Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:well (Score 1) 223

by neminem (#47567247) Attached to: Comcast Confessions

Your second hypothesis might well be true, as that is kind of what drives publicly-traded companies. None of the handful of companies I could think of off the top of my head are public. Most notably, the Sprint MVNO Ting, which could easily charge more than they do and still be one of the cheapest around, and who totally don't technically NEED to make it so easy to talk to a competent person on the phone if you call them for help (nobody else does...).

Fresh & Easy, the west coast supermarket chain, also came to mind, though sadly their prices have been going up and variety and quality has gone down slightly since Tesco sold them to a US investor. (It was previously our favorite market by far for a number of reasons; now they're more on par with Trader Joe's, which still isn't terrible, but they used to be so much better. Of course, they also were, as a Tesco CEO said before they sold it, "hemorrhaging money". Apparently they could only accept that for so long.)

To my knowledge, though, Ting is definitely making decent profits. They could just probably make *more* profit if they wanted to cut some corners and raise their prices (as opposed to what they did a few months ago, which was to randomly decide to *lower* their prices even more).

Comment: Re:well (Score 1) 223

by neminem (#47566143) Attached to: Comcast Confessions

There are - there are *occasional* corporations that actually seem to be driven by the desire to share their love of a great product and delivering that product to their customers. It's rare, but I can think of a few. Granted, they tend to also be much smaller corporations than the Comcasts of the world, but that doesn't mean they have to be tiny local companies.

Comment: Re:The Credit Report/Credit Score system is FAIL (Score 1) 514

by neminem (#47566099) Attached to: 35% of American Adults Have Debt 'In Collections'

I do agree that credit scores are flawed in that *some* (not all) of the various measures that go into them, it don't perfectly reflect a person's actual credit trustworthiness. It's a decent approximation, but it's often treated as a hard number rather than an approximation, and that's always lame.

I do *not* agree on your statement that "try taking out a credit card and then RELIGIOUSLY paying back the full amount every month for many years. They hate you for it. Your credit score is still basically zero."

I did that - had a credit card when I left for college, which I used exclusively for only those items that my parents said they'd pay for. After 4 years of that, I graduated, went to buy a new car, and when my mom told the dealer she'd be happy to cosign if it would help, the dealer person said don't even bother, your son's credit is amazing for a 21 year old. She looked almost shocked. That's all I did - had one credit card for like 5 years, and paid it off every month, with no other debt. (Well, other than a bunch of college debt, which I suppose probably also helped, since that was also getting paid every month but was still an active debt rather than rotating. So I suppose it's not a perfect experiment.)

Comment: Re:Why will no carrier make them available? (Score 1) 535

"Are you kidding? 16:10 is a retarded aspect ratio for a laptop screen. For one thing, most movies are 16:9, so 16:10 gives you bars on the edges. But even if you don't watch movies, 16:10 sucks ass because you lose vertical space"

Huh? I think you're confusing that statement with its antithesis. Yes, movies are 16:9, which means in 16:10, you get bars on the top and bottom - bars that are perfect for popping up UI elements without those elements covering up your movie, which is sort of nice.

Regardless, as you say, most of the things I do on a computer are not "watching a movie", at which point I like space both horizontal and vertical. How exactly does going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 give me additional vertical space?

Meanwhile, I'm obviously not saying "all phones should have physical keyboards". That would be silly. Some people don't want or need them, and that's great. I'm saying "phones with physical keyboards should still exist, because some people do want them and would like to be able to still purchase them". What is so wrong with allowing people the ability to purchase things they would like to purchase?

Comment: Re:Why will no carrier make them available? (Score 1) 535

Conveniently, my name is nobody (in Latin), because I do indeed want it.

Why is it that people can't believe that other people might want different things than they do, for legitimate reasons, and that anyone who wants something other than what they want has to be "misguided and wrong"? I *like* slideout phones. I like them a lot. I would much rather buy a older used phone with a slideout keyboard than a newer shinier phone that doesn't have one, and will be about as sad when they disappear completely from even the used market, as I was when 16:10 laptop screens disappeared - another thing that marketers try to brainwash us, and have apparently somewhat succeeded, into thinking are inferior, when no they fracking are not.

Ok, maybe they're a little bit more expensive to manufacture, so, pass that on to the customer? Don't manufacturers *want* things that are more expensive to manufacture, so they can pass that difference (with markup) on? It is so much easier to type on a physical keyboard than a virtual one, it's not even funny. Meanwhile, I've dropped my phone (with a physical keyboard) sooo often - hasn't broken yet. My phone is also waaaay smaller, and waaaay lighter than many notable phones that have been selling like crazy.

Yes, it does make it a little bigger and heavier. You know what really makes a phone bigger and heavier? A larger screen, but nobody is screaming that phones must be tiny. Personally I think phablets are dumb, but I don't think anyone who wants a phablet is "misguided and wrong".

Comment: Re:Shark Laser Head Meme MUST DIE! (Score 1) 543

by neminem (#47525563) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

I'm completely baffled what the crap that post has to do with the thread it was posted to? That said, I refuse to let it die! Mostly because I work at a company named "Laserfiche" - so jokes about sharks with freaking laser beams are completely common around here. (Sadly, the higher ups don't have enough of a sense of humor to name one our mascot. ;))

Comment: Re:Might as well... (Score 1) 474

by neminem (#47500713) Attached to: World Health Organization Calls For Decriminalization of Drug Use

I have a friend (no, really, it is actually a friend, it isn't me, I'm not just saying "I have this friend") who has a *semi*-legitimate reason to have been approved to do business with said pot dispensaries. (Though I also learned at that point that you really don't need one - she went in thinking she was going to have to prove her case, and the doctor basically just rubber-stamped her request immediately, so that was interesting.)

Anyway, not that she's necessarily an expert in weed quality, but my understanding is the prices are fairly comparable, and the quality seems fine. Honestly, even given the choice (which she wouldn't have anyway - as totally law-abiding citizens minus the occasional bittorrent, neither of us would even have any idea how to *find* a corner dealer of illicit substances), I'd *much* rather deal with a legitimate business than a sketchy dude on the street, even if it meant paying a bit more. You can yelp review businesses - not so much a sketchy dude on the street.

It's not coincidence that one of the largest single groups of people trying to make sure the weed legalization proposition didn't pass in 2010 were freaking weed dealers - of *course* they wouldn't want the competition.

Comment: Eventually (Score 1) 381

by neminem (#47448649) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Do You Want a Smart Watch?

I'd love a smarter watch. I like the *concept* of wearable electronics. I would not, however, be willing to sacrifice any of the features of my "dumb" watch - I would buy a smart watch if and only if I never have to change its battery, I could take it with me in the shower or into a swimming pool, and regardless of whatever other fancy stuff it might do, it never failed to continue to tell me the correct time.

Comment: Re:Title is wrong (Score 1) 78

Um, because the Tesla Museum was the The Oatmeal guy's baby? And because Elon Musk presumably is donating a million bucks at least in part because said Oatmeal guy made a comic a few weeks ago that started off talking about how awesome Teslas were, and then finished by making fun of Musk for being all excited about the museum, but donating an extraordinarily tiny fraction of his immense wealth? How is the title at all wrong?

Comment: Re:What happened to Scheme? (Score 2) 415

by neminem (#47410555) Attached to: Python Bumps Off Java As Top Learning Language

Because it's a *terrible* language for learning the fundamentals of programming? It's a pretty good language for learning the fundamentals of *programming languages*, as in a PLs class, and a pretty good language for learning how to think in functional language ways, but really, I can't imagine anyone thinking starting first-time programmers in a purely functional language would be a good idea?

Which is not to say it hasn't been done, just that it's crazy - the college I went to taught their intro course in Java when I took it, later experimented with Scheme for a year or two, and I believe use python now, because that actually makes sense.

Comment: Re:Who wears watches, anyway? (Score 1) 129

by neminem (#47402805) Attached to: Android Wear Is Here

My cell phone is in my pocket. If I want to see what time it is on my cell phone, I have to take it out of my pocket... then I have to press the power button, wait half a second, then read the time. On the other hand, my watch is on my wrist. If I want to see what time it is on my watch, I just have to look at my wrist.

My cell phone's battery lasts about a day, maybe a day and a half. If my cell phone is out of juice, I have to plug it in and wait for it to recharge. My watch's battery lasts about 2 years. That's not so much of a problem.

My cell phone is a complicated, expensive piece of electronics that can do almost anything. My watch is an extremely cheap, extremely simple piece of electronics, that does a couple things and has been engineered specifically to do those things effectively. There are times you want the former, and times you want the latter. All-purpose complicated programmable devices do *not* obsolete simple, cheap specific-purpose devices unless those latter devices just plain suck.

Nobody "needs" a watch - but then, nobody "needed" a watch before cell phones, either. There are clocks all around most of the time, why carry one with you? Because it's useful to have the time on your wrist is why.

Comment: Nope (Score 1) 132

by neminem (#47399577) Attached to: Google Reader: One Year Later

I went and found a reader that did everything google reader did, with a similar UI - boringly named "the old reader", as in "bring back the old Reader!" (I tried a few that advertised that's what they were going for - theoldreader got it the most right at the time), ported all my stuff to it, and have since completely forgotten about Google's fail in that area.

Comment: Re:My video game's cloud storage got hosed (Score 1) 495

by neminem (#47396129) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Down Domains

Eh, it was mostly just for myself anyway. If it were anything even remotely professional, I would. I mean, it runs a web server that's technically locatable on google, but only if you're googling for it exactly; I expect most of its visitors were pointed to it by me directly. So it wasn't a big deal.

Imitation is the sincerest form of plagarism.