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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Easiest way... (Score 1) 267

by bkmoore (#48429641) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Workaday Software For BSD On the Desktop?

Indeed, I'm very much against the idea of owning a mac.

It actually kind of represents the extreme form of what is driving me away from Linux, a focus on usability and mass appeal over flexibility and choice.

Not much of a Linux expert, but enjoy playing with Slackware from time to time. It hasn't changed too much from an "usability" perspective and puts you in the drivers seat.

Comment: Re:If the cause of the crash... (Score 1) 165

by bkmoore (#48311609) Attached to: Some Virgin Galactic Customers Demand Money Back

...is giving the pilot the full control of the craft (ie, the ability to deploy the tail above rated speed) then they're going to have an interesting balance to strike...

Maybe somebody here knows more about the system architecture of the "feathers" mechanism. From what I've read, the pilot only pulled the lever to unlock the surfaces, but we do not know what caused them to actually deploy. If they were computer controlled, it could be possible that a computer or sensor failure caused them to deploy early.

Comment: Re:This was bound to happen. (Score 1) 112

by bkmoore (#48291621) Attached to: SpaceShipTwo Pilot Named; Branson Vows To 'Move Forward Together'

Going into space is a dangerous endeavor. And there was bound to be looses. Hell they'll be MORE as time does by. Probably a LOT more. Either we can (collectively) give up now or learn from the loses and continue on.

I hate these kinds of comments, that pilot went in testing a roller coaster ride for millionaires.

Comment: Re:Snowden (Score 1) 221

by bkmoore (#48233071) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

....They also moved off from computers to typewriters for some highly sensitive documents. If they already knew all that Snowden stole, why would they do that now? Why not earlier?

There's more than one way of looking at that. 1) by moving to typewriter, they were trying to protect their information from the Americans - your theory. or 2) they saw how easy it is for an insider to electronically copy a library of documents and leave the country. Personally, I think 2) is much more plausible based on that Snowden actually revealed. Secure Russian or Chinese communications would not have been a part of normal internet or telephone traffic that the US was monitoring anyway. Another point is it's actually a minor victory if the Russians and Chinese become so paranoid that they go from efficient digital communications to using mechanical typewriters and sheets of carbon to communicate. But I respect your opinion. Absent of additional information, I think we both have valid points.

Comment: Re:Snowden (Score 2) 221

by bkmoore (#48233021) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

Russia thinks so. China does too.

Can you be a patriot to more than one country?

I think it's highly probable that both Russia and China already had much of what Snowden took with him on his laptop. If there was any intelligence value for those countries, it would have been to validate their sources. On the other hand, the propaganda value was limited at best. Both countries are not exactly ruled by law and they aggressively suppress dissent. On the one hand, they can use Snowden as an example of American double speak, but OTOH they don't want their own citizens to be getting the same ideas.

Comment: Re:Question (Score 1) 275

by bkmoore (#48186665) Attached to: The Largest Ship In the World Is Being Built In Korea

If it floats, it will be neutral because it will displace as much water equal to its own mass. If it sinks, it will displace less water than equal to its own mass.

Only the mass of the object matters if it's inside of the hull of the ship. Shipping 1 ton of feathers is the same as shipping 1 ton of led, at least as far as displacement is concerned.

Comment: Re:I don't follow (Score 2) 370

by bkmoore (#48181231) Attached to: Apple Doesn't Design For Yesterday

So what's so "tomorrow" about change from Lucida to Helvetica, which impedes legibility, requires more screen space, and makes the GUI appear fuzzy? Is that the definition of "tomorrow" now?

Tomorrow, you will be one day older than today. Enough tomorrows and your eyesight will probably fade to the point where text on a computer monitor appears fuzzy. By making the font fuzzy today, Apple is providing their users with a taste of tomorrow. Next, Apple will probably shrink the keyboard to the point that accuracy suffers, as it inevitably does with old age.

Comment: Re:The essence of enterprise (Score 3, Interesting) 148

by bkmoore (#48175087) Attached to: Cisco Exec: Turnover In Engineering No Problem

...the very essence of an enterprise (any enterprise) is that it is a bundle of labour and capital whose essential structure and identity is independent of and more persistent than the labour it employs. The identity behind its labour component is no more important than the identity of its capital component...

Mr. Patel was misquoted in the header, FTA he did not explicitly say "Turnover in Engineering No Problem", but let's assume he did say so in so many words. He is about 33% correct, all engineers are replaceable, and that is the main reason good engineers always document their work. But the question that is often ignored by business school 101-types is how much money and time does it take to replace a competent engineer? Can your enterprise afford the Project disruption and late time-to-market? Will your development still be relevant by the time it finally launches?

You argue that "capital" and "labor" are essentially equal to the identity of an enterprise. In a lot of enterprises that may be true, where either the labor is totally unskilled (light-bulb turners) and requires no training, or the labor is "certified and trained" and perform a set of narrowly-defined tasks, e.g. truck drivers, shipping, railroad engineers, airline pilots, etc. In product development, this ideal model breaks down. Engineering has no standardised training, and every situation or development situation is a unique learning experience, both for the enterprise and for the labor. That's why we have "project management" and development in the first place. History is full of examples of enterprises that made the mistake of treating their engineers as fungible, interchangeable assets. Products started coming out "a day late and a dollar short". Eventually they reorganised, split, made a splash with some big announcements and then disappeared.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.

Working...