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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Upstart or Systemd? (Score 1) 457

by geoskd (#49548033) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

Sure, there's a good reason. It makes things a lot easier for *them*.

By definition, "they" have to solve all of the same problems you do, and the same problems eevryone else has to who uses it. They have the same learning curve that you do, only they have the challenge of going first, before there are 10 billions hits on google explaining how to fix xyz idiosyncrasy. "They" did not make this decision lightly, as it means just as much work for them as it does for everyone else. "They" made the decision because it was the right decision. There are far too many people I have run into who claim to be Linux zealots who cant handle the DIY aspect of the system. If it bothers you that much, do what I do. wait a while before adopting the latest release. Give them a few months to work out the cruft, and establish all the how-tos for some of the more obscure stuff. In short, let the early adopters do the heavy lifting, and then enjoy the benefits that systemd does provide. Let the people who enjoy being on the bleeding edge do what they do best. In the end, if all the init systems had shown up on the scene at the same time, systemd would have won out hands down. I have seen two arguments against systemd. The first is that it doesn't do XYZ. This *always* turns out to be that it *does* do XYZ, the complainer just didn't know how to find what they were looking for because it had moved from the place they were used to looking for it. The second complaint is that systemd is new, and will have bugs. By that argument, we should have stopped making technological improvements with the invention of the wheel because any new technology will have bugs.

Comment: Re: Affirmative action crap (Score 2) 337

by geoskd (#49542401) Attached to: Median Age At Google Is 29, Says Age Discrimination Lawsuit

but it is not a logical conclusion.

The conclusion is perfectly logical. Google Hires H1B visa employees in one of the largest quantities of any American company. Given that the stated purpose of H1B visas is to fill jobs that Americans cannot otherwise fill, Google is implying that there are not enough qualified American workers to fill the job openings.

As a general principle the older people get, the more experienced they become (ergo the more qualified they become). If Google were willing to do what is necessary to fill positions, then it stands to reason that they would offer more money to get more experienced programmers (ergo older ones). Instead, their demographic shows that they have fewer older more experienced programmers. This means that Google is having trouble attracting enough qualified applicants. Given Googles reputation as an excellent place to work, it is difficult to imagine that they can't get enough qualified applicants, which would include all demographics, unless they are causing older qualified applicants not to apply, or they are rejecting those applications. Given that Google has stated that they do not have enough qualified applicants and that they need to hire H1B visas, they are either lying about needing the H1B visas, they are preventing otherwise qualified older applicants from even applying for jobs, or they are discriminating by causing the application process to dissuade older applicants.

All three of those possibilities are immoral, and at least one of them is illegal...

Statistics don't lie. By itself the statistics are circumstantial. Taken in concert with other facts, the statistics are damning...

Comment: Re:Affirmative action crap (Score 3, Insightful) 337

by geoskd (#49541885) Attached to: Median Age At Google Is 29, Says Age Discrimination Lawsuit

There is no evidence of age discrimination. Period. It just so happens that younger people are more likely to be competent in newer languages, fads, etc. Affirmative action is called for by whiners as an excuse to employ more people from their age/race/gender group, even when it [usually] means hiring less qualified people. Its the old "equal outcomes" plight. This is the land of equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. People vary in their competencies. The affirmative action whiners are really advocating for discriminating against the most qualified in order to get a selfish chance for themselves. Stop it.

Google is at the forefront of H1B hiring. Their executives have been part of the Cabal calling for more H1B's. The fact that they have an artificially low Median (and presumably mean) age workforce, coupled with the fact that they are actively seeking H1B's (ostensibly because they cant find American talent) speaks for itself. Google is not only engaging in age discrimination, they are actively working to undercut wages by bringing in foreign workers. Their application process itself is freakishly well engineered to weed out those persons who do not have massive amounts of free time to burn, thus limiting their applicant pool to younger people (And lower cost) people. This is not accidental.

If Google really wanted to find US talent, they could fill their ranks from within the aging US workforce that had to take early retirement because of the age discrimination, and they wouldn't even put a dent in the unemployment rate.

Comment: Re:So let me get this straight (Score 1) 676

by geoskd (#49540571) Attached to: Except For Millennials, Most Americans Dislike Snowden

No? Oh, they looked at my email. Who the fuck cares? My ISP probably does that five times a day. There's more threat from some pimply faced kid stealing nudes from some celebrity than the government coming to tell me to stop reading the New Republic.

I care. I care because letting our government do that unchecked is *dangerous*. By itself, it is not a big deal. By itself, eliminating the right to bear arms seems to be good for general public welfare. By itself, the right to free speech causes almost as much harm as good (Think guy yelling fire in a crowded theatre ).

When it starts getting interesting (and by interesting, I mean "oh god, oh god, we're all going to die."), is when the government acquires the authority to tell people what they can and cannot say. Then they take away the right to bear arms. Then they start surveillance on every citizen. Now we have a government to be terrified of because those in power can effectively put an end to rivals by just throwing them in jail, and without weapons, we have no good way of getting our country back from the douchebags.

Quick question for you: What do you call one group of people with military grade weapons fighting against another group of people with knives?

The only thing protecting us from our government is our ability to remove absolutely anyone from that government. There is no government employee or elected official who can protect themselves from the will of the people. The only thing guaranteeing that power is the bill of rights. When we allow them to trample on it, we grant them another sliver of power that will cost us in blood later on.

Comment: Re:Hype pain (Score 1) 75

by geoskd (#49506843) Attached to: Rocket Lab Unveils "Electric" Rocket Engine

I meant the piping and pumping and internal structure required inside of the motor to get the heat exchange. You can't just dunk the motor inside of a pool of LOX and expect it to work, because the LOX will add friction, reducing power, and surface-to-volume means internal parts not in contact with it will overheat regardless.

You can in fact just "dunk" the rotor in LOX. Its actually the standard practice in most liquid pumping systems to have the rotor in the fluid. Using AC Induction, this works quite well. You have to seal the rotor against LOX (A bit more difficult than water, but both are tremendously corrosive, so this is pretty well understood).

They have not made the rocket. They have made some prototypes of the engines and have nice drawings on their website. But as far as flying hardware, it's a pipe dream so far.

They have made the motor. It performs to their specifications. The rest is pretty straight forward, Keep the drag down, keep the weight down. If the motor performs to the spec they were looking for then it is a successful engine. The next hardest part is controlling the rocket, which is going to be a damn sight easier with electric fuel pumps (Think fuel injection for your car, same principle).

Now if we had batteries with an order of magnitude more energy density, it'd be an open and shut case. But until such time, it's simply a compromise between performance and cost.

From reading a bit further, they are in fact using batteries. They are not using *rechargeable* batteries. They are using what are called primary batteries (like the C or D size ones you can get at the grocery store.) The difference between rechargeable and "primary" batteries is in fact about an order of magnitude higher energy density than rechargeable. If properly cooled, have monumental power density. They are also a lot cheaper if the whole thing is a one shot deal.

Comment: Re:Hype pain (Score 4, Insightful) 75

by geoskd (#49502317) Attached to: Rocket Lab Unveils "Electric" Rocket Engine

Then add on the cryo equipment

There is no cryo equipment. You dont need it. You're sitting on a mountain of Liquid O2... Instant refrigeration.

If by "fuel cell" you mean hydrogen fuel cell

No, I mean a kerosene Fuel Cell, or whatever your primary fuel for the rocket is. The membrane for the Fuel Cell takes up some significant room, but weighs next to nothing. If you dont have to cram 500 m^2 into a 20cm x 20cm x20cm box, its much much cheaper.

I hope you meant 50HP, otherwise it'd be just silly (>260kg at 1MW assuming linear scaling).

No, I meant 5 HP. This was a long time ago when an off the shelf MW electric motor weighed more than a luxury sedan. The point was, even then, you could get order of magnitude performance improvements out of cryogenically cooling electric motors.

At the end of the day, These folks have *made* an electric pump driven rocket. That pretty much means you've made one or more bad assumptions with your original post. The weight of the electric fuel pump vs the turbo pump driven unit is obviously at least comparable, Likely tipped in favor of the electric. I suspect its an offshoot of the idiotic public bias against electric drive vs ICE for passenger vehicles. People have been normalized for 100 years to the idea that electric motors are under-powered. The reality is far far different.

Comment: Re:Hype pain (Score 4, Insightful) 75

by geoskd (#49501815) Attached to: Rocket Lab Unveils "Electric" Rocket Engine

comparable DC electric motor would probably weigh in at close 2x

Not even close. The part you missed was the ready supply of cryogenics. The limiting factors on electric motor size are a result of two key effects. Thsi first is mechanical strength. This limitation will be roughly the same for both Turbo pumps and Electric pumps. The turbo pumps in existence today are near this limitation. The second effect is heat dissipation. All motors have to dissipate a significant amount of heat. The more they can dissipate, the more power they can draw. Electric motors have a tremendous advantage in that respect as they produce far less waste heat than other motor types. The ones you looked at on wikipedia are all dissipation limited designs. Given a rockets ready supply of cryogenic fuel, far more heat can be drawn off a given size of electric motor. This means that we can pump far more power through it, in fact the new limiting factor in this application would be mechanical strength instead of the traditional dissipation limit. End of the day, I would be surprised if the motors they have are not producing close to 50 HP / Kg. I have personally seen a 5 HP cryogenic motor that weighed about 300 grams.

Also, you'd be crazy to use Li-ion batteries. You already have an awesome fuel supply, it would make far more sense to use a fuel cell. Expensive yes, but the reduced weight of the launch vehicle is worth it.

Comment: Re:Who wears a watch these days (Score 1) 290

by geoskd (#49465345) Attached to: Report: Apple Watch Preorders Almost 1 Million On First Day In the US

Yes, but if they flip 1 million watches, Apple has still sold 1 million watches.

The first million are the lowest profit margin. Just ask Balmer how that works, and He'll tell you all about the Surface Pro...

Its the second through 10th million where the real profits are. If apple builds two million, and never sells the second million, they take a bath, write them off and walk away a billion poorer ( and wiser ).

I'm torn. I can genuinely appreciate Apple's ability to see use cases that I can't / haven't, but I'm curious to see how people plan to use these that will make them that popular. I personally think its more likely to be the scalpers that are trying to make a quick buck on the assumption that the demand will far outstrip the supply (the way it usually does for apple product launches). If that’s the case, I'll have little sympathy for either Apple or the scalpers. If its not, then I will congratulate Apple on its first post Jobs success.

Comment: Re:Smartphones can be quite awkward (Score 1) 290

by geoskd (#49465311) Attached to: Report: Apple Watch Preorders Almost 1 Million On First Day In the US

Except more portable and weatherproof.

I was at an indoor water park today, and there were more than a few smart phones in the waters today. I was genuinely surprised, but I guess it is an important enough use case that manufacturers would want them to be reasonably dunk proof. (Wouldn’t dare pull that stunt with my iPhone though...)

Comment: Re: Everyone loves taxes (Score 2) 173

Microsoft is paying for a *LOT*--just via employees rather than corporate taxes. The benefits to Washington State from having MSFT located there are massive.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Most Washington state business are local to the state meaning they have to pay income taxes, sales taxes, etc. The residents are similarly burdened. Then there is Microsoft who is located there, but pays close to zero income tax, almost no sales tax. It unjustly transfers the burdens from Microsoft to those smaller entities who cannot duck the taxes because they are not large enough. The reality is that the benefits that Microsoft brings to Washington state per capita are much much smaller than those brought by almost every other business in the state. Its not like Microsoft is moving that wealth to another state either, they are simply transferring that wealth to the shareholders. Its yet another variant on trickle down (voodoo, or doodoo if you prefer) economics. Our world needs a unified tax code that applies evenly to everyone. No loopholes, no dodges. Everyone pays their share no matter how the company / individuals lives.

My suggestion would be for the united states to make it simple. If you sell one product in the United states, you will pay US tax rates on your income. Period. If you have paid taxes somewhere else, you can deduct that amount from the amount you owe the US, but you cannot dodge paying those taxes somewhere. If a company doesn't like it, they are free to not sell products in the United states...

Similar rules should be made for state taxes, otherwise you get situations like Washington state where they are getting fleeced and don't even realize it.

Comment: Re: Everyone loves taxes (Score 1) 173

I'm pretty sure that isn't unique to government agencies.

These days it pretty much is. Executive types got wise to the scan years ago and started watching expense accounts. The promote from within concept helps fight this as well, since managers come up through the ranks, they have a pretty good idea where the graft is, so they know what they can safely cut.

We don't really understand it, so we'll give it to the programmers.

Working...