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:There is a sizable market left out there (Score 1) 128

I still have a nokia phone -- my sixth in a row. Still with buttons. Best voice quality, small, light, not too-thin-to-hold. It's not my computer. It's my phone.

So, for all of those people who can't actually work on a phone -- because our work is bigger than a phone, in the same way that a general contractor can't use a swiss army knife to build your house -- a great phone with buttons beats out a big phone with a touch screen every day.

I'm happy to spend another $300+ on a nice durable quality phone with buttons, and a headset jack. Internet, I can take or leave.

Comment Re:I eat from farms (Score 1) 109

I'm going to say the same thing backwards.

Grocery stores are the supply chain from the farm to the city. It's certainly not more profitable for farmers to sell direct. Volume and scale certainly bring about stricter quality control, and more obvious failures.

When you build a building, anything from a house to a factory, to a subway tunnel, life support is always one of primary efforts -- in design priority, in timing, in cost. Ahead of temperature, and ahead of light, air quality is the number one concern. HVAC and ventilation in general is a huge issue in construction.

Now, given all of that, saying that living indoors is better than living in a cabin in the woods because air quality is of top concern is silly. Air quality needs to be a top concern because buildings ruin air quality where a cabin in the woods does not.

I'm willing to say that the same is true of FDA and grocery stores.

The reason that the farmer needn't meet any controls is because the farmer is selling you the carrot that you see. We all understand that they took it from the ground and handed it to you. It is unprocessed in every way. (pesticides are a nice little exception to that, but it's one that everyone understands and can therefore query at the point of sale) And because you're there, speaking to the farmer, you can ask any question that you like, and you can get any answer that exists. So really, you're eating the carrot the way the ground grew it -- for better or for worse.

But that carrot at walmart is very different. It went through many hands, many cities, many trucks, and there's no one that you can ask because the stock boy doesn't know. Hence, the FDA needs to get involved in order to protect the general (stupid) public from just assuming that anything sold is good -- it actually needs to be ensured to be good.

Intelligent design is an end-run argument. It's an attempt to get it all right the first time. Science improves over time, by always starting from a point of incorrect. Intelligent design works if you believe, only because you believe -- god protects you. Science works because you plan to be satisfied within the known margin-of-error -- this snake oil doesn't work 100% always, but it does work 90%, half the time.

But in the end, it really doesn't matter. Because when you look absolutely any situation, it becomes painfully obvious that there's a huge unknown, a huge risk, and you're the one who's going to be exposed to that danger. The only question is this: which unknown do you want risk?

You've presented the choice very clearly. I can choose to risk that the farmer didn't notice the bad carrot, or I can choose to risk that the FDA didn't notice the bad carrot. My personal heuristics say that the FDA is a set of rules, and people with day-jobs, such that a bad carrot has many ways to sneak through, whereas the farmer cares personally and I can see 90% of the carrot's life in front of me (no transportation by truck, no warehouse storage).

So what do I choose? I choose the third option. I get to know the farmer, and I get a tour of the greenhouse/fields, and I meet the people. I'm my own FDA as much as possible. I choose to rist that I didn't notice the bad carrot; because I know that I care personally.

Comment Re:I eat from farms (Score 1) 109

That you don't see the scientific benefit, suggests that there is none.

You'll note the paradox inherent in the scientific method itself. Virtually everything that science has ever "proven" has itself disproven something that science had previously believed. So if science is forever getting better by fixing its mistakes, then it is forever making mistakes.

Police investigations work with a similar paradox: that evidence is required. A lack of evidence does not mean that I'm not a murdered. It is just as possible that I am a really good murdered (for various values of good).

So, for how long do you need to see no evidence that direct-from-farmers is scientifically better than via-walmart before you believe that there is no benefit? A day? A year? A life-time?

You can compare statistical data all you like, but you'll also need to evaluate the collection of that data, and any biases that it might have.

So I choose to say this: Patricia fed the chickens with carrots grown by Lisa, all on the same field, with no pesticides. I held the chicken (or could have). The chicken laid an egg. Patricia gave it to me, almost still warm. I buckled it into the passenger seat of my sportscar, and drove it home.

As a general heuristic, I can be certain that no trucks, no fuel fumes, no warehouses, no factories, knowing the names and where the farmers live (i.e. on the farm), is all a good thing when it comes to risking food poison. Everyone's invested, no one can just get-another-job, and everyone speaks the same language (except the chicken).

As another heuristic, I don't like the unknown. I don't know what happened to the egg-via-walmart, and I don't think you could find out for everything you eat there.

Comment Re: Welcome to tools (Score 1) 53

I'll stop again at your start. In order for the statement "source code cannot be turned into software" to be false, you'd need to demonstrate that all source code everywhere for all time can be. I did not state an absolute. You interpreted it thusly.

But again, this is all meaningless. This is you arguing syntax again. Stop picking one statement of mine that has nothing to do with the argument being made.

I argued that tools, in general, tend to be just as open source as software. That a hammer is just as open source as apache. Argue that.

Comment Re: Welcome to tools (Score 1) 53

I decided to read the rest of your post. A few things stand out.

First, you're talking about software application (mostly), that perform a set of tasks within a system -- so you can mimic such a system with a container, shoehorns and all. I'm talking about software married to the system. You can't shoehorn it into another system, it is the entire system.

Second, you're now a professional. If you're arguing that a professional can build open source code into software, the only word left to say is "duh". A professional glue manufacturer can copy someone else's glue too. The difference between you and the original author, especially after a half-day of study, is almost nill. The difference between you, and the typical user of said software is all of your tools, training, and experience.

Third, I wrote every line of code for my software. I did every design chart. I decided what it needed to be, and how it would work. I used it for years, and based my entire livelihood on it. I employed dozens of people. Then, with international issues being what they are (CIA directly connected to Rackspace), I changed data centre providers to save over $15'000/year. It still took me three months, and three persons, to set up the old software on the new network, and took me two years to plan the move.

Comment Re: Welcome to tools (Score 1) 53

I'm going to stop at your logically-inconsistent accusation based on your logically-inconsistent inability to read.

I said "source code cannot be turned into software" and "source code requires days of powerful machine time to turn into software". The former is missing the requirements listed in the latter. If you can't compare two sentences, and see the big huge difference, then we're done here.

So I'll summarize, for you, to satisfy your early complaint -- alone, without some amount of help, expertise, documentation, know-how, assistance, time, resources, and understanding, most source code cannot be turned into software merely by commonly available computer hardware.

You can list myriad examples of source can that's been designed to do exactly that, but I'm not saying that all source code needs more, I'm saying that most/much/some/many/any does/can/might/will. When I don't use a modifier, you don't get to presume I meant "always/forever/in-all-instances/every-time".

You are arguing based on syntax, in a debate based on abstract concepts. Given recent political events, I can guess where you learned your style. I'll guess that you also think oral sex isn't sex -- even though it's right in the name.

Comment Re: Welcome to tools (Score 1) 53

You're totally wrong from the start.

First off, "FOSS" needs the "F" for a reason.

Second, source code cannot be turned into software. I don't know why you think that it can. Some source code requires days of powerful machine time to turn into software. Most requires a compiler that likely isn't free. Many need a whole host of compiler instructions, configurations, and a full IDE-worth of resources specific to the developer's choosing to be compiled.

Dude, I build web-sites and even my shitty perl code is useless without three days of custom linux and apache tweaking. It took me three months to configure a plain-jane lamp server -- and that's with my entire business resources behind it -- pushing for a vital and highly profitable supplier change.

Comment I eat from farms (Score 1) 109

and this is exactly why I eat all of my food direct from farmers. blockchain shmockchain, walmart kills 50 times more people than sharks. so many that they need this much technology just to track it! none of this actually stops the food from being tainted.

Like I've said before, I don't want walmart to take back the bad food. I want them to be horrified that their food was tainted. Alas, it is not their food, and hence they don't give a shit. They care only about their dollars.

So, I buy directly from the farmers around me. If a tomato is bad, I know the person who touched it over 50 times to grow it from a seed. If the chicken's bad, I know its name and its god damned educational history. And if a steak is bad, I know the guy who planted the grass.

What a concept.

Comment Re: Welcome to tools (Score 1) 53

You are confusing "free" with "open source". Hammers aren't free, but they are open source. You don't get the blue-prints, just like you don't get the code-flow diagrams or design commentary or code documentation. But you do get the hammer, and you can see everything that the hammer is. You can peel off the handle, and you can test the material, and you can see how it works, why it works, and when it fails.

Hammer manufacturers compete on many things (including price), but mostly on what design elements matter most. Innovating a design element is a big deal, as is patenting it. But there's no mystery to the end-user. It is better because it's this shape, or it's buttor because it's this material. There aren't many other attributes to most tools.

Comment Welcome to tools (Score 4, Interesting) 53

The hammer is open source. So is the screw driver, nail gun, wrench, and plyers. Tools have always been open source. Tools have never been for the end-user. The end-user has needs and requirements, and isn't interested in building it themselves. That's where the expertise of having-done-it-before is valuable. That's why we pay people to do things that they've been doing for others for decades. Of course I can learn to do it myself. I can learn to do anything that millions of men have learned to do before me. But I'm not interested in sewing my own pants.

I'm not even interested in repairing the stitching in one inch of my pants.

And yet, the needle and thread, sewing machines, and wood-working tools are all open source.

Do I build my own couch? I could. It's really easy to cut wood, screw it together, cover it with foam, cover it with cloth. It's really easy to follow a pattern and a design and a template. Still, no thanks, not interested.

I pay for someone else to build my couch because I'd rather spend my time working in my chosen profession than building a couch.

Open source doesn't change anything to the end-user. My clients who sell white tube socks aren't going to build their own web-site. Sure they could, but they aren't interested. They also won't be their own security guard (also open source), paint their own offices (brushes are open source), or even ship their own desks (again, open source).

Every tool, and every obvious technique is open source. Who cares. You pay someone else to use those tools for you.

One day, 3D printers will become ubiquitous. And still, it won't matter. I'll want a widget this big and this shape to do this -- and I'll pay someone to design it. Whether they cut it out of wood, or mold it out of plastic, or hit print, is totally meaningless to me. I don't care what tools they use. I want my widget. And no, I don't want someone else's widget. Their widget won't fit my business model.

Comment foreground vs background vs crap (Score 1) 182

Music as the background to your life is already bad enough -- poor quality sound, poor quality experience, unpaired environment, not relaxing at all, and completely unshared -- but it's the background to other things. Putting recreational gaming as the background to life is just even more stupid. 24 hours of candy crush, wonderful.

Somewhere along the way, I think this guy has forgotten the reason we play games -- not his fault, since he's obviously forgotten the reason people used to spent tens of thousands of dollars buying music.

So here's my advice. Look at pictures of a music room from 1985. The kind that had a $20'000 music collection. Realize that the same collection and the same audio quality is now possible with $1'000 of investment. Spend it. Sit in a proper music room with proper sound and your music collection.

What's you'll discover is this: after an hour, you'll have zero stress following a stressful day; after an afternoon, you'll love your children more; after an evening, you'll feel soothed like a three-day vacation; and after a full day/weekend of your music room, you'll actually be healthier, happier, and more focused than ever.

Or, you can drive to work worried about your gaming score.

Comment Re:just no (Score 1) 430

You are 100% wrong. Here's why:

You said "no problem is too big that you can't walk away from it". Sure. If you want to walk away from your city's problems, you can live in the country. "walking away" isn't a solution when you don't want to leave everything behind.

Your inner voice and your search for truth won't sway an election, or any scenario in which a majority rules.

Given the opportunity cost of fighting the system, you're always forced to sacrifice some of what you want for the rest -- purely because of others.

Comment Re:just no (Score 1) 430

You're 100% wrong. Here's why.

1. Those people who choose not to validate/authenticate/corobberate have huge influence over everyone -- voting for government, making dumb investments that pump and burst bubbles, making purchases and hence deciding when products work in the marketplace.

2. Psychology is the study of how it isn't their choice in the first place -- or how to make it not their choice.

Those two combine, very interactively, to mean that dumb people, professionally treated as dumb people, can be controlled to influence the smart people in a way that the smart people cannot control at all.

Think about dinner plans. If your family members vote on where to go for dinner, and you have two parents and five toddlers, it really doesn't matter how much access to information your toddlers have, you are going to mcdonalds five nights a week, if not seven. That's why we've made it illegal to advertize happy meals during children's television shows and the commercials during those time-slots too.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ever notice that even the busiest people are never too busy to tell you just how busy they are?