Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Possibly valid (Score 5, Informative) 53

Not just possibly, but absolutely valid. This is exactly the kind of thing trademarks exist to prevent. They aren't claiming the word "automatic", they're claiming that naming a framework that's meant to work with their product (WordPress) a name that differs from their own by only 1 letter, particularly such a non-obvious difference (many people won't notice the existence of an extra 't') is meant to cause confusion an think it's an official part of their offerings. Because it is. If the other company doesn't change the name they will be destroyed in court. And frankly they'll deserve it. Whoever chose that name was either a total idiot with no concept of the law, or a scammer who meant to prey on Autmattic's good name.

Comment Re:My takes on this presentation (Score 1) 6

The idea is that it's always on your face and hands free, and due to the location of the display you don't need to look down- it overlays your normal field of vision with additional information (that's the entire point of AR). But yes, other than overlaying your actual field of vision there's nothing it could do that a phone couldn't.

Comment Re:My takes on this presentation (Score 1) 6

I'm more curious how the display works. I had Google Goggles. The display was nearly impossible to see and gave me a headache going crosseyed trying. If the hardware can overlay well, and be easy to see, someone will write the software for it eventually. If it can't, then no amount of software will work.

Really the glasses itself should be dumb. Put all the smarts in a smartphone app with a plugin architecture. Have it voice controlled where you say a keyword then parse your next sentence for a command. Send the video to the phone for processing via BT, and let the app do whatever it needs to do, and individual plugins send overlays up. That's enough to get a lot of useful stuff out of it.

Comment Re:Enlighten me (Score -1) 10

I own, but do not operate, a few IT companies that manage corporations in the $600MM-$1B receivables range.

Based on our own help desk ticket software, our clients have opened 40% fewer tickets since ChatGPT was rolled out to every desk and phone. 40%. I expect another 40% drop (total 80%) by next year as end users just manage things themselves.

I won't downsize as the tickets aren't really generating revenue as much as headaches. One of my engineers had a broken PDF file that took her 6 hours to fix, and the end user spent 6 days trying to fix it themselves with Ai.

But -- the basic stuff? Reboot your computer stuff? Email rejected because you mistyped a domain name stuff?

You don't need a human, and we would probably have outsource that stuff to India anyway next year if not for ChatGPT etc.

Comment Re:for profit healthcare needs to go and the docto (Score -1) 51

This is retarded.

1. It isn't for profit healthcare that is the problem, it's THIRD PARTY PAY.
2. I don't use third party pay, ever, for healthcare. I've been insured nonstop for over 30 years, and NEVER ONCE has my insurer paid my doctor.
3. Even when I've had emergencies, I still called around, negotiated a fair cash up front rate, paid cash up front, and billed it to my insurer. My cash up front rate was sometimes below any co-pay negotiated with my insurer, lol.

I just recently had some elective surgery that would have cost me about $2000 on my annual deductible, but I was able to cash pay a negotiated rate of $400 including a follow-up "free". I submitted the $400 to my insurer and they reimbursed me.

Third party insurance exists because YOU VOTERS demanded the HMO Act of the 1970s, which tied health care to employment, and then employers outsourced it to third parties.

Health care is remarkably cheap in the US (cash pay, negotiated) and I don't have to wait months to see a doctor when I call and say I am cash pay. They bump me up fast.

Comment Re:Buried interesting point (Score 1) 51

No, because experience isn't a protected category. Age is, but only in certain cases mostly dealing with existing employees. Youth isn't protected at all:

https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discr...

"The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older."

Comment Re:I'd be interested to know... (Score 2) 97

If all you know is a minimal subset of the language, you don't know the language. What you describe may be ok for a toy app you write on your own time and never need to support or put to serious use, but not for anything approaching actual development. What you describe is hacking, not developing.

Slashdot Top Deals

No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it. -- C. Schulz

Working...