Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:I was looking forward to S8 (Score 1) 30

That's because it only affects a handful of phones in South Korea. My S8+ has a little less red than my S7 Edge, though it does have a perfect half-circle dead spot on the right side (a defect, for sure, and my replacement phone arrives on Monday). Every mass-produced device is going to have some defects; apparently the screens used in the batches of phones sold in South Korea (which were produced first as they were to be sold first) had the red tint issue, and the batch of screens they had in stock when my phone was made had black-spot issues (which aren't unheard of on "edge" models).

It happens. And it's really only a problem when the manufacturer doesn't offer the end user a fix. I'd like to point to Nintendo as an example of where it's a problem; yet people will defend Nintendo to the death when they deny the existence of any issues (though there clearly are many) while lambasting Samsung for having issue that they actually acknowledge and fix. In my opinion, though Samsung has more issues than Nintendo, Nintendo users have more problems than Samsung users, because Nintendo users are stuck with the issues Nintendo won't fix.

Comment Re:I have a dream (Score 1) 434

When you don't need to replace your laptop or desktop every 1-3 years like a Dell, well, I suspect your sales numbers won't be quite as growth oriented.

Funny, I have a $299 Toshiba that was bought in 2010 that's still in use. Well, I don't have it, I gave it to a friend 2 years ago, but they're still using it daily. I was actually going to reply with something along the lines of "that only happens when you buy the cheaper models, but you're still ahead dollar-for-dollar and get periodic performance boosts as a bonus; when you spend as much on a PC laptop as you do on a Mac, they tend to last as long"; then, I remembered that $299 gem.

But I'll still elaborate on my point: I can spend $2400 on a 15" MacBook Pro (I'm pulling this from memory of my purchase in 2015, prices may be different today) and hope it lasts me 5 years, of I can spend $300/yr on a cheap PC, only have spent $1500 after 5 years and, at the end of that 5 years, have something faster than the Mac I would have spent $2400 on. Going the PC route gives me a $900 savings every 5 years and continuous performance upgrades.

Of course, I need more performance than the $300 PC laptops will give me, so that's not a viable solution for me, but it does illustrate how the Mac doesn't necessarily demonstrate "better value" based on "lasting longer". For the average user, that $2400 Mac would have to last 8 years to match the value of the $300 PC; and that's generously assuming the PC is upgraded yearly like clockwork. Additionally, at some point in that 8 year cycle, the $300 PC will surpass the $2400 Mac in performance.

Apparently, since I bought the MacBook Pro in February 2015 and replaced it (I still have it, it's just rarely used now) in November 2015, I needed more performance than Apple's fastest offering at the time could provide, as well.

And it was beaten by a $1700 PC laptop which, I bet you won't guess, is still in use a year and a half later, with no signs of needing to be replaced any time in the foreseeable future. It's actually still competitive with the 2016 MacBook Pro so, if you want to say a Mac laptop will last 5 years, it looks like I'm gonna get at least 6 out of this; it's sure built well enough to do it.

If Toshiba can make a laptop that lasts (and is still going strong in daily use) 7+ years for $300, why can't Apple tap that market? Sure, there's a limit to the profit made on a $300 laptop; $150 has to cover R&N, parts, and manufacturing, then you can split the profit with the retailer (often times Apple itself) for a profit of $75 (or $150 for direct sales) per laptop. That doesn't seem too bad, to be honest. Especially when you're selling them by the warehouse-full. Which Apple would.

And Apple could totally do that with a more recent C2D than what's in your 2006 MBP. If that's enough performance for you, something more recent should be marketable to a wider audience, as well; after all, people have no problem paying $300 for a C2D-based PC these days.

But, you'll say, Apple is afraid they'll undercut MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro sales if they do that. Right? Why does someone buy a MacBook Pro when the MacBook is so much cheaper? They need the performance and wouldn't buy a $300 C2D-based MacBook Lite (we'll call it that). Why does someone buy a MacBook when the MacBook Air is cheaper? Ok, I really can't answer that one since the MacBook Air is both faster and performs better, but there's some reason that people do (I'm guessing vanity, since they can get it in colors and it's a bit thinner). Whatever the reason (which I'm sure Apple is well aware of), Apple can design a MacBook Lite around it. Make it a bit thicker than the others, only offer one color, give it a 5-6hr battery life instead of shooting for 10-12. For a $300 price tag, there's still profit to be had and people will accept the compromises; in fact, people would pay $400 because it's Apple.

And nobody who is buying their current models would touch it. It wouldn't hurt sales of those models at all. Even if it did, Apple makes likely, what, about $400 on average, across all models? Educated guess based on knowing what many of these parts cost wholesale and estimating those costs down a bit for Apple's purchase volume. A $300-400 MacBook Lite would outsell the other 3 models by at least 2:1. That means, at $300 ($150 profit when sold directly) they could lose 75% of sales of the current models to the new model and not have lost a penny. At $400 ($250 profit when sold directly), they could suffer not selling a single of the current models and come out 25% ahead in profits.

That's all back-of-napkin math and there's a fair bit of estimation involved; it could be as bad as Apple only being able to suffer the loss of 60% of current model sales at $300 and breaking even at $400 if the current models completely stop selling. The picture could also be much brighter than the one I paint. I know the margin of error on my estimates and I aimed for the middle.

So, then, why doesn't Apple do this?

Comment Re: Pew Researchers.. no shit sherlock (Score 1) 214

Saw this and thought it was pertinent to my point. Kind of fucked up if you ask me that the police disarm the Trump/freespeech rally people and then stand idly by as antifa riot and beat people up. How would you solve this kind of violence and complicity of the government?

Comment Re:I have a dream (Score 1) 434

We'll see. Honestly, of the entire Mac lineup, the Mac Mini had the most enterprise appeal (after the rack-mountable Mac servers were discontinued) simply for the ability to cram a shit-ton of them into a small space. You can easily rack-mount 6 of them in 1U so, if you wanted to run OS X on your servers, or just wanted a multitude of smaller discreet servers, you could really pack some reasonable power into a rack. That changed when they downgraded the Mini in 2014 and I do hope they reverse course.

I wish I could get excited about the Mac Pro announcement and, had they made the announcement 2 months earlier, I would be. However, I jumped on the Ryzen bandwagon (and with no regrets, I might add) shortly before that announcement and foresee this workstation lasting me the next 5 years or longer.

I'm a software developer, I run development servers in VMs, I edit audio and video, I do graphics work, I basically do all the things that Ryzen does better than Intel's comparable (many times more expensive) chips, and I'm a casual gamer at best so I don't really care if Intel's gaming-oriented chips could buy me another 5FPS at the same price point. All-in-all, I am and will continue to be happy with my Ryzen build and won't really miss the idea of working on a Mac. Before WSL and Bash on Windows being able to do all the things I need a UNIX-like environment for, I did miss the Mac, but that reality has changed.

Pulling their heads out of their asses and refreshing the Mac Pro within a year of realizing abysmal sales would have kept me firmly in the Mac camp and I'm not the only (or even the first) person migrating away from Mac for my business needs. The new Mac Pros might be too little too late.

As long as they can still run Windows and Linux, though, there is still hope for a refreshed Mac Mini, for the above-stated reasons.

Outwardly, Apple states that they are still dedicated to the Mac, but I think that ship has sailed. We're also seeing iPad sales on the decline and there's nothing going on in iPad land; the iPhone is really what's keeping Apple afloat at this point. Yes, they're making money hand over fist, and they've got cash reserves that could pay everyone's salaries for a decade if money stopped coming in all of a sudden, I don't think Apple is going to die. But I do think the Mac has been on a death spiral for nearly a decade and has less than a decade left.

Comment Re: Pew Researchers.. no shit sherlock (Score 1) 214

The irony is that your signature decries the forgotten rights in the BoR yet you want to get rid of one of those rights because you don't like it.

I will quote myself because I highlighted this in different comments:

"...A physical thing compared to an idea or virtue or process. Compare "they'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" versus when do you have a right of privacy online when using a private company server traversing public/international infrastructure. One is a little easier to understand with much less subtlety and nuance that do not overlap with another Right.

An interesting read is about the invention/propagation of telephone/telegraph and what the government did with that new technology to stop criminal activity. A lot of similarities to today. It took a while for the courts and the legislatures to apply the Bill of Rights to that new technology (privacy, searches and seizures, etc) but they got there and we formed some good protections to those technologies as I am sure we will eventually understand and apply to modern technologies. is becoming harder to understand these rights in conjunction with the other rights we hold dear. (private property of the server, the public access to infrastructure, privacy of the individual, and impartiality of public accommodations) for just one example."

most irrelevant one: The second... . Do you think that means that you're by any stretch of imagination a threat to your government or that you can keep it "in check" that way? I hold your gun and raise you an army.

You have a very narrow view of what the 2nd is for if you think it is only for holding the government to account. To quote msyelf in a previous comment because lazy.

"The right of arms is a right of self defense. Guns are a tool to that enables the citizenry to protect themselves from rogue agitators to state aggression. It is a tool that equalizes the odds of any violent encounter regardless of the physical and fighting prowess you or the agitator may have.

Tyranny does not have to come from the government. A recent is example is the UC Berkly riots where the rioters were beating people up while the police stood idly by. Something thing to consider is when the government does not enforce law and order. An example being the black panthers in California storming the legislature armed to protest gun control measures and to protest the governments inaction in their communities that was plagued by violence and crime. Guns make any protest to be taken serious and forces the government to acknowledge or respond.

The right of arms means that even if rhetoric gets out of hand, those "protesters" have to understand fully that if they advocate violence ("this is a war" Berkly riots), that they will have to be willing to put their lives on the line instead of hiding behind group think, propaganda (narrative crafting from news/government), and a complicit government allowing such riots to occur by not breaking them up when they turned violent.

If you are the receiving end of those protests or rhetoric and the government is complicit with those aggressions, the right of arms gives individual citizens the ability to defend themselves from mob justice and police inaction. Every group has to think twice about making another group the scapegoat of their violence because everyone can defend themselves regardless what the government does."

You people are really the perfect people any dictator could want.

How is that different than any other people on earth?

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 261

deny the right to enjoy matrimony

There is no right of matrimony. It is a privilege that the government defines and just like other privileges there can be restrictions to certain citizens like affirmative action.

If the government (both state and federal) abolished all laws pertaining to marriage, would it be illegal for the government to do that? Would it violate an inalienable right that the people have as if they had de-funded/abolished the public defenders office? If so, what right is that? People could still couple with whoever they wanted. They could still "marry" whoever they wanted even if the state didn't recognize the status of "married". The major laws affected by this change would be family law and the tax code. Should there be restrictions on a citizens ability to define their family? Should I be able to declare an 8 year old to be my wife therefore not statutory rape.

If the tax code was simplified and citizens had an ability to define their family (whether restrictions apply or not is irrelevant) what right would be taken away by abolishing the status of "married"??? The issue that the courts dealt with (for DOMA) was federal employee family benefits were not recognized in states (where the federal employee resided) that had different definitions of marriage that IIRC. That doesn't mean that marriage is a right.

States rights has long been code for I want to discriminate against some minority

Voting was used to discriminate. Therefore voting is bad lets abolish it. With power comes tyranny and States rights is a balance to the federal governments power. As the left is discovering now, it is a very VERY useful thing when there is a federal government that does things you do not like.

There is a dangerous tendency in these latter days to enlarge the functions of the courts, by means of judicial interference with the will of the people as expressed by the legislature. Our institutions have the distinguishing characteristic that the three departments of government are co-ordinate and separate. Each must keep within the limits defined by the constitution. And the courts best discharge their duty by executing the will of the law-making power, constitutionally expressed, leaving the results of legislation to be dealt with by the people through their representatives. Statutes must always have a reasonable construction. Sometimes they are to be construed strictly, sometimes literally, in order to carry out the legislative will. But, however construed, the intent of the legislature is to be respected if the particular statute in question is valid, although the courts, looking at the public interests, may conceive the statute to be both unreasonable and impolitic. If the power exists to enact a statute, that ends the matter so far as the courts are concerned. The adjudged cases in which statutes have been held to be void, because unreasonable, are those in which the means employed by the legislature were not at all germane to the end to which the legislature was competent.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 261

The institution of marriage is much older than Christianity and is also used by other contemporary religions and cultures. What do your parents think of that?

I would imagine they would say, so what. Just like the old testament had different rules compared to the new and most Christians follow the new. Different times for different laws were different. FYI, i don't follow their religion and only guessing as to what they would think for those questions.

  And yes, they would be fine with male/female atheists/Buddhists/ w.e to marry. But their definition of marriage excludes gay marriage. I'll go more into detail below.

Once you link something to another thing that predates and exists more widely than the first then it starts to get tricky

Not necessarily. As I have alluded to before just like the Old testament and new testament. Seemingly contradictory laws to follow yet there is reconciliation between the two by recognizing that the Old testament was for a different time and a different people. Both came from god, yet order of operations makes the older obsolete. Same idea. They would say; "the most recent word of god"...

Now, I know the reason why the religion has this belief ( not going to say which because irrelevant) because there is a strong emphasis on family. As I understand now, even though their church doesn't like gay marriage they still accept it to support those families with gay couples (whether that be parents, siblings, w/e). The idea being that family is sacred and since marriage is used to create family it is therefore sacred as well. I think their policy now is; "we don't like gay marriage but family is what is important and we will do anything to preserve and protect the family.". Almost like choosing the lesser evil because they are also commanded to follow the laws of the land. In addition, procreation is a duty that is to happen when married. There is a lot of... beliefs around marriage and that is why they think the way they do.

Again, I don't follow it and I am only guessing as to their responses. Take with salt.

Comment Re: Pew Researchers.. no shit sherlock (Score 1) 214

Honestly, there are plenty of attacks and restrictions on the 2nd. If I were to agree with you it would be because that it is the hardest Right to take away. A physical thing compared to an idea or virtue or process. Compare "they'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" versus when do you have a right of privacy online when using a private company server traversing public/international infrastructure. One is a little easier to understand with much less subtlety and nuance that do not overlap with another Right.

An interesting read is about the invention/propagation of telephone/telegraph and what the government did with that new technology to stop criminal activity. A lot of similarities to today. It took a while for the courts and the legislatures to apply the Bill of Rights to that new technology (privacy, searches and seizures, etc) but they got there and we formed some good protections to those technologies as I am sure we will eventually understand and apply to modern technologies.

I am an optimist. So long as the people understand that they have these rights and that they must defend them from all manner of attacks, the government will eventually capitulate because eventually it would be suicidal for a politician to platform degradation of those rights. Although it is becoming harder to understand these rights in conjunction with the other rights we hold dear. (private property of the server, the public access to infrastructure, privacy of the individual, and impartiality of public accommodations) for just one example.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 261

Are all state privileges given to all citizens? If so then what is affirmative action if not restricted privileges to certain citizens?

It comes down to definitions and purpose. The definition and purpose of marriage is different across the nation. Can you get the secular purpose of marriage without a legal status or use a different status other than 'married' like common-law marriage thereby leaving 'marriage' to be a private thing? I think you can and even if you can't get all the states to agree on that, does it matter? Simplifying the tax code and giving people the ability to define their family is all that is needed. Should there be restrictions on peoples ability to define their family? If a state doesn't recognize a marriage but still allow you the privileges (hospital visitations, employer benefits, etc) does it really matter what that state uses for a definition of marriage?

IIRC, one the reasons the courts favored expanding the federal definition of marriage (striking down DOMA) was because federal workers in states that do not recognize the same definition caused issues. Is that really an issue with marriage or an issue with the federal government taking part in too many aspects of our lives.

FYI, I have nothing against gay marriage but I do have an issue with using the courts to achieve societal goals instead of using the legislatures.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 0) 261

No one cares about what you do in your home. You do understand that society is not one uniform blob with one idea, right? There are segments of society with a different definition. The society in Alabama is a different "society" than in New York.

The issue is the laws regarding marriage and how the law was changed. Namely through the courts and NOT through the elected representatives that write the damn laws. Do you understand this?

You are making judgements without knowing anything. What is the difference between doing things in life based on faith and based on the whims of popular sentiment that changes faster than a fart in the wind? If nihilism informs your laws, so what so long as the rights of your fellow citizens are maintained? I don't give a rats ass what your gender studies professor taught you in the real world you have to live with people that disagree with you on issues.

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege that should be carried out by the states and not the federal government. Unless you get a super majority of the country to change that idea. What is the point in having the federal government involved with marriage?

neither your parents nor their religion has any right to comment on that.

Listen you totalitarian little twat, every citizen has a right to comment on the laws that we all live by. That is the whole fucking point of democracy. Just because you don't like the reasons why someone decides something that you don't like does not mean they have no right to comment. If your idea is soooo good, convince enough people to get the legislature to act. Don't bypass the legislature and use the courts to push your ideological agenda.

Again, the issue is HOW gay marriage became legal. Namely, through the courts and not the legislature. IOW, an anti-democratic means. You can be gay and married and still find the WAY it was done wrong. Check out Dave Rubin for a prime example.

Comment Re:I have a dream (Score 1) 434

The 2012 Mac Mini wasn't underpowered (for what it was) in 2012. The 2014 Mac Mini was underpowered in 2014; in fact, it would have been underpowered in 2012 as well, while the 2012 Mac Mini was less so in 2014.

I explained the issue 3 different ways in 2 sentences, but here's a 4th in case you missed it: the Mac Mini took a huge step backward in 2014 and hasn't seen anything resembling a proper refresh since.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 2, Insightful) 261

Sorry, but my parents do not like or support gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. They are not bigots. They are not homophobic. They have their religious beliefs. They treat lgbt just like every other person. They believe marriage is sacred; a belief informed by religion. They are not bad people for having that belief.

This is the point of States rights and the limits of the federal government. You will never get people to agree. Forcing people to accept things they do not want by the government is tyrannical. There are plenty of gays that think this. Dave Rubin who is gay and married understands that it shouldn't be forced on the nation by the courts.

It isn't just one issue. It's every issue that is pushed to the federal government because some other state does things differently or believes something differently. Eventually, one straw breaks the camels back.

Slashdot Top Deals

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.