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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment with so many people responding so strongly... (Score 2) 597

I'm buying a massive house that is 1/3 the price it should be (ie, very good shape structurally, but is still half the price of per/square of "poor" quality; very high quality home, just hasn't been remodeled in many decades. Brand new roof though...heh). I'll be removing most of the sheetrock and replacing half of the wiring already, and am installing solar. I can't find a solar company that seems comfortable with DC circuits, low-voltage or otherwise. Coming off the solar it will be already DC; converting from DC to AC just to convert back to DC is likely why they claim the 20-40% loss - you're not losing in conversion just once, right? So then I just need some sort of power stabilizing factor - such as running through a battery or whatnot - thus why I clicked on this article at all. Any already know of a good book or resource with which I could inform myself before spending a good deal of money?

Comment Re:Parent is, sadly, correct (Score 1) 208

I've personally never understood the "why don't they do something about the..." argument. Why didn't white westerners stop Timothy McVeigh from happening? Why didn't white westerners stop Hitler from happening? Ok, have to stop asking why, I Godwin'd...but seriously, one has to have a very myopic view of the world to think/say something like that.

Comment Re:Java is done (Score 3, Interesting) 223

Sun was flush with cash at the time of the acquisition, and also had a great deal of solid IP and customer faith. Solaris prior to Oracle was *the* most solid OS available in my opinion, and sparcs were always great for their target audience. Sun's only problem is the market became too commodity - fabbers need to make billions of chips now to stay competitive, and that just wasn't possible. But Sun had paths forward to fix these things - they were actually on the right road already, imo - forming ties with AMD, coming up with a way to keep their core but become commodity, by giving AMD access to high tech they needed. A road that Oracle took them off - Sun would be just fine today if Oracle hadn't bought them.

Comment power users? (Score 1) 344

"move on to something else as they become power users?" - huh? Isn't iPhone's thing that it's supposed to "just work" with everything, with no effort? Isn't android's thing supposed to be that it's a lot more hands-on? I don't think I've ever seen someone try to suggest that the iPhone appeals more to "power users" - hell, androids come with the debug/developer mode, not iPhone (press version info 7 times).

Also, as others have mentioned - android has 78% of the market share, iOS has 18.3%. That means 95.5% of the people who have a phone that isn't an iPhone, have an android. So yeah, of farking course those who "switch to" iPhone will have an android, by "majority." That he couldn't say "almost every single person who switches" instead of merely "majority" means either the switch is actually telling, but *bad* for iPhone, or it means he didn't take advantage of the sensational non-statement he could have made.

Comment Re:Parent is, sadly, correct (Score 2) 208

"Seriously I am living in Islamic country right now. (snip) I couldnt understand how any sane person knowing the alternatives would want this."

You're saying you know the alternatives, you're saying someone who chooses to live there knowing the alternatives isn't sane, and you're saying you live there. So, you're saying you're not sane...right? And if so, why should I take your word on the rest of it?

Comment agile works great^H^H^H^H^Hcheaply for... (Score 1) 507

Agile works cheaply for software which is a relative island onto itself; facebook, google stuff, etc - where you have to meet a standard for a web client, but where otherwise you can publish API versions and allow people to continue to use previous versions, but that nothing is really built /on/ your product. It works horribly for anything which has to work with anything else which might change (yes, standards change....slowly). Operating systems, libraries, etc - when a core principle is to ignore documentation or any group other than the engineers themselves (including clients) then yeah - works well for islands, not things which are parts to a larger puzzle.

Comment Re: who cares? Me. (Score 1) 154

do you really not see a difference between someone internally testing their own software only they use, and then releasing their software to themselves...and someone doing the same method for OS platforms *other people* use? Even updates to AWS maintain (or attempt to) availability of the different versions of methods; you call it the old way versus the new way (trying to not say backwards compatibility, when it's just a RESTFUL API...)

Comment Re:WindOwS X (Score 1) 154

why in the world would that be scary? There aren't rolling releases. OSX simply became the brand/platform name, same as "Windows" is. If you want to be technical, SunOS 5.0 came out in 1992, and we're still now on 5.11 23 years later. OSX currently has 4 supported versions - 10.7 - 10.11. 10.6 was supported still until a couple months ago, which meant they had 5 versions at that point.

Comment who cares? Me. (Score 5, Insightful) 154

Responsible software should have a released branch that has only bug fixes, and then other versions for new features. Otherwise, how the fark can one use your software for certified products? How can someone do a risk analysis on something as a platform, when it might change daily? Feature changes should not be casually thrown in. Yes, mozilla stupidly did this - but most software does not, and should not. Fortunately in the case of Firefox, it's not used as a /platform/, it's used as a client, so as long as the previous features still work the same it's not as big of a deal. Something as core as the OS itself though? Do you really want device manufacturers to stop using your product? Yes we get it - hire the cheapest (h1b) workers you can, and reduce down to having a single branch - since what made you a massive company seems to not be something you want to do anymore, and you'd prefer to act like a tiny hole in the wall shop.

Comment certifications? Data security? (Score 2) 199

Do none of these folks care about certifications? It's already hard enough to get Windows reasonably secure yet still have software work on it. When you get X certified, you certify it to work in Y situation. The stupid rolling release crap makes that impossible. "Fast" versus "slow?" How about "give me security updates to product X which is certified" versus "give me features and major backend changes in the same stream as the security updates." Yes, it makes it cheaper for the company to wrap everything up together - means they only maintain a single branch. Yay Mozilla for unleashing that laziness upon the world.

Comment Re:This again? (Score 1) 480

again, we can have a very good grasp on *what* without having a grasp on *why*, as in the example I gave: gravity. We use it as a law, it's an accepted thing in nearly any super-particle physics, yet we don't really know *why* it works. And again, as soon as we know *why* something works, that's the last paper that will ever need to be written on the subject. Every paper should explain how to repeat the experiment, with observations about the experiment. You're demanding of this paper something few - if any - papers in the history of science has ever attempted to accomplish.

Comment Re:This again? (Score 1) 480

"If I were to peer-review a paper on this, I would insist on a plausible physical explanation for the claimed measurement." That's stupid. Providing proof that something interesting is happening and repeatable is viable science all on its own. I've read quite a lot of highly-respected papers from highly-respected people in highly-respected journals which did nothing other than document a pattern of behavior without explanation. In fact, most scientists I know will say they rarely ever really think they know *why* something happened, but that doesn't stop them from wanting to know. Some things get thousands of perfectly cromulent papers written prior to anyone really having a firm grasp on the "why" - hell, if you have the "why" then you probably have the last paper that will ever need to be written on the subject. Even farking *gravity* is still a bit of a mystery. We're pretty good on exactly *how* it works, but the *why* that you insist is necessary, for even something we all pretend to understand, isn't really yet known.

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...