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


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

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.

Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.

I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work ...

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

In theory humans can make the choice.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Of course not, you don't read the NYT.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media has 'trained' us?


Is it really so hard to turn your back?

Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.

Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?

Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.

Comment Re:you mean capitalism works? (Score 1) 372

Let's remember that the drug wasn't there before. That's the price the society pays for a dynamic drug market.

No, the epipen was cheaper before Mylan CEO Heather Bresch decided to jack the price to +$600. Of which the company claims to only make $50, a really nice profit for something some people need. That is ignoring the insanity of that $550 overhead. An epipen is a single use stick needle. It delivers a $5 dose of a drug needed to stop anaphylactic shock. Outside the United States these pens are below $10.

You invent something; it's prohibitively expensive for a bit, then the price drops.

Nice theory but reality is different. The dark side to supply and demand is that if you need something, you don't have a choice to buy it. Whatever price I chose to sell it to you is what you have to pay. You want to stay healthy so you need Medicine. Since medicine is something you need, you'll pay whatever price or suffer. If I can make enough profit I can even afford to make sure nobody else competes with me. Either I can create a premium brand like the iPhone or just break the kneecaps of anybody who competes with me like solar roofs versus the local power monopoly.

The best business is to charge people for nothing, like sham medicine. The second best business is to take something that was cheap and already exists then resell it for really high profits.

And because of the first problem the FDA regulate markets like medical products very carefully. You may have to pay more since providing something real is more expensive than just cheating you out of your money. But you shouldn't be getting sham products.

The FDA doesn't regulate the cost to consumers, though. The would require a different, non-existent government organization in the USA. Something like a single payer medicine program.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?

Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.

Comment It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.

Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."

Comment Puppet verses Ansible? (Score 3, Interesting) 167

Where do you see the configuration management market going in the next year or two?

Orchestration is the hot topic right now for automation verses last year's configuration management tools. Ansible is more orchestration than configuration management. Puppet and Chef require tools like mCollective to pickup the orchestration piece. RedHat now runs Tower. And Tower now ships as part of the RedHat Ceph storage product. RedHat's Satellite product is based on the Foreman which includes Salt, Puppet, Chef and Ansible support.

But where is this market heading? Are we likely to see consolidation? Integrations? Or even a flood of config management system tied products from vendors?

Comment Re:Train them as poorly as possible (Score 1) 531

You sir, sound like an idiot. If you were 'so talented' you'd have had no problem finding a job. In fact your story smells like such bullshit I had to check my shoes to make sure I didn't walk in anything before I sat down.

Then you need to check your eyesight. You missed the cowardly brain matter leaking from you anonymous ears.

The story is so common and well-known in the United States that it even has a name: hard luck story.

The skills for doing a job and getting a job are different for everyone but a corporate recruiter.

Thus RubberDogBone was probably busy doing the job when working and not dedicating large amounts of time to finding the next one. Deep experts tend to be like this by definition. They gave up other time and tasks to dedicate to learning and performing one thing. It's also why going to conferences and user groups in an important part of professional work.

The skills for doing a job are tied to the application(s) and industry worked in. The skills of getting such a job are those for establishing and maintaining a large network of people. These people get you job referrals and job offers by getting past the HR filter. In instances where you are well known they can create jobs to get your limited skills for themselves. At the least they connect available jobs with available potential employees.

This is exactly like dating. There is a hidden information problem with lots of questions. Can you do the job? Can you fit in with the existing team or deal with the family? Are you wiling to work for the money available? The tools to resolve the problem are limited to writing about, talking to and meeting people. All of these fall into the trap of trust and reliability. Was this person just lucky at their last job or relationship? Are they bullshitting about their ability? Is this person just a presidential-class conman or con-woman?

In both cases lots of new tools have been developed to work around the problem. You have dating sites, prostitution and Churches on one side. On the other you have Linked-in, personal consulting and out-sourcing firms like Capgemini.

However, large layoffs like this are different from just losing a job like RubberDogBone did. In large layoffs the employment vultures circle. The most desirable employees get picked off early. The rest are filtered through so those with the top amount of connections get hired out. Stereo-typically in IT, a lot of employees are going to have limited social networks outside of work. Now those networks are gone. With a sudden glut of potential employees the market saturates in an area for a while. The suddenly unemployed and underemployed won't have the resources to go to conferences or spend time networking with peers. That network is gone so their duration of unemployment will be long as they compete on even ground with every conman and crook in the general labor market to get past HR.

Company unions aren't the solution to this. They start out fine. But because humans must run them it just devolves into another kind of business you have to get hired into. Unions "solve" the hiring problem with a worse old boys network than the original company. Taken to an extreme you cannot find work in some industries unless you are either already skilled or you are related to someone who does the work. Trade guilds are slightly better - being industry wide - but again depend on corruptible fail-able and limited humans to do the work. Maybe in the future machine run guilds could prevent this but I don't trust the people programming the machines. They are still human.

Comment Re:Go measure (Score 5, Interesting) 147

With dislreports and other aggregation tests, the bloat for download and upload may not be symmetric. So the resulting score might not be as good as it looks.

Paying for a commercial connection? Test for this kind of performance daily and scream as soon as it drops. Otherwise why bother to pay so much?

In the United States and other jurisdictions a home 'customer' user is not expected to run a "server" on their paid for Internet connection. Downloads may be finely tuned to low bloat. But upload may have significant bufferbloat, caps and gradual dropout. For financial reasons, of course.

This upload problem may get to be much worse in the future. More and more services push data from "client" devices in the home or office. Camera phone videos, twitch streams, shared google docs and your home automation spyware upend the upload/download assumptions of last-hop telcos. P2P is impacted now. The highly asymmetric buffering of uploads is detectable using protocols like bittorrent that don't have client-server separation.

Comment Fueling the fueler (Score 1) 38

Well, we do need a good OTV (Orbital Transfer Vehicle). You could use it to move stuff from orbit to orbit as needed.

So, how much fuel is this robot going to have on board? How or why would you refuel it?

The reason you put tiny fuel tanks on satellites is that it cost a lot to launch anything on a rocket. If it didn't then the engineers would put huge tanks on things sitting in orbit. Tanks designed to last as long as the next part expected to fail.

At there aren't that many kinds of propellant in use but you'd still be out of luck if you had something using hydrazine while the only thing left on the repair 'bot is nitrogen.

Orbital transfers aren't free or cheap (ask any Kerbel Space fan.) It will be interesting to see what propulsion system is proposed. There's interest in tethers for 'propelentless station keeping or orbital transfers.

Would you send up refuel cans for the robot? Would you de-orbit the robot once it ran out of fuel? Could you recover the robot to save costs, then?

Except for the Hubble Space Telescope most satellites are not designed to be serviced. What can a hypothetical servicing robot do about dead batteries or shorted out control systems or hole solar arrays on the existing fleet in orbit?

Finally, while space is pretty big, sending something on a 'soft' collision course with a dead satellite in the prime geosync orbit sounds like a great way to create more debris just where you don't want it. But it's Loral. They will have the best people Congressional pork spending can buy on staff to ask and answer these questions.

Comment Re:Amount of gravity needed? (Score 1) 77

It would also be nice to get a long term study of humans in rotating space habitats to see if it has any issues not detectable by ground models. Theory says the vestibular system shouldn't be impacted by long duration in an fast "inverse" rotating frame. It evolved on a large rotating planet after all. But Yogi Beara and any astronomer will tell you that in theory, theory and practice are the same but in practice they are different.

We have lots of experience with space craft that shuttle things off or to ground. There needs to be operational experience with vehicles that are designed to permanently remain in space. If you built your space stations strong enough and big enough you only need to attach an big engine to turn them into space ships.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.