Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Scathing (Score 0, Troll) 155

Assange is doing this mostly because he has a personal beef with Hillary since he perceives her as one of the driving forces behind his effective incarceration (which is likely true), and partly because he doesn't like her war-hawkishness. He's stated all this before, you just have to put the pieces together.

However the fact that he's risking putting Trump in the White House over this personal feud shows that he's just as immature and reckless as Trump himself, who has pledged not to protect certain NATO allies, has too much of a man-crush on Putin to tell him not to invade any more former Soviet satellite states, and has expressed interest in carpet-bombing ISIS territory and committing war crimes against the populations therein - a candidate who would stumble into many more wars than Hillary would even willingly enter.

Comment Re:Wait... Who got that other half of the $$$ rais (Score 5, Informative) 33

I spent about fifteen years of my career in the non-profit sector, so I have some perspective on this.

Raising money in a non-profit is just like selling stuff is for a for-profit. Generating gross revenue is relatively easy -- if you spend a lot of money you can rake in a lot of dough. What's a bitch to generate is net profit. In the non-profit sector we don't use the term "profitability" very much, so the metric that's often used to describe financial is "cost to raise a dollar." For typical fundraising activities cost-to-raise-a-dollar runs from 0.25 to 1.5 dollars/dollar.

Take junk mail. The cost to raise a dollar for a well-run direct mail campaign is in the range of $1.25 to $1.50, so if I want to raise $115,000 to spend on other things I have to scale my direct mail campaign to bring inover $258,000 gross. As you can see I chose a net target that was exactly 1/1000 the size of the ALS bucket challenge net, so you can compare the efficiency of the processes readily. The cost to raise a dollar for the ALS bucket challenge is actually better than a well-run direct mail campaign -- $0.91.

And it should be more efficient than direct mail, because direct mail is about the least efficient method there is. The marginal costs are huge because you pay for the names and addresses as well as printing and mailing of each piece, and most of those pieces will end up in the landfill unopened. So if direct mail is so inefficient, why use it? Because the financial inefficiency doesn't matter to the organization doing the fundraising. The end result of my hypothetical direct mail campaign is that my organization has $115,000 it didn't have before. That probably pays for one and half full time staff positions (at the low do-gooder wages we pay) for a year.

So the ALS challenge was in the financial efficiency range of methods normally used by non-profits, albeit a little towards the inefficient end. That doesn't really tell us if the campaign was responsibly run or not; to know that you'd have to look at all the expenses and compare those to costs in other viral Internet fundraising campaigns. But the bottom line is that the ALS association ended up with $115 million it didn't have before.

Can you think of a way of raising $115 million in a few months? I thought not. So presuming the guys who ran the campaign didn't spend the money on hookers and blow, I wouldn't be unduly concerned by a cost-to-raise-a-dollar of $0.91 if I was on the board.

Should donors care that the ALS challenge was a little high on the cost-to-raise-a-dollar metric? Well, I look at it this way. People did it because it was fun and for a good cause, and two years later we can point to concrete and significant scientific results from the money raised. That's not only pretty good, it's pretty damned awesome.

Comment Re:That's the last straw: TRUMP IS A TRAITOR (Score 2) 997

He's said it twice with a straight face, and he's said similarly ridiculous things in complete seriousness before. He's never done deadpan sarcasm before. Does he have to preface it with "This is not a joke, this is my serious face" before we can be sure he's serious?

Comment Re:The Theater Experience (Score 1) 326

Also it's not that hard to get a big-screen experience at home. With a digital projector and a couple of decent speakers, you can get a screen size that appears similar, BETTER sound, a nice lawn chair which is lightyears ahead of those small tightly-packed and questionably clean theatre seats, plus your selection of snacks and booze (and even other things ;-) ) AND you can pause or rewind the movie any time you like! I do this on the side of the house...only downside of my setup is vulnerability to rain! But if you have a garage with an empty white wall, that works well too.

Comment Step in a dog turd to dodge a bullet. (Score 0) 394

Vote Hillary for the best chance of not electing a reckless incompetent bigot who will be outsmarted and taken advantage of by the despots he so admires. Voting for Hillary sucks, I know, but she won't fuck things up too badly. Just mildly, like Obama did. Trump will fuck things up beyond repair. And by "things" I mean "every damn thing, especially the US economy."

This is not a practice run, there are no backsies. Remember Brexit.

Comment Frightening change in the last few days (Score 1, Interesting) 997

Since Trump has been officially nominated, popular support for him on Slashdot has skyrocketed, even among individuals who I previously considered to be relatively sane and somewhat intelligent. Seems that all the conservatives have said to themselves "Well Trump is our party's candidate now, like or not, so I guess we better throw all our support behind this dangerous manchild."

I'm sure most of them know that he's by far the more dangerous choice compared to Republican Satan and the responsible, adult thing to do would be to write in a candidate/vote 3rd party and hope for the best or settle for their protest vote at worst, but they advocate for Trump, for the glory of The Party.

Comment Re:anti-science environmentalists (Score 1) 181

Actually, it's thoroughly impossible to tell how the new standards work based upon by the linked articles, but it sounds like in plain language that Florida is using a computer model that could allow more flexibility in discharge permitting. This can lead to better results, whether your definition of better is "more rationally defensible" or "more in line with what my donors want." Determining which way it is better requires review by a competent expert. It might be both.

The real issue here is this phrase from TFA: "one of a kind." That's not so good.

It's important in managing environmental data to do things in the usual way. This is contrary to the way public thinks about new technologies. If there's a new iPhone, you expect it to be better in every way or at least as good. It's not like that with scientific methods; new techniques are proposed because they have certain advantages, obviously. But they always have one big disadvantage: their results are hard to compare with what you already know. You need to do a lot of work to justify doing things a new way, otherwise you can find yourself unable to compare what is happening now to what was happening before.

Fortunately Florida can't do this on its own; it has to get EPA approval. Since this is an administration that is generally favorable to environmental regulation, if they can get this past Obama's EPA that will help give these new methods more credibility.

Comment Re:That's Interesting & Irrelevant (Score 1) 56

My picture was nice too, but they had system boards that shouldn't have made it through basic inspection, and of course the mechanical design was absurd. Since there was no provision for mounting the system boards in a conventional way I have to conclude that the sloppy construction at least was by design.

Now as for whether LeEco build quality will be better, worse, or the same, I have no opinion. I'm just reacting to the notion that Vizio makes a quality TV. In my experience it doesn't. Your experience doesn't negate that, because the tough thing isn't turning out quality units, it's turning them out consistently. That's why it's called quality "control" or "assurance".

Slashdot Top Deals

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal