Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre (Score 1) 203

If they already thought AMD was cheaper, then literally nothing changed.

They didn't think AMD had a lower TCO. But now intel's TCO is going to jump substantially, because they're giving less power. Their claim to fame has long been power efficiency. They no longer have that, because of the reduction in IPC due to mitigation of this complete failure to be responsible in silicon design. Now they will know that AMD is cheaper, when before the situation was muddied by Intel's cheating in silicon.

Your cost analysis ignores a lot of factors; and the actual range is more like 0-35%.

That is horseshit, there have been actual benchmarks showing more than 35%. You're reducing the upper and lower bounds beyond what has been proven in the real world. Stop fellating Intel.

Comment JavaScript NOT the main problem (Score 1) 161

The problem has less to do with the technology and more to do with the fad nature of the web industry

Amen! If JS weren't the main UI langage, something else would be causing similar churn headaches. Java applets were all the rage for a while, then Flash came along with better eye-candy and kicked Java's asslet; and then JS, browsers, and CPU's caught up to Flash, making Flash shrink. Now it's a battle of JS framework of the month.

I've seen PHB's drool over fancy-dancy JS, ignoring warnings about practicality. It's an unstoppable force. Dilbertian dystopia rules the Web.

Comment Re:And maintainability? (Score 1) 161

Very few in the development space or business realize that the true cost of software development is not the initial development, but the long term support.

The UI styles/fads change often, and if it's a public-facing site, you have to keep up with the Joneses to look "in". Frameworks try to separate the UI from the rest of the system so that the UI can change with minimal impact on the rest. The results are mixed since clean separation is pipe dream.

Comment Re:Criminal? (Score 5, Insightful) 310

No, the US does not have laws against convicted criminals from being elected to public office, and it absolutely shouldn't have those laws. The fitness of someone to serve is ultimately determined by the public.

If you block people from being elected (or people from voting) who have committed crimes, you allow unjust laws to ferment unchallenged, and you encourage politicians to pass laws that disproportionately affect their opponents.

Yes, in some cases, that means a murderer or a rapist might be elected. But that's unlikely, I don't see the public supporting the election of a convicted murderer any time soon.

As for Manning? She did what did for the reasons we know. In my view, I'm less bothered about the notion that she violated the law by leaking secret information as I am that she did so impulsively and without care about who she handed that information over to. She's probably a good person, but her lack of care, not the fact she technically violated the law, is a greater concern here.

Comment Re:Warren is right and wrong.... (Score 1) 324

It may not go to zero, but I suspect it'll go very low and have very niche usage. Bitcoin is not scaling. It's hampered by the very features that its designers thought made it more robust - the requirement for a consensus of miners, and the entire mining concept with its implied permanent deflation. It needs major modifications to work, and there's no short term incentive amongst those who control it to agree to those modifications.

I think BTC is best seen as an interesting prototype built by people who knew more about computing than economics. BTC has mindshare at the moment, but that's solely because it was first. If cryptocurrencies take off, it'll probably be a more smartly designed alternative, probably one whose backers and controllers benefit from its viability as a currency above everything else, and who have no incentive to fix the markets.

More likely, we'll continue to use Visa and Mastercard the way we always have done, and forget using intermediate currencies, unless we're doing something illegal.

Comment Re: What did you THINK would happen? (Score 1) 405

By that reasoning, the cop wasn't the murderer either. The guy was killed by a bullet that wasn't even attached to the gun he was holding at the time.

This is the point I keep going back and forth on. But no, your post has clinched it for me. The cop is the murderer. Because the whole point of sending a cop and not a cruise missile or a manhack or a doberman is that he's supposed to be capable of not firing the gun.

Comment Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score 1) 524

There are environmental costs to having those warm bodies sitting around at home all day, consuming fossil fuels and electricity, causing additional pollution with their waste products while they contrbute zero productivity (as opposed to suboptimal, but non-zero productivity by having them carry out 'bullshit make-work').

No. Stop. You have this wholly wrong. It is better for the world if they sit at home and watch American Gladiators than if they go to some bullshit job and do something we don't actually need them to do, which consumes even more energy than staying at home and getting dumber.

If we are to measure the worth of people's existence by their net contribution/cost on the biosphere, do you really want to take this line of logic to its inevitable conclusion?

Yes, because I have actually thought this through, like you clearly haven't. Have you ever read the Mars trilogy? It spends a lot more time on eco-economics than I reasonably could in a Slashdot post.

At least while working, some will have the opportunities and incentive to become more productive.

UBI doesn't permit you to live high on the hog, or at least that's not the concept. If you want more than a banal, minimal existence, you're going to have to work for it. There is still plenty of incentive to produce, and there's still plenty of opportunity to do so as well. It frees people up to do neutral or negative things, certainly, but it also frees them to do positive things. They can spend their time making themselves better people, or doing things for other people. They can trade labor, or engage in barter, or work a side job to get spending money.

I am not against work. Work is how things get done. I am against senseless work which wastes energy and materials whose production costs are debited from our collective future. The notion that our value as a being is based on what we do for society is not without merit, but we must subtract what we do to society from the balance in order to come to a fair accounting.

Comment Re:What did you THINK would happen? (Score 4, Insightful) 405

OK, enough with the ignorance already. Every US military leader would not take kindly to being labeled a mass murderer,

...but most of them absolutely are, because they were not fighting a war to protect people, but to protect profits . Who gives a fuck how they feel about being called what they are? Ignorance is no excuse, either. It's your responsibility to do your homework before killing people.

Also intent matters, which is exactly why he's being charged with involuntary manslaughter and not murder.

That's wrong, though. His intent was to get someone killed. He should be charged with first-degree murder, since it was "willful and premeditated with malice aforethought." Or with being an accessory or accomplice to same, as I have argued, although I am fast coming around to the idea that the cop is the accomplice (and guilty of voluntary manslaughter) and the SWATter is the murderer in the first degree. He planned the murder (via SWAT team) and then carried it out. The only reason anyone SWATs anyone is because they know that it is dangerous, and that the danger goes up to and includes the death of the victim (and possibly innocent bystanders, maybe even babies.)

Comment Re: What did you THINK would happen? (Score 1, Insightful) 405

But this guy swatted multiple persons in multiple states! Even if our police is far less trigger happy, I am quite shure that you could get someone killed if you repeat the swatting often enough.

Get someone killed? Yes. Kill someone? No.

He is a murderer. No police failure could change that.

No, he is not a murderer. He is an accomplice or accessory to murder. The cop who killed the victim is a murderer.

Comment Re:Why did it take 40 minutes to correct? (Score 2) 219

On the other hand, if the enemy has their hands on the real messages, they can periodically create mass panic and also discredit the system at the same time. I don't think there's much you can do about scenarios where the enemy can control the system beyond try to prevent them from controlling the system.

Comment Re:Tulips... (Score 2) 324

By your definition the entire stock system is of no value.

It's actually of negative value, because its success is predicated upon the destruction of our biosphere — that is after all how companies operate. If you made corporations responsible for their waste tomorrow, the stock market would crash on the same day because most of those entities would be unable to turn a profit while complying, and they would therefore go rapidly out of business.

We all pay, with our health and lifespans, for the maintenance of the corporate beast.

Comment Re:What did you THINK would happen? (Score 3, Insightful) 405

But the bulk of the burden of this "incident" (for lack of a better term.. maybe "debacle"?) falls squarely upon the guy who made the false report,

Bull. Fucking. Shit. The bulk of the burden falls directly upon the cop who pulled the trigger. A lesser share of it goes to the piece of shit who called the cops. An even lesser share of it goes to the piece of shit who gave someone else's address when asked for his own. The cops were locked and loaded, the guy who called the cops pulled the trigger, but the guy who gave someone else's address to someone who wanted to have him killed pointed the gun.

But you can never, ever take the ultimate responsibility out of the shooter's hands. He has the ultimate responsibility to prevent an unwarranted shooting, whether he is a cop or not. Anyone who cannot handle that responsibility should be disarmed immediately. That goes with the territory.

Slashdot Top Deals

The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.

Working...