Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Complete utter nonsense! (Score 1) 357

Can you explain this a little?

As programmer it makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the only code protected by copy-write is the code inside the function curly braces, and not the code outside (i.e. the functions, parameters, returns). This seems like an arbitrarily grey line. What about expressive languages that blur the lines between function declarations and executable code? What if significant code is all written in a macros, where there is no difference? This also dismisses code architecture as uncopywriteable, and yet architecture may be one of the hardest to do right, and thus most valuable things in code.

Comment Re: FUD - and pure factual misrepresentation (Score 1) 196

Citations are easily had by taking statement and plugging into google. I gave you pointers.

No energy industry is separate from government subsidies. Good luck separating the two. And in fairness, should they be totally seperate? As energy is a core driver of economics, security, independence and growth.

But least of which is nuclear, which is the most subsidized industry in history.

Comment Re:FUD - and pure factual misrepresentation (Score 2) 196

Regulatory climate

Those are international numbers led by developing countries installed capacity like China and India who could care less about regulation.

This very plant we are talking about required 3/4th of its costs to be underwritten by government

You mean like the $100 Billion (time.com) that has gone into every single nuclear pant ever built since the beginning of the DOE? You mean like the current nuclear research, loan guarantees and insurance coverage? All for an industry that collapsed under its own economic weight, and only exists today cause Obama boosted the government research subsidies for nuclear?

This is pure Econ 101. If a $1billion solar plant has the same CapEx as nuclear plant, but I can put a panel in service every 10 seconds for $150 each, versus wait 10 years for a monolithic nuclear plant with all the safety and infrastructure to be built... by the time the nuclear pant is built I've already paid down my CapEx, and essentially have no OpEx. Solar wins every time.

We used to test nuclear weapons in Nevada's desert and other remote places in the US proper before. Certainly, building a nuclear power-plant in the same (or similar) locations would've been acceptably risky

You're are kidding right? We spend $6B/Year on cleanup. Untold billions on health lawsuits. Still haven't found a long term storage solution. And leave it up to the government to figure it out for industry. Oh, and right... it doesn't matter cause it isn't economical.

Comment FUD - and pure factual misrepresentation (Score 4, Informative) 196

You sir don't know how to calculate basic math.

The plant cost $2.2B and has a gross capacity of 392 megawatts, therefore the build capacity cost were $5.6/W. The DOE EIA shows coal averages $4.4/W but can be as high as $6.6/W for cleaner plants, and nuclear built costs at a similar $5.5/W. So it was built for a very conventional cost.

But that is just build cost. Then comes the fixed and variable O & M costs for which solar is very low. Half of coal, and a third of nuclear. And that is with coat and nuclear getting all sorts of governmental freebees on the external costs of environmental, health & security impact.

We describe the combination of capital and O&M as LCOE (levelized cost of energy). For which the plant it is a quoted at a LCOE of $0.146/kWh. NOT $200/kWh. Which is competitive which a number of conventional fuel sources like natural gas (wikipedia). PV still ranks cheaper, but there have been few bigger thermal projects to drive down these costs. You might notice that the DOE only quotes the LCOE of theoretical nuclear projects to be delivered in 10 years or fully capitalized 40 year old plants, because the last nuclear plants to be built in the USA had terrifyingly bad economics, and even then don't include their obvious myriad of externalities.

And this is (partially) why in the free market, wind, solar, and decentralized gas-turnbines are killing it. In the last 10 years solar+wind have been leading new capacity installation world wide. by the end of this year solar will have reached 321GW of worldwide capacity, Wind 517GW... most of which was installed in the last 10 years period. Whereas worldwide nuclear capacity declined from 375GW to 372GW in the same period.

Comment Re:"weak" UX often found w/ the most powerful SW (Score 1) 402

  Even the most stupid and inconsistent /scriptable/ user interface is worth more than the best designed inextensible gui.

Use a different OS, or learn more about the one you use. Nearly every element of every application I use on the Mac OS is extendable or scriptable through OSA scripting. It doesn't just stop at piping together textfiles, but can do any type of inter-applicaiton scripting. You are limiting yourself.

You're a freaking genius -- you conceive everything in your head, and then it just works: no debugging, no refactoring, no revision control is ever needed. More curiously, the interfaces and external libraries you're using are just as perfect and immutable as your code.

No, i'm not. But to prove the point, last year I had my best programmer program in C what it took another programmer in python 10x as long. Is C more expressive than python? Not a chance. The difference isn't usually in how much or how fast you type, it is how fast you think through the problem.

Comment Re:"weak" UX often found w/ the most powerful SW (Score 0) 402

Interestingly, just reading the preferred environments of winning competition coders, few list a command line editor. Most a IDE or and heavy-duty GUI editor like sublime.

I think this retro movement is a knee-jerk to "user-friendly" or "simplicity", as if that means "not expert". But as a Wired article recently made clear, most serious GUI tools are not simple at all. But the good ones are "Clear". Clarity only helps power-user tools, and certainly no unbiased observer would call a GUI editor or IDE "obtuse", and vim or emacs "Clear". Most command line tools need are solutions to their self-imposed problems. Back in the day we only had command line tools we could only dream of good IDEs that we have today.

P.S. hat are all these tedious actions? Spend all my time thinking, architecting, then writing... mostly once.

Comment Re:"weak" UX often found w/ the most powerful SW (Score 1) 402

I don't work for a big company where everybody is siloed into narrow tasks. I want everybody to contribute to their upmost potential. I understand I may be one of the broadest engineers around, but that is a requirement in a startup environment. And I really hate when people say, it is "not my job", cause all problems are just problems not software, hardware, mechanical, architectural, UI/UX problems.

If your toolbox is big enough, you can pick the right way to address the problem, not just the one you know.

Comment Re:No thanks (Score -1, Offtopic) 402

Boring is a real problem in open source. I don't find most open source applications compelling, because they generally don't move the flag forward, and instead just poorly mock existing commercial efforts. And usually they are quiet a bit less refined.

So being someone who likes to both have the best tools at the ready, and reward innovators, why would I use a a bad copy of something good... just because it is free? It is not enough. It is like a bad copy of an original painting. The validation in open source that coders get kudos amongst other coders, not users. So rarely does anybody actually care if it is usable at all. And so no mainstream users ever emerge. Until you change the personal validation proposition in the open source community (and maybe our social skills too), it is not going to change.

Comment Re:"weak" UX often found w/ the most powerful SW (Score 1) 402

This is what is wrong with open source! It mistakes good design with new-fangled, fewer features, and inefficient. And yet, I find that is only true of open source, not professional applications. Adding more features beyond 128 characters of ASCII, doesn't make programs suck (just the opposite).

I've got a guy in the office just like you, only vim.

You know what? He is only slightly faster than somebody with good sublime skills, and utterly lost when skills require him to do something more than text process on the command line. I totally run circles around him when it comes to weaving together CAD, graphics, 3D, presentations, vector work, and deep-level debugging in graphical debuggers. The other day I put together a presentation that was an amalgam of 3D cad, mechanical CAD, architectural CAD, photoshop, illustrator, graphical and 3D editors, video editing, and 2D animation. While his text processing is a bit deeper than mine, it doesn't make him very much more efficient at coding, cause that is bandwidth limited by thinking, yet his skill set is sooo much narrower.

The "my command line is all I need" argument was lost 30 years ago. Text is just one of many things a GUI handles. But the thing a GUI does is provide a consistent framework that allows you to use another programs bringing 70% of your skill base to a new application, with little reboot time. Try moving vim guys to emac, and vice versa.

Comment Re:But if you look at unemployment... EEs beat CS (Score 1) 154

The question is why.

There are lots of really interesting and hard problems in CS. But very rarely do I interview a CS grad that has any experience in them, or more frustrating, doesn't even know the nomenclature (e.g. define "heuristics").

They can't even address simple on-the-spot software solutions (e.g. write a simple C function that flips the order of a link-list). All that time spent doing stuff in java has rotted their brains.

Comment But if you look at unemployment... EEs beat CS (Score 5, Interesting) 154

However, while this might be true for the work roles people are performing, the article at the end shows that EEs have lower unemployment than CSs.

This is my experience: When interviewing EEs and CS degreed employees, I'll chose the EE over CS 9 out of 10 times for a software job. In general they have a stronger grasp of the big picture, hardware, software & firmware. In fact I've been downright disappointed with the level of CS expertise by CS grads lately. It is as if the universities are training them for javascript, web site production, and IT support as apposed to a deep understanding of the CS field.

What we can say about this article is: there are more software than hardware jobs, but EEs are dual purpose, and overall have lower unemployment.

Comment What for? Swift isn't anything special (Score 1) 183

I completely disagree Swift VERY special. I'm a embedded systems programmer, and I most to use Swift. There is no other serious contender right now for a modern systems language than can replace C, C++ or objC.

Swift ia very unique language is that it:
1) Has the high level language syntactical goodness of a scripting language like Python or Ruby
2) Has the native performance of a systems language like C
3) Has strong support for multiple paradigms including Functional Programming, Object, and procedural
4) Can morph from a JIT language during compile time for faster programmer efficiency (Like Java), and compile fully native like C
5) Has a hot-coding environment like I've never seen anywhere else

There is only one language that come close to this, and that is Rust. But Rust is probably 5 years from being production ready. And it lacks the JIT-y hot coding goodness.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If anything can go wrong, it will." -- Edsel Murphy

Working...