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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:PLEASE go back to removable battery Samsung (Score 1) 104

I definitely felt this way with my S4. When the charging port finally died on it, I bit the bullet and got an S7. I have to say, 3-4 months in and I don't miss the replaceable battery.

I also upgraded direct from a S4 to a S7, and I very much miss the IR blaster. Do they even make phones with those any more?

Comment Re:I hope AI can make coding redundant (Score 1) 94

That would be fine if I could define the parameters around 'how'.

The problem we have today is bloated unsecure code - due in large part to the focus on delivery of features, at the expense of just about everything else (security, integration, clarity, maintainability, performance, etc.)

The reason humans are not percieved as being capable of performing is because we don't give them the appropriate tools and even if they have the right tools we tie their hands with process. This is caused by IT executives reading about the latest trend in glossy magazines and making 'keeping up with the Jones's' a primary goal. On the flipside of that are the IT execs who believes coding and process of the 1960s is all you need. In short, stupidity.

AI can't fix that.

This is just a bid to make money for these companies selling you the next 'snakeoil'. 3 years from now we'll be reading how AI was a costly panacea...

Comment The summary is naive (Score 1) 335

From TFS:

...and also it needs to be pointed out that several movie companies have discarded these ideas before because they know that by offering you new titles so early they are going to lose on all the overpriced cold drinks, and snacks they sell you at the theatre...

OK first, "the movie companies" is hilariously vague - are you talking about the studios that make movies or are you talking about the theaters? They're not the same companies, pretty much ever.

Second, assuming you mean the studios - they see none of the revenue from the sales of concessions. None. They take the majority of the ticket price in most cases, usually on a sliding scale downwards from the week of release. A theater playing The Force Awakens on day one actually makes very little money on people seeing the movie. Maybe a dollar a person. They barely make enough to cover the costs of the janitors at the end of the night. This is also why they hate long movies - you can't have as many showings which cuts down the take further.

The theaters make their money on the concessions. That's why they're so expensive. That's why you can't bring your own. That's why the "dinner and a movie" chains like Alamo Drafthouse or Studio Movie Grill are thriving. That's just how the business works.

It's also why ideas like this generally fail because the major theater chains will usually refuse to carry movies that undercut them like this. There was a movie years ago called Bubble which released day one on PPV and DVD. You've never heard of it because theaters refused to carry it.

This is also why ideas like The Screening Room will include the cost of a ticket to your favorite theater in your rental price - so that the theater chains won't get mad.

Comment Reverse auction (Score 1) 212

No, you do it with a reverse auction.

Offer the tickets at an extremely high price initially, and then lower the price with sales feedback until you get closer to the market clearing price.

The thing is, brokers know that the market clearing price is higher than the face value.

If you offered all the seats at $5000 per ticket when they went on sale, brokers wouldn't be able to snap them up on the first day of sale. There's no markup for them.

As you lower the price, you will find people who are willing to pay high prices for in-demand seats but they would still be at prices brokers would be unable to make money on. Some people would be unwilling to buy them at those prices and would wait until the prices reached a level that matched what they were willing to pay. Most of the time this is going to be close to the prices you probably would pay to a broker, but it's going to be above the prices where brokers will be able to arbitrage them.

People will whine that this will make tickets more expensive, which is true -- more expensive than current face value. But it's extremely difficult now to get tickets at face value because the tickets are priced too low, brokers buy them.

Comment Sideways repatriation (Score 1) 262

I think the point is that Apple has effectively repatriated their earnings into the next best thing to US dollars, and done it without paying taxes.

It was one thing when they hoarded cash overseas without repatriating it, at least in some ways they were exposed to some kind of foreign currency risk. But since they've bought Treasuries with it I think to a lot of people it feels like they're beating the system even further.

Comment Re:Will we get simultaneous pairing? (Score 1) 111

I don't think multi-phone pairing with most Bluetooth receivers would be that hard. Nearly all the reasonably modern ones have track skip control and pause/resume functionality. Cars in particular seem to know when a call is coming in since the in-dash display usually shows incoming call status. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the car would just send a PAUSE to the sources playing music if the call came in on another device.

And up to this point, nobody STILL has explained tome whether multi-device pairing/audio mixing is a limitation of the Bluetooth protocol, the hardware/radios or something possible but unimplemented.

Comment Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this (Score 1) 273

I really doubt that in most cases that's a specific concern for women and I would be really surprised if even gynecologists mention this to the typical patient having a couple of kids unless they have some reason to believe it's a risk. Maybe they might check and mention it for a woman having her 4th or 5th child.

I'd be more inclined to believe that women are concerned first of all about cosmetics and then sexual partner perception second, especially if the mother in question is on the young side of childbearing age.

My experience has been that women are really sensitive about "losing their looks" (bordering on narcissism) and other physical changes due to childbirth. While they may not really care whether they are "tight enough" specifically, I would not be at all surprised if it didn't cross their minds. It's one thing to not lose all the baby weight, quite another to not lose the baby weight and be a less sexually fulfilling partner.

Comment Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this (Score 1) 273

I'm curious about the vagina stretching.

Is this a self-derived concept, they just assume that having a natural birth will permanently stretch their vagina?

Or is this a learned concept, literally "an old wives tale", with a natural birth mother complaining after having a baby that she noticed her vagina stretched after birth, affecting sex, and future mothers choosing cesarean birth to avoid it?

My personal experience is that it was generally more age dependent that childbirth dependent but not completely consistent even then, with tightness varying without childbirth changes, including women had given birth tighter than women who hadn't of the same age.

Comment Re:Will we get simultaneous pairing? (Score 1) 111

How is the headset/speaker supposed to know which audio stream should be played. Assume you have two phones connected to your car via BT, listening to music from phone #1 and phone #2 gets called. Is the car receiver supposed to figure out which audio to mute and which to play, or just play both streams over each other and let the driver/user pause one?

Mostly that's a logic problem. Usually calls are prioritized over music in bluetooth, so if you were playing music on device 1 and a call came in on device 2, why wouldn't it make sense to pause playing on device 1 and play audio on device 2? That would be the "logical" choice for a relatively dumb playback device, but on a platform like a PC or something with a control plane for configuration choices it could be something that was configurable.

Mute playback on all devices, reduce volume to x% and continue playback, bridge audio to call and set playback to x%.

You could have choices for incoming calls similar to the call waiting prompts now on phones -- ignore incoming, accept and hold current call, or merge calls.

And the last obvious (to me anyway) option would be volume mixing choices for simultaneous audio streams to set levels for each audio device. I may want audio from the PC at 25% but my phone at 100%, for example.

Obviously simultaneous pairing presents some choices and not every device would or even needs to have options for every possible combination, but mostly I think there's default behaviors that would make sense most of the time for simple devices. But IMHO there's no reason not to have more configuration options if the device itself has some kind of control interface anyway.

Comment Re:Will we get simultaneous pairing? (Score 2) 111

I guess I'm asking "why not?"

If two devices can share information about frequency changes, key rotation or whatever, why can't three or more? The assumption is that you go through manual pairing/peering verification on the devices themselves, so there seems to be no reason that the protocols couldn't replicate this data among more than two devices.

Slashdot Top Deals

Egotist: A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me. -- Ambrose Bierce