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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:problems, lol (Score 1) 49

Or, you know. You could actually learn how to write good code at the most powerful level. That's a radical thought.

I did, and that's why I'm using Python. I'm capable of writing web services in C, but who the hell's got time for that craziness? Also consider Amdahl's Law: in most of stuff I write, the "running code to process data" bit is a teensy portion of wall clock time. Much more is spent in socket handshaking or waiting for database queries to finish. Out of a 50ms request lifecycle, perhaps 1ms is spent inside a box that I have complete control of. Even if I rewrote it in assembler (C is for high-level pansies) to be 1000x faster, the request would still take 49.001ms. An assload of work porting security-sensitive code into an untyped languages so that the end result can be 2% faster? Yeah, no. My boss would fire me with a quickness if I proposed that.

I'd be much more likely to rewrite performance-critical code in Go or Rust. They're as fast as C but without the death of a thousand cuts like gotofail waiting to ruin your careful planning. Life's too short to waste it hacking in languages that hate you and make you want to look incompetent.

Comment Re:Yay for sovereignty! (Score 2) 77

So the EU can just come down and tell it's member countries who they are and aren't allowed to give tax breaks to

Yes, and that's one of the fundamental necessities for a free trade zone.

It's quite easy, Ireland can make as many tax breaks as they want for Apple as long as they are out of EU. If they want to be in EU and trade in the EU open market, then they must be subject to some basic rules.

Also, Apple has to pay these taxes, because they had profit and they failed to pay their respective taxes for more than 1 decade. They aren't going bankrupt by paying taxes over their profits like you are saying.

Comment Re:Unsustainable pricing on high tech gadgets (Score 1) 90

It doesn't cost $800 to manufacture an iPhone. More like $100. In the US it would maybe be $150. It is Apples greed that is the blame.

There are always lines around the block on launch day. People cheerfully buy tens of millions of each iPhone. If people are willing to pay that price without a gun to their head, and there are alternatives that they could buy instead but they choose to buy iPhones anyway, how do you justify describing it as greed?

Comment Re:WTF Profits (Score 4, Insightful) 268

People say "profits" a lot. They try to ignore that prices don't follow inflation, and that costs are real.

The long and short of it is, somewhere behind the opaque shroud, Apple goes from selling the last-model iPhone at a 10% profit to selling it at a 10% loss. What's probably actually happening is people just aren't interested in spending on a new phone now, and will take a low-cost phone at a bargain. Apple can't cut the current-model back to that cost, and can't even get the old-model down that low, and so is trying to hit prices that the consumer will pay by cutting costs back.

In other words: the "cutting into profits" is more like "losing business, and facing extinction." Apple isn't going to die out today; they know that if they can't keep their phones in the consumer market, they're going to die out in a decade, maybe. Strategic executives actually look way ahead and try to minimize the likelihood of such an outcome.

You're talking about a 20% mark-up, and you've managed to ignore that Apple will take a 10% mark-up but the consumer won't pay $600 for a $550 phone. If Apple wants to sell a phone like that in a market of $350 full-featured phones, it needs its Chinese manufacturers to deliver a $350 phone that it can *maybe* mark up to $400 as a premium option.

At the base, this happens when competitors are offering top-of-the-line technology at the break-out price point. 10% more for 10% more feature, until you're suddenly paying 50% more for 10% more feature; you stop just at that point, and now your next competitor can only offer a better product at 1.5 times the price. Yours might cost $400, but their barely-any-better gadget now costs $600. Even if most of your market is in mid-tier $250-$300 phones, your major competitor can't distinguish themselves as a better product without a distinguished price point: to stand apart in features, you must stand apart in price.

This is a common strategy for other reasons. You release a low, mid-tier, and high-end flagship product; then the customer sees that the mid-tier product is much cheaper than the top-tier product but almost as good, and buys the mid-tier product due to its excellent value. Without the top-tier product, they make a more price-conscious decision, determining their need rather than bare purchasing efficiency. What I've described is an extension: you ensure that the high-end flagship product of distinction is someone else's, and that it's *very* expensive by way of making the most-expensive *reasonable* product on the market yourself. Maybe nobody buys your Galaxy S7; but they're sure as hell not going to spend twice as much on a fucking iPhone.

Apple has the extra disadvantage of not selling a mid-tier product; they sell the iPhone 5 currently, which broadcasts loudly that it's an out-of-date product because it was the premier product four years ago. If it was called the iPhone 7n (new budget offering), people would perceive it as a modern, budget-friendly phone without all the bells and whistles.

Comment Re:Cloud Based Backup (Score 1) 340

Say this with me folks: CLOUD STORAGE IS NOT RELIABLE NOR IS IT SECURE IN ANY WAY!!!!!

Bullshit.

Good providers are at least as reliable as your local drives. They could fail, but so could your local backups... and when your house burns down, the odds that your backup service provider dies at the same time is miniscule (barring some planet-scale catastrophe, in which case you probably won't care anyway).

As for security, encrypt if you're worried about it. Personally, there's nothing in my backup data that's particularly sensitive, so I don't bother. Most of the backup services automatically encrypt everything anyway.

Comment Re:RAID is not backup (Score 1) 340

The problem with cloud-based solutions is that the cost for backing up several terabytes of data is typically several orders of magnitude higher than building your own RAID array

Nonsense. One order of magnitude more, at most. On-line storage costs are on the order of $100 per TB per year. There's no way you can build and maintain your own solution for $1 per TB per year, which would be two orders of magnitude less. "Several" orders of magnitude would be at least four, putting you in the range of a $0.01 per TB per year. Even $10 per TB per year would be tough to reach, if you want any redundancy, and if you value your time at all -- and while you're amortizing the cost of your up-front hardware investment over several years in order to get close to that level, on-line storage costs will continue dropping, so at the end of those years the savings would be even smaller than they appear now.

Plus, backup storage which is located on-premises is inherently inferior to off-site storage, because a whole range of disasters that take out your primary storage whack your backup, too. Fireproof safes are a partial solution, but not a complete one... and not a cheap one.

No,the best approach is to use a cheap, unreliable, local backup, not bothering with bunkers or safes or even much redundancy, plus use an online service. The local copy is your normal recovery source, the online service is your final fallback.

Personally, I just replicate my data to a couple of local machines (the machines are there anyway, so throwing a little more storage in them doesn't cost much) and keep another copy on Google Drive, which is $120 per TB per year, but I managed to get 1 TB free (in perpetuity) as part of some promotion, and I currently have just under 2 TB of data that I care about (mostly photos), so my net cost is about $60 per TB per year for the online component, plus another $25 per year for an extra 4 TB drive that cost $100 and I expect to get four years out of (will probably go longer, but could die sooner).

Upload time sucks, but only for the initial upload, which I did two years ago. After that, incremental additions are pretty negligible. A full restore from the remote copy would take a long time, but I can easily get individual files on an as-needed basis. Actually, I find I use the remote copy quite frequently to grab particular photos or files on various devices, so it provides some functional value as well as disaster protection.

Comment Re:Phase 2 testing (Score 1) 171

Cool. Now do the same thing 6 more times, without resurfacing.

If he can do it for two months straight around the clock without snapping, my money would be on him doing two years too if he had to/wanted to. Elizabeth Fritzl did 24 years trapped in a cell in the basement, eventually no matter how bad the situation is it eventually just is. Same goes for people with severe disabilities and such, if I ended up in a wheelchair I'd get very depressed right away. But if I live through that first phase I don't see myself saying I've lived a year in a wheelchair but a year and a day is too much. I'd either have found a reason to live - or not - long before that.

Comment Re:Patent indemnity (Score 1) 236

How can a license grant a patent indemnity on a patent you do not own?

You obviously can't grant licenses on patents you don't own. As a downstream recipient, you get protection from patents owned by the upstream contributors. It can't do anything to protect you from third party patents.

Also, GPL3 is somewhat nebulous on the question of whether if you write any GPLed software, everybody downstream gets indemnity for all your patents, regardless of whether you interacted w/ them or not.

I think it's quite clear. Everybody downstream gets a license for all of the patents which you use in the licensed work, regardless of whether you interacted with those parties or not. It doesn't affect any other patents you happen to own.

The only real subtlety, I think is, for downstream re-distributors, who have to grant patent licenses for code they didn't write, and those grants effectively flow upstream as well as down. Of course, the license doesn't *force* them to grant those licenses, any more than linking proprietary code to GPL'd code forces you to GPL your proprietary code. It's just that choosing not to license the patents (or GPL the relevant code) means that you have no right to distribute, so any distribution you did constituted copyright infringement. Well... in the case of patents it may also mean that you implied a license which probably means that you can ask users to either pay or stop using, but can't go after them for any past infringement. And, of course, it also means that you lose the right to use and open yourself to infringement suits for your past, present and future use.

Of course, all of that only comes into play if you intend to enforce patents against others. The clear goal of GPLv3 is to discourage software patents, which I wholeheartedly support (even though my name is on a few).

Comment Re:If they're going to do this... (Score 1) 181

Because creating further artificial labor scarcity via work week restrictions will fix a labor scarcity problem.

Labor restrictions restrict productivity, raising prices and reducing what people buy, thus reducing employment. In short: you have less to barter with, therefor there is less you can barter for, therefor somebody who produces something will find nobody can pay them for the product, and so he becomes unemployed.

Imagine you spend 10% of your income on food, 4% on clothing, 2% on personal care, 30% on housing, 18% on transportation, and 36% on entertainment and other non-essential spending. Call it by dollars: $100, $40, $20, $300, $180, $360. You have a total of $1,000 to spend.

Now imagine everything just got 20% more expensive because everyone working 5 days making $1,000 is now working 4 days making $1,000 and, for every 5 such people, we hire another worker making $1,000 to fill in the gap (i.e. that last day costs an extra $200 per person now). I suppose you got this far and then determined there's that extra worker now, right? Let's look at it further.

So now nobody's getting paid more; they're working less, and MORE PEOPLE ARE BEING PAID to make the products you buy. Your expenses are $120, $48, $24, $360, $216, and $432. That's $1,200--or $200 more than you were able to spend before, and even more than you're able to spend now.

Well let's tie it all together. Food, clothing, personal care, housing, transportation... that's $768 right there. You have about $232 to spend on the other stuff you were buying--about 64% as much. 36% of the production related to those jobs is now unsustainable (there's no revenue to pay all those wages), and so those jobs vanish.

That's the point. You create a situation where people have more money to spend than there are workers to supply, and then you boost the labor expense of anything they want to buy by restricting labor hours. Suddenly everything becomes more expensive, but nobody has any more money; the capacity to buy products beyond what our labor force can supply goes away, because we're suddenly all poorer.

Comment Re:We love you, mr. Torvalds (Score 1) 236

Um yeah a competitor won't use it? bahaha. They rip off Linux code all the time which is why the point of lawyers are brought up.

Actually, given the vast usage of Linux worldwide, it's astonishing how rare such abuses are.

Shoot some companies like banks have ANTI GNU policies to protect themselves.

Some companies are still clueless enough to do that, yes.

Linux can not be used as a simple link to GPL infects the whole program making it viral.

Poppycock. Programs running on Linux do not link to Linux. It's well-accepted that the GPL does not affect programs that merely make syscalls.

I am not a troll here.

Interesting that you feel the need to make that statement.

GNU geeks do not know the difference between GPL and LGPL and assume anyone can use their API. It is not true and it pisses me off.

Also nonsense. Most F/LOSS software developers understand perfectly the distinction between GPL and LGPL, and choose appropriately based on whether they want to allow their code to be linked to non-GPL code. Personally, I've used both licenses for libraries I wrote. Though for programs I tend to choose GPL and for libraries I tend to choose Apache2 or BSD. I think the use case for LGPL is pretty narrow.

Investors agree and so the lawyers that [BSD] is the best option

Only if your lawyers haven't bothered to think about patents. The BSD license has a severe flaw in that it doesn't include a patent grant. If you're incorporating someone else's code into your product and you aren't absolutely certain they don't hold any patents on it, you may be setting yourself up for a patent lawsuit. Apache2 is often a better choice for that reason.

Comment Re:BSDL vs GPL (Score 1) 236

I don't see how the GPL forces you to push your contributions upstream.

"Forces" is too strong, but there's a powerful incentive to upstream changes. Not upstreaming them means that you end up maintaining a library of patches that you have to port to each new version that's released. Over time this gets to be really difficult and expensive.

Note that this is also true for BSD code... except that in the BSD world there are some legal counter-incentives that discourage you from upstreaming. Too many people will argue that because the license allows you to keep your code to yourself, you should, which leads you into a patch-maintenance hell that the business and legal types don't appreciate or understand. So, the GPL helps the technical staff by eliminating the secrecy argument and encouraging upstreaming, which eliminates patch-maintenance hell.

Also, the upstream argument is something that's been compellingly disproven in the case of BSD.

No, it hasn't. You're right that smart BSD projects do upstream changes to avoid patch maintenance hell, but it takes a particularly enlightened organization to do it. The GPL helps be eliminating the option of keeping your changes secret. In a very few cases, this is a problem because the code in question has crucial competitive value *and* can't be run effectively in userspace. But those cases are rare, and the tendency is for organizations to vastly overestimate the value of their proprietary code.

Slashdot Top Deals

System going down at 5 this afternoon to install scheduler bug.

Working...