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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:If you need entertainment. (Score 1) 140

Real true this. It seems most people want a voyeuristic high, or at best one where most danger has been engineered out of the system. If I may plane the crotchety old person, kids these day. How can they have any fun building a computer if there is no real danger of getting electrocuted, or being burn by a soldering iron, or even being poked by a IC? I in now way think that anyone should drive dangerously, but in the right machine, well engineered, and able to travel at high speed, there is really nothing else that is needed.I have done drives through the pine trees that have ended too soon. On the other hand I have done drives up the mountains in POS rentals that I could not wait to end.

Comment Re: In case anyone doesn't realize Carly is an idi (Score 3, Informative) 327

Verizon and Comcast were not pushing for Net Neutrality and saying "we need it"; they were the principal forces opposing it, and they were the reason that FCC regulations were required to preserve it in the first place. They had plans for paid prioritization of traffic that would basically amount to charging websites for the privilege of not having their traffic throttled on the "last mile" link between the ISP and its customers. Google was diametrically opposed to this, as well as most small web sites and 3.7 million individuals who sent letters to the FCC.

The fact that an ex-CEO of HP, of all people, is pontificating about Net Neutrality while exposing her ignorance of even the most basic facts about who was involved and what sides they were on seems incredible. Was she merely confused herself or just trying to confuse everyone else? I have no idea.

Comment In case anyone doesn't realize Carly is an idiot.. (Score 2) 327

Here's what Carly said about Net Neutrality during an interview back in May:

JOHN FUND: You, at Lucent, and at Hewlett Packard, began at the dawn of the internet era, seeing the possibilities of what that would bring. And here we are, 20 odd years after the World Wide Web, and we've created a marvelous industry, marvelous possibilities. The Obama administration has decided, this can't be left to its own devices, we need Net Neutrality. And even though Congress doesn't want it, and people in both parties in Congress don't want it, and the courts have blocked them consistently, they're moving forward of course with what they call executive action, which I call the divine right of kings. Uh, what do you think about Net Neutrality, and how should we fight it if we should?

CARLY: Well we should- it's ridiculous. We now have an FCC, deciding on a 3-2 vote, that the Internet will be regulated with 400 pages of legislation. Terrible idea. Terrible idea. Of course, the dirty little secret of that regulation, which is the same dirty little secret of Obamacare or Dodd-Frank or all of these other huge complicated pieces of regulation or legislation, is that they don't get written on their own, they get written in part by lobbyists for big companies who want to understand that the rules are going to work for them. And this is part of what people see. Look, crony capitalism is alive and well. Elizabeth Warren, of course, is wrong about what to do about it. She claims that the way to <airquotes>solve</airquotes> crony capitalism is more complexity, more regulation, more legislation. Worse tax codes. And of course the more complicated government gets- and it's really complicated now- the less the small and the powerless can deal with it. And so the big get bigger, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected get more wealthy and more well-connected. I mean, that's a fact. It's what's happening. And it's partially why people feel so disconnected. So, the dirty little secret of those 400 pages of legislation in Net Neutrality was, who was in the middle of arguing for net neutrality? Verizon, Comcast, Google, I mean, all these companies were playing. They weren't saying "we don't need this," they were saying "we need it." And so, the only way to level the playing field, so that the small, the new, the entrepreneurial, the powerless, have a shot, is to reduce all this complexity. And meanwhile, while, you know, the big are getting bigger, we're crushing the small. So we're now for the first time in history, we are destroying more businesses than we are creating. We are destroying more businesses than we are creating- it's a terrible statistic. And it means that we're never going to get this economy growing and growing again, yes I had the great privilege of playing uh, important roles in Lucent and Hewlett Packard, but like most people I started out at a little company. I started out as a secretary in a nine-person real estate firm. My husband started out driving a tow truck for a family-owned auto body shop. Most Americans start in little humble businesses, which create 2/3 of the new jobs and employ half the people. So when we're crushing those little businesses, as we are every time we roll out a new, complicated piece of legislation or regulation, we're crushing the possibilities of this economy.

JOHN FUND: I grew up in Northern California, and part of the ethos was, reading about Hewlett and Packard starting their business in a garage.

CARLY: A garage. Two guys in a garage. By the way, Google started out that way too, in a dorm room. But they seem to have forgotten that. [audience laughs]

JOHN FUND: Well, uh, they have new friends in Washington.

CARLY: Yes, they do. Yes they do.

The transcript doesn't do it justice at all- her tics and mannerisms while shoveling this horseshit will make you want to smack her upside the head. Carly is a clueless liar- but I have to admit, I can never tell exactly when she's lying and when she's just being clueless.

Comment Re:O Rly? (Score 1, Troll) 109

an embarrassing counter-example to American and western democracy's political claims against communism

I really can't argue anything else in your post, but I can't help but wonder how Cuba was supposed to be an embarrassment vis a vis political systems. Sure, it's easy to make the point that "America can't dislodge this thorn in their side that sits less than 200km from their own shore" but I'm hard pressed to come up with any positive connotations to "our dictatorship is better than your democracy."

Comment China (Score 1) 278

So San Fransisco is like china, where pedestrians are worth so little it is better to kill them if you run over them. Honestly, sometimes pedestrians do dart out and there are cases where there is no way to avoid them. But with numbers like this, it is evident of a basic disregard for human life, where one makes no attempt to avoid killing someone.

Comment Re:you could choke a horse with these SAVINGS! (Score 1) 117

For the longest time my ad blocker was Flash block and turning off GIF animation. For mobile platforms these were not a problem.

The advent of HTML5 video is really what is driving this revolt. There is an advertising social contract between the content provider and the reader. For example prime time TV we expect about 15 minutes of ads per hour, for non prime it may go to 20. For fashion mags most of it is ads, for Foreign Affairs there are few ads.

When the social contract is broken, there is no one to blame but the content providers, like the US auto firms have no one else to blame for their crash in the 70's. There are a lot of content providers out there that seem unaware they are screwing the pooch with bad decisions. For instance, I am not going to subscribe to Slate because they won't allow zoom on the iPad.

This article is good because it also analyses the other costs to the mobile platform, such as load time. Professional web designers used to look at this. Now it is assumed that latency and bandwidth are so great that it does not matter. In fact it still matters. I occasionally still get a stuck web page waiting for google analytics or waiting for google to record that I am going from a search result to the resultant page. It is a cost of using the web, but a cost that web sites have to manage carefully.

Comment Ok, who wrote the tools (Score 1) 577

First, it is of course an owners right to limit distribution. If someone wants to sell only to people with three nipples, that is their right. Second, no one exists in a vacuum. The tools used to write software were probably developed and refined over time by corporate drones, kids in the basement, and, yes, even immigrants who took jobs away from hard working locals who could use the bread to feed their family. Read the rant on the down load page to see how this guy thinks he developed this software independently. It is the standard conservative delusion that we do not depend on others to accomplish what we have. Third, from the article, "Although the change in the license may be a nuisance for some researchers, the program is far from irreplaceable". People who write software like this really want it to be used. Most software is used because it simply what people are trained to use. For instance, Origin is used because everyone is trained on it, even though it may not be the best, and even though it is extremely expensive. In reality lots of students pirate copies of the software. This software does not appear to cost anything, so one of two things will happen. I suppose that labs will just continue to use it, even without a license, unless it prevented by peer review. If that happens different software will be used. Again, reading the rant it seems like just another conservative having a temper tantrum because someone else that does not look like the developer is getting free stuff.

Comment Re:And continues... (Score 2) 213

This is so 1990.

Honestly, there was only a 100 year period where synchronous direct speech audio communication was the norm. In 1900 with a population of almost 80 million, only a few million had a telephone. By the year 2000, we already say a generation that was reverting back to the way humans had communicated through much of history, writing and sending asynchronously, such as one does with texting and email. The paradigm shift, so to speak, that made the smart phone a success, was the realization that for most people synchronous verbal communication was not of primary importance. Sure, a lot of people might want to make a video for later use, but I wonder how many people who can use Facetime or the like really use it. Furthermore, he rise of the answering machine tells us that the phone as a critical mode of communication is not all it was cracked up to be.

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".