Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
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:All-In-One likely to be the future norm (Score 0) 171

The brakes are actually fairly interesting. With the proper design, you could do away with the brakes entirely (I'm not saying you should, I'm saying you could). If you increase the resistance in the regenerative braking to the point where it will stop the wheels and hold them in place, you could do away with friction brakes entirely. Of course, you should still keep them as backup, but with a fully 100% backed up braking system, you can virtually eliminate brake failure.

Comment Re:Just Remember, Folks. (Score 1) 171

>> At 20 years in and 12,000 miles per year, 240,000 miles, they'll quite likely have 85% of their capacity

Not even close, especially in hot climates like CA and AZ. I used to work for one of the 3 big EV charging station companies and they also have a sister company that does EV battery testing for the government. I can tell you that no EV car battery lasts anything like 20 years. With a normal drive cycle its about 4 years max before you start noticing very significant amounts of dropoff (like 1/3) in max range, and depending on how determined to save money you are, it will be maybe 7-8 years max before even the most determined owner HAS to totally replace the battery.
Tesla is also using the same battery tech as everyone else so they are just as susceptible, no matter what their glossy advertising claims.

This is demonstrably false, as Teslas have been out for more than 4 years and are seeing minimal battery degradation. I have a 2012 Telsa (one of the first 2000 off the line) and the battery degradation is sitting at 96% of its original capacity. It has almost 100,000 miles on it. So I've lost 4% in 4 years and it's been holding steady for the past year at that rate. There are numerous other examples of this in the Tesla world. Do your research. Spewing false facts (ahem, I mean alternative facts) about EV batteries isn't helpful.

Comment Re:Just Remember, Folks. (Score 1) 171

Then don't charge your laptop to 100%. Charge it to 80% and try not to let it go below 20% charge and you'll have a laptop that has 94% of it's original capacity after 6 months, 12 months... probably 48 months.

It's when you charge it to 100% each time or drain it past 20% each time that the battery really starts to degrade.

Comment Re:It might be an issue in the future (Score 1) 304

I own two Teslas and I take a lot of road trips. It takes a bit longer than 10 - 15m for the most part, at least on road trips. If you are just cruising around town, you're probably right. But either way, I'm going to guess you live on one of the coasts. That skews your perspective. In the majority of the country (such as where I live) I have rarely, if ever, seen another Tesla at a Supercharger. All of the Superchargers between St. Louis and Denver are completely empty most of the time and are, quite literally, NEVER full. This change doesn't affect most of th country (geoloation wise), so they should just implement it on congested chargers, not on vacant, little used chargers.

Comment Re:BTRFS is getting there (Score 1) 279

My problem with BTRFS and ZFS, and I admit I may be in the minority, is the handling of RAID. Creating a raid setup is fantasically easy in ZFS and BTRFS and is miles ahead of mdadm. However, the problem comes when you want to expand your raid. If you want to increase your capacity, you have to create a whole new raid the same size as your old raid.

I'm sorry, but I really don't want to put together another 16 TB of disks and add another 16TB to my raid. I just want to add another 3 or 6 TB hard drive and expand it that much. I don't consume TB of data in the span of a few weeks or month. Adding an additional 3 TB to my RAID will last me for another year or so. It would be pointless to add another 16 TB and it would waste 2 additional disks for no reason.

If I add another 3 TB disk to my RAID6 under mdadm, I get another ~3 TB. If I add another 8 3 TB disks to my current raid, I get another 24 TB. If I add anothe 8 disks to a ZFS or BTRFS raid setup, I get another... 16TB. Fuck that.

Other than that, I haven't found anything that I dislike about ZFS or BTRFS... but the RAID situation is a real deal killer.

Comment Treated as an expense, not an asset (Score 4, Insightful) 474

One of the major problems with IT and engineering departments is that they are treated as an expense. They are something distasteful but necessary to the business, but the business would rather do away with it if it could. When you and/or your department are viewed like that, it's hard not to become cynical and annoyed with the other departments.

Often times IT is the gatekeeper of information and much like dentists and doctors, they are often times the bearers of bad news, even though they aren't the cause. They are just the messenger, but when you're told "No, you can't access Facebook during work hours," the IT department is often blamed, even though they didn't make the policy.

Engineering is seen as an impediment to sales and progress because they are the ones that have to keep saying "No, it's not ready yet." or "No, we can't do that." Engineering is like the police department... everyone hates them until they need them. Then when that need is over, it goes right back to hating them.

Comment I would pay for the strips (Score 4, Interesting) 109

This is one of the few strip I would pay to access. While I wouldn't be paying to access the strip itself, I would be paying to support Breathed and to encourage him to continue the strip. I can't really think of many other comic strips, modern or otherwise that I would do this for.

Comment Yes, as long as there is choice and free will (Score 2) 351

Yes, advertising is morally justifiable as long as there is choice to not be exposed to that advertising. If there is a website that you are required to go to for say the IRS or other government services. Or you're required to go there for your school or some other "required" website, then it gets far more murky. But if you are going to a commercial or entertainment or even a news site, then it is totally morally justifiable, since there is no requirement that you visit that site. You are agreeing to the consumption of the content for "free," you are really paying with your attention, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Then when you throw in AdBlock and it's ilk into the mix, which allows you to bypass the attention sale, I think it's totally justifiable.

To take it a step further, if you could somehow mandate (haha) that advertising be easily blockable, then it goes even further into the justifiable category, since only those wish to see the advertising would be seeing it. That's the choice... We should not limit people in what they can and can't do just because we don't agree with where we "spend" out attention. Not that anyone is suggesting that. I don't think the question is whether it's morally justifiable or not, since advertising really doesn't have a moral component, so long as there is choice (and there currently is) - if and when the advertising crosses over into the forced and unavoidable advertising, then it absolutely is NOT justifiable under any circumstance.

I really think that is the ultimate crux here: If a person can avoid the advertising (either through a switch, through AdBlock et al or by not visiting the site) then it's totally justifiable. If it is forced upon the person or on a site that you are required to visit for something that is unavoidable (Government services, etc...) then no, it's not justifiable at all.

Other than that, the free market should decide. If the advertising is too much on a site, then don't visit it... that company will either change it's ways or go out of business.

Comment 3 Separate Places (Score 1) 446

If your data is not backed up in 3 separate places, it's not backed up.

So to answer your question, you should have it on your drive where you access it. Stored on an external HD (or CD/DVD/ETC) in a fire proof safe and in the cloud (preferrably in an encrypted container). So if your house burns up and your fireproof backup fails, you'll have the cloud. If the cloud provider goes bust, you'll have your backups that you can restore to a different cloud provider.

If you don't want to store it "in the cloud" have a trusted friend store a backup drive at their house or put one in a safe deposit box somewhere. But the bottom line is, one backup of your primary data is not enough and never will be.

Comment Re:Told you so (Score 1) 106

Oh, so the US Government can be trusted to not fuck up a monetary system? I mean, it's worked so well with USD, why wouldn't it work with another version of it?

You are the reason there is a problem. You don't even understand what the problem is, so how can you be expected to form an viable opinion on it?

Comment Re:Told you so (Score 1) 106

You do realize that it takes much more energy to create and distribute the US dollar than it does to create and distribute bitcoins, right? So if Bitcoin is anti-environment, then the US Dollar is super-anti-I-fucking-hate-all-living-things environment.

So why are you using USD, since that is so anti-environment?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure