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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Not really (Score 5, Insightful) 96

The article says they're not aiming at Apple. Instead they're actually jumping, feet first, into the commodity smartphone market. Which might seen suicidal, but, again as the article points out, that's where Scully actually excels (and probably why he didn't get as far with Apple, which was never commodity based, when he was at the helm.)

Essentially he's going to be selling nice, but not spectacular, Android phones, and using branding to differentiate the phones in the market. And he'll probably make a success of it because instead of having the overhead of a giant electronics company to contend with, unlike say Samsung, he's just having a third party put together a design, then outsourcing the manufacture of the thing, concentrating largely on quality (which affects brand) rather than features (which doesn't.)

It's not actually that exciting to nerds. The news is probably orgasm-worthy though if you work in marketing.

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 3, Interesting) 233

Is that actually the case? I thought a big purpose was to avoid voter intimidation by non-governmental vigilantes who oppose a particular candidate.

Absolutely! Your reason also holds true, but it comes in a distant second.

We tend to minimize the "Uncle Sam knows who you voted for" angle precisely because we don't live in a country where we routinely round up people who voted for the "wrong" candidate to torture or execute or "reeducate" them.

By contrast, consider (whatever your stance on the post-9/11 Iraq war) that Saddam Hussein routinely won reelection by an almost unanimous vote for precisely that reason.
Your Rights Online

Analysis Reveals Almost No Real Women On Ashley Madison 401

gurps_npc writes: Ashley Madison claimed to have about 31 million men and 5.5 million woman enrolled. Those odds are not good for the men, 6:1. But unfortunately, most of those 'women' were fake. This researcher analyzed the data and found only 12,000 actual, real women using Ashley Madison. That means for every 7750 men, there were 3 women. There are reports that Ashley Madison paid people to create fake female profiles. Their website admits that 'some of the users may be there for "entertainment purposes."' The article itself is well written, including a description of the analysis. A charitable person would say that Ashley Madison was selling a fantasy, not reality. But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.

Comment Re:No, not at all (Score 1) 112

They actually "gave" me a 5gHz wifi router (not sure how that part helps, the phone doesn't do 5gHz wifi) to use wifi calling. It's helped a bit, but I had to disable MMS entirely, otherwise every time my mother sent me a stupid cat picture, my phone would drop its wifi connection and I'd miss calls.

Really freakin' annoying.

Comment Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. And a lie to boot. (Score 1) 1014

It's not a lie in the slightest. The clique dominating the Hugos refused to allow any awards to be given to anyone tainted by crimethink.

That is a lie. There is no "clique dominating the Hugos". There's no such thing as "tainted by crimethink", and if your inanely ridiculous wording were to be interpreted as meaning "Tainted by being nominated by the Puppy slates", at least one Hugo winner was, actually, on the Puppy slates.

You forgot "reactionary", "MRA", and "antifeminist" with your partisan straw man.

No, if I felt those were appropriate, I would have said them - though that said "reactionary" does seem fair, but it's implied by what was said anyway. What I said was 100% accurate, not a strawman.

Perhaps the problem here is that you have no idea what's going on, have decided you have a bad case of identity politics, and have decided to buy a particularly weirdly spun version of what actually happened because you identify with those spinning it that way? Because there's no obvious other reason why you'd resort both to pretending I'm implying the various Hugo groups were generic enemies of so-called "SJWs" ("MRAs", "Feminists", etc), using ridiculous jargon like "crimethink", and generally pretending that something other than what happened happened.=

It's not bizarre at all. The entire point was whether the toxic clique rigging the Hugos would award nominees from outside their clique or if they would take the unprecedented step of handing out more No Awards in a single event than in almost the history of the award.

THERE. IS. NO. CLIQUE. The fans, not some small, closed, secretive group (which is what a clique is) voted against it. Some 6,000 paid up fans voted in this contest. When they voted No Award, which they only did in a handful of categories, No Award was the first choice of the majority.

There is simply no way to reconcile that with the notion some "clique" overrode fans' wishes. No way at all. It's mathematically impossible. Indeed, if you were to somehow mind read the fans, and murder any fan who'd vote against any work because they dislike that work's political views, you'd still have ended up with a huge plurality in favor of "No award" in those categories.

Again, I refer you to the headline. "Hugos Refuse To Award Anyone Rather Than Submit To Fans' Votes". I said this is a lie, because it is one. The fans, not the "Hugos", voted, and the "Hugos", that is, the administrators of the Hugos, accepted that vote. The only people who are refusing to accept that vote, who are refusing to submit to the fan's votes, are you and the puppies.

The blatant rigging was from the people who've been pushing ideology to the point they'll No Award a female author just because people they dislike happened to like her.

This actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. You're claiming identity politics, yet you're giving an example of where identity politics is being explicitly rejected.

You must not browse slashdot very much then because the editors have made a habit of doing that every week. We call it "feminist friday".

That's... fascinating. I obviously haven't, because, no, I have never seen Slashdot's editors try to rig the Hugos by pushing a slate of works deemed inoffensive to liberals. Never. Perhaps you can link to one such story. What works did they recommend, out of interest?

The puppies didn't rig anything, they proved that the hugos WERE rigged in the first place.

They proved they were rigged by... being the ones that rigged them. That's it.

All they actually prove is that while it's possible to game the Hugos and rig the nomination list, it's not possible to win. It's only possible to win a Hugo if your work is good. Game the nominations as much as you like, you'll never win if your work isn't Hugo-worthy.

Which, incidentally, also proves that it's unlikely the Hugos have been rigged for decades, because pretty much every category has had a winner for decades.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the Puppies lost. And they hurt everyone. And no amount of living in some fantasyland where giant SJWs roam the land, somehow mind controlling fandom into voting for stories about lesbian seagulls, will ever help you understand that.

Comment Re:"Online" classes (Score 1) 95

None of the above really matter as long as any of them include the idea of "learning from your peers". If I pay a university to teach me something, they'd damned well better stick a relative expert on the subject matter in front of me for 40 hours over the next three months, whether in person, in realtime, or just "on demand".

Far, far too many online courses have roughly the same format as a Slashdot FP - Post the day's reading material, then require students to "discuss" it. Except, just like with Slashdot (browsing at 2+), the first few comments (almost always by the same few people) pretty much say it all, and everyone else tags along with "me too" - Albeit phrased much more verbosely to get credit for "participating".

Sorry, but I didn't pay to chat with people who know as little, or less, about the subject than I do. I don't have any interest in "learning" by helping my classmates catch up. I honestly do not give the least fuck about my "peers", and if I could afford to, I would have much preferred to only take classes with one-on-one instruction from a subject matter expert.

Comment Re:Blame the trolls and other idiots (Score 1) 226

Don't worry, most people do know what you mean, but unfortunately there's a contingent out there that equates criticizing trolls with censorship, or reads into any criticism of trolls, or proposals to discourage them (which you didn't do) with censorship.

That's Slashdot at the moment. It's a shame, but that's how far things have gone downhill. I almost miss the days when you could post something mildly critical of infringing copyrights and get flamed, but criticizing trolling, doxxing, and other Internet assholery didn't result in +5 Insightful being given to every post that calls you a Nazi.

Comment Re:Yes, comments are too hard to police. (Score 1) 226

there's no way for their readers to see that the content is wrong.

Apparently there is...

(And, to be honest, putting a debunking in a comment rather than posting a well written debunking on an independent site is probably likely to result in that debunking being taken less seriously than the latter. Comments sections were tolerated for the precisely the reason they're now being shut down - rather than havens for fact finding and discussion, they were mostly populated by trolls and Very Angry People With No Hold On Reality, which means nobody took the content seriously.)

Comment Re:Opt out (Score 1) 112

Enabling this option however will, quite rightly, prohibit the subscriber from accessing other free WiFi spots

I guess I don't quite get the whole concept of "free" as used, then.

So the general public can use it, but a paying customer who doesn't want to subsidize Virgin's electric bill can't?

Virgin has an interesting concept of "fair".

Comment Re:Actually great UX for everyone else (Score 2) 246

First of all, I invite you to read this Wikipedia page.

But going onto your debunking of a joke:

No, Costco is not the use-case for the button. Costco is where you go once a month to buy things cheaply. You don't go to Costco because you're running low on toilet paper. Going to Costco is a planned, methodical, activity that involves making an inventory, determining what will need replacement soon, building a list, viewing the special offers, and then visiting the store.

The button doesn't give you anything cheaply. In fact, quite the opposite, you're required to buy only a limited number of expensive brand name items that are almost certainly cheaper at the store. Nor is it designed to be pressed after you've taken careful inventory of your household consumables and determined a list of items that will need replacing soon. Instead, it's a button you press when you notice you need something.

As such, all joking aside, the latency on it is actually fairly relevant..

If I were to design something remotely useful for the purpose you imply this is for, it would be a panel that feeds general ideas into a shopping list. The panel would be covered with buttons entitled, generically "Toilet paper", "Cat food", etc. And you'd press the things you're running low on as you go around your home determining what you need. You'd then visit the store, be it online or brick-and-mortar, and the website would list options for each item, and you'd select the things you want.

But that's not what the Dash Button is. The Dash Button assumes you will only ever want Bounty Brand Toilet Paper, regardless of the price of the alternatives. That you will only want a 48 pack. That you will remember to press the button two days ahead of when the replacement is needed despite there being no organizational motivation for you to do so. And that you're prepared to do that for every single item you'd normally go to Cosco for that Amazon happens to also sell.

Most people will never find it useful.

Comment Re:Lying scum (Score 1) 302

Absolutely, but only one of these people is being investigated for it.

If it's against the law, but we only ever enforce the law targeting individuals based on political reasoning, then the law should be changed or the enforcement should be changed.

Either hold everyone to the same standard and initiate investigations into Powell, Rice, and the entire Bush administration, or change the law such that cabinet level officials have the power to disclose/store non-impactful classified information as they see fit to execute the duties of their office.

"law" may also be the incorrect term here. IIRC, classification rules are maintained by executive order, not by the congress. Could be wrong on that, but I don't have time to look it up at the moment.

-Rick

Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- Rich Kulawiec

Working...