Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:iTunes never cared about directories so why tag (Score 1) 343 343

Yeah..... this is true. Although it's ALSO true that at some point when Apple made the change to how iTunes sorted everything, they made it cleaner and easier to navigate. Because the change to putting things under "iTunes Media" vs. "iTunes Music" acknowledged people put a lot of different types of data into the software like video, ringtones, iOS apps, etc. With the older format, it ALL went under the main folder.

But yes, it was never all "in a glob". Now, iPhoto for Mac was another story ..... Compressing all your photos into one database file created a LOT of issues.

Comment: Re:iTunes never cared about directories so why tag (Score 1) 343 343

Huh? What do you mean by putting your music in a "big glob"?

If I tell iTunes to copy my music when adding tracks to it and to "manage my library", it creates what I think is a pretty sensible file structure for the songs under the main "iTunes media" folder and "Music" beneath that. Everything goes by folder with the artist's name, followed by sub-folders under each of those for the name of each album by that artist.

A long time ago, this didn't work the same way. (Originally, they didn't have a top level folder called "iTunes media", with folders under that for each of different categories of media.) But iTunes used to offer a way to convert the old format to the new one if you selected one of the options in a Preferences menu to do so. It's used the newer folder structure for at least 2 major versions now, though ....

Comment: Re:Apple = Buggy (Score 1) 343 343

Complaining about a failed hard drive is hardly something worth attacking Apple for, especially since they're covering the replacements for free.

The blame lies more with Seagate on those defective 3TB drives, IMO. They will fail the exact same way whether they get used in an iMac or a Windows PC.

Comment: Not to get into another religious soft-war, but .. (Score 2) 343 343

Google Music, in my experience, has the exact same problem Apple Music does. It ignores your manually input album art and other metadata, and decides to substitute what it thinks your tracks should have attached to them instead.

The only good thing Google does that (so far), Apple doesn't is gives you a button to tell it the data is wrong for a given track so you can override it. (Still, that's a LOT of pointless extra work to put back what was there in the first place.) Well, that, and the fact they're not going to trash your "master library" of music since they don't act as the application all of your music is stored in. They just mess up the copies of the data they put up in the cloud for you to stream back down from your devices.

I *wish* these cloud music services would simply ASK FIRST if you'd like to replace all of your existing metadata, or if you'd rather they only add metadata to your tracks that don't yet contain any at all.

Comment: Yep, all about the $s people! (Score 1) 650 650

These studies are usually just wastes of time, intending to push one agenda or another. (EG. Electric car sales are sure slow... Let's list a bunch of minor reasons while ignoring the main ones, since these are ones we can get paid as consultants to help address!)

If electric cars cost a lot LESS than traditional cars, then you'd see a massive uptake. When they cost even "a similar price" (which is generally not the case yet), people will compare and contrast them vs. the traditional options before buying. When they cost MORE and the only way to get the price back into the same realm as equivalent traditional cars is via tax credits, people tend to choose other options.

I'd love to own an electric car someday, but the only ones I'd consider somewhat affordable today are electric versions of cheap econobox cars with corners cut all over the place to hit the desired price point (Nissan Leaf for example). Everyone loves the Tesla ... but they don't love the price tag.

Comment: Nope, you misunderstood, I guess ... (Score 1) 262 262

I actually have 3 kids and I wasn't trying to say what he did was "simply ok" at all!

I'm just saying it's definitely a thought that runs through the heads of immature guys when they find themselves in those kinds of situations. I watched it happen with people I knew through the crazy "dot com" era.

I think Steve J. managed to turn his personal life around considerably as he got older but there's no doubt it took him a long time to address his issues. (On the flip side? At least he finally did.... More than I can say for most Hollywood actors/actresses and celebs out there.)

Comment: Re:We're All Dicks (Score 1) 262 262

From everything I've read, Jobs reeked of immaturity. Denying your kid is your own? That's something I think a lot of younger guys can relate to, if they're scared about becoming a father and everything it involves. Doubly so if you actually have grand plans for something like a business venture and fear that becoming a parent would decimate the free time and dedication you'd have to devote to it, to make it work. Same with a lot of the explosive rants against good employees and the childish "I'm right because I'm always right!" attitude.

The often cited deal with him driving around without license plates, I have to sort of give him a pass on. As I understand it, he was technically within the law to do it because he simply swapped out vehicles so regularly, none of them were owned long enough to require a plate? And parking in a handicapped space? I *think* he was only caught doing that on Apple's own campus --- not out in grocery store lots or anyplace else? I'm not going to pretend to speak for him on it, but I definitely know of places where they have a bunch of pointless handicapped parking spaces thanks to legal requirements, despite not even employing a single handicapped person. It's pure wasted space to comply with regulations that don't take "common sense" into consideration. (In many businesses, you're not going to have much of any "walk up/in" traffic like you do with a retail store.)

Comment: Re:A corrupt company stuggling. Boo hoo. (Score 1) 132 132


Not that many of the "not for profit" colleges aren't guilty too. But most of these for-profit colleges just don't provide much value to the students. Years ago, my ex-wife attended ITT Tech for a while, thinking she wanted to go into Electrical Engineering. The whole thing was a disaster. She wound up hugely in debt after only a couple of semesters, and eventually decided the program wasn't for her. Then, she realized the credits earned there were basically worthless, trying to transfer them elsewhere. So it was just thousands and thousands of dollars down the drain.

(I did get a nifty cardboard box full of various resistors, capacitors and transistors though.... I think she was required to pay for that as "school supplies" for one of the courses.)

And more recently, it's been my experience that the for-profit online universities are pathetic. Many of them use proprietary software which is clunky and not user-friendly at all to the students. There are a few standard packages out there that work pretty well for running an online university, but the for-profits tend not to want to invest in them, since they "saved money" using whatever junk they've held onto over the years.

Comment: I'd say Hollywood is helping revive TV .... (Score 1) 194 194

Thinking back to the late 1980s through late 1990s, I spent a lot of time in a movie theater with my friends. There was always something getting released that we really wanted to see.

In the last decade, not so much.... Hollywood spends way too much time doing remakes of movies done before, and IMO, the entire comedy genre has been pretty much decimated. Everything's reduced to fart/poop humor or trying to squeeze more laughs out of awkward sexual situations. Occasionally they manage to pull off something a lot of people will go see, but it seems like even then, they ruin it with a needless sequel (a la "The Hangover" or "Hot Tub Time Machine").

In recent years, the only movies we could justify forking over the money to watch in a theater were the kids' movies (PIXAR animations, etc.) and superhero movies (which are kind of hard to ruin, as long as they keep relatively close to the original story-lines).

Meanwhile, I think television has bridged the gap in a lot of ways, coming out with really well done series' that outdo Hollywood's story telling abilities. This is one reason why people will pay for HBO or Showtime subscriptions.... They're no longer just showing "already run" movies. They're creating new content, and people feel it's content worth paying something for.

Comment: re: idiots (Score 1) 268 268

IMO, there's a big difference between the traditional R/C aircraft people flew for fun and some of these larger-sized drones people are operating now.

I could see some sort of mandatory licensing for the bigger ones, but I think they need to do so while leaving the rest of the hobby alone.

Comment: Re:Wow.... you drank gallons of the kool-aid..... (Score 1) 308 308

Fine... Would you prefer I quote the whole sentence?

"Most likely, if we keep up at the rate we're going, we're going to cause a global wipeout of humanity that will kill a massive majority of the human population (along with a lot of other races along the way)."

But heck - that sentence doesn't even make much sense, because a global wipeout of humanity would imply no humans were left (wiped out). Yet you qualify the statement with "massive majority" ... so "global wipeout" is apparently redefined as destroying most, but not all of a population.

Ok, but the "along with a lot of other races along the way" part is interesting too. What other races? Aliens living among the humans that we don't know about?? If you mean to say species, you probably should have done that.

Comment: Wow.... you drank gallons of the kool-aid..... (Score 1) 308 308

I love all of these absolute, fatalist statements you spouted with not a single shred of hard data that backs them up.

"If we keep up at the rate we're going, we're going to cause a global wipeout of ALL HUMANITY...."

Uh-huh. Reads like a summertime Hollywood blockbuster.

We should just shut down a bulk of the power plants we rely on for energy (and presumably go back to washing our clothes by hand, down at the river-side, foraging for berries to eat), because POSSIBLY, it will "make things normal again" or POSSIBLY slow down the problem. No proof or anything but hey -- let's ruin hundreds of years of technological advancement in America and agree to go back to the dark ages out of fear!

Comment: Yeah, well .... (Score 3, Insightful) 308 308

Many of us in Maryland know this character ALL too well already. Typical liberal "tax and spend" agenda is what you can expect from him. "We're the government and we know what's best for you."

Thanks, but no thanks.

Look, "climate change" may be the hot discussion topic right now - but it's crazy thinking we can put a serious dent in it and "turn it around" simply by shutting down a bunch of our nation's power generation plants! (Right now, we're finally coming around in energy self-sufficiency, largely because of the discovery of large natural gas and shale oil deposits. Folks like O'Malley would discard all of this as "bad fossil fuels", even though much of the rest of the world will keep on using fossil fuel energy sources anyway. That means we're at a big economic disadvantage. Will be far cheaper to get things done in the nations that have lower cost energy to get them done for us -- so leads to more outsourcing of manufacturing and jobs, not to mention job loss in our country for people in the business of gathering, processing and selling those forms of energy.)

Fossil fuel usage will decline as better alternatives become economically viable. (Who wouldn't rather get "free energy" from the wind, the natural flow of water, or the sun shining down on us?) Those options are being worked on by lots of people and we're putting them into use as fast as it makes economic sense to do so. But you can't just "legislate them into exclusive usage" and pretend that's a problem solver! Whenever you're legally FORCED to use a technology that doesn't make good economic sense, you just increase the cost of living, destroy job availability and drive people to find other places in the world where alternatives are still allowed.

Frankly, I think nuclear power is still the obvious best option for large scale centralized power generation -- but the type of reactors needed to do it safely are VERY costly to construct and still have to overcome a lot of negativity from "OMG, nuclear! It's gonna kill us all!" types who don't understand the technology very well. Again, it's something that will naturally come with time (and as given fossil fuels become scarce enough to run their price up enough to make these alternatives look better).

Comment: Re:But will it be free? (Score 5, Informative) 277 277

You know... it's funny because a few weeks ago, I made the point on Slashdot that I, too, believed Windows 10 was Microsoft's vehicle for moving people to a subscription model for their OS upgrades. But I was immediately modded down as a troll.

I have lots of reasons to believe this is so, though - including attending a conference a few months ago where several Microsoft business sales reps were in attendance. They made it clear that moving forward, Microsoft is strongly focused on serving everything to you via the Cloud. They made the off-handed comment that the next release of Windows Server will likely be the last one you can actually buy to install on your own hardware. The future, according to them, lies in subscribing to everything hosted on Microsoft's Azure. You need a print and file server? Fine ... spin a new one up on Azure and configure as needed, and pay the monthly fee to keep it going as long as you need it. Same for SQL, SharePoint Server and more. And just the other day, they announced an internal restructuring of Microsoft's CRM/ERP software division (Great Plains Accounting software, basically) so it will go under their division doing Enterprise Cloud computing initiatives.

It sounds to me like Win 10 puts the "mechanism" on everyone's computer that will allow MS to push future OS updates to it via the Internet ... not just patches or "Service Packs", but complete new versions of the OS. They don't HAVE to do things that way, obviously ... but it sets the stage for a change to that deployment method.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"