Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Just convert a shipping container (Score 1) 164

It apparently fits in a shipping container but that raises the question of why not just convert the shipping container to living space?

Tempohousing does this.

There was an article about the Danish branch planning to sell a full stackable student-sized apartment with shower and kitchen. I think the price tag was around 40-50k USD for one. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the name of the company

Comment Re:So much wrong with this (Score 1) 458

The "purer" a democracy, the shorter the time until that system of government collapses. This happens precisely because people will cheerfully vote to give themselves other people's property.

[Citation needed]

Not destroy America, just destroy American prosperity. You know, like Greece. Or Detroit.

Ah, so the prosperity of Greece was destroyed because they had a well-functioning democracy?

Comment Re:Good for experiments, not powerplant ready (Score 1) 337

There are a number of very safe and practical designs for nuclear power today, it's just impossible to get a permit to actually build one because the environmentalists won't let that happen..

[Citation needed]

I'm no expert on nuclear, but it's usually the price that's the real problem. The plants are just too damn expensive to build. This goes for old and tested designs, and no least for new, safer, untested ones.

Comment Re:It is what it is (Score 1) 332

The problem being that if the full extent of Japan's crimes in Asia before and during the war were known, people would be Sking why ten bombs weren't dropped.

So you are saying that the civilians, men, women and children, who died deserved it?

I think the same kind of reasoning is used in some parts of the world to conclude that the victims of 9/11 deserved what happened to them.

Comment Re:Brilliant! (Score 1) 465

And if there were really that much of a business case for a US to China railway connection, the same case could be argued for a China to Europe railway connection,which already exists.

It's my understanding that while this exists, it's not really terribly useful, and that China is already building new tracks, going so far as as to finance the parts going through poor nations. It's not easy to find much online on this, but here are one discussion and another.

Comment False assumptions (Score 1) 7

I'm sorry, couldn't comment on your previous journal entries, but I think you're maybe going about this with a false set of assumptions.

For instance, regarding portability, you have apparently missed the part where Lennart explained that he's previously written portable software (e.g. PulseAudio) and that he knows about the tradeoffs. Maybe you think of the tradeoff differently, but it wasn't you who had to implement it so that's sort of a moot point.

Regarding GNOME's use of logind, you have to remember that ConsoleKit was dead. Instead systemd showed up with manpower and momentum. This is actually common theme among many of the small utilities bundled with systemd.

Regarding depending directly on DBUS instead of separating the communication mechanism from the API, I think your false assumption is that anyone in the desktop landscape would really prefer that to DBUS. The sole purpose of DBUS is to allow APIs to be developed between separate processes. And there's a real cost to adding abstraction layers of fat.

Regarding logind and systemd, you seem to start from the assumption that logind shouldn't depend on systemd. As far as I'm aware, apart from the small start up notification library (and perhaps udev), the systemd stuff isn't really intended to be run separately?

Personally I'd like to see competitors to systemd form, but I really think the value in collecting and maintaining a bunch of low-level utils necessary for getting a Linux system up and running to the point where you can run interesting stuff (i.e. applications) is under-appreciated.

Comment Re:Who would? (Score 1) 358

I probably would. I don't have a TV, and when I need to find something to watch with my small kids, it's usually on Youtube, e.g. the renowned Lego Police Chase Part 3. The ads are annoying, especially when you have an angry 3-year old, and we've had some long stretches where adblockers don't work (currently they seem to do).

Likewise, with two small children I don't really have the time and energy to play computer games, but I still sometimes watch a let's play - it's easier to just watch an episode or two and then fall asleep. For me, it's a bit like watching a friend play a game, except I can turn it on and off as I wish. :)

I realize for many people, Youtube is mostly a bunch of stupid cat videos, but there are a lot of different niches in there, some of which have high-quality content of a different sort than what you'd find on commercial TV channels. Provided the fee isn't absurd, I wouldn't mind giving something back to the creators.

Comment Do not add anything to the list (Score 1) 298

Code needs to be easy to understand, that's all. You can't keep a long list of priorities in your head, that simply doesn't work at all. Just keep one: easy to understand.

Of course it needs to work, but that's obvious so not really worth stating - testable is part of this obviousness, if you need to test it, and you can't, well, then it doesn't work.

Sometimes code needs to be performant, but often this is only the case for small parts of it, so it's better not to think about it or it will tend to compete with making the code easier to understand.

I'm deliberately using the phrase "easy to understand" and not just talking about readability, because ease of understanding often doesn't not come from just superficial readability tweaks like spacing, consistent styling, self-explanatory naming, etc. Often it may require approaching the problem at hand from a different angle, modeling it slightly differently or otherwise shuffling things around a bit to reduce accidental complexity and avoidable dependencies.

Comment Re:Yes he's right (Score 1) 214

He considered my and their work with "software as a service" to be immoral, because all the software should be directly in their hands.

Well, I'm not RMS but from some of the remarks I've seen from him on mailing lists, it's not just the software but also very much the data. He's against the idea of giving up data to a third-party.

In the light of the Snowden revelations, you have to admit there's some validity to his point.

... nor to discuss the inability of most home users to maintain a robust or secure database

I'm sure his response would be that we should figure out ways to help them do that. There are in fact people working on these kinds of things, e.g. the FreedomBox project. It's of course a much harder engineering challenge than a controlled server-based solution where the service provider can monitor stuff and fix problems directly.

Comment Re:Ain't freedom a bitch... (Score 3, Interesting) 551

So why is he complaining here?

He's complaining because this is about GCC.

AFAICT, he's seen in the past that GCC can be used as a tool to make hardware vendors open up their platforms because writing a new compiler is just too damn difficult compared to getting support into GCC, and the latter required distributing the source under the GPL.

With LLVM, that kind of hardware vendors can keep their source code to themselves.

Thus he sees LLVM as a threat in the long term.

I think most people in the Emacs community understand his point, but disagree that adding support to Emacs will change anything. LLVM will thrive whether Emacs supports it or not.

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Working...