Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not equivelent (Score 1) 212

the iPhone 7 Plus is expected to be the main model benefitting from this transition.

So when they say they're switching to the iPhone 7, they're really saying they're switching from Android to iPhone. The iPhone 7 Plus (5.5" screen) is only a little smaller than the Galaxy Note 7 (5.7" screen), and larger than the Galaxy 7 (5.1" screen).

Comment Re:A little perspective (Score 1) 435

The Electoral College isn't particularly helping Clinton here. If anything, it's probably going to end up helping Trump in that it skews political power *toward* less populous states. For example, Wyoming will go to Trump. While Wyoming accounts for only .6% of the electoral vote, but if it were a popular vote, it would account for less than .2% of the popular vote. (Pretty sure my math there is right, but admittedly I just googled some numbers and plugged them into a calculator)

The Electoral College was designed to prevent populous areas from exerting too much control over the federal government, and given that populous areas tend to be more liberal, it usually works in favor of the Republicans.

Comment Re:yayo (Score 1) 689

until they can figure out why Donald Trump sniff's constantly when he's talking.

I can think of a few possibilities:

a) As you suggested, he's doing cocaine.
b) It's not cocaine, but Trump actually gets off on snorting the ashes of your dead grandmother.
c) He has Parkinson's, but is going to claim it's pneumonia.
d) He's trying to hold back the tears because mean old Hillary hurt his feelings.

Comment Re:How is this news? (Score 1) 269

The real reason? Simple: people are lazy as shit. If you give them a chance to slack off, they will.

I don't agree that people are lazy, but you are pointing out one potential problem with telecommuting.

A potential problem with having a Slashdot discussion is that you're generally talking to a bunch of programmers. In this case, this is a problem because you're talking to people who are used to having a particular kind of job, where it's relatively easy to measure output. I wouldn't generally have a problem with programmers telecommuting because what I care about is their output, and you can assess whether they're doing what they're supposed to by looking at the quality and quantity of their output.

But there are different kinds of jobs. With some jobs, there's not a real "output" that you can look at. They aren't building something where you can look at the results and say, "If this is well made, then this person did a good job." The job might have deliverables that can't easily be produced remotely, or the job's purpose might have completely different dynamics. To give a really simple example, it doesn't make sense for a McDonalds worker to telecommute.

I've managed a few helpdesks over the years, and I generally don't like people telecommuting for that purpose. One reason is that I need to make sure there's coverage at any given time, and it much harder to gauge who's actually available when if they're not physically present. Another is that it really helps to be able to see who's frustrated, who's struggling. I can overhear what's going on, and just as important, the technicians can overhear what's going on. They can hear how others are handling their calls. They can pick up good habits from each other, and they can hear when someone is struggling and say, "Hey, let me help you with that." Sure, I could try to use metrics and base people's performance on number of cases closed per week, or customer satisfaction surveys. Anyone worth their salt knows that, at best, those metrics don't tell the full story.

Meetings are also more problematic with telecommuters. Things like Google Hangouts seem like they'd take care of it, but you end up wasting a bunch of time because someone is having webcams issues, or you can't hear people very well and people have to repeat themselves. If you can just get away with text chats, I find that actually works better, but that doesn't work for all communications. Sometimes a quick in-person chat is really so much easier and more effective.

Comment Re:The real reason (Score 1) 269

Companies pay people for being at their desk 8 yours a day

Sometimes that's reasonable. It depends on the job, but I've managed IT support staff, and yes, some of them are being paid to be at their desk during certain hours. Essentially, they're being paid to be available and answer phones, so that when users call in, someone is there, ready, available to help. It's really important, then, that they're there for the exact hours they're supposed to be.

Comment Re:Managers like to stalk (Score 1) 269

You make it sound like a bad thing, but there's something that many good managers do that it's bad: walk around and get a feel for how things are going.

It's not about spying on people. It's not necessarily about catching people slacking off, though sometimes that happens. More often then not, it's about helping people. You hear someone getting frustrated, you see someone struggling with something, or you catch the vibe that one group has too much on their plate. As a good manager, you step in and help them find a solution.

More often than not, when I see someone slacking a little, I ignore it. My people work hard, and deserve an occasional break. I'm much more interested in keeping them on the right track, and keeping them from overloading.

Comment Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score 1) 1042

When you see a simulation run in a way you don't want to, what do you do ? You shut it down.

Also, let's assume that we're living in a computer simulation that is in some way comparable to what we think of when we're talking about computer simulations. Like imagine we live in a very advanced version of Grand Theft Auto, and we're all NPCs. Now, we're very advanced NPCs who can think, and we realize we're NPCs.

What sense does it make to try to "break out"? Where do you image you'd go? Do you think that if an AI existed in GTA, it could hack itself out and become a physical person in our reality?

If we're in a simulation, there's no reason to think that we could possibly "break out" into the real world. A more likely benefit would be to learn the rules of the program so that we could hack it for our own purpose-- discovering "cheat codes" that let us alter reality. However, that process of "hacking reality" is essentially the same as what scientists are already doing. You learn the rules of the system you're in, and then try to exploit them to do things you previously couldn't do.

Comment Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score 1) 1042

If it were a simulation, then we would still have no way of knowing the nature of the simulation other than by observing physical laws. If we found some way to manipulating the simulation, then it may well be indistinguishable from discovering a new field of physics. If we were to assume that we're in a simulation, there's no reason to think it operates the way our computers do, and our "hacking" attempts would likely be useless.

If, somehow magically, we found some natural physical phenomenon that we could agree was an artifact of living in a simulation, then *at that point* it would become a topic that may be fruitful to discuss. Until then, it's just stoner philosophy.

Comment Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score 5, Insightful) 1042

And even beyond that, if we are in some way "in a simulation", we have no reason to think that we will be able to detect it, let alone break free of it. If you actually think about it, for any enclosed simulation, the simulation is reality, and there's no opportunity to see beyond that horizon. If the block in a game of Pong became sentient, it would find itself in a 2D world with no gravity, where the laws of physics include conservation of momentum, no friction, and no energy transfer when object collide. There would be no information in these rules of physics that would allow the Pong block to determine whether these physical laws were artifacts of computer programming or the "real" laws of physics. What's more, even if the Pong block were to assume it was in a simulation, there would be no avenue to investigate what the "real" laws of physics are outside of the simulation. Imagining what the "real" laws of physics were might be interesting, but it couldn't be based on anything empirical.

I could see a billionaire having a conversation with a scientist or philosopher, and asking if they can think of any way we could even know whether we were in a simulation-- and that may have been what these conversations were really like. But offering them money to research "breaking out" is pretty stupid.

Comment Re:Acronym collisions! (Score 1) 134

the nato they mentioned are fighting tooth and nail to keep up an antiquated system.

Here's the thing: I don't think it's a completely antiquated system. Some people love theaters, whether it's because they like seeing things on a big screen with good audio and whatnot, or because they actually enjoy the crowd. I don't blame them. I like going to theaters sometimes.

What I think its antiquated is the distribution system that theaters play a role in. Movies go into theaters, and then disappear for several months. Then they come out on DVD, and maybe some streaming services, but at first you can only "buy" the movie, and not rent. Except for some movies, where you can rent but not "buy". And sometimes it's exclusive on one service, or the release is delayed on one service or another. Sometimes it goes to Netflix or HBO at some stage in that mix, and other times not. There's no single combination of services that will give you access to a complete library. It's just a mess, predicated on the idea of manufacturing a constrained supply in order to create exclusivity in order to appease the business interests of whole industries of middle-men and marketers.

As a consumer, I still find it frustrating and stupid. Can we just create a system where I can just pay to watch the things that I want to watch, when and where I want to watch it?

Comment Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it (Score 1) 202

Isn't it odd that a 8 year old Mac is still perfectly fine, but every one that is still being sold is hopelessly antiquated?

I'm not sure what you mean. Is it just a complaint that Apple doesn't always update their hardware often? By your own logic, that complaint makes no sense. If the 8 year old Max is perfectly fine, then the "antiquated" Mac that still has last year's technology should still be perfectly fine.

Here's something that's worth understanding: You can generally tell how long a hardware vendor expects you to keep their equipment in service by how long their longest available warranty is. For most Apple hardware, the longest warranty available is 3 years. For mobile devices, it's 2. Dell's default warranty, for example, is also 3 years, but they'll sell you an upgrade for 5. Dell's signaling that they expect you to get a new computer every 3-5 years, while Apple is signaling that you should be upgrading every 3 years or so.

Now obviously you don't *have to* upgrade that often. Apple still supports older devices with their software releases, but obviously certain kinds of support start dying off after that time. The first thing that happens is that the warranty is over, so they won't fix it for free. After that, they may fix it for an extra fee, but eventually that goes away, and they simply refuse to even try to fix it. That often happens around the time they stop manufacturing replacement parts.

But eventually, everyone discontinues support for everything. If you can get Windows 10 installed on your 8 year old Dell workstation, Dell isn't going to stop you. At the same time, Dell isn't going to go through any trouble to help you do it. It's the same thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.