Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Yes. Android MVP (Score 1) 332

As I once stated in a comment around here, I have seen loads of over-engineering hours wasted by Android dev teams trying to fit a square peg to a round hole: many a times MVP/MVC or other "responsibility containment" patterns refactoring hours are applied to existing, super complex activities that will never be reused; other times applied to super sort activities that need no testing. This cuts 2 of the more relevant benefits of refactoring (testing and reuse). I see technical debt tasks so often, just for the sake of "patternizing" things, without a clear long-term goal (or even a problem to begin with), save for cargo cult programming - 10-file activity modules with 10 LOCs each, when the same could be achieved with 2 or 3 class/interface files providing readable and conceptualizable code still keeping the same testability and re-usability. Even starting something from scratch is no excuse to make it "standardized" - you start with the basics, and when you find reuse/testing/containment problems, you decide to change to a complex approach.

And this is for Android: an already complex, well engineered API that intrinsically forces you to separate responsibilities, and is a reuse/testing heaven. I like most of the SDK and it does look clean. This is so because it provides thousands of official and community documentation pages. You don't see that code and doc quality from small teams that define set standards and work on a fraction of Google's budget (read: more man-month AND more punch per "man"). All in all, most benefits of advanced software engineering are lost, in practice, when applied by small software houses. This is why I believe that even though patterns have a purpose, its benefits are tightly coupled with good judgement of its usage. Over-engineering is a serious disease in the industry.

Comment Re:Android security flaw and not Tesla security fl (Score 2) 118

My Android developer take on this same story:

It is Tesla's fault. Why?

They decide which target sdk and which min sdk version they support (compile sdk doesn't really matter for liability purposes). They should be aware of the consequences of supporting older versions. If they use a feature that is vulnerable in one of the versions they support, it's CLEARLY their fault ;-)

This reminds me of a question I once answered - someone wanted to store passwords on Android's SharedPreferences for "remember password" feature. Someone told them to use SharedPreferences. I replied stating SharedPreferences can be seen in cleartext if the an app is using root to poll the filesystem (SharedPreferences' defense is nothing more than storing them in filesystem encrypted files, which # simply bypasses). Whose fault is it that a phone is rooted/rootable or that the app escalated by itself? Doesn't matter. These are clear case of snowball growing, but in practice, if you're using a feature of an API for which you can see the source (because you can, it's AOSP...), you're always to blame for the dangers you put on your software. I learned that the soft way, and so did Tesla - they better prevent the hard way from happening with a quick fix. As they probably are storing the token in a SharedPref, the secure-preferences lib probably solves their problem or heavily mitigates attacks.

Comment Re:News for Nerds? (Score 1) 238

It was a quote, and the only thing wrong in the post was he forgot to omit the trivial (for us /. readers) stuff so that context wasn't lost on the following phrase, which went through the whole yard of router products Apple will stop producing. Arguably not all of us know he entire line (me included) - I had no idea they had an EXTREME version of an airport. I wonder what them Frankfurt folks have to say about it..

Comment Re:Giving out pointers... (Score 1) 315

Correction: By "raid laptop", I meant a laptop with 2 actual m.2 pci-e nvme slots soldered to the board. I believe the dell options, even with raid available on the config, use an m.2. adaptor ("interposer" as they call it) which just uses the SATA bus, which bottlenecks pci-e. The only reason wanting something like this would be for fast RAID 2 (reliability), but it would seriously hamper the soldered m.2 ssd performance, as every write would have to wait for the slower SSD. Reads would probably not be affected unless there was a memory miss on the SSD, something that takes decades according to current marketed specs. Then again, what am I talking about RAID 2 for SSDs :D

Comment Giving out pointers... (Score 1) 315

I honestly think the XPS 15 is a top choice too, although the reasoning for this is not directly for design/size/display, but mostly because it ticks all the right boxes specs-wise that make a great laptop. For an all around machine, meaning it can be used both as a work performer or an entertainment, i'd rarelly take away these features:

- Intel Skylake 40w+ TDP QUAD chip (usually ending in HQ), be it i5 or i7, later preferable if doing any heavy rendering (video, stills, photoshop, audio, 2 or 3d modelling/CAD)
- previous or current gen nvidia or radeon #60 line graphics or above, with 2GB dedicated DDR5, or quadro/firepro equivalents
- 16GB RAM at minimum. 8GB no longer cuts it, even on Linux machines with nvme ssds. I believe app and OS usage of swap/pagefile is still very flawed and one of the main detriments of user experience in modern times, probably one of the best tools to degrade products to force users to a new purchase
- 1tbs+ speed nvme solution, with at least 256GB capacity if the laptop is an on-the-go machine and you keep something better at a fixed location
- retro-illuminated keyboard is a must for anyone
- optional: if you only use a laptop, it becomes essential to have a dual secondary, 2.5 SATA memory option of at least 1TB. Speed not relevant
- Display is easy for most: FHD (aka 1080p), wide-angle screen (keyword: IPS/OLED). Preferably no glare, but that's a personal/professional choice.
- consider the max and min brightness settings if your use-cases can be affected by very bright or very low necessities
- display special cases: 2k wide-angle for those that have absolutely no myopia and consider the real estate comfy and the cost is no object; 4k, high color gamut for any professional that can use it and afford it. Touch functionality on a no-makeshift tablet laptop is useless (but some 4k options gotta have it...)

And the 2 most important things, unfortunately also the 2 hardest ones to get right:
  - proven thermal solution that can keep up with heavy load for at least 5min without any throttling (both CPU and GPU). The XPS is decent only on this dept.
  - very solid bios, bios options, support, and a brand/model/line reputation for performance oriented support. This is where the XPS fails hard, but the Precision variant has this covered.

These last 2 can usually only be found on business or ultra-premium gaming oriented products, such as Alienware, Voodoo, Dell Precision/Latitude (XPS, lacks the bios options), Toshiba Tecra, Lenovo Thinkpad (stay away from consumer Lenovo stuff), HP Elitebooks and the likes. Notable exceptions might apply if heavily supported by community bios'es. Thinkpads and Dell Latitudes are notable for getting hacked/wrd party bios for making fun things.

My personal recommendations are either a topped up Dell Precision 15 5000 (the business-line XPS) with Xeon and Quadro chips, or if performance is pinnacle and money no object, the heavier Precision 7000 which can have up to 64GB RAM, ECC support, and well, all the configurations you can dream of in a 15 incher. The 5000's have a much worse thermal solution, still great, but no match for a large form-factor work-centric machine such as the Precision 7000 machines. The 7000 can also be much cheaper, or much costlier than the 5000, depending on config. And it is a SOLID machine. Note both 5000 and 7000 support multi-m.2 nvme SSD on raid configs. I wonder when we'll get a dual nvme m.2 raid laptop - I'd love to see that secondary memory reliability OR performance feature in a top-tier machine.

Comment No sense besides technological (Score 1) 598

The only reason I see for this would be from a procedural point of view (read: programming). No schedule-accustomed mind would ever feel right rationalizing the same hours for every different places, where they now do the same things at somewhat specific hours. A guy would think bedtime hours in Paris are like 10pm, then travel to the US and have to calculate a new bedtime hour - and every single other schedule that matters. This is exponentially irregular, and our brain is not fond of a high number of irregularities. It's much easier to adjust the clock with the time zone (1 irregularity) and stay around the somewhat similar schedules (which are regular).

Now, when we got about our space-faring adventures in a not-so-distant future, then we might have a compelling argument to switch to UTC. But even then I would assume this would only be so for exchanges between intra and extra planetary entities. No other reason for the paradigm shift for those interacting within such entities. But even then I think something better might surface when we effectively get to such a point; something that we haven't thought yet logical, feasible or even possible.

Comment The great IRIS wall (Score 1) 46

So basically this guys is asking their government to pull an NSA on their citizens. Good thing it's China then. Don't know about you but I'm gonna scale da fck down my Ali-Express shopping starting right now. It's not like what they have can't be found on ebay or other chinese wholesale-2-consumer competitors anyway.

Comment El Aarono Swartzo (Score 1) 48

Despite the big, commercial-grade numbers (11k), making books available on the internet should be seen as a feat for human civilization. This is another case of state money being used to hamper human development. Who buys and reads paper books anyway, let alone purchase ebooks when the pdf is a free google search away?

If any state agent is reading this: I urge you to start considering using our funds for the greater good, and not the specific good of publishers making a bigger profit than they have to. Capitalism is only as good as the companies that make things actually stocking and making them affordable enough for universal availability. If you're protecting a publisher solely by restricting the channels they offer their products in physical form, limited editions, and medium class-oriented, highly inflated pricing, you're hampering innovation. And innovation is the number 1 rule in capitalism-driven society (right after human rights). Going against it is an oppressive measure. Spend money somewhere else, like feeding the poor or highly overseeing malpractice and anti-competitiveness on books, scientific journals, papers and whatnot.

Comment Re:Elon Musk reaction (Score 1) 108

And the obvious reason there are less accidents in the autobahn is highly likely for the number of lanes, the low rate of curves, the quality of the road, and the high tolls for trucks (less trucks, less takeovers from slower cars, more slow cars on the outer lanes). You really tried to turn an argument around using nothing but flawed logic. I took logic as the main issue and so did Elon.

Comment Re:Elon Musk reaction (Score 1) 108

I don't have to: the statistical argument is invalid. There's a reason insurance doesn't pay for high-speed accidents in the autobahn.

Reckless driving is reckless driving no matter how statistics want to play them. That's why there are speed limits. Uncontrollable things that happen at 230kmh, things you can't put a fault on anything else other than the speed the car is driving: the statistically odd bird comes around the windshield, you die; a tire bursts, you die; drivetrain cracks under pressure, you die; somebody takes over without signaling to your lane (a mild driving offense in most countries, not a serious one) and you're at 15m from them, everyone dies. The lack of control, and the lack of liability, is the real issue here. Insurers would have never allowed such a thing unless immunity in the autobahn wasn't a thing. And it became a thing . And that is the proof it is reckless.

The same statistical argument can be said about autopilot systems: if everyone is using the same programmed driving (and that programming is half-decent), less accidents happen. I guaran-fuking-tee you this with my life, it's the easiest calculation anyone in IT will be able to make. Yet, it does not make it any less reckless to not have a driver paying attention. That is a fair argument. Much like it is super NOT reckless to have speed limits no matter what.

Commercial airliner flight is 99% autopilot, yet they still need the pilots there for a reason: they are carrying the responsibility the computer programs won't legally carry. And in case you didn't read the fine print, that's the real problem - German automakers don't have enough technology/money/liability combo to back a product like Tesla's in production cars at such a scale, at least not in financially favorable way to them. The politicians are defending this interest in hampering autopilot initiatives until german makers can abide, much like the autobahn was put in place when engines reached a certain maturity, which despite being useless, made for a good reason for profit scaling (SELL FAST CARS AT PREMIUM). They can't be driven like this anywhere else other than circuits... Simple state-self-defense tactics imho.

Comment Re:100% content free (Score 1) 183

No, that is why most companies that handle conflicting business reach a point where they either split themselves in multiple companies with separate interests, or enter legal fights over the right to keep their practice. From the top of my head I remember Ebay+Paypal, Google+Android+Search+Ads+etc. They either do this or start being heavily scrutinized by whatever authority regulates fair game and competitive rules, and not only in their base countries but all countries they operate. Just look at all the problems Microsoft and Google have with the EU Commission for very basic things such as user privacy or not forcing a browser into a user just because the installed a specific OS...

The thing is, most of these regulations aren't created a priori because, in capitalism, innovation is supposedly (and highly likely) hampered by excessive regulation. But it does come to a point where regulation becomes essential to prevent consumer abuse. This is one such case. Uber, many say, is another as it works outside regulation and cab drivers feel discriminated because they have stricter rules (which also didn't exist in the first place but they started abusing the system...). There are many sides to this coin, but the bottom line is: consumers are starting to lose choice, freedom and availability of the internet because a company wants to be profitable. Regulations need to be put in place, and companies are bound to fight their fortune-making scheme because that is what their investors demand.

The only reason 3/4/5/X-play ISP bundles exist is because most companies in this field have ease entering common fields, as the infrastructure is very similar. But in strict terms, they are hampering the consumer by forcing high prices for services they might not need and offering exorbitantly priced single-service alternatives. Why rent routers? Why rent set-top boxes? Why does my service require restricted equipment when there are hundreds of modems out there? Telcos are the top lobbying companies in DC up there (and many times above) defense, IT, Pharma and energy for a reason - they like the tit they've been sucking in for 20 years, and now they have the money to buy the cow.

Comment Re:100% content free (Score 1) 183

I would say no argument there: the bundle itself becomes anti-competitive as the company is no longer prividing an infrastructure service such as those found in normal ISP bundles: cable, TV, phone, internet, 3/4g, wifi hotspots, roaming packs and whatnot. They would be including a completely different form of business that is not justifiable to include in an internet service as it infringes itself in the now cardinal rule of internet policy: that the internet service has to be unbiased towards content.

The moment you offer no data caps or in some way an unrestricted usage of a service, bundled with a supposedly generic data plan, you're pretty much hogging other services, that plan stops being generic - it is a service bound to favor the bundle products. And that my friend, is the basis of anti-competitive practices - having something nobody else CAN have, attaching it to a turd of an internet service (capped), and selling that turd for a premium because "SPOTIFY" (e.g.).

Comment Re:Elon Musk reaction (Score 1) 108

To all the people here trying to make this connection about the "auto" part of autobahn he's referring is about "automatic", you should think again: he's obviously stating there is such a thing as a reckless road where there are no speed limits in Germany, because that's the only place the rich could justify their 250km/h top speed purchases legally. The autobahn is an obvious incentive to German auto high-end purchasing, sponsored by the government. Now there is government-sponsored public chatter trying to take away from Tesla one of their key features, in obvious favor to German automakers' features that are still not ready for production, or aren't as fully-featured as Tesla's. For the sake of the argument, I'm pretty much an unbiased party: I am from Portugal, and I don't own any interests in whatever form in Tesla or any auto company. I do drive a SEAT car with a VW engine, but it's a 2000 model and I have no particular feelings towards the engine-makers.

TL:DR - The comment is obviously about the irony of the comment coming from a government official, from a state who already showed disregard for safety in favor of boosting German car purchases.

Comment Data caps are a profit rush that need to stop (Score 1) 183

T-Mobile NL is complaining about having a music streaming service (such as Spotify, Deezer, Soundlcoud, Apple Music, whatever) that does not count towards the data cap, and it helps them get users. We also have a lot of these stunts here in Portugal (e.g. for Youtube, Vodafone, Spotify, and even ISP-exclusive services), and this is a good example on why this might seem as "going too far" in their scope: it is affecting their marketing. Honestly, I believe hard measures like this are for the best, as they ultimately force ISPs to end any sort of "hit-a-brick-wall" traffic limitation. Because you know what, these caps are always a measure for the ISP to make more money, and never to keep average quality good through acceptable policy or to keep control their infrastructure.

There have been much better "acceptable policies" in place since the inception of broadband, and they have always worked well enough for all sorts of users: you are on the top percentile traffic count of a specific demographic, such as "people connected to the same node", you get to have ALL your traffic QoS'd until you fall into more acceptable practices. You have critical services that can't be QoS'd? Pay a real premium service that can only be supplied to organizations with plausible justification, such as one explicit in law. there are examples of this: not many people here know about it but in many countries, such as Portugal, there are state-owned fiber optic lines for utilities, that go through rural areas for instance, and that can be pulled for whoever makes a founded request. Problem is some "privileged" people abuse power when it is so obscure and not publicly advertised, but a better way for such a system would be to restrict it to registered organizations and companies, who would still be required to define strictly and found well their specific needs. After all, you only should get a Formula 1 car if you know the car and have the credentials for using it.

Why aren't measures like these used for wireless data? It's obvious: cell providers never found a good way, with data caps, to scale wireless internet revenue as profit to their investors, and different ISPs entered in consensus about this. It's the only place they can make the ever-hungrier normal user shell out more money when he gets hooked to the service, which he is bound to because the technology in his pocket evolves in directions that enable him to. We are literally carrying year 1998 super computers with in our pockets, at multiple orders of magnitude above RDIS throughput these days.

Slashdot Top Deals

The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky