Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:JetBlue FTW (Score 2) 193

Norwegian do as well. But they and JetBlue are both budget airlines. It's a similar situation with hotels. Expensive business hotels will charge a substantial daily rate for internet access.

In Norwegian's case, it looks like they make up some of the cost on PPV movies. I'm guessing JetBlue does something similar.

Comment Re:Let People Have Robots (Score 1) 319

But you wouldn't do it that way. It would be like leasing your car to a Taxi company. Taxi companies have their own fleets!

If you had a factory, why would you be hiring robots from the general public? Why not buy your own, or lease (with a maintenance contract) them from a robot leasing company? That way you get use of the robots 24/7, get to take advantage of efficiencies of scale and can be sure of a standard, predictable robot.

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 1) 1037

Except given that they treated a non-puppy work much more harshly than has ever been the case before. It is much more likely that the new influx of people are harsher judges than the usual voters.

Why was there a sudden influx of particularly harsh judges this year? And was "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" really so much better than the others? The abrupt increase here seems to be more likely caused by political choices than a change in vote attitudes.

*everything* scores well on good reads. 50 shades of bad writing got a nice big 3.7 out of 5. Good reads is not a good indication of quality.

Fan awards are not about quality! NHave you read some of the winners?

If there was a fan award aimed at the demographic that tends to like bad Twilight fanfic, you can be sure 50 Shades would be nominated.

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 1) 1037

Many voters, perhaps treated them equally, but "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" did get a lot more votes than any of the puppies. The high number of "no awards" could be put down to lazy protestors.

The Novellas seem to have scored pretty well on goodreads - broadly as well as the non-puppy entries that didn't make it - yet the Hugo voters clobbered them. Even tripe like "Opera Vita Aeterna" managed to beat "no award" in 2014. I can't believe they were all worse than that this year.

Of course, goodreads isn't an objective measure of quality but one would expect that it would be broadly similar to that of Worldcon membership.

Comment Re:are the nominees any good? (Score 2) 1037

Not read this year's

Last year's puppy slate tended towards pulpy action adventure rather than more philosophical works. So better is subjective - some people like action. Personally I didn't care for them too much but then I found the best Novel winner didn't thrill me either.

Comment Re:WIRED has it right (Score 1) 1037

The corruption is not from who can vote but who nominates and how organised they are.

Only people who read a lot will nominate. You need to have read a lot of works to have a good indication. The argument is that there's an informal clique that nominates the same work. This gets strawmanned as some sort of conspiracy.

I have no idea if such a clique exists. What I can say is that the Dramatic presentation (short form) seems to get a lot of nominations for Doctor Who. It's unlikely that these are coming from different people. More likely that the same set of fans are picking the same episodes. Do you think there may be a Doctor Who clique?

Sad puppies was a conspiracy. Intentionally so. Part of the aim was to demonstrate how broken the nominations system is. I'd say it did that job well.

As for the voting - 2015 statistics compared with 2014 stats. Take for example best Novella. Voting numbers up by 2638. All entries except "no award" seem to have comparable number of votes to the previous year. No award gets more than half the votes. Were the entries *really* that bad?

There's nothing wrong with campaigning, but the suggestion that there wasn't a concerted campaign to prevent people who have the wrong politics from winning an award stretches credibility.

Comment Re:Actually, the truth is somewhat different. (Score 1) 1037

Last year, the puppies had quite a few nominations from their slate. I think none of them ranked below "no award".

This year the puppies had several nomination in each category. Most of them were ranked below "no award".

The number of voters increased dramatically.

Did the quality suddenly take a dive this year? Or did a lot of people vote entirely to make a point?

Comment Re:Simplification (Score 1) 280

McDonalds does have a very specific process for manufacturing their burgers. Things like the order and size of ingredients, and details such as toppings should touch and not overlap.

Since copyright doesn't make any judgements on how good a creation is or what it's worth, I'd actually argue that these would have at least as good a claim to copyright protection as the typical nouvelle cuisine.

Comment Re:Vacuum? (Score 1) 107

As the bird flies, the distance between San Diego and San Francisco is 450 miles.

Why would you need to get to the destination? Surely you'd be able to close sections of the tube and repressurise it. Or pressurise the whole thing. There's a ready supply of air at standard pressure just outside the loop.

Comment Re:Sucks they're dividing efforts between Dart &am (Score 2) 221

Google UK does give the language as its first hit, but also gives a bunch of darts clubs.

I guess it's not too bad. Programmers tend to be very active online, so the languages tend to get high pagerank. But still, if I were to create a language, I'd going to go for either a really obscure word, or a misspelling. I think searchability should be considered a feature.

After any salary raise, you will have less money at the end of the month than you did before.