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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Parallax. (Score 1) 425

You surmised properly. I did have an N95. The phone was great except that the UI was, well, Symbian, and the battery life was utter, absolute garbage. I was lucky to get 5 hours under wifi. There's absolutely no comparison between the N95 and the iPhone, even without the app store or copy-paste. Yes, iOS 1.0 was sorely lacking in some areas, but overall the iPhone was a giant leap forward. I never even touched the N95 after that.

Comment Re:Parallax. (Score 2) 425

That's complete bullshit. You have no idea what the original iPhone did then. That's exactly the point of @schnell's comment above. No one was using their "smartphone" (or super duper feature phone like the N95) because they were a disaster to use. What Apple did was create a complete package of software and hardware, and provided web apps functionality. It's only when users found out how amazing the package was that they said "Why did you short-change us!?!? That thing is great, let us use it all the way! We want native apps!"

When people saw my iPhone they'd ask me what I thought of it, and my answer was always that within 3 years everyone would have one or something similar. There was just no comparison, this was finally a usable handheld computer with a SIM card. So whether you call it a "feature phone" or a "smartphone" is irrelevant: it was a revolution in phones, and every single smartphone today is a direct descendant of the iPhone.

Put another way, the chasm between the phones before iPhone and the iPhone is immensely wider than the difference between the iPhone and today's smartphones.

Comment Re:Parallax. (Score 1) 425

"* Apple did not invent smartphones. They took the idea and made the first smartphone that was user-friendly enough that normal people wanted one instead of just work-issued mobile email tools, so lots and lots of people wanted to buy one."

No. The first iphone sold only 6M. At the time, there were numerous smartphones, most notably the N95, that sold a lot more. Also, the first iphone wasn't even a smartphone but a feature phone.

That's completely ludicrous: either you're trolling or you didn't go through the iPhone revolution. The first iPhone was as much a smartphone as the one you have in your pocket.

Comment Re:A minority view? (Score 1) 649

You think that the sun, rocks, and trees give comfort to humans? After losing a loved one?

Perhaps there is more confusion than you recognize regarding what actually exists, and your belief or disbelief doesn't change that.

Clearly you don't understand the importance of sun, trees, rain et. al. to primitive humans. It literally meant life or death if the sun didn't shine enough, or the rain was missing, or the trees weren't bountiful. Hence the gods of such things.
Perhaps the confusion is yours.

Comment Re:Original iPads Work Well ... (Score 1) 386

I know the parent is sarcastic, but replacing a battery in an iPhone costs $25 and 2 minutes in the store. I just did it for my iPhone 4S, and the difference was phenomenal. Basically after 3 years your battery goes to crap as soon as you hit 50% capacity as described by the OS. You blink and it's dead. Replace it and you are back to normal, and there's nothing incredibly hard about replacing an iPhone battery.

Comment Re:Why are trades (pre-purchase) public anyway? (Score 1) 342

Because this is basically what's happening, is that these machines are taking advantage of a security flaw that allows them to see a transaction before it's complete

No. They see the completed transaction at one exchange for X shares, and assume you're doing the same thing at the other exchanges. They just race there faster and preempt your transactions that are on the way.

And they also consistently post fake offers that they retract in order to analyze the market appetite.

Comment Re:Banks deflecting attention from themselves (Score 1) 342

There is nothing illegal whatsoever, since the trades are public. It's just that the HFT optimized their routes.

Sure not illegal per se, but only a finite number of people can get that sort of access, so now the playing field isn't level.

Exactly. That's one of the major complaints regarding HFT, and why the IEX exchange why created.

Comment Re:Banks deflecting attention from themselves (Score 2) 342

As for the front-running nonsense on 60 Minutes, that's always been illegal (contrary to what we're being told), and it is not at all how high frequency trading works. If someone was in fact doing that, then they're in a whole world of hurt with the SEC (and rightly so), but this entire exercise appears much more like a distraction: blame small outsider firms who've made the marketplace more effecient and tightened spreads for problems created by corruption within the big banks, and hope no one notices...at least until the next bank-induced crash.

This is absolutely not illegal. Here's how HFT gets one of its profit lines:
Large trades often spread across multiple exchanges. Buy 30,000 shares here, 15,000 there, etc... The regular broker submits one purchase and it gets distributed across exchanges. As soon as it hits the first exchange, say after 30ms, an HFT algo picks up on the trade and assumes that it'll happen as well on the other exchanges. So it races ahead and front-runs in the other exchanges before the regular distributed trade has a chance to arrive there.
There is nothing illegal whatsoever, since the trades are public. It's just that the HFT optimized their routes.

Comment Better article (Score 5, Informative) 342

There's a gripping article over at the NY Times (adapted from a just released book) that explains very well the pitfalls of HFT, where the problems are mostly due to the haves and have-nots, just like in most things. The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...

Not having a level playing deck in an exchange is a major problem for the correct functioning of said exchange.

Comment Re:Am I the only one.. (Score 2) 158

Hell, back in the 80's it was common for kids under 10 to teach themselves how to program.

Um, I was around then. It wasn't "common" - it was only "common" among those who had aptitude for it. Like, you know, today.

Back in the 80's you had maybe 30% of kids who really knew how to use computers, let alone program. I'm not talking about games, I'm talking about being able to load up the OS, muck around, launch different programs and use them properly. Kids programming were the exception, just like they are now.

Just because a loop is obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to others:

"Why do we need these loop things? A counter? What's a counter? How does the computer know to go back and do it again? Where is the counter in the computer? What if I want to do it more times while I'm doing it? etc..."

Slashdot Top Deals

CChheecckk yyoouurr dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh..