Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:We have K&R on PDF (Score 1) 73

Even if you did, it strikes me that this is an absurd metric. Since a lot of C development goes on within communities; either closed source shops, or open source projects, where it's likely only a portion of the mailing list archives, if any of them at all, are archived. The majority of the BSD and Linux kernels are written in C, along with a significant percentage of the toolsets, so clearly there's one helluva lot of C coding going on. Whether search engines index that activity or not is irrelevant.

A better metric, though not perfect, would be to look at the activity in places like Git, to see how many lines of code roughly are in any given language.

Comment Re:WTF Profits (Score 4, Insightful) 269

People say "profits" a lot. They try to ignore that prices don't follow inflation, and that costs are real.

The long and short of it is, somewhere behind the opaque shroud, Apple goes from selling the last-model iPhone at a 10% profit to selling it at a 10% loss. What's probably actually happening is people just aren't interested in spending on a new phone now, and will take a low-cost phone at a bargain. Apple can't cut the current-model back to that cost, and can't even get the old-model down that low, and so is trying to hit prices that the consumer will pay by cutting costs back.

In other words: the "cutting into profits" is more like "losing business, and facing extinction." Apple isn't going to die out today; they know that if they can't keep their phones in the consumer market, they're going to die out in a decade, maybe. Strategic executives actually look way ahead and try to minimize the likelihood of such an outcome.

You're talking about a 20% mark-up, and you've managed to ignore that Apple will take a 10% mark-up but the consumer won't pay $600 for a $550 phone. If Apple wants to sell a phone like that in a market of $350 full-featured phones, it needs its Chinese manufacturers to deliver a $350 phone that it can *maybe* mark up to $400 as a premium option.

At the base, this happens when competitors are offering top-of-the-line technology at the break-out price point. 10% more for 10% more feature, until you're suddenly paying 50% more for 10% more feature; you stop just at that point, and now your next competitor can only offer a better product at 1.5 times the price. Yours might cost $400, but their barely-any-better gadget now costs $600. Even if most of your market is in mid-tier $250-$300 phones, your major competitor can't distinguish themselves as a better product without a distinguished price point: to stand apart in features, you must stand apart in price.

This is a common strategy for other reasons. You release a low, mid-tier, and high-end flagship product; then the customer sees that the mid-tier product is much cheaper than the top-tier product but almost as good, and buys the mid-tier product due to its excellent value. Without the top-tier product, they make a more price-conscious decision, determining their need rather than bare purchasing efficiency. What I've described is an extension: you ensure that the high-end flagship product of distinction is someone else's, and that it's *very* expensive by way of making the most-expensive *reasonable* product on the market yourself. Maybe nobody buys your Galaxy S7; but they're sure as hell not going to spend twice as much on a fucking iPhone.

Apple has the extra disadvantage of not selling a mid-tier product; they sell the iPhone 5 currently, which broadcasts loudly that it's an out-of-date product because it was the premier product four years ago. If it was called the iPhone 7n (new budget offering), people would perceive it as a modern, budget-friendly phone without all the bells and whistles.

Comment Ignorance shouldn't be an excuse. (Score 3, Informative) 37

The biggest problem in IT Security, is all the decision (those people outside of IT) claim ignorance, as those IT guys just talk techno babble.

So when there is legitimate problems, they just ignore IT and tell them to fix it. Vs. trying to take some time to learn about the problem and see if there are other solutions than just a computer fix.

Comment Re:Guardians of the Galaxy tie-in (Score 1) 74

Which is why a lot of people do not like soap operas. Science Fiction offers an escape from our humdrum life to a more exciting one. While a soap opera we just relieve the awkwardness of our teenage/young adult life.

However a good show needs to be strong characters and plot. Many shows while may had been initially popular due to strong character or plot, just don't have the same re-viewing popularity after it has been seen, because if it had a good plot but dull characters you don't care because you know what happens, or strong characters and weak plot you just don't care because there isn't anything driving what is going on.

Soap Opera get a bad rap because of their history of being cheaply produced and written just so they can get many episodes out over a long period of time.

Comment Re:If they're going to do this... (Score 1) 181

Because creating further artificial labor scarcity via work week restrictions will fix a labor scarcity problem.

Labor restrictions restrict productivity, raising prices and reducing what people buy, thus reducing employment. In short: you have less to barter with, therefor there is less you can barter for, therefor somebody who produces something will find nobody can pay them for the product, and so he becomes unemployed.

Imagine you spend 10% of your income on food, 4% on clothing, 2% on personal care, 30% on housing, 18% on transportation, and 36% on entertainment and other non-essential spending. Call it by dollars: $100, $40, $20, $300, $180, $360. You have a total of $1,000 to spend.

Now imagine everything just got 20% more expensive because everyone working 5 days making $1,000 is now working 4 days making $1,000 and, for every 5 such people, we hire another worker making $1,000 to fill in the gap (i.e. that last day costs an extra $200 per person now). I suppose you got this far and then determined there's that extra worker now, right? Let's look at it further.

So now nobody's getting paid more; they're working less, and MORE PEOPLE ARE BEING PAID to make the products you buy. Your expenses are $120, $48, $24, $360, $216, and $432. That's $1,200--or $200 more than you were able to spend before, and even more than you're able to spend now.

Well let's tie it all together. Food, clothing, personal care, housing, transportation... that's $768 right there. You have about $232 to spend on the other stuff you were buying--about 64% as much. 36% of the production related to those jobs is now unsustainable (there's no revenue to pay all those wages), and so those jobs vanish.

That's the point. You create a situation where people have more money to spend than there are workers to supply, and then you boost the labor expense of anything they want to buy by restricting labor hours. Suddenly everything becomes more expensive, but nobody has any more money; the capacity to buy products beyond what our labor force can supply goes away, because we're suddenly all poorer.

Comment Re:I'm making a note here (Score 4, Interesting) 87

Life is like D&D.
If you work hard add + 3
If you have passion add + 2
If you have advanced education + 1
If you have gotton education in that area + 1
Are you willing to make additional sacrifices to your life (you will get a chance to reroll after each sacrifice)

Now roll the dice. 10 or higher you succeed. 18 or higher you are successful, natural 20 Critical success you roll a natural 1 you automatically fail badly.

Comment Re:GE Invented offshoring (Score 1) 109

The problem is Six Sigma is good for manufacturing, however GE pushed it to other things where the cost of insuring that level of accuracy was greater than letting the mistakes go threw.

So for example following 6S will cost a team 1 day a week of extra work roughly 10 weeks a year of extra work to prevent a problem that will cost an extra weeks of work ever 3 months that will take a week to fix (4 weeks a year) that is just money wasted due to being paranoid of making a mistake.

Comment Re:Skeptical or terrified? (Score 1) 109

GE isn't what I think of as a Start-Up.
As GE is one of the largest companies in the world Currently #11 on the Fortune 500. Having been around for 124 years, there is a well defined GE Culture that is nearly hard to break. For a startup you need to be quick and nible. The culture will need to be flexible smart and not hung up with titles, that isn't GE.

Sure they may be the current leader of IoT however that doesn't make them a startup. I have seen the jobs for the IoT division and mostly they just want a bunch of academics (were having some is a good thing, however too many causes in the box thinking) and not so much focus on real world skills. Hence a lot of the security concerns of IoT. As the focus is on make it work, vs make it sustainable.

Comment Re:Is he going for irony, here? (Score -1) 190

Then you're making an ignorant assumption.

Linux doesn't have to be more secure when its not a target.

From a practical perspective, there is nothing to gain by owning every Linux desktop on the planet.

Own 1% of the Windows machines on the other hand ... and you've dwarfed the Linux desktop base completely.

No one cares about your linux box except you and and a bunch of fanboys who go around acting like you've got something special.

And you seem to act like an exploit is needed, no exploit is needed when social engineering or trickery will do just fine. You don't need to own a box to own the user of the box. In which case ... there is nothing in Linux that makes it 'more secure' than Windows at that point. User level infiltration on a machine that has one user are just as good as owning the entire machine and there is absolutely nothing about your Firefox on Linux that makes it better than Firefox on Windows, or whatever your browser of choice is.

Slashdot Top Deals

I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay. -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.