There is a trade-off for this wireless charging method, which will add weight and bulk, which could had been used to add a camera, or a weapon or something else.
Yea but these are the experts teaching him. Not his kid. It doesn't matter if you more qualified by a factor of 10 to explain this to him, you are still the kid who had their face covered with Cheerios vs just eating them.
I have had my data trying to warn me about the dangers of "Big Data" because there was a guy on Fox News talking about it. And he told this to me a day after I was finding statistical trends across a multi-million row data sets. He think I fix computers for a living.
You know what, I expect no one really cares. This Slashdot outrage is only because they probably just realize that bezelfree is now a thing, so they are now hating something just so they feel like they are an expert on it. I personally like having more viewable screen per size. My works on-call phone is an iPhone SE. the usable screen is so tiny and so much black space seems like such a waist.
You are assuming the product is popular enough to get so much interest. Most software is designed to fix a particular problem. Perhaps only a hundred people will ever use it. Such programs you state will not get money, or interest.
You analogy has a flaw in it. If I could take this cake that I bought at the baker then copy it a billion of times, and give everyone that same cake. The Baker would be out of business, because supply has breached demand. The bakers only saving grace, may be to have to make a different style of cake every time.
Microsoft business model of the time was to sell packaged software. Open Source was a risk at the time, because it offered alternatives. However it has changed to Cloud and software as a service, So people will be paying monthly fees and Open Source isn't as much a threat.
There is a cost to "Plundering" an MIT or BSD licensed product. In general you begin creating a fork in the product, that only you will be able to maintain and control. So a 20 year old bug, that got fixed 18 years ago, will not make it into your product, because you swiped and altered the code around it for your product. However if they keep the code clean, and will support the mainline development, then it is actually a win-win. The problem with businesses and the GPL, is for them to be profitable, they need skirt the edge of the GPL rules, and often try fit into the different exceptions. Or other then trying so hard, we just say no GPL, but MIT and BSD is Ok.
Sometime you need to allow people to do bad things, to keep the door open for good things as well.
Yes, but for the people who pay you for it, what do they get out of the deal? The current successful open source profit models falls under a few categories. 1. Time Computing/Remote Hosted/Software as a service/Cloud: The software is free for you to install. However there is a service that already uses that has a huge infrastructure behind it, already configured for your needs. You could download the application and install it, mess with the source, but for it to be useful you are going to need to invest in millions of dollars of computers. Or just pay us a modest monthly fee. 2. Consulting services: This product is so hard to use that you should have a team of experienced engineers to help configure it and maintain it for you. Good luck getting that IT Guy in your office to get past the installation. 3. Service Contracts: Pay us a full time developer fee and we will take your problems and special needs into consideration, and give you 4 hours a month of services, where if your problem is deemed worthy to be fixed it can be. 4. Our business needs the software but it isn't in our business model. We hire a developer to work on the product that keeps our business alive, however because it isn't in our business model, we might as well open source it, and see if we can also get some other people to fix it for free. 5. You like this software then buy this hardware. Look at all the cool features such software has. Too bad it only works with a particular hardware. The source is open so you "can" change it. But who has the time. Just buy our hardware and the software is installed in its optimal state.
For Open Source Software to be monetized, that normally means for it to be profitable it will need to be crippled in some way. Either requiring expensive equipment, or just hard to use. Sure there are some project that will get donations and grants for funding, where they make easy to use powerful software that works on normal hardware, however those are the exceptions. Because not all projects can be a Linux or an Apache.
The issue isn’t technical but cultural. Nuclear energy needs community support and a plan for maintenance lasting thousands of years. With half the population wanting more of them without regulations the other half wants to take them off line. We get a dangerous mixture where such plants are not adequately being supported and maintained.
A lot of the “fun” came from the fact that 3d shoot’m ups was a new gaming experience. A game like the original Doom wouldn’t fly today because the gameplay is so primitive and limited.
Most games have a lot of details that Doom never had. Even back then an Older EGA game like Kings Quest IV took about as much space but every static screen was much more detailed. Doom has a few dozen bitmapped images that were just scaled in size to create the effect. Most of the work was CPU driven vs storage driven.
I live in Upstate NY. Back in its time, it was considered the Center of the Industrial Revolution, the Silicon Valley of its time. It rode the train for as long as it could, and did little to expand its economy so a hundred years later, they are rundown cities and towns, which show the reminiscence of its glory days, slowly decaying.
When we moved away from industry as our primary economic driver the Cities were full with people unable to adapt to the changing economy, The workers were trained to be factory workers, not desk workers on the phone. The schools were setup to teach kids how to follow instructions not creative problem solving. Unions and social safety nets are based on factory type of conditions where disability claims are more socially understood, while other forms of social security are considered as just being lazy.
You can go to some of the remote areas of the US. And be able to find talent which is just as good if not better then what you can find in SV. It isn't like it was 40 years ago, where talent had to be localized to particular areas. People are interconnected and talent can be anywhere.
Those are the old fashion ones. The thing is a lot of "secure" emails require you to click the link on the email, go to a secure site and read the email from the site. Outlook does this, as well as other options. This habit makes it easy to click on the link to see the secure email.
The real problem is Email isn't secure, it is too easy to fool and spoof. It was an idea of well intention idealist, expecting only small scale usage.
Oh it does exist. The problem is that it is wrapped in often a complex set of explanations, that makes it difficult for a computer to figure out if it is hate speech or just a deep explanation of the problem. The core of the problem is people spend way too much time and effort to validate being cruel to other people. Discrimination and Hate speech compared to explaining racial and cultural difference often difficult. Usually the key difference is the result of the premise, which is this is why X groups is better then Y group and why X group should be getting special privileges or Y group is getting too much special privileged
I would like windows 10 with a light theme. 1. Older Apps were designed for a lighter themed UI, so they look out of place. 2. I am already in a room with no windows, I want some light. 3. There is less glow of the text making seem bury.
A Proper education needs Humanities and STEM. I went to college before STEM was a thing, it was just Computer Science, which was part of the Math and Physics department. But that is what I saw. For my "STEM" Major I needed to take courses including 200 level Humanity classes. Covering History, Literature, Politics, Arts, Sociology, Philosophy and Psychology. The college wisely determined that Technology Majors should have a diverse education. However humanity majors needed to retake High school Algebra if they didn't already have taken it. And a class in "Science" which was a humanity like class explaining science. This really gave them a disservice in their education. However the argument seemed to go like this. Them: Not everyone is good at Math and Science so they shouldn't have to take these classes which will only hurt their GPA. Me: I am not good at Humanity classes, and they are hurting my GPA, why can't I skip them? Them: Because these classes are valuable to education. Me: Isn't Math and Science valuale to education Them: Yes, but not a lot of people are good at it.
Realizing there needs to be a balance and it isn't all or nothing, will help you understand this. Too many police in cars or placed in a way isolating themselves themselves from the public. Their is too much police hunting down the bad guys, and not enough serve and protect where they are patrolling the streets talking to the people.
Second why are you connecting minorities with criminals?
The problem is all their training, has taught the police to front line infantry and not police. They are all about catching the bad guys vs making the place safe for the population.
There really should more cops outside of cars and helicopters just walking the streets, knowing the people and the culture. Not a force to fight it. Yes there are dangerous elements such a gangs, and bad guys who seem to actively want to make the area a dangerous place who need to be dealt with with force. And they should have the rights to be safe.
However the main argument against these reforms, is that police will second guess their instincts putting themselves in danger, or letting the bad guy get away. However I think we as a culture should say our freedoms is worth the risks, of bad guys getting away and some people may be hurt.
I think you are confusing Socialism with Communism.
It is an easy mistake to make, because most people are ignorant idiots. Socialism is in free market economies with democracy. However there are more regulations and wider government funding for public good initiatives. While Communism is the government having direct control of everyone's lives.
The thing I have found is that Humanities attracted the wrong type of students. I always though that Humanities should require up to 200 level of Math and Sciences, Just as STEM Majors are required to have up to 200 levels in Humanities. The fact that humanities are so weak in Math and Science, they attract students who are actively avoiding math and science classes. Academics who are avoiding learning material because they don't do well in the test, doesn't create good academics. If these people decide to join the workforce, it isn't their lack of Math or science skills but their lack of interest in taking on something because it is hard.
Supply vs Demand. In the broad scale (they are exceptions) how much a person gets paid, isn't how hard they work, how smart they are, or how good of a person they are. It is based on the number of people with such skill sets and how many other people want these people with the skill sets.
So if you are working at a fast food place. If you are a Hard Worker, you may get a raise because the supply of hard workers at a fast food place is lower however it is something people want. But it will reach a point, you will not be multi-millionar fast food clerk because you are such a hard worker. Because you are not needed that much. For tech employees, there are skills which are harder to find, Back in the 1970's they were much harder to find, by the 1990's they were in high demand. But with the tech bubble back in the late 1990's tech workers became in over supply. When the bubble popped their salaries plummeted, and slowly recovered.
Check out Slashdot history, back when it started we see people making comments that they will not accept any job less then 6 figures. Then around 2002-2012 we are hearing about people who were just pushing 50k and leaving tech.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a trade-off for this wireless charging method, which will add weight and bulk, which could had been used to add a camera, or a weapon or something else.
Yea but these are the experts teaching him. Not his kid.
It doesn't matter if you more qualified by a factor of 10 to explain this to him, you are still the kid who had their face covered with Cheerios vs just eating them.
I have had my data trying to warn me about the dangers of "Big Data" because there was a guy on Fox News talking about it. And he told this to me a day after I was finding statistical trends across a multi-million row data sets. He think I fix computers for a living.
You know what, I expect no one really cares. This Slashdot outrage is only because they probably just realize that bezelfree is now a thing, so they are now hating something just so they feel like they are an expert on it.
I personally like having more viewable screen per size.
My works on-call phone is an iPhone SE. the usable screen is so tiny and so much black space seems like such a waist.
You are assuming the product is popular enough to get so much interest.
Most software is designed to fix a particular problem. Perhaps only a hundred people will ever use it. Such programs you state will not get money, or interest.
You analogy has a flaw in it. If I could take this cake that I bought at the baker then copy it a billion of times, and give everyone that same cake. The Baker would be out of business, because supply has breached demand. The bakers only saving grace, may be to have to make a different style of cake every time.
Microsoft business model of the time was to sell packaged software. Open Source was a risk at the time, because it offered alternatives. However it has changed to Cloud and software as a service, So people will be paying monthly fees and Open Source isn't as much a threat.
There is a cost to "Plundering" an MIT or BSD licensed product. In general you begin creating a fork in the product, that only you will be able to maintain and control. So a 20 year old bug, that got fixed 18 years ago, will not make it into your product, because you swiped and altered the code around it for your product.
However if they keep the code clean, and will support the mainline development, then it is actually a win-win.
The problem with businesses and the GPL, is for them to be profitable, they need skirt the edge of the GPL rules, and often try fit into the different exceptions. Or other then trying so hard, we just say no GPL, but MIT and BSD is Ok.
Sometime you need to allow people to do bad things, to keep the door open for good things as well.
Yes, but for the people who pay you for it, what do they get out of the deal?
The current successful open source profit models falls under a few categories.
1. Time Computing/Remote Hosted/Software as a service/Cloud: The software is free for you to install. However there is a service that already uses that has a huge infrastructure behind it, already configured for your needs. You could download the application and install it, mess with the source, but for it to be useful you are going to need to invest in millions of dollars of computers. Or just pay us a modest monthly fee.
2. Consulting services: This product is so hard to use that you should have a team of experienced engineers to help configure it and maintain it for you. Good luck getting that IT Guy in your office to get past the installation.
3. Service Contracts: Pay us a full time developer fee and we will take your problems and special needs into consideration, and give you 4 hours a month of services, where if your problem is deemed worthy to be fixed it can be.
4. Our business needs the software but it isn't in our business model. We hire a developer to work on the product that keeps our business alive, however because it isn't in our business model, we might as well open source it, and see if we can also get some other people to fix it for free.
5. You like this software then buy this hardware. Look at all the cool features such software has. Too bad it only works with a particular hardware. The source is open so you "can" change it. But who has the time. Just buy our hardware and the software is installed in its optimal state.
For Open Source Software to be monetized, that normally means for it to be profitable it will need to be crippled in some way. Either requiring expensive equipment, or just hard to use. Sure there are some project that will get donations and grants for funding, where they make easy to use powerful software that works on normal hardware, however those are the exceptions. Because not all projects can be a Linux or an Apache.
The issue isn’t technical but cultural.
Nuclear energy needs community support and a plan for maintenance lasting thousands of years.
With half the population wanting more of them without regulations the other half wants to take them off line. We get a dangerous mixture where such plants are not adequately being supported and maintained.
A lot of the “fun” came from the fact that 3d shoot’m ups was a new gaming experience.
A game like the original Doom wouldn’t fly today because the gameplay is so primitive and limited.
Because you haven’t upgraded you slashdot experience.
Most games have a lot of details that Doom never had. Even back then an Older EGA game like Kings Quest IV took about as much space but every static screen was much more detailed. Doom has a few dozen bitmapped images that were just scaled in size to create the effect. Most of the work was CPU driven vs storage driven.
I live in Upstate NY. Back in its time, it was considered the Center of the Industrial Revolution, the Silicon Valley of its time. It rode the train for as long as it could, and did little to expand its economy so a hundred years later, they are rundown cities and towns, which show the reminiscence of its glory days, slowly decaying.
When we moved away from industry as our primary economic driver the Cities were full with people unable to adapt to the changing economy, The workers were trained to be factory workers, not desk workers on the phone. The schools were setup to teach kids how to follow instructions not creative problem solving. Unions and social safety nets are based on factory type of conditions where disability claims are more socially understood, while other forms of social security are considered as just being lazy.
Sounds like hell. Which I think is the point. If you have an environment filled with like minded people then how do you expect to innovate?
You can go to some of the remote areas of the US. And be able to find talent which is just as good if not better then what you can find in SV.
It isn't like it was 40 years ago, where talent had to be localized to particular areas. People are interconnected and talent can be anywhere.
Those are the old fashion ones. The thing is a lot of "secure" emails require you to click the link on the email, go to a secure site and read the email from the site. Outlook does this, as well as other options.
This habit makes it easy to click on the link to see the secure email.
The real problem is Email isn't secure, it is too easy to fool and spoof. It was an idea of well intention idealist, expecting only small scale usage.
Oh it does exist. The problem is that it is wrapped in often a complex set of explanations, that makes it difficult for a computer to figure out if it is hate speech or just a deep explanation of the problem.
The core of the problem is people spend way too much time and effort to validate being cruel to other people. Discrimination and Hate speech compared to explaining racial and cultural difference often difficult.
Usually the key difference is the result of the premise, which is this is why X groups is better then Y group and why X group should be getting special privileges or Y group is getting too much special privileged
I would like windows 10 with a light theme.
1. Older Apps were designed for a lighter themed UI, so they look out of place.
2. I am already in a room with no windows, I want some light.
3. There is less glow of the text making seem bury.
A Proper education needs Humanities and STEM.
I went to college before STEM was a thing, it was just Computer Science, which was part of the Math and Physics department.
But that is what I saw. For my "STEM" Major I needed to take courses including 200 level Humanity classes. Covering History, Literature, Politics, Arts, Sociology, Philosophy and Psychology. The college wisely determined that Technology Majors should have a diverse education.
However humanity majors needed to retake High school Algebra if they didn't already have taken it. And a class in "Science" which was a humanity like class explaining science. This really gave them a disservice in their education.
However the argument seemed to go like this.
Them: Not everyone is good at Math and Science so they shouldn't have to take these classes which will only hurt their GPA.
Me: I am not good at Humanity classes, and they are hurting my GPA, why can't I skip them?
Them: Because these classes are valuable to education.
Me: Isn't Math and Science valuale to education
Them: Yes, but not a lot of people are good at it.
Realizing there needs to be a balance and it isn't all or nothing, will help you understand this.
Too many police in cars or placed in a way isolating themselves themselves from the public. Their is too much police hunting down the bad guys, and not enough serve and protect where they are patrolling the streets talking to the people.
Second why are you connecting minorities with criminals?
The problem is all their training, has taught the police to front line infantry and not police.
They are all about catching the bad guys vs making the place safe for the population.
There really should more cops outside of cars and helicopters just walking the streets, knowing the people and the culture. Not a force to fight it. Yes there are dangerous elements such a gangs, and bad guys who seem to actively want to make the area a dangerous place who need to be dealt with with force. And they should have the rights to be safe.
However the main argument against these reforms, is that police will second guess their instincts putting themselves in danger, or letting the bad guy get away. However I think we as a culture should say our freedoms is worth the risks, of bad guys getting away and some people may be hurt.
I think you are confusing Socialism with Communism.
It is an easy mistake to make, because most people are ignorant idiots.
Socialism is in free market economies with democracy. However there are more regulations and wider government funding for public good initiatives.
While Communism is the government having direct control of everyone's lives.
The thing I have found is that Humanities attracted the wrong type of students.
I always though that Humanities should require up to 200 level of Math and Sciences, Just as STEM Majors are required to have up to 200 levels in Humanities. The fact that humanities are so weak in Math and Science, they attract students who are actively avoiding math and science classes. Academics who are avoiding learning material because they don't do well in the test, doesn't create good academics. If these people decide to join the workforce, it isn't their lack of Math or science skills but their lack of interest in taking on something because it is hard.
It probably still is cheaper to mine cryptocurrency or scam people out of them then to hack it.
Supply vs Demand.
In the broad scale (they are exceptions) how much a person gets paid, isn't how hard they work, how smart they are, or how good of a person they are.
It is based on the number of people with such skill sets and how many other people want these people with the skill sets.
So if you are working at a fast food place. If you are a Hard Worker, you may get a raise because the supply of hard workers at a fast food place is lower however it is something people want. But it will reach a point, you will not be multi-millionar fast food clerk because you are such a hard worker. Because you are not needed that much.
For tech employees, there are skills which are harder to find, Back in the 1970's they were much harder to find, by the 1990's they were in high demand. But with the tech bubble back in the late 1990's tech workers became in over supply. When the bubble popped their salaries plummeted, and slowly recovered.
Check out Slashdot history, back when it started we see people making comments that they will not accept any job less then 6 figures. Then around 2002-2012 we are hearing about people who were just pushing 50k and leaving tech.