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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: Actually ULA launches to become more expensive (Score 2) 42

by perpenso (#49362643) Attached to: Taxpayer Subsidies To ULA To End

... SpaceX will become very, very expensive when required to comply with govt contracting law ...

Actually ULA will become much more expensive as they will have to include fixed costs (infrastructure, etc) into their launch pricing. Currently they do not. They seem to have a separate contract purely for infrastructure and other related fixed costs, this contract is separate from launch contracts. Short story: ULA launch contracts don't have to include such costs since they are paid for elsewhere, SpaceX launch contracts includes all such costs and they are still far less expensive.

The USAF got caught cheating to hop on the Musk bandwagon, and the consequences will be very, very expensive.

I think recent news stories demonstrated the opposite, the USAF overstepped its bounds and began dictating design changes and corporate reorganizations.

Comment: Actually ULA gets sweetheart contracts too (Score 4, Insightful) 71

by perpenso (#49356591) Attached to: US Air Force Overstepped In SpaceX Certification

The only difference between the new 'commercial space' guys and Boeing and LM, etc are the rules. How is it fair to the established space industry that was forced to play the government game to lose business because SpaceX doesn't have to.

Actually ULA (boeing, lm, etc) gets sweetheart contracts too. For example their launch contracts don't include fixed costs like launch facilities and many other parts of the "infrastructure". ULA gets a separate contract to pay for all the fixed costs. That may be a good idea to make sure this infrastructure is ready and available independently of what the launch schedule may be but the fact remains that SpaceX includes such infrastructure costs into their launch contracts. And SpaceX launch contracts are still far less expensive than ULA.

Comment: Why SSD in a "do-nothing" PC ? (Score 2) 92

All others are perpetually above $100 which is too expensive for a Facebook wonder do-nothing PC with a pentium 4th edition and 4GB of RAM.

Why use an SSD in such a do-nothing PC? If you can't go with a regular HD try a hybrid SSD-HD. Last I looked a hybrid with 1 TB HD and 8 GB SSD was under $80.

Comment: Re:The linpocalypse is not upon us (Score 1) 362

by perpenso (#49322597) Attached to: OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers

Easily disproven? You're speculating here, not providing actual evidence. You can't disprove something with speculation.

You wrote: "NO ONE wants this. NO CUSTOMER wants this." The capitalization is your emphasis. You assumed the customer is the user, I demonstrated that this is not so. Only one counterexample is necessary to disprove a claim such as yours. The existence of an employer who does not want to let employees disable secureboot is something far beyond speculation. There are already companies out there that try to lock down configuration for security and compliance reasons. I've known people who work in environments where their PCs netboot for such reasons.

Comment: Re:The linpocalypse is not upon us (Score 1) 362

by perpenso (#49322439) Attached to: OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers

But there is every reason to expect that I will no longer be able to choose from all laptops on the market and then just install linux on it like I have been doing for the last 15 years (much easier these days...everything just works TM);

No, there is actually every reason to believe that well funded Linux distros like Red Hat and Ubuntu will work with hardware vendors to make sure they are not locked out.

next year or the year after when I want to upgrade my laptop I will have to spend significantly longer looking to see which vendors supply an unlocked boot loader. If there is one available at all.

Yes, that is annoying. But there is a tradeoff here. Possibly inconveniencing users of smaller Linux distros unable to work with hardware vendors and people who want to compile their system code (been there) versus strengthening security on the Windows boxes used by the overwhelming majority of users. Its not unreasonable for companies who are selling dedicated Windows boxes with no promise of the ability to repurpose as Linux boxes to get on board such a tradeoff.

Are the days of trying a new OS for the weekend gone? (get spare HDD, load OS and test drive for the weekend, back to main OS HDD on Sunday night).

No, run the OS in a VM.

Comment: Re:Stupid. (Score 1) 247

Germany has similar laws already (albeit locally, I believe), and skylights are all over the place. It simply states that the roof area should be covered by plants or solar panels, and not what features the roof can have (such as skylights, water slides, helipads, etc.). Your faux outrage isn't becoming ;)

What outrage? Its a simple question and skylights are recognized as a green technology. If anyone is being faux it is the person equating skylights with water slides.

Comment: Re:So Red Hat and Ubuntu offer signed binaries (Score 1) 362

by perpenso (#49314191) Attached to: OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers

Then the owner places a password protection on the BIOS and that prevents disabling secureboot, if that is their desire.

The owner may prefer not spending the time to do so, it being far more convenient to just buy a factory locked down box. Plus BIOS passwords can be worked around, jumpers, batteries, etc.

Comment: Re:OEMs probably open to other OS vendors ... (Score 1) 362

by perpenso (#49314167) Attached to: OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers

>"The owner may not want to spend the time setting the password"

Freedom has a cost. It is not free, and it is not necessarily convenient.

The real point is that for some owner perspectives the feature is a vulnerability not a freedom.

And using your own logic, freedom has a cost and is not necessarily convenient, that's also true in the sense that people who want the feature would need to do a little research before buying a box or motherboard.

Comment: MacBook Air OK for software development (Score 1) 209

by perpenso (#49314125) Attached to: For Boot Camp Users, New Macs Require Windows 8 Or Newer

... horrible trash that are unusable for anything but email and office productivity software ...

Actually a MacBook Air is just fine for software development. At least for iOS and Android development. For Mac OS and Windows app development it would depend on the app. To be honest I normally use a MacBook Pro but on the road I've occasionally used a colleague's MacBook Air. I was pleasantly surprised. For a couple colleagues it is their normal dev system. External monitors and keyboards/mice used at home and their office; used with internal display, keyboard and trackpad on the road and at client's.

Comment: Wins and fines vs justice (Score 2) 121

by perpenso (#49314041) Attached to: FTC's Internal Memo On Google Teaches Companies a Terrible Lesson
This portion of the gov't does not work on a market model, it works on a revenue generation model. What generates more revenue, having staff go after mega corporations that can afford to defend themselves or much smaller businesses that can not?

So many problem in business and government exist because the incentives/rewards are screwed up. In business school there is a recurring lesson that shows up in many varied topics. You don't get what you ask for. You don't get what everyone agrees is right. You get what you reward. So if you reward a gov't bureaucrat based on win/loss ratio and/or fines generated you will not get justice, you will get wins and fines.

Comment: Myth: Fascism promotes corporations (Score 1) 121

by perpenso (#49313923) Attached to: FTC's Internal Memo On Google Teaches Companies a Terrible Lesson

One step closer to fascism.

I realize it is currently trendy to believe that fascism is somehow related to corporate control but it is not. Fascism is an odd combination of far right *and* far left ideas. With respect to industry its actually socialistic. Fascism promotes control of industry by syndicates of workers *not* control by corporations.

Comment: Time "better spent" going after mom-and-pop (Score 1) 121

by perpenso (#49313885) Attached to: FTC's Internal Memo On Google Teaches Companies a Terrible Lesson
Yes the federal employee will be paid win or lose. But the goal is for the federal employee to generate revenue, to bring in money. Their time is "better spent" going after some mom-and-pop shop that can't afford to defend themselves and will just pay the fine.

... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"

Working...