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


Forgot your password?

Comment Better financial models for sourceforge? (Score 1) 435

Seems to be an invitation to make my pitch again? This is another variation on the ideas presented in several other threads, but...

One of the functional problems of slashdot is how quickly topics go stale. Maybe that is the feature I should put my $15 on? Actually, I am thinking more along the lines of $100/year split into 10 projects for features or continuing costs. (As usual, details available upon polite request. The magic keywords for this one is "dynamic multidimensional topic search in the background".)

However, first a word from our sponsor!

Just joking, no sponsor, but there is a need for some background here. Maybe my premises are mis-focused?

As a wannabe user, I have frequently visited sourceforge over the years. Usually I am looking for specific software to solve some problem, and I often find it. Dead, orphaned, obsolete, fractional, or incomplete. THAT is the problem I want to solve, but I think we have to consider why the projects died, and I wish the new powers-that-be would refer us to some statistics about project death?

I think almost all of the programmers who were driving the sourceforge projects are well intentioned, but somehow fail to live up to their altruism. However, I take the idea pretty broadly. I even think that hoping to strike it rich by creating good software can be a form of altruism... The vow of poverty approach definitely does not work.

Therefore I think that the sincere interest of wannabe users should be assessed BEFORE sourceforge projects get the green light. My suggested form of sincerity would be pledging a $10 charity share towards the budgeted cost of the project. The natural implementation would be for the new owners to set up a 'charity share brokerage' and the wannabe donors would put their donations in a 'charity share account' that can be allocated towards the projects they like. The basic idea would be to prevent orphaned and incomplete projects, or to pick up old projects or ongoing costs on a transparent basis.

I even think the brokerage should earn a commission on the funded projects by providing several important services. (1) Make sure the proposals are complete. (2) Realistic schedule. (3) Acceptable budget (possible effected by competition from competing proposals for similar projects). (4) Testing and other easy-to-forget items are included. (5) SUCCESS CRITERIA. After the project has finished creating the software or otherwise been completed, then they would evaluate the results and the donors know how it came out. (Au, daupr. Keywords "charity shares”.)

Comment My missing option? (Score 3, Interesting) 151

I'll talk to them if they PAY me to listen. Seriously, I'll offer 5 minutes a day to talk to advertisers on the phone, and they can bid for my time. The auctioneer will be allowed to know a bit of my personal information (including what I'm thinking about buying) to attract bigger bids, but the auctioneer will have strong motivation to protect my privacy because that is how they protect their own profits--split with me, of course. My option to give out any personal information, but only after I decide they are selling something I'm interested in, and in that case I may even decide to go past the 5-minute limit.

Oh yeah. One more thing. There should be a minimum bid price, and if no bidder wants to pay that much, then I don't talk to anyone. However, I'm also betting that there are a lot of legitimate companies that would prefer to talk with potential customers who are both qualified and interested.

Not sure if the business model could work that well, but maybe the auctioneer could screen ALL my calls? Certainly would be an attractive selling point when trying to sign up new people, but to do it efficiently they would need to be partnering with the phone company, and I'm not sure I trust ANYONE who is partnering with a phone company.

(Anyone got any advice about the mobile phone situation in Japan? My contract is up in a couple of months, and I really want to leave my current company...)

Comment Re:Shooting the messenger. (Score 1) 327

Assange's revelations embarrassed the US government and the US military, not "rich people".

You must be new around here. What planet did you come from?

I'm not particularly interested in Assange or those specific documents. I'm intensely interested in why people like you (or the role you are pretending to play, perhaps as a paid shill) want the government to have MORE control what LITTLE you know. They are obviously already doing a sufficiently good job.

Comment What, pray tell, is "lameness" (to filter)? (Score 1) 327

Okay, then in that case, it would seem isolating the paragraph should have increased the relative lameness of the comment, but that is not what happened. In isolation, the paragraph did not trigger any complaint.

I think the creators of slashdot were sincere, though I don't yet have any impressions about the intentions or sincerity of the newest owners. However, I also think that slashdot should stop abusing the English language. It has enough problems.

Comment How many years for google to notice scammers? (Score 2) 117

New subject question about how long, the answer is "The google don't care, just like the honey badger." Or you could reword it in terms of the google's new motto: "All your attention are belong to us."

However, the post by OverlordQ that I'm responding to said:

Some sites get ridiculous with that.

No, it is NOT the websites or even the app, though there are things an app developer can do that can make it easier or harder for scammers to use that sort of misleading ad. The REAL problem is that the google don't care about scams or the victims thereof. The only concern of the google is MONEY. These days that is driving them to ever nastier exploitations of our private information, but it does NOT have to be that way.

For example of a possible constructive solution:

Add a "Business model" or "Financials" tab in Google Play. Let the developer explain how the money works, most often by selecting one of the more common options. Then the google would add a secure comment about the evidence.

No, this would not eliminate all scams, but it would let us make better choices AGAINST scammy the business models. Again, details available upon polite request.

Oh yeah and by the way, I've been trying to call the google's attention to these sorts of scams for some years, but it's just one of a LONG list of google-supported scams. With great power the google accepts NO responsibility.

Comment Re:Shooting the messenger. (Score 1) 327

Why did this part of that last reply trigger the so-called lameness filter:

Now about that meta-modding thing. Years since I had noticed it, and it's just as stupid as it ever was. To evaluate the moderation of a comment, to form ANY meaningful opinion about the moderation, I need CONTEXT. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I don't feel like searching in other tabs to see the rest of the thread and the moderation itself is worth the effort, and without the effort, any meta-moderation is worthless. I should have looked for that in the recent discussion of slashdot's future... Make that "possible future".

Now that is truly bizarre. I cut and pasted the last bit into this new comment so I could figure out which word or words were problematic, but in isolation, there is apparently no problem. I think that is sufficient evidence of the importance of context, eh?

Comment Re:Shooting the messenger. (Score 1) 327

Want to wager on it? We need some metric of disappearance, but I think it is absolutely safe to say the story will not last as long as Snowden's.

As regards the anonymous and spineless fascist who gave my comment the overrated mod: You're supposed to wait for it to get a mod point. You're only showing your willingness to abuse the rules, such as they are.

The troll question is actually related to this topic via their abuse of anonymity, but it is again philosophically complicated. I think "troll" is actually a multidimensional concept. Since I think the dimensions of evaluating comments (and their authors) should be defined as positive axes that allow for negative values, I'm going to word it in those terms. For example, if there were a dimension of "sincerity", I think most trolls are negative, though there are few who are lying to themselves, too. Most trolls are negative on the dimensions of "constuctive", "supportive", and "friendly", but not always at the same time.

There is a flip side, however. Sometimes trolls can be "stimulating", but I see that as a dimension that should be split out of the currently ambiguous "interesting" dimension. Right now "interesting" fuzzily seems to include "stimulating" and "well written" and several other matters of opinion. They can't even translate it cleanly into Japanese (on the Japanese slashdot), which reminds me of something Dijkstra said about translation. Paraphrasing, but something like 'If I can't translate a new idea to my other language in a natural and straightforward way, then that is strong evidence there is something wrong with the idea.' (Pretty sure I heard him say it live before I left Austin.)

Comment Shooting the messenger. (Score 2, Interesting) 327

Actually, I don't think they will shoot Assange immediately. I think he will disappear into a black hole of some sort, unless they can use him for a show trial a la Stalin. Doesn't even matter anymore what he did. What matters is putting the fear of gawd into anyone else who is thinking of doing something that causes similar embarrassment to sufficiently rich and powerful people.

As regards the comments here, I'm not at all surprised to see the attacks on Assange. I just wonder why are they such big fans of corporate secrecy and government secrecy? (Same thing now, given our corporatist overlords.)

Occam's Razor says they are shills, probably professional abusers of your privacy, and mine.

Secrecy and anonymity are funny things, but it's a tough philosophic topic. On principle, I think that secrecy is wrong, because the truth is eventually going to come out, but it turns out to be quite easy to justify anonymity in terms of prior secret crimes and the anonymity of the perpetrators... No reason to protect the whistle-blowers if the crimes were already known to the public, eh?

However, the criminals are not worrying about eventually. They just want to die with the most toys. Their planning horizons are limited to statutes of limitations or death. Preferably the whistle-blower's death.

Any trace of privacy will soon be the ultimate luxury good. The rest of us peasants will be naked on the podium, with all our weaknesses and mistakes well known and used as sticks to threaten and control us. However, that's only the half of it. Our interests, tastes, and even our strengths will be used to manipulate and control us, too.

Returning to Assange, I actually think it was his taste in women that was used to set him up. I would say he's losing his freedom for being a sucker, but he actually lost his freedom years ago.

Comment Re:From the people who brought you (Score 1) 35

I have considered combining AR with the Emotiv EEG controller for some years now.

The EEG input device allows full hands-free operation of the embedded platform (but has several outstanding bugs related to signal noise, and user training). This means google-glass can now be used without having to, for example, touch the eyepiece to take a picture, or start recording video-- Or regions of the AR image can be enhanced/manipulated based on user attention focus.

A low-cost (300$ is not low cost, unless you live in some hyper inflated local economy. Yes Silicon valley, you are a hyper inflated economy.) synthesis of these could enable all kinds of useful applications, from AR assisted night driving with bright IR LED based headlights and computer processing (does not blind other drivers, gives lots of illumination for the computer to do image capture with, and the resulting presentation requires no physical input method. Not even "pinch to zoom".)

To take off though, the fully integrated product needs to approach the 100$ price point. That includes hardware and software.

We aren't there yet.

(Other, highly lucrative applications: Soldiers with AR targeting. Limited upper body exo-harnesses intended to collect EEG motor-area data and correct body posture accordingly for precision sniping, etc. Hollywood already thought of this shit years ago. Tech is just catching up.)

Comment Re:It's the financial models, stupid! (Score 1) 1836

Not clear what you mean, but the obvious question in this context (though based on the post you probably didn't read) is whether or not you would be willing to chip in to implement that feature? You want it, but do you want it badly enough to put down $10 toward implementing it?

You would get two rewards, however. (1) You would get to use the feature, and (2) Your name could appear as one of the donors for the feature.

Comment Re:It's the financial models, stupid! (Score 1) 1836

Upon reflection, I feel like apologizing, but the troll ain't worth it. Curse my own stupidity for being trolled?

Oh well, I'll throw in a few thoughts about the troll problem. I think I've already said this somewhere recently, but I think trolls are multidimensional. Yeah, insincerity (or negative sincerity) is a really common element of most trolls, but there are a few that are sincere, so I still feel like there are several vector spaces defining the trolls--and a single dimension of "troll" is not the way to go. (I also dislike the (negative) dimension of overrated. Too unclear what aspect is "overrated".)

The feature that I personally would like to fund to deal with the problem of trolls and sock puppets is a maturity filter, so posters whose accounts are younger than some threshold are invisible to me. My setting would probably be 3 or 4 months, since I doubt many of them last that long. Can't guess if enough other people feel the same way to get it funded...

Slashdot Top Deals

Regardless of whether a mission expands or contracts, administrative overhead continues to grow at a steady rate.