Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: LMAO (Score 4, Insightful) 72

by SeaFox (#49591965) Attached to: How an Open Standard API Could Revolutionize Banking

Does the author serious thinks banks are going to adopt anything that is "a significant step forward for social good and give people more control over their finances". Most of the money they make is off people who can't control their finances effectively.

Keep in mind their entire business is moving numbers from one pile to another. Anything that keeps them in control of the access to these piles and information about them is a good thing to them.

Comment: What about her ability to reproduce? (Score 1) 368

by SeaFox (#49578879) Attached to: Who Owns Pre-Embryos?

The original intention of this whole per-embryo freezing was in case she lost her ability to have children on her own after that. She survived the cancer treatment, but what her reproductive functions? Seems to me the easy answer is that if she still has that function, she does not have to have these specific frozen embryos to reproduce. She can conceive a child with someone else. They should just be destroyed and nobody will get them then.

Comment: This seems backwards. (Score 2) 62

by SeaFox (#49564117) Attached to: Supreme Court To Consider Data Aggregation Suit Against Spokeo

"Robins, who filed a class-action lawsuit, claimed that Spokeo had provided flawed information about him, including that he had more education than he actually did, that he is married although he remains single, and that he was financially better off than he actually was. He said he was unemployed and looking for work, and contended that the inaccurate information would make it more difficult for him to get a job and to get credit and insurance."

Um, what? All these inaccuracies would help him get a job, unless he's trying for a very low position.

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 3, Insightful) 329

by SeaFox (#49563165) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

If Verizon is in fact breaking a contract it has with ESPN then all I can say is that it is a horrible contract.

It's nothing new. The NFL Network did (and probably still does) something similar. They had a contractual requirement that they be part of the "basic cable" package and not a special sports tier, and at the same time wanted to get paid per viewer, which means that they get paid for every subscriber that a carrier has, regardless of whether they want the channel or not.

ESPN and Verizon both realize the same thing, lots of people don't care about sports and lots of people are aware that ESPN is one of the most expensive channels to carry. Consumers want out of paying for crap they don't care about, Verizon wants to hold onto video subscribers, and ESPN wants to keep their gravy train rolling.

Comment: Re:30% (Score 1, Insightful) 329

by SeaFox (#49563089) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

People realize that 111 million people tuned in for the superbowl in the US right? out of a population of 320 million? a good portion of that 1 in 3 americans loves the hell out of their cable package with sports.

Talk about a leap of logic. There's lots of people (myself included) for whom the Super Bowl is the only football game they're interested in watching.

To suggest that someone wants a year-round pay channel based on the viewership of a single night makes you sound like an ESPN shill.

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Paul Erlich