Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:-1 Troll (Score 1) 641

I totally agree with you. Sadly, most on here won't, because their l33t Linux users (or they think they are). Do you think Apple has its developers making decisions on UI etc? No way. I guarantee they have a dedicated UI department that designs the interfaces and then gives intructions to the development team to make those UIs come alive via programming. Programmers don't think like ordinary people. Programmers don't seem to mind complex. Or illogical. Ordinary users do.

It's sad to see you marked as a troll, but that's a sign of the pro Linux /. times we're in.

There's a reason why Linux is losing market to others (Windows 7/OS X) - because it's ugly and its' over complex to both install, use and administrate. There is no common logic to it. These very people who've voted your comment down are the cause of this, and the real reason why Linux is losing market share on the desktop (not that it had much to begin with). As a point of example, I was showing off my new MacBook Pro to a friend on Saturday night just gone, and he knows a bit about Macs and is also a Linux enthusiast and you know what he said? "You know, Linux has an expose like application, but they fucked with it so much that they ruined it". Apple got it right, didn't tinker with it just to show how l33t they are. Programming just because you can doesn't make it right. Programming to a defined logical purpose is an altogether different thing. This particular guy was a long time Ubuntu user and evangalist but has now switched (mostly) to Windows 7, because it not only looks good, but it's UI suits him better than Ubuntu's was. Interesting.

You can mod me down as a troll all you like, I don't really care. But, in Ten or so years, when Linux on the desktop is all but dead, and most developers have left it because there's no one to program for, you might understand what I'm saying. Ordinary users drive software. If you have the arrogance of most of the Linux kernel development community, and it seems, the Ubuntu community, and tell your ordinary users to piss off, then you'll lose them. Maybe not all of them, maybe not all of them in one go, but they will eventually move to other operating systems and designers that *listen*.


Comment Re:Not gonna happen (Score 1) 2424

Your objections are precisely why the individual mandate is a necessary part of this plan. The entire idea of insurance is that payments from everyone- including the healthy- go into a pool out of which the costs of health care provision are paid. If you don't require healthy people to pay into this pool, they don't, and, as you point out, you wind up w/a pool consisting of only the sick. Since a pool wherein the sick subsidize the sicker is not sustainable, you *need* the healthy to pay into the pool.

The payoff for the healthy is that good health is, almost by definition, temporary. You will get sick. You will have an accident and break a limb. Even if, by some miracle, you manage to avoid aging, you *will* get old. And, at that point, you begin to draw money from the very pool into which you have been contributing.

The math isn't exactly complicated.

Comment Re:More like a flaw in statistics (Score 1) 437

You will note the hyperbole in the GPP (which I was replying to) and my post.

The use of sarcasm to refute a blatantly false point is not lost on you, I take?

Your life expectancy is lower because a large proportion of your population do not have access to preventative medicine, or the healthcare system in general. The US system provides for some of its population very well, but for the large majority it is a very poor option.

Comment Re:What frivolous lawsuits? (Score 1) 2044

> The typical lawsuit against a healthcare provider is not suing over any obvious error

You need to stop swimming in the cool-aid and stop getting your knowledge of the courts from the Brady Bunch.

Most medical malpractice suits are infact for medical errors and they don't even represent all of them. Lots of stupid sh*t goes on in hospitals and with doctors that treat medicine like a get rich quick scam. If you are counting on the media to clue you in, then you're probably going to remain ignorant. They want to create headlines and shocking stories. They tend to leave out key details or just get the technical aspects horribly wrong.

This "horribly innacurate yellow journalism" isn't even limited to the torts issue. They do this with everything. That's part of why corporate news is bleeding money.

Comment Re:It would seem... (Score 2, Insightful) 169

"Obama is violating U.S. Law regarding these images."

That's right, because the President of the USA never, ever, delegates stuff to other people. Every single decision in the entire Federal Branch is personally signed off by him, and him alone.

Yes , the buck eventually stops with him, but I'll be willing to bet 10 bucks here and now that there are at least three layers of management between him and the person who actually made that decision.

Comment Yes (Score 1, Insightful) 373

There are huge improvement gains to be garnered with more efficient use of the electricity we generate today, greatly reducing the need for more power plants of any kind. But energy conservation and efficiency isn't "business sexy" or "politically sexy", look what happened to Carter when he tried to emphasize just being more efficient with what we have, with either electricity or transportation fuels. And he is a big nuke guy himself, he just groks being more efficient as both a longer range cost savings and also from a national security viewpoint. He had a lot of faults, but as to energy he is still the top prez we ever had.

    Conservation is a boring sell for the big players (outside of some niche markets now like Data Centers are taking it seriously), wall street investors don't like it that much, there are no huge short term profits to get there because of the nature of improving systems that use electricity, it is too widely diversified there, they can't monopolize it as much. In a lot of cases, there are zero new studies, patents, or anything like that required to accomplish big gains in efficiency, no "investment" potential to rake in the short term profits.

  Politicians don't like it that much, no big buzzwords and it's been seriously demonized as an idea over the years, they are afraid of coming across like quality of life deniers, that you have to sacrifice comfort for efficiency. Now that isn't true, but that is what happens with these arguments "Oh noes, I don't want to sit in some cold cave with dim light".

  Of course that's silly, but the anti efficiency people, the pro "just generate more power!" folks, just push that meme and mindset, and have been very successful at it.

  The "generate more power"! folks, as their top (and a lot of times only) emphasis, nuke or otherwise, make as much (non)sense as the "drill, baby drill"! folks do when it comes to transportation fuels. Want to save oil? Pretty easy, here's just one way, push three or four cylinder cars over sixes and eights. Heck, I bet single person light commuter cars could be run with just two cylinder engines today. Most people and uses for basic transportation have absolutely no need whatsoever for larger six or eight cylinder engines, and vehicles that can easily do two or three times the maximum posted speed limits. Just wasting fuel, because they can.

Back to electricity, look at most homes today, thoroughly dismal levels of insulation or planned air in or out, not even built tight, wasting huge amounts of electricity to keep ACs running near non stop in the summer, or if electric heat of some kind, wasting huge amounts of electricity in the winter. How about all that massive outside huge commercial advertising that burns all night long in big cities, or all those lit up and unoccupied offices? I am always gobsmacked whenever I visit a larger city at night to see this huge lit up disneyland/vegas blinking whooshing cascading panorama of excessive ostentatious consumption. It's like every big city is in this race to see how many light photons they can transmit to the space aliens or something, when actually zero of that advertising nonsense is really needed to illuminate the streets for people. They *could* get by with non electric commercial signage, and just have to deal with people only reading their signs in the daylight.

  Can't do that though, got to be massive electricity energy hogs.

    There's just tons of examples there. A huge amount of this commuting that goes on to go sit in front of a computer screen, moving meatbags twice a day by the tens of millions, by any means, personal or mass transit, instead of moving electrons and having a lot more people just stay home and work with better broadband deployment. And that would, in turn, reduce this artificial "need" for so many huge office towers for those commuters to go sit in all day in front of a computer screen, that require tremendous energy to build and maintain. Big office towers came about when we had no real way to move information except physically, and then it just got held over as we entered the electrical and digitized age, just inertia. They just aren't neeeded as much as we use them today, to some huge degree. gigawatts of wasted power and gigatons of extra pollution or whatever, just to maintain the ebenzer scrooge and bob cratchet office space model.

You see, there's not as much *profit* involved in selling people less energy for accomplishing the same task, there's *less* profit, much less, and that's the real bottom line and the barely hidden little secret the energy industry really doesn't want you to think about.

  They want to keep demand as high as possible, and always increasing, not reduce it, to keep costs and profits higher. Just being more efficient and adopting better usage policies and practices is therefore always the very bottom lowest tier effort and emphasis, generally speaking, when it comes to big governmental policies and big energy selling business practice.

I think we would be much better served if conservation and practical usage had equal billing with just "more production".

Comment Re:Pffff (Score 0) 315

Awesome!!! Great words from my favorite composer. He was on to something too. I have zero experience with other countries, but in the USA, we have a fucking juvenile understanding of sexual relations and bodily functions.

The fact that someone is reminded of Ladies' Sanitary Napkins, and it makes them uncomfortable, when hearing about the iPad says more about the general level of maturity in the person than it does about the naming of the product.

Just like the kerfuffle over the cover of Metallica's Death Magnetic.

If this is what we are about, and who we are as people, then America is FUCKED!

Comment Re:Duh. (Score 1) 1601

Evidently, only 3% more than half the people want healthcare, ending the war, etc. I would hardly call the election a vote of confidence for Obama, more like a few more people than last time voted Democrat.

Compared to many elections, Obama's win was quite large. You need to look at the history of some elections if you are honestly trying to make it seem that Obama barely won. Bush got less than fifty percent, and less popular votes than Al Gore in 2000. When you campaign in a country that is extremely divided by gun rights, gay marriage, and abortion, how in the world can you expect a candidate to magically win 100% of the vote?

And you mean the truth about where the tax increase would start? Or the truth about accepting public campaign finances??

If you actually looked at the statistics of Obama's tax plan, there is a net decrease (albeit small) of taxes. I have a feeling your bias is strong enough that you won't even bother to check. Yeah Obama went back on his word for public financing, but if I were in his position I would have done the same thing.

There was enough dirty politics, misrepresenting the facts and half truths to go around, neither candidate can claim the high ground. I distinctly remember when I was pleased they were both behaving, and then noticed Obama going negative first.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Please try some news sources other than Fox News every once in a while. Show me a news article about Obama being negative towards McCain, and I'll show you an earlier one with McCain attacking Obama. And let's not totally ignore the fact of the levels negativity coming from the campaigns. We have one side shouting "Kill him! He's a terroist!" and the other side is saying "He is old, and is similar to Bush!" Give me a break.

Now Obama wants everyone to work together. If only he had started that mantra with his own party when he got elected to the senate, maybe he would have more credibility. His definition of 'working together' appears to be 'doing it my way'.

So which is it? Either he votes with his party 97% of the time, or he is "doing it my way". Those are two mutually exclusive things that people use to attack his credibility.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.