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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Ummm... (Score 1) 67

HBO and Disney in particular are both large enough to succeed with their own app.

Simply having a back library isn't enough. They have to have a war chest big enough to crank out a decent amount of quality new material, rivaling Netflix's, for many consecutive years for people to begin to take notice.

Sigh. It's almost like your reply isn't even to my comment.

Netflix has the branding (that people understand the meaning of. Yes, HBO and Disney have strong branding, but not as streaming platforms) and the cash stream.

Consumers may not be geniuses, but they can understand that Disney and HBO have video, and that it could be streamed to them. They already had to figure out that they could stream Disney's content from Netflix.

I think multiple giants combining forces (basically to create the original Netflix experience all over again, with a great back catalog and very low prices, but also publishing newer seasons of their popular shows fairly aggressively) is the only viable short-term threat,

The immediate threat to Netflix is that the distributors are not renewing their licenses to stream content through Netflix, whether because they're getting more money out of Amazon or because they're taking it to their own platform, or perhaps streaming is only cannibalizing their DVD sales. Whatever the reasons, Netflix already has to deal with the fact that their library is shrinking.

In addition, there's another clear way they can have their lunch eaten by competitors. Amazon is partway there already: when you watch video on an Amazon Fire TV device, and you have a Netflix subscription, you're offered the opportunity to watch content on Netflix. The next step is to unify the listings into one app, and I predict that Amazon will be the one to bring us that, too. That's going to require giving the user a little more control over search, but they'll still find ways to force recommendations on you — and no doubt, to autoplay them too, just like now, to inflate statistics.

Comment Re:Watches are worn as bling (Score 1) 302

Watch collector/restorer here.

I don't like the huge, fat watch thing either. Nor am I a fan of subdials and other complications for daily wear. And here's the thing: for the most part ostentatiously big, fat, complicated watches are a low-end phenomenon. As you go higher hundreds and then into thousands of dollars, visual complexity shrinks until you are looking at something like a Rolex Milgauss for about $5000. The Migauss is somewhat fatter than I'd prefer because it's very robust -- it's designed for every day use. For dress use, if cost were no object, I'd wear something like a Vacheron Constantin Patrimony, which is 2.6 mm thick and 20.6 mm across. It's small, but the clean design means it doesn't have to be big. For that reason I wouldn't spend the additional $10,000 for the date complication.

Smartphones haven't eliminated the usefulness of wristwatches; they've just eliminated the usefulness of all the gee-gaws on watches for purposes other than telling time. You don't need the day/date complication, and you don't need the stopwatch or countdown timer, that stuff just makes a watch complicated to operate and hard to read. All you need is the hour, minute and second hand. I also make extensive use of a rotating dive-watch bezel for timing things like runs. When I rebuild watches I sometimes replace the face to cover up the day/date complication because it just clutters the design.

That's the problem with watches: it's hard to find a thoughtfully-designed, stripped down watch for under $500. But you can find them. One of my favorite cheap watches is a Casio that costs only $15 on Amazon -- I think of it as a disposable watch. It is very, very cheap in every respect, but it tells time as well as a $5000 Rolex and has similarly clean design. The only changes I'd make would be to improve the lume and remove the day/date complication.

Anyhow, if you showed up wearing a Patrimony I'd be impressed -- not because you spent $12,000 on a watch, but that you'd spent $12,000 on a watch whose value only a serious connoisseur would recognize. If you want to impress the ignorant, go big. If you want to impress the sophisticated, go simple.

Comment Re:Ummm... (Score 1) 67

more, the likes of Disney, Warner, HBO, and pals want it dead, and refuse to grant them content licenses. It isnt that they dont want to stream it to you, the media holders wont let them. Get it right.

Yes, and it's suicidal of them. There's no going back to pre-Netflix ways of distribution (unless maybe they make DVRs even more convenient and powerful, with remote sharing and stuff, which isn't something the advertisers particularly want to see happen) and nobody wants to maintain 10 different accounts to find stuff

Too bad, they're going to have to anyway. That's the model we're moving towards, and even if it fails, inertia will take us in that direction for some time. HBO and Disney in particular are both large enough to succeed with their own app.

Comment Re:But what is a lie? (Score 2) 164

When I tell stories I want to be detailed; but I have learned that people don't want the full story and prefer summaries. Summaries so short that I more or less have to reinvent the scenario in order to get my point or question out and paid attention to.

No. If you are having this problem, either autism is a lot more subtle than I thought, or you are just bad at summarizing. I have noticed that most people are very bad at this. I am not very good at it myself; I have a tendency to give a whole lot more detail than is absolutely necessary, which turns people off.

Since it's not the complete truth; it's a lie

That is not how it works. Here's how it actually works: let's say you didn't do something because of some other thing, which was foisted upon you by some other person. When someone asks you what happened with doing the thing, first you just say "I didn't do the thing." Then they ask why not and you say "Well, this other person interfered." And then when they ask how, then you get to tell them the next part of the story: They interfered with "action". Oh really? How did they "action"? Well, they did this and this and this thing (only give the names of the things the did.) Then if they ask for more detail on those things, you give the detail.

Remember playing Ultima back in the day? You'd talk to an NPC and they would give you a sentence or so with some keywords in it. Then you'd use one of those keywords to get more information. This is how people actually talk! Well, to be fair, a lot of people don't talk this way. They talk like they do in J-RPGs where you get a wall of text (press X for more...more...more...) and that shuts people down because it is not particpatory. If I want a wall of text, I'll pick up a brochure.

Lying isn't black and white

Yes, yes it is. What you say is either true or not. That's black or white, period the fucking end. There are many, many ways for a statement to not be true, and only one way for it to be an unbiased description of what happened — don't say things which aren't true.

You have to interpret how much and what information a person is looking for.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with telling lies. If a story changes because you're summarizing it, you're shit at summarizing.

Comment Re:8% (Score 4, Insightful) 100

it's kind of amazing how they managed to do that and not have anyone tell them that their ideas were stupid

I have no doubt that plenty of people have told them exactly that. It would not surprise me to learn that they fired anyone who did so, though.

If Twitter were an engineering-driven company, they wouldn't be lousy with SJWs.


Comment Re:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised. (Score 2) 321

From 1997 to 1998 there is no warming..

Year to year warming is dominated by statistical noise, which is what I suspect you are trying to say when you say that there was no warming between 1997 and 1998; however for what it is worth 1998 was significantly warmer than 1997, so by your definition there is "warming".

The 'warming' in 2016 is insignificant. It is as straight of a horizontal line between the two points as you can make on a graph

If you choose two points you will always get a straight line. If the end point is 2016 and the start point is any prior year in the instrumental record, the slope will be upward.

If the temperature doesn't reach 1998 or 2016 levels until the next El Nino, then there will still have been no warming.

This is what logicians call "equivocation", which is making up your own definition of a term to make your argument true. What most people understand "global warming" to be is an underlying upward trend in temperature created by increases in greenhouse gases. This is overlaid on both year-to-year variability and of course ENSO. Comparing an El Niño year to a La Niña or non-ENSO year is an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you want to compare individual years to determine whether there's an underlying warming trend, then you need to compare El Niño years to prior El Niño years, etc. Or you an take a moving average with a window that's large enough to average out any ENSO events.

If you take a ten year moving average, in the last 40 years that ten year average has dropped three times: in 1975, 1993, and 2008; remained the same as the prior year once: in 2000; and has increased 36 times. If there were no underlying warming trend then the ten year moving average would be equally likely to go up or down in successive years; in fact it's ten times more likely to go up than down. 2008 by the way was an anomaly in not only was it an unusually strong La Niña, it was a rare ten year period with *four* La Niña years in it. If you take a twenty year moving average the last time that average went down was 1965.

Comment Re:progressive thinking (Score 1) 79

Well, yes, some of those peoples are still around, which matters to racists and fascists, who believe that races and peoples have rights and share collective guilt. None of those people are still around, which is what matters from the point of justice and liberty.

It was the peoples who owned the land. They were very much territorial. In some cases, land was owned by a smaller group like a tribe or tribelet. The land was taken from them collectively, so any redress must be to them collectively. You might not recognize the value of the collective, but they do.

The truth is that the land you currently possess was taken from the prior owners by force. It's quite possible that they or their descendants are still around, and if you actually believed that taking property by force is wrong, you'd give it back to them. You don't, but you sure to like to claim the moral high ground that you're not even vaguely close to approaching. There's no way you can in good conscience sit there and rant about property rights you clearly don't believe in, and also be taken seriously.

Comment Re:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised. (Score 1) 321

Who cares about a single year ...

The people who argued that there was a global warming "hiatus" after 1998, evidently. That is assuming they aren't liars.

the climate models overestimated warming by nearly 2x for the average for the last two decades and 4x for the last 15 years

Which models are you speaking of? NASA's global instrumental record data is actually quite close to the IPCC 1990 FAR model runs that correspond to the actual greenhouse emissions. You have to allow for for La Niña (2000, 2001, 2008, 2010-2012) and El Niño (1997-1998, 2014-2016), of course which deviate below and above the model predictions.

Comment Re:Hardware is so much better? (Score 1) 77

When I was a kid and turned on a BBC Micro, it was ready to use instantly.

And for its time, it was awesome. And today, a pocket calculator makes that BBC Micro its bitch. But the truth is that most of us never turn our computers all the way off, so it doesn't matter much what the power-on-to-usefulness time is unless we're experiencing a lot of crashes.

Comment Re:Best attempted on Earth first! (Score 1) 210

Hint: The delay is completely impractical

While that's true, you probably could come up with a semi-autonomous solution that was smart enough to run a drill by itself if you told it where to drill and how far, that sort of thing. At this point, complete automation of the process is an unreasonable goal, but we already have automated mining equipment on this planet.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman