Dude, add the browser you're using, the OS you're using, etc. to the bug report. Also add any steps you've taken to in an attempt to solve the problem (such as deleting cookies).
Why don't you guys have a formal testing process in place for slashcode?
They do. Beta code gets tested here before it's put on Slashdot. Now the upgrade process often generates quite a few 503s (since Slashdot is actually down during that time), but it's just a temporary problem.
If you're still getting 500s and 503s, try deleting all your cookies that point to "slashdot.org". Sometimes the upgrades have problems with old cookies.
It's pretty sad if you haven't noticed anything "different" about Slashdot. For example, when you posted your comment, didn't you notice the nice new interface with the "Edit Comment" title box around it?
I was wondering if there was going to be a story on this. I noticed the upgrade last night. Let me be the first (post? ha ha) to say, "Good job guys!" Yeah. it took you awhile. But better late than never, eh?
And for the brave, download the stylesheet and start experimenting with new themes and designs for Slashdot:
I was just going to ask if we could get a few more CSS styles like we saw in the Beta. Glad to see you're already on top of it.:-)
I did some testing with a FireFox version I *know* contains the infamous "Slashdot bug". (Not sure if it's corrected in recent versions since I normally use Mozilla or Safari.) As far as I can tell from testing, the bug is completely fixed. Considering the upgrades, one would expect this to be the case, but you can never be too sure.
Last but not least, the "Politics" and "Apple" sections look as nice as ever, but I'm afraid that the other sections look worse than ever. Can we turn off the colors for the other sites until better CSS sheets can be made? (Preferrably ones that don't hurt our eyes?) Yeah, the games section has the full treatment too, but I swear that the shades of purple it uses are causing me to go blind.
An alternative solution to turning off the CSS for the other sections is to provide the front page CSS as a style option on all the pages. That way we could simply shut off the crazy colors without pulling the whole "games.slashdot.org/article.pl -> slashdot.org/article.pl" trick.
Well, that's my 3.14159265 cents worth. Again, good job/team!
Eh, it's early in the morning. And when the image comes up, it *looks* like the back view of a Nokia phone. Combine that with "back" and "bottom" meaning the same thing depending on who's defining the dimensions, and you've got a nice recipe for confusion.:-)
1. "DJ Ditty" is a stupid name, and likely to get them sued by P. Ditty. (This is the same guy who threatened legal action against "Puffy" forcing them to change their name to "Puffy Ami Yumi.")
2. 512MB, FM Radio, 1 inch LCD screen... That sounds awefully familiar... You don't think Dell would just be rebranding and pretending they did all this great and competitive R&D, do you?
Nah. That wouldn't sound like Dell. (Which is to say, that sounds EXACTLY like Dell.):-P
So he's partly got the wrong paper but the argument about timeframes (as he should have presented it) isn't ridiculous at all
I thought about mentioning that the research for fission came about from massive amounts of work done on radioisotopes and the like. But in the end, the only thing that really peeves me is the insistance by the general public that E=MC^2 is somehow the magic formula for nuclear fission. I realize that we have the media to blame for perpetuating such silliness, but it still annoys me to no end.:-)
It took 28 years from E=MC^2 to the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.
No offsense, but E=MC^2 is a fraking equation that describes matter/energy conversion, not a blueprint for nuclear fission. Nuclear fission came from an understanding of the subatomic, something that has very little to do with E=MC^2. (Other than as a method of calculating the output, that is.)
Parent is not a troll. He's trying to make a point. The Space Elevator is a untested and unproven technology. Like all unproven technologies, there are bound to be hidden costs, hidden delays, and hidden engineering problems.
NASA is taking the correct approach. They are building something that they *know* works first. They can then work out the pixie dust^H^H space elevator next.
You know, Dijkstra was a very smart man. However, I think he had a bad floppy on this one. His assertion that exposure to "GOTO" would screw up programmers for life is just silly.
Consider for a moment: How does the processor execute a branching statement? The answer is simple, it jumps to a new line! Just because the "line number" happens to be a memory address instead of a program line number doesn't make it any less of a GOTO. So if the machine operates that way to begin with, why should we shield programmers from the design?
IMHO, anyone who can't overcome a reliance on GOTO simply isn't programmer material to begin with.
Ah, here you go. An inverter that attaches directly to the battery. At 600 watts, you should be able to plug a power strip in and power most of your home devices. (Or one computer w/CRT crunching numbers for SETI@Home.;-))
One other thing. Be aware that your fuel efficiency is going to suck. Automotive engines are most efficient in the 20-40kW range. A 600 watt draw is going to force the engine to remain in a high idle, meaning that the engine won't be running very efficiently.
I think most everyone else answered your question, so I'll just add this:
As you probably know, a car engine is just another form of powerplant. While we normally use the power in a direct mechanical fashion, there is nothing that stops anyone from using it to directly power an electric generator (aka a motor in reverse). In fact, that's exactly what a portable generator is. So if you wanted, you could actually cut the battery out of the loop and attach the cables to your inverter. (Yes, you can do that) Just remember to put the battery back when you need to start the car. And do be careful, those wires are live while the car is running.
BTW, I agree with everyone else. Get yourself a good inverter. An old UPS is just a wasted step and may fail when you least expect it (though it might help if the engine power drops suddenly).
Aren't alternators usually capable of up to 800 watts or so?
Sounds about right. 14.4V combined with 50amps and up = >720watts.
When you make changes to GPLed software, you still own the changes you make. (Though it can be difficult to weed out the precise ownership when it comes down to minor changes.) You only are forced by the GPL license to provide those changes to others if you distribute a binary to users not internal to your organization.
Note that copyright ownership *does not* automatically revert to the original author unless you explicity transfer the rights.
Judging from the responses, no one read the article (or at least the second post from the top). I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's just the usual Slashdot GroupThink(TM) resulting in a knee-jerk reaction.
1. System has no proprietary software imbedded / required.
This is important to the contest, because WINE *can* use Windows DLLs. If you patch in a Windows DLL to get the code working, then that's considered cheating.
2. System is stable.
Whatever.
3. MS-XP compatible modules / functions are working as expected.
i.e. The program doesn't have oddities like unimplemented dialog boxes, or images that don't get loaded. The complete API used by the program must function.
4. System becomes the property of SpecOpS Laboratories.
They will take your changes and make them their own, but you get the $10,000. Whatever.
extremely vague.
I agree. Anyone looking to take up this challenge should contact SpecOps Labs and first verify the details of the contest. It would suck to pick something like Microsoft Calculator to implement only to have SpecOps say that it doesn't count. Of course, maybe nothing counts. Maybe they'll reject all entries on some technicality expecting to pick up the code when the developers give up and give their changes to the WINE project. *shrug*
That's because the story poster needs to read a litte more carefully:
As proof or our sincerity, we are offering US$10,000.00* to the first Consultant or Consulting Team who can take our challenge and prove their capabilities. Our challenge requires the delivery of a solution that will allow an MS-XP compatible application to install and run under Linux using x.org and open source WINE by October 5, 2005.
In other words, if you can upgrade WINE to handle a new application in 15 days, they'll give you a $10,000 hiring bonus. At least, that's my interpretation.
Of course, part of the problem is that "global warming" started as a political issue. I'm afraid that its scientific roots were fairly weak to begin with and only started to take shape *after* everyone was worked up over the idea.
I still remember Bush Sr's take on the problem. He told the environmental groups that he would speak with them on global warming as long as they sent him a scientific expert on the problem. As reported by Paul Harvey at the time (as he gleefully pointed out that book stores were hiding their books on Global Warming in the face of one of the coldest winters in the last hundred years), the environmental groups didn't have a scientific expert they could send!
Oops. Talk about egg on your face.:-)
I assume that's a problem that has been corrected, though now you have "experts" on both sides of the issue.
It was about time that Intel started worrying about their chips power consumption and heating.
You think they haven't been? Ever hear of the Centrino architecture? It finally knocked Apple off the top battery performer pedastal a year or two ago.
What you're thinking of are their high end Pentium IV chips, which are quickly approaching the per-centimeter thermal dissapation rates of a nuclear powerplant. (I say as the fans on my Dell case spin up quite loudly...)
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, add the browser you're using, the OS you're using, etc. to the bug report. Also add any steps you've taken to in an attempt to solve the problem (such as deleting cookies).
Jamie is trying to help. How about reciprocating?
Why don't you guys have a formal testing process in place for slashcode?
They do. Beta code gets tested here before it's put on Slashdot. Now the upgrade process often generates quite a few 503s (since Slashdot is actually down during that time), but it's just a temporary problem.
If you're still getting 500s and 503s, try deleting all your cookies that point to "slashdot.org". Sometimes the upgrades have problems with old cookies.
You mean like this site that has been acting as the beta site for Slashdot?
It's pretty sad if you haven't noticed anything "different" about Slashdot. For example, when you posted your comment, didn't you notice the nice new interface with the "Edit Comment" title box around it?
April fools indeed.
I was wondering if there was going to be a story on this. I noticed the upgrade last night. Let me be the first (post? ha ha) to say, "Good job guys!" Yeah. it took you awhile. But better late than never, eh?
:-)
/team!
And for the brave, download the stylesheet and start experimenting with new themes and designs for Slashdot:
I was just going to ask if we could get a few more CSS styles like we saw in the Beta. Glad to see you're already on top of it.
I did some testing with a FireFox version I *know* contains the infamous "Slashdot bug". (Not sure if it's corrected in recent versions since I normally use Mozilla or Safari.) As far as I can tell from testing, the bug is completely fixed. Considering the upgrades, one would expect this to be the case, but you can never be too sure.
Last but not least, the "Politics" and "Apple" sections look as nice as ever, but I'm afraid that the other sections look worse than ever. Can we turn off the colors for the other sites until better CSS sheets can be made? (Preferrably ones that don't hurt our eyes?) Yeah, the games section has the full treatment too, but I swear that the shades of purple it uses are causing me to go blind.
An alternative solution to turning off the CSS for the other sections is to provide the front page CSS as a style option on all the pages. That way we could simply shut off the crazy colors without pulling the whole "games.slashdot.org/article.pl -> slashdot.org/article.pl" trick.
Well, that's my 3.14159265 cents worth. Again, good job
Eh, it's early in the morning. And when the image comes up, it *looks* like the back view of a Nokia phone. Combine that with "back" and "bottom" meaning the same thing depending on who's defining the dimensions, and you've got a nice recipe for confusion. :-)
Never mind. It's just a super-zoom on the headohone jack. For a moment there I swear it looked like a player with a very different shape. :-)
Okay, that's just weird. Click on "Bottom View" on that link. Does that look odd to anyone else?
Close enough. :-P
1. "DJ Ditty" is a stupid name, and likely to get them sued by P. Ditty. (This is the same guy who threatened legal action against "Puffy" forcing them to change their name to "Puffy Ami Yumi.")
:-P
2. 512MB, FM Radio, 1 inch LCD screen... That sounds awefully familiar... You don't think Dell would just be rebranding and pretending they did all this great and competitive R&D, do you?
Nah. That wouldn't sound like Dell. (Which is to say, that sounds EXACTLY like Dell.)
So he's partly got the wrong paper but the argument about timeframes (as he should have presented it) isn't ridiculous at all
:-)
I thought about mentioning that the research for fission came about from massive amounts of work done on radioisotopes and the like. But in the end, the only thing that really peeves me is the insistance by the general public that E=MC^2 is somehow the magic formula for nuclear fission. I realize that we have the media to blame for perpetuating such silliness, but it still annoys me to no end.
It took 28 years from E=MC^2 to the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.
No offsense, but E=MC^2 is a fraking equation that describes matter/energy conversion, not a blueprint for nuclear fission. Nuclear fission came from an understanding of the subatomic, something that has very little to do with E=MC^2. (Other than as a method of calculating the output, that is.)
Parent is not a troll. He's trying to make a point. The Space Elevator is a untested and unproven technology. Like all unproven technologies, there are bound to be hidden costs, hidden delays, and hidden engineering problems.
NASA is taking the correct approach. They are building something that they *know* works first. They can then work out the pixie dust^H^H space elevator next.
You know, Dijkstra was a very smart man. However, I think he had a bad floppy on this one. His assertion that exposure to "GOTO" would screw up programmers for life is just silly.
Consider for a moment: How does the processor execute a branching statement? The answer is simple, it jumps to a new line! Just because the "line number" happens to be a memory address instead of a program line number doesn't make it any less of a GOTO. So if the machine operates that way to begin with, why should we shield programmers from the design?
IMHO, anyone who can't overcome a reliance on GOTO simply isn't programmer material to begin with.
1. It's a dupe
2. New programmers may find Robocode more interesting. It allows players to actually program instead of just "learning about it".
Ah, here you go. An inverter that attaches directly to the battery. At 600 watts, you should be able to plug a power strip in and power most of your home devices. (Or one computer w/CRT crunching numbers for SETI@Home. ;-))
One other thing. Be aware that your fuel efficiency is going to suck. Automotive engines are most efficient in the 20-40kW range. A 600 watt draw is going to force the engine to remain in a high idle, meaning that the engine won't be running very efficiently.
I think most everyone else answered your question, so I'll just add this:
As you probably know, a car engine is just another form of powerplant. While we normally use the power in a direct mechanical fashion, there is nothing that stops anyone from using it to directly power an electric generator (aka a motor in reverse). In fact, that's exactly what a portable generator is. So if you wanted, you could actually cut the battery out of the loop and attach the cables to your inverter. (Yes, you can do that) Just remember to put the battery back when you need to start the car. And do be careful, those wires are live while the car is running.
BTW, I agree with everyone else. Get yourself a good inverter. An old UPS is just a wasted step and may fail when you least expect it (though it might help if the engine power drops suddenly).
Aren't alternators usually capable of up to 800 watts or so?
Sounds about right. 14.4V combined with 50amps and up = >720watts.
When you make changes to GPLed software, you still own the changes you make. (Though it can be difficult to weed out the precise ownership when it comes down to minor changes.) You only are forced by the GPL license to provide those changes to others if you distribute a binary to users not internal to your organization.
Note that copyright ownership *does not* automatically revert to the original author unless you explicity transfer the rights.
Way to RTFA, dude.
Judging from the responses, no one read the article (or at least the second post from the top). I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's just the usual Slashdot GroupThink(TM) resulting in a knee-jerk reaction.
1. System has no proprietary software imbedded / required.
This is important to the contest, because WINE *can* use Windows DLLs. If you patch in a Windows DLL to get the code working, then that's considered cheating.
2. System is stable.
Whatever.
3. MS-XP compatible modules / functions are working as expected.
i.e. The program doesn't have oddities like unimplemented dialog boxes, or images that don't get loaded. The complete API used by the program must function.
4. System becomes the property of SpecOpS Laboratories.
They will take your changes and make them their own, but you get the $10,000. Whatever.
extremely vague.
I agree. Anyone looking to take up this challenge should contact SpecOps Labs and first verify the details of the contest. It would suck to pick something like Microsoft Calculator to implement only to have SpecOps say that it doesn't count. Of course, maybe nothing counts. Maybe they'll reject all entries on some technicality expecting to pick up the code when the developers give up and give their changes to the WINE project. *shrug*
What episode was that from? The quote sounds familiar, but I can't place it.
So if I compile Bochs in less than 15 days I win?
From the requirements:
1. System has no proprietary software imbedded / required.
Loading a copy of Windows XP would be considered "proprietary software".
That's because the story poster needs to read a litte more carefully:
As
proof or our sincerity, we are offering US$10,000.00* to the first
Consultant or Consulting Team who can take our challenge and prove their
capabilities. Our challenge requires the delivery of a solution that
will allow an MS-XP compatible application to install and run under
Linux using x.org and open source WINE by October 5, 2005.
In other words, if you can upgrade WINE to handle a new application in 15 days, they'll give you a $10,000 hiring bonus. At least, that's my interpretation.
Of course, part of the problem is that "global warming" started as a political issue. I'm afraid that its scientific roots were fairly weak to begin with and only started to take shape *after* everyone was worked up over the idea.
:-)
I still remember Bush Sr's take on the problem. He told the environmental groups that he would speak with them on global warming as long as they sent him a scientific expert on the problem. As reported by Paul Harvey at the time (as he gleefully pointed out that book stores were hiding their books on Global Warming in the face of one of the coldest winters in the last hundred years), the environmental groups didn't have a scientific expert they could send!
Oops. Talk about egg on your face.
I assume that's a problem that has been corrected, though now you have "experts" on both sides of the issue.
It was about time that Intel started worrying about their chips power consumption and heating.
You think they haven't been? Ever hear of the Centrino architecture? It finally knocked Apple off the top battery performer pedastal a year or two ago.
What you're thinking of are their high end Pentium IV chips, which are quickly approaching the per-centimeter thermal dissapation rates of a nuclear powerplant. (I say as the fans on my Dell case spin up quite loudly...)