Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Must...resist...gender-based rant! (Score 1) 24

by PopeRatzo (#49798735) Attached to: Feds Bust a Dark-Web Counterfeit Coupon Kingpin

I hope this scam works, and that it will mean the death of coupons as an inducement.

For the first time, I agree with you on something.

But coupons will persist so long as they keep appealing to the wives of this world.

You stupid cocksucker. You just had to ruin the moment with your ugly hatred of women.

Comment: Re:Easily fixed (Score 1) 24

by PopeRatzo (#49798721) Attached to: Feds Bust a Dark-Web Counterfeit Coupon Kingpin

How about just stopping this manipulative fiction of "coupons".

1. Charge a fair price for your product.
2. Stop using "loyalty memberships" and coupons to track your customers.
3. Make your customer the customer and not some company that wants to buy data about your customers' buying habits.
4. Be competitive instead of predatory.
5. Charge a fair price for your product.
6. If you can offer me "cash back" on my purchase, then you can goddamn well lower the price.
7. Charge a fair price for your product.

End the ridiculous All-American practice of "coupons" and "customer loyalty" and the problem with fake coupons just disappears.

Comment: Couple of observations (Score 1) 42

by Mostly a lurker (#49796259) Attached to: Black Hole Plays Pool With Plasma

In any decent analogy, the black hole ought to be a pocket if playing pool. Perhaps, they should have compared the behavior to one of those billiard games played on tables with no pockets.

My other comment is that BH is a really slow player. I am not particularly speedy myself, but playing since 1992 and not yet finished a single frame ... jeesh!

Comment: Ronnie Phone (Score 5, Informative) 262

by PopeRatzo (#49795819) Attached to: FCC Proposes To Extend So-Called "Obamaphone" Program To Broadband

Just for the record, the "Obamaphone" program has a name. It's called the "Lifeline Assistance Program" and was started in the 1980s by...Ronald Reagan. It has nothing to do with Obama.

Comment: Re:Feature phones (Score 1) 327

by mjwx (#49795685) Attached to: The Tricky Road Ahead For Android Gets Even Trickier

Either it's your first phone, then you're not counted as switch

Is a switch from a "feature phone" to a smartphone counted as a switch or a first time?

Obviously for marketing purposes, they wouldn't consider that a switch.

But with it being a 2 player market and Android having the lions share, it's obvious that most switchers to iphone will have come from Android. The same would be true for switchers to Android. The question is, are the people switching to Iphone greater than the numbers switching to Android.

Also recent numbers will be skewed by the introduction of the Iphone to several countries, most notably China. In established markets, for several years the Iphone user base has been stagnant or dropping slightly with 75-80% of Iphone purchases being from current Iphone users.

Comment: Re:Advertising dihcotomy (Score 1) 327

by mjwx (#49795603) Attached to: The Tricky Road Ahead For Android Gets Even Trickier

It is interesting that Google is making 75% of mobile ad revenue on the Apple platform ($9 billion) vs Android ($3 billion).

I wonder if this is because advertisers are paying more for ads on the Apple platform or if its because people who have Android phones are not using the smart features as much as Apple users. It's likely a bit of both.

Simple answer: it's easier to fleece Apple users.

Android users tend not to click on ads, some will even have ad blockers. Iphone users are less discerning and more prone to impulse purchases. Also Android owners are a lot more varied than Iphone owners meaning the Iphone market is easier to target. Point in short, its not that Android users aren't using the more advanced features of Android phones, it's just that Android users aren't clicking on the "free ringtone" ads.

Comment: Re:Competition works better (Score 1) 241

When people talk about "we haven't returned to the moon" [], it refers to the end of the Apollo program.

So, the trips we've made to the moon SINCE the Apollo program (the most recent was in 2013), just don't count? Why is that?

Further, you apparently posted that "Let Me Google That For You" link without looking at any of the search results that Google provided you. The first link is to a Quora discussion about manned space travel, the second is a CNN article about whether we still need to have men on the moon.

So are you suggesting that only manned missions count as space exploration?

But then... your somewhat hastily provided Google resultsreally start to get interesting:

We get a YouTube video about extraterristrials, two pages from "Above Top Secret" and a website that suggests, "NASA is hiding a very dark secret from us" and that's why we haven't been to the moon. Then there's a link to a young adult Transformers novel on Google books and then a site called "Educating Humanity" which tells us the reason we haven't sent men to the moon is...aliens.

The next time you think to post a "Let Me Google That For You" page, you might want to actually check the links it provides to make sure they don't make you look like a complete schmuck.

Comment: Re:I got it! (Score 1) 109

I reallize the a person is going to take what the market will pay them, but it is seriously difficult to imagine that they are worth that much.

Then you really won't want to read about David M. Zaslav, from the Discovery Network and The Learning Channel (former home of the Duggar family and Honey Boo Boo) who's total compensation in 2014 was...$156 million!

It is good to be an oligarch.

Comment: Re:Competition works better (Score 1) 241

The fact that we went to the moon in "fucking 1969" is exactly the problem: it was a colossal waste of money. And the reason we haven't returned is the same reason: it still would be a colossal waste of money.

Um, we DID return, and multiple times.

Do you have any of your facts straight or do you just type with the seat of your pants?

First, you believed Columbus' voyages were "privately financed" and then you think we only went to the moon once. Give us a reason why anything else you say should be taken seriously if you can't get basic facts right.

Comment: Re:Competition works better (Score 2) 241

For example, Columbus' Voyage was privately financed

And where do you think Queen Isabella got that money? She wasn't a tech billionaire. The funding came from the Spanish Royal Treasury. That means Spanish peasants paid for it and spoils of war paid for it and outright theft paid for it.

You think that solid gold throne Queen Elizabeth sits on when she's wearing her Imperial Crown that contains 2,868 diamonds, 273 pearls, 17 sapphires, 11 emeralds, and 5 rubies was paid for by the money that the House of Windsor made through honest labor?

danger is that the US government is going to interfere with private space exploration through ridiculous regulations and restrictions.

That US government you speak of derisively got us to the moon and back in fucking 1969. While the mighty private sector is barely replicating what the Mercury Program did over half a century ago. It appears John Galt is not only unoriginal, but he's kind of a fuck-up too.

+ - Sourceforge staff takes over a user's account and wraps their software installer-> 9

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Sourceforge staff took over the account of the GIMP-for-Windows maintainer claiming it was abandoned and used this opportunity to wrap the installer in crapware. Quoting Ars:

SourceForge, the code repository site owned by Slashdot Media, has apparently seized control of the account hosting GIMP for Windows on the service, according to e-mails and discussions amongst members of the GIMP community—locking out GIMP's lead Windows developer. And now anyone downloading the Windows version of the open source image editing tool from SourceForge gets the software wrapped in an installer replete with advertisements.

Link to Original Source

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." -- Albert Einstein