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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:I've gone through four iPhones due to this issu (Score 2) 196

A "failure" here includes an app that crashes. In your case you're saying the touch screen has failed to work, 4 times in a row, and somehow you know it's about to be 5 times.

The chance of a failure involving the touchscreen is statistically (from the report you didn't read) 3%. Raising 0.03 to the fifth power gives a failure rate of 0.0000000243.

Still going with Occam.

Comment Re:I've gone through four iPhones due to this issu (Score 1) 196

Well, literally hundreds of millions of people (per year) buy iPhones (last 12 months was 215 million) and don't have this problem.

I could see you getting a bad phone - shit happens. I could (just about) see you getting *two* bad phones out of two. There is no way I'd buy that you got three successive phones that failed in the same way, as for five ? Well, I'll be charitable and say you must be the unluckiest person on the planet. Is your name Brian by any chance ?

For reference: "In line with the firm’s fourth-quarter report, a study that analyzed smartphone failures during the first quarter of 2016 determined that Android devices cause far more problems for their owners than iPhones. According to Blancco Technology Group’s new data, 44% of Android phones experienced failures between January and March of this year, compared to 25% of iPhones"

Occam's razor says I still think you don't look after the phone, assuming you're telling the truth. Sorry.

Comment Re:So much for Apple's "better design" (Score 0) 196

Yep, in an nutshell.

You sell 215 million (how many phones Apple sold in the last 12 months) of *anything*, and there's going to be a tiny percentage of them that go wrong in some pattern-like way. Even 0.001% of 215 million is 2150 people with a problem, and although a failure rate of 0.001% is pretty damn good with such a complex device, that's still enough for "many" people to come up with a common problem and someone to get some ad-revenue from the click-bait headline.

(Also own an iPhone, a 6+, and haven't seen any issues)

Comment Re:So much for Apple's "better design" (Score 0) 196

Oh for crying out loud.

There are literally (and I use the word correctly) *billions* of BGA chips out there, in all environments from the most benign to the harshest around, from industrial levels of vibration to space exploration (including the launch). Shock, horror, in a sample size that large, some of them fail, well cry me a river. There is no human technology that is 100% perfect, but soldering chips, yes, even BGA chips to boards is pretty damn close.

As for not doing them at home, I've done BGA chips at home many many times - you can actually do them with a toaster oven, but if you want a good (i.e.: ~100%) success rate, you could always get one of these. If you look past the truly egregious website, there's a really well engineered product there, which guarantees alignment as the chip is placed. I've got one and frankly I prefer doing a BGA chip than soldering a QFP by hand (of course the machine does QFP too...)

Inspection, now, that's a different beast. I've thought about getting an old dental XRAY machine off eBay, but who knows if it's strong enough. One day I'll remember to take one of my boards along to my dentist and get them to take a snapshot of it. At the moment, I'm too busy building a laser-cutter anyway.

Comment Re:What event? (Score 1) 516

The worst confidential info "scandal" was when she gave the order to send talking points for the day...

So, you either don't actually know what SAP material is (in which case you're being willfully ignorant on this topic and should stop expressing opinions until you read up on it), or you DO know, and you're just being another liar in the service of a liar.

Comment Re:User friendly (Score 1) 301

Say what? 2000 called, and they want you stop trying to install their linuxes.

What a ridiculous rant, from someone who obviously has little to no experience with Ubuntu or any of the other more popular, modern distros.

I agree with you that GP is completely exaggerating, but "2000" is also an exaggeration. GP's rant would have been completely valid in 2005, and it's perfectly feasible that he still might be encountering stuff like that regularly ca. 2010.

But today? Not so much... and definitely not on any distro that's meant to be particularly user-friendly, like Mint.

In the past few years, I've installed Linux on old laptops for two family members after they became unusable due to "Windows rot." Both of these people are folks I'd hardly call "tech savvy," and they wouldn't know a command prompt to save their lives. One of them used this computer -- now "superpowered," as I was told, because it ran faster than it ever did with Windows -- as a primary computer for two more years... and I never got any tech support email queries from them over that time. (Contrast that with previously, when I was to the point of having a long phone conversation with the person every month or so trying to figure out why something in Windows had stopped working -- and then whether they had a virus, or installed an anti-virus program with the wrong settings that was causing their computer to slow to a crawl, or whether it was just Windows being Windows...)

Trust me -- I wouldn't hesitate to complain about Linux and have in the past. Even though I've used it as my primary OS for about a decade (and off-and-on on desktops before that back to 1999 or so), I spent many years frustrated by it. If you search through my comments over the years here, you'll probably find a couple similar rants from a few years back. No more, though -- Linux has made tremendous strides in the "just works" department for normal desktop use in the past 5 years or so.

Sure, if you're trying to do more "advanced" stuff, you may still need to do some command line configuration. But for the basic everyday desktop tasks, it's pretty darn stable and easy to use.

Comment Re:How hard is it to find emails? (Score 1) 516

Yeah, because the FBI knows nothing about gathering information, amirite?

The FBI can only gather what's given to them, or what can be forensically recovered. If she blew away 30,000 emails, and they've got under 20,000 of them to look at, there's some they couldn't get. It's not really very complicated.

Comment Re:What event? (Score 2) 516

seriously. What event? Aside from the scandal itself what, exactly, did Hilary do that was a) a criminal offense and b) revealed in the emails?

The emails revealed that she was incredibly reckless in handling classified information - some of it SAP-level stuff so sensitive that it can't even be talked about when it's 100% redacted, content-wise. People lose their careers and their liberty over such carelessness. And we're now seeing evidence of pervasive corruption as her family was enriched while their family business sold access to her while she was in office. So, you're either simply not paying attention or (more likely) you know all of this and are a Shillary.

While I'm on it, which is it? Is she a fool who couldn't run an email server or a Machiavellian genius who successfully evaded the FBI and an entire political party's attempts to bring her to justice?

False dichotomy.

She's had a long career of throwing underlings under the bus or having her party cover for Clinton Machine mis-steps. So yes, incompetence (but mostly arrogance). And no, she hasn't evaded the FBI or congress ... she's still hip deep in the mess she created.

Comment Re:How hard is it to find emails? (Score 5, Informative) 516

Her team did not "delete" emails -- that is a deliberately misleading term.

Yes, they did delete them. They even SAID they deleted them. That the server that had contained them had had all of its contents destroyed once they were done picking out the stuff that was work related.

What *actually* happened is they used discovery software to filter emails based on keywords.

But the lie she told was that her lawyers read each and every email. She knew that wasn't true, and so was lying. But that's OK, because her supporters know she lies to them, and they like being lied to.

People should really appreciate the amount of effort the FBI put into looking for malfeasance.

People should also recognize that they FBI could only look for corruption (and worse) within the material they had available. Clinton did not provide all of the requested material. She said she did, but that was another lie. Not an oversight, but a lie. Because we're not talking about "oops, a couple of emails you should have seen slipped through the cracks" - but "oops, thousands and thousands of emails you should have seen in that pile I printed out without header info were deleted."

In short: this fantasy that Hillary attempted to delete evidence is completely without basis

Other than the part where, you know, her records were deleted after her team put on a show of pulling out what they thought would make the appearance of complying with her requirements ... years after she was supposed to have turned ALL of it over to State so their archivists could make the distinction between personal and work-related records from her deliberately co-mingled collection.

What she *has* done is tried to *misrepresent*, the most egregious being her assertion that Comey agrees with her.

That was egregious, but it's hardly the worst of it. She knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly lied about her motivations and actions, and deliberately slow-walked and stonewalled at every turn. The fact that she'd whip up yet another lie to make it sound like the FBI's very clear identification of her multiple "untruths" on the matter is only egregious because it shows that she's still willing to lie even when she knows that we all know she's doing it. None of that matters, of course. Her supporters like that she lies, and none of that is legally meaningful. What IS legally meaningful is her testimony in front of congress. She spent long hours carefully avoiding direct answers to questions to she wouldn't perjure herself. We'll see if she's still as slippery on that front as her reputation suggests.

Separate from all of that, of course, is the actual content of the messages now being read. They exhibit a very clear pattern of tying access to her and her policy influence to being willing to dump piles of cash into her family business while she was in office. Legal jeopardy there? Hard to say. That would once again be Loretta Lynch's call, and we already know where she stands.

Comment Appraisals (Score 4, Interesting) 516

The people at State who have to appraise this material are the ones she was supposed to turn ALL of her co-mingled material over to on the day she left office. State's archivists are the ones who are supposed to weed through and figure out what's personal and what's not when someone in her role chooses to make everything personal. If she'd actually followed the rules and delivered all of it to them years ago as she was supposed to, she could have spent a solid year or two talking down all of the conflicts of interest and signs of corruption between her family business and access to her and her power as SoS and have Clinton-ed most of it into "the past" by now. She's got only herself to blame for deliberately ignoring her departure requirements, and then for slow-walking and hiding all of this stuff until it had to be pried out by the damn FBI and through suits pointing out FOIA shenanigans.

State will now say that it will take until next year to review this new material - plenty of time to stonewall and foot-drag past November. Her supporters are still running around claiming she hasn't once lied about any of this, and that nothing inappropriate to a private home-based mail server ever passed through her hands, despite the FBI pointing out the opposite.

Comment Re:What is it that you say? (Score 1) 442

So it's illegal for me to give me co-worker a ride to work without paying this onerous tax?

So it's illegal to give a friend a ride somewhere without paying this onerous tax?

So it's illegal to give wome you just met a ride without paying this onerous tax?

No, no, and no. It's not illegal to give a ride to anyone.

Now, when you start charging money for rides, then it becomes a little more complicated. But again, there's a difference between your co-worker chipping in for gas to carpool vs. getting paid as to drive strangers for hours at a time.

These sorts of arguments are always amazing to me. Do you seriously think it's impossible to define a difference between a personal, informal transaction vs. a large-scale business??

If a friend comes over for dinner, I'm not running a restaurant. Even if the friend chips in some money for the ingredients and "for my trouble" in preparing it, I'm not a restaurant. When I have 100 strangers coming over for dinner per evening on a regular basis, I'm probably operating a restaurant and will need to be regulated as one.

If a friend asks me to hold some money for him at my house while he's out of town, I'm not a bank. If I hold money for 100 strangers at my house and start using their money to make a profit while I'm holding it, I'm probably a bank and will need to be regulated as one.

Etc., etc. And if I give someone a ride periodically and even charge someone for it, I'm not a taxi driver. But if I'm giving a few dozen strangers rides every day and charging for them, I'm probably a taxi driver.

Is there some sort of arbitrary dividing line there somewhere in each case? Sure. But the argument you're making here is just some weird variant of the ancient sorites paradox, or "paradox of the heap." Basically, the argument goes: a million grains of sand is a "heap" of sand, but taking away one grain from a "heap" can't make a distinction, so 999,999 grains is still a "heap." Keep going, and eventually you claim that 1 grain is a "heap," which is obviously nonsense. Or you can go the other way and start with 1 grain, which obviously isn't a "heap," and keep adding grains on the premise that 1 grain can't make the difference between a "heap" and a "non-heap," so you conclude that "heaps" of sand don't exist.

That's effectively what these arguments try to do. Giving one ride to a stranger obviously doesn't mean you're operating a taxi service, so therefore a company that organizes over a million such rides per day "isn't a taxi company." But I think any reasonable person can agree that what Uber is doing is a little bit different from periodically carpooling with your coworker.

(P.S. Obviously we can have arguments about whether this regulation and other regulations are necessary for businesses. But that's a separate discussion from whether Uber is actually operating a de facto taxi business... which it is.)

Comment Re:"Gig Economy" indeed! (Score 1) 109

If so, it just sounds like they're doing an experiment to see if hiring more people but working them less produces better results (Hint, it does in non-dysfunctional workplaces.)

Actually, at least to a point, hiring the same number of people but working them less produces better results.

That's how we got the 40-hour work-week to begin with. It's generally assumed that time working has decreased over the centuries, but that isn't quite true. Medieval farmers, laborers, and craftsmen did work long days (perhaps 9-12 hours), but winter conditions and lack of light with short days meant that these long days were only for short segments of the year. Yes, during planting and harvest, the farmers might work like crazy, but then they'd have a long winter of time to recuperate. This combination works well both physically and mentally, which is the reason studies tend to show that people who never take "vacations" (especially extended ones) tend to be less productive than those who do.

It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution and the migration of poor laborers to big factories, along with advances in tech, power, etc. that workers could be exploited with long hours essentially year-round. The average medieval or renaissance peasant or laborer probably worked around the number of hours a 40-hour/week worker works today. But by the 19th century, factory workers dramatically increased that -- often working 70+ hours most weeks, sometimes with 14-16 hour days. Factory owners mistakenly thought that working their laborers to death (often quite literally) would maximize profit. What instead happened was increased accidents, along with unhappy exhausted workers who would fall ill and need to be replaced with other untrained laborers. (Reforms (sometimes violent) eventually brought limitations down to 12 or even 10-hour days in some places during the 19th century. Unions fought a piecemeal battle to try to get the requirements lower.)

But the largest reform happened in the early 20th century, when Henry Ford actually experimented with shorter work-weeks (i.e., our standard 5-day, 40-hour week) and realized it (1) increased productivity (not just productivity per hour but productivity per worker), (2) decreased accidents and errors (which were a major cause of decreased productivity on assembly lines, since a major accident could shut down the line for a long time), and (3) increased retention for trained, skilled workers, and (4) also had the side benefit of increasing worker happiness. In many cases, the actual weekly output of the same amount of workers who decreased hours from 60 to 40 per week increased by 50%.

Most of the classic studies of productivity have been done on laborers, and they have generally shown productivity is maximized somewhere between 40 and 50 hours per week. But that's laborers, and those classic studies have been undermined by subsequent studies in Europe in the past couple decades which seem to show people doing even fewer (30-35 hours/week) often are more productive than the classic 40-50 hour folks. Also, the summary mentions "engineers and tech staff," whose "labor" is primarily mental. Productivity studies are harder to design for those sorts of jobs, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that for some jobs the maximum productivity occurs at quite a bit lower than 40 hours/week.

Here's the difference today, though -- Ford paid his workers well, in fact increasing his salaries when he decreased the hours, because he saw the productivity increases. His workers responded well and did better work, because they likely remembered grandpa coming home exhausted from the mines and dying from black lung at age 55 -- and the 40/hour week with decent salary was amazing. Fast forward 80-90 years, though, and executives are all about cutting salaries as much as possible, viewing workers as completely expendable, and our cut-throat consumerist culture has taught us that we "need" all sorts of "stuff" so we have to work harder and harder, with longer hours to keep up with the Joneses. Bye bye, 40-hour week... hello, 19th-century factory culture recreated for Amazon tech workers burning out doing 60+ hours/week.

Bottom line: At least in some cases, a policy like this might not only increase efficiency per hour but even lead to increased productivity per worker, even with fewer working hours. But a lot of that will probably depend on work culture, organization, and expectations. If the Amazon workers doing only 30 hours/week are treated exactly the same and given organized tasks in the same way the 60 hours/week folks are, there may be little productivity difference.

And thus the blanket salary decrease will ultimately undermine this, if it's actually an experiment. But it's really difficult to figure out a better way to run it -- because if you start providing salary incentives to people who "only work 30 hours" but are more productive, you'll end up with people punching in/out to look like they're only doing 30 hours, but ultimately are working more hours "off the clock." In our current culture, I'm not sure how to fix this, but I suppose it is at least be nice to see a large company trying to be more flexible.

Slashdot Top Deals

Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything.

Working...