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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score 0) 393 393

You could always have bought less stuff and paid more for it to support homegrown. (In fact, chances are that for many of the non-electronic products you need, you still can do so.)

However, the chances are as high or higher that you choose not to do so, as do most people. Like it or not, you *are* almost certainly a part of this problem.

Comment And it all comes down to greed (Score 5, Interesting) 393 393

Consumers want more product for less money: Greedy.

Companies want higher profit margins off their products: Greedy.

Investors want higher returns on investment: Greedy.

Upper management sees that there is no way to fulfil all of the above and still give themselves huge pay rises without laying off half the riff-raff and making the other half work twice as hard for half as much: Greedy

Cue ever-decreasing circle as consumers earn less and want even more for it, in the hope of compensating for their shrinking earnings, thus repeating the circle. No single tier here is to blame; we ALL are in a more abstract manner. The blame lies squarely with basic human nature and the words "I want".

Comment Re:Right ... (Score 1) 117 117

Which changes precisely nothing. YOU chose to bundle them and advertise their inclusion as a part of YOUR product. That makes you responsible for them. If you didn't sign a contract with your partners that covered them through the life-cycle of the product, that was your mistake.

If you bought a car and then, while under warranty, a firmware update was released for it that resolved safety issues but also disabled the A/C, would you accept that situation, or would you expect a feature you paid for to be retained? After all, the car manufacturer doesn't make the A/C, they just buy it off the shelf from another company. Why should they have to pay that third party what's required to support the product they chose to build into their own, larger product?

Following your total lack of logic, it's the customer's tough luck to lose that feature. And for that, you, sir, are a moron. (And a deliberately obtuse one who's trying to defend the indefensible.)

Comment Re:Difficulty (Score 5, Insightful) 270 270

Mod parent up. For goodness sakes, I was 17 years old when Windows 3.x first came out, had precisely zero training of any kind, and figured out how to use its GUI all by myself in the space of about ten seconds. It's not just a useless statement, it's also a vast and very obvious over-exaggeration.

Comment Re:Right ... (Score 1) 117 117

Reading comprehension and basic logic: You fail at it. If you didn't want to support those apps for the lifetime of your product, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BUNDLED THEM. You can't expect the app developer to keep them updated for you for free, and the app developer didn't sell them to the end user, you did. Ergo, it is your responsibility and to pretend otherwise shows just what a shiatty company Nvidia truly is. (Which is why my next PC won't include Nvidia hardware, incidentally.)

Comment Re:Right ... (Score 1) 117 117

The only reason the bundler wouldn't love it is because the third party would expect to be paid more. Ergo, the bundler doesn't love it because it cuts into their profit margin -- a profit margin they're inflating by advertising the inclusion of software that is then withdrawn from the consumer without their consent.

In other words, you feel that the poor, poor company should be let off scot free because they only stole from the public. Bless their tiny little corporate hearts.

NO. That is not how it works. They sold a product; if part of that product doesn't work because of changes they made, they have a responsibility to pay the developer whatever is necessary to fix it rather than stealing from their own customers.

Comment Re:Am I the only guy here that likes G+? (Score 1) 152 152

Couldn't agree less about the layout. It's a disorganized mish-mash on the desktop, and filled with utterly unnecessary fluff like comment boxes that float around the screen when you click on them, forcing you to move your mouse unnecessarily to get back to them and lengthening the time until you can start typing. Support for inlined animated GIFs is hardly something I'd consider a plus, just a way for people to annoy me. And I've never had a single spambot try to add me on Facebook, whereas on Google+ the majority of followers are in fact spambots.

As for why it didn't catch on, that's because Facebook already has achieved critical mass, and so Google+ can't compete with it. Why would you use a social network most of your friends aren't on? You wouldn't, and because you wouldn't, nor would they -- it's chicken and egg. The MySpace comparison doesn't hold water because most people had gotten bored of MySpace and stopped using it before Facebook came along, and even those who were still using it had relatively small, activity-free friend networks. (Speaking personally, I didn't know anybody who had more than 15-20 active friends on MySpace at the absolute most by the time Facebook arrived.)

It's unfortunate, but the chances of anybody beating Facebook without an amazing killer app that can't be easily copied (or a major, major faux pas on Facebook's part) are pretty much zero. Doubly so when their only reason for creating the network in the first place is to mine even more data on their users, which was Google's only reason for creating Google+.

Comment Re:Fix It Again Tony (Score 2) 173 173

My experience tells me that it's mostly cars from the past five years or so that are vulnerable to this type of exploit. Anything pre-CANbus has pretty much zero chance of having complex interconnections.

You do realize that the earliest iterations of the CAN bus date back to the late 1980s, it has been in the majority of US-market vehicles for more than a decade, and by 2008 was a legal requirement in mass-market vehicles, right?

A heck of a lot more than just the last five years of vehicles use the CAN bus. If your vehicle is made within the last decade it's almost a certainty that it uses the CAN bus.

Comment Re:Just not useful for apps (Score 2) 213 213

Exactly. Apple botched its watch from day one by trying to cram in far too much and creating a horrendous UI for it. They completely missed that what the watch is useful for isn't trying to run apps, pan around maps, etc., but for quick at-a-glance stuff -- notifications, very quick messages, etc.

My Android Wear watch -- the Moto 360 -- has the perfect blend of notifications and customizability. I can use apps if I want to -- and the one I use most frequently is a simple "flashlight" app that lights up my watch face so I can see what I'm doing when I'm fumbling with my keys -- but they're not the primary, overriding design goal.

The problem is that the hype mill will inevitably turn against the Apple Watch because it's a poorly-considered design, but because we have short attention spans and Almighty Apple can't be criticized, it will turn into a backlash against smartwatches in general. My fear is that Android Wear will eventually tank not because it wasn't useful and well-designed, but because Apple screwed the pooch and took everybody else down with it.

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.