Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Same as last time (Score 1) 559

When the Prius first got popular the same thing was said about it. Was soon proved false.

Yes and no. If you compare it to a regular car running on USA Gas, then yes, without a doubt. However, if you compare it to a car running on, say, Brazilian ethanol, the studies are still inconclusive.

My point is that most studies are valid under a given set of conditions, and we need to take those into account. If we make a case for the Tesla S polluting more, shouldn't we tackle the issue that energy production needs to pollute less? Alternative energy generation, better battery technology, those are the things we should focus on. So, if they are wrong about how much the Tesla S pollutes, we (the planet) win. And if they are right, they are still wrong, because their proposed solution, which is pretty much turning back time, is wrong.

Comment Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score 3, Interesting) 252

The problem is with the cost of a context swap.

The code that managed context swapping is part of the scheduler, at least on Linux. Yes, it can be costly, which is why it needs to be implemented correctly, and why you keep getting alternative schedulers (not as often as you once did, it was crazy back in early 2.0). There is classic problem with Intel-HT and Postgresql that caused context swapping for database I/O to be extracostly, as you probably recall. And it can be done correctly, as was proven in this case, and then again for Oracle.

It is absolutely possible to have high performance userspace graphics, as was proven with some of the more up-to-date drivers. I think it was ATI that first did it, by the way. The trick is to keep as much as possible in userspace, but that requires a change in mentality for developers.

Comment Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score 4, Informative) 252

Linux has a macro kernel... all the drivers are part of the kernel and run in kernel in kernel space...

Linux is currently a mix of macro (monolithic) and micro kernel concepts. Not all drivers run in kernel space. I'm sure you were remembering the old Linus vs. Tannenbaum disagreement when you wrote that one.

Regardless, the focus of this discussing is graphic routines which, except for a few proprietary cases (most notably, nVidia), run in userspace. Which is one of the problems people have with the proprietary nvidia driver (another is it not being free, but w/e).

So, anyway, not ALL drivers are part of the kernel, more and more are moving out of it as time goes by. But yes, many drivers still are. Our Minix legacy.

Comment Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score 0) 252

The graphic routines reside in kernel space?

An absolute necessity for performance reasons. They tried doing it in userspace in NT4 and it just couldn't keep up.

Hummm, what?!?! You know it is the same computer, right? If it is killing performance, then the scheduler is fucked. Another proof windows is broken.

Linux had some performance problems with database (Oracle specifically) because of it running in userspace. They changed the scheduler and some other stuff (rawio, etc), and it works flawlessly now. Based on your rationale, the solution would be to move Oracle to kernel space.

pretend that kernel mode doesn't exist

You know what should run in kernel space? The kernel.

Comment Re:Electric cars are just not going to take off... (Score 1) 446

.... until their prices become comparable in purchase price to an otherwise equivalent gas-powered car, instead of paying a premium for them that makes them more of a status symbol of luxury than a practical automobile.

Gas cars where like this once. The market tends to regular itself, even if it takes some time. Unless the government fucks it up, specially the USPO. Lets just hope that is not the case.

Comment Re:Nice. (Score 4, Informative) 446

And, Solyndra ends up like Solyndra because we lost a subsidy battle with China.

I'm not sure if you are reporting the fact, or complaining about it. If you are just reporting it to provide accurate information, kudos for you. Not only are you are well informed, you have more common sense than most people I know (or know of), and please stop reading here :).

I'm forced, however, to remember anyone who complains about "subsidy battles" that the USA is huge on subsides, and wages this battle against many countries, several times winning it. Orange/orange juice and corn are quick examples.

Unfortunately, subsidies are a necessary evil, specially since they are, many times, not a tool to fight an external competitor, but to regulate the internal market. In this, no country is blameless.

Comment Re:I would love it if (Score 1) 201

Republic = Res Publica = Public Thing, Public Affair. It means the state belongs to the people
Democratic = Demos Kratia= Rule by the people (literally: the power belonging to the people of the community)

Both are correct to describe the USA. Technically speaking, the USA is a Representative Democratic Republic (you can also add "Constitutional" in there, if you like).
You know that piece of paper that starts with "We the people"? That pretty much defined it as a democracy. Maybe you are confusing it with Direct Democracy (as opposed to Representative Democracy), where everything is decided by direct vote by the whole population.

Now, about your arguments. Comparing "Google Glasses" with "slavery or death" is kinda funny, really. But I understand the point you are making. The point, however, is quite different. Requiring 4/5 Majority (or 100% majority) is not feasible, and it is actually not required for most decisions, not should it be. It would ultimately lead to anarchy, following the total collapse of a frozen system.

Your last argument of not being able to vote with your wallet to trump someone else's rights is valid, but based on a faulty assumption. You are working under the assumption that it was already decided it violates other people's rights, and the jury (and the people) is still out on that one. And one of the ways people express their decision regarding that is with their wallets. So what they are ultimately voting is on the question of it violating their rights or not.

Stay in school

Thank you. That is good advice for everyone. They even have some very good books on State Theory that cover all these subjects quite well. You should try one, if you haven't already.

Comment Re:I would love it if (Score 1) 201

I couldn't find a rational chain of thought in your post.
As such, it was clearly a troll, and I treated it that way.

Them let me explain it to you.

My point is that, if people are buying and using it, they are VOTING it is a good thing. It is a characteristic of capitalists societies, and generally referred to as "voting with your wallet". Thus, "the democracy of the wallet".

It is very easy to say "democracy is good" and that you defend it when people agree with your point of view. When they are doing things you don't agree (like violating your privacy), it gets tricky. But if you defend democracy (I'm making an assumption here), you have to accept it, like it or not. You keep voting (elections or shops) against it, but you accept the result of the democratic process.

Thus, when the parent post said it was "to vote out the government", I said it is also possible to vote out products, and the fact people are using them is a sign they are voting FOR it. And, as with a senator (which I used as an example), all it takes is a significant number of people (far from the majority) to make it happen. Still, it is both the economical, social and political system you live in and, if not you, that most of Americans claim to defend and support.

And no, I don't like it either, being overruled by people who lack even the basic common sense. It is the price we pay to have a system that is not as bad as the other alternatives, although it is far from ideal.

Also, I'm sure most people will appreciate if you ask for clarification next time you don't understand something, instead of simply assuming it is a troll.

Comment Re:I would love it if (Score 2) 201

Cool. Are you also planning on replying to anything I actually wrote in my post?
Because what you wrote would be better located in a threat of its own.

Even if what you wrote on your post was 100% correct (and it is not), it would still have nothing to do with what I wrote. Just because saying "the sky is blue" is correct doesn't mean it is a valid answer to "how fast is your car?"...

Comment Re:I would love it if (Score 3, Interesting) 201

You can vote out the government, atleast theoretically, or move outside its jurisdiction. No such luck with people wearing Google Glass all around you in public, in the office, even the bathroom stalls at Google I/O.

If everyone else, or the majority of people, is wearing them, how is that different from voting? It is exactly the same principle.
I'm sure it take more people to make a Google product like this viable than it takes to elect a senator.

It is "the democracy of the wallet".

Notice: for people who will say that your privacy will be violated even if the majority is not using it, read again my second phrase about electing a senator.

Comment Re:This thought crosses my mind a lot. (Score 1) 808

"Only through human labour can value be created" - John Locke, straight from his books.

That is just saying labour is an integral part of it. That is not the labour theory of value.

Mill, on the other hand, states plainly that the totality of the value of something depends on the labour applied. (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here).

But, as I said, I will have to check my reference books tomorrow. Anything else I say on this subject, right now, will be purely based on my recollection, since I exhausted my notes already. And since it is 2:30am right now, it is not only my noted that are exhausted.

Comment Re:This thought crosses my mind a lot. (Score 1) 808

You will notice you were the one claiming it was Locke's work, not me. So the fact that Adam Smith lived after Locke doesn't contradict a single line I wrote. I will give I wrote 19th century on my first post when I should have written 18th (Mill and MacCulloch), tho. That was particularly lazy of me.

The fact capitalism existed before Smith is irrelevant, as we both know (interesting to notice since there are other people reading). The point being that the existence of capitalism and one of the economic theories that explain/analyse it was two separate things.

Actually, I think our only point of content is: was Locke the first one to create the labour theory of value? I really don't think so. I checked my notes here (I wrote a paper about it a couple months ago), but I have to confess I don't have my economy books around. My notes point to James MIll and MacCulloch being the first ones to create a pure labour theory of value, after removing capital (David Richard = labour + capital) and land (Adam Smith = labour + capital + land) from the equation.

Saying Locke's theory are the basis is like saying Aristotle's theories are the basis for it all. It is technically correct, but it doesn't mean Aristotle created the labour theory of value either.

But I promise you I will check my reference books again tomorrow, but I do ask you to do the same, since I sincerely believe you are mistaken.

Comment Re:This thought crosses my mind a lot. (Score 1) 808

Maybe this is not the best place to talk about this, but...

James MIll and MacCulloch might have had problems with you giving Locke the credit for this theory. Also, it was all an evolution of Adam Smith's work which was, for the time, nothing short of brilliant. That is also not the basis for either capitalism or socialism (which you are incorrectly calling communism). Marx's theory of value is not the labor theory. His theory, Surplus Value or Plus-value, is one of the basis for socialism and, although labor is an integral part of it, it is not the same thing.

Surplus Value would be argued as one of the basis of capitalism, except it is too simplistic. You would have better luck checking (my translation here might be wrong) the theory called Limit-utility or Marginal Value, which is one of the theories that approached the most the capitalist model, since it takes into account marketing fluctuations, offer/demand issues etc.

Comment Re:This thought crosses my mind a lot. (Score 1) 808

How do you pay for the content you use on the internet? You don't, because the marginal cost for the content you consume is so close to zero that it's not worth it to charge for it. The same will be true of items produced by robots.

That is called Labour theory of value, a 19th century theory of value that has been long since disproven.

Things produced by robots might end up being cheaper (mostly because of scale of production), but their price will be far from "close to zero".

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Working...