Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:VCs who miss the point of open source... (Score 1) 63

I have worked with two "principles" who got tens of millions in VC investment, both of them were ~40 years old, in good health and of youthful appearance when it happened. Five years after "round A" both of them looked ~60 years old and had some serious tales of woe. One got a multi-million payoff after about 10 years, the other got a check for $0.01, but the personal costs of the VC money were equally high for both.

Comment Re:VCs who miss the point of open source... (Score 1) 63

What I read in the article seemed to be a case of not knowing the specifics of the companies being named, but rather attributing generalities to them. Of course, the article is correct in the specifics regarding what the Apache organization is, how RedHat operates, etc. But... at some point in the past, there have been business models selling Apache support - nothing that's going to generate an attractive 100:1 ROI, so that's why the VCs yawn. Also, they speak of open source models which allow authors to retain control over derivative works, and while OSI is strictly against this, there are other models (like Creative Commons variants) that do specify this.

So, what I see is VCs who have "a little knowledge" spouting it in association with oblique references to specific companies and models that don't really match up at all, but it's all "that open source stuff" to them... People getting pedantic with deep knowledge and concrete specifics need to understand that VCs take your areas of interest a lot less seriously than you do. Just because they control hundreds of millions of investment dollars doesn't make them super-human, and in-fact that concern of the big money in some ways reduces their capacity to understand and even care about other issues.

Comment VCs who miss the point of open source... (Score 4, Insightful) 63

VCs who miss the point of open source shouldn't fund it

False, absolutely false. VCs view investing like a trip to the casino: bet on 20 longshots, hope to manage at least 1 of the 20 to a 100:1 win. Overall ROI: 500%

Fundamental understanding of the technology behind the business is not required - estimating its chances in the marketplace is.

Anybody who is seeking VC funding and also believes that the VCs will help them further some ideological agenda is either completely misguided, or attempting to further the ideological agenda that "greed is good."

Comment Re:Too late (Score 1) 403

The alternatives are basically to either attempt to repair the SourceForge brand by stopping doing the wrong things, or say to hell with it - crank it up for maximal short term cash output and pump those resources into a new brand that doesn't do the wrong things from the start.

Personally, I think the SourceForge brand is worth saving. Perhaps after several years of good behavior, the people who had grown to hate it might give up their grudges.

Comment Re:News that Matters????? (Score 1) 29

I suspect that Instagram simply realizes that 'different accounts' is a security/visibility-control model that people find easier and more familiar than various sorts of filters/tags/groups/'friends only'/etc. It's not as though they will have much difficulty correlating a user's accounts(even if the app doesn't explicitly send them 'all usernames on this device', seeing logins to certain accounts from a specific device is a pretty big clue); but switching accounts is easier than futzing with security settings when trying to maintain distinct audiences.

Comment Re:Surprise (Score 1) 239

I think what they are saying is that the problem children are in some degree drawn to the "bad" games, but that the games don't make the problem children, nor make them worse.

So, yeah, if you've got a random school full of kids, the ones with the visibly violent interests, be that metal, comic books, rock 'n roll, video games, or whatever, will have _statistically_ more problems later, but it's not a judgement in and of itself, and the lack of visibly violent interests is in no way a guarantee of good behavior in the future.

Comment Re:Boat still hasn't left port (Score 1) 267

Mild inflation - keeping currency availability constant on a per-capita basis as population grows - might be considered a desirable economic stability target. Whether or not population growth is desirable is probably leaving the field of economics and getting into (bigger, more important?) questions of ecology and balance of power between nations.

In reality, a certain degree of uncertainty has always been present in western economies, communism as implemented in the USSR did remove a great deal of uncertainty (fixed rents and food costs), but that didn't do great things for the economy overall. It did provide people with a very different perspective on life and a great deal of security that they could at least depend on their sucky old building, unreliable heat and bad food to always be there for them - but in that implementation improving one's own standard of living was almost impossible to achieve, so most people didn't bother to try and things stagnated/deteriorated while the west moved forward.

Comment Re:Boat still hasn't left port (Score 1) 267

Deflation is essentially the pyramid scheme that everyone is posting about.

In a deflationary currency, people who hoard the currency gain value over time. If you get in at the beginning and hold large quantities for a long time, then you've got a tremendous value advantage over later starting players.

If you notice, no _real_ currency stays deflationary for long - the rich already have too many ways to get richer, they don't need deflationary currency to give them another advantage.

Comment Re:Missed the Boat? (Score 1) 267

Credit cards are backed by the legal system, with liability limits, fraud protections, etc. They have their flaws and identity theft is more than a minor nuisance, but Bitcoin is still a "wild west" currency. If you leave your monetary value in Bitcoin for more than a few minutes, you are taking a far greater actual risk than using a traditional credit card. Which then means that you need to transfer your value into Bitcoin just before making a transaction and then then receiver of Bitcoin needs to transfer their value out of Bitcoin shortly after receiving it - both of these transfers are using traditional electronic banking methods that could have been used to make the transaction in the first place.

If you're worried about fraud against your bank account, set up one for "less than trustworthy online dealings" that only has as much money in it as you need to conduct a day's business - that's just as secure a "firewall" as using Bitcoin for your risk-facing transactions.

Slashdot Top Deals

When speculation has done its worst, two plus two still equals four. -- S. Johnson