Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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 Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 1) 255

I think a good, specific instance of CEO/boardroom dissonance is Square Enix's reaction to initial sales of their (Crystal Dynamics-developed) Tomb Raider reboot. In its first month, the game sold 3.4 million copies, which is a good number of sales by most reckonings. But not Squeenix: they anticipated double that, and even then they thought 5-6 million was a "conservative" number.

The company thought its Lara Croft reboot could sell at least 5-6 million units in four weeks - a huge figure, but a total still designed to be conservative, just "80-90 per cent" of what Square Enix thought was the game's real sales potential.

"We put a considerable amount of effort in polishing and perfecting the game content for these titles, receiving extremely high Metacritic scores," Square Enix said in a new financial statement. "However, we were very disappointed to see that the high scores did not translate to actual sales performance, which is where we see the substantial variance in operation profit/loss against the forecast."

That they expected a reboot of a franchise that had diminished tremendously in popularity could put out such numbers just shows how disconnected they are from reality.

Comment Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement (Score 1) 195

You have a problem with Nerval's lobster don't read it's postings

I didn't; I just saw "Nerval's Lobster" and made my post. While you know about Nerval's Lobster, and I know about Nerval's Lobster, there are many who don't, especially newer users. Therefore, I do what Slashdot editors will not.

Incidentally, you seem to be rather pissed about my comment. Why did you not take your own advice and simply not read it? :)

Comment Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement (Score 1) 195

I think Beta was actually their attempt to monetize Slashdot, but the community reaction was so horrendous (and rightfully so, IMO) that they had to cancel it, which is why they're looking to sell off Slashdot. These Dicevertisements are just a little side action for them, for whatever ads I'm sure they have plastered over their own page.

Comment Re:Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement (Score 1) 195

Bitching about the source is a little silly

Not when the source holds a status of privilege above other sources and the connection is not disclosed.

My personal problem isn't Slashdot having articles linking to Dice, or even using a shill account; it's the refusal to post a disclaimer about sharing a parent company. /.ers cry foul over any article where the author has a potential conflict of interest and does not disclose it; why should we do any different when Slashdot editors post a Dice story?

Comment Reminder: This is a Dicevertisement (Score 4, Informative) 195

Just a friendly reminder that Nerval's Lobster is a Dice shill account, and posts articles for Oh, and that editors either refuse to, or are banned from, putting a disclaimer that is owned by Dice Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Slashdot, as they once would when posting a link to "sister" sites prior to being purchased by Dice.

Comment Re:Interactive ads mandatory?! What The Fox? (Score 1) 242

"Interactive ads" aren't new to Hulu, though, and don't completely halt playback.

The way it works is that you're first presented with a screen giving you the option to use the interactive ad or to watch the show normally with commercials. If there's no interaction after so many seconds (15?) then the show would automatically continue with normal commercials. They've also done similar campaigns where you are shown a very long commercial (either a movie/game trailer or one some medication commercial) in lieu of commercial breaks; these would default to the long commercial if there's no selection made (IIRC).

I hadn't seen these for a while before I signed up for their Commercial Free* plan. No surprise that Fox is using them again. Last campaign I can recall was for some car brand where you'd answer four multiple-choice questions. It was easy to just sit there and click-spam where an answer would appear, because it didn't matter if you were right or wrong, so you'd fly through the interactive ad in 5 seconds and avoid 300 seconds of commercials.

* Except for a handful of shows that require an advertisement to be shown at the beginning and end of an episode for some damn licensing reason, though

Comment Re:Is it really a waste of time? (Score 1) 304

I disagree. I believe > is easier to parse while reading code since it separates it from identifiers, control statements, constants, numbers, and other keywords. It's the same reason && is better than "AND" in C syntax derivatives.

Oh, how I wish I hadn't run out of mod points, as this is 100% my view.

When I am trying to read code (whether familiarizing myself with another's code, reviewing code I wrote long ago, or trying to pin down a bug) the use of punctuation like > and < makes it far easier for me to split out statements and work the logic in my head. With "friendlier" syntax I have to first identify what is an operator (especially if someone uses a variable name like "g" or "lot") then mentally parse outward from there.

I also prefer it for brevity. Consider C#.NET: Boolean statements can be short-circuited using &&, or you can make sure both sides evaluate with &. In VB.NET, the equivalent keywords are ANDALSO and AND. In either case the C#.NET operator is far more concise, and also feeds back into head parsing.

And, responding to the GP, if someone wants to make an "English" friendly language, fine... but what if someone from Germany, knowing no English, wants to use the language? The OR is no more familiar to them than the |, so I would expect them to prefer the punctuation for brevity.

Comment Re:A human-driven taxi is better right now. (Score 1) 258

Perhaps computer science should create an "indistinguishable from magic" term for programs/processes that are not truly intelligent (in that they learn and adapt with no further human tampering of the programming) but give the appearance of being intelligent in a narrow field and, as far as the common person is concerned, is "smart" (like Siri).

Simulated Intelligence?

Comment Re:I have no debt and a hefty savings account (Score 1) 386

If customer B gets caught up at some point then its time to increase their limit (if you haven't already speculatively done so)

I wonder if this is what Discover did to me. Beginning of the year I had $5500 in credit with a $6500 limit. Starting with a nice bonus I received in January, I've been aggressively "pay-using" the card[1] when I hadn't touched it the prior year. Since then I've gotten three credit line increases: $8000 (soon after I deposited the bonus), $11,000, and two months ago it went to $13,500.

Of course, the joke's on them: I only have $111 on the account now, which will be paid off with my next paycheck, and then the card will be set aside and used only for a few small monthly bills (paying off the balance each month) or when their cash back promotion lines up with a purchase.

[1] By "pay-using", I mean I dump as much of each paycheck as possible to pay down the balance, then use the card for my normal purchases. Thanks to a lower interest rate applied to newer purchases, and any payment over minimum being applied to older purchases, I was able to avoid probably $200 in interest charges this year and the effective monthly payment was only 50% more than usual.

Comment Re:People working when they don't have to (Score 1) 674

Some people would be happy to sit at home and do nothing except watch TV all day. So?
Some would keep working because they were not happy sitting at home watching TV all day.

I think that a middle-ground is an in-between: 40 hour work weeks would go out the window, and many people would spend most of their time doing basic recreation, working only 10-20 hours regularly to have a higher standard of living. You will have many, especially "professional" white collar workers, who will keep at the 40, but they will quickly become the exception rather than the norm.

Comment Re:People working when they don't have to (Score 1) 674


One of the biggest secondary benefits of a "guaranteed income" (beyond covering the basic life necessities) is that it would tremendously tip the scales of power between employer and employee. Right now employees are often at the mercy of the employer, lest they find themselves out of a job and without income. Unions balance this to some extent But if everyone knew that they could quit at any moment and still survive, employees would put up with a far lesser amount of bullshit. Employers would become far more interested in the psychological needs of their employees, especially as what they pay would be greatly reduced. It would remove much of the need of unions, who would remain primarily for workplace safety and standards. (Ideally OSHA sees to that, but they're too removed from the day-to-day at any particular company to be as effective.) In the end, what tedious work still needs to be done by humans will still be done, but the money offered will be much different relative to other jobs and employers would make an effort to keep it from being soul-destroying. Most likely it would involve a job done by one person for 40 hours/week to instead be done by 4 people for 10 hours/week each.

It would also create a much better "free market", as much as such a thing can exist. Minimum wage would be completely done away with, so the demand between someone who mops floor and someone who serves burgers becomes far more apparent. There would be a boon in entrepreneurship, as people that can get seed money can begin new companies. If the companies fail, oh well, the owner and whatever employees there are still have their minimum income.

So far as I'm aware, the only people who would "lose" (if you want to call it that) are those who would see far higher taxes on the tip-top most brackets.

Comment Re:"TV series" (Score 1) 438

Contrast this with Hulu which has 20-30 seconds of ads in each break.

Eh wut? Before I subscribed to Hulu Commercial Free when it started a few months back, Hulu was pushing 2 minutes of commercials for most shows, especially the more "mainstream" ones that air on regular TV channels. Some of the lesser known/older series might only have one or two 20-30 second commercials per break, but prior to switching I found that the exception rather than the rule.

It was quickly approaching the amount of ads for regular cable, to the point that I could use the commercial breaks as bathroom/food breaks and still get back before they were over.

Comment Re:$120B worth of jobs (Score 1) 439

could put 1 million irritating people in jobs that bother us even more.

Offtopic, but I think this is an argument in favor of a guaranteed income. How many co-workers or employees of other companies have you dealt with that were, at best, irritating? (Often downright unhelpful.) I bet a lot of those people only work because they have to do so, and a guaranteed income means they could go about a basic living without bringing productivity down anywhere.

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb