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 stop going techno-nerd on it.. they failed (Score 1) 231

Unless support wasn't part of the deal that was signed, then it clearly is Microsoft's fault. And the NFL's. They are the ones who agreed to the deal.
And these three words: User Acceptance Testing

I have a feeling this was technical people saying "it should work" and sales people saying "it's flawless" and the NFL saying "this will be great" and people getting bonuses and high-fiving each other.... and NOBODY actually trying it out in a real setting ahead of time.

Serves them right.

Comment Re:Misplaced effort (Score 1) 67

We need to keep working toward a system where our Senators and Representatives actually know what We The People want and need.

What makes you think that they don't? I'm rather certain that most of them know that most people don't want children used as experimental subjects without their parents permission. But the legislators have other priorities.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" with particular attention to why it is valid.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote something down, you look for ideas or statements that distress you.

Comment Re: I don't agree that these are "conservative" vi (Score 1) 235

Go actually READ the Constitution. Parts of it apply to all people. Parts don't. They could use a bit of clarity in places, but it's usually pretty clearer. It's a LOT clearer than my state constitution. And it's not horrendously long. Only about five pages (depending, of course, and page size and font, but I'm thinking of 8 1/2X11 inch paper and 10 point Times-Roman...but this *is* an estimate, since it's been awhile since I printed it out).

But, e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicates that a law in that area is forbidden to regulate ANYONE. Of course, before the Civil War it was expected that such areas would be regulated by the various states...but then never updated the Constitution when they changed to a powerful Federal Government weak State Government system. All they did was decide to "reinterpret" (i.e., ignore when convenient) what the constitution said. This was, and is, dereliction of duty. Probably misfeasance rather than malfeasance in the not fixing it arm of action, but clearly malfeasance in the enforcement arm. (In the case of the Supreme Court malfeasance seems more accurate than misfeasance.)

OTOH, it takes a long time to get an amendment through the adoption process. When something needs addressing quickly, you can't wait for the Constitution to be fixed. But ignoring that problem doesn't get the problem solved, it just sweeps it under the rug.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 98

To be fair their website would not be equivalent to shouting in your basement. Google would index it, etc. But only people looking for the information would find it, and this appears to have been an advertisement intended to reach people who were not currently considering the problem. So their own web page wouldn't be a useful option.

Comment Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos (Score 1) 98

The temporary censorship is a problem, but not the major problem, as that was corrected. The major problem is that it was difficult to reach someone who both could and would address the problem. I've been in that situation so often that I find THAT problem hard to forgive.

Comment Re: Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photo (Score 1) 98

It's clear that they EVENTUALLY got in contact with Facebook, but possibly only indirectly. It's not at all clear whether this happened before or after the story hit the news. Having called technical support at some companies and been put on hold for over an hour, I'm not willing to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong, but I'll require at least *some* evidence before I'll believe it.

Comment Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos (Score 1) 98

That's probably correct, but they made it difficult to contact them, which removes any excuse that "it was an automated system that did it" provides.

Yes, if they made it easy to contact them they'd probably get LOTS of complaints. Guess what, They OUGHT to get lots of complaints.

Personally, I don't understand why people are willing to use Facebook, but since they are there are they are a public accomodation. It's not quite the same as a monopoly, though there are certain similarities, strongly reinforced by the network effect. As such for them to refuse service should be a crime. When this is going on internationally, though, things get quite complex, so they have an obligation to make contact, explanation, and negotiation easy when they refuse service. When they don't I start seeing valid reasons for countries to refuse to allow them to do business within "their borders".

Comment I object to some of your comments.... (Score 1) 266

* its software is free as in beer (this is what made me try out linux)

For almost all practical purposes so is Windows and you can get all the good Linux software on Windows and Mac too.

NO, it is not. Mac OS is not either. Free as in beer means free as in beer - no cost. You cannot LEGALLY get Windows for free. Which leads to the OTHER free, which is free as in freedom - which clearly the other two are not either. You can get all the good Linux software on Windows and Mac? Hold that thought.

* its software is free as in software (this is what made me stay on linux for so long)

Like it or not, users in the vast majority don't care about that and it won't draw them to Linux. As far as the software is concerned that same free software like Blender, Gimp and LibreOffice are available on Windows and Mac too. No exclusivity to Linux.

Again... hold that thought.

* it has working package management. updating software is no nightmare. Windows has to force its customers to update it, because its a nightmare.

yep! But remember Windows has Chocolatey and Mac has Homebrew, this covers many of the free software options and for proprietary software you most often need to go through their updaters whether you're on Windows, Mac or Linux anyway.

It's great that it does what you need but you have to remember that above anything else a computer is a tool to run the programs a user needs and while Windows and Mac run pretty much anything Linux does the same cannot be said the other way around and most standard applications in industry support Windows & Mac but not Linux. It might be more secure and/or more stable and free of charge and open source but none of those things matter if it doesn't run the applications I need.

So it's a chicken and egg problem, if you want people to use it they need their applications to support it and to do that you need users. So what you need to offer is some disruptive innovation, some great feature that draws people to Linux, something so good that they would be willing to temporarily forgo the lack of applications and work through the kludge of dual-booting or VMs until their programs supported Linux as a first class citizen. But for the entire life of the hundreds of Linux desktop distributions none has ever offered the user such a feature(s).

Now you can pretend this isn't true, mod it down and fantasize about how desktop Linux is simple held back by a big conspiracy perpetrated by Microsoft and Apple but the fact is it has succeeded incredibly in pretty much all other markets including those in which Microsoft and Apple participate - and it dominates! Server? Dominates! Embedded? Dominates! Mobile? Dominates! Desktop? Utter failure!

So you say Linux dominates in server, embedded, and mobile. So remember what the question was - why do you use linux? The three word answer could very well be "Server, Embedded, Mobile".

And if you don't like the linux desktop because you like or use something that isn't supported on it, that is ok too. I don't think that is an utter failure, however. That is more up to the applications than the OS. There is nothing the OS is doing to prevent them from creating a version for linux. Which brings me all the way back to where I said to hold that thought. Do you know WHY apps that are on linux are also on Windows and Mac? Because of the openness, the other freedom mentioned above. It's not ABOUT exclusivity. It's not about cornering market share, or keeping secrets, or patents, or obscurity, or profits, or lock-out, or lock-in, or backroom deals, or crushing the competition.

I use it, and have used it exclusively outside of my job, since 1998. No dual boot, no VM. It does everything I want. I can't say it hasn't been frustrating at times, but I have never ONCE considered going to windows or mac. It meshes well with my brain and how I think. The desktop is great, and I find it much better than any Windows version (even 7)! But I think that the only thing that it is really missing is in the corporate space. That is where I use windows. There's no conspiracy theory there, they became the standard for that by any means necessary. (see those things above that linux is not about) And that's OK. It's fine to me that Windows has the corporate market, it doesn't really bother me. To me, that's work. It's using a few programs, to accomplish a few goals. Obviously linux is capable in that arena, but to be honest, too many people/companies have invested in the Microsoft way to choose another. I understand, it's a big leap to even consider moving away from Windows. That is really the only argument that I see when talking about why linux hasn't conquered the desktop. People use Windows at work, they use it at home. (not to mention when you buy a computer, it has windows on it) But I digress.

My three words as to why I use Linux: Because It's Linux.

Comment Re:stupid managers making clueless requirements (Score 1) 234

First thought:
Not really true, but it could go into a mode where it only operated in a VERY degraded no external connectivity.

Second thought:
And I guess even that could fail if, say, the power went out, so I guess you're right after all.

The problem here is that "network failure" isn't well defined. Computer failure is, though, so if all the computers that ran the software went down, the network would have clearly failed. I'm sure they meant something different, but they don't seem to have been explicit about what they meant. (Betcha that "never goes down" came out of marketing, and they didn't know, or care, exactly what they meant.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted it.