Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Increase productivity?? (Score 2) 417

Technically, what they say is interesting to themselves. They've just stopped caring whether anyone else thinks the same.

Not trying to get anyone here to develop a habit, but it always seemed to me that cocaine is a drug that would help shy and anxious people and would turn already confident people into overconfident assholes. Sort of like alcohol, I guess.

Comment I think it is safe to say that AMD employs monkeys (Score 1, Insightful) 50

What a terrible clusterfuck this 'revamp' is.
1. Only half of the settings are 'ported'. The other half (including Crossfire) can only be found when pressing 'additional settings', which opens (a stripped version of) the old AMD Catalyst Control Center. Shit, I get that some projects require having legacy code and new code next to each other, but for a tool that does fuck-all and is produced by a multinational company it is inexcusable.
2. The UI is a classic 'looks shiny, works like crap' with a myriad of 100% custom touch sized interface elements in grey and grey strewn across an anemically small window with multiple navigational blocks and random bits of hidden functionality. I'm surprised they didn't replace all text buttons with grey meaningless icons.
3. It is unstable as fuck.
4. It has fucking ad banners and social media crap rammed in there.
5. It has custom fucking animations of UI elements and weird 'read more...' links.

The only good thing about this bit of software is that they actually named it AMD Settings (and/or Radeon Settings), which at the very least reflects its function. Other than that it is a downgrade (which is saying a lot, considering that the previous version was the CCC!).

Comment Re:PROGRESS BARS!!!! (Score 1) 461

For Windows, there are some systray icon based applications that provide such information. Alternatively (again, in Windows), the Resource Monitor provides detailed info on disk activity.

I'm not really sure whether I prefer a dedicated hardware disk activity notification over a software implementation, but I sure as hell regularly check disk activity on all my Windows devices.

On Android, I used to use CoolTool for having information on the state of the system but it was too much of a battery and memory hog to keep using it. I miss it, though. That feeling of 'WTF is going on' is just so unnecessary.

Comment Re:r u srs (Score 1) 519

One of the most interesting perspectives I've encountered is this one:

Relevant quotes: "The de-Baathification law promulgated by L. Paul Bremer, Iraq’s American ruler in 2003, has long been identified as one of the contributors to the original insurgency. At a stroke, 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army were barred from government employment, denied pensions — and also allowed to keep their guns.
It was under the watch of the current Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, that the recruitment of former Baathist officers became a deliberate strategy, according to analysts and former officers.
Baghdadi’s effort was further aided by a new round of de-Baathification launched after U.S. troops left in 2011 by then Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who set about firing even those officers who had been rehabilitated by the U.S. military.
'The Baathists are using Daesh. They don’t care about Baathism or even Saddam. They just want power. They are used to being in power, and they want it back.'"

And the kicker, for slight comedic relief: "When U.S. officials demobilized the Baathist army, they didn’t de-Baathify people’s minds, they just took away their jobs"

Comment Re:Pedantic but... (Score 1) 75

Which (and that was my point) means it does make sense to talk about graphite vs. carbon, even if they get the word 'atom' wrong.

No, it doesn't.
'Graphite vs. amorphous (or non-crystalline) carbon' is fine. 'Graphite vs. carbon' is nonsensical.

Also, the whole point was that they got the word atom wrong. Neither OP nor I ever implied that the distinction between graphite and amorphous carbon is irrelevant here. Please keep your straw men to yourself.

Comment Re:Pedantic but... (Score 1) 75

You missed the point. Graphite is a molecular structure, not a type of atom.

TFA has it like this:
"The battery is based on the same lithium ion chemistry used in cellphone batteries today but gets its advantage from atoms of graphite bonded to the anode, Huawei said on Friday at an industry conference in Japan."

It is still unnecessarily misleading and badly written, but in that sentence they are probably (or hopefully) referring to the thickness of the layer of graphite.

Comment Re:Get a real watch (Score 1) 55

Although possibly not for everyone, there is a modular smartwatch that may be able to alleviate some issues in this regard:

I'm not sure whether this is something that will stick, but the general idea appeals to me, especially as the developers have said that the intent is to open it up to development of parts/modules by third parties.
OTOH, given that third parties will also develop the exterior, having modules from different manufacturers might leave the band looking like shit.

Comment Re:When I see "could" in a headline ... (Score 1) 226

And quotation marks:

Headline: "British spaceplane will revolutionize space travel"
Intro: Some obviously biased guy somewhere said his spaceplane will revolutionize space travel.

Translation: we're terrible 'journalists' who lack the competence, fortitude and integrity to come up with a headline we actually stand by. If not, we'd have written a headline like: British company developing spaceplane.

We need more than Betteridge's law. We need Betteridge's law book.

Comment Re: Deja vu (Score 3, Insightful) 197

you've made a reasonable argument in a reasonable tone

He didn't. His 'reasonable argument' consisted of ad hominems ('their leader is politically young'), general poisoning the well tactics ('his father is bad, thus he must be bad'), FUD and generally baseless statements ('civil liberties are walking dead', 'mark my words' and pretty much everything else in the post).
It adds nothing of substance to the discussion and does so in an alarmist and offensive way. It deserves a solid -1.

If you disagree, please point out the well-reasoned bits I've overlooked. Either that or accept that you were ever so gently sucking his dick (I take it you have no issue with this 'reasonable tone').

Comment Re:Linus is right. (Score 1) 576

If you are not willing to be civil, face the consequences.

The discussion is about the consequences, not whether people are ready to face them.

I've seen first hand that telling somebody things in a 'professional' way allows them to dismiss it and fuck up almost identically the next time. Get angry at them and they sure as hell will remember. Now if you get angry without good reason, they will remember you for being an unreasonable asshole. If you get angry with good reason, they tend to get their shit together because they will try to prevent people from being angry at them when it is demonstrably their fault and something they can reasonably change.

Anger and strong wording conveys importance very primitively and directly. It is up to the speaker to decide what amount of power should be put into his/her message. I believe this is the thing that most often goes wrong. Things that aren't that important are too often brought as if they are, with the associated amount of verbal and emotional power. In addition to that, the speaker and listener have different associations of how powerful certain words and phrasings are. Fuck is a word that means little to me (dare I say fuck-all), but some people get really offended by it. This is more of a shared responsibility, as both speaker and listener need to garner an understanding of what certain words mean for the other.

Alternatively, you could approach this from the 'real men' (I prefer 'confident adults') side: in my experience, the people who don't throw a hissyfit about being talked to strongly are definitely the most reliable and capable people, willing to change their ways. These are people who care about the reasoning, not the words. About the function and not the form. The extreme ones are almost completely impervious to and unmoved by any swearing whatsoever. I see that as a huge asset.

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.