Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:beta sucks why do i have to give a new subject (Score 1) 216

No, of course not. When you call a library funnction, do you count all the lines of code in the library? When you write a for loop, do you count all the lines of assembly it compiles into? No. The number of lines you count is the number of lines you write.?

Unless you're a useless bit pusher, you make sure you fully comprehend the ramifications of *every* library you use. For example, Boost is really sweet when you need to slam together a pile of code and have it working out of the gate with minimal fuss, but if performance is an issue, you cant use it. If you need to understand where every processor cycle goes, even C may be too high level for you... In short, Wolfram isnt for programmers, its more for IT / administrators.

The real test of a language is what the source for the compiler and the libraries looks like

Comment Re: Disingenuous to point of Safari swap (Score 1) 742

How is that different from Chrome OS and FireFox OS?


Just in case you're not a troll, Both Chrome OS and Firefox OS are open source, meaning that, (by definition), parts can be swapped in and out at will. More importantly, both Chrome OS, and Firefox OS are based on Linux which means that they are Posix compliant. They also use the basic structure that Linux uses, which offers the compartmentalization and standardized APIs I mentioned.

Comment Re:Disingenuous to point of Safari swap (Score 3, Informative) 742

The shell is a BIG part of the OS. I'm not sure most of the complainers actually know what they are saying

Only because MS designed it that way, and their reasons for designing that way had nothing to do with providing a "better" solution for the end user. It had everything to do with designing a system that was so tightly integrated that various parts could not be substituted. MS wanted to do everything they could to prevent third parties from offering replacements for part of their OS, as that would ultimately undermine their monopoly. A properly designed system has all of the parts compartmentalized so that individual parts can be replaced so long as they conform to the apropriate APIs. This is true for programs, electrical designs, buildings, mechanical structures, everything engineering related. MS deliberatly ignored centuries of engineering best practices to build their monstrocity. Just look how difficult it has been to create a stable eumlator for windows (wine). We have excelent DOS emulators, excelent PS2, Wii, etc emulators, but Windows remains the one place we do not have a good emulator. This is because it was built to be belidgerant...

MS was never properly punished for their behavior, either by the market, nor the regulatory bodies. Consequently, they think they are above the law (Hence Windows 8). I for one will not be satisifed until MS is wiped from this earth and Gates and Balmer are safely away from their Ill gotten fortune.

Comment Re:The kids should post one for teachers. (Score 1) 110

After each class, the kids can put a thumbs up or thumbs down next to a teachers name for performance, comportment, engagement, and subject knowledge. Give the other students the chance to make informed decisions about whether to opt out of their class or switch schools.

Absolutely, becasue primary school students are always mature enough to handle that kind of thing responsibly

Comment Re:Go Amish? (Score 1) 664

Coming from the aerospace industry, you cannot have software that has bugs. And if there was the possibility of a software bug, you have to prove that you can mitigate the effect in hardware.

For an industry that claimed such high standards, they did a remarkable job of missing the semi obvious effects of mechanical failures. Funny, but some of their engineers even went so far as to tell them that their mechanical systems had possibly failed and or were likely to fail. Long story short, they should have paid a little less attention to proving their software was perfect, and a little more attnention to proving their hardware wouldn't suddenly explode, and/or fall off for no good goram reason.

If the safety of your system relies solely on software functioning perfectly, then you haven't done a very good job of thinking through your system design. Its right up there with routing all three redundant hydraulic system through the same area and stating that you're all good because you have redundancy. It completely ignores the problems arising from mechanical failures that are the result of an area effect. Instead of three redundant systems, two with armor would be more effective at covering all of the various failure modes.

Comment Re:They are all paid too much (Score 2) 712

CEO salary is determined by investors, those who are taking risks in the company and hired him to take care of their investment in that company.

No, CEO pay is not determined by investors, it is usually decided upon by an executive compensation committee whom the board of directors has selected. Individual investors have about as much say in the whole process as individual voters have in controlling the laws that congress passes. For all intents and purposes, they two are wholy separate. I would agree that the process is working, if each individual investor got to select what percentage of their share of the profits should go to CEO compensation. Let the CEOs earn their pay the way politicians do. Make them campaign for it. Make them explain to every investor what they are doing to earn that pay. If each investor had real control over their own piece, you would find CEO compensation to be far more reasonable, and far more tied to their performance...

Comment Re:tl;dr (Score 3, Insightful) 712

If you do not like the fact that taxpayers are bailing them out then take that up with your idiot, beholden senators and representatives.

Bailing out the banks was not optional. Congress failing to act when the crash happened would have resulted in deaths. Even a 50% colapse of our global economy would cause millions of people to starve to death or die fighting for food. A 90% collapse would kill half the population in the US in the first winter alone. We have built a system where the banks are in the position where they are too big to fail. If we let them fail, the economy colapses.

It all goes back to the way companies pay their employees. Back in the 19th century and before, companies kept huge cash reserves so that when they issued payroll checks, the checks didn't bounce. for a company like GM or UPS, that payroll reserve would be on the order of billions of dollars. With the advent of the modern banking sector, a brilliant banker thought up the idea of payroll lines of credit. This allows a company to spend its entire payroll reserve, and if there isn't enough in the coffers, they temporarily run a line of credit until the funds come in. In practice, this allows the company to average pretty close to zero in their payroll accounts. It means that companies can re-invest that money into growth.

The down side to that, is what happens when a bank is insolvent. That bank can not loan any money (they dont have any to lend), so they close their customers payroll accounts. Now, the bank can't honor withdrawls because they have no cash, and the companies have not paid their employees because they have no payroll credit account anymore, and they dont keep cash reservces anymore. Now, the employees cant buy anything because they have no cash, cant get cash, and the ATM/debit cards arent working anymore. So they stop buying *anything*. Now they cycle gets viscous. Companies no longer have any income because people have no money, so they cant even honor their outstanding payroll, nevermind next weeks paychecks.

If one bank does it, the economy can absorb the hit. If 25% of the banking sector does it, the shock waves will eventually (a few months out) colapse the entire banking sector, and with it everything else. Everything stops. This happened with the great depression, but at that time the credit economy was only 30% of the whole economy. Today, the credit economy accounts for 98% of the worlds economy. You take that away, and its like taking away 98% of the air under an airplane. It simply cant function, and the result is gonna be messy.

Comment Re:tl;dr (Score 5, Insightful) 712

The Banker? Because without him, those technology CEO's wouldn't have any money to make things and contribute to society.

Horse crap. When the technology company critically needed money, the investment bankers are nowhere to be found. The only people that will put money in that direction are the angel investors. The bankers only become involved when all of the real risk has been removed. Without investment bankers, companies would still be formed and grow, it would just be a much slower, more natural, growth. Investment bankers are, as stated, parasites.

Comment Re:What we need is COMMUNISM (Score 4, Interesting) 47

It should be clear by now that the productive forces have outgrown the capitalist mode of production, that capitalism is now a fetter on them. But capitalism has created its own gravediggers, the modern proletariat, who whith their revolutionary ascent will clear the way for the socialist future!

Dude, Communism had its run, it looked dynamite on paper, but here in the really real world, it failed. While I agree that Capitalism is looking to follow Comunism down the same drain, what we need is something new, not a rehash of the same tired ideas. Show me something that provides institutional protection of individuals from the indescriminate hoarding of the greedy. Show me a system that reduces a persons power and influence as their wealth increases. Show me a system that rewards creativity over greed, but still recognizes and rewards hard work. Show me something that might fit that bill, and we'll talk. Until then, what you've got is empty rhetoric and three quarters of a century of failure.

Comment Re:Not from the car? (Score 2) 329

I'm inclined to agree with your conclusion, but really, "seven Tesla employees"? (emphasis added).

Absolutely, I'm surprised it wasnt more. Tesla is still a relatively small car company, and every employee there has alot of "skin in the game" so to speak. Most likely, the Tesla group consisted of: Two engineers, Probably a battery specialist, and someone familier with the high power electronics. You're going to get the individual who is responsible for the entire engineering team who designed the model. Probably a VP and a product manager as well. Thats five without batting an eye. Thats just the technical team. Now you're going to have someone who is Teslas equivalent of an insurance adjuster, and probably the company lawyer. Given the high profile potential of these cases, probably the companies lead counsel. Thats seven. They could have brought any number of other specialists with them as well.

Tesla will want two questions answered *very* quickly: First, What caused the fire? Second, can / will it happen again.

Comment Re:Tesla not involved [Re:Not from the car?] (Score 2) 329

Hub motors require all kinds of computer control, with associated high chances of fault that could much more easily lead to loss of control or efficiency. Hub motor efficiency is kind of like video poker: perfect play for 3 years straight will net you a profit, absolutely, no question you will beat the casino; the profit is small, and a single small mistake will set you back about 85 years. It only makes sense in a motorcycle, where you have one rear wheel hub motor.

I'm curious what leads you to those statements. What kind of extra computer control do hub wheels require beyond the obvious need for 4x the raw power transistors? What kind of problems would lead to reduced efficiency vs a single drive motor? Do hub motors have a different efficiency profile? something specific to the geometry of a hub wheel?

I would have thought that having 4 hub wheels would provide an opportunity for more efficient traction control, and better regenerative braking efficiency than a single differentially connected drivetrain.

What am I missing?

Comment Re:Obvious solution: MOVE. (Score 1) 664

I have an obvious solution for you. MOVE. That's what I've had to do for years, just to stay employed. My last move was 200 miles. The one before that was 650 miles. I see my family a week at Thanksgiving and a week at Christmas. Sure that sucks, but it's what I had to do in order to avoid what you're going through.

Its not that simple, My wife and I both work. We both have to. I still make slightly more, but my wife works for the state, and consequently still has decent benefits. If either one of us had to move to get another job, it would effectively unemploy the other. The odds of both of us being able to get new jobs simultaneously in divergent fields is low enough to make the prospect pretty much pointless. I have had several head hunters bring up opportunities for me in other states, but in locations where my wife would be unable to find work, so once again, we are talking about effectively unemploying one of us.

Not everyone is in a position where they are responsible only for themselves, and even if they are, It sucks having to upend an entire life because our governing corporate bodies no longer feel the need to uphold their end of the social contract.

Slashdot Top Deals

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.