Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Just spell out the rules clearly. (Score 1) 317

Produce a one-page "procedures" document - clearly, but simply lay out the process in moving code from the programmer's branch to the QA branch and into the production branch. Have everyone read and sign it.

The first time someone violates it, you give them an informal warning.

The second time they violate it, have them sit down with management and HR and tell them that if they violate the rules again, they'll be terminated.

The third time, you terminate them.

Easy...no automation required...you simply have to cause a change in the 'culture'. Programmers are very good at following rules - providing they are clearly stated and obviously put in place for a reason.

If you insist on there being an automated system...

When I've worked on setups like this, we give programmers the rights to do what they like in their own working branch(es) and into the QA branch - but deny them access to the production branch. QA get read-access to the QA branch and are the only people allowed to check stuff into the production branch. Generally programmers get their build together at the end of a sprint - then at the start of the next sprint, QA check it out and either release it or punt it back to the programmers...have two week sprints instead of six so that this doesn't add too much latency into the bug fix cycle. If you're spending more time fixing small bugs than adding large features, then you can temporarily drop the sprint cycle down to one week - if major features are being rolled out - then push the cycle up to at most 3 weeks.

Comment Re:Load it up with food, water supplies, strap (Score 1) 236

Won't work. The ISS doesn't have enough radiation shielding to allow astronauts to survive for long beyond the Van Allan belts. Also, it would take a VERY long time to go anywhere on the "10 Watts in, 10 micro-Newtons of thrust out" that an EM drive provides. The ISS has about 100 kW of solar power capacity - and if 100% of that went into an array of 10,000 EM drives - you'd get 10 milli-Newtons of thrust out. The ISS has a mass of around 400,000kg and needs about 10m/s of deltaV added to it every couple of months just to stay in orbit.

There is no way for EM drives to do anything of use whatever.

Comment Re:Cheaper than starting over (Score 1) 236

Yeah - but the ISS would end up being about 1% of all of the engineering you describe...and because it doesn't have enough shielding to operate safely beyond the Van Allan belts - and it's solar panels won't deliver enough power out by Mars - you's end up with a TON or rework to do.

The trouble it brings would by far exceed it's worth.

If the ISS is going to be worth anything - it's right in the orbit it's in now. Because it needs to be re-boosted to higher orbits every 3 to 6 months - it's not a free resource.

So unless you find a benefit that it's giving to humanity that exceeds the resupply/boost cost where it is right now - then the only cost-effective thing to do is to crash it into the Pacific ocean.

Comment Re:Explore with it or kill it (Score 1) 236

You're right - but if the US doesn't pass a law to continue to fund it past 2024 - then there is no chance of the other countries providing enough cash to keep it flying. If the USA said "We're going to donate our part to private space agencies (who probably won't want to provide food/water/supplies to YOUR astronauts)"...then what could they do about it?

Comment Re:Explore with it or kill it (Score 3, Interesting) 236

I agree - it's really not doing a whole lot for us.

Ditching it into the pacific would be a bad idea - but donating it to privately owned space businesses like SpaceX and Bigelow who are already working with the ISS would make a lot more sense. Consider the boost to US business if those companies had free access to the ISS!

NASA did their job here - they got private industry interested in that stuff - now they can step back from doing what they already know how to do - and get on with the difficult researchy stuff.

Comment Re:Just needs a little nudge. (Score 1) 236

The trouble is that once you're out of low Earth Orbit, you don't get any of the earth's magnetic field protection from solar radiation. Long term occupancy of a structure outside of that orbit requires decent quantities of shielding - which the ISS doesn't have.

If you think the ISS is costly to maintain now - imagine what it would be if each resupply mission needs a rocket the size of a Saturn V to get food, water and oxygen up to a lunar orbit.

Sure, EVENTUALLY, you can get oxygen and water from the moon - but that won't happen until LONG after 2024.

Sadly - although this seems like a reasonable idea - I think it's a non-starter.

Comment Re:Step one in seizing power, control information. (Score 1) 372

Lock down information sources such as the news media. Ensure that all information which is released is fully vetted to support government policies and decrees.

Once information is fully controlled, police activity to enforce government policy can proceed unabated with little fear of meeting organized resistance. President Trump appears to have learned quite well from history.

If by 'learned quite well from history', you include the last 8 years, then you're making a reasonable point. Obama spent 8 years weaponizing the federal government, and then handed it over to Trump. Think about that next time your champion is elected.

Comment A BS Narrative? Rhodes is getting kicked out of WH (Score 2) 432

Maybe it costs 1.6 billion to build a new factory in Mexico, and $700 million modernizing an existing plant in the United States. Under the previous rules they thought were going to be in place, they would have recouped the $900 million dollar difference. Trump's plan is to incentivize building in the US, disincentivize building elsewhere- and this changes the risks and calculations associated with the project.
So I wouldn't say the 'Narrative is clearly not true.' With Gruber, Rhodes, and Clinton continuously lying to the America public I can see where you'd get the idea that a 'narrative' would be pushed regardless of the facts on the ground, but please consider that not everyone operates that way.

Comment Scientists are not the ubermensch (Score 2) 371

This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.

But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.

The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.

Scientists are people too, with the same egos, prejudices, fears, and irrational beliefs the rest of us have. Ideally, through honest application of their work, they can filter out these human elements and present to the rest of us objective facts. However, I think any of us who are widely read and have been paying attention know that there is quite a lot of 'standard' human behavior that occurs in scientific circles.

So, perhaps they are trained as you say, but one cannot claim they act as they are trained in a fully consistent manner. So no, scientists aren't some breed of ultra-rational super humans. Stop pretending someone is above suspicion just because they claim the title 'scientist.'

Comment Mad duck Obama (Score 1) 821

It's just another example of Obama stirring up as much crap as he can in his final days in office; both to screw things up for Trump, and to implement some of his ideas that are deeply unpopular.
A man of honor and dignity would be a much more modest caretaker of government business during the final weeks of his tenure. Instead, Obama is trying to start fights with Russia, has orchestrated a UN backstab of a traditional US ally, and is spewing out regulations that won't survive their first challenge in court. This is what we elected. Twice. This is the man he's always been. If it wasn't for the sycophantic media, it would have been clear to most Americans by 2012.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.

Working...