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:Staff have to be smart again (Score 1) 61

Oh lord the puppies don't remember their history!

DirectX became a "thing" because of "The Lion King" on PC. A lot of the OEMs sold a shitload of units with the Lion King game preloaded, IIRC it was Xmas season 94. All these kids came down on Xmas morning to play...only to find out the game didn't work on like 90% of the hardware out there. Of course nobody blamed the shitty programmers for only supporting a couple of chips, nope they blamed Windows 3.1 and MSFT and had a royal stinking shitfit, even ended up on the nightly news, kinda a "MSFT is the Grinch that crapped on Xmas" angle.

Well if there was one thing that MSFT under Billy didn't like? It was bad press, so next thing you know they announce "Direct3D" and "DirectDraw" to solve this very problem of every game needing drivers for every bit of kit. Later on they combined the different APIs into what is now called DirectX.

Comment Re:But what is a lie? (Score 2) 73

I have the same problem.

I took to highlighting emails for "Short version" and "Long version". The only people who bother with the long version are the people with an axe-to-grind with what the email is about, people who are similarly autistic-like (yeah, I'm definitely on there somewhere too), and those with an interest in the actual fine details of that particular area.

But I work in schools so I can tell you now that, however hypocritical, the entirety of education is set up as "lies to children", in fact "lies of decreasing magnitude". At first atoms are the smallest thing. Then electrons. Then quarks. Then strings or whatever. We do it to ease them in, and allow them to understand at whatever macroscopic scale is necessary at that time.

I'm not sure it's an entirely bad method, but the phrase "You'll see later / when you get older that this isn't exactly true" doesn't HURT anyone to say and we rarely say it.

To be honest, when I'm asked to summarise, e.g. in meetings, I struggle immensely because I don't see that you can sum up anything that easily without just providing opinion rather than fact.

"So what's best, X or Y?"

I can give an impartial, fact-based, long answer.
But if you want one or the other it will be opinion unless the answer is blindingly obvious. And your opinion may differ.

The problem I get is that when opinion differs, the next question is always "Why" and despite lots of reasoning from an expert hired for exactly that purpose, there's often no convincing someone anyway.

But, as this post probably shows, I find that the REASONING for an answer is often more important than the answer itself. It tells you how much people have thought about it, how long they've been working with such things, how detailed their knowledge is, and that - ultimately - tells you whether you should be trusting their opinion against others.

I get told off for overly-long emails and posts all the time, and yet I often hold back much more than people know.

(Pity the poor guy who tried to argue Data Protection legislation with me and got a written-up explanation, with citations, all my own wording, from memory, in under an hour that took him a day to read).

Comment Re:Was Obvious from the Start (Score 1) 207

I would say not only that but people that are into watches? These things are about as appealing as ass cancer. You talk to people that actually spend real money on a watch? They will talk your ears off about Swiss movements and dial faces and all the beautiful craftsmanship and are NEVER gonna get that level of detail and care in what is essentially a little computer strapped to your wrist, you just aren't. Great watches are really these things out of time, with their little gears and springs, you can almost picture some watchmaker with an eyepiece working on this delicate little instrument, you just aren't gonna get that kinda vibe from a circuit board and an LCD panel, you just aren't.

Hell even the geeks I talked to that like watches didn't want these things, they want a Nixie watch like the woz has or one of those cool LED watches from the 70s, so I have no clue who they expected to buy these.

Comment Re:It's not the FWD that are the real problem (Score 5, Insightful) 44

That's one of the issues with CR's reporting. 100 people with problems with a cupholder would rate as "poor" while 2 with a blown engine would rate as "good", when the sum of cost of 100 cupholders is less than two engines, so the upkeep cost of the "reliable" car is higher than the "unreliable" car.

Comment Re:Goodbye Discounted Internet Access (Score 1) 103

In most acquisitions of this type, if approved, AT&T would have to sell in areas where they'd be the only choice. So you'd remain with two choices. Likely AT&T and Comcast (as the phone company would tend to keep the phone system, and that'd mean they'd have to sell the cable, and Comcast is the biggest in that area now, and would likely profit from the merger in the short term).

Comment Re:Fickle as the wind (Score 1) 103

Not by Bush, but by the CIA. When the CIA asserts that Saddam Hussein is buying Yellow Cake, do you really want Congress ignoring that when passing laws?

And funny how conservatives insist we worship the presidency when a Republican is in office, and the opposite when the office is held by a Democrat.

Comment Re:Really... (Score 1) 103

TW also gave to Republicans and Trump. Most organizations double-donate, to hedge their bets. The donations are less an indication of who they want to see, and more an indication of who they think will win, as the more they give, the more influence they expect. It's simple bribery. Except without a result pre-planned. So like a bribery retainer. And perfectly legal. If you don't like it, get the Republican Congress to end it. Oh, wait. They are explicitly for the bribery, and when the Democratic Party tried to end it, the Republicans blocked that. Couldn't end the bribery, and actively working to promote and extend it. Though, maybe the Democratic Party proposed it as a publicity stunt, knowing the Republicans would block anything proposed, and the Dems wouldn't have supported their own thing, if it went to a final vote, but we'll never know, because the Republicans voted to extend bribery.

Comment Re:Really... (Score 1) 103

It's common in these for AT&T to agree to sell the cable franchise anywhere where they are already the local phone company. Such "restrictions" are common in these types of mergers, and don't reduce the customers available choices, but increase the area wher AT&T is one of the two choices. THe idea of a "natural monopoly" requiring government rules to establish and protect monopolies is the problem. A "natural monopoly" had a meaning in the start of phone service, where the 3 overlapping phone companies refused to intertie, to the point you couldn't call someone on the other network. Requiring FRAND intertie removes any need for monopolistic protections. Internet POPs are FRAND (in practice, if not in legislation). And that's fine. IF all local providers tie together at a central point with FRAND terms, there's no need to continue to defend monopolies. Perhaps adjust the USF fees to discourage cherry-picking of urban areas and better fund rural areas, but no need for a government-enforced monopoly.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.