Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: So funny (Score 1) 171

I don't think it's so much "defend against factual claims" so much as "factual claims" usually aren't factual. For instance, in your post:

1. Quality problems - I think you'll find this mainly and primarily applies to the Model X. The Model S did quite well even after the Consumer Reports downgrade, which was reported based on an early-production Model S of which most of the problems were already solved in later revisions. So like most of your post, there's *some* truth, but not the whole truth.
2. Recalls and cost of recalls - Again, this is almost exclusively to do with the Model X. There have been a few voluntary recalls of the Model S but they were for items that *might* be a problem but really haven't shown up on the road. Not to mention very cheap to fix (replaced rear seat belt buckle, titanium underplate).
3. Keeping up with demand - Again, a Model X problem (see a pattern here?). Model S production has ramped from 500 cars/week to ~1500 cars/week in ~3 years and order backfills are about ~6 weeks, hardly a long time.
4. The Model 3 price is $35k *before* tax incentives. That's the base price stated. Elon tweeted something about the expected ASP being $42k because he expects a lot of consumers will shell out for higher trims.

Not that I disagree with most of your narrative. They've always been late and I expect the Model 3 will be late, though not as much as "2 years" as you claim (that's historically not true of either the Model S nor the Model X). And there's a very real possibility they could run out of cash before they manage to hit mass volume sales on the Model 3.

But you can see why "Tesla devouts" would see it fit to disagree with you; your facts aren't completely accurate and are at best exaggerated.

Comment Re:corporate fanboyism (Score 1) 163

If you're going to draw comparisons between different decades, you need a standard measurement. Keep the way inflation was calculated, and you'd find the GDP would be about 10% lower - because that's the impact of inflation on it. And by that measure - we're still in the recession that started in 2007.

Even if, as I point out, the economy changes and new productivity categories are added that GDP doesn't take into account? What you're proposing is the equivalent of only measuring what was the whole economy in the 1980's but is only part of the economy in 2010 and then saying "look, that hasn't grown!". Well, no, it hasn't. Because we've added more stuff that isn't categorized by the old measurement into the economy and the old stuff became commodities after everyone has one.

Let's do analogy time. In 2003, I come up with a way to measure the revenue of a company. Let's call that company Apple Computers. Let's pretend we don't have full shareholder reporting and are kinda blind (like we are with the US economy). But I know that 99% of the revenue collected by Apple Computers is based on number of Macintosh computers sold. So I define my "iGDP" as "lets measure number of Macs sold every year" as an indirect way of defining "productivity" of Apple Computers.

In 2013, if I used the same method of measuring "iGDP", I'd say "hey! Apple Computers (now Apple Inc) has only grown by ~50%" since number of Macs sold every year has only gone up 50%. That's essentially what you're proposing. "Keeping the measurement method the same".

The flaw with the above approach, of course, is that since 2003, Apple Computers has become Apple Inc and has added whole new product lines that my original "iGDP" measurement didn't take into account. In 2003, measuring "iGDP" by counting number of Macs sold was accurate enough. In 2013, it's wildly off. Because in reality, Apple Inc hasn't grown 50%, it's grown roughly 2000%. If I made the statement "Apple Inc has had the best year ever, growth has been 2000%" it'd be way more accurate than "Apple Computer has had the best year ever, growth has been 50%". Yet you're proposing the later, not the former.

"GDP" is just a best-effort approximation. What it represents is the whole productive power of the U.S. economy. That "best-effort" changes as the economy changes. But stating that the economy has grown and grown faster than past decades is not inaccurate.

Lowest labor force participation rate in 2 generations [bls.gov]. Record levels of food stamps use [trivisonno.com]. Record numbers on welfare [cnsnews.com]. Stagnant wages [pewresearch.org]. A Federal Government adding $4 billion in debt every day [treasurydirect.gov]. It's not all roses now, not at all...

Unemployment rate 1980-2016 is lower, Federal revenue is much higher.

I can hand-pick stats that favors my narrative as well. Especially since 2 of your stats naturally goes up as the population increases.

About the only thing I think you and I can agree on is that stagnant wages are a problem. Also, to note, labor force participation rate from 1980-2016 changed from ~64% to ~63%. Hardly the insane apocalypse you seem to imply.

Comment Re:Where am I? (Score 1) 135

Except it isn't. "Middle-out" is a fictional name up until the advent of the show. Nobody researching compression had a "middle-out" algorithm.

Also, the Pied Piper algorithm offered lossless compression of just about anything at a ridiculously high rate (something like 10x what HVEC is capable of with no loss). They also had a distributed storage platform that used drive space of everyone's phone to store files.

Comment Re:corporate fanboyism (Score 1) 163

Artificial is to change the measure so that your GDP appears to grow faster than it really does.

How do you determine what "real" GDP growth is? Again, you seem to imply that how it was done in the 1970's and 1980's were the "correct way".

However, if you want to talk about ending a recession, or the "best GDP growth in decades" you should use the same measures and ways of calculating your variables - not change them from Administration to Administration.

I agree that the rhetoric of "best GDP growth in decades" is inaccurate at best. But that doesn't mean the measurement of GDP should not be updated with the changing economy. If we simply stuck with how GDP was measured X number of decades ago, we'd end up calculating nothing but how many bushels of corn was produced every year and how many heads of cattle were reared. The point of GDP is to measure *all* of the productive power of the U.S. And what "productive power" means changes whenever someone invents something new or when the population of the world all of a sudden demand something different. Changing how you measure GDP to accurately reflect all of the production and all of the demand, which changes all the time, that isn't rigging the measurement system; it's a way of keeping GDP relevant.

As an analogy, what you're proposing is analogous to the Dow Industrial average. The measurement method has been kept the same for a century. But the method used is incredibly crude and doesn't at all capture the nuances of the stock market, let alone the capital economy. Just because I replace the Dow with something more accurate that actually shows market growth doesn't mean I've "fudged the numbers". If I introduce the S&P, for instance and see year-after-year growth of the S&P while the Dow stays stagnant, that doesn't mean my newfound measurement is not correct.

I think a LOT of the tension in the US right now is because of the constant media narrative of "we're doing great! See how wonderful DC is to the rest of you?"

Is that *really* what you see the media doing? All I see, especially on the more conservative end, are doom-and-gloom stories similar to your narrative. It cherry-picks things that sound bad and then paints some sort of apocalyptic portrait of what the state of the U.S. is.

In reality, how many people are actually unemployed who want to work? How many people are starving or homeless? How many can't afford the basics of life? Does the average person's quality of life today suffer compared to, say, someone in the 1990's or 1980's? Actual, objective quality-of-life.

All I hear is that people "feel" like they aren't as well off compared to some rose-colored memory of decades past. That "feeling", of course, is greatly affected by what kind of narrative their favorite media source paints.

Comment Re:I don't blame them. (Score 1) 163

I've worked for 3 household-named tech companies now. The interns we get every year have been from good, well known tech schools but definitely not exclusively Ivy League. Off the top of my head:

Good mix of UC's, not just Berkeley or LA. SD is pretty engineering heavy but so is SB, Davis, Santa Cruz.
Michigan State, NC State, USF, UT Austin, Oregon State, UW.

There are just as many from any of those schools as from MIT, Stanford or Georgia Tech. And places like Harvard/Columbia get passed up more often than not.

This isn't snobbery, this is pure probability. All of those schools I listed have very good engineering programs with a history of graduating good engineers. Nationally, they may not be "top schools", but that doesn't matter.

Internship is by far the most valuable way of getting both the skills and recognition needed to either get a good job or start a decent startup.

Comment Re:corporate fanboyism (Score 1) 163

What is "artificial" in your mind and what isn't? You act like there's some golden measurement of inflation and GDP that was correct, but now isn't. I'd argue the opposite is true. The current measurement of inflation and GDP may be way off since they fail to capture the parts of the economy that has been invented but not accounted for by the Fed. For instance, the iTunes music/movie store or Uber drivers' wages and Uber ride costs.

In reality, inflation may be far lower than what's being calculated and GDP may be far higher. What used to be everything people consumed (food, clothing, cars, houses) that is used to measure inflation isn't the whole of people's daily or annual consumption anymore. And those things have gotten cheaper, not more expensive, over time.

Comment Re:Cost of Living Tradeoffs (Score 1) 163

Convincing people to have to download a client to download a file is kinda cumbersome. That's a legitimate complaint. I see a lot of "seasoned IT workers" posting about how these young kids just want to re-invent the wheel and don't know about .

FTP has a lot of flaws when it comes to modern, high-volume file-sharing. It's either password based (insecure) or RSA based (cumbersome for one-off file sharing). While it doesn't necessarily require a client (most web browsers support sftp) you need to send a link to your server to share a file (unless you setup a link proxy, which the person sending the file has to generate every time). That invites both phishing and DDoS.

This is why things like Attache and various other, encrypted, 2-step verified sharing services exist.

Comment Re: Why is Slashdot pushing this story so hard? (Score 4, Insightful) 136

You alread need to be "the right type of person" to drive. After getting 16-18 depending on the State, you have to meet requirements by the big, fascist government before you are given a driver's license. Or risk going to jail.

I fail to see what the difference with autonomous cars would be except in some post apocalyptic survivor fantasy you may be preparing your daily choices for.

Comment Re:can't this hardware be translated to software? (Score 1) 55

http://livinglab.mit.edu/wp-co...

They use individual cores to speculatively execute very short sequences of instructions, for instance, a function call or loop iteration. The algorithms they benchmark resemble the architecture -- where there's a lot of very small code sequences that aren't usually very dependent on each other, however the individual code sequences aren't large enough for traditional thread-based solutions with high-synchronization overhead to work.

One wonders how this would compare to a lock-free implementation on modern multi-core server processors with transactional memory.

One thing to note is that the algorithms they evaluate are largely biased towards huge numbers of tasks that are known ahead of time. There is a large amount of potential parallelism, but traditional synchronized thread-based methods add too much overhead since each task is very small. General-purpose computing (for instance, browser code) contains scarce little of such algorithms, though.

Comment Re:Can't stop the signal... (Score 1) 288

I see two problems here:

1. You can't just separate out "music" any other types of copyright just because you think it isn't worthwhile. What criteria do you use to decide whether or not something is copyrightable? Or are you advocating abandoning the copyright system altogether? What about books, articles, paintings or movies? What video games?

2. Whether you think the current industry of mega-hit music is enriching or not, a lot of people seem to find it valuable enough to spend $$ on it. What you propose would eliminate an entire industry. On an individual basis, the loss of top-40 hits might not be so rough but in aggregate, it is a huge hit on total wealth. In aggregate, people would be missing something they otherwise would value. That's a decrease in aggregate wealth, which is not something an economy should aim for.

Comment Re:Awfully full of themselves (Score 2) 288

It is about control. But I think it's legitimately about their idea of what's "fair". Copyright holders and media companies have spent decades to implant the idea into anyone they can that copyright == property.

In reality, that's not the case. Never was the case. Ideas aren't owned. That's why there are expiration dates on patents and copyrights but no expiration on ownership of physical items.

You don't *own* a song or an invention. You are granted, through public law, *limited* exclusive control of a song or invention because the public feels granting said limited exclusive control encourages innovation and benefits the public.

I can imagine their righteous indignation. I'd feel it too if I had my property taken away. The problem is they don't realize -- and it's in their financial interest to not realize -- that copyrights aren't the same as property.

Comment Re:I agree down with the DMCA (Score 2) 288

While it is indeed a legitimate complaint, the originators of this complain are all successful and wealthy artists. So it's difficult to swallow the "this is a cry for the little guy" line. Moreover, their primary complaint is their own albums being uploaded to Youtube without consent. While it's a legitimate complaint, whether or not we amend public law to help these artists is another debate.

Youtube, for their part, tries to do what it can to auto-detect content and share ad revenue. The problem is that Swift and the other mega-rich (and yes, all the ones on the list are rich) artists don't agree with how *much* they're being paid. That's not fairness, that's greed.

I also highly doubt the vast majority of the unlicensed-uploading-of-an-album you describe is done for relatively little-known, shoe-string budget artists. By very definition that if someone were well known and famous enough to reach tens of millions of viewers, they either are or will be very soon, pretty wealthy. A law forcing some type of draconian take-down system or god forbid one-sided ad-share rates would primarily and grossly benefit only large, established and *wealthy* artists.

Most "little guys" starting out love Youtube. It's a great way to promote themselves and reach a larger audience with the hopes that they'll reach critical mass to one day complain about not being paid enough.

Comment Re:Wrong stat to look at (Score 1) 260

Chrome uses more of almost everything, in my experience. Including disk writes/reads, memory footprint and CPU time. What it's doing, I don't know but the fan on my Surface Pro starts to wheeze whenever I have Chrome even in the background.

It got significantly worse with Windows 10 (I know, I know, shame on me for upgrading). To the point where the machine, with an i5 processor, will stutter and lag just from browsing simple websites.

I get the feeling Chrome on Windows is a side-project for Google at this point as they focus on Android.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Working...