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:8% (Score 1) 80

it's kind of amazing how they managed to do that and not have anyone tell them that their ideas were stupid

I have no doubt that plenty of people have told them exactly that. It would not surprise me to learn that they fired anyone who did so, though.

If Twitter were an engineering-driven company, they wouldn't be lousy with SJWs.


Comment Re:It's not the FWD that are the real problem (Score 5, Insightful) 61

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:Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 1) 38

Yeah, yeah. That's what the word means. But since it was fashionably inserted into discussions among actual photographers, it's been used in the context of discussing the quality of the blue, not the existence of the blur. It's useful - it's a succinct word that conveys that specific meaning. Trying, here, to preserve that clarity (if you'll pardon the pun) instead of letting it dumb down like so many other terms do.

Comment Re: Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1) 291

If you dig into this deeply enough, you'll see the utility very likely contributed a great deal of money to one or more elected officials responsible for approving such behavior.

Find who it is. Vote them out. Doesn't matter if there's a D or an R (or even an I) in front of their name. Vote the fuckers out. Corruption is what allows such things. Companies who deal in it are symptoms of the problem but not the problem itself. Blaming the company for gaming the system is like blaming bacteria for rapidly growing in a nutrient-rich solution. Find the corrupt bastard who's feeding the colony and cut them out of the situation. Every will self-correct afterwards.

Comment Re: Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1) 291

But that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to stop polluting.

Please, find me someone who's desperately screaming "yes, I want polluted air, land, and water! I want to see wildlife drowning in crude oil! I want barren deserts instead of forests! I want the seas to rise and inundate the coasts! I want weather Armageddon!"

No reasonable person is opposing curbs on pollution. That is a strawman. Reasonable people ARE, however, opposing needless, pointless, EXPENSIVE curbs that do little or nothing to improve things but do much to line the pockets of "climate change" proponents like Al Gore and his "carbon credits" crowd.

Comment Re: Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 2) 291

We need ALL NATIONS to drop their emissions TOGETHER.

And that's the humorous part. When it's the UN clamoring for the US to cut emissions, everybody's piling on the bandwagon saying it's a good idea, no a GREAT idea!

When they're asked to curb their own emissions, suddenly it's a really, really bad idea.

It's almost like it's not about climate change or emissions or anything real and only about taking the US economy down several pegs so other nations can take advantage of it.

Nah, that's just crazy talk.

Comment Re:Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 2) 291

Never forget, in years where hurricane activity is low, we hear "weather isn't climate! It doesn't mean anything!" Yet in years with lots of hurricane activity "see? See? SEE? We told you global warming is real! This proves it!"

If it rains too little it's due to climate change. If it rains too much it's due to climate change. If it rains just right "we told you weather isn't climate! It means nothing!"

You can't have it both ways guys. Obviously doesn't stop you from trying though.

Comment Re:Goodbye Discounted Internet Access (Score 1) 105

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) 105

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) 105

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) 105

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.

Comment Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 4, Interesting) 38

'Bokeh' is used when referring to the quality of the out-of-focus background (or foreground) of the image, not the fact that it is out of focus. Shallow depth of field images have blurry elements. By definition. But different lenses render that OoF area differently. Some lenses have a jittery, doubled-up, or ring-like pattern, or render OoF highlights as oblong smears or as hard circles. It just depends on the lens design. So when we talk about this, it's about the quality, not the quantity or existence of blurred areas.

Think of it like this: every lens of a given format, focal length and aperture will produce essentially the same mount of OoF areas. It's just physics. The focal plane is where it is, and the meaningfully in-focus area (say, on the subject's face) is going to be a given depth (for a given display size and resolution). Period.

But that's like saying all pianos can play a middle C note. They can. But some sound twangy or harsh, while others sound more pleasing to the ear. Likewise with the OoF rendering by some lenses. With the piano we can say "it plays middle C, but the tone is harsh" - and with the camera, we can say that the lens when wide open can render shallow DoF and thus blur the background, but the bokeh is harsh (or, creamy, or busy, or smooth - whatever... it's the "tone," the visual quality of the blur rendering, generally considered to be more appealing the more creamy it is - though sometimes harsh, nervous bokeh is desireable for certain cinematic moods, etc).

Sorry, pet peeve. "Shallow depth of field" doesn't mean "has bokeh." That's like saying the car's suspension has ride. All cars do! But what's the quality of the ride? More like a sports car, or a limo? Better bokeh usually comes from much higher quality glass, and more of it in the design of the lens. Big, fat, fast prime portrait lenses are built - among other things - to play that visual note more elegantly than cheaper lenses do, even though they both hit the note when told do if they can achieve the same aperture at a given focal length.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie