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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment They were in the wrong market sector (Score 1) 161

If you want to profit with products that kill people, you had best do it in a different market.

Take Ford. By their own admission, they have killed over 125 (or is it 150 or 200 or ???) people with a bad ignition switch. It's called mass murder. Except that you will never hear that phrase on TV or in the press. Why? Just notice how many car commercials there are on TV and in the press. No connection at all, just ask any ethical journalist. You'll find one riding a unicorn.

You know what happened to Ford? Not much. A few people were fired (the horror), but no one at the top. They paid some fines. Unless a victim is willing to take them to court the compensation was capped at $1 million. They are under three years "suspended prosecution", which is the corporate equivalent of house arrest with no ankle monitor or any other kind of oversight. And their stock is up. And they are really really sorry. Really.

Honestly, it's almost a surprise that the government didn't try and send the victims to jail for conspiracy because they found out that there was a flaw in the switch, and this was covered by the DCMA.

Comment Re:All engineering is iterative (Score 1) 371

If Scrum is dead (read as iterative, incremental development), then software engineering is a myth.

You're absolutely correct. As this previous Slashdot post revealed programmers should stop calling themselves engineers.

There is no such thing as Software Engineering. Until programmers admit this things will never get any better. Giving up delusional thinking is a prerequisite to making real progress.

Comment The video is complete drivel (Score 2) 179

If you watch the video in the linked article is is 100% buzzword marketspeak with zero information content. Disruptive technology blah blah integration blah blah innovation blah blah software continuity blah blah...

It is probably a good chip for it's niche, so you would think they would have less bloviation in their intro video. If this was anyone else I would assume they were mostly trying to fleece more investors before they inevitably went belly up. It's so bad that major league sports style animation with yelling pitchman and a pounding beat would be an improvement. That bad.

Comment F-117 stealth radar coating (Score 3, Insightful) 137

I was at the Museum on Edwards Air Force Base and I got to see an F-117 that was being processed for eventual display at the museum. It was still being worked on. One of the hardest tasks that they had to complete was removing the anti-radar coating. It was so hard they had to remove it with jackhammers, and it is supposedly extremely toxic. They said that there was a lot of minor damage to the skin, which was aluminum, so they filled it in with bondo which they sanded and painted over.

Although it was hard to see from where we stood, I think that the exhaust structure had been removed. Compared to some of the pictures I have seen, I also think that they removed features like the bomb bay doors.

Even so, it was a fantastic experience to see one up close. If you ever git the chance to visit the museum, take it. There is a long waiting list, you can't just go there and get in. Planning is required.

Comment Re:Removing a Federal Judge from the Bench (Score 1) 118

You don't know what the word "traitor" means. It's a person who commits treason:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) his own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which he may belong.

In this case there is no person or organization for whom the judge is committing treason. You could say that he is betraying his trust, but that is not treason.

The word you want is sedition:

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

This is overtly "subversion of a constitution", in this case on behalf of the covert police state in the US.

As for the punishment, I would think that someone like this would rather die then have to live with the shame of loosing their position of power and authority, so removing them from the bench would be the right thing to do.

If you want public execution of the powerful and corrupt in a violent fashion, I think the right targets are the Wall Street types that wrecked the world economy out of greed and incompetence. I'm sure that they would rather give up their fortunes rather then suffer humiliation, pain and death, so personal violence is appropriate. For those who aren't slaughtered, I think that they would take the lesson to heart and stop stealing vast sums of money and start acting more responsibly. (Note that hanging from a lamp post with a slip knot is more traditional for economic criminals. Being drawn and quartered is really old fashioned, and it's not always easy to get horses.)

Comment Removing a Federal Judge from the Bench (Score 1) 118

Here is a solution:

The discipline process of federal judges is initiated by the filing of a complaint by any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties of the office by reason of mental or physical disability."[5] If the chief judge of the circuit does not dismiss the complaint or conclude the proceedings, then he or she must promptly appoint himself or herself, along with equal numbers of circuit judges and district judges, to a special committee to investigate the facts and allegations in the complaint. The committee must conduct such investigation as it finds necessary and then expeditiously file a comprehensive written report of its investigation with the judicial council of the circuit involved. Upon receipt of such a report, the judicial council of the circuit involved may conduct any additional investigation it deems necessary, and it may dismiss the complaint.

If a judge who is the subject of a complaint holds his or her office during good behavior, action taken by the judicial council may include certifying disability of the judge. The judicial council may also, in its discretion, refer any complaint under 28 U.S.C. section 351, along with the record of any associated proceedings and its recommendations for appropriate action, to the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Judicial Conference may exercise its authority under the judicial discipline provisions as a conference, or through a standing committee appointed by the Chief Justice.

As others have pointed out already, it's impossible for the judge in question to have examined all the cases where wiretapping was approved. That dereliction of responsibility should be grounds for dismissal. Having a judge removed from the bench would set a good precedent and put any other black robed petty tyrants on notice that the constitution is not just an old piece of paper.

Comment Re:How about a Beowolf cluster of these (Score 1) 84

What fancy stuff? This question is not a troll, really. As far as I can tell, everything supporting the carrier board for the SOC is vanilla. That's why the price of the unit is so frustrating, it's not chock full of expensive or esoteric components. So why couldn't it be a lot cheaper?

It's not like the market for visual processing for autonomous vehicles is that big, or will be big enough soon enough to make this SOC a worthwhile effort by NVIDIA. One way or another the price has got to come down, or they wasted their time.

Comment Advantages (Score 1) 84

This has some interesting advantages over current systems.

It's will much quieter then a manned destroyer. No plumbing, no laundry, no kitchen, no people talking and moving around. Therefore, it's intrinsically more stealthy and much harder for an enemy to detect. Since it generates less noise it will also be a much more sensitive listening post. That's why they can say it can track the newer generation of quiet non-nuclear powered submarines. The plumbing in a reactor is hard to mask acoustically, which is one reason the non-nuke boats have an advantage.

It changes the offensive/defensive cost equation. Non-nuke subs are much cheaper to develop and deploy, so you don't need the military budget of the US or Russia to have a sizable fleet. Size means that even if boats are lost in combat, there will still be enough remaining to accomplish the mission. A surface ship like this will be cheaper to make then a submarine, so the US can afford to build a big enough fleet to counter a force of non-nuke subs. Add in the lower operation cost, and it's a real headache for the opposition.

This thing is going to be really stealthy. If an enemy can hunt it down with ships or aircraft it looses it's effectiveness. It wouldn't be surprising if the published pictures are deliberately inaccurate. It might have a more radar reflecting shape like the Zumwalt

There might be a problem keeping it out of enemy hands. It would be awfully tempting for a naval power like Russia or China to try and nab one on the high seas to find out what makes it tick. Expect that it would self destruct if captured, and perhaps even be designed to take some other vessels down with it.

Comment How about a Beowolf cluster of these (Score 2) 84

No, seriously.

For some parallel tasks it could be cost effective. A TFLOP of GPU with only 10 watts is nothing to sneer at. It might even be lower watt/flop then an FPGA, which tend to be power hogs. Of course, the 10 watt figure is for the card form factor SOC only, so the power and size is greater for the SOC plugged into the carrier board. And the cost needs to come down quite a bit for their likely market place. Either the price falls by a huge amount or it goes nowhere.

Even so, this could be interesting for some niche markets.

Comment Re:How will that "professional organization" be... (Score 2, Interesting) 607

Did you even bother to read my post, or are you incapable of simple logical reasoning?

Union membership has plummeted in the U.S., from nearly one-third of workers 50 years ago to one in 10 American workers today. Under the simplest assumption, for every $30 unions had to spend on politics in 1966, they now have $10. That's a factor of three decline. Citizens United legalized unlimited untraceable political contributions. This means the disparity between, say the Koch brothers and unions is even greater.

Unions and corporations have reporting requirements, and they have accountability to stockholders/union members. Post Citizens United, PACs have no accountability. Even if a union gives money to a PAC, the spending is at least theoretically traceable. A union member can sue the union and find out what the union spent on politics. If the money went to a PAC, they could make a good case for having the PAC audited. The same goes for a stockholder, but if I understand the law correctly a stockholder has less say in political spending. For individual money donated through PACs, there is no way the public will ever know how the money is spent. The process is opaque.

Saying that unions are equivalent to individual PAC contributions is factually incorrect. You are just flat out wrong.

As for the impact of spending on the political process, some people, including the Koch brothers, think it makes a big difference. That's why they're spending $889 million before the 2016 elections.

Comment Re:How will that "professional organization" be... (Score 5, Interesting) 607

Unions have been unable to oppose outsourcing because the Republicans have destroyed union power over the last 50 years or so. So called "right to work" legislation and other forms of legal (and illegal) union busting resulted in lower union membership, which means lower amounts of political donations and smaller voting blocks. The end game on this is Citizens United which means that the American oligarchy can spend as much dark money as they want to buy as much political power as they can get. Money doesn't always buy elections or politicians, but if one side outspends their opponents by large enough amounts for a long enough period of time they can change the rules of the game. Which they did.

Here is a example from blue collar middle America. In the Midwest food processing, such as meat packing, used to be unionized. The unions were pretty much wiped out by the Republicans. Who got those jobs? Undocumented workers, mostly Spanish speakers. It's not like citizens went from being union workers to non-union workers. Citizens were replaced by non-citizens because they were less expensive to start out with, and undocumented workers will never complain about illegal treatment or dangerous working conditions. That's why there are so may relatively new Spanish speaking communities in places like Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc. And it's also why Trump is able to scream about "illegals" and get so much traction. The real perpetrators are the Republicans and massive corrupt big business interests.

If you haven't lost your job yet it's just because they haven't gotten around to you yet.

Comment NSA speak translated to English (Score 1) 121

NSA speak: Disclosing a vulnerability can mean that we forgo an opportunity to collect crucial foreign intelligence that could thwart a terrorist attack, stop the theft of our nation's intellectual property, or discover even more dangerous vulnerabilities that are being used to exploit our networks.

English: Disclosing a vulnerability can mean we forgo an opportunity to use the power of the state to spy on innocent people for no reason, crush legitimate political dissent, blackmail political figures to make them our puppets, engage in economic espionage that puts vast sums in the coffers of political insiders, interfere with foreign governments both friend and foe, cover up our vast incompetence, avoid the consequence of our bad decisions, and interferes with our degenerate addiction to unencumbered personal power that makes use feel superior to everyone else on the planet.

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang