Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:"and they may be bought for their assets." (Score 1) 314

by cyn1c77 (#48822297) Attached to: Radio Shack Reported To Be Ready for Bankruptcy Filing

I know this is meant to be a joke, but closing Radio Shack means there is no longer any place you can just run out and grab a specific capacitor or DB9 connector or whatever. It will be online only. This isn't the end of the world, but it is a little sad.

Their assets are basically their storefronts. That's a lot of retail space that is certainly not going to be transformed into something I would ever want to visit.

Many RadioShack stores do not consistently have electronic component bins and, without going to the store, you don't really know which ones do or how large their selection is. They had a core following for the do-it-yourselfer (DIYers)s for decades and then they effectively stopped carrying what those people wanted in favor of products with larger profit margins. Nothing is more frustrating than on a 30-minute driving round trip to find out that you just should have ordered a capacitor and resistor online because the 18 year old at the store doesn't even know what those parts are, much less if they stock them.

In my opinion, this is how they really blew it. They could have grown their online presence (like Newark Electronics or Digikey) and used that capability to more easily stock their storefronts with electronic components. They could have also brought in more computer components into their stores and also added that to their online stock (like Fry's or NewEgg). They could have continued to embrace DIY electronics. Instead, they kept their stores small, were not proactive on internet sales, and tried to copy larger appliance stores like BestBuy. In doing that, they lost most of their core customers and did not effective replace them.

In reality, they died decades ago but their management didn't realize it.

Comment: Your optometrist took advantage of you. (Score 1) 464

by cyn1c77 (#48728317) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Are Progressive Glasses a Mistake For Computer Users?

If you only need glasses for reading, you do not need progressive lenses. You need reading glasses, which you will only wear when you are reading.

You can just buy an over-the-counter set of glasses ($15) with your prescription. Or you can have a fancier (lighter or more stylish) pair made, but they will be called single-vision lenses (meaning that they have a single correction factor per eye).

Optometrists prefer you to get the most expensive lens option though their shop. Reading glasses are the cheapest. Single visions are the next cheapest. They have a higher profit margin on progressive lenses, multi-focal lenses, bifocals, etc. They also have a nice profit margin on coatings for anti-reflection or transition lenses. (Contact lenses too!)

I recommend you do the following:
1. Visit your optometrist's office and ask for a copy of your eyeglasses prescription. By law (in the US), they must give this to you at the end of the exam. You should always request this, at every visit, as you have paid for it.
2. If you got your lenses at the optometrist, tell them that they simply are not working for you. Usually, if it has been a few weeks to a month, they will remake your lenses in a different option at no cost to you. (This is generally the only advantage of getting your lenses at your optometrist.)
3. Read online about how your prescription works and figure out if you can get by with a simple set of cheap reading glasses. (You can do this if your eyes both require the same diopter correction value.)
4. Go to a drug store and try out cheap reading glasses.

Good luck. Look at the bright side, some people need glasses for both distance and reading!

Comment: Re:Luggage? (Score 1) 349

by cyn1c77 (#48701919) Attached to: United and Orbitz Sue 22-Year-Old Programmer For Compiling Public Info

Gate check your large bag, you'll get it back at the arriving gate.

This is incorrect - When you gate-check a bag it's "checked through to your final destination" - You pick it up on the baggage carousel.

The exception is regional-jet and turboprop flights where you "leave your bag in the jetway." In these situations your bag is returned to the jetway.

Actually, the GP was correct. The passenger has the option of having the bag returned at the gate or at the final destination carousel.

(You've clearly never traveled with a child and their stroller!)

+ - United and Orbitz don't want you to save money.

Submitted by cyn1c77
cyn1c77 (928549) writes "Why improve service when you can just stifle innovation? United Airlines and Orbitz are teaming up to shut down a free service that allows customers to find the lowest fare tickets by taking advantage of "hidden city" ticketing. Skiplagged.com finds flights from an origin city with a layover at the customer's desired destination. The customer gets off at the layover location and skips the last part of the flight. (While these tickets require passengers to carry-on luggage, they can often be cheaper than flights terminating at the desired destination, especially for popular hubs.) The site was created by 22-year-old Aktarer Zaman as a side project, who says he has made no profit from it."

Comment: Re:And where are all the hurricanes? (Score 2) 187

by cyn1c77 (#48600069) Attached to: Last Three Years the Quietest For Tornadoes Ever

I think that the GP was just making a point that many of the global warming proponents have oversold their agenda.

You can't remain credible by simultaneously implying (with "weasel" words) that each natural disaster is a direct result of global warming, while ignoring the growing arctic ice thickness and decrease in tornado activity.

Yes, nature is stochastic. But the sword cuts both ways, but pandering to sensationalism will ultimately undercut any scientific argument.

http://science.time.com/2014/0...
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/globa...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...
     

Comment: Seriously, let's not. (Score 1) 567

by cyn1c77 (#48579709) Attached to: The Case For Flipping Your Monitor From Landscape to Portrait

I have tried this years ago.

It is incredibly uncomfortable to have to angle your head up or down to view content outside of the natural position of your neck, which only accommodates a very small angular range. Thus, a tall vertical monitor really increases body and eye strain. You will end up not using the top or bottom of that monitor.

Turning your head side to side induces much less strain. Additionally, most eyeglasses wearers (and people in general) have wider corrected fields of view horizontally than vertically.

The most comfortable solution is to have your primary monitor horizontally oriented and a secondary monitor vertically oriented. Either way, properly oriented textual content should be adjustable with the window aspect ratio.

Comment: Re:I hate these misleading statements... (Score 3, Insightful) 388

by cyn1c77 (#48541079) Attached to: Man Caught Trying To Sell Plans For New Aircraft Carrier

... caught trying to deliver schematics for an aircraft carrier to the Egyptian government.

No, he was caught trying to deliver schematics for an aircraft carrier to the FBI. Since he thought he was trying to deliver them to the Egyptian government, that makes him a scumbag, but let's not pretend an actual crime that would have occurred without the FBI's action has been thwarted here. They didn't step in and stop something bad from happening, they just found some guy who likes money more than ethics and made a good headline out of him. Arguably doing so maybe has some deterrent effect, but don't misrepresent what happened or blow it out of proportion.

What if he sold anti-aircraft missile designs to a terrorist organization, who then used those designs to shoot an airliner out of the sky that had your family in it? Would you still think that this was being blown out of proportion?

Someone with a security clearance could do that and a whole lot worse. In the process of agreeing to receive the clearance, employees also agree not to do that, in writing, under penalty of law. They also agree to be surveilled while using government resources. So it is completely acceptable for a government to test their employees to see if they are susceptible to treason or espionage.

This guy should be tried and if found guilty, put to death or locked away for life.

Comment: Awesome picture (Score 1) 140

by cyn1c77 (#48433651) Attached to: Microsoft Rolls Out Robot Security Guards

The best part of the listed articles is the picture of the sheriff pointing a gun at the dalek with his finger on the trigger, while two employees stand directly on the other side of the robot!

Awesome: 2nd article, go to last picture.

Maybe this is a cunning advertisement by Knightscope to demonstrate why police need to be robotized.

Comment: Re:Oh no (Score 1) 297

by cyn1c77 (#48357371) Attached to: Study: Body Weight Heavily Influenced By Heritable Gut Microbes

Here we go, endless posts about how it's all down to pure willpower and entirely the fault of the individual. Maybe we could try looking for more practical solutions and simply berating people this time?

Um, if you read the article, you would know that it is entirely the fault of the individual.

If you are not willing to swap fecal microbes, you won't be able to change your body weight as easily.

Thus, like most things in life (work, pleasing your spouse either physically or metaphorically), good things come to those who bend over and bear it.

Comment: Re:Just cheating themselves (Score 1) 438

by cyn1c77 (#48353491) Attached to: The Students Who Feel They Have the Right To Cheat

Sadly, most people learn this little gem of wisdom too late in life. Cheating only harms the cheater. It may mildly harm those who employ these people, but it doesn't take long for others to see despite your piece of paper, you're just an idiot who knows nothing, when you cheat.

So I say, if that's what they want to do, let 'em. It'll bite them in the butt soon enough.

What?

This isn't true at all. Cheaters get better grades than many fair students. The cheaters then get better jobs and make more money, while the fair students may miss out. If this issue corrects itself, it can take decades, during which the fair students have missed out.

I also have a theory that cheaters that can't hack the workload as a regular worker just become managers to better hide the fact that they can't "do." Thus, these people are more likely to company leaders. This may be why you see such poor ethical behavior at the highest levels of any company.

The only way to even remotely try to fix this issue is to not give a degree to any cheater.

GREAT MOMENTS IN HISTORY (#7): April 2, 1751 Issac Newton becomes discouraged when he falls up a flight of stairs.

Working...