Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Ubuntu _is_ primarily a desktop OS... (Score 4, Informative) 109

It's almost as bloated with junk as the desktop version. I've been telling our developers to use debian over ubuntu. A base minimal container with Debian is under a 100 megs. With Ubuntu it's close to 700 megs. There's just too much stuff included by default. That means a whole bunch of things that could be potential security problems. Sure, you have to set up more in the Dockerfile since so little is included, but I consider that a feature, not a bug.

Comment Re:Because its not just a NASA facility (Score 2) 57

Was it ever determined to be incompetence of the Bush administration, or are you just spouting off?

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"

Yes, as a matter of fact. Bush was too incompetent to know his flunky was too incompetent:

the Democratic lawmaker cited several e-mails that he said show Brown's failures. In one, as employees looked for direction and support on the ravaged Gulf Coast, Brown offered to "tweak" the federal response.

Two days after Katrina hit, Marty Bahamonde, one of the only FEMA employees in New Orleans, wrote to Brown that "the situation is past critical" and listed problems including many people near death and food and water running out at the Superdome.

Brown's entire response was: "Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or tweak?" (Copies of e-mails posted by critic -- PDF)

On September 12 Brown resigned, 10 days after President Bush told him, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

And, in case you don't scroll far enough in that article:

Brown took over FEMA in 2003 with little experience in emergency management. He joined the agency in 2001 as legal counsel to his friend, then-FEMA director Joe Allbaugh, who was Bush's 2000 campaign manager. When Allbaugh left FEMA in 2003 Brown assumed the top job.

Before joining the Bush administration, Brown spent a decade as the stewards and judges commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.

So, a man without proper experience failed to act and then offered to "tweak" the response, as if it was a minor thing.

So how about you stop thinking of this as a partisan issue. It really does come down to an unqualified crony of Bush failing to act, and Bush acting like it was all going according to plan.

But it is always more convenient to blame your political opponent, even if it is lazy.

Yes, yes it is. Only in this case it's you doing that.

Comment Re:Does flipping one electron now flip the other? (Score 1) 149

Alright, smartass ... I'm going to make up a thought experiment, because I really have no idea how this shit works either.

Say I have locations A and B, each with the end point of two pairs of entangled particles. Say they're 1 light year apart.

At site A, the first particle of the first pair is in a state, but you can't see it. At site B, the second particle of the first pair can be read. Site B knows the state of the first pair, site A doesn't.

If site B flipped their part of the second pair into a known state which told you the state of the first pair, hasn't that information traveled faster than light.

Because surely I can come up with some number of entangled pairs which allows me to send Morse code from site B to site A, no? Eight pairs lets me send a byte?

You may not be able to add information later, but can't you use other ones to relay information.

I never really understand this, but it seems like you can combine more than one entangled pair to construct a scenario in which you can send data faster than the speed of light.

Site B instantly knows the state of your particles in site A, and can then force other particles into states which relay that information back ... if this takes less than two years, isn't it, by definition, faster than light?

(I don't claim this is valid, and I'm not sure it is, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this)

Comment Re:What's the real problem? (Score 1) 182

You know, reading the above I have to say I think your conclusion about open source is complete crap here.

An architect who is designing and building it at the same time, and doing stupid shortcuts and hacks in the process, is going to lead to terrible results no matter your damned platform. The architect designs, the admin and IT people build and maintain. If you design is any good, they can built it. If your design is crap, they'll come back to you.

But architecting and building at the same time usually means you have a bunch of undocumented crap, shortcuts, and things you abandoned but actually are why some of your other stuff works even if you don't realize it.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with open source software or operating systems ... and it has everything to do with bad practices done by people who think they know how to do both things at the same time.

Claiming open source solves these problems is missing the actual problem .. that an architect hacking it together until it works isn't an architect, and the system you end up with is probably un-maintainable because it's full of so many kludges and workarounds as to be garbage. You separate these things so you know you actually have a viable architecture instead of a fluke.

Don't look at the specific examples and blame Windows. Look a the incredibly stupid way it was built and realize you'd be screwed no matter the platform if your "architect" it by throwing pieces at it until it works and then not knowing why it works.

That's the opposite of being an architect. It's being a complete hack with no business calling themselves an architect.

"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard