Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:21 Gigawats? (Score 1) 273 273 is gonna get mighty cold in them houses up north, on cloudy winter days with snow piled up halfway to the roofline when the solar panels are damned near useless, no?

There are a lot of naysayers telling us how one thing or the other won't work but we didn't get to where we are as a civilization by listening to them. It's the people with the "can do" attitude that lead us to the future.

Comment Re:Well, and it was a pig (Score 1) 185 185

Never took off? I thought it had hundreds of millions of users. In what world is that not taking off?

Where people actually *use* it.

Wait, so because people actually use it, it's not taking off?

Sure, it has millions of users, precisely because google tied it to it's various services.

If I recall, it had 700 million users before Google started tying it to all sorts of services. Though I agree Google does a good job at muddling the real numbers.

But do people actually post on it?

Absolutely. A lot. Every single day. Google+ has become more important than my mailreader.

Do people actually open it and use it to keep in touch with friends and family?

What? Fuck no. I use it to come into contact with complete strangers who share my interests and passions. I keep in touch with friends and family by visiting them.

No, and by your own admission, they couldn't because it gets "pretty heavy" when you keep it open.

Kill the tab and reopen it. It's not that hard. It's just that when chrome starts to seize up, I start to hunt through my tabs to kill any old Google+ tabs I still have open. It loads so much content that it can't possibly be lightweight (though I admit I've never actually measured it).

Fanboy's aside, g+ isn't used

That's the popular talking point by the media and people who don't use it. Seriously, with all the many times that Google+ has been declared dead or a ghost town, you'd almost think somebody is paying to generate bad press.

The reality is that tons of people use it very actively every single day.

and at least part of that blame has to be on the interface.

Perhaps. But then how do you explain the success of Facebook? That interface is far worse.

Comment Re:Well, and it was a pig (Score 1) 185 185

Some great reasons as to why G+ never took off,

Never took off? I thought it had hundreds of millions of users. In what world is that not taking off?

Go open it up and time how long the damn thing takes to load up.

I've never really had a problem with it. It's not instantaneous, but it's a big thing and gets all the content asynchronously. I don't find it annoyingly slow to start up, and it's pretty fast once it has started up. The only thing is that it gets pretty heavy if you keep it open.

Comment Re:Failure? It's still there. (Score 1) 185 185

Like it, hate it, or be indifferent to it - your choice. But don't lie about it and claim that it is a total failure at this point. It does still exist, and people still post to it. Just because people don't jump to it with updates every femtosecond on which coffee shop has the best bathroom or other such useless bullshit doesn't mean it has failed.

Quite the contrary, in fact. That people don't post such meaningless garbage is one of the main reasons behind the high quality of content on Google+.

unfortunately you'll need to buy sourceforge in the same offer which is worth vastly more.

Is it still? I thought the new owners were eagerly working on ruining it.

Comment Rise and fall? (Score 1) 185 185

What evidence is there really of a fall? I know that some media love to bash Google+, and love to proclaim it dead (they've done so since at least 2012), but is Google+ usage actually dropping meaningfully? As far as I can tell, it's as popular as ever among its users, despite Google's attempts to fuck it up.

The fact that Google is going to revert the disastrous Youtube integration is a good thing; the quality of content on Google+ (always its strongest point) can only go up. Google needs to recognize that they've got something that's really good just on its own. There's no need to fuck it up by shoehorning other stuff into it.

Comment Symbols are conventional, not realistic (Score 1) 187 187

The evolution of those characters was heavily influenced by the media and writing tools of the time, which remained stable for thousands of years. Now we can make a mountain that actually looks like a mountain.

But the symbols we use don't look like what they are. They are symbols that you just have to know the meaning. For example, right now I'm looking at several symbols. One is four concentric arcs of a quarter circle. This means "wifi is receiving". Does that look like a radio wave? No. Another is a vertical line, with an X through it, and on the right side, the top and bottom of the x and the I connected, forming rightward-pointing triangles. Does that look like a picture of a "Bluetooth Connection" to you? Next to that is a horizontal rectangle, with slightly curved left and right sides, with a symbol in it that could be a stylized Pac-man with a tail, or else maybe a stylized rocket. This symbol means "battery plugged in to charger."

In fact, at the top of the browser there's a symbol that looks a little like the handwritten form of the kanji for "jin" inside a dark green rectangle. That symbol, in fact, means "you're on slashdot".

There's a dozen other symbols in my line of sight. Not a single one of these symbols looks even slightly like what it is.

(I guess you don't drive since horse riding has evolved for thousands of years and people would be pretty arrogant to think they could improve on that.)

Yes, I ride horses. There has been a little evolution of riding since the invention of the stirrup in the middle ages... but not much. If you're saying that cars are a better way of travel than horses-- yes, that's my point. Writing words is a better way of communicating than playing pictionary.

BTW the Chinese ideographical character set is not called "Kanji".

It is when it's used in Japan. Yes, I do know that Japanese is complicated, and that the Chinese word is only one of several readings of a given kanji. This is a /. comment, not a dissertation on writing systems.

Comment :/ [Re:Do it in Kanji [Re:I hate hieroglyphics]] (Score 1) 187 187

Your belief that you can solve the problems of a universal language by abandoning written language and just invent symbols easily and trivially recognized by anybody is :), but in the real world :/.
Symbols just aren't as culturally independent as you think :( and memorizing thousands of symbols isn't really going to make the world simpler
About all I can say is >:P

Comment Re:And it's a stupid statement (Score 1) 66 66

"Diminishing returns", anyone? I thought that was the point. These days, you probably need more performance rather for such things as aerodynamics. Certainly supercomputer-designed airplanes have made more real world kills until today than supercomputer-designed nuclear weapons.

Comment Re:VistA is a nightmare (Score 1) 174 174

The one interesting thing here is that if you rewrite the execution environment, without creating a new language, you should be able to use the old code as tests for the functionality of your new code. You need some way to set up and tear down state for the snippets you're going to be executing, so the old execution environment that ran the system in production probably won't be suitable. Your best hope would probably be starting with a new "implementation" that can parse the code and either interpret it, or compile it, while recording the things that may be of interest to you (for example, if the old language was dynamic, and you need type information either for the purpose of documentation, or to generate static types for the new implementation, you can recover it by tracing).

You can't really use old code as a spec if you lack the necessary tools. Or, perhaps you could, but you'd be doing in your head what a computer should be able to do for you automatically. Expect working very long hours if you're so intent on doing a compiler's and code analyzer's work yourself. ;-)

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.