Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

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:Google supports Yahoo! (Score 1) 127

by DerekLyons (#49168679) Attached to: Marissa Mayer On Turning Around Yahoo

Nonsense. Everywhere but Gmail* that Google has tried to take on Yahoo - they've gotten their hands burned. Google does exceedingly well at buying startups and entering businesses where there's little to no competition... But (outside of search where they really did have a clear new idea), their record of taking on entrenched competition is mixed at best.

* Which was aimed as much at Microsoft as Yahoo!, and took a long time and (essentially) forcing Android users to have a Google account to best either one of them.

Comment: It's all about the money.. (Score 1) 136

by DerekLyons (#49167755) Attached to: Google+ Divided Into Photos and Streams, With New Boss

The thing too is that I already had a login that worked with gmail, voice, youtube, chat and the play store. All of a sudden I need to register for a G+ profile to be able to leave comments on Youtube and Google Play because.....

You tell me.

Because... one of the keys ways for Google to compete with Facebook in the only arena that matters (the bottom line) was to compete for advertising dollars. G+ was a shortcut to more easily tracking Google users across multiple services and increasing the value (to Google) of their massive database of user information.

Comment: Re:Haters gonna hate... (Score 1) 136

by DerekLyons (#49166431) Attached to: Google+ Divided Into Photos and Streams, With New Boss

I've never really understood the vitriol toward G+.

That's because you've drunk deeply of the kool-aid.

The press doing what they do (and no doubt strongly encouraged by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple) created a narrative of Google taking aim at Facebook and how they will most certainly fail. Google has repeated many times what the G+ initiative was about, but the press either ignored the facts or said Google was lying. How dare Google try to disrupt their narrative with something as inconsequential as facts. G+ is a framework to unify Google services. Before, it was a complete mess. You had different userids and passwords

If all they wanted to do was to create a unified login, all they had to do was the same thing Yahoo and many other services have done... Simply announce the availability of (or requirement for) a unified account and provided a link to a page with relevant information and tools.

But that's not what they did.

The created a "Facebook [like|light] streaming update system. ("Light" because it was very feature incomplete.) They emasculated Picasa (and their last best hope for competing with the likes of Flickr and Photobucket) in order to encourage people to use the Photos application which was integrated into that system. Pre-launch they very carefully recruited celebrities, tastemakers, and influential internet personalities across a wide range of activities to be early adopters and to provide users with a ready made suite of people to "follow" and "like". (Seriously, you don't go to the effort of recruiting the like of Thomas Hawk (photography) or Marc Spagnuolo (woodworking)* unless you intend to attract photographers and woodworkers to your service - something an integrated login doesn't need.) And then they marketed it extensively (one of the very few times Google has actively marketed anything) as a social service.

In short, they pretty much did everything possible to make G+ look like a social media system (and a successor to their previous, failed, attempts) and a competitor to Facebook. It's not all surprising in light of this that media (and the public) failed to buy their belated claim that the whole thing was nothing but a way to introduce a unified login and account system.

* Both are internet personalities with a significant following in their fields.

Comment: They didn't model (predictable) human behavior (Score 1) 223

Their model basically assumes that you - the person who read the study - would be the only one who would flee to some location where you expect to be safe, and everyone else would stay where they were. If humans really were like that then by all means, follow the advice. But of course, many other humans would react to a zombie apocalypse by fleeing to the country. Quite probably, some would bring infected (still asymptomatic) victims along, which would infect others in the "isolated" sanctuary. How many residents from LA would drive to Death Valley because it seems like a place where zombies wouldn't be? Well guess what: That immigration wave is exactly how zombies get there. A better model would account for this predictable human flight behavior before arriving at a final recommendation.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 388

You are right. But only because nobody is actually looking at the problem. Comcast, Time Warner and COX are not the problem, they are the symptom of the problem.

The problem is last mile infrastructure ownership. Municipally owned last mile solves that problem. By pushing the problem from the last mile, to a more centralized COLO facility can solve the problem, by allowing Verizon, Google, Time Warner, COX, Comcast .... and whoever else wants in, access to the same customers.

This gives choice (missing currently) to the customer, rather than lock-in to a Franchise agreement holder.

Comment: Re: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More (Score 1) 184

by Maxo-Texas (#49162391) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

Well, first - I agree the world is overpopulated to the tune of about 5 billion (and headed towards being 7 to 8 or by some estimates 9 billion overpopulated by 2050).

But there are issues.

Horny idiots with poor birth control and or people who are very religious have lots of kids. Smart, wise, rational people did to under reproduce (there is a very funny youtube video about this).

Second, there is the spectre of Universe 133 out there. We don't want to set that off- it's an extinction event.

Third, those 3.5 billion and those in power who sympathize with them- might get a bit tetchy about attempts to cull them. The likely result is gold old ultra violence- mass death- especially for smart and educated people. Any kind of societal breakdown is going to the return of fatal plagues which are sorta random about who they kill.

Plus there is the fact that the planet would have resources to support all of them (food ,water, living spaces, entertainment) no problem- so it's pretty evil. Basically killing er.. culling.. people for pure greed.

Comment: Re:80% of statistics are made up (Score 1) 184

by Maxo-Texas (#49162359) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

First - you need to watch out for averages. The average includes billionaires who skew the hell out of your result. You should use the median over the average in any situation like this. The median net worth is $140k for boomers near retirement age.

Second- you need to watch out for "net worth" vs "savings".
"Savings" is CASH, EQUITIES, etc. Cash. MONEY. You can buy food with it.
"Net Worth" is Cash, Equities, etc. PLUS your car, your property, and oh.. you know.. your HOUSE.

The median Home value is $189,000. So with a median home price of $189k and a median net worth of $140k, that means most boomers haven't even paid their house off yet. And, you can't eat your house. And you can't live in your house and turn it into an income stream except with a reverse mortgage.

As the other person responding indicated- they changed the definition of U6. If you are "long term discouraged" you were dropped from U6 in 1994. In every generation previous to this one, you would have been expected to work and you would have been counted as unemployed. Now you are not.

Here's the data...
        Total Working Age Population (16-54 years of age): 248,657,000
        Total Nonfarm Employees (16-54 years of age): 114,523,000
        Percentage Of Working Age Americans Employed (Full or Part-Time): 46.05%

Just for comparative purposes here is the same calculation at the turn of the century (January 1st, 2000):
        Total Working Age Population (16-54 years of age): 211,410,000
        Total Nonfarm Employees (16-54 years of age): 118,602,000
        Percentage Of Working Age Americans Employed (Full or Part-Time): 56.10%

So roughly 25 million 16 to 54 year olds who were working in 2000 that are not working today. And I see this. Those poor kids in their mid 30's who have worked their asses off (degrees, getting up at 3am to work a 6am to 5pm shift) and they still don't have money saved for a house because a degreed professional job pays $32,000. Plus their college debts were 10x what mine were. (I got my COSC degree for $8200 TOTAL between 1985 and 1993) Insane.

The problem is people "enclave" up and only see people like themselves. So the ones who are doing okay get to pretend everyone else is doing as well as they are.

Comment: Re:Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More R (Score 3, Insightful) 184

by Maxo-Texas (#49157683) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

Actually, reviewing U6 and discouraged workers, we are at record levels of unemployment. Close to 25% of the working age population isn't working. They are going on disability early, retiring early- but many 16 to 54 year olds who worked in the past are not finding employment. I know several people in this category.

It is much rougher for 30 year olds than it was when I was 30. Some retrain and then the job they were training for is swamped by so many applicants that wages are supressed.

I was hoping retiring boomers would take up the slack but I read 80% of them have no under $20,000 savings and will not be able to voluntarily retire. Plus boomers in good slots are simply continuing to work and have no intention of retiring and letting those slots open up to younger people. By the time this group dies or retires at 77 to 82- the generation behind them is nearly at retirement age- never having had the good earnings years the generation before them had.

Advances in AI will make it possible to replace large swaths of 'smart' and 'creative' jobs by 2050. And they won't even consider that to be "real" AI by them. Whenever we get a real AI, it will be a massive paradigm shift. Robotics already have superhuman performance when "plugged" in . So an easily clonable AI combined with super human bodies obsolete humans overnight.

Backed up the system lately?