Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: "Is this what we wanted?" (Score 1) 260 260

Music is now disposable. Do you really think people will still listen to their Taylor Swift or Ellie Goulding albums three years from now?

I'd really disagree with this. Spotify to me is revolutionary. People use spotify because music lasts so long, and to filter out the junk, because the cost of a really diverse music collection (buying CDs) is much much greater than my $10 / month spotify fee.

As an amatuer guitarist, it is not uncommon to want to listen to several CDs to hear specific styles or understand the history of music. Before spotify, I might spend $100 on CDs trying to research the roots of blues (e.g. just buy one CD of each of the greats: Son House, Muddy Waters, Wolf, etc.). Or decide to listen to several CDs by a single artist to see their growth. That was very costly buying CDs, but on spotify? Still $10 a month.

It allows me to surround myself with music. Literally, I listen to music all day at work, and never the same CD in a row (and usually not the same CD in a week). Just to keep up such a diverse set of music was incredibly costly before. And whereas buying CDs I used to waste money on the occasional dud I'd never listen to more than once, that never happens anymore.

And it's not just me. Take guys like my coworker for example. He downloaded the Rolling Stone Top 500 Album of all time list, and started listening from bottom to top. Great idea that you couldn't afford to do buying CDs ($5k to listen)

Another great example was at a family gathering a few weeks ago. I could just put on music that was appropriate to the crowd without having to buy a lot of CDs (and then not buy the one someone requests)

Really streaming music is revolutionary. It's night and day from 20 years ago where I used to go to The Wall, drop $20+ on a CD, and be stuck only getting what they might have in stock. Suddenly, no more special ordering necessary. Any style, anywhere, anytime.

Comment Re:So what's news about this? (Score 1) 356 356

A (very) eye opening thing was when a friend who is a teacher advised me to google salaries for my local state / local school district.

Teachers salaries are public record (although usually you'll find the public record is updated after a few years, so you might just now see salaries for 2012 online).

And the interesting thing, while junior teachers might make $10 an hour (which is barely livable), senior teachers will be salaried at $150k+ per year.

And, on top of that: they only work 9 months out of the year, and get nice pensions.

So while the bottom rung is not so well paid, the survivors are. And while I do understand a teacher in his or her 50s should be paid well, $150k seems excessive.

Comment Re:Bad use case (Score 1) 128 128

Except of course if there ever really was nuclear war, they'd be much safer.

You could use the same line of argument for a lot of things: seat belts, guard rails, non-slip shoes

Silly people spending money to prevent something that most likely won't happen.

However as a society we accept sometimes that preventing a marginal risk is the best scenario

Comment Re:Bad use case (Score 4, Interesting) 128 128

What the Indonesians needed was a warning, not an escape pod. With no warning, the pods are useless. With warning, just get out of the path.

The key here is how much warning. Having been to indonesia, I can tell you that if you're on a beach you'll see signs everywhere pointing out the most efficient tsunami escape path. The problem is, even if you see it coming, and you start running, you might not be able to cover the kilometer or so to safety in the time you have warning. (Contrary to popular opinion tsunamis are not a giant wave, but more like a tide rolling in)

This provides a solution that allows you to survive with less reaction time. Which may be a good thing.

Comment Re:So how long before (Score 4, Insightful) 181 181

And when was somebody's "authorization to use mass transit" was ever revoked? You're paraonoid.

For starters, how about the No Fly list?

But let's face it, the government can revoke your transportation privileges anytime it pleases. If you don't believe me go drink and drive in a zero tolerance jurisdiction and see how long you keep your license.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 239 239

The proper remedy here, is to make youtube and other video sites not be able to collect income from uploaded videos of drone flight.

Not to penalize the drone operators, who simply want to share videos of drone flight with other enthusiasts, without a profit motive.

Where do you think the money comes from to run the youtube servers, hire their sysadmins, and their programmers?

People get confused because the internet is full of "free" stuff, they think they have a right to free stuff. But actually, nothing is free. You pay for all your free content online (with a few exceptions like wikipedia) by being the product. Google is selling information about you to advertisers (and Adwords make more money for Google then any of their other ventures, like Android).

If drone enthusiasts want to share their videos with others in a non commercial way they should fork out the cash for their own host (which is dirt cheap these days anyways). Maybe the community can get together and create a not for profit website for sharing of such videos.

Comment Re:The law makes no allowances for irony. (Score 1) 122 122

Check the first link. It's that monkey picture the court ruled wasn't copyright to the photog.

There are other examples too. Try posting a picture of a famous landmark and you might get a DMCA takedown notice.

Or just go watch an NFL game and listen to the ridiculous warning about how even thinking about the game is copyright the NFL.

Copyright is very hard to explain these days. In some places there's broad over reach, and it's quite hard to determine what you can and can't take pictures of, and what you can legally do with those pictures.

Comment Re:The law makes no allowances for irony. (Score 3, Interesting) 122 122

Not completely true. There's a reason if you do a photo shoot with a model you ask them for a model release (right to use their image). Not every image is copyright to the photographer. And I have quite a few citations.

Of course, whether or not you need a release is a complex issue, but if you don't want lawyers sorting it out the best is to err on the side of caution.

Comment Re:Smoking Hot Blondes (Score 3, Informative) 208 208

"Finnish Sauna" is often used as a label for a particular type of Sauna at a good bath house. Hot, dry heat (and very hot at that -- often in excess of 100F), often with a roaring fire in the center. You'll also have other types of saunas (steam saunas, infared saunas, etc.), some of which are also associated with a country (Russian Sauna, Turkish Sauna, etc.). And if you pick the right country, the sauna will both be co ed, and naked. (Remember those shirts from the 90s?)

I recommend Spa Zuiver in Amsterdam. Everyone will be naked, you can go into naked jacuzzis together, and it's a wonderfully relaxing experience.

Of course, before you book your ticket with thoughts of a hedon's paradise, you should know a few things.

1. The sauna is not a pick up place. The chances of meeting a hot woman there and turning it into something are quite small.
2. For every hot woman who you will be happy to see naked, there will be four old women or men
3. Staring is not something to be done. However, if you happen to be sitting in a place where you see everything, and someone comes in, well that's OK.
4. You will be naked too. And your beauty will be judging you as well.
5. There will be a bar. And food service. While you can't drink in the pools, where else can you drink around a bunch of naked people?

But, if you'd never been, I'd highly recommend it. A day at the sauna makes you feel incredible. Really. And muscle soreness will just disappear. It's quite amazing (try a sauna after your work outs sometime)

Comment Funny, my experience has been completely different (Score 5, Insightful) 237 237

I find this article funny because my experience with T-Mobile has been completely different.

I'll admit, I only consider them good because the competition is so bad (and I've had a number of cell carriers), but so far I'm very happy with them:

  • I get an unlimited data plan for the cost of a limited data plan on Verizon
  • I get LTE in all major metro areas, and it's FAST
  • Unlimited really seems to be unlimited. I abuse it (streaming movies for instance) and haven't once seen a slow down. And I check periodically with a speed test app
  • Due to a large european network, roaming abroad can be cheaper than other carriers
  • While other carriers like Verizon and AT&T have a lot of bad press for tracking of users / selling users data, there's been none from T-Mobile. A cynical person might say this is because they're just better at it, but I feel it's important to reward companies who do the right thing.

The only complaint I have is they disable the personal hotspot on my phone after 5 GB of usage each month. After that I have to pay.

In short: they might not have everything I want, but they are awesome compared to everyone else out there.

Those who claim the dead never return to life haven't ever been around here at quitting time.