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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Less header (Score 1) 226

Okay, so you're on a 1600x900 screen. Or maybe 1200x900, if 4:3 laptops are still around, but horizontal space doesn't seem to be a problem for either of us.

Vertically, that's not all that much more than the 1920x1080 screens I regularly use, and I've not made any special effort to optimize vertical space on my setup.

My current screen has vertical space allocated like so:
46px: Firefox window border and tabs (a bit extra wasted space because I'm not in a maximized window, but rather a 960-wide half-screen window)
38px: Main address bar + search bar
25px: bookmarks bar
913px: Page content
18px: horizontal scrollbar and bottom window border
40px: Windows taskbar

Adjusting to a 900px screen height, that alone would give 733px for page content, or about 81%. This is a worst-case for my setup - simply maximizing the window would cause the horizontal scrollbar to disappear and the top window border to shrink, saving 17px and 16px, respectively. At this point, you should be up to 766px out of 900px, or 85%.

The next easy step is disabling the bookmarks bar, for 25px, and setting the Windows taskbar to auto-hide, saving 40px. That would give you 831px of page content, or 92%, which beats at least my installation of Chrome. That's pretty good, but I can do better:

Press F11.

100% of your screen is now devoted to page content. All bars and menus are automatically hidden.

You're welcome.

Comment Re:Less header (Score 1) 226

What kind of stuff do you have in your header?

I have a row of tabs, the address/search bar, and a bookmarks bar. On Firefox, that's about eight pixels less than on Chrome, because the back button is slightly bigger, but the overall height is only 90 pixels. I'm not running any special extensions to hide things - I have a few addons that add buttons to the main bar, and I've disabled more than a few things, but even those were through easily-discovered menus. If you disable the bookmarks bar, that cuts about 20 pixels - and even at 800x600, 70 pixels ought to be fully tolerable.

(Agree on the resources, though - I have to restart Firefox every few days because it starts getting laggy, and I've had to adblock a lot of useless Javascript that lags the browser.)

Comment LOGO is why I'm a programmer (Score 4, Insightful) 68

My first exposure to programming was MicroWorlds, in third grade. I was immediately hooked, and never turned back. I think it's fairly safe to say that if it wasn't for that, my life would be completely different, and probably for the worse. Rest in peace, Dr. Papert. You set out to teach children to program and love programming, and judging by these comments, you succeeded.

Comment Re:32% would vote clinton (Score 0) 993

Trump has called on Russia to hack his political opponent for his own personal gain. That's treason, by common usage of the word if not the legal definition.

Trump has engaged in corruption from the other end. For just a single example, Florida was investigating his university for fraud. $25K in campaign donations to the state attorney-general later, and the investigation was dropped. (And lest you claim that it could have been dropped for legitimate reasons, several other states also investigated and at least two have pressed forward to a trial).

Trump is also deeply tied into the American Mafia. He may or may not have blood on his own hands, but he certainly doesn't hesitate to profit from and protect those who do.

Comment [citation given] (Score 1) 176

F9-001: Success
F9-002: Success
F9-003: Success
F9-004: Primary mission success, secondary mission scrubbed due to ISS safety rules
F9-005: Success
F9-006: Success (first v1.1 flight)
F9-007: Success
F9-008: Success
F9-009: Success (first flight with landing legs)
F9-010: Success
F9-011: Success
F9-013: Success
F9-012: Success
F9-014: Success
F9-015: Success
F9-016: Success
F9-017: Success
F9-018: Success
F9-020: Failure, RUD at T+150s
F9-021: Success, first v1.1 FT, first successful landing at Canaveral
F9-019: Success
F9-022: Success
F9-023: Success, first successful landing on droneship
F9-024: Success
F9-025: Success
F9-026: Success
F9-027: Success

One failure. Out of twenty-seven, for a success rate of 96%. Unless you want to count landings as necessary for success, in which case they have a 19% success rate - but by that metric, Soyuz, Proton, Atlas, Delta, Titan, Redstone, Saturn, Ariane, Athena, and Zenit all have 0% success rates, and only Energia-Buran and STS also have a non-zero success rate, with 50% and 98%, respectively.

Over that same period North Korea fired four missiles (claiming to have fired even more but not supported by evidence) and launched two orbital rockets. The missiles may or may not have failed - they fell vastly short of their design range but that may have been deliberate - and both rockets worked, although their payloads may have failed. At least, this is all the info I could find - there's no convenient list of every launch attempt they've made, and I suspect most failed launches are never revealed.

Comment Undecided - for now (Score 2) 185

I've been wanting to get into VR. But every platform has at least one seemingly-fatal problem right now:
Oculus: being evil with DRM, no motion controls yet
Gear: Underpowered, works only with certain phones
Vive: Weakest software support
PSVR: Not out yet, but likely to be underpowered (PS4 is well below Oculus/Vive req. specs, PS4NEO unknown), and likely to contain evil
Cardboard: Decent replacement for the View-Master but doesn't work for actual gaming
LG 360: Literally hadn't heard of it, which means the software is likely weak; also only works with certain phones

Vive has the easiest problems to overcome - just make more games for it. The SteamVR model seems like it could make VR cheap and standardized, which would make them the de facto PC VR platform. And I think I'd be happiest with Valve leading the VR industry.

PSVR has potential. They're going hard on the software side, and they have history of making good consumer hardware. I'm concerned about the horsepower - if they require VR games to be usable on the stock PS4, that's going to hamper game design, making my experience worse even if I get a NEO. And the NEO itself is an unknown.

Oculus has a head-start, and they're doing the best on average. Their software library is okay, their headset hardware is reportedly the best, and the motion controllers are coming soon. They're in a position where they could win. But they don't have enough of a lead for me to bet $700 that they'll win, and honestly? I don't want them to. I was willing to write off the concerns about Facebook buying them, but after that DRM stuff they decided to pull? I can no longer ignore them.

Comment Re:Is it even possible to buy a new 32 bit chip? (Score 1) 378

For computers? Quite some time. There was a one-off Atom netbook chip back in 2008, and before that was Core (the predecessor to the more popular, 64-bit capable Core 2) in 2006-2007 and some of the early Pentium 4s up to 2005. On the AMD side, you have to go back to K7, which stopped being made in 2005. So everything that you'd want to run a desktop distro on is at least eight years old.

Intel did make x86-32-only chips for smartphones until much more recently, but you wouldn't want to run a desktop distro on those, anyways. And it's not like the Linux kernel is dropping support for it, so whatever weird hack project you might theoretically want to make with a bunch of old smartphones is still just as doable.

Comment Re:Taken from reddit comments (Score 1) 147

Agreed. I saw this news elsewhere, and it's pretty clear that the assets are, bare minimum, "traced" from other games. I'd need to see a more technical analysis to know if they were directly ripped from another game (and then modified just enough to not be copy/paste), but that seems more probable than not.

Comment Re:Weak argument (Score 1) 951

We had transoceanic ships half a millenium ago, and it improved quite a bit from those days, but today's tech would be basically recognizable to someone from the 1600s, even if unbelievably large in scale. Metal ships & propellers seem to be the biggest advances (disregarding nuclear fuel sources vs ICEs) and those aren't considered new by any means.

Our ships would be basically recognizable to someone from the 1600s. What about our jetliners? Or our spacecraft? In the 1600s, only experts in relatively narrow fields would have had anything at all to relate those things to. Most would have had no idea such technology could even exist.

Comment Moral imperative (Score 1) 114

I think it is a moral imperative (on all of us) to eliminate falsehoods. I would greatly prefer it if Facebook (and other companies with considerable control over the flow of information) would restrict the spread of objectively and provably false ideas. Perhaps not actually blocking them, but how hard would it be to add a "this has been proven false" message (with citations) to people sharing, say, anti-vax propaganda? And how much benefit would the public gain by it? Quite a bit, considering the anti-vaxxers have caused actual deaths. That's an extreme case for an extreme gain, but less-extreme cases will still have gains.

Most politicians are pretty well-practiced at avoiding statements that could be factually wrong, and would not be too badly affected. Even Trump is pretty good at this - his claim about how much the wall will cost is hard to disprove without actually building the damn thing (argue against, yes - disprove, no). But he provably lies pretty often - his stories about seeing Muslims celebrating in the streets as the WTC collapsed are demonstrably false. Or his claims to have never settled a case out of court, or never declared bankruptcy.

As long as it would be done fairly (ie. all candidates are subject to the same scrutiny) and to a set standard, I think this would be a good thing.

Comment Re:Coal Powered Cars Are Awesome. /s (Score 4, Insightful) 123

Decent starting point, but you stopped thinking far too quickly.

Centralizing power generation (moving from millions of small gasoline engines to hundreds of big oil/coal turbine generators) allows for greater efficiency. Most things work better at scale - you get more power extracted per unit fuel. And it allows you to cost-effectively install better pollution-reducing devices - big scrubbers on the exhaust, to keep particulates and such down. So even if the power grid were 100% fossil fuels, it would still be a gain.

But the grid isn't 100% fossil fuels. In some places those are a minority already - where hydro or geothermal or nuclear dominate. And it decouples the generators from the infrastructure - if all cars ran off batteries, we could switch over to whatever new power method works best, as we invent it. If we had cheap, efficient, clean nuclear fusion, switching to it would be easy if we were on electric cars. Switching from gasoline/diesel engines to fusion engines would require a lot more change to the infrastructure - new fueling stations built, new pipelines for deuterium run, new mechanics trained on new engine types.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy." -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo

Working...