Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Good job editors! (Score 1) 124 124

Not all the places I read /. (e.g. Chrome for Android) _can_ have adblock enabled, or I just don't have the authority to do so (managed/friend's pc). And I do read /. a lot daily, like 40 refreshes in +3 different platforms per day, so it does help tbh, especially on Android. Firefox for Android provides adblock, but the app really sucks in general and the fact I can have plugins just doesn't make up the fact it isn't half as usable as Chrome. Google really does pimp that port like a winning horse and they really make me pay for it by withstanding their adNONsense... They know extensions in Android would be a shot in the foot. Anyway, I actually didn't use /. back on the paid times but I see your point. Congrats on the non-drinking streak :D

Comment: Good job editors! (Score 1) 124 124

I'm really happy (not surprised, as I expect unbiased content throughout /. ) that this article's tone is much more in line with what neutral journalism deserves. I am also glad about the topic itself: that SF has decided to do it all on fair'er terms - they seem to be going in the right direction on this particular mirror subject.

It's still a shame for the ads on all other things SF, besides the mirrors. We all dread ads, and only people who chose such a business model can make sense of things like intrusive, quasi-mandatory ads such as bundled installers with intentionally hindered opt-out controls. The fact that a company has a steep price on their product is one thing, as I can avoid it since it is such a public statement to have price X or Y. But when a company decides to charge me with my privacy or my attention to their cumbersome, crippling ads, in a surreptitious way, is something I take very personally.

I can also cope with unobtrusive ads like the ones here at /., but sometimes I will disable them, because, well, that's a right you provided me for my Karma. Thank you for that, and sorry for my little egoism.

Comment: Re:Accept the fact (Score 1) 130 130

Neither of your options, so I guess you missed the point and decided to look cool with a very subtle...

Why don't you collect your thoughts and try again?

The "REAL FLAW" is the conjuncture. The lack of determination flaw is intrinsic to society and nobody can change it. It applies to both humans and their collective forms. I subliminally mention a lot other flaws. One of them is most dev in the community has this general idea that everything should be future-proof, even stuff they don't code, yet stoically and lightheartedly include in their code as if it was custom-made to their spec (-.-). You want custom featuresets? Do custom components. That's what determined companies (those that attempt not to have the first flaw) do, and they grow. They go the extra mile even if it costs them a leg, because they have the goal of having robust, future-proof software.

Things like free code, freely distributed (closed) components or even freely available supporting cloud services (i.e. everything you might use in your code, developed by someone else that is not related to your your business model, and that their business isn't improved directly by the fact that you use that component [keyword directly], or they don't have a business model to begin with, so there really is no long-term incentive [end of big parenthesis]) are NOT to be used unless you accept their flaws. Some are open so you can explore their flaws. Some have a proper license that allows fixing the flaws if it better suits you, this way becoming a bit more like the aforementioned "determined" entities that go the extra mile.

But that is the current state of the union about component usage. The article mentions a more "meta" problem. It is obvious the 2 flaws I directly mentioned in this comment, the "society lacking determination" one and the "dev community has great expectations" one, are pretty much unsolvable. So what I proposed in my first comment was a good middle-ground:

  1. - "user-type" devs (the ones who include a component in their work) should change their work modularity to have plug&play components when needed (with varying degrees of plug-ability, but the core notion is they should do it more often and more profoundly) , and...
  2. - "component-supplier-type" devs should adjust their work to be even more modular, closer to a perfect black-box, requiring no external changes (even underlying system ones such as e.g. an upgrade in Linux kernel to make use of new binary and/or feature FOO that is less prone to critical flaw X).

Comment: Accept the fact (Score 3, Interesting) 130 130

It's about time everyone stops whining. There are things in life you're better safe than sorry, but then there are things in life you just can't change: not every single entity can keep maintaining what they create. Human beings are limited, and so are human organizations - they lack money, workforce or simply the patience to put up with some "critical flaws" that are just too rooted in bad design to be solved without a restructuring.


There are good ways and bad ways to create reusable components. Black boxing (containing) everything for starters (sans the closed-sourced part) is something people tend to limit the scope to testing and/or to services outside a fully-fledged system's component border. Technologies like SOA are just one of many ways to plug&play every new piece of technology that performs a very specific task in a different way of a previously flawed one. Think project Ara. It's not only fun to develop like this (although some have problem conceptualizing it), but it's also more robust in the long run. Using such paradigms is what we, as the "clients" of such "aging and flawed" components can do push better development of individual components.

Now, each and every component developer has to find ways to keep their work atomic, so as to not conflict with the principles of technologies they are developed to work for. This might all seem like an utopian way of what to expect of the coding community, but then again we are also still looking for the best ways to apply near-perfect political views designed hundreds of years ago, which are yet to achieve full potential. I keep my hopes up for both issues, but my expectations low.

Comment: So they want to sell newer phones... (Score 1) 131 131

It could be as simple as LG Canada being influenced not to do so because of their new device sales, for a market that has tendency to refresh hardware more often (I'm guessing here but it sounds like a reason). Not shipping new software is the best way to discontinue a product and compel clients to get the new stuff.

Comment: I might get burned for this, but here goes... (Score 4, Insightful) 384 384

Saying you had a "very busy weekend", to my eyes, feels just like a euphemism for "management argued a lot before this got posted, and when it did get posted, the expression modified binary had to replace bundled with malware".

Personal Note: "bundled with malware" is what every other place I read the article used to define it.

Personal Note 2: If I happened to stumble on some facts, I want to stress I understand them completely as I also happen to have a very policy-centered full time job. I'm just letting my thoughts fly in a comment, because, well, comment section is still community moderated in full that I know, thus still being free (in the extreme, FSF-like sense of the word "free").

Comment: Re:Another reason my first new car will be a Tesla (Score 1) 392 392

I don't know what you mean. All base Model S's from sep. 2014 will ship with 3 out of 4 of the features you mention stock (cruise control, lane assist and self parking. Just look it up. Before that date I believe they all shipped with standard CC at least the very least). 0 cost.

The adaptive suspension is indeed extra. Just like the supercharger and the B.I.G. battery. These are the exceptions to the rule: effectively COSTLY extras that require either changes to a lot of other systems in the car, and are also very expensive by themselves and not cater to every common mortal needs. Adaptive suspension is something that will be very expensive for any car, forever and ever, no matter the brand. Only professional sports car effectively require it stock (and big trucks and buses I guess?). The large battery and the supercharger are effectively very, VERY bleeding edge technologies where Tesla pioneered, and I can accept that these have costs outside of the (already expensive) 100 grand.

Now you're gonna say I'm contradicting myself but whatever. I'm not in it for winning the argument, I'm on it because I actually care for the subject and my opinion is well formed. If you can change it with your argument, that must mean it's effectively a better opinion and I'll be glad I was here to listen to it.

Comment: Re:Options (Score 1) 392 392

I see your point, but I already considered all that beforehand. And I still can't understand it.

1) Not everybody wants, needs or can afford every feature.

It's open for debate, but my view is everybody DOES want every feature they can have. Society is known for wanting more than they need. Not everybody needs them indeed. And the cost factor I already addressed - base price covers most extra BoM, R&D and then some. The only problem associated to cost is company-side: they know certain base features will atract purchase, while some extras which 99% of people will add to certain models are just their way of saying "thanks dude, we knew you'd buy that yet we keep it off stock because FU"

Automakers can sell more cars if they offer them at a range of prices

Different ranges will cater to different markets (more revenue), but not necessarily more profit. That's their choice because they insist on a production line that is greedy enough to want all market segments. There are profitable ways to make a car and not have 20 variants of the same model (e.g. Ferrari, Hyundai, Land Rover target very narrow market scopes, some of them keep niche products for marketing purposes only). And finally, the market of a Model S is indeed different, but the point is they didn't follow a useless segmented extra-centric strategy and focused on user experience, satisfaction and overall quality with the added perk of performance and environment-friendly engine. There are brands already segmenting their electric offer, and the thing is you don't see them selling so well, at least on units shipped vs actual units sold.

People like to customize their vehicles because having something a little unique is valued.

No. Most cars aren't works of art, because art is one of the few "industries" where uniqueness is key. Save for some limited-edition, luxury cars, that point is moot. Extras rarely value a car, age and exclusivity do.

Bundling options keeps complexity down to a manageable level and if done right improves profits for the manufacturer.

Shipping full extras also keeps complexity to a manageable level, and if done right, greatly increases profit through brand recognition for having a complete car instead of one that is missing just that little extra.

If people start gravitating with their dollars towards that business model then that is what will happen.

Indeed, although I can see why most american would fear this business model, because it sounds oh-so-much like some weird form of communism applied to automotive. There is no reason to fear standardization here. Same for healthcare. Same for education. NOT the same for salary ceilings or price capping, because that is real communism. Embrace the fact that uniqueness you seek only applies in your neighborhood - someone, elsewhere will most likely have the exact same model and extras as you.

Comment: Re:Another reason my first new car will be a Tesla (Score 1) 392 392

You're confusing extras with customization, which are mainly aesthetic/ergonomic, or very niche tweaks that have wide degree of functionality across different end users. Unlike the memory foam of a seat or the color/paint of the exterior, features like ABS, cruise control, (well implemented) navigation or this specific human detection system will ALWAYS bring an advantage to the client as long as they can be turned on/off or outright ignored when not necessary (where applicable, as I wouldn't want that human detection off to have a toggle, but hey, I'm not a psychopath). And you also missed the main argument: you already pay full price (and then some) for those extras on the base price, even though you won't have them. Or do you think an M5 really costs double to make than a standard 5 series, and yet you still have to pay extra for improved headlights...

Comment: Another reason my first new car will be a Tesla (Score 4, Insightful) 392 392

No matter how old it is, I still can't fathom the "extra" scheme applied to the automotive industry. It's not enough that most companies (especially luxury brands) already price their cars exorbitantly high, covering most R&D cost for technology it does not ship with as stock, yet they keep multiplying and over-complicating the extra packages in ways that if you want to add a single extra essential feature, you are pretty much forced to add 10 more (I guess Volvo guys forgot it this time but I bet they intended to do it). Why can't all cars be more like a Model S and ship with the most relevant technological developments "out of the box" (as there is no stand per se, it must come in a box). And I'm not even talking about the fact it's an electric car.

Comment: Wait what? (Score 3, Funny) 445 445

Man, that first result BS is so deep, I'm even starting to believe it myself. They say dinossaurs were the big creatures from the genesis that got wiped out by Noah's flood. Then they go in to praise (what they deem as) good science for computers, electricity, junk food (yeah, they praised junk food. Honest.), and even space exploration. Then like a two-punch, they discredit all history-related kinds of sciences (even inventing new definitions of it), with arguments about them dealing with the past only with present facts, which makes some sense. But then I see this amazing quoted comparison...

"Paleontology (the study of fossils) is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts." M. Lemonick, Parenthood, dino-style, Time, p. 48, January 8, 1996.

And I felt just like waking up from a priest/pastor's best wet dream (sans pre-pubescent kids). Lord Baby Jesus. Fucking politics. I think I laughed for like 2 minutes straight like a nutcase. Imagine voting for your favorite paleontologist for the best excavation. Creationists have THE best comparisons ever. Period.

Comment: That's not very British, is it? (Score 1) 121 121

With all the talk going on around UK's adult content policies, it was only natural to remove some social-centric articles which directly impact on public opinion. It just doesn't seem like the British thing to do, does it?

Well, I guess the way they are heading, any censorship is good censorship. Might as well make it a totalitarian state sooner better than later. How anyone in there is outraged that the EU is eye-browing such policies, that is the actual surprise... But then again, who would want freedom of speech, when freedom of speech can have such influence on these fascists jobs? It's understandable that state entities such as the parliament are editing wikipedia. Wouldn't you do anything it takes to keep your salary? Especially if such censorship action happens to coincide with your political view? Man I know I would. If my first name was Adolf and my last name rimmed with shittler I definitely would.

People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't.