Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Just spell out the rules clearly. (Score 1) 313

Produce a one-page "procedures" document - clearly, but simply lay out the process in moving code from the programmer's branch to the QA branch and into the production branch. Have everyone read and sign it.

The first time someone violates it, you give them an informal warning.

The second time they violate it, have them sit down with management and HR and tell them that if they violate the rules again, they'll be terminated.

The third time, you terminate them.

Easy...no automation required...you simply have to cause a change in the 'culture'. Programmers are very good at following rules - providing they are clearly stated and obviously put in place for a reason.

If you insist on there being an automated system...

When I've worked on setups like this, we give programmers the rights to do what they like in their own working branch(es) and into the QA branch - but deny them access to the production branch. QA get read-access to the QA branch and are the only people allowed to check stuff into the production branch. Generally programmers get their build together at the end of a sprint - then at the start of the next sprint, QA check it out and either release it or punt it back to the programmers...have two week sprints instead of six so that this doesn't add too much latency into the bug fix cycle. If you're spending more time fixing small bugs than adding large features, then you can temporarily drop the sprint cycle down to one week - if major features are being rolled out - then push the cycle up to at most 3 weeks.

Comment Re:Load it up with food, water supplies, strap (Score 1) 236

Won't work. The ISS doesn't have enough radiation shielding to allow astronauts to survive for long beyond the Van Allan belts. Also, it would take a VERY long time to go anywhere on the "10 Watts in, 10 micro-Newtons of thrust out" that an EM drive provides. The ISS has about 100 kW of solar power capacity - and if 100% of that went into an array of 10,000 EM drives - you'd get 10 milli-Newtons of thrust out. The ISS has a mass of around 400,000kg and needs about 10m/s of deltaV added to it every couple of months just to stay in orbit.

There is no way for EM drives to do anything of use whatever.

Comment Re:Cheaper than starting over (Score 1) 236

Yeah - but the ISS would end up being about 1% of all of the engineering you describe...and because it doesn't have enough shielding to operate safely beyond the Van Allan belts - and it's solar panels won't deliver enough power out by Mars - you's end up with a TON or rework to do.

The trouble it brings would by far exceed it's worth.

If the ISS is going to be worth anything - it's right in the orbit it's in now. Because it needs to be re-boosted to higher orbits every 3 to 6 months - it's not a free resource.

So unless you find a benefit that it's giving to humanity that exceeds the resupply/boost cost where it is right now - then the only cost-effective thing to do is to crash it into the Pacific ocean.

Comment Re:Explore with it or kill it (Score 1) 236

You're right - but if the US doesn't pass a law to continue to fund it past 2024 - then there is no chance of the other countries providing enough cash to keep it flying. If the USA said "We're going to donate our part to private space agencies (who probably won't want to provide food/water/supplies to YOUR astronauts)"...then what could they do about it?

Comment Re:Explore with it or kill it (Score 3, Interesting) 236

I agree - it's really not doing a whole lot for us.

Ditching it into the pacific would be a bad idea - but donating it to privately owned space businesses like SpaceX and Bigelow who are already working with the ISS would make a lot more sense. Consider the boost to US business if those companies had free access to the ISS!

NASA did their job here - they got private industry interested in that stuff - now they can step back from doing what they already know how to do - and get on with the difficult researchy stuff.

Comment Re:Just needs a little nudge. (Score 1) 236

The trouble is that once you're out of low Earth Orbit, you don't get any of the earth's magnetic field protection from solar radiation. Long term occupancy of a structure outside of that orbit requires decent quantities of shielding - which the ISS doesn't have.

If you think the ISS is costly to maintain now - imagine what it would be if each resupply mission needs a rocket the size of a Saturn V to get food, water and oxygen up to a lunar orbit.

Sure, EVENTUALLY, you can get oxygen and water from the moon - but that won't happen until LONG after 2024.

Sadly - although this seems like a reasonable idea - I think it's a non-starter.

Comment Urgh...I hated that book. (Score 1) 227

I don't know how Heinlen gets so much credit for this book...it's was a rambling, shambolic pulp thing with sex and politics wedged into it at every opportunity in a vain attempt to perk it up a bit. It's not a book that has "stood the test of time" at all. If there's money for classic SciFi, we need someone to get off their butts and make "RingWorld". It's time.

Comment Re:Paper... (Score 2) 209

The "dye a finger" thing has some concerns. In some elections, you really want a certain class of person to just not vote. The dyed finger is proof that you voted - and it's hard to wash off (intentionally, obviously). So the bad guy can threaten to beat the crap out of people who voted and still gain an edge. This isn't a theoretical problem.

Of course, you can achieve a similar effect by simply hanging out outside the voting location and noting which people went inside.

But the easier you make it, the more chance of abuse.

Comment Universal Hack (Score 1) 209

So to pull this off you need (a) a voting machine to play with to learn the techniques and (b) physical access to every voting machine you need to influence.

My approach is to make a completely fake voting machine, with the same interfaces as the real thing - and just swap the whole machine out when I have physical access to it.

This thought-experiment shows that with those two things (a machine to play with and physical access) there is no conceivable security measure that'll be 100% effective. So control access to the physical machines and your problem is solved.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...