Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment ... I wasn't going to see it this weekend BUT (Score 1) 267

saw it this morning - wasn't expecting to be blown away and I wasn't, but also wasn't disappointed with the movie. I'll have to see it again (eventually) to decide whether it is a good movie or not (e.g. "Phantom Menace" gets worse every time I stumble upon it)

yes, there are massive plot holes. yes, it is predictable. No Jar Jar, no midi-chlorians, handles the whole "Star Wars universe" burden as well as can be expected - basically a good time ...

Comment doing what is in their best interest (Score 1) 365

yes, revise the U.S. tax code - like politicians will ever do that ...

a less knee jerk/punish big corporations perspective in the WSJ:

The companies expect to achieve $2 billion in cost savings as well as significant tax benefits from the deal, under which Pfizer’s tax base would shift to Allergan’s home base in Ireland in a so-called inversion. As a result of the move, Pfizer expects to cut its tax rate to 17% or 18%, from its roughly 25% rate currently, because corporate taxes in Ireland are lower than in the U.S.

Comment basic economics (Score 2) 500

the owner "paid" for the increase in employee salaries by lowering his salary.

Also worth pointing out that people are making "at least" $70,000 - which implies that some (i.e. "more valuable") people are making more than $70,000. So this isn't some sort of "commune".

Under the "nothing new under the sun" category - Henry Ford did something similar during the early days of the assembly line (1914), introducing a $5 a day minimum wage (increasing from $2.34). The problem Ford had was people hated working on an assembly line. Employees would work a relatively short time then quit. The constant hiring and training was expensive - but more than doubling the daily wage was enough to increase employee retention and actually saved the company money ...

Comment copyright 101 - edx course on the music business (Score 2) 386

BerkleeX: BCM-MB110x Introduction to the Music Business - goes into great detail on the in's and out's of proving copyright infringement (taught by John P. Kellogg, Esq - you might be able to access the archived course)

Basically you need to satisfy three requirements 1. actually have a copyright (easy if you filed correctly), 2. prior access to the work (harder to prove), and 3. substantial similarity (one for the musicologists and then the jury).

most copyright infringement claims are settled out of court (e.g. "I Want a New Drug" vs "Ghostbusters"). A big factor in so many settlements is that you can be ordered to pay court costs if you lose and that juries are never a sure thing (but that is just my opinion)

I don't have an opinion on this specific case - but I will defend the concept of the copyright as crucial to the "creative" industry

in the "duck and run" category this case has my attention ...

Comment their goal isn't to "get you a job" (Score 1) 253

full disclosure: I haven't had a good experience with "recruiters"

It is misleading to say that they want to "get you a job." Best case - their purpose is to match the "best fit" candidate with the right opening, Remember that "best fit" doesn't equal most experienced/skilled - it means the optimum combination of experience/skills/salary/personality for that company

Worst case: you get idiots reading from checklists, sending out spam about "seeing your resume online"

Comment writers write, right (Score 2) 522

When asked for advice on "how to become a writer" - most professional writers will come back with some form of "write something, then write something else, then write some more." A big part of the writing process is figuring out when, where, and how you are able to write. i.e. The tools you use to write shouldn't get in the way of your writing (the second most popular tip is "when you aren't writing - read")

if Mark Zuckerberg were to come out and say that he is using a Commodore 64 or TRS-80 to work on Facebook - that would be unusual...

Mr. Martin's writing process has the benefit of being almost 100% secure (maybe Quentin Tarantino needs a downgrade)

Comment Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. (Score 1) 303

I'm half way through "Flash Boys" (well written, entertaining). It is interesting the impact that technology has had on the stock market, but this isn't anything new (which is one of the points of "Flash Boys").

one for putting things in perspective: "Where are the Customers’ Yachts?" by Fred Schwed, Jr. (first edition 1940).

and under "they are trying to change the world": IEX Group

Comment Grow effective leading-edge infrastructures (Score 2) 119

didn't I just read somewhere about Google doing something with this enterprise cloud thing?

the answer to the question is "it depends" - my gut says "no" but as others have pointed out, if you want to know if something will be a cost effective solution, you need to test

the game changing benefit of the "cloud" is the ability to scale up/down as needed ... SO from a financial viewpoint the question is similar to "Should we buy a building or rent office space?"

BTW my headline is from a Dilbert gobbledygook generator - which I'm 90% sure that 100% of CTO's use an undefined % of the time

Comment "We have met the enemy and they are us" (Score 3, Informative) 490

As a long time Netflix subscriber (maybe 10 years - going back to when it was 3 DVDs at a time for $14.99 and no streaming option) - I'd say the answer to the headline is "no."

Reed Hastings claims that high-speed internet streaming was always his plan for Netflix - they just had to wait for the technology to catch up. While they were waiting, Netflix had to fight off competition from Wal-Mart (Netflix bought them out) and Blockbuster (who probably wish Netflix had bought them out) in the "DVD by mail" space. When they first rolled out the "streaming" option, the movies available for streaming were not good (but streaming was a free add on - so it didn't really matter).

When streaming became a viable option, the big problem Netflix ran into was Netflix ("We have met the enemy and they are us"). They tried to raise the monthly fee and people bolted for the door (800,000 members quickly gone). Netflix said "oops!" and decided to split into two services (Anybody remember "Quickster?"), which people also hated - so we got something like the current price structure.

So, no DVDs are not inconvenient on purpose, and won't go away anytime soon. Netflix arrived at its pricing structure by responding to market forces. Streaming content is the future (and the future is now!) - which means licensing agreements with content creators/providers will surpass "hard copy" sales (if they haven't already).

...and if you are colecting marketing data for Netflix: I'm a streaming only customer. I "rent"/stream a lot of just released movies from Amazon.com (had a problem with the 30 day wait time for DVD new releases from Netflix - but if I could get new movies the week they are released on DVD I'd go back) ...

Comment the real problem is shovels ... (Score 1) 754

an anecdote from the WSJ

'At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

yes - "innovation" will destroy jobs (file that observation under creative destruction) but that will also result in new (as yet unknown) opportunities...

Slashdot Top Deals

The perversity of nature is nowhere better demonstrated by the fact that, when exposed to the same atmosphere, bread becomes hard while crackers become soft.