Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Sucks, but derivative work (Score 1) 137

Why don't you simply read up the law?
Derived work and fair use are contradictions in terms.
A work can only be one of the ...

Fair use is a _defence_ for copyright infringement, copyright infringement can only happen with derived work. By DEFINITION all fair use are derived works.

So this begs the question: Are you are shill or a troll?, because I find it hard to believe you can be that stupid by accident.

Comment Re:Becaue you aren't offering to do the work. (Score 1) 359

Yes, sucking resources away from other users is one reason.

- Your feature or changes almost certainly comes with added complexity and/or bugs. People don't like that.
- People resist change just as a matter of being human. Any change needs to overcome this "static friction".
- Admitting that you have a better way is also an admission that they've been doing it wrong (or less efficiently) the whole time. People don't like to do admit they are wrong.

A variant of the last possibility: A suggestion for an improvement is also a suggestion that something is not good or perfect, so it sounds like an attack or accusation. Some fanboys will defend any weakness no matter what. Suggest Apple should reactivate the standard file transfer over USB like the first iPod had, and fanboys will defend Apple crippling all their devices and forcing them to use iTunes.

Comment Re:Pretty obvious (Score 3, Insightful) 359

One of two very very scenarios arises in my mind:

1) The person(s) does not want the software to change at all because they are comfortable with how it works. This is seen all the time when companies are pushing upgrades to a new version of Windows or Office or *insert a different product*

2) Your suggestions are really not all that useful and are rightfully be lambasted

I much more commonly see:

3) Your suggestion sounds like an attack, and fans will automatically defend what they like.


Ask Slashdot: How Do You Explain 'Don't Improve My Software Syndrome' Or DIMSS? 359

dryriver writes: I am someone who likes to post improvement suggestions for different software tools I use on the internet. If I see a function in a software that doesn't work well for me or could work better for everyone else, I immediately post suggestions as to how that function could be improved and made to work better for everybody. A striking phenomenon I have come across in posting such suggestions is the sheer number of "why would you want that at all" or "nobody needs that" or "the software is fine as it is" type responses from software users. What is particularly puzzling is that its not the developers of the software rejecting the suggestions -- its users of the software that often react sourly to improvement suggestions that could, if implemented well, benefit a lot of people using the software in question. I have observed this happening online for years even for really good software feature/function improvement ideas that actually wound up being implemented. My question is -- what causes this behavior of software users on the internet? Why would a software user see a suggestion that would very likely benefit many other users of the software and object loudly to that suggestion, or even pretend that "the suggestion is a bad one?"

Comment Re:RTFA (Score 3, Informative) 128

Because IPv4 addresses are valuable ($10 range currently) Having 16.7 Million of them is a nice chunk of change, letting 65K of them go for free seems to be a breach of fiduciary responsibility by someone.

They are not resellable like that, what they have is not property just a reserved allocation, and one that can be revoked if they start treating it as resellable property.

Comment Not new? (Score 2) 116

This negative mass effect looks a lot like the usual negative mass effect to describe some collections of holes/electrons. One can explain some of the phenomena of these as acting like they have a negative mass or negative (negative) charge. But they are mathematical fictions since they only arise as apparent behaviours on a fictional individual represeting the effective forces created by the correlated motions of a large ensemble. One can do something similar with magnetic monopoles. There are not (supposedly) magnetic monopoles but if you stack dipoles end to end then one can get two very well separated poles that behave as though they were independent monopoles.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Ive seen this negative mass explanation before so I'm guessing this is similar, not a new effect.

Comment usage tests show it's slower than an old iphone (Score 1) 78

Old model iPhone smokes the latest androids any way you can measure it. The iphone 7 beats the G8 by more than the G8 beats the previous snapdragon. So rather than leapfrogging the Snapdragon keeps ramming headfirst into the iPhone's rear end.

To be fair there is one spec the new G8 does win on, and that's straightup numberical benchmark using multi-core. it' wins by a small margin. But loses by a factor of 2 on single core processes. Since no one actually uses their phone as a numerical calculation optimizing the multiple cores this spec seems to indicate the snapdragon is not optimized in ways that benefit an actual operating phone.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anything cut to length will be too short.