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. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Good way to eliminate a ton of jobs... (Score 1) 28

You know what ALWAYS comes after a merger? Massive lay-offs. There's no reason to merge two companies if they have just as high costs as when they were operating separately, so eliminating now-redundant jobs is the key reason mergers happen. Approving that is going to make Trump look very, very bad.

The merger was always an idiotic idea... Sprint and T-Mobile have no technology in common, nor do their services complement each other in ANY way... Nearly all the company's towers are deployed in proximity to the other's, so they're redundant and most would just have to go. At best, it would be like the MetroPCS buyout... T-Mobile would be buying the brand, stores, and customers, telling them all they need to replace their phones in short order, and shutting off the foreign network they don't want or need to bother maintaining. It really only serves as a legal way to kill-off a competitor.

Of course Sprint just LOVES idiotic ideas. Nextel, WiMax, Clearwire, Tidal, etc. The more obviously idiot the idea, the quicker Sprint is going to jump at it, so they can start burning money even faster.

They clearly think a merger with T-Mobile is a foregone conclusion, because they've completely given-up on improving their network. They announce upgrades, then cut the budget to not just a fraction of what they need to catch-up, but a fraction of what is needed to just maintain parity and avoid falling further behind their competitors. So Sprint's network keeps getting slower and slower.

Some people have been saying it looks like SoftBank is spinning all their valuable assets off to subsidiaries that they control, but which aren't under Sprint, so as the company fails from the lack of investment, the other investors will get nothing, while SoftBank gets to keep or sell-off everything of value. But I believe it's just more of a delaying strategy... Keep Sprint limping along, but perpetually on the edge of failure, in hopes regulators will fear a (too big to fail) bankruptcy, and go along with a merger no matter how bad it looks for every one of the stakeholders involved.

SoftBank made an idiotic investment. Sprint is worth rescuing, but they aren't interested or particularly capable of doing it. They deserve to lose their shirt. Then sell the company to somebody who's actually going to try to build it back up into a viable and competitive cellular carrier again.

Comment Re:Ajit Pai sez... (Score 1) 209

Except he's 100% correct that such an order would exceed the authority of the FCC. Congress could do it, but the FCC cannot. And you should be THANKFUL for that fact, otherwise ATSC/HDTV tuners would all implement the "broadcast flag" and DVRs would be all but illegal. How soon we forget.

Comment Re:Probably should have focused more (Score 1) 319

Mozilla refused to support h.264 for years - even after it was clear that standard had won the web streaming format war.

H.264 won because Apple belligerently refuse to even ALLOW WebM add-ons in its products. Having Firefox as a stubborn opponent, rather than pragmatically giving-in every time there's the slightest pressure to do so, is immensely useful, and simply the right thing for the public, even if users are briefly inconvenienced.

Comment Re:What kind of story... (Score 4, Insightful) 183

What..the fuck kind of news for nerds is this gossipy whining?

This site hasn't called itself "News for Nerds" in quite a few years now. Just look around and try to find that tag-line... It's long gone.

It's been one non-stop decline ever since the "Politics" section was created. First Sourceforge, then Dice, and now BizX have had no interest in the site's origins or credibility, and are only interested in the large audience they can abuse to drive-up ad impressions. Even clicking through to complain about what a shithole this place has become, is PROFIT for them, so they will keep it up. The trolls are profit, the paid shills are profit, the flood of crap on the front-page that has people yelling at their screen is profit for them. And that's the only thing they care about.

Sure the audience has continued declining, sure this place is a joke, sure in the long-term it's an increasingly less valuable property for the change, but they're going to cash-out as much as they can, as soon as they can, and not worry one bit about the smoldering ruin that's left.

Comment Re:Never give a number (Score 1) 435

People like you are EXACTLY why I refuse to disclose my salary.

Just because you're paying $10k more than my current position, you think I'll jump at the chance, even though it's twice as much work, in a much higher-rent area, etc, etc. So much so, that many companies won't be bothered even spending five minutes explaining the job better than the vague listing.

Or because you're paying $10k less, you think there's no way I'll take the job, and not bother explaining how nice a work environment it is, how many perks there are, opportunities for personal and professional growth, etc.

There's no reason I should have to explain my last salary to you. It has no affect on how valuable I will be to your company. You're a fool to believe it gives you useful information in the first place. If I was less honest, I'd just lie about it, since you can't reliably verify it (and I've never seen anybody even try). That's what many companies are doing, ensuring you only ever hire liars for all positions. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Even worse are the companies who cap annual raises at 3%. That ensures even the best performers only break-even vs inflation, while everyone else is getting annual pay cuts... A great way to send turnover through the roof, and your company into a sinking ship.

Comment Re:Accounting (Score 1) 92

Specifically, Google Fiber is not a loss. Accountants put it on the books as a loss, but it's not. It's just an expensive investment in physical plant with a long payoff period. It may takes years, even decades, but it's not like people are going to stop using this new-fangled thing called the Internet.

I've canceled my cable internet and switched to cellular. I have FIOS in my area, too, but there's more competition in cellular, so us lighter users (not streaming Netflix) can get a better deal. It shouldn't be this way... DSL used to be dirt cheap, and some cable companies even had $15/mo plans, but reduced regulation in the US over many years has eliminated those cheaper options across most of the country. They've held the line better on cellular competition, but I'm concerned that won't last much longer, either.

In any case, Google Fiber isn't an internet monopoly ANYWHERE it operates. Saying it's guaranteed to profit is idiotic... There are always a half dozen competitors around who can undercut Google and steal their fiber customers. Your underpants gnome understanding of economics falls short. When you've got a few million to waste, build your own ISP and get back to us.

Even while people are cord cutting their cable TV, a smaller number are cutting their internet service, too:


Comment Re:That is *terrible* news (Score 1) 364

So what this stat means is that it takes 110x more people to generate each kWh of electricity with solar than with fossil fuels. If anything, this is an excellent argument for not using solar to generate electricity.

Not at all. You're only ASSUMING that the additional jobs equates to significantly more expense. But you don't have to make that logical leap... we have actual price figures allowing direct comparison, which show that not to be the case.

So we have cheap electricity that generates many more jobs. That might mean less profit for the investors, but a net positive for society.

Comment Re:Da faq? (Score 1) 115

I've got a few cameras that require a crappy Internet Explorer only configuration "web" interface

I've seen several that require IE for in-browser AUDIO, but that's all. Every camera I've purchased can do configuration and video with any browser, and you can do audio with native apps on any platform (just not in-browser), going all the way back to Axis cameras just shy of two decades ago.

In fact, it seems ALL network cameras made today support ONVIF, so there's a compatible standard they all support (though maybe not in your browser of choice). There's nothing unreliable about any of them I've used, and I can't even remember user comments anything like that.

I'm completely unwilling to give a camera Internet access and allow it to connect to its vendor's website.

It's true they all OFFER a DDNS option, but you can easily turn that off. And recently a large number of the cheapest cameras require a proprietary phone app for setup, but there are still plenty with web interfaces that setup and work just fine with an incorrect gateway address or firewall rules preventing egress. I just bought a $30 one recently.

I'd much prefer a full Linux under my own control than a black box camera OS that wants an Internet connection and can be controlled by the vendor's website.

They're all Linux under the surface, you just need to look around for instructions on gaining access. Often it's just a one-line change in the firmware image before flashing to enable telnet access, or finding the serial port pins on the board, or similar.

Comment Re:Da faq? (Score 1) 115

I have a few of the Raspberry a+ computers I picked up for 25 bucks apiece and got cameras for at 25 apiece. I stuck them around the outside of my house and installed motion on them giving me a dirt cheap way to monitor the area.

Why in the world would you do that!? You can get WiFi PTZ cameras for as little as $25 on amazon. Pretty good ones are just a bit more, but easily far under your $50 mark.

Comment Re:Burn in... Improvements? (Score 1) 238

how does the TV know the content was originally 1080p24? If you do inverse telecine on stuff which was originally recorded live interlaced you won't get very good results.

It's very easy for a filter to try reassembling fields into frames, then checking if they match, and perhaps outputting the interlaced fields to the next filter unmodified if they do not.

The pulldown pattern of duplicate fields is quite uniform and consistent, with the exception of the occasional edit, so it's obvious after just a few frames if your guess was wrong.

Comment Re:There's a Practical Charging Limit (Score 1) 198

A Gallon of gasoline is estimated to have 33.41 KwH! (A normal gas engine throws a good portion of that energy away as heat.) That gallon of gas is pretty close to what my typical household uses in the entire day for electricity! So to pull down the equivalent of a couple of gallons of gas in 20 minutes is going to take the equivalent power drain of a sub-station transformer.

That's some very bald-faced lying.

You already said that the theoretical energy of a tank of gasoline is mostly wasted, but then you go on to use that same number anyhow, as if EVs must waste just as much energy, for some reason. In fact electric motors and Li-Ion batteries are very efficient, while gasoline engines are very inefficient, so the numbers.

In fact a Tesla Model S battery ranges from 60-100 kWh depending on how much you spend, so your gas tank is only 2-3 gallons of theoretical gasoline, while still transporting you 300 miles.

A 60kWh charge in 20 minutes would be no problem for businesses. It's only 375A@480V (3-phase). Here's what 1200 amp, 3-phase electrical service looks like:
Does that look like a "sub-station transformer" to you?

A typical house doesn't use a 480 volt industrial power feed. You don't want much more current in the hands of consumers.

Why in the world would you need 20 minute charging AT HOME? What kind of emergency would necessitate that? Two people sharing a car, both commuting 100+ miles to work, on different shifts?

Most everyone else plugs-in their car, then GOES TO SLEEP. Who cares whether it charges in 10 minutes, or 10 hours, AT HOME?

Comment Re:Cold weather? (Score 1) 198

Our car batteries get a little cranky w/o either a trickle changer or a battery pad warmer at those temperatures.

Car starter batteries do terribly in cold weather because they are expected to deliver a huge percentage of their power in a few seconds, when cold. An EV will have a huge battery pack, which is only expected to output a small percentage of its available power gradually over the course of your drive.

In short, you'll have less range when the batteries are cold, but they will always work just fine (no start-up problems), and you might even see your range increase while you drive, as the batteries heat-up from being discharged.

And like you said, all cars in cold climates are pluged-in anyhow, so there's really no extra hassle to worry about, and they can be kept in ideal operating temperatures with inexpensive grid power.

Slashdot Top Deals

"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault