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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Some members (Score 1) 249

If it is indeed the content providers, why can't Netflix stand up to them?

Because the content providers are effectively operating as a cartel. Maybe not formally, but you can guarantee they're talking to each other, sneaking a look at each other's contracts, and making sure their licensing terms don't diverge too far. It is very much in the content providers' interests to make sure they can still apply pricing discrimination between markets so they can maximise their profits and not have Netflix cannibalise all their other regional sales channels (e.g. Blu-Ray/DVD sales) too. What customers want is next to irrelevant to content providers - all they care about is what the market will bear for their product.

Comment Re:Marissa must be a prepper (Score 1) 159

More's the pity. Still bitter about having worked for a startup that bootstrapped to profitability and never sold out. Because there were no VCs, the board was beholden to nobody. Founders didn't even shop the place out. Options ended up worthless. Eventually the company will end up worthless too. The company ended up working for the continued job preservation of its management. And the CEO didn't care.

If it was so important to be CEO, why not sell the company at a premium and use the money to start another one? We've wasted multiple startups' worth of funding on internal projects that went nowhere except to give product managers a product to manage, and developers a way to train for their next jobs at companies with futures.

They're managing the company responsibly as a going concern, not as a pump-and-dump opportunity. They're keeping the lights on and the workers paid. And you're pissed because you've got a steady job with training opportunities, a salary, and some moderately valuable shares, instead of an unearned, over-valued payday? Sign your letter of resignation and cash in, if you're that upset about it. Use that money to found your own company and whore it out to the biggest billionaire idiots you can find. Not willing to take that risk? Then quit whining, you whiner.

Comment Re:first (Score 1) 508

And in that sense, Stross has a point: he's identifying tropes that separate the authors that base their work on scientific plausibility from those that base their work on science-sounding fantasy truthiness, hence "shibboleths".

Comment Re:Sanctimonius pricks (Score 3, Insightful) 319

Parent fails English interpretation. The first sentence groups Ashley Madison members with other freethinkers as the subjects of illegal action. Freethinkers aren't the perpetrators, they're another class of victim roped in by the AM crowd to make out that hacking a cheaters website was just gosh-darned un-American.

Of course, the hackers aren't doing this out a sense of morality. Quite the opposite in fact - they just want to stir shit up and cause havoc.

Comment Re:Next Thing You Know... (Score 1) 418

Did we read the same articles? Neither commented on the profitability or productivity of Gravity Payments following the bump in pay at all. What they did say was, out of 120 employees, 2 whiny millennial narcissists threw their toys out the cot and quit when they found out they couldn't differentiate themselves from their colleagues by the heft of their pay packet. And that their friends might tap them for a loan what with all that extra cash they used to be taking home.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

Comment Re:New law not legal? (Score 2) 301

Isn't by definition a new law legal (assuming it isn't against a constitution or any higher law)? Is the only threshold that it would not cause financial harm if that is the case most laws should be illegal as they all cause financial harm to someone.

Because it violates the Treaty on the Functioning of Europe. Treaties take precedence over parliamentary laws. That's why they're so dangerous and shouldn't be negotiated in secret.

Comment Re:Two words ... (Score 1) 282

So the camera's set up in the hall facing the front door and the end times have come. My sanity's being eroded by the eldritch horrors nibbling at my numinous being AND the parquet floor in my hallway's going to get scorched by my incinerating corpse when I try to see if that's the newspaper or the hand of a shambling lunatic poking through my letterbox..? Bloody typical.

Comment Re:It's a memorial, not an art exhibition. (Score 1) 132

You're assuming that the art is solely the product of the sculptor but it's not. The piece is a collaboration between Scott and Van Hoeydonck. Without Scott to commission (in whatever sense), transport, and arrange the installation, then neither the sculpture or the the plaque (Van Hoeydonck's sense of artistic fulfillment notwithstanding) would have had a lot of significance.

If you want to get all classical greek about it, Van Hoeydonck, controlled the material and formal causes of the installation but Scott controlled the effective cause and, without Scott, there could not have been a teleological cause for the piece. So Scott definitely gets equal standing weighing in on "what it was meant for".

Slashdot Top Deals

After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson

Working...