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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Here comes some heresy... (Score 1) 79

by BasilBrush (#48594235) Attached to: Proposed Theme Park Would Put BBC Shows On Display

Comedy always dates. Morecambe and Wise was hilarious in it's heyday in the 1970s, and well deserved a majority of the population watching the Christmas specials. But anyone watching now would be mildly amused at best. This isn't because 1970s audiences were wrong, or were just enjoying a few highlights. It was virtually all very funny. It's just that comedy dates.

Same goes for The Young ones. Same for League of Gentlemen and Little Britain, which have already dated. Same goes for Red Dwarf and The Office.

I'm sure the same is true of Monty Python and Spike Milligan, though as I was a kid when they were first broadcast I can't speak from authority there.

At one time, the jokes in Shakespeare would have been genuinely funny.

Comment: Re:Sound like... (Score 1) 79

by BasilBrush (#48594145) Attached to: Proposed Theme Park Would Put BBC Shows On Display

Bans on smoking in public places and workplaces typically extend to TV studios.

They don't in England. So long as you can justify it dramatically, and there is no reasonable replacement there is an exception for theatrical film and TV smoking indoors.

So a brief shot at a distance you could reasonably be required to use an ecig as a replacement. But a longer close up shot may require the generation of ash, and the diminishing length of a real cigarette.

In Scotland however, there is no such exception.

(This is AFAIK, based on the rules in the year after the smoking ban came in. It's possible that it's changed, but I doubt it.)

Comment: Re:Finland will save money on napkins (Score 1) 523

by BasilBrush (#48490169) Attached to: Finland Dumps Handwriting In Favor of Typing

Obviously the rational algorithm is to convert to binary then do the math, then convert back. That's what we do with decimal, and it's not hard.

If you wanted to make it a bit harder you'd note that Roman numerals are basically base 10, with multiple characters per decimal place. So you'd do the equivalent of BCD arithmetic.

I suppose the interesting one is if you insist that the algorithm do the math with each character it encounters, as it encounters it, then forgets the character.

Comment: Re: It's all about the haters (Score 1) 178

by BasilBrush (#48465253) Attached to: Android 5.0 'Lollipop' vs. iOS 8: More Similar Than Ever

A Rolex doesn't cost 3 orders of magnitude more than a Chinese knockoff because it delivers 3 orders of magniute as much "quality";

I didn't say price was proportional to quality. I said that a brand (logo) can only demand a significantly higher price if the have a reputation for quality. And Rolex is absolutely an example of that.

What you can't do is design a nice logo, then expect to be able to change a significantly higher price than your competitors. It doesn't work.

tl;dr: people will buy expensive shit for reasons that have nothing to do with quality.

You are forgetting the "reputation" part. That's where you're going wrong.

Comment: Re:What about Free and no in-app purchases? (Score 0) 103

Changing "free" to "get" is removing information from the consumer. "Get" applies to apps that aren't free, too.

No it doesn't. Non-free apps have the price on the button. Free with in-app says "Get", with the words "In app purchases" below the button. Free with no in-app purchases just say "Get".

This is simply changing the word "free" to "get". No information is lost whatsoever.

Free should mean you don't have to pay to get the app. It should have nothing to do with optional purchases you make after you get the app.

That's the voice of a lack of experience. The choice to change free to get is one made FROM experience. Both "Free" and "Get" are correct. But "Free" annoys people when it's really just a switch and bait. "Get" is less annoying.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.