Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Uhm... (Score 1) 490

Documents 6 bankruptcies, and 13 businesses that closed up shop - at the very least suggests he doesn't know what he's doing.

Business has something in common with war and engineering:
  1 You try a bunch of stuff that looks like it might work.
  2 Some of it works, some of it doesn't.
  3a. You stop doing (and wasting resources on) what doesn't work
  3b, and continue doing more of what does (transferring any remaining resources from the abandoned paths.)
  4. PROFIT!

In business, step 3a is called "a large business environment, major projects are done in separate subsidiary corporations. This uses the "corporate veil" as a firewall, to keep the failed attempts from reaching back and sucking up more resources from what's succeeding. Dropping a failed experiment in step 3a (when it's failed so badly that there's nothing left to salvage in a different attempt's 3b) is called "bankruptcy". It lets you stop throwing good money after bad and move on.

So bankruptcy is NOT necessarily a sign of weakness, stupidity, or lack of business acumen. On the contrary: It shows the decision-maker was smart enough to spend a bit extra to erect the firewall between the bulk of his holdings and the iffy project.

So a successful large-business-empire-operator who is also innovative will usually have a number of bankruptcies in his history. It's no big deal, anyone in business at or near that level knows it, and took it into account if they risked some of their resources in someone else's experiment that failed in the hope of profit if it succeeded.

Also: Someone starting out may have to few resources to run many experiments simultaneously. (Or even a big guy may be reduced to a little guy by too many failures - not necessarily his fault.) So he has to try serially, doing only one or a few at a time. This may mean total bankruptcy, even multiple times, before coming up with something that does work. Lots of successful businessmen went through total bankruptcy, sometimes several times, before hitting it big.

Comment Re: Uh, why? (Score 1) 167

What was the software running on it? Or did it crash without any non-IBM supplied hardware or software?

I'm trying to think of any Windows software I actually bothered to run. It was on a Novell network, I was sitting at it. I was in IT and we didn't have any fruity groupware or anything (this was before that crap was popular) so I really just ran ordinary applications, and tried to stick with the utilities and accessories that came with the OS. We didn't have budget for a bunch of OS/2 apps, though.

Did Mossad break into your home and steal your shoes, as well?

No. They didn't even steal my Casio terrist watch.

Comment Re: Uh, why? (Score 1, Interesting) 167

Let me put it this way: if I had to use systemd/Linux or OS/2, I'd choose OS/2. Being able to boot properly is an important trait for any OS. OS/2 has this ability. Systemd/Linux often does not.

As much as I hate systemd, it really has no place in this conversation. You can get Linux without systemd, so you're presenting a false dichotomy in any case.

I've also had OS/2 corrupt itself on an unclean shutdown and fail to boot. I haven't had this with Linux since the early days of xfs.

Comment Re:Uh, why? (Score -1) 167

OS/2 was a very stable and reliable operating system

What? Who told you that? I ran 2.1, 3.0 and 4.0 and they were all unremittingly unreliable pieces of shit. Not just that but I ran them on a fucking PS/Valuepoint 486, so there was absolutely no excuse for incompatibility. Linux makes OS/2 look like Windows 3.1. The system was especially likely to explode when you ran Windows programs, too, and Windows compatibility was absolutely the only reason many people bought it.

I was actually running OS/2 for evaluation at a site that was ALL IBM, every single PC, every single piece of networking equipment, and OS/2 was still a horrible pain in the asshole. People remembering it fondly have memory problems.

Comment Re:Battlestar Galactica Quote (Score 1) 252

My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army.

Your quote fails to recognize that it doesn't matter who's policing you if their goal is not to do the will of the people, because the people have thrown up their hands and said fuck it and given up even trying to keep them in check.

The police behave just like the military, except with shittier muzzle and trigger discipline.

Comment Re:Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe? (Score 2) 252

Seem to recall articles here on /. about Google's reviewers having to look at so much shit, they basically broke down mentally within a year

There must be a subset of the 4chan-esque crowd which will do the job they are paid to do faithfully in spite of being shitlords. Hire them, their eyeballs can withstand anything.

Comment Re:But Dissent is Now HATE (Score 2) 252

Right, watching and listening to 150 hours of new content uploaded every hour should be easy peasy.

If your argument is that Google cannot afford to hire 150-200 additional employees, it's a pretty lousy argument.

And how does one police/supervise the "reviewers"? Why, you need another person to listen to the same stuff to make sure, right?

Your failure is of imagination. No, no you don't. You let the community flag your misses. Just getting the vast majority of them would do the job.

Sounds like an impossible assignment to me.

That's because you're being disingenuous. Or dumb.

Comment Re:This is going to be a train wreck (Score 1) 243

It's not a legal loop hole. It is the sensible way to do business. What is not sensible is the way we do social services. We waste a bunch of money on fraud determining who is eligible. If you simply give them away to everyone, then that gets a whole lot cheaper. Now you only have to verify citizenship.

Comment Re: Our Future. (Score 1) 243

The op was making the quite valid point that a reasonable minimum wage only accelerated the problem.

That's a lot of nonsense, though. You might more reasonably say that upcoming automation caused the minimum wage problem. Companies could always play the "we will automate these jobs" card in order to argue against increasing the minimum wage.

Slashdot Top Deals

Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought.

Working...