Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Nest temperature display is backwards (Score 2) 193

are you serious - they only show the SET value and not the ACTUAL current value? no option to set the default large text for the one you want? not a split display, even?

They show both, the current and the set temperature, but the set temperature is in large in the center of the screen, and the current temperature is tiny. You have to actually get close to the thermostat to read it as opposed to glance at it from the other side of the room. Its an epic fail.

Here is a pic. In that picture, the current room temperature is 78, and it is set to cool down to 75.

There is no way to change this.

Comment Nest temperature display is backwards (Score 5, Interesting) 193

I have a Nest thermostat. It displays in large the temperature you set it to instead of the current room temperature. What the actual fuck? A mercury thermometer is smarter than this.

There was a feature request for this opened in 2013, it has 1683 votes and its the third most popular feature request. You would think that even an entry level programmer would be able to fix that or add an option, but no, the feature has been completely ignored for years and contacting support about it only gives the reply "keep voting for it", even though that is clearly going to /dev/null. The other popular features request are equally ignored.

I am very frustrated by the complete lack of support these devices have. The entire community web site is nothing more than a pacifier for nest owners.

Comment Re:Loss of jobs... (Score 1) 260

Jobs is not a scarce resource, labor is.

We don't have to work to produce air, that does not mean unemployment. If we had to work to produce air, then some of the jobs in other sectors would not exist, and the labor dedicated to that would simply be allocated to the more important job of producing enough air.

Consider that in 1800, 76% of the labor force was dedicated to food production. That is how much labor it took to feed the population. Naturally, there was not that man people left to work on leisure activities, and the typical work day was 12 hours/day 7 days a week.
We dramatically improved the efficiency in agriculture, and now only 2.3% of the labor is dedicated to it. You would scream "we have killed so many jobs", but in reality, people are now free to do jobs like arts, services, technology improvements, etc... and now we typically work 8 hours/day 5 days a week. If we keep innovating, and producing more with less labor, then we will simply shift jobs to things that we want but are now preempted by our needs, and our work schedule would continue to be reduced as we are able to produce more in less time. Imagine working 4 hours / day 2 days per week, the only way to achieve that is by increasing our productivity.

Another example, refrigerators killed the ice making companies. So what? all those people simply started working on other stuff that is less critical.

This is how we improve our quality of life, by producing more with less resources (including labor), so we can as a society enjoy life instead of work for it.

Comment Re:The real reason? (Score 1) 381

As a 40 year Type 1 diabetic, I am sick to *death* of fat people making excuses about how "I ate the wrong type of food, so I gained weight". instead of admitting "I ate too much". And I'm sick to death of the endless rationalizations and excuses.

You know why these surveys conclude rationalized absurdities? Because humans making poor choices *lie* on surveys, even if they don't admit it to themselves.

I agree that people rationalize absurdities. Some people blame genetics even though the gene pool in America today is the same gene pool of the 60's when obesity was not an epidemic. Some people blame "slow metabolism", neuropath, Obama, aliens, or whatever other bullshit people tell themselves to cop out of exercising.

That said, what you eat does make a huge difference. The body has a natural way of regulating how much food you eat: if you are hungry, you should eat, and if you are not, you should not eat. However, this mechanism completely fails when we eat foods that we just didn't evolve to eat such as refined sugar, white flour, french fries, etc. It is very easy to over eat 5000 calories per day if your diet has a lot of sodas, cakes, french fries, rice, bread rolls, etc. Your body just does not register quick enough that you are full when you eat these, and as the GP explained, these carb rich foods will cause your body to store the extra energy as fat.

In contrast, you simply cannot overeat broccoli, your body will tell you you are full before you eat too much.

I am not excusing overeating. It is your own damn fault if you overeat, I am simply saying that one of the best ways to stop overeating is eating quality food.

Comment Re:What is webassembly? Never heard of it before.. (Score 1) 118

>> 1) Javascript has awful performance ... perform many times faster than javascript.

Not true at all. SIMD does a provides performance advantage, but that is hardware optimzation.

It is more than that. Consider the following code fragment in javascript:

function sum(values) {
        var result = 0;
        for (let i=0; i < values.length; i++) {
                  result = result+values[i];
        return result;

should be a straight forward function right? should perform the same in c++ right?, well, not so fast. I could pass an array of integers, an array of floats, an array of strings, or an array of any combination of them and the function would still be valid. So at runtime, the code would have to check the type of each individual entry in the array to figure out what the + operator really means, and in each pass, the + operator might be a completely different function. In other words, the best compiler ever would have to come up with assembly that follows this pattern:

function sum(values) {
        let result = 0;
        for (let i = 0; i < values.length; i++) {
                  tmp = values[i];
                  if (tmp instanceof int) {
                            result = addint(result, tmp);
                  } else if (tmp instanceof float) {
                            result = addfloat(result, tmp);
                  } else if (tmp instanceof string) {
                            result = concat(result, tmp);
                  } ...
                  else {
                            throw exception;
        return result;

Actually that is an oversimplification, since the variable "result" would also be have to checked for type. It might have been turned into a string in the previous pass for example. You can see that is a lot of code that is generated to check the types if all I want is to sum up some numbers.

Now consider a similar code in C or java or any other statically typed language:

function sum(int values[], int length) {
        int result = 0;
        for (int i=0; i < length; i++) {
                  result = result+values[i];
        return result;

The compiler knows that every single entry in values is an int, and no matter what "result" will remain an int. Therefore there is no need to check what type it is. The + operator can be simply replaced by an integer add instruction in assembly. And yes, a smart compiler could even use SIMD to optimize this code, but even without SIMD, any half brain compiler will do better than the best javascript compiler.

Now you can actually see some numbers. V8 is an amazing javascript engine, and all cases except one its an order of magnitude slower than equivalent code in C++.

Comment Re:What is webassembly? Never heard of it before.. (Score 5, Interesting) 118

Aren't the vast majority of web APIs text based anyway? Why would webassembly change anything about that?

I am a game developer and I am really excited about webassembly.
There are many challenges a game developer faces today:

1) Javascript has awful performance. Some game related code such as procedural content generation is very cpu intensive, and it would just take too long in javascript. Webassembly is meant to _always_ be compiled to native code and it is statically typed which allows the compiler to optimize the code much better. It will perform many times faster than javascript.

2) Javascript does not support threads. This is one stated future goal for webassembly. This is useful when you want some work to happen in the background (again, procedural content generation).

3) Plugins suck. If I deploy my game, say with the unity plugin, I am asking my customers to download a huge ass plugin in order to run my game. Some won't because they don't trust the plugin, some wont because the download takes to long, some wont because they don't have the required permissions, some won't because it does not work in their platform. Whatever the reason, I am losing a lot of potential users by using a plugin even if I get better performance. Webassembly will not require plugins.

4) Download time. If I compile a game to asm.js, just the game engine runtime require several megabytes downloads. Webassembly does reduce the size of the download significantly. This is one of the stated goals. This is one of the reasons webassembly is binary instead of text based. The smaller the download, the faster the player can start playing and the less users I lose.

5) Startup time. If it takes 30 seconds to parse all the asm.js or javascript before the game actually starts, that is an eternity, and many people will actually close their browser before the game starts. Webassembly is binary because parsing it will take orders of magnitude less time than parsing the equivalent asm.js.

6) Browser compatibility. Today, only 2 browsers are serious about asm.js: Edge and Firefox. webassembly is being developed by all major browsers. It is also quite likely it will be implemented in mobile or even outside browsers altogether.

So yes. I am excited about it. It will make may games more accessible to my users.

Comment Re:Exams should be open-book anyway (Score 4, Insightful) 394

Exams which test memorization are pointless. Better to make them problem-solving based, challenging and open-book. That way cheaters will still do poorly. It's more a problem of lazy exam creators than anything.

I would agree 100% with you if we are talking about math, programming, physics, etc... On these subjects I am all for open book tests.

But if you are talking about history or anatomy, well, the entire subject is about memorization.

Comment Re: Then what's the point? (Score 1) 288

Obviously Firefox wasn't shamed last year, or they would have tried to improve security.

It is a bit premature to say this. Mozilla has been working on some major security enhancements, it is just not done yet.

Rust is a language with heavy emphasis on security, among other things it guarantees memory safety, and threads without data races, which are 2 of the most common sources of security vulnerabilities in every software. Mozilla is building a new rendering engine called servo in Rust, with an explicit goal of enhancing security.

Comment Statistics you don't see (Score 1) 622

So a few people have died by GPS because they drove to the wrong place.

What the moronic article fails to take into account is how many deaths have been prevented by GPS.

How many deaths have been prevented because without the GPS they would have driven to the wrong place?
How many deaths have been prevented because the driver was not distracted looking down a map instead of keeping the eyes on the road because they had turn by turn instructions?

Comment Re:Uh... let me think about it (Score 4, Insightful) 622

You're better off having GPS than not having it

Depends on how you're defining it. Following word-by-word directions as seems to be so popular today--you're better off without that. Having a map, on which GPS will show you where you are, that's great. You know where you are and what's around you. But following directions blindly--and you don't have any choice but to follow directions blindly if you don't have a map--you're not better off with that.

So, you are saying we are better off taking the eyes off the road to look down on a map while doing 70 mph?

Have some people died because the GPS took them to the wrong place? sure, I have no trouble believing it.
But how many deaths have been prevented by GPS because drivers were not distracted trying to figure out where to go?

Comment Re:Alternate title (Score 0, Troll) 137

Alternate title: "India insists on network neutrality"

And this is a prime example of why network neutrality is _wrong_.

Here is a company, willing to offer free access to some content to many people. People would obviously benefit, otherwise nobody would use it. The company (facebook) would benefit, by having more customers and what not. It is a clear cut win-win. The only party that is negatively affected are competitors ISP which are surely lobbying at the TRAI ears.

So government steps in and makes it illegal for said free service to be provided, arguing it is the best for its people.

The net neutrality advocates completely ignore the fact that people (like in this case) would actually prefer a free non network neutral service than an expensive network neutral internet access.

This is slashdot, 9 out of 10 are in favor of net neutrality, so go ahead, mod me down.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys