Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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 Re:VMWARE is the future? (Score 1) 339

What's easier to backup and restore? Hint a virtual machine image.

Run your tooling inside a Docker container instead. Processes run as local processes without the overhead of virtualization, and the container images can be backed up by pushing them to a repository in a single command. On top of that, Docker container images are way smaller than comparable VM images, as they don't need to store an entire OS as part of the image. In fact, as Docker images are created in layers, two images that share the same base OS layers don't need to store that base OS image layer twice -- in effect, your images are just the diffs from whatever image they are generated from. Way smaller, easier, and faster to backup than a giant VM image.

Yaz

Comment The absolute best. (Score 1) 339

The absolute best environment? Sitting on my couch, in my pyjamas, with easy access to my refrigerator and tunes.

However, if I catch one of your developers on my couch wearing my pyjamas and helping themselves to my 'fridge while listening to my tunes, there's going to be trouble.

Ultimately, as a developer my preference is to a) have the entire power of the system in my hands, b) not be tied down by local system restrictions, and c) not being tied to specific developer tools, especially an IDE.

Breaking those down:

  • Entire power of the system: I require my own system that doesn't share any resources with anyone else. It has to be a real desktop or laptop. No thin client of any sort. If I'm out in the woods and away from any form of networking and need to build the product (or some subset), I should be able to do so. If the product relies on or is expected to be used in any sort of cloud technologies, then the ability to generate and use cloud instances is certainly a must, however they should be available alongside and via a real machine, and not be the sole development environment.
  • Not be tied down by local system restrictions: if IT wants to provide a system so tied down that my local user doesn't have sufficient privileges to install device drivers, tools, or anything else I may need to work, you need to verbally smack them around. That may work for Sales and Marketing, but your most technical people need to have full access to their systems.
  • Not being tied to specific developer tools: All of the most pain-in-the-butt projects I've ever worked on are those that rely on a specific IDE to build. And this has always wound up being a bad idea. Projects should be buildable without any sort of IDE whatsoever. Use Gradle or Maven or Ant or a Makefile to build your projects. Pretty much every modern IDE can work with these systems. Your developers can pick and choose what IDE and tools they want to use this way -- they should just be able to just 'git clone' or 'svn checkout' and build from the command line. This also tends to mean that your Continuous Integration system will build the product in exactly the same way as developer systems -- which is a good thing. Anytime I've joined a project that is so highly tied to a specific IDE, the instructions and time needed to on-board new developers is always way too high (I've seen documents with over 20 pages just on how to setup your IDE properly to build a specific project! I've also seen bugs in the code that wound up being due to differences in the way code was built in the IDE vs. how it was built on the nightly build server). Decouple how the code is built from what tools are used to write the code whenever and wherever possible, and then I'll pick the local tools that work best for me to write that code.

TL;DR version: give me a lot of computing power I can carry around with me, don't tie me down to specific coding tools, and then get out of my way. And keep your developers off my couch, and out of my pyjamas and 'fridge.

Yaz

Comment Re:Wait a minute... (Score 1) 253

God forbid your daughter consumes paid content without you having to pay a dime for it, paps, while people already paid over Patreon say things you disagree with "for free".

My daughter has zero buying power. She doesn't understand the ads. And what's worse, the ads that typically come up aren't even close to age appropriate. This isn't a case of Youtube showing her ads for toys she might ask me for -- they're ads for inappropriate things. They will never generate a sale for the advertiser.

Yet, at the same time, groups that Google (not I) determines to be disagreeable will now have an ad-free experience. I'd actually rather that if they insist on showing my daughter an ad for haemorrhoid cream when she wants to watch "Wheels on the Bus", that people watching "disagreeable" videos should have to watch them too.

Yaz

Comment Re:Wait a minute... (Score 2) 253

You use bandwidth without paying for it.

I'm not complaining about the need for ads; it's that they're effectively going to be exempting you from seeing advertising if you're watching terrorist propaganda, or racist rants, or two girls one cup, or whatever else gets deemed "inappropriate", while at the same time happily showing my 6 year old daughter ads for erectile dysfunction medication when see wants to watch "Wheels on the Bus".

If you had google music or youtube red there wouldn't be ads.

Which would be fine if Youtube Red were available in my country. But it isn't. I'm not sure about Google Music -- it's not a service I have need of anyway.

I do agree that it's messed up. Even the dumbest Americans should be capable of realizing that running ads during a youtube video doesn't equal approving of the content. But we didn't have so many idiots, we wouldn't have the problems we do today.

Believe it or not, advertisers are human beings too. And while they don't want to be seen endorsing or being associated with the types of videos the article discusses (bad optics), at the same time they also don't want the people who make these videos to benefit from their advertising dollars either, just as (I presume) you or I wouldn't donate money to a Jihadist group, or NAMBLA, or the KKK, etc. So I'm happy to give the advertisers some slack on this -- most decent people, advertisers or not, don't want to see their money going to such groups, even if everyone else were fine with it.

Yaz

Comment Wait a minute... (Score 5, Interesting) 253

American companies swiftly followed, even after Google promised Tuesday to work harder to block ads on "hateful, offensive and derogatory" videos.

So let me get this straight -- racists, misogynists, and terrorists are going to benefit from an ad-free experience, and yet my 6 year old daughter has to put up with ads for mortgages and makeup and other adult stuff when she wants to watch kids videos? WTF did we ever do to you Google that dirtbags get an out from Youtube ads, but the rest of us have to suffer?

Yaz

Submission + - SPAM: Quicken Bill Pay is No Longer Safe to Use 1

Bruce Perens writes: I don't usually make security calls, but when a company makes egregious and really clueless security mistakes, it's often the case that the only way to attract their attention and get the issue fixed is to publicize it. This one is with Quicken Bill Pay, a product of Metavante (not Intuit). It's from personal observation rather than an expert witness case, and the company has been unresponsive through their customer support channel.
Link to Original Source

Comment Abandoning Time-Worn Processes Leads to Atrophy (Score 5, Insightful) 158

Scientists determined that those people who made use of machine washing rather than hand washing had diminished hand strength and neurological motor communication necessary for fine motor control. Seamstresses who bought thread rather than using the spinning jenny were similarly impaired. But worst off were teamsters who used the internal combustion trucks rather than teams of horses and used forklifts and other mechanical devices rather than loading their vehicles by hand. Their overall body strength was much reduced.

Comment Re:"Human Colleague"... Nope, You Just Don't Get I (Score 1) 407

Clarke did very little writing on robot brains.

Um, I'll have to assume that you weren't around for April, 1968, when the leading AI in popular culture for a long, long, time was introduced in a Kubrick and Clarke screenplay and what probably should have been attributed as a Clarke and Kubrick novel. And a key element of that screenplay was a priority conflict in the AI.

Comment Re:"Human Colleague"... Nope, You Just Don't Get I (Score 1) 407

Well, you've just given up the argument, and have basically agreed that strong AI is impossible

Not at all. Strong AI is not necessary to the argument. It is perfectly possible for an unconscious machine not considered "strong AI" to act upon Asimov's Laws. They're just rules for a program to act upon.

In addition, it is not necessary for Artificial General Intelligence to be conscious.

Mind is a phenomenon of healthy living brain and is seen no where else.

We have a lot to learn of consciousness yet. But what we have learned so far seems to indicate that consciousness is a story that the brain tells itself, and is not particularly related to how the brain actually works. Descartes self-referential attempt aside, it would be difficult for any of us to actually prove that we are conscious.

Comment Re:"Human Colleague"... Nope, You Just Don't Get I (Score 1) 407

You're approaching it from an anthropomorphic perspective. It's not necessary for a robot to "understand" abstractions any more than they are required to understand mathematics in order to add two numbers. They just apply rules as programmed.

Today, computers can classify people in moving video and apply rules to their actions such as not to approach them. Tomorrow, those rules will be more complex. That is all.

Comment Re:"Human Colleague"... Nope, You Just Don't Get I (Score 4, Insightful) 407

Agreed that a Robot is no more a colleague than a screwdriver.

I think you're wrong about Asimov, though. It's obvious that to write about theoretical concerns of future technology, the author must proceed without knowing how to actually implement the technology, but may be able to say that it's theoretically possible. There is no shortage of good, predictive science fiction written when we had no idea how to achieve the technology portrayed. For example, Clarke's orbital satellites were steam-powered. Steam is indeed an efficient way to harness solar power if you have a good way to radiate the waste heat, but we ended up using photovoltaic. But Clarke was on solid ground regarding the theoretical possibility of such things.

Comment Well, you could be _that_ guy... (Score 4, Insightful) 456

You could be that guy. You know the one: the one who tells all his friends "This is what I use. Use that to contact me, or e-mail me instead."

For the most part, I'm that guy. I use one IM program for personal use, and another for professional use (due to corporate mandate), and that's it. The only exception to this is as I do have a Facebook account, if someone wants to message me there I'll accept these messages as well -- when I'm at my computer and logged into the web interface. I have no intention of installing their Messenger client on my mobile devices.

Then again, I don't feel the need to have people messaging me all day. My messaging contacts list consists of about four immediate family members, and that's it. Guess I'm just not social enough for "social media" and IM (for that matter, I don't own a cell phone either. I go out not to be disturbed by IM and phone calls -- why would I take the annoyance with me?)

Yaz

Slashdot Top Deals

Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada

Working...