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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:more like (Score 1) 122

With three letters, you can get most gamers' attention: MMO.

More like you can get every game producer's attention, wondering how he can get a piece of that revenue.

Is even that true anymore? Seems like that was at least 5 years ago when everyone was sure that someone could make the next WOW. And THAT was long after it should have been clear that trying to make "The next (insert popular game here)" was a really good way to utterly and totally fail to make a good game or much money, WOW or other title.

Invest time and energy into being creative, or at least buy people who do, and then invest heavily into marketing it. If you want a formula for success, that seems like it. If you think you've found a shorter path, why not claim it will make consumers lose weight, grow a bigger penis, and earn money from home too?

To be fair, firefall is CLEARLY at least doing the marketing part.

Comment Re:Tempting (Score 1) 182

Are you saying that because you're a religious libertarian, are you saying that because your tinfoil hat is on too tight, are you saying that just to be a troll, or are you saying that with real evidence of BBC corruption?

Comment Re:Tempting (Score 1) 182

That second part really depends on HOW GOOD the newspaper or radio is.

If most Americans were to get their news from what passes as newspaper or radio these days, we would probably be in an even sorrier state.

Internet journalism isn't a whole lot better, but there's not a limited amount of it, so at least there's no editorial staff to completely suppress a story. And it's more of a dialogue, so at least there's a potential for bullshit to be outed as such.

Again, I'm not saying the internet magically cures everything that is wrong with journalism, but it can definitely be an improvement.

Comment Re:Again, the ends justify the means? (Score 3, Insightful) 250

I'm skeptical it's not just paranoia and ignorance on the part of the schools. Kids aren't going to stop being horrible to one another, kids aren't going to realize that high school drama isn't anything to kill yourself over, parents aren't going to stop grieving when their kids die, and lawyers aren't going to stop taking advantage of their grief and schools' funds just because schools hired a guy to watch them. Use common sense and do what's right (IE not violating student's rights and wasting money).

You'll get sued the same amount either way.

Comment Re:In before (Score 5, Insightful) 490

Why is it with climate change, we always end up talking about Al Gore?

Imply all the sinister things you want about Gore. He's in it for the money? Sure. He's a hypocrite? Okay! He's lying? Hey, he's a politician and his lips are moving. He's just doing it for a carbon credit scheme? I believe it totally. In fact, I'm just going to go ahead and say that Al Gore is literally the devil. Everything bad you could say about him, I accept as truth.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way... why the fuck haven't we started doing anything serious about climate change when pretty much everyone agrees it's real?

Comment Re:Moo (Score 2) 273

Graduate classes or upper level undergrad courses. There's a few years between freshman survey courses and grad school.

I'm guessing something is going to change with education and research. As you pointed out, it hasn't made much sense for our researchers to be wasting time teaching for a while now. Additionally, there's a flood of PhDs coming. Online classes are coming as well, reducing the need for overqualified lecturers, and the education bubble is going to have to pop before too long.

Ideally what would happen is we separate teaching from research. Worst case scenario is if research grinds to a halt because of budget idiocy, and all the jobs dry up too because they're all tied to colleges.

Comment Re:You are joking surely! (Score 2) 111

Wouldn't the timescale on that be something longer than a quarter IE wouldn't that take WAY longer than most investors seem to be thinking? Couldn't they say "No, we don't want the stocks to dip this quarter. We'll sell all the profitable parts and make bank twice without any downsides. Except to anyone working at Cisco."

I don't know anything about Cisco, that's not a prediction, just saying this seems like a much longer view than anyone takes in business.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain