Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:summary as i understand it: (Score 2) 367

by Curunir_wolf (#49616595) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

we either have

1. another cold fusion debacle

2. groundbreaking fundamentally new science

do i understand the em drive status quo correctly?

Not exactly. The cold fusion debacle led to a lot of failures right away. There were people trying to replicate the cold fusion that got nothing, and others that saw some results. It turned out it depended on your source of palladium whether you would see any results.

In this case, all attempts to replicate the machine have detected some thrust coming from it, and at fairly consistent levels (as far as the measurements go). So it's clear in this case that the claims are correct and the EM works. There are lots of questions, the answers to some of which will mean it is not a viable engine for any practical use. But it's not really comparable to the "cold fusion debacle".

+ - Google, VMware, RedHat Embrace CoreOS' App Container Spec- What now Docker?->

Submitted by darthcamaro
darthcamaro writes: Big news today in container land as Google, VMware, Red Hat and Appcera are now supporters of the CoreOS led App Container spec (appc), which aims to define a broader spectrum of app containers beyond just Docker.

"The compatibility that we are aiming for is someone who packages up an image to run on top, or rkt should run another compatible runtime such as Kurma," Alex Polvi CEO of CoreOS explained. "This promise of having portability was something that the industry didn't quite achieve with virtual machines and cloud."

The big outstanding question though is with the new appc support — where does that leave Docker?
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Can he win? (Score 1) 392

by Cyberax (#49603043) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic
What sort of confabulation are you living in? Deficit in Bush years: 2000 $325.17 Billion Surplus
2001 $170.19 Billion Surplus
2002 $207.63 Billion Deficit
2003 $485.97 Billion Deficit
2004 $517.54 Billion Deficit
2005 $385.45 Billion Deficit
2006 $291.42 Billion Deficit
2007 $183.79 Billion Deficit
2008 $504.95 Billion Deficit

Basically, 2007 was a blip on the radar - the economy was fueled by the skyrocketing home prices.

Comment: Re:bye bye rand paul (Score 1) 437

by Curunir_wolf (#49593475) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

" The Lawful Content clause in the rules is setup to ensure only lawful content is transmitted over the Internet. In order to determine if your data/packet is lawful, the government will have to analyze your data. In order to do that, they will only allow an encryption to be used that they can quickly decrypt (similar to what they did with Fax machines -the clipper chip). This will still allow encryption to perform email and internet transactions to keep the tech and private security companies happy.

This is the launch board to end private encryption, and will finally allow government to have free and open access to all data transmitted on the internet. Because of this, all devices that connect to the Internet will have to follow the same guidelines, this being phones, printers, tablets, PC’s etc. This will end all debate about companies providing devices that government cannot easily gain access.

This clause is much larger than just making hate speech - opposite political views, etc, unlawful content, this is the purpose to gain access to all the Internet data traffic."

Comment: Re:bye bye rand paul (Score 1) 437

by Curunir_wolf (#49593315) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

While I think the reaction to the nipple flash at the Superbowl was way over the top there is a substantial difference between something that is broadcast over the air with no control over who can receive it vs. something sent down a wire at the specific request of the receiver.

There may be a difference to you, but that doesn't mean there is a difference to the regulators or politicians. After all, there are children on the Internet - have to protect the children from all those "dark corners". The difference in the past was that Internet content was not controlled under a regulatory scheme (like broadcast TV). But now it is. And only "lawful" (that is, explicitly allowed) content and protocols are covered. Everything else is subject to censorship and blocking.

Comment: Re:bye bye rand paul (Score 1) 437

by Curunir_wolf (#49586687) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

People who are against net neutrality are for the internet as it is and has been since it entered the mainstream. People who are for net neutrality are trying to fix something that they think might be broken in theory because they are afraid of corporations and don't understand market forces.

It's worse than that, actually. It clearly looks like a effort to bring the Internet into a regulatory scheme like broadcast TV. Note all through the regulations they point out that only "lawful" content is protected. Not "legal" - "lawful". It's an important distinction. For instance, if I want to show some nipple during a performance, that's perfectly legal. However, if I do it during a superbowl show on broadcast TV, it's not "lawful", and I will face a half million dollars in fines. And the "lawful" moniker applies not just to content, but protocols and "transport mechanisms" as well. Is that protocol "lawful"?

Some of the champions of net neutrality are now starting to question whether they really got what they wanted - or if it's going to be something else. There will be endless challenges in the courts, and some companies have already promised them. And, of course, the FCC has still not release the 300 pages of regulations, so nobody really knows the details yet.

Comment: Re:Infosys, Really? (Score 1) 88

by Curunir_wolf (#49586185) Attached to: White House Outsources K-12 CS Education To Infosys Charity

It's even worse, the company had already had gone over budget almost two billion in doing a database for the Canadian government. Not a great track record, but still chosen above tons of qualified companies in the US.

That's consistent with the track record of most of these outsourcing companies. HCLA, for instance (Indian-based IT company), famously spent years writing the software for the Boeing Airbus. At the end it didn't work, failed FAA certification, and Boeing had to kick them out and hire a new team to do a re-write. HCLA has done the same on other projects.

You would think that at some point these companies (and government agencies) would figure out that they are wasting money on these low-bidder foreign companies, and stop using them. But no. They must be good salesmen, is all I can figure. They are certainly NOT good software engineers.

Comment: Re:Free Markets 101 (Score 1) 88

by Curunir_wolf (#49586091) Attached to: White House Outsources K-12 CS Education To Infosys Charity

Because we've seen the work of those H1-B workers. Somehow, companies keep hiring them even though it's clear to most of us that they are NOT getting their money's worth. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that much of those salaries are being sent somewhere else, instead of being spent at home, so other businesses suffer, too.

Comment: Re:But why? (Score 1) 634

by Curunir_wolf (#49569221) Attached to: How To Increase the Number of Female Engineers

When they put equal effort into increasing the number of men as journalists, authors, teachers, lab technicians therapists, editors, librarians, public relations officers and insurance underwriters then, and only then, will I believe they are sincere in attempting to balance the genders in STEM. However before then they look like hypocrites to me.

Maybe first they should be trying to provide a little more "equality" in college admissions and graduation. Women are dominating right now, and no one seems to care that there is a significant and growing gender gap in higher education.

This is now. Later is later.