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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re: I don't want a fucking TV channel! (Score 1) 293

But from a financial perspective it is dumb to buy the same content that is available elsewhere and you lose leverage as someone can walk as they have so many other places to sell their movie. The are probably looking at the successes in their original content and wondering why they waste so much money on crap that litters everywhere else.

Comment Re: I don't want a fucking TV channel! (Score 1) 293

I love their original content too and agree that is where they should put their efforts. Honestly they should just buy up college kids film projects and get more Sundance entries to fatten up their offerings. I don't mind digging through the crap if it's halfway decent, it's better than getting the same suggestions in different "categories". I think BoJack was a great adult animation addition and with as big of a name as Netflix I suspect this will continue to grow but they don't all have to be great. They could sponsor projects without putting Netflix original on it if they are afraid of a flop, they still own the rights and can brag later if it takes off.

Comment Re:Maybe it doesn't measure science literacy (Score 1) 772

I did not read "okay to just don't care at all" out of any of that. In reading the article the purpose to me was to show that the question of if a person believes in evolution is not any measure of their understanding of science as a whole. The general opinion being that those that do not believe in evolution have a much limited understanding of science. The portion i cited was explaining that there are things that a person may not fully understand like say gravity but that is not to say that one cannot have faith that the scientific community understands the principals in gravity and therefore one can generally assume that gravity is a proven fact even if you do not know how it works. For people that do not understand the fundamentals on how evolution works it is used as a way to insult those that do not side with their beliefs whether for or against. It causes heated debates and many who believe or do not believe in it really have no true facts as to why they believe one way or another and therefore should not even be asked as a question since a person's answer is based more on social upbringing rather than science.

Comment Re:Maybe it doesn't measure science literacy (Score 1) 772

I think this quote from the first link sums things up nicely

That's really nothing to be embarrassed about: if one wants to live a decent life -- or just live, really --one has to accept much more as known by science than one can comprehend to any meaningful degree.
What is embarrassing, though, is for those who don't understand something to claim that their "belief" in it demonstrates that they have a greater comprehension of science than someone who says he or she "doesn't" believe it.

Comment Re:So when will the taxi drivers start protesting? (Score 2) 583

Plus if the car has a set route and speed you will know if you will be on time before entering the vehicle. I can picture that in the future I "hail" a cab on my phone while at a friends house. I will know how long that cab will take to arrive and a recalculating clock for my arrival time increased by the time it takes me to get in the vehicle. So if I am going to miss a train I might just stay at my friends longer and catch the next one.

Comment Re:Maybe it doesn't measure science literacy (Score 1) 772

While it may be flabbergasting that someone may believe they are here because a "wizard" this study seems to reveal that many sheeple don't believe in said "wizard" but have no true foundation for this other than that is what their peers believe. Many do not have any understanding of how evolution actually works yet believe in it therefore making the question less of a scientific question and more of a religious or lack of question.

Comment Re:Dangerous... (Score 1) 399

So we should eliminate all systems that have waste in the government? My point was that everyone is so concerned about the cost of their school taxes (which they kind of can vote on) but no has a say about how much federal taxes are thrown away to the military were at least 10x the amount is spent (no one gets a 'say' on this). A large percentage of people don't even pay school taxes but almost everyone gets to pay for the military. My school district let about a third of the teachers go due to the closure of a business that was paying a 1/5 of the school taxes and is now gone. How do you fill a hole like that? Schools aren't even legally allowed to stock pile tons of cash so what prevents that type of catastrophe? No one is going to move to a school district that is teetering on collapse which only further compounds the problem. Maybe if I could resolve my own town budgets before kicking a dime to the Feds we wouldn't have these issues. Throwing money at a problem doesn't magically fix things, but money seems to be the biggest complaint about schools from tax payers yet no one is screaming at voting polls i mass numbers about Federal waste. Also my original response was to the parent asking for better individual classroom instruction from teachers that let students meet their full potential. My question was how do you do that with less money? What answer did your response have to address that?

Comment Re:Dangerous... (Score 1) 399

Even if we do hold back students, how would you fix this? Separate students even further creating more classrooms requiring more teachers? The biggest problem currently is that there isn't enough money. You can't come up with solutions to problems that cost more money. First fix the lack of money problem. I personally don't think is because teachers are paid too much but rather because priorities are not correct. We spend about 20% on military and 2% on education.

Comment Re:Allow it... (Score 1) 340

Nope, I'm saying it isn't the FCC's job. http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do Also I misread the parent's post where they actually mentioned FAA in reply to the GPs FCC response. I still stand by my original statement though, I don't see how it would really be FAA's role either. Someone talking on a phone isn't really a safety issue just because someone loses their cool.

Comment Re:Allow it... (Score 1) 340

Doubtful, if that many people are complaining to the FCC then those potential customers will likely not use those airlines that allow talking which is bad for their bottom line. Again as others have posted it would be similar to movie theaters which do not tolerate cell phones. In theaters were it is not enforced customers just wont go if its an issue to them. Airlines could maybe do something to work around these issues perhaps acting as a relay for cell towers to boost signal for passengers but having a data throughput that prevents data streams for anything larger than the control channel packets giving you SMS.

Comment Re:i'll make sure my kids make lots of noise (Score 1) 513

Don't they already? Not to sound a jerk but respecting others is the only reason people are expected to not be yelling on a plane. You shouldn't talk on a phone during a movie at the theater and for the most part this is a non issue that society ad hears to out of respect for others. Taking a flight to Miami during spring break will probably not be the quietest flight you have taken simply because most passengers are gearing up to party and they out number the norms of society at that moment. But your other flights are mostly quiet because everyone has pretty much agreed that talking loudly on a plane is rude and therefore don't engage in this behavior. Why should we treat cell phones differently? I would think most people would text anyway.
Kids crying on a plane doesn't really bother me because they are kids. By all means, as a parent please try and have some control over your kids by setting an example on how they should behave but people getting angry at kids whose world is so small and who don't know how to control their feelings and emotions is ridiculous in my opinion. Kids grow up just like we all did, mostly. As a society we will always "suffer" through their growth. I try and push past my annoyance and actually enjoy trying to figure out their behaviors at these times and think back on the stupid things I use to think were such big problems when I was a kid. I'm sure I pissed off plenty of adults in my youth. I am in a public place with tons of people operating on different time zones and I can't really expect kids, teens, and adults to respect my wishes so I need to adjust my outlook on these encounters and prepare for them. /me puts in earbuds.

Comment Re:1st 1st-person shooter (Score 1) 225

If I'm not confusing Doom with Doom2 I think it wasn't just 2D, the second or so room had imps on a shelf. Your aim automatically adjusted to kill enemies above, this was interesting in a room full of enemies on different heights but in front of each other. You are probably correct in that you couldn't have rooms below each other. The lack of aim may have also been a choice as the first one I remember that didn't use a mouse was Dark Forces. I think you aimed with page up and down. That is kind of cumbersome especially when tons of enemies stormed at you like they did in Doom. Also maybe they were trying to get as much resources out of dos by not loading mouse.

"Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser." -- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"

Working...