Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So much nonsense in terms (Score 1) 74

by plover (#46785689) Attached to: Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops

LED lamps do not put out nearly as much heat as High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamps. I have a (disconnected) 400W HPS that I could easily have cooked on the top of the reflector, and probably broiled meat directly beneath it. I replaced it with a 144W LED floodlamp, and now I can hold the operating heat sink in my hand; the glass lens pane on the bottom is at room temperature. I am no longer concerned about fire safety in my house.

One major difference, though, is I'm growing orchids, which require far less light than cannabis. I need only two 144W LED floodlamps to illuminate a 72 square foot area. The pot growers will cram as many 400 W lamps in a grow operation as they can, sometimes a dozen or more in a single small room, whatever they can draw from the circuit breaker panel. They'll keep a large external vent fan running year round, including the dead of winter, to keep the room from igniting.

If I were to grow pot, I'm sure I'd need a lot more light fixtures, but even a dozen LED lamps in the same room probably wouldn't risk burning my house down.

Comment: Left-Wing Propoganda (Score 1) 74

by SuperKendall (#46785639) Attached to: Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops

the Colorado Government is already at it with their right wing propaganda

Colorado is (narrowly) governed by the Democrats, not right wing. The Democratic governor is trying to slow down states from legalizing, despite it being a roaring success for everyone.

In fact what you'll find these days, is that most right-wing people lean libertarian - which is exactly why the people of Colorado (who lead independent/to the right) were perfectly fine legalizing something so many people did all the time anyway.

Look to the Democrats to shut it down... They are the ones that need the massive funds the government gets from the war on drugs to help fund lots of other progressive measures.

Comment: Can have trippy cake and eat it too (Score 1) 74

by SuperKendall (#46785619) Attached to: Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops

You can easily legalize MJ and continue your money-generatin war on all the other drugs. It's like a token gesture to the people to make them think the government has given them something, while at the same time pacifying them even further. Win/Win (for the government).

Comment: Re:Enh as much as I dislike Oracle... (Score 1) 76

by plover (#46785595) Attached to: Oracle Deflects Blame For Troubled Oregon Health Care Site

Oracle consultants were in the midst of the mess, they saw the failings, they repeatedly reported to the state that the project was going off the rails, and yet they still managed to cash their paychecks.

Had the consultants actually threatened them with "either you hire a professional to do the systems integration or we're off the job," and had they then removed themselves from the failing project, they'd be 100% blameless. But they didn't walk away, they just wrote some CYA memos and collected their money.

Oracle gets to take as much blame as anyone for their mess.

Comment: Republicans do help - directly (Score 1) 312

The US is allegedly a rich country, that your government chooses not to help is the problem.

We choose not to have the government help much, because government is inherently wasteful.

Instead many Americans donate money to charitable organizations that waste far less of the money, so more people obtain help... America by far has the highest rate of donation to charity.

I've always wondered how god-fearing republicans can choose to not the help poor people

That's where you are utterly, terribly wrong - I am an independent, and do not attend church. But I know a lot of "god-fearing republicans" that donate a large amount of charity, plus every church I've every know has lots of missionary work they do to help the poor.

In fact if you look at statistics you'll find that Republicans donate quite a lot more (on average thousands more) than Democrats do - because like you they don't really care about helping the poor, they just want to feel like they are.

Comment: Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 275

by plover (#46783623) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: System Administrator Vs Change Advisory Board

Hes not saying "dont do that", hes saying "dont be an obnoxious obstacle when this stuff comes up." Tell them theyre doing it wrong, if they insist, fulfill the request to the best of your ability, and make sure you have records of where you told them they were doing it wrong.

That would be fine if it were true, and if it were the end of it. But it's not. The enablers take over. If the bad ideas aren't stopped early by facts, their owners proceed down whatever path they've concocted, and the further they get without objection the more convinced they are that it's the correct path. An enabler will not tell them they're on the wrong path; or they'll say it once, but never correct them again for fear of losing their job (only a blocker says "you're still on the wrong path".) Without honest feedback about the mistakes being made, you can go a long way before realizing that you've led yourself astray.

One big problem is the belief that all problems can be stopped by governance processes. Therefore, all these processes are designed to be a form of change prevention. The idea is that by preventing incorrect changes, you avoid risk. But a process cannot distinguish between an incorrect change and a valuable change until after it has executed, so it must slow them all down equally. A process also handles the unknown poorly - it is designed to handle only certain changes, and everything else is awkward or not streamlined.

Change approval processes also encourage lies. When someone has to get a change through a process, they will tick whichever checkboxes will get them through the process with the least amount of effort, struggle, or paperwork; they will not voluntarily tick the box that ensures a microscopic review of their change, even when it may be appropriate.

Worse than all of the above, governance processes are hugely inefficient in that they're after the fact: create a large pile of changes, try to deploy it, then wait around days, or weeks to learn only then that the changes aren't approved. The feedback from governance is so late that the developer has long moved on to other tasks. Stakeholders get their changes in months instead of minutes.

Another sign the process is off the rails is if the disapproval is issued due to failure to follow the process, not with problems in the task being attempted. Too many failing processes leads further around the vicious cycle of process 'improvement', that then creates a process to follow the process, inserting delays into the delays. (Yo, dawg, I heard you like process, so I put process in your process...)

If you ever want to read a story about how bad process can get in the real world, read Red Plenty by Francis Spufford. He tells an interesting tale of just how far the Soviet Union's bureaucracy went, including goofiness such as one process that valued a machine by weight. The more modern machine that doubled production weighed less than the older machine it replaced, therefore the older machine was more valuable, and the budget rules that ensured progress did not permit replacing a more expensive machine with a cheaper machine.

Instead of after-the fact governance process, strive for continual, automated testing, starting with Test Driven Development. Have a repeatable method for delivering products that have quality built in from their very design. Once you've established the trust, you can minimize the processes. Something else valuable is a fail-forward philosophy: if you acknowledge that bugs will happen no matter what ("Failure is always an option"), you can often survive by putting in place the ability to recover from defects within minutes by being able to push out new patches. So instead of trying to avoid all risk by using a big process, you can get away with minimal process by accepting a little risk. This is a great approach because everything moves fast, especially the delivery of benefits.

Comment: Re:The Real Breakthrough - non auto-maker Maps (Score 1) 192

by SuperKendall (#46783315) Attached to: How Apple's CarPlay Could Shore Up the Car Stereo Industry

First of all, sorry about your not closing the quoting tag you used. I do that sometimes, and it's so sad to see all your hard work obscured under an italic fog... so I thought I would at least respond in detail to help make up for it.

The charging point you make is a great one. There are some powered mounts that you can plug a phone into, but they require more work to fit... I prefer a general mount you can use with separate power so that as I change phones I can maintain the same mount.

A really excellent non powered mount is the FlexPod, if a model exists for your car... it's very sturdy and is not obtrusive when not in use.

If notifications are an issue you can usually set the phone to something like Do Not Disturb mode. But I've never had that really cause issues.

Now about the Garmin device giving great directions - that may be true, dedicated devices have had a while to build good nav systems. I personally use Apple Maps and find the navigation for that works pretty well, it also gives land guidance... (it was better than Google Maps for navigation from Day One).

But, there also exists a Garmin dedicated app with offline maps. You get all of the Garmin benefits you detailed, only it's easier to update,

And you can switch to Waze when not needing navigation (I totally agree with you about Waze navigation not working very well). As you say, nothing beats the Waze Police/Hazard alerts.

Comment: Re:Too poor (Score 2) 162

by rbanzai (#46781639) Attached to: I expect to retire ...

I always put the maximum I could into a 401k, but most of the low-end jobs I had early on didn't offer one, and later on I was chronically underemployed. I only buy economy cars and keep them at least 10 years. I've never taken a vacation, buy no luxury items (Ex; jewelry, high end gadgets, etc.) I've gone through two recessions/depressions, and now I'm at the age where career prospects only go downward if you haven't made it to C level.

So... yes, you can blame my poor prospects for retirement entirely on my inability to earn lots of money, but not on managing my money. It's not magical: if you don't earn enough money you aren't going to be able to retire.

Comment: Re:Snowden never had integrity (Score 1, Interesting) 345

Contrast these two statements:

A) Someone somewhere in the city would like to harm you.

B) Your neighbor Bob plans to throw five Molotov cocktails now in his garage through several of your windows tonight at 2:00 AM and shoot your family as they come screaming out the door.

Do you think there is a useful difference in specificity there? Details matter. The claim that the terrorists "just knew already" is bullshit and a whitewash. Terrorist groups have changed their communication methods since Snowden's leaks and intelligence has been lost because of it.

Comment: Re:Useful Idiot (Score 0, Troll) 345

Really? What legal measures could he have tried while remaining in the US?

He could have gone to Congress. Maybe you aren't aware of it, but under the US Constitution the Congress has special powers that are quite useful in situations like this.

He would have been arrested faster than SSD read times, and never heard from again for "national security" reasons.

Not if he had gone to Congress, no.

The government's first response was to label him a traitor

He stole ~ 1.7 million highly classified intelligence documents, fled the country, and started leaking them to whomever wanted a copy - at least as far as we have direct proof. He could have covertly done far worse. The description doesn't seem unreasonable.

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Working...