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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 322

Accountants look at the operating costs of a retail store as part and parcel of that store's profitability. Locks on doors, anti-theft devices on displays - those security systems and the people who maintain and support them are costs that impact the profitability of the store. Nobody running a real business pretends that the costs of operating that retail store aren't part of that store's profitability picture. Multi-store overhead (like, say, a loss prevention specialist who spends time at all of the stores) is still part of that store's P&L - her salary is charged to multiple accounts, so that each store's bottom line feels that cost.

Comment: Re:The day the music and freedom died. (Score 4, Informative) 125

by jedidiah (#48641393) Attached to: The Beatles, Bob Dylan and the 50-Year Copyright Itch

Mickey Mouse is a trademark.

That's a different kettle of fish. That's the problem with everything getting thrown together as "intellectual property". It muddles together things with very different requirements and considerations.

Abuses and backlash will be inappriately applied.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 322

So inside a retail store are thousands and thousands of tiny little cost centers? Does that mean that the retail store is also thousands and thousands of tiny little profit centers?

Or would a rational person perhaps look at the store as a profit center because it makes money, despite having overhead costs like ... the screws that hold the front door to its hinges? Or is each of those screws a cost center, in your view?

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 0) 322

Unfortunately, security is a cost center, not a profit center. That doesn't sit well with the MBA types.

Nonsense. It only doesn't sit well with the fictional, cartoon-grade MBA types that IT people like to conjure up as straw men. Security IS a profit center, because it's part and parcel of actually doing everything that generates profit. Without it, the profitable activity is impossible, and so it is part of the profit-making activity. Period. Saying it's no is like saying the director of a Sony movie isn't part of their profitable activity of making movies because he has to be paid.

Comment: Re:hooray for the government (Score 1) 68

by ScentCone (#48637623) Attached to: Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC
No, I'm focused DIRECTLY on your comment. Which is peppered with the pretentious and (in this context) meaningless word "externalities" - in an attempt to make it sound like you're constructing an argument, when you're actually not. When you're not saying anything, the only thing to focus on IS the blather and the blatherer.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 573

by ScentCone (#48635569) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'
So, again, the only time the knife becomes dangerous is when YOU pick it up, or someone else does. Only human action makes it dangerous. It's not inherently dangerous, it's human action that is dangerous. Otherwise the knife is inert, sitting there, and unable in any way to hurt you or someone else. Unless it's highly radioactive or something - but I'm guessing that's not what you're getting at.

Hold on to the root.

Working...