Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Lemme get this straight (Score 2) 91

We overvalued FB by some margin and then some, didn't realize we're essentially scryers looking into our crystal balls that display models that we built, for people like us, who believe these schemes to be true (and hence make them true, as long as petty things like market or reality don't butt in), we lost money because we're too dumb to realize our models have nothing to do with reality and once they hit reality they crumble.

But it's all Nasdaq's fault for doing ... uh ... what exactly? Not allowing us to blow away our money fast enough? Because that's essentially the "mistake" Nasdaq made. But hey, maybe that's required for the scheme to work, because the only thing that would've kept FB share values up was money artificially pumped into it to inflate it.

So yes, Nasdaq is to blame. They didn't let us play the market like we usually do, sue their pants off 'em!

Comment The message: (Score 4, Interesting) 95

When you're young, don't report the bug to the company in question or the authorities, report it to those that can make "good use" of them. Not only do they not have any problem with you being underage, you being underage also means you most likely won't be doing time if you get caught.

It's just so win-win...

Comment Re:This is not news anymore (Score 1) 171

Most device manufacturers do not have a lot of budget on their firmware development, so, what they do is to have a generic-enough firmware developed, then they add and/or delete a couple of options, depending on the price point of their device model, package it as the firmware for that particular model

Back in the olden days when we were using USRobotic dial up modems we used to buy 2400 baud modem and then re-flash them to run at 4800 or even 9600 baud

Dating back to at least 1990:

Comment Re:I am willing to go along ... (Score 3, Insightful) 111

Private corporations are concerned with immediate success. They need to show something in their next quarter report or their stocks will fall. Things like investment in future endeavors is rare, and only risked if there's a chance to gain some sort of perpetual patent. But why bother with high investments in basic research when it's far more profitable to whip up some trivial patent of something even a dumb fuck in middle management could come up with?

No, basic research, the research that actually does lead to groundbreaking results and exciting new technology is NEVER conducted by companies. Never. Remember the laser? You know, the thing that drives your DVD and BluRay drives? Think that was what the idea of Einstein when he whipped up the theoretic basis for it in 1917? Hell, even current patent laws don't allow you to milk it for a century. And no, this is NOT the suggestion that we should extend patents beyond the insanity copyright has already reached. But I ramble.

A lot, and I really mean a LOT, of theoretic and practical research was necessary, from great minds like Ladenburg, Kastler, Basov and Maiman, and still it took the last one 'til the 1960s to produce a working laser, more than four decades after the theoretic foundation.

You think any company on this planet would think in terms like this?

You think any investor would invest in something that could take half a century to produce results you can market?

Hell, it took 'til the 1980s to produce consumer grade lasers. And 'til the 1990s and even 2000s to make them cheap. Today, though, they're everywhere, from consumer electronics to cutting edge science, from micrometer distance measuring to touch-less cutting. And of course playing DVDs and BluRays.

Think we'd have any of those things if we left innovation to the market?

Comment A better philosophical approach (Score 5, Insightful) 397

Learn to think in the wiki way.

Rather than make it hard for users to do what they want to do, on the (very valid) assumption that some of them will do bad things, or things they don't really want to do, it is better to make it easy for users to recover from those mistakes, and for others to recover easily from any side effects of those mistakes.

This is not always possible. But it usually is.

Jimmy Wales -

Comment Forget it (Score 3, Insightful) 524

You're looking for someone who is incredibly good (able to offer a wide variety of programming languages, good enough to not create any bugs, anticipate them and/or find them very quickly), that is essentially someone who could pick and choose his job, but pay him like some intern.

Would you do it?

Comment Re:Legislation? (Score 1) 3

My fear is that we're getting away from the "market forces" that used to work. Netflix couldn't care less if they lose me, the Windows Media Center folks with the same problem, or the thousands(?) of Apple TV users with the same error message who haven't dug as deep into troubleshooting. With 30 million subscribers, 2,500 of us is a rounding error.

Maybe I'm showing my age, but I remember when there were but a handful of Linux users (I've had a Linux shell account since '93), and we were perpetually in danger of being steamrolled by the Big Corporations who could change things on a whim (Winmodems... Microsoft's SMB protocol...) and shut us out.

This isn't quite that, but it's similar. (It's also 2:45 a.m. and I'm not sure I can express myself as coherently as I need to right now...)

After a bit of brainstorming / research, I put up this Google Doc draft, that more clearly outlines what I'm talking about...

Comment Re:Still Short-sighted (Score 1) 237

Agreed. For more than one reason, and from personal experience. I've had both, a crew of code monkeys and a small but incredibly efficient team of well paid but also very good programmers. To say that the latter were vastly outperforming the former (for less money in total, too) is an understatement.

Two people doing each 50% of work will not compensate for one person who could do 100%. Simply due to a lack of information. One person has, by design, all the information that person has. This is not true for two people who should do this one person's work instead. They have to synchronize and exchange information, and that invariably fails at some level as we all know, where you either lose efficiency by having to design an interface between these people or, lacking this, lose even more efficiency when their interface just doesn't work out.

In the end, you're better off with FEWER, but BETTER people than you could ever be with a truckload of code monkeys. Yes, even if they cost a multiple of the monkeys. A billion code monkeys with keyboards will never write the better OS.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow