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


Forgot your password?

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: Stop worrying about "waste". (Score 2) 370

by codealot (#49424261) Attached to: How the Pentagon Wasted $10 Billion On Military Projects

Oh dear, an economic/political rant on Slashdot...

The US cannot go bankrupt. We are a sovereign nation that issues its own currency. Get over it.

This "waste" creates jobs and spurs R&D. It inflates our money supply at a time when the economy is sluggish, and boosts the private sector. Why are people complaining?

If you think taxpayers are funding this "waste", you're wrong. Taxpayers pay taxes, that's it. Unless the budget is balanced there's no association between federal spending and revenue, they are just two different dollar totals on the books. (And I'm not advocating balancing the budget simply to curtail spending.)

If you think our children (or grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc.) are going to have to pay off this debt, that's also incorrect. Federal debt is always serviced by issuing more currency.

I'm not saying the government can spend without limit, but there are no hard limits. The practical limits are set by inflation rates and real resources. At present, real resources are abundant and inflation is low. So let's raise spending. If we reach 99% employment and inflation sets in, we can curtail government spending.

This isn't solely my view--lookup Modern Money Theory. Many economists understand these principles of a fiat currency. Few politicians do, unfortunately, and they like to throw around words like "debt" and "waste" without understanding their meaning.

Comment: Re:Did Tesla out engineer GM? (Score 1) 229

The generation 1 Volt (2011 - 2015 model years) has several drive modes. It's not a parallel hybrid under most circumstances, though it's hard to say how often my Volt operates this way. The motor only runs in CS or "Hold" modes, and the theory I think is that at certain speeds the engine is more efficient when driving the wheels directly.

It certainly has nothing to do with power--when I have enough remaining charge, the motor never runs (unless driving in temperatures below 15F), and I can drive any speed I like.

Also I don't remember the Volt ever advertised as a "hybrid". It is an EV with a range extender. In electric mode, it operates just as a EV would.

(The obvious differences between a Volt and Tesla are battery capacity and the range extender motor. Tesla's range is due to battery capacity, but there's a reason the Tesla costs twice as much as a Volt.)

Comment: Re:Let's see if HTTP/2 is adopted faster than IPv6 (Score 1) 171

by codealot (#49081297) Attached to: HTTP/2 Finalized

That isn't at all true. My laptop has both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. When I make a request to google.com, I'm using IPv6, when reaching sites that don't have IPv6 I fall back to IPv4. As a user I don't even notice this.

Similarly, HTTP/2 has to be implemented on clients and servers before it will be functional, else both endpoints need to agree to fall back on HTTP/1.1.

There's some additional network configuration needed before IPv6 is useful, but no need to convert anything.

Comment: Re:Peanuts (Score 2) 411

by codealot (#49032203) Attached to: Your Java Code Is Mostly Fluff, New Research Finds

Your claim smacks of hyperbole, but that aside I've also had to use code from developers who like to name their methods x(), f1(), t2() you get the idea. I can't tell if they're too lazy to type more than that, or they are striving to make all code fit in a 40-column window (ala GW-Basic), or they hate the idea that anyone else would ever try to read and comprehend their code.

There's got to be a nice balance.

Comment: Re:Double nope (Score 3, Informative) 426

by codealot (#48793895) Attached to: Chevrolet Unveils 200-Mile Bolt EV At Detroit Auto Show

Exactly right, but your sensible viewpoint doesn't belong anywhere on a blog site, apparently. No, you can't completely describe the Volt as a plug-in hybrid, EV, series or parallel hybrid, or whatever--it's a Volt and there's nothing else exactly like it.

I read this forum having come from other EV forums where readers are complaining endlessly that the Volt isn't a true EV, that it has far too limited range, that it was designed as a parallel hybrid and should've been a series hybrid, etc. Folks. This is all new stuff. If you want to change the world, stop posting drivel that drives away readership.

And BTW I'm sure GM would've loved to have released an EV in 2010 with 200+ mile range, one hour charge times, and a sub-$25k price. The reality is that it wasn't practical in 2010, and may be only barely practical today given the economics involved and the state of the technology.

The Volt is a great stop-gap. It gave us something to buy these past four years while we wait for more advanced EV's to become feasible and hit the market. The drivetrain is complex, but apparently has a very low failure rate. The ICE will run frequently or continuously in extreme conditions, but most drivers can expect lifetime averages well over 100 MPG driving in real-world conditions. Why can nobody simply call this what it is: A technical coup for GM.

Comment: Re:HTTP/1.1 good enough? (Score 1) 161

by codealot (#48776361) Attached to: HTTP/2 - the IETF Is Phoning It In

Can't argue, and thank you for the interesting examples. I don't think HTTP is perfect, I was wondering out loud whether it is merely good enough.

Seems to me though that most of those problems arise from sloppy implementations (like you said, did they read the docs??) which supports my 2nd point. A perfect specification isn't going to prevent poor implementations.

Comment: HTTP/1.1 good enough? (Score 4, Interesting) 161

by codealot (#48774923) Attached to: HTTP/2 - the IETF Is Phoning It In

Two remarkable things about HTTP/1.1.

One, it remained a relatively simple protocol. Yes there are a lot of nuances around content negotiation, transfer encodings and such but at its core it is a simple, flexible and effective protocol to use, and can be implemented quite efficiently via persistent connections and pipelining. It was designed for response caching as well, and the CDN infrastructure is in place to make use of caching whenever possible.

Two, despite the simplicity of HTTP/1.1, a shocking number of implementations get it wrong or don't use it efficiently. Pipelining is disabled in many implementations due to compatibility concerns, and few applications can use it effectively. Many applications make excessive and unnecessary use of POST requests which are inherently not cacheable and result in many synchronous requests performed over high-latency connections. (SOAP was notorious for that.)

I'm skeptical that any protocol revision can improve on HTTP/1.1 sufficiently without making it harder to implement correctly than it already is.

If there were a broad initiative to begin to use the features of HTTP/1.1 properly, as they were designed, most of the shortcomings would vanish without the need for a new protocol.

Comment: The future doesn't help us today. (Score 1) 659

by codealot (#47001827) Attached to: Future of Cars: Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Or Electric?

Hydrogen fuel cells might become viable in the future, who knows. That doesn't mean we shouldn't develop the technology, but in the meantime, we need alternate energy today, and you can buy and drive an electric car now. I plan to look closely at electric cars for my next vehicle. By the time (5-10 years) I'm ready for another, if fuel cells are available, I'll consider those too, but they don't help me now.

Comment: Re:Pretty Much. (Score 1) 387

by codealot (#46231519) Attached to: Ohio Attempting To Stop Tesla From Selling Cars, Again

You're talking about the party that screams about deficits and the federal debt when they do not control the white house, yet passes measures that raise the deficit when they are in power.

Thinking logically won't help you understand politics. Here are the rough priorities of the GOP party (and Dems for that matter):

- Tell voters whatever it takes to get (re)elected,
- Promote legislation that satisfies their campaign contributors (i.e. big business),
- Do whatever it takes to block the other party from getting elected (into *any* office).

Do these priorities sometimes conflict? Sure. Is that a problem? Only if you make it a problem. You see?

User hostile.