (Score 1) 184

Though practically impossible with current or proposed technology, it would, indeed, take only 35 days to reach 0.1c, and we'd be 225 million km from our starting point, ignoring gravitational effects of other bodies. Though in astronomical terms that's not very far (less than the diameter of Earth's orbit) - less than half way to Jupiter on the closest possible approach.

35 days at 1g to get to 0.1c is about right, but the distance you'd travel in the process is around 45 billion km. You'd pass the Voyager probes.

Google

Google Pledges Not To Sue Any Open Source Projects Using Their Patents 153

sfcrazy writes "Google has announced the Open Patent Non-Assertion (OPN) Pledge. In the pledge Google says that they will not sue any user, distributor, or developer of Open Source software on specified patents, unless first attacked. Under this pledge, Google is starting off with 10 patents relating to MapReduce, a computing model for processing large data sets first developed at Google. Google says that over time they intend to expand the set of Google's patents covered by the pledge to other technologies." This is in addition to the Open Invention Network, and their general work toward reforming the patent system. The patents covered in the OPN will be free to use in Free/Open Source software for the life of the patent, even if Google should transfer ownership to another party. Read the text of the pledge. It appears that interaction with non-copyleft licenses (MIT/BSD/Apache) is a bit weird: if you create a non-free fork it appears you are no longer covered under the pledge.

Comment Re:Rotate the frakking spacecraft (Score 1) 158

Why rotate. Nuclear powered spacecraft could simply keep accelerating at 1G until it was time to turn around and decelerate at 1G. Problem solves, and they would get there a lot quicker too.

Not sure how close we are technologically to doing something like this, but Earth to Mars would only be a day or two. Think about how much less life support (food, water, etc.) needs to be sent along with the crew if the transit is that short. Also, if you're going to Mars, why not do .33G (Mars gravity equivalent) instead. Or start at 1G and slowly drop to .33G. Then there's little to no adaptation required when you get there.

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Working...