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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It's really dumb once you understand the purpos (Score 1) 462

by travbrad (#45344933) Attached to: Re: Daylight Saving Time, I would most like

I'm not sure I follow that logic. The time of year (winter) when the sun sets the earliest is when we end DST, making the sun set even earlier in our day. So during the busiest shopping period of the year, the sun sets earlier than it does at any other time of the year.

Comment: Good enough for most people (Score 1) 385

by travbrad (#44257971) Attached to: PC Sales See 'Longest Decline' In History

I'm sure a lot of the reason PC sales have slowed is simply because there is no "killer app" for mainstream consumers that requires beefier hardware. For example, my parents are using an 8-year-old CPU (Athlon X2 4200+), and it would be very hard to justify upgrading for what they do. Unless you have a specific use in mind (like gaming or video editing/encoding), PCs have been "fast enough" for awhile.

In my experience most new PC purchases now are because of hardware failures or people borking their OS with malware/McAfee, and rather than risking $200 in the Geeksquad lottery of incompetence they just get a new PC.

Comment: Re:More importantly... (Score 1) 171

by travbrad (#43933025) Attached to: Amazon: Publishers Strong-Armed Us On E-Books

They may set their price to maximize profits, but in some cases I'm not sure that is actually what they are achieving. By making a product cheaper you will also generally sell more of that product (whether it makes up for the lower prices depends on a lot of factors). Just look at PC game download services like Steam (or ironically Amazon). They have regular prices most of the time, but have occasional sales to attract buyers who wouldn't have otherwise bought the games. For example I recently picked up Dark Souls for $7.50, a game I would have never tried at it's full price. $7.50 is a lot more than $0.00

Comment: Re:Better idea (Score 1) 308

by travbrad (#42449157) Attached to: A Subscription-Based Movie Theater

That is a decent price, but even $5 is really on the high end when you are talking about sitting in a $5 chair in a big concrete box for 2 hours watching a screen only like 10 times bigger than what many people have a home nowadays. Even without factoring in the profits from snacks and candy a business model should be maintainable on like $1 a viewing.

The #1 thing making that business model not "maintainable on like $1 a viewing" is the licensing fees the theaters have to pay to show the films. It depends on the particular business deals but usually 90%+ of the ticket value goes straight to the movie studio. Theaters make almost all of their money on popcorn/soda/candy. Yes it sucks, but that's the reality.

I think $1 for a movie ticket to a new film is pretty unrealistic though, when you consider how expensive a film is to make, plus the operational costs of the theater.

Comment: Re:Duh (Score 1) 236

by travbrad (#41941613) Attached to: Moore's Law Is Becoming Irrelevant, Says ARM's Boss

Ivy Bridge on 22nm consumes less power than Sandy Bridge on 32nm when idle, according to Anandtech. Only very slightly less, but still less. Those differences will obviously pale in comparison to the claimed 20x reductions from architecture changes in Haswell though.

If you look back through all of Intels die shrinks they pretty much always have lower idle power consumption than their predecessor, although you are right to point out the load power consumption is where the biggest difference is seen.

"It's my cookie file and if I come up with something that's lame and I like it, it goes in." -- karl (Karl Lehenbauer)

Working...