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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Language in bill (Score 1) 780

by Jabbrwokk (#27834417) Attached to: Bill Would Declare Your Blog a Weapon
As well, it appears to refer to "real-world" bullying is the real problem:

using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior

To me, it sounds like the bill is defining cyberbullying as something that happens in addition to "real-world" bullying. I think it would be pretty rare for bullying to occur only online, and I'm not counting anonymous forum drama.

Comment: Maybe 3,000 isn't so bad (Score 1) 126

by Jabbrwokk (#27697143) Attached to: Paid Online News Venture Fails To Get Subscribers
You're right. However, they managed to get 3,000 subscribers, which means at $5 per month each they can now afford to pay a full-time newsroom staff of five people, on top of whatever the advertising pays for. Not too shabby.

The Pegasus News manages to cover the entire Dallas-Fort Worth area with a total staff of 19 people.

Comment: Re:But The Tyee brings in money (Score 1) 126

by Jabbrwokk (#27696087) Attached to: Paid Online News Venture Fails To Get Subscribers

The Tyee is not a news site. It is not "good journalism." It is an opinion site. They write stories with very clear opinionated slants. And people who agree with that slant gravitate to the site and call it "good journalism."

Their election "coverage" is nothing more than them asking for money to cover the election from the slant their readers want. Read their appeal again.

From your link:

We asked you to tell us which issues mattered most to you, promised to put your donation towards that area of reporting

This is no different than a consortium of advertisers requesting a newspaper cover an election issue from a particular point of view. This is the same old thing, just more obvious.

This shows me people don't want news that tries to be objective as possible, they want to read something that agrees with their opinions.

Comment: Standing ovation -- bah (Score 4, Insightful) 437

by Jabbrwokk (#27505403) Attached to: Star Trek Premiere Gets Standing Ovation, Surprise Showing In Austin

First screening impressions sometimes don't mean anything.

I would like to piggy-back on your comment suggesting early reviews were coloured by the excitement (which is probably bang-on) and point out that in the theatre where I watched the first screening of Star Wars: Episode I, there was a standing ovation after the movie was over.

Later I realized there was a standing ovation BECAUSE the movie was over.

Comment: Re:Times have changed, but not prices (Score 1) 207

by Jabbrwokk (#27438551) Attached to: Pro Video Game Leagues — Another Economic Casualty
No, but everything he says about that game is true. I remember almost crying because I'd waited for so long for that game and it was so hard it made absolutely no sense. At the time I thought it was broken, I couldn't comprehend that some asshole would program a game like that deliberately.

Comment: Re:Times have changed, but not prices (Score 1) 207

by Jabbrwokk (#27438517) Attached to: Pro Video Game Leagues — Another Economic Casualty

Which is actually a pretty good deal

Maybe, or maybe it means games were always really expensive.

other prices have risen in the same time frame, including the cost to develop a game.

Very true, but instead of being happy when they sell 100,000 copies publishers are now looking at hopefully moving millions.

dropping the price doesn't result in an equivalent increase in sales.

Guess we won't know until they try! Or until those private companies release sales records about what happens when they lower prices to move those millions of copies that didn't sell for full price.

Comment: Times have changed, but not prices (Score 3, Insightful) 207

by Jabbrwokk (#27435267) Attached to: Pro Video Game Leagues — Another Economic Casualty

Damn. I used up my mod points already. You make a good point which companies are aware of, they're just too greedy to change. We're paying prices which have been the same for ages, from the days when gaming was a niche hobby and there were fewer copies of games created (which by the magic of supply and demand means they were probably more expensive to make). I remember eagerly shelling out $80 CAD for the first Dark Forces PC game the day it was released. That was unusual - a new release price was about $60, which continues to this day.

Pricing for console games is a little less obvious but I think it's pretty similar to PC game pricing. I remember Atari 2600 games costing about $10-20 (a lot of money for a kid in the 1980s, especially if you save up only to find out your new game is a real shitburger) Nintendo games costing about $50 (an AWFUL lot of money in the late 1980s) and today a new release on any console is $50-70. Factor in inflation and the cost is probably about the same as it's always been.

But even though the cost of making games has increased, the cost of distributing them has dropped drastically. Stamping out DVDs costs pennies and electronic distribution costs even less. I still like getting a physical copy of a game - especially when the publishers put goodies like a special manual or cloth map or figurine in the box - but I would certainly sacrifice that if it meant distribution models like Steam or WiiWare would drive down prices to a more affordable range. I like Steam and WiiWare, but I only buy Steam games on weekend deals (STALKER for $5, w00t) and only use WiiWare for something I really think is worth full price. Electronic distribution needs to be $5-10 cheaper than box copies, IMO.

Comment: Read again (Score 1) 322

by Jabbrwokk (#27409089) Attached to: Should Google Be Forced To Pay For News?

Your wagging finger of "free Internet" evangelism is misplaced. OP never said there was a pay wall, he said "we, unlike our moron competitors, understand that these clips bring traffic to our site, which makes us money."

How do newspaper websites make money? By getting visitors to click on their ads. How do you get lots of visitors? Give it away for free, and co-operate with Google to get your content listed near the top so you get lots of hits. Protectionist subscriber "exclusive content" models are pretty much instant fail and the newspapers/media businesses that are going to survive this recession know that.

It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.