Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Because it's not software (Score 1) 117

Ford's innovation in business is that he saw the value of building an affordable car, one that his own employees could afford. But to achieve that he had to re-engineer the production process (rather than the business process). He did not reinvent the concept of a car, but he certainly had to redesign it so that it could be built efficiently on his production line.

You could say that Musk is following a similar path. He wants to get to Mars, needs to get launch costs down to make that feasible, so he (and his engineers) are trying to come up with a reusable rocket that allows them to drive down that cost. From vision to business model to engineering.

Comment Re:You didn't read the EULA? (Score 1) 91

What do you mean, "your battery"? It's Apple's battery; you are just holding it for them. Holding it wrong, I might add...

Jokes aside, I've found Apple's hardware to be mostly reliable, but I too get ticked off by software updates that seem designed to make you get a new phone. Still, my wife is still happily using her 5s, and I have a 4s test phone that still works well. Even got a pair of 3GS phones doing duty as wall mounted control panels for home automation. The one time we got burned by a software update was when it fried the WiFi chip in a 4s (and Apple didn;t offer anything out of warranty on that one)

Comment Re:Happens a lot (Score 2) 332

Exactly, and that's why the author of the article advocates testing and research: understand the nature of the beast before attempting to tame it. This is classic innovation management. What I missed from his article is another important aspect of innovation: knowing when to quit (and planning for an exit). Define success criteria, have regular evaluations, keep room for changing tack when your insight changes, and stop when your goals aren't being met. And of course to define those success criteria, you have to understand what your current challenges are to begin with. Basic stuff...

Comment Re:Change the law (Score 1) 1424

Would this Harvard Professor have argued similarly if the situation had been reversed, with Clinton winning but Trump having the popular vote? I thought not...

The fact that this happened twice in ancient (by US standards) history is not enough... maybe to a lawyer who is used to giving incredible weight to case law. Here's what my exhaustive couple of minutes worth of research in Google turns up:
- In 1824, no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes. The guy they selected in the end to become president (John Quincy Adams) did not have the most electoral votes, and had not won the popular vote either
- The 1876 election apparently saw some dispute over the results in a couple of key states, and the matter was settled between the two contestants a year later, essentially having one candidate ceding victory to the other.

Not at all the same as the case at hand in 2016. And speaking of case law; think about the terrible precedent you'd be setting here: "If we don't like the outcome of the election, we can change it", with "we" being whichever group, organisation or cabal has the most leverage over / pull with the electoral college. No, GP is right: if you want the candidate with the popular vote to win, change the system so that this happens automatically and democratically, not by giving the finger to roughly half the candidate and saying "sorry, but we didn't like your candidate and the law says we can nix him".

Disclaimer: I'm a European, no great fan of Hillary, but as another European said: I would have voted for Satan over Trump.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds