Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Somewhat simple workaround (Score 1) 113

My industry uses something akin to a "collective benefits association" that handles benefits for employees that would work for multiple locations in the same industry. The company pays that association $X/hr for the employee and the benefits are distributed centrally by that association to the employees for all the pay received from multiple companies. This is for people classified as employees, not contractors. The association has to be adequately staffed though because their benefits are pro-rated by employer by work share, and each employer must report those benefits (like vacation pay) to unemployment agencies for taxation. The pro-rating and reporting to employers by the association helps avoid double taxation of unemployment and FICA matching for the employers. Its a lot of work, but it gets the job done and is probably the best solution manageable for employees who are classified as employees and work at multiple locations for multiple employers.

Comment Re:Microunits Sound Normal (Score 1) 412

I get 1200 square feet for $700/mo in a good area of the city, a city with a good cost of living. My kitchen and laundry room is probably bigger than your entire living space.

If they market these kind of living spaces in Manhattan, great. What I don't like is that they are trying to push them into cities like mine as the "in" thing to do. Truth is that they're trying to create mental gymnastics and trick people via marketing into smaller = better and more luxurious, when in fact they are just trying to bilk people out of more money for less product.

Comment Re:Terrible User Reviews (Score 1) 367

Eh, I wouldn't say that really. Skyrim scored phenomenally with users on Metacritic, just as an example, and its from the same publisher. Low metacritic scores are most common when there are serious bugs in the game (Arkham, AC Unity) or if the game promotions are overloaded with false promises and the purchase is a big bait and switch (Sim City).

I think the problem here is that the game has been marketed on its name, with little to no actual gameplay visibility and mechanics in the advertising. When you market the brand, you expect the brand. If they have changed the way the game is played substantially, then that would fall into the "bait and switch" simply because the bad advertising gave users a false expectation. That's on Bethesda's marketing department.

Comment Re:Squeenix has lost their touch. (Score 1) 171

I have to give them some credit on Tomb Raider. The newer Tomb Raider was an absolutely fantastic game, and I wish the next one wasn't a XBox exclusive as i'd like to play it on the PC.

I don't mind franchise reboots or remakes, as long as its done in a tactful and entertaining way. One of the biggest and best franchises in video game history - the Zelda series - is littered with remakes. Its just that they were done in a way that makes a new game out of the same story.

Comment Re:parallels with industry (Score 1) 187

I think that they felt they had to have an 'edge' over what a replacement show/staff could do. Their expertise was props and stunts, so they worked their expertise into the show to accomplish presentations that couldn't easily be matched and as an effort to make things more exciting. Honestly, the process of creating some of the things they built was pretty interesting in and of itself from that angle.

However, that 'edge' helped derail the show quite a bit as things moved on. The excessive use of Movie Myths is the prime example: A lot of them became efforts of recreating stunts rather than scientific endeavors. It also flattened the myth selection to the ones that got better ratings - the ones that were more theatrical and explosive.

Comment Re:50 years (Score 1) 65

I think you're missing the point. The "space race" was more similar to a game of HORSE than a race. While being first in something was an accomplishment, it was more about being able to match your competition, or a "1-up game" if you will. Russia builds a satellite, the US follows up and builds one. US puts a man on the moon, Russia...says screw that its too hard. That's why the US "won" the space race: they accomplished something that couldn't be matched by the other competitor.

Comment Re:Easy, make them less rich (Score 1) 444

You really can only see what's right in front of your face. These safety nets reduce crime, reduce poverty, and improve the general well-being of the populace, which benefits everyone including the rich. If you go look at a bit of history, these programs were generally created because of serious problems with homelessness, crime, and poverty effecting everyone heavily, even those who were doing everything right, and becoming a bit of a crisis.

Not everyone has a family safety net, and as a rule of thumb half of society is below average. If you allow people to corner themselves, even if its just 1%, you now have 3 million destitute people who will do anything to survive including taking from you or me by force if necessary. The libertarian dream is simply that: an unobtainable ideal that doesn't work in the real world, just like pure capitalism or communism.

Comment Re:There's still the pollution thing (Score 1) 216

These ships tend to use cleaner fuel within x miles of the coast, as you stated. While the fuel used in international waters is dirtier, the extra particulates are of the 'heavy' nature - meaning they don't stay airborne and sink into the ocean instead. The cost of cleaning this fuel in power, dollars, and carbon footprint, is likely higher than the averse effects it has when diluted in the oceans.

Comment Re:The right side of history (Score 1) 330

Honestly, I think y'all are taking Dyson's stance way out of context. What I think his comments show is that he's optimistic about human ingenuity and invention. Several thousand years ago, building an object like one of the pyramids in Egypt took tens of thousands of humans decades to accomplish. Today, it could be completed in one hundredth the time with one hundredth the manpower. Even looking back 100 years, you're talking factors of ten in increased production, efficiency, and man-hour effectiveness.

Also, people look at a point in time prognosticated 100-200 years in the future with climate change and compare it to today and calculate the damages from change, without dividing those damages and change into the number of years between the two points. So, a big scary figure of $20Trillion in 100 years, turns into $200bn/year...and is not nearly as scary anymore. Not an instant apocalypse, but a manageable problem.

The trouble with money is it costs too much!