Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment So when is the passenger a passenger? (Score 1) 158

Are we talking about fully autonomous vehicles where the passenger has virtually no control over the car's choices? Maybe there is a stop button or similar for emergencies but little else?

Or are we talking about a semi-autonomous vehicle where the driver is expected to be alert, unimpaired, overseeing the vehicle's progress and capable of intervening for any reason?

Because for the latter it seems like there will be plenty of blame to spread around if the car does something stupid that the human overseer could have prevented had they been fulfilling their job. And if they weren't doing their job was that because they were drunk off their ass, playing on their phone or otherwise doing something that means they share blame for an accident?

Comment Re:If Apple built a Hololens we'd never hear about (Score 1) 113

Not really. They're both projecting 3d images in front of a person's face. Both require motion tracking of some kind to reorient the image as a person's head moves. It's just that VR headsets so far have used IR lights, dead reckoning and other methods to do the tracking while hololens went full head-on with image processing. It didn't need to be that expensive just because it was AR.

Regardless, it was stillborn because it was prohibitively expensve. And not very good for all the tech either.

Comment Re:If Apple built a Hololens we'd never hear about (Score 1) 113

The first version was so expensive and technically flawed that it's hard to see who it was targeted for. The Oculus Rift dev kits cost $350, the HoloLens cost $3000. Regardless of the technical complexity that accounted for that price difference, it still doomed the headset.

Comment Re:Until (Score 1) 374

Rust generates code which is different in performance than C or C++ code written correctly.

Most of Rust's safety is done at compile time and compiles away to nothing or is in the design of the apis that check you're not doing something dumb when you call them. So if you tried to copy a slice of a buffer in excess of a buffer it would panic but it wouldn't impact on performance any more than C code doing the same.

Obviously you can forego safety in C but that's the point Rust is trying to address - safety without penalising performance. That makes it perfect for IoT and its why the assumption that C can rest cosy because of IoT is a bad one. If I were writing any code for IoT I wouldn't choose C unless I had no choice. I might choose C++ assuming I could be sure of using only C++11/14 and nothing else. But I would choose Rust in preference to either of them.

Comment Re:Higher profit margins? (Score 2) 40

Samsung manage it. If you look at the firmware that Samsung puts on the premium devices vs the low end, it's virtually identical. They've managed to increase their reach with a relatively minor additional effort. I suspect Samsung are also pretty glad that they have all those sales to sustain them when they suffer a flop such as their recent battery scandal.

Comment Higher profit margins? (Score 1) 40

Surely any profit margins are good, especially if the budget handsets introduce people to your brand and allows you to spread the risk across a range of models instead of putting all the eggs in one basket.

I realise that's in theory. HTC have kind of fucked up in recent years and it's less to do with their hardware but how they've marketed them.

Comment Re: Learn C for advanced security, not for basics (Score 1) 374

I'm sure learning C is essential. It doesn't mean it's the only language and as I said if Rust were a choice I'd have to have a strong reason not to use it. And you're not paying attention to what's going on in IoT if you think everything is bare metal these days. The likes of Samsung, Google, Amazon et al are building software stacks over a kernel, so compliant devices are separated from the metal by a substantial amount of layers. And even if they weren't, Rust is available for some microcontrollers and there is no reason to think that won't grow over time.

Yeah C is there and I haven't said any different. But it's a horribly dangerous language to code IoT and I expect that will reflect in the languages people choose to develop such devices over time.

Comment Re:Until (Score 1) 374

Heartbleed was a problem with C because C allowed the code to walk straight right off a buffer and send the contents to the client. If you tried that in Rust you would get a runtime panic.

Slashdot Top Deals

We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. -- Larry Wall