Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Popular Shalshdot Opinion (Score 4, Insightful) 132

by Serenissima (#48517261) Attached to: Twitter Should Use Random Sample Voting For Abuse Reports
I don't care about Bennett's opinion on a great deal of things, and I really want to not click on his posts to NOT generate traffic - hopefully thinking that he will eventually if no one is reading his posts. But then, I REALLY like to see people make fun of him in the comments, so I click on the post. But then that adds page views to the post meaning Bennett will do more of these in the future. It's a vicious, ugly cycle. I want to break it, but it's so much fun to make fun of Bennett....

Comment: Re:Saving an hour? (Score 2) 525

by Serenissima (#48498841) Attached to: Montana Lawmakers Propose 85 Mph Speed Limit On Interstates
I used to work as a Geologist across the Western US, and I lived in Washington State. I did a stint in North Dakota and I drove through Montana several times. 85 would save a TON of time. I generally drove 5 miles over any given speed limit anywhere (depending on which state I was going to, it was anywhere between 800-1000 miles for the drive). 5 MPH wasn't enough to have the cops pull me over and I would easily save an hour of driving. It doesn't seem like much, but an 11-hour drive changing to a 10-hour drive is AMAZING. Those last hours suck balls. But anyways, I told this story because your point is correct. You have to drive a LONG distance before the speed limit makes a significant difference in time. One takeaway I learned from that driving is that speeding on a short drive makes no sense at all! :)

Comment: Re:Another 15 minutes (Score 1) 716

by Serenissima (#48329191) Attached to: Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment
There's a pretty interesting theory out there that it could be the addition of lead into Gasoline that caused a large increase in crime. When lead was finally removed from Gasoline in the 70s, we started to see a significant decrease in violent crimes over time. Not sure if it's correct or not, but a pretty neat idea!

Comment: Re:Going Cable! (Score 1) 135

by Serenissima (#48030739) Attached to: FCC Rejects Blackout Rules
Well, at the risk of troll feeding, I did say that I wouldn't pay for it if it was through Cable. I have no problem paying for content. Fuck cable companies though.

The reason I posted is because the people of the Slashdot community are probably more than likely also going to be the people with know-how to cut ties to cable while still being able to watch the content they want to watch. Out of this community, of the people who enjoy football, I was curious to see what their response would be if football did move to cable-only. Is football important enough to people who have cut cables ties to go back to cable? I certainly find no value in football, but I thought that, for the people who do, it was a pretty interesting question!

Comment: Re:Going Cable! (Score 1) 135

by Serenissima (#48029687) Attached to: FCC Rejects Blackout Rules
I really, really, don't give a shit about football and never go out of my way to keep up on teams or try to watch games. I like football just fine; if a friend is watching a game, I'll watch it with them and go to their Super Bowl party. For me, this story doesn't matter at all - it won't affect the number of football games I watch this year at all. But considering how people are moving away from Cable, I wonder if actual football fans are anything like me.

I like NOT paying for cable MORE than I like any given show. If there was a show I was watching over the air that I absolutely loved, and it moved to cable, I would not watch that show anymore. There's so much other content out there and I'm not going to pay for cable to watch one thing. Do football fans feel that same way?

Comment: Re:No Worky (Score 2, Insightful) 179

by Serenissima (#47995965) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is Reporting Still Relevant?
We should also clarify: People who want to read reports really don't actually want to read reports. They want pretty colors and lines that they can digest in seconds. Even then, nine times out of ten, they don't understand a typical report without an accompanying 30-60 minute meeting describing what is going on (length depends on how many graphs and/or KPIs are involved). And you are totally right! You can make the most awesome report/dashboard anyone has ever seen. It'll drill up an down through your data from the highest level to the lowest and have all the coolest maps/graphs/charts/etc. But no one in Management will ever use it - everyone likes the idea of an interactive report, but NO ONE actually wants to use it (or even learn how to use it). They want a static report with colors and lines, and they want someone to tell them what it means.

It doesn't mean they're stupid by any means (of course, sometimes they really are ;) ) but they really, really, REALLY just don't give a crap about fancy reports.

FORTRAN rots the brain. -- John McQuillin