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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Wow, just wow... (Score 0, Troll) 490 490

Yes. But this doesn't mean one has to add up to any known differences with stuff that doesn't make sense. Why making stuff more "girl-ish" (or boy-ish" for that matter) that doesn't need any sort of gender extravagance? E.g. I find pastel colored/pink LEGO for girls nonsense. Why? Because it's...nonsense – I can't see how that makes anyone good to point out what's for girls and what's for boys. Instead, make multi-colored LEGO for kids who likes them. End of story.

Comment: Wow, just wow... (Score 3, Insightful) 490 490

Is Slashdot rhetorically asking about an issue that people has been pointing out for years about this matter? For the love of Pete: YES – toys "geared at girls" is stereotyping at its finest! Loads of toys (not even mentioning professional tools) is not focused on gender whatsoever. Stop painting them in pink, both symbolically and literally speaking! It helps no one, especially not girls in the end.

Comment: Solution: find alternatives or improve skills (Score 1) 327 327

First of all: it's not Powerpoint itself, it's peoples inability to bring good speeches. Powerpoint might lack certain tools that one may point out, but then it's often easy to find some alternative techn{ique,ology} for complements. That being said: no presentation helping tool will *ever* help a bad presenter. Give him/her PowerPoint and a clicker or a chalkboard: it doesn't matter – they will screw it up anyway! Thus: f the speaker is educated into holding a good presentation – Powerpoint may come to a huge benefit for anyone involved. It's well known that Powerpoint introduced certain levels of sloppiness since it arrived, but that's all on the presenters, not the application. Thus: educate yourself, people – in this case in how to prepare a good presentation (there are LOADS of free courses and guidelines out there)! Use technology as the improvement tools they were intended for, not as excuses for your own laziness.

Comment: Users (Score 1) 324 324

One has only one chance to make a first impression. Google handled theirs badly. The customer base learned mainly two things from version 1: 1) We don't want them. 2) Others don't want them. The first comes from the fact that people who uses them immediately gets the geek factor (in a bad way, if 'good' ever had a possible tone to it). Simply put: if you want people to take you seriously, don't wear Google Glass. Second point: shortly after their release, there were reports of public places where wearers were banned, such as pubs. People simply get scared of a revolution where they e.g. can be recognized on sight by a stranger if this would be a thing. To wrap up: the best thing Google can put their efforts on next is NOT necessarily improving the hardware, but instead put their efforts on a really smart second release in terms of customer relationship. If they blow this chance, they won't recover.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...