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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Not even a Partial Fix. (Score 1) 135

by Sir Holo (#49654795) Attached to: Dropbox Moves Accounts Outside North America To Ireland

Note, the announcement states that North American users are not able to opt into the Irish Terms of Service.

Moving servers doesn't address the real problem, even if NA could opt in to the Irish TOS.

DropBox indexes every file that is synced through their service. They are reading and cataloging everything that users sync via DropBox. But don't take my word for it — their CEO said so a year or two ago.

Comment: Re:Who's saying it is a warp drive? (Score 1) 416

by StefanJ (#49616395) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

I've seen several gushing articles -- things I saw linked to on Twitter, glanced at, thought "Yeah right" and didn't give a thought to bookmarking -- claiming that there was some kind of space-time warping effect detected in the Em-drive.

It is difficult to know where along the chain of articles-quoting-articles that "WARP DRIVE!" got added to "reactionless thruster."

Comment: This is how it goes (Score 1) 177

by Sir Holo (#49502939) Attached to: MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

Someone makes something great.

They are first-to-market.

Big Corp. buys them out, desiring only their IP.

All of the engineers who actually made the product (& company) valuable are fired.

Big Corp. squanders that first-to-market advantage to gain short-term profits.

Customers who've bought prior-generation products versions beg to have important improvements made to the line of tools.

Big Corp. ignores customer pleas while simply juicing the IP they bought, for every nickel they can get.

Big Corp. refuses to implement any improvements, new features, etc. because they can't. They fired the innovators and implementers to save on salary costs.

Yep, they essentially just find a ripe piece of fruit, and then juice it.

This is what small businesses in the US have been reduced to: fruit trees. Small companies take the risk of being inventive. When something proves to be valuable, it is bought-out, everyone fired, and the market for the product stagnates. I have been on both ends of this stick. I pleaded with a certain company, who sold a $650k tool, to make two minor engineering improvements that would essentially double the market for the device (it would be a tool for two markets, not just the one). These changes would have cost about $500 per tool. The end result? Well, since they had bought-out the small company that originally designed it, fired all the engineers and control-system programmers, the Big Corp. was literally incapable of implementing any improvements (or even bug-fixes) to the system. Recall that they fired all the engineers and programmers, and simply bought the IP and the market the small biz. had cornered.

To cap off this specific example — Another company that truly does innovate has, well, devised a tool that does "the thing" better, and costs 1/3 of what the Big Corp. is charging. They listened when I detailed to them engineering specs. for what customers needed in a next-gen tool. Well, the Big Corp. is about done juicing their piece of fruit, and this other company will soon take over the market . The Big Corp. made their millions, so they move on. I just hope that this "other company" isn't bought-out.

The sad result of this cycle is that American innovation in products is stagnated by Big Corps. that choose to simply juice innovative products, rather than actually improve them to grow the market. In the end, the customer & consumer lose. Oh, and the US as a whole.

Comment: Re:Yes. (Score 2) 385

by Sir Holo (#49501125) Attached to: Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon?

Oh, also: Genius is simply raw potential. What someone does with that 'potential' is a different matter entirely.

As said long ago, "Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration." I am loathe to quote that weenie, Thomas A. Edison, but the idea of his quote is accurate. It is what you do with that potential that matters.

Comment: Re:Woop Di Do Da! (Score 4, Insightful) 265

In the US it is newsworthy. "Mined energy source" lobbies are very powerful here.

Recall that Germany, at the same latitude as Maine, USA, had one day where 52% of the electricity was supplied by renewable energy sources.

So, yes, this is embarrassing news that this is news in the US, but at least it's a step in the right direction

Comment: Re:Caught up to Chrome 20 from 2012 (Score 3, Informative) 122

by RoLi (#49378255) Attached to: Microsoft Rolls Out Project Spartan With New Windows 10 Build

As a Linux user I'm sometimes jealous of a browser that doesn't change every month.

Recently, Google announced that they would support IIRC the latest two versions of Chrome and Firefox for their services. The only browser they support for longer than a year is ... (drumroll) ... IE.

I was really getting my hopes up for the LTS version of Firefox, but they do everything they can to sabotage it (just try to find the LTS version on their website - it's impossible, you have to specifically search for it, they intentionally hid it and do not provide links to it).

Recently Chrome on my Android tablet changed (it now reloads the site when you scroll to far up). Gosh - I'm really starting to hate Google. And I already hate Firefox for their chicken-brained release schedule. And on Linux there is not really an alternative.

Somebody has to fork Firefox and offer a stable platform. The funny thing is that they would not really have to do a lot - just fork it and maintain it.

Until about 2 years ago I was still using Firefox 2 (yes, two) and I didn't have any problems until Google decided to "drop support" (= intentionally break) Google Translate.

Browsers were "good enough" 7 years ago. Firefox was great except for memory consumption and instability. Today, Firefox is adequate (no longer great, they messed up the UI too much for that) except for memory consumption and instability. So all the real issues of Firefox were ignored while we got "features" we don't need.

Comment: Re:Passport numbers (Score 1) 140

Isn't an email still, as always, essentially a post-card? How many servers were in the chain between sender and recipient?

TFA states that, "The Immigration Department described the incident as an "isolated example of human error and said the risk of the breach to be 'very low'," and "the immigration officer recommended that the world leaders not be made aware of the breach"

Sounds like someone might need an attitude adjustment.

Comment: Re:AKA as Database Syndrome (Score 1) 112

by Sir Holo (#49353169) Attached to: Scientific Study Finds There Are Too Many Scientific Studies

I shouldn't feed the trolls, but just for the record:

This is extremely and wildly not true. The most basic part of doing literature review is following original sources and everyone I know does this. You have to, because reviewers pick this stuff up.

Actually, what I said is true. As a reviewer I DO pick this stuff up. And manuscripts with inadequate citations are rejected. Many submissions come in lacking any citation to a source (say, from 25 years ago). They will instead cite one of their buddies who parroted the primary 2-7 years ago. If it is a new interpretation or whatever, of course the more recent (primary source) who did so should be referenced.

Also, you're fooling yourself if you think that just because something was done 30 years ago, there's no point in citing more recent sources. A lot of more recent work is nothing more than just repeating old ideas but with slight modifications that nevertheless reveal new insights.

Whoever FIRST reported a specific observation, measurement, or hypothesis should be cited. Credit where it's due. All science is built upon previous work, so intelligent researchers cite the appropriate sources.

Finally, when writing a paper, there is no need to cite everything that has been done right back to ancient Greece. The audience of a scientific paper is assumed to be the scientific community which is already familiar with the body of work.

Ancient Greece? Thanks for the straw-man. RULE OF THUMB: If it is in books, there is no requirement to cite the originator.

If, OTOH, you are extending the theory of so-and-so, you had better cite the primaries (or the most recent in the Ref. chain who modified it). Otherwise your manuscript WILL be rejected, by me or by anyone other referee.

Last, if you're writing for submission to Science or Nature, targeting a broader audience than your specific field, it is imperative that you cite proper sources. I have a feeling that you've never published in either place, in any other prestigious journal, or probably never in any archival, peer-reviewed journal.

If you ever get to the point in your career of being asked to referee, you will see the huge volume of 'minimal-effort' submissions that must be screened-out to maintain the quality of a given journal. Copying and failing to cite is the hallmark of bad (rejected) journal submissions.

Comment: Re:Can't wait... (Score 0) 737

by RoLi (#49346247) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

Well, he was gay so you can bet your last t-shirt that the media will drop the story pretty soon. (Can't say anything bad about them, even though both murder and suicide are pretty common in that community. It would lead to "prejudice", you know...)

See, you can have a media cover-up without a conspiracy, just wait a few days after the news-cycle has turned.

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud

Working...