Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Virtual Machine Brings X86 Linux Apps To ARMv7 Devices

Pinhedd Re:Why? (61 comments)

damn near impossible if the source code is not available or has been lost

about two weeks ago
top

Ask Slashdot: "Real" Computer Scientists vs. Modern Curriculum?

Pinhedd Re:Beards and suspenders. (637 comments)

Imagine the following:

int A[10];
int* B = 0;

Evaluating A yields the address of the first element in the array. Evaluating the address of A also yields the address of the first element in the array.

&A == (int*)&A[0]
&A == A
(int*)&A[0] == A

All three of these expressions will evaluate to true

B = A;
B = (int*)
B=&A[0]

The above three statements are all equivalent because array references behave like pointers when they are evaluated as part of an expression.

Unlike pointers, the array reference itself is not assigned memory, only the array elements are assigned memory. The array reference is used as a handle to the first element in the array and all references are resolved at compile time. A pointer can be reseated (assigned a new value), an array cannot.

B = A; is valid

A = B; is not valid

looking at this another way

int A[10]; will consume 40 bytes of memory assuming a 4 byte integer

int* B = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10); will consume 44 bytes of memory assuming 4 byte integers and 4 byte addresses

about a month ago
top

Lionsgate Sues Limetorrents, Played.to, and Others Over Expendables 3 Leak

Pinhedd Re:The DHS Is On The Case (207 comments)

The DHS was created in large part to address the inability of other agencies to communicate and work together.

about a month ago
top

What Happens When Gaming Auteurs Try To Go It Alone?

Pinhedd Re:Uh. No. Sorry. (86 comments)

Is Deus Ex merely considered "solid work" now?

about 1 month ago
top

Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

Pinhedd Re:Cry Me A River (608 comments)

I'm certain that it's different, but it is not fundamentally different. The person that you responded to did not claim that it is the same environment but rather one that has more or less the same toolset. All of them will still be built around a C-compiler, build tools, and a debugger.

about 2 months ago
top

Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

Pinhedd Re:Cry Me A River (608 comments)

I think that you may be off by a few decades

about 2 months ago
top

Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains

Pinhedd Re:Legal Precedent? (495 comments)

Excellent find. Thank you

about 2 months ago
top

Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains

Pinhedd Re:Legal Precedent? (495 comments)

I'd be incredibly surprised if the ruling was carte blanche as you describe. All that we have to go on is one press release and a news report, not the text of the ruling itself, so it's a bit premature to rush to judgement. Many of the stipulations that you suggest were most likely conditions imposed on Microsoft as a part of the ex parte TRO. Even if they weren't required to document some things they would be very wise to do so as it is sure to be brought up at the hearing. In any case, I find it unlikely that Microsoft would want to bite the hand that feeds.

about 2 months ago
top

Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains

Pinhedd Re:Legal Precedent? (495 comments)

I'm sure that you're absolutely correct about that. The vast majority of no-ip's customers are using the service legitimately, I'm certain of this. However, no-ip has certain legal responsibilities as a service provider and if they don't meet them their legitimate customers may end up getting caught in the crossfire.

For the record, I'm not taking a side as I have no idea what evidence Microsoft presented to get the ruling. I'm just pointing out the legal basis for what occurred.

about 2 months ago
top

Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains

Pinhedd Re:Legal Precedent? (495 comments)

Second level domains are controlled through top level domains. Do you know nothing about DNS?

about 2 months ago
top

Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains

Pinhedd Re:Legal Precedent? (495 comments)

property used to engage in criminal activity is subject to seizure and/or forfeiture. Domains have been seized in the past due to criminal activity but this has usually accompanied a criminal complaint by a law enforcement agency.

In this case, despite what the article may imply, Microsoft hasn't seized ownership of the domains. Rather, they used an ex parte temporary restraining order to seize control of the domains so that they may neutralize the source of the maliciousness. The ex-parte aspect is why no-ip wasn't notified. Microsoft managed to convince a judge to grant the order without informing the other party (most likely to prevent no-ip from notifying the malicious users). This will be followed up by a formal hearing, and full control of the domains will be restored to no-ip eventually.

If Microsoft abuses this, judges won't be so inclined to grant such requests in the future.

about 2 months ago
top

Red Hat Assistant General Counsel Analyses Supreme Court's Patent Ruling

Pinhedd Re:Software Patents Are Just Wrong (43 comments)

The core elements of PC firmware don't do anything particularly fancy, it's just software that tests components and configures the platform in a way that exposes a consistent interface and an interface itself is not patentable. Most of the heavy lifting is performed by the hardware (which is covered by other patents) and is accessed using documented methods (which is an interface, not patentable). It's unlikely that there would be sufficient novel material in the original IBM PC BIOS to warrant or defend a patent, and it would be rather simple to work around any tricks; as you mentioned, it was reimplemented from IBM's documentation and clean-room reverse engineering.

There are some patents for components that are not elements of the platform interface, such as securing access to, reprogramming, and validating the firmware code.

about 2 months ago
top

Test: Quantum Or Not, Controversial Computer No Faster Than Normal

Pinhedd Re:The real question in my mind (119 comments)

No, you said that they haven't yet demonstrated anything quantum about it, and I provided you with a link proving otherwise.

It may not be more useful, compact, or flexible than an existing well known and well optimized method of completing the same task, but neither were early electromechanical machines or some of the earliest digital computers.

In order to qualify it as a failed project or a scam you'd need to clearly demonstrate that it doesn't do what it claims to do, not that it doesn't do it as well as you expected. Give it a few years and a few more iterations, if it shows no meaningful improvement then that claim can be revisited.

about 2 months ago
top

Test: Quantum Or Not, Controversial Computer No Faster Than Normal

Pinhedd Re:The real question in my mind (119 comments)

Not necessarily.

Using quantum annealing to solve non-linear multivariate optimization problems is theoretically faster than using traditional turing computation. It definitely needs more development to overcome a normal workstation or supercomputer, but it will most likely happen eventually.

about 2 months ago
top

Test: Quantum Or Not, Controversial Computer No Faster Than Normal

Pinhedd Re:The real question in my mind (119 comments)

Researchers have been able to experimentally prove the existence of quantum entanglement in a quantum annealing processor which is supposedly a subset of the design that D-Wave employs

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3500...

about 2 months ago
top

Test: Quantum Or Not, Controversial Computer No Faster Than Normal

Pinhedd Re:The real question in my mind (119 comments)

No, it's simply a case of pitting a very immature technology against one that's very mature.

about 2 months ago
top

Sony Winding Down the PSP

Pinhedd Re:Reimagine for touch (85 comments)

Some people are also retarded. Try redesigning a first person shooter for a touch screen. Every touch-screen FPS I have tried is beyond terrible, requiring tons of aim assist and alteration of game mechanics to suit the reduction in player control. Removing content or mechanics to suit an unsuitable control scheme is not "redesigning" anything, it's crippling it.

about 3 months ago
top

Sony Winding Down the PSP

Pinhedd Re:Too much competition (85 comments)

Not necessarily. Smartphones and tablets handle traditional control schemes very poorly. Try playing an FPS on a smartphone, or anything that requires a degree of precision and/or responsiveness. If a game can be designed/redesigned for a touch-screen interface, great. However, many genres simply play better using mechanical controls and the PSP excels at this.

about 3 months ago
top

HR Chief: Google Sexual, Racial Diversity "Not Where We Want to Be"

Pinhedd Re:Who gives a shit? (593 comments)

It is indeed a manufactured issue but that doesn't mean that it's not an issue worth considering or addressing. Companies that operate solely through hiring "the person most qualified for the job" can fall victim to tunnel vision.

about 3 months ago

Submissions

Pinhedd hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Pinhedd has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>