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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Windows 7 (Score 5, Informative) 216

Having been with windows since win 3.11 (and the amiga os before that), I can honestly say this time is different.

Partially it's the stronger drive to a subscription model but mostly it's the spyware aspects of the new O/S.

A tablet or phone can probably do the same shit and get away with it but the PC is a PC. You are supposed to own it- it's not supposed to own you, spy on you, force installation of programs, block installation of programs and generally be owned by the company even tho you paid for it.

I could see dividing between a "serious" PC based on linux (which I've noodled with for the last six years) with a generic software stack that runs on multiple O/S. (Blender, GIMP, Libreoffice, Minecraft, etc.) and then a game machine which I don't use seriously, don't use for financial stuff, etc. But, as I play more boom beach (etc.) my motivation to have a PC for gaming has been declining. I'm more likely to use an inexpensive console for gaming.

8.0 was merely bad. Windows 10.0 is the devil.

Comment Re:The judge issued a verdict ahead of trial? (Score 2) 201

If we had scaled representation as the population of the nation grew, it would be much more difficult to buy representatives.

Representation at levels we had when the country was founded would result in over 9,000 representatives today-- over 500 from LA and New York city each.

Likewise- Senators are grossly unrepresentative with some citizens having one senator per 280,000 citizens while other states have one senator per 19,000,000 citizens.

If states had been kept smaller and were divided by roughly equal populations, we would have over 600 senators.

It would be very tough to buy half of them. Votes would matter more. And as a voter, you'd know your representative better.

Comment Re:Institutional Knowledge (Score 1) 162

The company that I was very fortunate to retire from is now in year 6 of a 3 year SAP project. People there tell me the schedule has now been officially adjusted from a 3 year project to a 20 year project to be completed in 2030.

Infosys told them it had SAP expertise and then failed to deliver. The company even had to hire back some of the people it laid off at higher salary.

Dumb dumb dumb.

Comment Re:Look at the bean counters for your answer (Score 1) 162

And when you sell the company to cash out, all of those employees will be screwed heavily about 90% of the time.

In many cases, the customer list will be taken, the employees will be dumped, the physical and software capital will be ash-canned.

You can never depend on a company to take care of you unless is it in writing.

For most employees, if they stay at a company over 10 years, they are screwed if the job ever ends.

Comment Re:Yeah, that's the problem (Score 1) 135

Most of the money held by the top 1.67% is not in salary. It's not a result of productive work.

Most of it is invested in a way prioritized to cause the rest of society to 'race to the bottom' through a combination of automation, offshoring, and elimination of choice (80/20 selling) with the 80% being much lower quality goods than we used to get.

Comment Re:Main challenge to me (Score 5, Interesting) 54

Here's an example:
Google+ Account suspended so now they can't use Youtube (really an unrelated service).

The more services tied to your google+ account, the greater the risk of it being suspended.

My Google Wallet account was suspended today. Google Support tells me that my account won't be reinstated, due to violations of terms of service. They won't tell me specifically what I violated, and refuse to acknowledge my questions. I've used GMAIL for over 10 years. 2004 I signed up for the BETA for my first Google account. Today I'm suspended. I don't even care about the Wallet honestly, I just care about the Play Store. I can no longer purchase applications from the Play Store. With Wallet suspended, how can I even use my Android device now? This is insane.
From a Google VP.. while google+ suspensions only effect services requiring a google+ account, he goes on to say "Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension."

That's a big 'etc."

Comment Main challenge to me (Score 5, Insightful) 54

If you ever pissed off google by violating a rule or policy, they could (and did in some cases) disable the google+ account. Which had the effect of killing all your associated google devices.

So the risk was too great to actually use google+ and associate it with my devices. I hate facebook, but if they ban me, I'm only banned from facebook. Google needs to firewall physical devices from any chance of ban problems due to offenses in other google services or it's not worth the risk of using them.

Comment Re:How can there be? (Score 1) 622

I take it that you have never heard of a "run on a bank".

Almost everything we do from mmorgs to airplane flights to bridges are based on average usage with perhaps 1 standard deviation to the upside. Okay- bridge are probably 2 standard deviations but they are not designed to assume that someone is going to take a brigade of 80 ton tanks across them.

If it wasn't, everything would have to be scaled to cover the cost of a 3 standard deviation event and as a result everything would be incredibly expensive.

Your position is unreasonable. And it's why we can't have good things any more like the incredible warranty on Sears hardware which people started abusing so they had to drop it.

It really reflects a change in culture where people ignore the spirit of the offer and push the legal meaning til it breaks.

So now instead of getting 2 standard deviation service for 99.9% of the people, we'll probably all be stuck with 1 standard deviation service so some dickhead doesn't take 4 standard deviation service.

It's really about semantics and what they need to say going forward is, "Well give you so much data that most people will never hit the cap. But there is a cap at XXX gigabytes per month. We'll manage those users aggressively so they don't affect you, the normal user's, experience."

I'm usually against large corporations but this is such a clear black and white case, I am compelled to see their side even tho I don't want to.

Comment Re: That's OK, I only care about bar crawls (Score 1) 258

Holy moley, your figures are way off. Per consumer reports, "Most Lexus models have relatively high maintenance and repair costs (primarily due to maintenance), despite their excellent reliability. The Lexus ES350 racks up an average of $2,300 in maintenance and repair in the first five years, about twice what you'd pay on a Buick LaCrosse." A full order of magnitude lower than your proposed cost at only $460 a year. Your figure is closer to the "total cost of ownership".

Most cars "last" well beyond 5 years these days. It's well documented that the average age of cars in the usa is over 11 years.

I could see the new unproven auto-driving parts failing sooner so I'd want a warranty to cover them for 8 years. I have an 8 year/120,000 mile warranty on my current car.

Similarly, a recent study showed for the last 10, 20, and 30 years the average investor has only made between 2 and 3% annualized return in the stock market after taxes. (Forbes) Likewise, I'd love to know where you can find a 2% CD from a trustworthy safe source. Best I can find are all 1% or lower.

Similarly- you use your car for things besides going out. Shopping, vacation travel, emergencies, visiting friends and relatives.

So you need to add in a lot more taxi rides and a couple weeks of outright car rental.

I get it, you are enthusiastic- but you are shading every fact you want to be true to be larger than reality while discounting or outright omitting every fact that undercuts your position.

Just 4 taxi rides a week for a year is close to the total cost of ownership for a car. So you need to add the cost for public transportation to work twice a day. And to be fair, you should value your time spent waiting for a bus/train/taxi at your hourly rate. And you need to add the cost for car/truck rentals (and the time it takes to rent them). Finally, there are intangibles like waiting in miserable weather outside the club after it closed for a taxi to come get you. Or when your parents/syblings/best friend/you have an emergency and you sit waiting for a taxi instead of dealing with it immediately. If you had to take an ambulance instead of a taxi, that's closer to $1200 (or more) for just one ride.

I agree the are cases (as I said- vertical cities) where taxi's work well. Taxi's are not a panacea and their utility comes and goes in cycles. Some years, it gets pretty bad (especially no-shows or refusal to pick up certain people padding the fair with a circuitous route, etc.).

Comment Re: That's OK, I only care about bar crawls (Score 2) 258

Even a tiny taxi ride in my town is at least $40.

And you may have to wait up to an hour for a taxi.

And when you really need them most (like after new year's eve), it could be four or more hours.

And one reason uber sprang up besides cost is that taxi's just don't like to go to low density or "bad" areas. They'd prefer to have a fare back as well.

Taxi's (and public transportation) make more sense in New York City and similar locations perhaps. When the city is more flat than vertical, Taxi's (and public transportation) make less sense.

Owning a vehicle is expensive. It's an extra cost in flat cities. People who don't have a car do get extra spending money. But in areas where you must drive 30+ miles every day, taxi's are not an effective option (and neither is public transportation).

I think what the parent poster needs is less of a street legal car and more of an automated bicycle type vehicle that could get him home drunk in an hour or less while he's plastered.

Comment Re:Welcome to 2006 (Score 1) 221

It only speeds it up one time when you have personal access to the book.

Perhaps I should be clearer above, 80 different people can transcribe/scan 80 different books much faster than you can transcribe 80 books (even with the device).

This device is more targeted at the individual user platform shifting books.

My main point is that trying to pass a law against it is unlikely because it is unlikely to make pirated books available any faster than they are now.

Comment Re:Welcome to 2006 (Score 3, Insightful) 221

Several comments:

1 So do VCR's.

2 Most books are available within a day on multiple sites.

3 Most books are available within days at libraries.

4 This only slightly speeds up/makes the process easier. Anything you can read can be transcribed.

5 80 people can transcribe 80 different books quickly.

Who knows- they might try- but it seems like a waste of their money to me.

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg