Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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: Re:Help me out here a little... (Score 1) 493

by paulpach (#49506799) Attached to: Utilities Battle Homeowners Over Solar Power

One part of the problem is NOT going to go away however - they have to pay to maintain the lines. Right now, that cost if covered by your electric bills. As the amount of electricity you draw from their generators goes down, they're going to reach the point of needing to charge you a flat fee just for the connection to the power lines, plus the usual fees for actually using their electricity.

If government did it, it would be extremely inefficient like all government services. We would all pay for power lines even if we don't use them via taxes (unfair), plus it would be run by political interests rather than economical ones.

Yes, it needs to be economical for someone to build and maintain a powerline, otherwise nobody would do it.

But this has an easy solution: Suppose you own the power lines, all you have to do is sell electricity at one price, and buy it back at a cheaper price call it the "bid" and "ask". The difference would be used to cover power line maintenance and new constructions. You would simply spend less in producing electricity and let users produce it for you. You are essentially getting paid to move electricity from one house to another.

What happens if too many people have solar and you have a surplus of electricity? you would lower the cost of the electricity. The cheaper your electricity is, the less people will install solar panels. You can keep the system balanced with no surpluses or shortages simply by adjusting the prices of electricity.

Comment: Re:IE7 was supposed to be standards-compliant... (Score 1) 166

by paulpach (#49146667) Attached to: Microsoft's Goals For Their New Web Rendering Engine

It's the same every time. They acknowledge that the previous browser wasn't standards-compliant after all, and promise the one they are now working on is.

And it payed off no? as a professional web developer I very pleased with how much better IE10 is over IE6 in terms of standards compliance.
If anything, they have been accelerating the rate of adoption of standards.

Comment: Re:just ban it (Score 1) 365

by paulpach (#49057309) Attached to: Smoking Is Even Deadlier Than Previously Thought

If it is so bad then why not ban tobacco?

Because we as free individual should make that choice for ourselves. We do not need a nanny to tell us that smoking is bad and put us in jail for doing something that does not hurt other people. It did not work for alcohol in the 30's, it is not working for Marijuana today, and it is sure not going to work for tobacco.

Comment: Re:Is semver too simplistic for kernels? (Score 1) 199

by paulpach (#49050317) Attached to: Torvalds Polls Desire for Linux's Next Major Version Bump

I would argue for adding an extra decimal point: W.X.Y.Z

We did at some point, but users were not able to remember the full version number. People already have trouble sometimes remembering 3 numbers. They start telling you things like "I have the latest version", which they often don't, or confusing 10.0.1 with 10.1.0. 4 numbers makes the situation much worse.

Why is this important? because when someone sends you a bug report, you want to know exactly what version they are using. You may or may not have fixed the bug already, so having accurate version numbers matter.

Comment: Re:Is semver too simplistic for kernels? (Score 1) 199

by paulpach (#49050243) Attached to: Torvalds Polls Desire for Linux's Next Major Version Bump

I'll be damned, I did not know this was a thing, I just came up with something that was logical, and served to communicate with user the nature of the release.

And you are right, this is not semver. I don't do backward incompatible changes, so the major number would never change thus the major number as specified in semver is useless for me. Nice to see it is pretty close though.

Comment: Re:Is semver too simplistic for kernels? (Score 2) 199

by paulpach (#49046829) Attached to: Torvalds Polls Desire for Linux's Next Major Version Bump

I adopted a convention for my software: x.y.z

"x" changes if there are some major features or change how the software works.
"y" changes if there are some new features.
"z" changes if there are only bug fixes.

Keeps it simple, easy to remember, and users reacted very well to it since they can immediately tell how big of a release it is.

Comment: Re:Torvalds is half right (Score 1) 449

by paulpach (#48717953) Attached to: How We'll Program 1000 Cores - and Get Linus Ranting, Again

But I have to take issue of Linus tone in which he downplays "graphics" as being a rather unimportant subset of computing tasks. It's not "graphics". It's "GRAPHICS". That's not a small outlier of a task. Wait until we're all wearing ninth generation Oculus headsets... the trajectory of parallel processing requirements for graphics is already becoming clear -- and it's stratospheric. The issue is this: Our desktop processing requirements are actually slowing and as Linus points out, are probably ill-suited for increased parallelism. But our graphics requirements may be nearly infinite.

I agree, he dismisses graphics as something a few people do. WTF? in mobile, all the top grossing apps are games. The number 1 thing games do is graphics. If anything, I would argue that graphics is the single most important type of workload in mobile. Gaming (and therefore graphics) might not be quite as big in desktop, but it is still very far from being the niche he pretends it is.

That said, I think he is right that the fast single threaded big CPU's are not going anywhere. The trend for mobile and desktop has been to do graphics and general processing in separate hardware (GPU + CPU), I don't see a reason in sight to change that. Even if they were to be combined in a single chip, it would still be different part of the chip doing the tasks.

Comment: Re:Well duh (Score 1) 420

by paulpach (#48705091) Attached to: The Open Office Is Destroying the Workplace

The "open office" is just cost-reduction masquerading as some sort of innovation.

It's the march towards ever less expenses to allow more profit to funnel to the few.

And the many embrace it. The few have managed to get the many to embrace their own destruction.

It is not as simple as say less space -> more profit. While corporate real state is indeed a cost, it is typically insignificant compared to the opportunity cost in lost productivity, and training costs every time a worker leaves.

As a business you would have to weight:

potential productivity loss due to interruptions
unhappy employees leaving
friction between workers ( I hate listening to my coworker's loud chewing)
lack of privacy may irritate people
lack of personal space may make it hard to "bond" with the job.


potential productivity gains due to improved communication
lack of privacy keep people focused on work
reduced real state costs

I believe this is best worked out on a case by case basis, the different factors have different weight based on the job and the individuals. If a company _only_ looks at real state cost, it just puts itself at a competitive disadvantage.

Comment: Re:Well duh (Score 1) 420

by paulpach (#48704957) Attached to: The Open Office Is Destroying the Workplace

More likely it's managements desire to see the workers, every single minute of the work day. It's a symbol of America's unwillingness to trust the workers.

I got moved to an open office last year (boss cannot see us though). There are things I like and things I dislike about it.

I like that the communication is very fluid. We embraced agile and my team is leading with it. The open office environment goes well with agile, and we are very much working together. This is not about management watching over us, but about communication.


I absolutely hate listening to people eat, chewing loudly with their mouth open or slurping their coffee. It may sound petty, especially depending on your culture, but putting up with it day after day for months really gets under my skin and it makes me hate an otherwise likable person. There is not even an easy way to tell him to stop.

I hate the constant interruption. I do software development, it takes 20-30 minutes to get into flow and really be at the top of my game. If I know I will be interrupted in 30 mins, I tend to avoid complex tasks, because by the time I got it going, I will have to stop.

I don't have enough space for my stuff.

For these reasons, I have requested to be put back in a cube.

Comment: Re:Love that response (Score 2) 73

by paulpach (#48665143) Attached to: Docker Image Insecurity

If you can't dazzle them with your intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit.

1) They have complete lack of image validation
2) Docker prints "Image validated" as part of the pull.

This is just flat out embarrassing, If I was the "lead security engineer" of that, I would actually worry about job stability.
There is not a whole lot he could say that would save face.
And yet, the response is truly terrible. He essentially says "yeap, we knew about it, shipped it anyway, and talked about fixing it"

It does not take a PR genius to figure out a good response. For example: "Thank you for pointing it out, we will have a patch soon" or respond with an actual patch. This is not rocket science, validating a signature properly only takes a few lines of shell script or C code, and has been solved a long time ago by most other package managers.

Comment: tools are better (Score 1) 241

by paulpach (#48584421) Attached to: Is Enterprise IT More Difficult To Manage Now Than Ever?

Perhaps requirements have increased. Your users in your enterprise might demand mobile support and whatnot, but at the same time, the tools are getting better and better.

For example: you need a server? well, it used to take months to get your server in the datacenter up and functional. Now, it is a matter of instantiating a new VM in your private cloud.

The impact is even more dramatic for small companies. Want to make a web application? create an account in azure or amazon or any other cloud provider, and just deploy your app in a few minutes. Email, storage, databases, backups, version control systems, project planning tools, ecommerce sites, you can set any of that stuff up in a few minutes with a few clicks, often for free.

If anything IT, particularly for small businesses, has been simplified to where it is a cheap commodity and just a few clicks away.

Comment: Re:Gridlock is so bad ... (Score 1) 127

by paulpach (#48361663) Attached to: Gridlock In Action: Retailers Demand New Regulations To Protect Consumers

The gridlock has been so bad that the American public has voted to fix it. Yay!

I will gladly take gridlock over the out of control goverments we have had in the last 13 years or so.

If Obama was incapable of passing a single law for the rest of his term, I would be very happy. I wish there was this gridlock when Bush was president pushing for bailouts.

Comment: Would they approve this? (Score 1) 320

by paulpach (#48242087) Attached to: What Will It Take To Make Automated Vehicles Legal In the US?

Suppose you tell the current politicians:

"Hey, I got this great invention, it will improve our transportation 10x, but it will require highly toxic and flammable chemicals to be stored in underground tanks every other block in highly populated areas. It will also cause around 1.3 million deaths per year worldwide, and become the #9 leading cause of death".

How many current politicians would approve this?

That is right, if it was for the current politicians, the car would not exist. We would all be still riding horses, which are even worse for the environment and have a fatality rate of 1 per 10,000 riders.

So I don't hold my breath for current politicians to approve self driving cars, even if 1 person gets killed by a self driving car, politicians will scream "think of the children!" and ban this right away, it will not matter if the fatality rate is even lower than manually driven cars.

Comment: Re:Basic Income (Score 1) 720

So people should starve to death and let the human population shrink to the number of employed people required, eventually to zero? Or are you OK with paying welfare as long as it is sub-livable?

No. I am ok with having charities, which are much better at helping the needed than governments.

The "eventually zero" bit does not make sense, in a free market, the economy grows as people become more productive, accumulate capital, and improve technology, not shrink.
Perhaps you refer to automation taking jobs? As we need less and less labor to produce food, clothing and other necessities, our labor will simply shift to more leisure related jobs. We will spend more on movies, tourism, sports, etc. Instead of working 5 days a week 8 hours each, as productivity improves, we will require smaller shifts, like 2 days 5 hours each. Consider that it used to be 12 hours per day 6 days a week.

Jobs is not a scarce resource, labor is. We will never have enough labor for all the jobs we would like to do, so we must allocate labor to the most productive ones. This is what a free market does best. Only bad laws (like minimum wage) prevent people from finding jobs.

I am definitely not ok paying welfare _ever_.

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android