Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Sustainable? (Score 1) 219 219

Turkey fat is industrial waste, putting it in cars and milkshakes would be more environmentally sustainable than continuing to ignore the reality.

Well, I don't know how you got onto turkeys in particular, but Tyson Chicken (the world's largest producer of waste animal fat) has a chicken-fat-to-biodiesel plant...

Comment Re:Smart (Score 1) 258 258

So Tesla rigged the gauge when they did the swap? That's a bold claim.

What I'm saying is that the available evidence supports that idea at least as much as the idea that they're actually doing swaps. If they're actually doing swaps, why is definitive evidence so hard to come by?

Would you accept that his car didn't run out of energy while driving after the swap?

Yep. Would you accept that the vehicle actually behaved differently, but he didn't notice? If you chopped 5% of the performance off completely linearly, nobody would even notice.

Comment Re:Snark on Detroit? (Score 1) 258 258

I'll agree that the average car of the 1980s was ugly as sin, and nearly as bad from a quality standpoint.

The 1970s were characterized by awful design coupled with 1960s technology. The cars of the 1970s are no more advanced than the cars of the 1960s. By contrast, the cars of the 1980s are dramatically more advanced... the imports, anyway. Japanese and German shitboxen got sequential fuel injection and advanced suspension designs. Most American cars were still using throttle body injection in the 80s, but at least they had discovered fuel injectors.

Comment That's Crazy Expensive (Score 3, Insightful) 219 219

Ensure is 1/3 of a daily meal plan and costs $1.19/unit. In order to be successful, a new product has to be cheaper and better. If your definition includes sustainability then it might be "better", but at literally twice the price of the entrenched competition, it's got to be twice as good. But it's little more than half the food value... So it's got to taste almost four times as good as Ensure to be compelling. Guess what?

Comment Re:So, the actual attack surface is vanishingly sm (Score 0) 72 72

2. Those who fall for some unknown social-engineering trap.

Well, that's every Mac user. You bought into the idea that you were buying a lifestyle, but actually you were just buying a PC made by slaves at Foxconn like every other PC.

Comment Re:Free speech zone (Score 1) 359 359

There isn't a "revoke privileges" kernel feature either despite years of trying (it is a hard problem).

You can't do it through a capabilities interface, even?

That means userspace have to have a sophisticated session manager like logind with kernel integration in order to keep the multi-seat sessions safe.

Why would it need to be married to the init daemon? That's the part that's unclear. cgroups permit management of process groups no matter how, why, or when they were created, or who created them. It doesn't matter if init starts the process, any other daemon could have done that job.

Comment Re:expand it is services? Really? (Score 1) 52 52

Ok, so it's a small sample size, but every article I've submitted has appeared exactly as I typed it.

Well, it's possible that you made higher-quality submissions than I did, or that you just tripped over lazy editors. It would be interesting to have some actual statistics on this, but hahaha. I mean, the editors are already lazy.

Comment Re:Startup management subsystem (Score 1) 359 359

All the init-systems in use at the time where just "slightly improved SysVinit" style init-systems.

You're missing the point, deliberately I hope because the alternative is too pathetic to contemplate. Those init systems were in use at the time because you could swap between them freely. Systemd deliberately breaks that state of affairs and that is what is primarily wrong with it.

They all relied on executable config scripts to manage daemons, and none of them tried to step up an take proper responsibility for the boot and init process.

Proper responsibility? No, you have that wrong. They did everything they had to do.

You are probably thinking of the old cgroups interface, but that is being deprecated in the near future in favor of the "single writer"/"unified hierarchy" that requires a writer that abstract away the kernel cgroup API so userland doesn't use it directly.

Oh great, more influence of systemd shitting up my Linux. Just want I wanted to hear about. So instead of a simple, working interface to cgroups, they want to make it harder to use. Why would you do that? Just to make systemd look more useful? You make it harder to do what they do in a script so that people like me can't say "but a script could do that"?

To my knowledge nobody in the non-systemd camp is even working on similar ideas, or even on an alternative cgroups single writer implementation.

What the fuck does "writer" mean here?

Comment Re:Startup management subsystem (Score 1) 359 359

Isn't that an argument that everything should be written in shell script?

It's an argument that everything which reasonably can and should be written in a shell script (that is, without compromising security or performance) should be. A shitload of what makes a modern Linux go is just scripting. Sadly, many of them are python scripts; shell scripting will do the jobs they do without exception, but people jumped on the new shiny (like they did with perl, as well) and that results in a system where you have to understand three scripting languages to maintain it, not just one. Clearly scripting is not a panacea. You have to understand what you are doing.

People often argue that shell scripts are slow, but they aren't if you have free memory, because process creation is cheap on Unix. Creating new shells, firing off all those inlines, is as cheap as thread creation on Windows. It's not a problem these days, when RAM is basically free.

Everything which can reasonably be implemented as a very small shell script absolutely should be. Anything which legitimately needs to be written in C absolutely should be. The right tool, not just a random tool.

Comment Re:Smart (Score 1) 258 258

Battery swapping has negligible effect on the ability of EVs to compete with ICEVs for consumer travel. The only case where it's of use is in long-distance, non-stop travel, which is a miniscule percentage of road miles and which can in most cases be done with a rental vehicle.

You don't think being forced to abandon your vehicle and hire another one is a significant effect? This is why people laugh at the proponents of EVs. You don't actually give a shit about cars. To you, a car is just a box. But most people have a relationship with their car, it takes on personality to them. Being forced to walk away from it and drive another vehicle in which the person is less comfortable is a major event which significantly impairs the vehicle's suitability.

Comment Re:Smart (Score 1) 258 258

Now, can anybody explain to me why battery swapping is worth additional credits in the first place? CARB's mandate is supposed to be cleaner air.

The idea is that fast refueling is supposed to draw more people to alternative-fuel vehicles, because the idea is that some people don't buy AFVs because they are less convenient than gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles. The extent to which the idea was tied to fuel cells, though, is definitely driven by the mechanism you stated.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.