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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Mars isn't going anywhere. (Score 0) 169

Along the same lines, we should establish a permanent Moon base first. The Moon is much, much, much closer to Earth than Mars [...]

You know that were are building these capabilities to get the hell as far away from the rest of you dolts as we possibly can manage to get, right?

"Closer to Earth" is about as much as a feature as "random" is a feature on an iPod Shuffle, which has a perfectly good audio feedback mechanism that could have been used in place of a screen for feedback, without compromising the ability to actually select what you wanted to have played.

Which is to say: not a feature.

Comment The Blackberry "Priv" ad blurb... (Score 2) 137

The Blackberry "Priv" ad blurb...

"At BlackBerry we are passionate about raising the bar for security and privacy. Extra steps are taken at both a hardware and software level to authenticate Android in order to help protect you from malware and any attempts to temper with your OS."

I thought that some idiot had misspelled "tamper". After reading this article, I am not so sure that this was not in fact the intended word choice here.

Comment Re:Phbbbt. We don't need not stinking fact checkin (Score 1) 93

It's not ad-homenim. Invoking the name of a famous person along with quotes or advice by them is attempting to use their position of fame and their reputation to lend weight to the advice.

So because they committed the fallacy of "appeal to authority", you committing the fallacy of "arguing ad hominem", thus compounding rather than pointing out the original fallacy, isn't actually a fallacy, it's magically delicious instead?

Comment Re:Wanna have my money? (Score 1) 45

Simple: I wanna give it. You don't even have to shake it down from me.

Just sell me a phone with Sailfish OS. Here. In Brazil.

Certainly, sir.

I'll need your billing information and shipping address. Let's start with billing...

Which reserve currency will you be paying for this in? U.S. dollars, euros, pounds sterling, Japanese yen, Swiss francs, or Canadian dollars?

The Brazilian banking system did freaking *what*?!?!?!?

Sorry sir; you can not buy anything internationally, period.

Please contact your local government stooge to find out which company in your area is paying sufficient bribes to get things into your country legally, and then contact them to see which one of those is willing to import our product on your behalf.

Thank you again for calling, [any company not actually incorporated in Brazil].

Comment Re:It's a dependent clause (Score 1) 43

Dependent Clause: In linguistics, a dependent clause (or a subordinate clause) is a clause that provides an independent clause with additional information, but which cannot stand alone as a sentence. Dependent clauses either modify the independent clause of a sentence or serve as a component of it.

Comment It's a dependent clause (Score 2) 43

It's a dependent clause.

The "also" applies to "the decision", as opposed to "the initial results".

The sentence is quite the run-on, and it's awkwardly constructed; however, it's grammatically correct.

A less awkward construction would be:

"Citrix's operations review initially resulted in a decision to spin off the GoTo collaboration products business into a new company. In addition, it has also motivated a decision to institute a euphemistic (in the opinion of the editors of 'realignment of resources', which is expected to eliminate approximately 1,000 full time and contract positions in the remaining company."

Here's the actual press release from Citrix, rather than a slashdot summary of a article:

Comment Amazon (Score 4, Interesting) 210

Look what Amazon has done to local retail in America - decimated it!

Dude, that was, in order:

(1) strip malls put individual storefronts out of business, and raised rents when they were gone

(2) shopping malls put many strip malls and individual storefronts out of business, and raised rents when they were gone

(3) Walmart put many "anchor stores" in shopping malls out of business, which then killed individual mall stores dependent on foot traffic, and killed many strip malls with limited varied compared to Walmart, and remaining storefronts, all by buying in bulk, undercutting prices (even if good had to be sold at a loss to do so), and then raising prices once the others were gone

It's all about driving down aggregate costs (which is one reason many places in California have ordinances on maximum store size: to keep Walmart out, or at least from realizing a high enough economy of scale to drive smaller stores out of business, because they are more or less the same size

Amazon was pretty much uninvolved with any of that.

Comment Re:Why Not Vocational? (Score 1) 393

Funnily the US still manufacture their own planes an weapons ... and a few cars, like Teslas :)

Military manufacturing generally occurs in your own country, unless you are very good friends with your arms suppliers, or the arms in question apply technologies that you don't have. And yes, the NSA has its own chip foundries, as well, for sensitive components, so that a foreign government supplying your chips can't just tell your military to "turn off", should it come to a conflict.

I have no concrete idea what is going wrong in your country, but perhaps instead of looking at China, look at other successful nations and start copying.

We have granted MFN - most favored nation - status to China; this means we can not tariff them more than we tariff anyone else.

This means we can not tariff products manufactured in China contingent on them following the U.S. Fair Labor Relations Act standards; this makes Chinese labor cost inherently less than equivalent U.S. labor, per work unit per hour.

It also means we cannot tariff them based on not complying with U.S. environmental standards; U.S. environmental standards are among the most stringent in the world, and as a result, operating costs for U.S. factories are higher, due to things like hazardous waste disposal; this makes Chinese production costs apart from labor costs inherently less than equivalent U.S. production costs.

The combination of these things means that we have shipped most of our manufacturing to China. Not ironically, our compact fluorescent light bulbs are manufactured in China because of the mercury component required prevents U.S. manufacture, yet dead bulbs go to U.S. landfills, where the mercury accumulates. Further, we are not permitted to use standard incandescent bulbs, which do not have this environmental pollutant, due to environmental regulations regarding energy usage (this is actually an energy production problem, not an energy consumption problem).

In addition, we have what is called "the NAFTA hole". This is where countries which would ordinarily be tariffed on these things which we cannot tariff China on, ship their nearly completed products to Mexico, where they go to a factory barely on the Mexican side of the U.S./Mexico border for final assembly, manufacturing, or processing. This can be as little as shrink-wrapping or other packaging for distribution of bulk-packed items. Then they are exported from Mexico to the U.S. with no tariff. These factories are colloquially called "Maquiladoras".

And *THAT*, my friend, is what is going wrong in my country.

Regarding social changes: my impression is, the US move like a glacier and everybody is super conservative, health care is an example. Why change a bad running system if there is a chance that it is even worse afterwards, seems to be the attitude.

You have a simplistic view of Democrat (liberal) vs. Republican (conservative) politics and embedded interests. This is to be expected, if you are not from the U.S., since it's fairly nuanced as to who "owns" which platform issues.

This is predominantly because the structure of our electorate is actually as a Representative Republic, rather than a Populist Democracy, as it's usually portrayed; we are much more the Roman model, than the Greek model.

Take your health care example:

Nixon, a Republican president, proposed in 1974 a national health care system much better than the one the ACA has imposed upon us; it was single-payer, rather than forcing us to be customers of insurance companies. It was a much better plan. On his deathbed, Teddy Kennedy, a powerful Democratic senator from the state of Massachusetts, stated that his one regret in his political career was not agreeing to help Nixon implement this plan.

The current ACA, which just raised my premiums another 25% to deal with the sunset clause on federal subsidies for the state health exchange for those who can not afford insurance, is jokingly called "TARP III" (TARP I and TARP II were the bail-outs for the financial institutions and Wall Street, who were considered "too big to fail"). This is because it transferred nearly a trillion dollars to AIG (Allied Insurance Group) and other insurance agencies and groups, as part of the implementation of the ACA.

So we are not moving forward on health care even now, and it was a Democrat who instituted the ACA, because the Democratic platform aligned with insurance industry interests.

Politics is not simple, when you are talking about 240 year old systems.

Consider that the German system as it exists today had its reset button pushed in 1945; Germany, as it exists today, is a fairly new governmental system, despite the age of the name of the region which it occupies, being less than 75 years old.

Likewise, the Commonwealth government in the Britain and the U.K. date from about the 1920's, making them less than 100 years old as a governmental system.

The French revolution occurred not long after the U.S. revolutionary war -- yet it, too, had the rest button pushed on its government at the end of WW II, meaning it is less than 75 years old, as well.

The Japanese government had it's reset button pushed around the end of WW II as well.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union occurred in 1991 -- it's the youngest of all discussed so far: technically speaking, all of the governments in the Soviet Union are less than 25 years old.

One commonality in all of this, is the the U.S., as part of the Marshall Plan, and with the exception of the Russian Republics, had a hand in rebuilding all of these nations and governments, and they benefitted from the U.S. being aware of the mistakes that they had made in their own government, and what mistakes to avoid, going forward.

It's not so easy to correct your own system from inside. So yeah: it's been kind of slow.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.