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:Were the users randomized? (Score 1) 481

Or do you seriously think an Apple Intel CPU is more reliable than a Dell Intel CPU?

Never heard of Xeon? At least half of a high-end chip's reliability comes from the post-manufacture test procedure and binning standard.

At Apple's scale, they can negotiate any production standard with Intel that they wish to have. This isn't even uncommon, as companies like Google and Facebook are already negotiating custom Xeons for the datacenter, which certainly involves tweaking some internal chip firmware (e.g. changing cache allocation policies or thermal envelopes), all the way up to possibly adding specialized instructions and/or execution units.

Finally, far more problems arise from the mainboard and assembly quality than the underlying chip quality, but at the end of the day it all adds up.

Welcome to Supply Chain 501. It's not your father's Supply Chain 101.

That said, Apple (the company) is a cult-like Black Box of the highest order. When it serves their agenda, they make good products. When their agenda shifts with the winds of fashion—so long, sweet Mini—caveat emptor.

The New Mac mini is Quickly Turning into a Disaster
Mac Mini 2014 Review: A Terrible Shame

Once upon a time, a very nice product, too bad about the "greatness" removal tool presiding from the glass office.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 218

The problem is that something as basic as not wanting to bend over, drop your underwear and let an immigrant rape you senseless is now deemed xenophobia.

Exaggerated rhetoric? Barely.
http://www.hna.de/kassel/herde... didn't include rape.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... did.

People being told they're xenophobic for trivial shit is one of the reasons Trump is so popular. He doesn't let the labels being attached to him stop him sharing his views.

Comment Re:Starbucks is down too (Score 1) 260

Are you a fucking imbecile?

You really think a corner shop, a bar, the local butcher is going to take their $2000 daily revenue and dispose of it?

Most of that goes straight into the bank. Shit, you don't want a week's earnings sat in the safe.

Comment Re:Sorry - whose car is this? (Score 1) 301

2. How can an Uber driver afford a new Tesla ?

If a Tesla is fully autonomous then how can anybody that can't afford a Tesla be an Uber driver.

Shit, I'd buy as many as I could afford. Let them loose. Use a tiny subset of the rental income to pay someone to look after them and clean them for me.

Except that I can't. Tesla want to do that themselves.

Comment Re:Sorry - whose car is this? (Score 1) 301

When you let your Tesla go out by itself and do Uber driving to make you money, and some malicious bastard makes your car crash and kill someone, are you going to accept the murder charges?

Surely the malicious bastard takes the murder charges? I haven't seen Avis executives going to jail for involuntary manslaughter by their customers recently.

If the car is autonomous, how the fuck is it your fault if someone crashes?

Just how/why is providing a ride sharing service different if you're taking money for it or you're taking blow jobs from your sister in law for it? Tesla differentiate between the two but legally they're pretty much the same.

Then wake up, cream puff.

Yum. If I was a cream puff I'd stay at home and lick myself.

It's about Tesla looking after YOU !!!
Protecting you from your own stupid instincts.

No, it's about Tesla trying to earn money from their customers through royalties/commission or just through directly controlling the entire revenue stream.

Comment Re:The story behind the story (Score 1) 409

WTF? You Clinton-haters usually assume that the Clintons do all sorts of evil and nefarious things without getting caught.

Broad generalization, but okay.

Now you say Hillary can't put together a decent smear campaign?

Al Capone was widely assumed to do all sorts of evil and nefarious things without getting caught. Now people say he couldn't even do his taxes right?

If the Clintons can leave a trail of bodies behind them without being accused or indicted, they can definitely do a good smear campaign.

If they haven't been accused, then why do you say they can leave a trail of bodies? Nobody's accusing them of that, per your own words. Furthermore, it's not clear that they failed to do a good smear campaign. There are many headlines about Assange being a pedophile, but not too many about how this accusation was brought forth by a non-existent entity. If that doesn't constitute a good smear campaign, then what does?

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 617

If you're too autistic to grasp the difference "will not happen because of standing conditions that make it impossible" and saying "won't happen"... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time.

I'll note that your original comment was that they "can't win", not "won't win". The former is factually false, while the latter is a reasonable opinion. Let's not move the goalposts.

If you're too autistic to grasp the tactical and strategic difference between someone voting for a real threat to their power and someone that is voting for someone that is not a threat to their power... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time. What is more, you're not contradicting that people are being blacklisted based on who they support in an election. Would you be so sanguine if this were applied against Hillary supporters?

I do grasp the tactical and strategic difference between someone voting for a real threat to their power and someone that is voting for someone that is not a threat to their power. That's exactly why I was questioning your original claim that people are being blacklisted for supporting "anything but the democrats". To the best of my knowledge, nobody is being blacklisted for supporting non-Trump candidates, specifically because [in my opinion] non-Trump candidates are not perceived to be a real threat to Clinton. Indeed, I'm not contradicting that people are being blacklisted based on who they support in an election, because that wasn't your original claim. I'm contradicting that people are being blacklisted for supporting "anything but the democrats", when it is clear that supporters of non-Trump candidates are not being blacklisted. Furthermore, I would be very happy to see Hillary supporters blacklisted right alongside Trump supporters (as I clarified in my last post), but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the thread.

How many times in the history of the United States of America has a national write in Candidate won the national election? If you have a point then this happens with some frequency. If it doesn't then you're throwing out more irrelevancies. I can't tell if you're going out of your way to be obtuse to argue points in bad faith or if you're so autistic that you honestly think these are valid points.

I don't believe a write-in candidate has ever won a national election in the US, but two US Congressmen have. However, it's not clear how that's relevant, there is no requirement for previous write-in candidates having won for a future write-in candidate to win (and if there were such a requirement, it could never be met, even in theory). While I acknowledge that the likelihood of a write-in candidate winning is negligible, that's not sufficient grounds to claim that it is not possible. Furthermore, the viability (or lack thereof) of write-in candidates has no bearing on the fact that there are at least three choices for President actually on the ballot in all 50 states, which contradicts your claim of only "two choices". I understand that the other candidates are exceedingly unlikely to win the election, but voters may choose them just as easily as they can choose a Democrat or Republican, and for this reason your claim is factually false.

Because you're either being intentionally obtuse or unintentionally autistic, I suspect you won't acknowledge that were the shoe on the other foot the existing political and social orthodoxy would not be comfortable with Hillary supporters being given the same treatment.

I have no problems acknowledging that the existing political and social orthodoxy (where Democrats increasingly outnumber Republicans) would probably not be comfortable with Clinton supporters being given the same treatment. This is consistent with my view that people are generally being self-interested duplicitous hypocrites when they're allowed to be. What I don't understand is why you seem to think I'm less critical of Clinton supporters than I am of Trump supporters.

P.S. Kudos for repeatedly using autistic as a pejorative. Also recommended: retarded, gay.

Comment Re:ASLR was a dumb idea while it lasted (Score 4, Interesting) 71

Yes it is but people have been trying to do that for 40 years and have not gotten it right yet so...

Wrong. Plenty of code correctness has been deployed in service of this goal.

Unfortunately, there are endemic economic and political reasons why we constantly choose the protocols and implementations that are bigger, hairier, and less continent.

All you need is a culture of kicking non-conforming implementations to the curb, and then the rigorous implementations have a chance to emerge from the weeds. Do we have such a culture? No—most of the time—no, we do not. Such a culture would cramp Megacorp style, and interfere with timeless value-adds, such as embrace and extend, closed ecosystem, DRM jungle, NIST-sanctioned algorithmic weevils, definition by implementation, documentation by implementation, etc. etc.

Far, far away in dull and dusty places like the Erlang OTP or Bernstein's qmail or Knuth's TeX—or perhaps even the Google protocol buffers for at least one lucky and unusually blessed language binding from the somewhat recent past—you just might find a rigorously coded parser or two.

For the most part, however, I agree. We'll probably never have rigorous parsers in a dominant culture of "screw everyone else", Wild West dysenteroperability.

Comment Re:space agency cooperation? (Score 3) 244

Of course NASA passed on decades of hard-won experience. They're not psychopaths.

It went something like this:

Dear ESA:

Hire only the best and the brightest, keep the group challenged and engaged for decade upon decade, with frequent launch opportunities pushing the boundary of the possible at each and every iteration.

N.B.: Sorry, there's no silver bullet.

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 617

Gary can't win.
Jill Stein can't win.

That's objectively false. They're both on the ballot in sufficiently many states to be able to win. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that they'll win, but strictly speaking, they can win. I'll forgive this on the basis of likely hyperbole and not a statement intended to be literally true.

There's no reason to blacklist people that throw their votes away.

Presumably "people that throw their votes away" are people who vote for someone other than the two major party candidates? If that's the case, then you seem to be agreeing with me that your original claim that people are being blacklisted for supporting "anything but the democrats" is false, since you seem to be claiming that people who support Stein or Johnson (who are not Democrats) are not blacklisted.

Politics is not an ice cream parlor where you get to choose your favorite flavor. You have two choices typically and neither one is what you'd choose if you had control over everything.

This is a flawed analogy on multiple counts. Since 43 states (including all of the populous ones) allow write-in candidates, most voters can indeed choose anyone they want, literally. Furthermore, the remaining 7 states offer at least three choices this year, so it is

Look, you feel entitled to blacklist people possibly for voting for one thing or another. Fine. You would naturally have no problem with someone blacklisting anyone that supported Hillary then?

I feel entitled to blacklist people (from what?) for any reason I see fit. I would similarly have no problem with blacklisting anyone that supported Hillary. That is correct. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, though.


Slashdot Top Deals

Try `stty 0' -- it works much better.