Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:This should be the common case, though. (Score 5, Insightful) 135

If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.

Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score 1) 164

by Jane Q. Public (#49366397) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

No. Within a narrowly defined market, money is just another type of 'goods' of which there's a vastly larger supply (and hence, a relatively stabler valuation)

You're not contradicting me here. You're reinforcing what I said.

GP confused inflation and deflation within a specific market, with how it is measured. My comment was about price point as an indicator. I did not mean that it was, by itself, inflation or deflation. I wasn't trying to "define" deflation.

In this context, M2 and M3 have very little relevance.

Comment: Re:cameras for everyone! (Score 2) 432

by Jane Q. Public (#49366295) Attached to: Why the Final Moments Inside a Cockpit Are Heard But Not Seen

Camera camera camera. the benefits of surveilance are not a sufficient reason to overcome the pervasive invasiveness. pychologically were a private species.

It need not be invasive. It would be quite easy to construct a system that would automatically erase any footage the moment a plane successfully lands and docks at the airport.

The only footage that would be seen then, is when there is a real problem.

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score 1) 164

by Jane Q. Public (#49364093) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon
Let me put it a different way: inflation is an imbalance between supply and demand... in this case the supply and demand of money. Its direct (if delayed) effects include the market value of goods to be exchanged for that money. This is expressed as prices of those goods.

It can always be measured in price. They are not independent.

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score 1) 164

by Jane Q. Public (#49364067) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

Reduction in prices is not deflation. Deflation is reduction in the money supply.

You are getting your contexts confused. Not my fault.

A market -- which is to say, the market for a particular good -- can be considered aside from the markets for other goods.

Within that market, "money supply" is mostly meaningless because money is considered to be a universal commodity. So deflation is measured by price point.

And in fact, all deflation can be measured by price point. Government economic advisers have been harping about the "dangers" of deflation for a long time... yet the money supply was never in any danger. So ask yourself why. I already gave you all the hints you need.

Comment: Re:When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 1) 157

Well, OK, so when should I expect that I can build a brochure site for a hotel that uses HTML5 videos and have one video format and one set of custom controls to work with? Because the world has moved on and Flash is no longer a viable option for this kind of work despite offering those advantages for many years, thanks to much the same browser developers who can't get their act together and actually provide a better replacement. They can't even manage to make the default "this is a video" overlay look the same, or even put it in roughly the same place so you can design placeholder graphics accordingly.

Please explain what this has to do with validation, which I thought was the topic under discussion?

But this brings us back to the original question from my first post in this thread: why? What objective advantage do you or your employer/client gain by insisting on such compliance?

Exactly what it is supposed to do: assurance that it will work as built across all major browsers.

Believe it or not, a majority of big-name sites are still using Flash, along with open-source JS players.

It seems to me you're complaining that using new features that aren't yet standardized, aren't yet standardized. I can sympathize with your frustration, but then if you don't like it, don't use them.

Browsers will never be "standardized" on the very latest features. That's not how it works. So if you don't want to get stuck, don't use the latest features. What else do you expect me to say?

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score -1) 164

by Jane Q. Public (#49363955) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

Actually, that's exactly how a market economy works. Things get better and cheaper over time because of innovation and stiff competition. Or did you still spend $10,000 on a 40" flat screen TV this year, and hundreds of dollars for a 20MB disk drive? That must be frustrating for you.

Also, note: this feature of healthy markets is called "deflation" in that particular market. But... deflation is precisely the hated bugaboo of Obama and his crony Keynesian-interventionist-mainstream economists.

They hate success, if it doesn't include them.

Comment: Re:When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 2) 157

Yes, I was, and I respectfully disagree. Browsers today do a lot more, but frequently the support for newer features is so specific to each browser and in some cases so unstable that it is completely useless for real world projects

Correct. That's why you don't use newer features until they're absorbed by the standard.

But the point is that these non-standard-compliant implementation techniques don't break anything in practice, because every browser is tolerant of them and will always remain so because far too much would break otherwise.

What I meant was: if they don't validate. I didn't mean "break" in the sense that they don't work.

You may not care for the practice, but nothing leaves my hands into production until it validates, except when the stakeholder insists on using something that won't.

Comment: Re:I'd put a 'may' there (Score 1) 42

by Jane Q. Public (#49362289) Attached to: Taxpayer Subsidies To ULA To End
I have also had business experience with government contracts. One of the problems there (though it was in a somewhat different field, so doesn't apply as much here) is that those who couldn't properly make it in the engineering business ended up going to work for the government... and became the regulators. Rather the opposite of the "corporate capture" idea, but still a kind of revolving door.

As a result, the bureaucrats and regulators were not respected by the industry they were regulating, and were widely (and appropriately) vilified for interfering in efforts to just get the job done properly.

Comment: Re:I'd put a 'may' there (Score 1) 42

by Jane Q. Public (#49362261) Attached to: Taxpayer Subsidies To ULA To End

I don't know if SpaceX is leapfrogging ULA. The Alliance (why does that just sound wrong?) is responsible for a number of different booster programs spread out over time and territory.

Yeah, and was so "successful" at it that when there were problems getting Russian engines, they were temporarily grounded.

That said, some pressure on the behemoths to tighten up their act might be helpful - but remember although the ULA is presumably private, it is very much beholden to the Military Industrial Complex which means it is very much beholden to the Congress which means different booster programs spread out over time and territory as much time and territory as is possible.

Then where are they?

Granted, they are starting to produce some decent stuff again, but only really started doing so when SpaceX and a couple of other upstarts threatened their warm fuzzy government cocoon.

NASA has become too big and bureaucratic to get much done in any kind of hurry. Yes, that is partly, or perhaps even mostly, Congress' fault with its budget shenanigans. But it has gotten so bad that when the Space Shuttle was grounded, they didn't even have a replacement. Shoddy, short-term thinking. It's not possible to run a decent manned space program that way.

NASA was ordered by the President to clean up its crony-bureaucratic act after the Challenger disaster, clear back in '86. It never did. It was ordered to do so again after the Columbia disaster. It still hasn't.

If it finds itself unable to do so, inevitably it will be replaced.

How can you work when the system's so crowded?

Working...