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:False premise (Score 1) 449

DSLRs are basically for hipsters and professions now compared to every typical consumer desiring them.

And? You are saying the same misinformed/underinformed pap that the prognosticators are doing. Single lens reflex cameras are actual instruments that allow the user some control over the images. Things you do not get in a smartphone camera. Small sensor are requires ultra short focal length lenses which in turn makes for images that look one way, even when fake zoomed. The limitations are so severe that some manufacturers make fake depth of field simulators that look like a Photoshop effect, not the dof circles of confusion effect (yep, it's called circles of confusion, and a difficult thing to imitate.

The smartphone camera is a wonderful replacement for the old 110 cameras that it replaced. And if it is good enough for you, that's fine. Some people like Toyota Corollas, some people like Corvettes.

Tablets will replace PCs for consumers. PCs will too go to hipsters and workstation users (power users).

These Hipsters you hate - stop obsessing about them - it makes you look jealous. Jes sayin'.

If anyone says a tablet can't--well, it powers my drone, which can fly autonomously on it too.... PCs can't really do that. Well it can, but in a very clumsy manner.

Sure. I fly my drone using either my Tablet or my phone. Good use for a tablet. The tablet at other times sits in the living room as something to browse the internet, or use as a remote control for my Television, or to play games on.

Comment Re: Think of it as evolution in action. (Score 1) 280

Doctors misuse and improperly prescribe everything and get away with it. I know a urologist who hands out methadone and oxy like its halloween candy. Why the fuck is a urologist even able to prescribe methadone? Is someones bladder having withdrawal?

Someone needs a kidney stone to find out the answer .

Comment Re:Provided you're using it for business (Score 1) 449

Just that computer cost me almost 3 thousand dollars. I didn't blink either - it was a cost of doing business.

Key word: "business". If you're not using a $2000 to $3000 machine as part of a for-profit venture or registered charity, it becomes cost-prohibitive.

Depends on what it is worth to you. Computer people have been pretty well trained to be as absolutely dirt chep as possible. I saw a fistfight almost break out over a 5 cent difference in RAM price, with plenty of crazy on both sides. But the guy who went nuts about how the seller was fscking people over with his criminal pricing felt quite justified in his rage.

My only cheap computers are an old Netbook I didn't have the heart to get rid of, and a Chromebook I take to breakfast. Those are cheap and I don't care if they are lost or get stolen. Otherwise, I'll spend what I need to spend. These days, it's generally one on the upper side, but not top end. But if I needed them, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 110

The limitation on liabilities isn't even "money that you don't have to pay." It's money that some groups (like Energy Fair) *wish* you had to pay. Otherwise, the maximum liability would be capped at the assets of the company anyway.

I mean I guess you consider that a subsidy, so actually everybody is being subsidized due to bankruptcy laws. That doesn't seem like a useful definition. It's worthless in fact.

Let us take say, the Chernobyl disaster, direct loss estimated at 15 billion dollars. Estimates over 30 years are 235 billion for th eUkraine, and 201 Billion for Belarus.

So now, allow us to look at say, the Indian Nuclear Liability act. - The maximum liability for a nuclear accident for the operator is US 74 million. Now just between us chachalacas, Perhaps you could price out say a paltry 25 billion dollar liability policy. Is that magic money that rains down like manna form heaven? Or is it money that you do not have to pay out. I don't know about economics where you live, but if I do not have to spend a certain amount of money because the government allows me to purchase a insurance policty that is a tiny percentage of historical accidents in my industry, well then that is money I keep.

I used India's government assuming most of the liability indemnity as a rather dramatic example. In the US, the Price-Anderson is at present set at 12.6 Billion. Still who exactly do you think is going to cover the excess?

That really should not be hard to understand.

Comment Re:False premise (Score 1) 449

The only thing I can see changing here is that the majority of the code we write will not be written to run on the local machine. I fully expect that all future projects are going to be cross-compiled for cell phones and more cellphones and even more cellphones. Laptops may eventually have across-the-board cellphone emulation to support it and it should become a defacto part of every developer toolset and IDE. ...but you can't create an app or website from a phone. Technically, yes. Practically, no. The most someone is going to try and do is hook up a cellphone to a 32" monitor but I'm not sure how well that can work (and it's basically turning a phone into a PC, which doesn't seem like a terrible idea).

I think that you and many others are caught up in the idea that smartphones are going to rule forever. Even with the high threshold for boredom that the consumers have, they are going to eventually lose that addiction. Tablets were the wave of the future, the device that was going to take over the computing world, and yes, they were going to kill the desktop. Now and even then - smartphones. And it isn't for trying, we've had abortive attempts to plug your smartphone into laptop like things. But they just don't work all that well for it.

Desktops will decline in use, I mean we have to face it that we aren't going to text while we drive or walk across the street without looking with a desktop. Desktops will probably go up somewhat in price. But dead? Probably not at all.

Comment Re:There will still be PCs for a price (Score 1) 449

Just because someone has to create works doesn't mean everyone needs to have this capability "without an investment of capital," as the article puts it. There will still be PCs for a price, and established businesses will still be able to afford this price just as established video game studios can afford console devkits.

As an example of that, my first serious computer that I bought around 1990, when I started a video side business, was an Amiga 2000, with a 4 meg expansion memory card, and a 40 Meg Hard drive. Just that computer cost me almost 3 thousand dollars. I didn't blink either - it was a cost of doing business.

Today, computers are dirt cheap by comparison. I spent 1500 for my iMac 5 years ago, and something over a kilobuck for my HP laptop. But if the desktop market collapses and their prices go back towards the early 90's levels, it will just be a cost of doing business again, because they surely aren't going away.

And it's interesting that I've had that that iMac now for over 5 years, and it's still plugging along just fine, where that old Amiga was replaced in just over 2 years, as obsolete. Matter of fact, I went from the 2000 to a 2500 to a A3000 + toaster to a A4000 + toaster and finally a Mac with non-linear editing in 2000. Since then, the buying of new computers has slowed down a lot.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 110

Whoa, what? So you reject everything I said because I said "anti-nuclear"?

No, not really. But what yu wrote told me what you were going to write after that. And I for one woud prefer not to dilute the discussion with what it will turn into as soon as we mention anti-nuclear. Subsidies, subsidies subsidies. we needn't have actual cash handouts. A subsidy might be a tax break, exemption from environmental regulations, limitations on liabilities. All things that reduce operating costs. Because money that you don't have to spend is just money that you either keep or distribute to the stakeholders.

And remember, I'm not personally against subsidies as long as they are applied properly. For new technology that might need a kickstart - absolutely. Unless we decide that the US is going to cede technology advances to other countries, who are willing to have government help drive technology forward. Giving breaks to established or never to be profitable industries like corn based ethanol. No. Oil and gas seem to be able to make a profit anyhow, and Ethanol based on corn never will, and is just free money for farmers. Nuclear liability limits? I'm divided on that one, but it's pretty certain that the price of an insurance policy for maybe 10 percent of likely damage in the event of a kablooey is immensly less expensive.

You want to talk about Pro or anti Nuclear power, there are plenty of places to do it. In a subsidy subthread, it has as much place, and as predictable an outcome as deciding to bring in certain politicians or the other deriling discussion side trips. So you betchya, I shut off when we go there, this response is as close as I''ll get to entertaining your notion. Ciao.

Comment Re:False premise (Score 4, Informative) 449

I'm a Graphic designer. Work is only increasing, who do you think makes all the GFX for the console's/tablet's?

This! Because someone actually has to make the consumer's stuff.

This death of the PC and other stuff keeps coming up, and the sycophants of it are always lacking in some basics. They are the same people who said that our smartphones crappy cameras made DSLR's redundant.

What has happened is that tablets and smartphones have allowed the computer challenged to join in the fun, but those folk are pretty much consumption only. Somebody has to make what they consume.

And I've found that there is absolutely no replacement for real estate. So my iMac is serving me up with 2-27 inch screens, and my HP laptop is routinely connected to a 27 inch monitor as well. So it is functioning as a desktop except when I need to take it with me. Usually to present to people what I have produced.

Now, the market is changing. Since consumption only folks are performing the vast majority of computing device activities, such as using Facebook or other look at something, then type a few words, then look at something else - the market for the desktop and it's inherent power is going to shrink.

But go away? nope, nope nope.

( I work with x3 50inch screens) I work in an office with other's who code, I dont see them switching either, never see a console you can code on or a tablet suitable.

Ohh yeah, now that's some serious real estate! I drool - I work out of home now, and am running out of wall space, or else I'd join you in that much view.

Part of my work is similar to yours, I do video work and photography and graphics. So the need for a lot to look at is there. But I also do a lot of work with spreadsheets, relational databases, and pdf's and web development - and all of those programs are running at the same time. Trying to do that on one small screen is doable but slow as molasses, and my extra screens and real estate they provide have long since paid for their money outlay.

Maybe one day the consumer base will switch but those of us use that build for a living Pc's wont be going away anytime soon.

I think that the consumers have already switched. And they are on a platform and form factor that works for them. I do wonder however, what the young folks are going to do when they age a little and presbyopia kicks in. At that point, even the PeeWee Herman smartphones of today will be kinda small for them.

Comment Re: "clear" is an exaggeration (Score 1) 127

All the hams I spoke with this evening are wondering why you find it difficult to copy. No kidding. We seem to have trained our ears on the analog radios over marginal paths.

It is a training thing. I am pretty deaf, with two separate tinnitus tones, what does get to my brain sounds like a cracked speaker, and tremendous loss above 2 KHz, yet I am able to hear a lot of transmissions that inexperienced people with good hearing cannot. This is proven time and again when contesting with a noob helper.

The issue I find with low bandwidth signals is that they cause fatigue over time. It's like when I wear a hearing aid. After 20 minutes, I'm ready to scream - This is likely because people with my issue have trouble separating the intelligence from the noise.

Comment Re:Close (Score 1) 127

Lots of people ask about this. If we did pure speech-to-text and text-to-speech, it would take about half the bandwidth but everybody would have the same synthesized voice. Once you start trying to add parameters to the synthesized voice such as pitch, speed, and tonality, those take as much bandwidth as we are using for the entire codec, because they are essentially the same parameters.

Doesn't Motorola have a low bandwidth FM mode using phonemes? I've listened to a few radios using something like that, and they are pretty unpleasant to use.

Comment Re:More than just low storage (Score 1) 127

It is a testament to the amateur radio pioneers of the past that an analog radio transmission mode invented over a hundred years ago is, just now, being possibly rivaled in its efficiency.

And there is a reason why Single Sideband will still be used for a long time to come.

A weak or noisy SSB signal can still be copied and understood. The digital encodings have a fatal flaw. It is known as the "digital cliff". If it doesn't decode properly, or if you have a weak or noisy signal, you get silence.

So the net effect is a quiet signal of significantly less range. In addition, most digital encoding schemes don't really save any bandwidth.

This encoding appears to try to work around that issue by guessing at missing bits and placing the guess' in the stream. So I suspect that some extra range will be gained before it drops off. A big question will be if this gain is achieved at the expense of a now noisy signal, where the noise is purposely injected by the codec. In the real world, will this injection end make for illegible signals? Dunno - I'll probably try some of this using FreeDV before being too tough on it.

This isn't to say people shouldn't try. But as you note, the gold standard SSB isn't in any danger yet. On my radio I can knock the Sideband Bandwidth to around 2 KHz and even less, so the 3 KHz standard they are aiming for is kind of a moving target.

Comment Re:Wat? (Score 1) 111

That's racist.

Ah, a term used so much it is like saying "Scotch tape" or Xerox copy.

Well no it isn't but language such as that is a sign of upbringing and local colloquial language rather than a sign of intelligence or how much someone knows about a field.

But feel free to bias based on language rather than on fact.

Aren't you doing the exact same thing as you accuse me of doing? And facts are good, and highly indicated in this discussion. I approve. But "Fuckwittery" is rather difficualt to prove as a fact. "fuckwittery" tells us about the person claiming it though.

Now I don't know about you, but if I'm trying to convince people that something is safe when someone else says it isn't, I'll probably use explanatory terms, and not call those folks who said it wasn't safe "fuckwits". We all in our careers and elsewhere get questioned on our veracity occasionally. I just had that happen in the case of a competitive event I administer. My response? Exceptional pleasantness, and so much referencable, provable, and 100 percent correct data that my accuser eventually says, "No more - Please! I was wrong."

Me calling him a fuckwit? Yes the guy was indeed being one - not only doesn't make my case, but having much experience with humans, name calling is usually the sign of a bully, or someone who even has something to hide, so they try the intimidation route. Red flags go up and alarm bells go off. And me calling him gains sympathy for the accuser. In the meantime, after I proved with no questionable he no longer doubts my veracity, and knows what will happen if he were ever to question it again. Which is all to say that he won't ever question my honesty. And all of the folks sitting on the sidelines see it as well.

A lot of us swear. I do, I have no doubt that you do. But I know when a little spice is needed, and when to use the big words, and when to drop the big words and tame the shop talk down a little. Profanity is for sitting around the bar, telling jokes, and so seldom in intelligent discourse, that it's use is contraindicated almost always.

But then again, I'm probably a fuckwit, amiright?

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 110

I've seen that list so there's an easy example to give you.


So an anti-nuclear group came up with some assumptions that make nuclear energy look bad. News at 11.

This is an example of what I'm talking about... this "subsidy" is actually not a payment to any fossil fuel producer or user.

Another one...

You could have stopped at "anti nuclear" and that'ts all you needed to say. Here is your problem. The moment you utter or write that phrase, most people just stop listening. You and your ilk have a lot to do with that, as the simultaneous nuclear is hte safest" the fine images and video of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and teh condescending attitude that anyone against or even ambivalent about nuclear poer is a stuid asshole just make folks thing "Bitch, please!" How's that workin' out for ya'all?

Slashdot Top Deals

"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"