Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Users (Score 1) 324

by qrwe (#48873267) Attached to: What Will Google Glass 2.0 Need To Actually Succeed?
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.

Comment: This is truly sad (Score 1) 216

by qrwe (#41108657) Attached to: Apple and Samsung Both Get South Korea Bans
...and the awaited fruit of "patented ideas", as that will naturally generate loads of infringements. Once again proven (and needless to say as it's clear as sunlight): an idea CAN'T and should NOT be able to be patented, especially when it comes to navel-gazing ones as "roundness of corners" and stuff. This is reluctant to progression and stops really great ideas to be reality. Even more heart-braking is that this is probably only the beginning...

Comment: Too hard to learn a few keywords? (Score 1) 285

by qrwe (#40698105) Attached to: JavaScript For the Rest of Us
A computer language is, as seen from a natural language perspective, constrained to its reserved keywords. A simple Google query shows that JavaScript has remarkably many - I can count it to be 184 (as seen in http://www.quackit.com/javascript/javascript_reserved_words.cfm). However, is it really necessary to understand the literal meaning of each keyword? Many of those keywords need a short description anyway to use them, and those descriptions alone could simply be written in any natural language of choice. Hence, changing the reserved keywords would only confuse any "English JavaScript" developers.

Comment: Another compiler? Seriously? (Score 5, Insightful) 232

by qrwe (#38807361) Attached to: Mozilla Releases Rust 0.1
So, Mozilla has kindly given the Open Source community yet another language to read about, learn, try out and (after some time) eventually master. And this just to handle a web browser? Sweet Moses.. What's the fuss all about? Can't Mozilla just give us the real favor and stick to a robust industry standard (C++) which has loads of talented and skilled contributors?

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Working...