Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Queen of the 9s (Score 1) 529

by Mandrel (#49219349) Attached to: Apple's "Spring Forward" Event Debuts Apple Watch and More

Do any of its prices not have a 9 in it?

Yeah. All of the Watch Edition models.

The $10,000 model? That's the first Apple price I've seen without a "9". Pricing of non-mass-market luxury products is usually more classy, which is why I think they're tainting their mainline products with such pricing.

It's hard to have respect for a company that doesn't respect your intelligence through ubiquitous use of a dumb pricing trick.

Right, Apple is sure unusual to use those price points. Dick.

Wall-to-wall "9" pricing is unusual in tech companies, though Apple are encouraging a trend. It's more common in discount retailers.

At least on me, such pricing doesn't have the intended effect of reducing the headline digit by one and making it seem like prices have been precisely cut to the bone. Instead they make prices seem more what-the-market-will-bear than cost-plus.

Comment: Re:Doxing is asking for trouble. (Score 1) 467

Revealing a trolls identity isn't asking for trouble. It implicates them as a suspect for anything bad that may happen to you in the future.

...but makes it more likely that something bad will happen to you. While you lay dying or nurse a permanent disability you can comfort yourself that you were able to give the police a list of your enemies.

Comment: Re:Open Source limits your business models. (Score 1) 208

by Mandrel (#49042583) Attached to: Elementary OS: Why We Make You Type "$0"

I don't know why more open source projects don't just charge for their software. Sure this removes Freedom 0 (the freedom to run), so it's not (big-O) Open Source.

The GPL lets you charge for software. The problem is that whoever you sell it to can then distribute it willy-nilly, and who's going to pay you for a copy when they can just download it for free somewhere?

I'm advocating a nearly-Free licence where the purchaser can indeed distribute the software willy-nilly (altered or unaltered), but the recipient cannot run it until they pay the development chain. To ensure this point is brought to the software recipients' attention, you would need a licence condition that prevented removal of a small bit of code that checked for the presence of a licence file, plus non-distribution of those licence files. (Easily hacked, but it takes an act of will that brings the law and conscience into play.) Small restrictions, but big benefits to funding the development ecosystem.

I don't think that's true, especially for business users, and especially if a purchase comes with support.

This is precisely why businesses like Red Hat charge megabucks for support and changes and give the product away for free.

And why a thousand as many companies still charge for their software (but stuff things up by keeping it closed).

Comment: Re:Open Source limits your business models. (Score 1) 208

by Mandrel (#49035831) Attached to: Elementary OS: Why We Make You Type "$0"

Humanity shouldn't be in the business of rewriting software hundreds of times over because they can't afford a license that would suit tailored needs. Let's write some good software to solve a problem, then move on and solve some other problem.

A paid open source development model that distributes payments down derived work chains should increase the re-use of software because it combines unhindered redistribution & modification with a work incentive for programmers. Because it doesn't pay well, often Open Source software is usually either done as a hobby or as a way to gain employment (ironically, developing proprietary software).

But sure, charging for software will make it unaffordable for some. But that's how capitalism works in order to make open software development a viable job. There no stopping licence discounts being given to worthy recipients like non-profits, students, small business, and contributors to the software.

Comment: Re:Open Source limits your business models. (Score 1) 208

by Mandrel (#49034335) Attached to: Elementary OS: Why We Make You Type "$0"

Creating software isn't cheap, or effortless, however once it is completed it can be duplicated and shared at near no additional costs. So using good old Economics 101 supply and demand you have a fixed demand, and an infinite supply, so the market rate for any software is near $0.00 below the cost to make it. Software does want to be free.

I don't know why more open source projects don't just charge for their software. Sure this removes Freedom 0 (the freedom to run), so it's not (big-O) Open Source. But it preserves all the important tinkering freedoms, especially if original authors get a cut from sale of derived works.

What you wrote above implies that most users will pirate anything not completely locked down. I don't think that's true, especially for business users, and especially if a purchase comes with support. Charging is better than a donation model, where donors are made to fee like chumps, usually gaining nothing more than karma, and freeloaders haven't done anything wrong.

The old RMS model of making money off of software is selling the distribution. Putting it on Tape, Disk, CD... Some physical media, then you can add manuals to jack up the price. These physical media reduces the available supply so you can make money off of software. Now with nearly everyone with high-enough speed internet access, such physical distribution of software is antiquated. And not a good business model.

Quite true. You can't make money from Open Source software in itself. But you can from software that's free in every way except price.

Comment: Need "Apply" or live updates in dialogs (Score 2) 148

by Mandrel (#48937755) Attached to: LibreOffice Gets a Streamlined Makeover With 4.4 Release
I really appreciate LibreOffice's existence in making Linux a complete desktop OS. However do I find it hard to use due to the lack of live updates or an "Apply" button when making changes in character, paragraph, and, page dialogs. I must estimate the change I want, press "OK", and bring the dialog up again if it's wrong. It's still this way in 4.4.

Comment: Re:It's the people, not the platform. (Score 1) 126

by Mandrel (#48785359) Attached to: Radio, Not YouTube, Is Still King of Music Discovery

Discovery occurs with selective filtering of the music.

Yeah, there's so much new music that one could never find what you like without some sort of human or machine filter/sorter. But even mild filtering makes the job of music discovery manageable.

I create weekly YouTube playlists of the new music played on our local music video TV show. By removing repeats, the playlist is cut down from 11 hours to 2-3 hours, which is easy to listen to over the week. The playlist is filled with all genres, which I like because good stuff can come from anywhere. That's why I don't like music services that try to categorize music and stereotype you as only loving music "similar" to what you already love.

Such a YouTube playlist is the only 100% concentrated eclectic source of new music that I know of. No repeats, ads, charges, DJs, or schedules.

Comment: Re:As expected... (Score 1) 400

by Mandrel (#48722957) Attached to: Box Office 2014: Moviegoing Hits Two-Decade Low

The number of really good movies may be limited each year, but the number of "good enough" movies has exploded. Ten times more feature films were made in 2014 compared to 1914, and five times more than 1956 (see below). Viewers today are so spoiled for choice from new and old films that they are becoming devalued, mostly not worth an outing (much like what has happened to the music industry).

Second, kids now grow up with interactive entertainment, and the old "passives" just don't cut it.

Script to show feature films made by year:

#!/bin/bash
for year in $(seq 1914 2014); do
wget -qO - "http://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&year=$year" | grep -m1 '^1-50 of ' | cut -c9-
done

1,079 1,563 1,988 2,054 2,016 2,124 2,347 2,175 1,825 1,521 1,549 1,587 1,553 1,611 1,614 1,486 1,504 1,642 1,588 1,508 1,625 1,697 1,781 1,776 1,769 1,677 1,602 1,450 1,360 1,242 1,126 1,038 1,208 1,331 1,472 1,633 1,679 1,697 1,789 1,869 1,906 1,928 2,068 2,153 2,231 2,202 2,284 2,333 2,318 2,258 2,447 2,536 2,576 2,884 3,216 3,019 3,257 3,097 2,995 2,854 2,823 2,786 2,783 2,757 2,846 2,974 2,964 2,889 3,018 3,042 3,053 3,061 3,101 3,224 3,266 3,207 3,522 3,369 3,359 3,223 3,169 3,225 3,273 3,452 3,560 3,737 3,749 3,850 3,852 3,812 3,904 4,375 4,751 4,976 5,766 6,819 7,104 7,770 8,182 8,703 10,951

Comment: Just (Score 1) 224

by Mandrel (#48664615) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

Women are first held back by their much lower fertility cut-off age. This causes the world to crowd in earlier, wanting babies, marriage, and relationships, distracting and rushing them so they find it harder to take the time and effort to pursue uncertain and uncommon paths.

In a different way women do it to themselves, avoiding founding the big universal services, instead starting companies that sell mainly to other women: fashion, children's products, jewelry, cosmetics, craft, and journalism targeted at women. This indeed applies to the Stanford woman featured in the article. Have women been forced into this ghetto by misogyny, or are they just smartly going where there's little male competition?

Comment: Re:New Revenue System (Score 1) 190

by Mandrel (#48586845) Attached to: Fraud Bots Cost Advertisers $6 Billion

Trouble with that is it'd still require a means by which to know from where the consumer came from, and that could get problematic if the consumer came in several times from different sites before finally purchasing. Who gets credit and who gets credited for the assist? How do you subdivide that? What if the customer clears their browser history? How long does the retailer need to store referrer information in order to be fair to those sites advertising?

With Rbate, the purchaser provides a list of all the places that helped them choose, and credit is divided among these. They create this list by picking from all the relevant information sources they've marked as helpful, which as well as webpages (and Slashdot posts), can be printed material or full-service retailers. These are stored permanently like bookmarks.

As well as allowing credit to be shared among several sources of assistance, unlike affiliate links the helpers don't become part of the selling process, which makes them more independent. You can get an Rbate payment even though you only told someone not to buy something, or for giving general information not related to particular products.

If, say, a Slashdot post helped someone choose a product, Slashdot can get paid for that, which Slashdot can optionally share with the poster in some way (cash or Karma).

Comment: Re:Single-pixel what? (Score 1) 81

by Mandrel (#48482843) Attached to: Single Pixel Camera Takes Images Through Breast Tissue

Bonus points if you explain why a chicken breast was involved.

Chicken breast, like most tissue, is translucent, and they were trying to demonstrate the ability to take a picture of a target hidden under several mm of such material, at the same time demonstrating the technique's applicability to diagnostic imaging.

A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing.

Working...