Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:File manager without file, edit, view.. (Score 1) 144

by Kjella (#49554253) Attached to: Debian 8 Jessie Released

Lol, angry gnussolini nerd. And the rest of the world with brains keeps not caring and happily uses Unity and Gnome-shell.

The rest of the world uses Windows and OS X on the desktop, Android and iOS on mobile and couldn't care less about Unity and Gnome-shell. Even Windows Vista got Linux beat on StatCounter. You can use the classic desktop paradigm that ~78% use (Win7 + WinXP + OS X + Vista), join the new touch paradigm with ~19% (Win8 + Win8.1) or you can go your own way. My impression is that they're trying to design a car driven by joystick because some UX designer thought it was better, what's tested and works is too boring.

How about winning over some existing, established markets before trying to chase the latest fad? And even if it's not a fad, open source never moves fast enough to be first because there's no overall leader. Sure you could slap Linux on a tablet like Microsoft did with Windows many years before Apple, but it won't work well until all the application developers feel having a touch UI is an itch they need to scratch. Sure we can have visionaries, but Jobs was a visionary with an army of developers to turn them into reality. A Linux visionary is a man with a powerpoint slide. Or actually a LibreOffice Impress slide, I guess.

Comment: So: what is their agenda here ? (Score 1) 17

1) Tell us that it is not effective; thus we need not worry about loss of privacy; thus we might we well let them continue ?

2) It is not effective because they have not got enough money for XXX; so: please Mr congress critter - vote them some more money

3) It is not effective; you need not worry about encrypting your communications; hopefully enough idiots will believe that!

Pick one of the above or come out with more suggestions.

Comment: Re:Nice idea but... (Score 1) 262

by drinkypoo (#49553949) Attached to: Tesla To Announce Battery-Based Energy Storage For Homes

The numbers Solar City gave me showed a net savings of $30 a month. That's it - 30 bucks a month. And that is assuming you buy into their calculations - which I don't.

You really don't think energy costs will go up over time? Ironically, the only way they wouldn't is if we committed to more renewables.

Comment: Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes (Score 1) 65

by drinkypoo (#49553939) Attached to: New Privacy Concerns About US Program That Can Track Snail Mail

But the real "so what" is that they are OCRing the mail

Lot's of people still actually hand-write addresses. It needs to get OCRed in order to be sorted.

You have to finish the sentence before you can understand it. I'd bet you just interrupt in the middle of sentences all the time, and thus fail to understand what people are telling you by preventing them from actually finishing a complete thought.

If you go back and read the complete sentence, which expresses a complete thought, then it makes perfect sense.

Comment: Re:and... (Score 1) 263

by drinkypoo (#49553935) Attached to: Tesla To Announce Battery-Based Energy Storage For Homes

You use a lot of big words, I don't think you know what any of them mean.

You've proven full well that I do.

What I argue is that there's structural differences that makes this a better idea to to centrally than at home,

But you're wrong.

If it's cost effective for you to store the power in a battery and use it in the daytime it's going to be more cost effective for them to store the power in a battery and sell it to you in the daytime.

Cost-effective for who, and on what basis?

The very reason they sell it cheap at night is that there's no cost effective way to store the excess power for later,

It's not cost-effective for them, because they don't have a secondary use for the battery.

You're on the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, buddy.

You still have failed to support your argument in the slightest. We're waiting, though we're not holding our breath, because we want to live.

+ - Random generator parodies vapid startup websites->

Submitted by alphadogg
alphadogg writes: A pair of Georgia Tech computer science students have created a Random Startup Website Generator http://tiffzhang.com/startup/ that spits out a different jargon-laden startup website every time you click on the URL. Mike Bradley and Tiffany Zhang's random startup website generator "serves as a parody of startups that have websites full of vague praise and little information about their actual business, often because they have little to show in that regard."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:aka "A stock pumper" (Score 1) 51

by Kjella (#49552569) Attached to: Oculus Rift: 2015 Launch Unlikely, But Not Impossible

An analyst is generally not a person eating his own dog food, it's a person trying to sell his insight of the market to third parties as investment advice. What it means in practice is that you're trying to make a lot of statements that make you seem smart in hindsight but don't compromise your credibility when they don't pan out. Like in this case, if the Oculus Rift doesn't launch in 2015 this won't even be a footnote. If it does launch, he can point to this statement and say "Look, I wasn't sure but I had a hunch this would happen". You don't need to make any elaborate theories of stock manipulation, this is simply one analyst trying to pump up his own career.

Comment: Re:and... (Score 0) 263

by Kjella (#49551267) Attached to: Tesla To Announce Battery-Based Energy Storage For Homes

This isn't stupidity, exactly, it's obstinacy. And actually, it's cognitive dissonance. Typically, when you see someone passionately arguing against their own best interests, that is what at fault. In this case, one of the people ranting against solar and storage is arguing that if this were a good idea, it would have been done already, because they want to believe that they are more intelligent than Elon Musk, every PG&E employee, and the majority of slashdotters who have woken up and recognized that batteries have gotten immensely better within our lifetimes â" and will likely improve just as much in the next thirty or forty years.

You use a lot of big words, I don't think you know what any of them mean. What I argue is that there's structural differences that makes this a better idea to to centrally than at home, regardless of how good or cheap the batteries get. If it's cost effective for you to store the power in a battery and use it in the daytime it's going to be more cost effective for them to store the power in a battery and sell it to you in the daytime. The very reason they sell it cheap at night is that there's no cost effective way to store the excess power for later, if there were the low night prices would go away. You're on the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, buddy.

Comment: Re:So, Microsoft is a social leech! (Score 0) 97

by Kjella (#49551177) Attached to: Microsoft Increases Android Patent Licensing Reach

Scenario A: Google back when they initially developed Android ran into a design roadblock. They saw no way to solve the particular problem until one of the developers read a MS patent that solved their issue. MS is therefore paid royalties on their patent.

It's not about finding a solution. It's about taking what somebody has worked on, experimented with, done usability testing, put in a product and convinced the market to use and have a second company come in and say thanks for all the hard work, in a month we'll have a cheaper clone doing the exact same thing.

Scenario B: Google developed Android without ever having heard of any MS patents.

...and not knowing of any product using any of the MS patents, even if they were unaware it was patented and by who. Particularly in the same business, it's rather hard not to know what features the competition is advertising. It's certainly hard to prove you didn't know about them. Submarine patents are a different story, but for example when they made Android they probably couldn't claim ignorance of any features the iPhone had. Even the business requirements and feature requests can be "contaminated" by other products, it's not a feature you'd have added unless someone else had done it first.

Of course sometimes you get unlucky and develop the exact same solution, but that also means you're reinventing the wheel. Do you want a medal? Or you might feel it's obvious and widespread now, but was it that obvious when it was patented? Ten years ago is a long time in the tech industry, things that I go "well, duuuuuuuuh" to today maybe wasn't. If they were, I'd like to go back and redo my investments. I'm sure you all remember the warm reception the iPod get, boy was that right on the money...

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen

Working...