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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 99

I can't bother to find the reference, but within the last few days Exxon tried to get the case dropped on the grounds that the New York AG and other on the prosecution side are "biased" and out for personal gain. It's a 100% ad hominem attack, with a heaping pile of you're mean and you don't play fair as a side order. Like Exxon isn't a profit driven enterprise with an agenda of it's own.

The best reason I can figure out for this is that they are setting up for a long appeal process. If they can drag this out for decades think of all the additional profit to be made. This strategy worked out really well for them during the Exxon Valdez iol spill disaster, so why not try it again?

Comment Re:Come on... (Score 3, Insightful) 237

You want to know why software never really gets better? It's because "old timers" are deliberately flushed from the system, so there is no institutional memory. Over time the same mistakes get made over and over again because no one remembers what happened the last time.

This is not the same as hardware, because in real engineering work there are people who have a long time track record. (The phrase Software Engineering is an oxymoron.) Unfortunately the same short sighted behavior is starting to invade some engineering disciplines, so they will end up producing crap as well.

Comment Re:Great example of Libtard disease (Score 2, Insightful) 635

There were so many idiots talking like you on this thread that it was hard to pick one. I chose you because your language makes it clear that you have the mental capacity of a brick.

Suppose there was a Democrat running for election who said that it was OK to shoot at cops sometime. They would be toast within four hours of that hitting the internet. Not only would they have to withdraw from the race they were in, they would be kicked out of the Democratic Party. (By the way, the same goes for the Republican Party. Only not really because Republican make excuses for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation where there were real guns and threats to the lives of federal employies.)

At any rate, Trump has on many occasions implied that violence is justified against undocumented people, including women and children. He also said he want's kick "Mexicans" out of the US, without considering if they are citizens or not.

Beyond that, he has incited violence against his opponent, which is is illegal, and a whisker away from calling for political assassination.

So his appeal to violence during the elections is just like saying it's OK to shoot at a cop. In some ways it is worse, because he is slyly talking about political assassination. And Theil is supporting him to the tune of $1.5 million, which means that Theil is OK with this level of expressed violence.

So it doesn't make any difference who Ellen Pao is. If you stand with Trump, as does Thiel, you endorse political violence. It's not about political correctness, or stifling political speech, it's about supporting a democratic form of government. And you and Theil and Trump hate democracy and want to destroy it. You are an enemy of the United States just as much as the Islamic State or Al Qaeda.

I hope I didn't use too many big words for for you. To make it easy, I just called you a violent political thug who hates America. And I think you are really stupid.

Comment Re:This study is garbage (Score 2) 186

So you don't like the message? Shoot the messinger!

This experiment was motivated by observations about moon mission astronauts. It's not like someone with an anti-manned space agenda pulled it out of their ass as an excuse.

The astronaut data is not definitive. The experiment is not definitive. No one is going to send more people outside the van Allen belts to see if their brains and hearts rot. But they are going to do more definitive tests to find out what is going on. Lots of tests, some of which will take a long time. It's not like the first manned Mars mission is lifting off next week, there is plenty of time to do the fundamental science. That is how science works. Trash talking a study and a publisher won't change anything.

Maybe the effect is not that bad. Maybe shielding will work, either physical shielding or electromagnetic shielding. Maybe drugs will need to be developed. Until the prerequisite experiments are done, and the science understood, it's premature to invest a lot of effort in solutions.

It's not that much different then building the rockets or designing and deploying a Mars base. It's equally nerdy, just in a another direction. One without explosions or dealing with the environment on Mars.

So why so hostile? No one said this was a show stopper. For example, it would be completely normal if biotechnology was as important for interplanetary travel as rocket motors.

You are reacting like a spoiled brat. No one is taking away your toy. Grow up.

Comment Boeing is pathetic (Score 4, Interesting) 254

Boeing/Lockheed/ULA is a textbook example of an inefficient entrenched monopoly. They are for all intents and purposes a part of the federal government. The revolving door means that after a stint at NASA or the USAF people side over to ULA and do the identical job. They end up with two pensions and nobody rocks the boat.

A telltale symptom is the mind boggling stagnation in rocket technology. Look at main lift engine development: ULA is using Russian engines designed in the cold war. The rocket cartel hasn't invested a dime in big lift vehicles since the early 90's.

It took two outsiders, Musk and Bezos, to inject life into the US space sector. They were both technologists with no ties to aerospace. They independently realized that new booster technology was the key to 21st century space flight, manned or unmanned. They both spent their own money to build new rockets from scratch. Yes, they got federal funding, but they spent a lot more then that. (ULA has been developing new upper stage rockets, but that is a much smaller effort then building a new launch system from scratch.)

When ULA woke up and realized they were at least six years behind SpaceX in engine design, they went to Blue Origin. Their next generation main lift stage will based on the Blue Origin design. That's called being asleep at the switch.

Don't start whining about NASA, feel sorry for them. They are constrained by politics and budgets. If Congress only gave them rubber band and paper clip money they would still be making a valiant effort to get into space somehow.

Speaking of Congress, ten House Republicans are trying to squash SpaceX. They claim to be "greatly concerned" about the recent pad explosion and want the USAF and NASA to cut SpaceX off. What they are actually doing is shilling for ULA. Who gives a rat's ass about US technological leadership or actual capitalism when there are campaign contributions and jobs to protect in their districts? Congress are the real jokers behind the rocket cartel.

Comment Software isn't enough, hardware must change (Score 4, Interesting) 531

Back in the early days of computers, when the world had many hardware architectures, there were machines that had co-designed hardware and software. They were designed from the ground up to avoid certain types of problems, and they worked really well.

Burroughs Large System stack machines were one example and Symbolics Lisp Machines were another. Burroughs had array descriptors that did bounds checking at run time and tagged memory. Tagging added non-user accessible bits to each memory word. The tag defined what kind of data the word contained and the hardware detected any attempt to use a memory value illegally. Symbolics machines also had tag bits, but their implementation was microcoded, so the tag interpretation was also in microcode.

Until computer implementations include features like tagged memory and hardware array bounds checking they will never be truly secure. Some problems cannot be addressed by an isolated software layer: they can only be made secure by hardware enforcement of fundamental features that prohibit some classes of software errors.

Comment Re:I don't hate on systemd but this is really bad (Score 1) 508

Wish I could mod you up. This is the first coherent non-flamebait post I have seen that succinctly describes what systemd is all about and makes a simple rational argument about why it is a problem.

You also show why "grey beards" are useful. "Been there, done that" can be mighty useful.

Comment Re:The downvoting is impressive! (Score 5, Interesting) 843

You understand the the claim of "murderous" Hillary Clinton is pure slander, don't you?

If you accept that charge then what about President George "My Pet Goat" Bush? He and his entire core team were in the Oval office when intelligence sources reported about a possible Al Qaeda attack on US soil. They thought it was unimportant and sloughed it off. It was completely ignored.

Based on the standard you apply to Clinton then Bush, Cheney and pretty much every person in that room should have been convicted of criminally failure to execute their duties of office. The President and Vice President and Secretary of State should have been hung and the rest sentenced to life in a federal penitentiary.

My conclusion is that you are all foul hypocrites who are so hyper-partisan that you put your party ideology above the national interests of the United States.

Comment Re:Whoopty Doo (Score 4, Insightful) 843

You are so bassackward that you are more then 100% wrong.

Here is real research by real academics who have actual PhD degrees and study the media. They are at one of the best universities on the planet: Harvard. This is the definitive definition of a qualified professional. They don't make shit up like Fox not-really-News.

The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.

The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.

This research covers 2015, but things didn't change much up to the national political party conventions. The most explosive material wasn't reported until after the first debate, and much of it is coming from online upstarts like Buzzfeed.

The mainstream news organizations have been completely missing until very recently. The information about Trump's income tax claim could have been uncovered by the NY Times at any time in the last two years, but it wasn't. He was getting a free ride from the entire mainstream press until a few weeks ago.

I know that Republicans have an extreme aversion to facts and departed reality many years ago, but the real world doesn't care what you think. It has a nasty habit of showing up when least expected and wreaking havoc on fools who ignore it. With any luck real world facts will finally catch up with Trump and pound him into dust. If that doesn't happen then the whole world is going on an extremely terrible ride.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.