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 Movie Makers do NOT get money from candy. (Score 1) 265

...that by offering you new titles so early they are going to lose on all the overpriced cold drinks, and snacks they sell you at the theatre.

This is incorrect. Movie theaters make ZERO money on ticket sales for the first few weeks, then a small portion of the ticket sale, and then eventually a good portion. Pretty much ALL ticket money goes to the makers of the movie.

THE REASON why you have those overpriced drinks and such, is because it's the only source of income for the movie theater itself.

Comment Re:Issues (Score 1) 160

Nice theory, but we're talking about Netflix. They make money from subscribers, not ads. In the end it doesn't matter how much or how little a Netflix customer watches, only whether they continue their subscription. In fact if Netflix could somehow convince everyone to keep paying for subscriptions without actually watching any content it would be a dream come true for them.

Comment Issues (Score 3, Insightful) 160

There seem to be a lot of problems with this argument, at least as presented in the blurb (TFA is blocked at work.)

First, the amount of time spent watching stuff is a poor metric by itself. What you really want to know is the amount of enjoyment people get out of the service. Admittedly that is very hard to measure accurately, which is why they want to use "hours spent watching" as a more easily determinable value. However they shouldn't forget that the map is not the territory.

As long as people are subscribed to the service they're going to feel compelled to get something out of it. It's the old complaint of "a hundred channels and nothing is on", and yet people kept watching, at least until something better came along. For a lot of people if they have Netflix and they feel like watching a movie they're going to browse around until they find _something_.

And there's a strong corollary, if people feel like they _aren't_ getting their money's worth out, they're probably inclined to cancel the service. Which means suddenly they're not being measured in your survey anymore.

Of course what's being measured here is the balance between movies and TV, which _might_ not be affected by people deciding there aren't enough good movies on. However the above would still hold true if their (non-original) TV content had also seen a similar decline. I know a couple shows i used to watch have disappeared off of Netflix. Are there actually any statistics about the number/quality of TV shows they've had available over time?

Finally, saying that "a majority of fans" have already seen blockbuster movies is just dumb. Of course the "fans" who were "passionate" about the movie have already seen it. They're probably also the people who are going to buy it on DVD or BluRay. They are not your customers in this particular instance. The people who are waiting until the movie is on Netflix/Cable/broadcast TV are the people who said "that sounds kind of cool" but never got around to watching it before it left theatres. Given that they weren't gung-ho about it in the first place they're probably not going to want to rush out and buy the DVD sight-unseen, they're just going to wait until they can rent it or catch it on something they have a subscription for. There may be no one particular blockbuster movie that audience especially cares about, but if your service doesn't carry _any_ of the blockbusters then i expect that that's a serious mark against it in the eyes of many consumers.

Comment Re:Here come the science deniers (Score 1) 560

"Is the Reward for smoking pop, worth the risk of its side effects should be the real debate."

I hadn't heard about this new drug, but smoking pop seems like it would be challenging, what's the process? And does the brand or flavor matter? How about diet vs regular?

Given its history i would guess that Coca-cola would be an upper. And since Pepsi is supposed to be cool and different from Coke it must be a downer. Is Diet Dr Pepper a hallucinogenic?

Comment Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest (Score 1) 600

Do you agree with Sony's well-paid and successful lawyers about their interpretation of copyright law just because they're well-paid and successful, and thus must be smarter and know more than us "basement dwellers"? (I thought Trump got really mad about that term when he thought Hillary was using it disparagingly, but i guess the rules have changed now.)

I'm not going to claim I know more than the Sony lawyers or Trump, but opinions about IP law seem to differ quite a bit not based on intelligence, but on whether you've become wealthy because of big corporations (either owning them, getting paid a large salary by them, or getting lobbied by them.)

On top of that, there's at least some correlation between being old and not understanding computers and the internet.

So even if Trump is very intelligent and successful (citation needed,) as a very old and relatively rich corporate owner i would not necessarily expect him to understand why it's bad to let corporations sue people into the ground for things that ought to fall under Fair Use.

That said, even as someone who voted for Hillary, I'm glad Trump (seems to be) carrying through on his promise to block the TPP, regardless of what his reasons for doing so actually are. I don't disagree with _everything_ Trump does and says just because Trump is the one doing and saying it.

Comment Re:Never Got It (Score 1) 227

I agree 100%. I'm a huge fan of Heinlein's early period books and some of his middle period books. However Stranger in a Strange Land is, to me, exactly the point at which the quality of his books started to go down. Combine that with it also being the most hyped of all his books definitely left me with a bad taste in my mouth. (Insert jokes about cannibalism here.)

He produced a couple good books after that (most notable the Moon is Harsh Mistress) but far too much of the time took a couple good ideas and then stuffed in a bunch of weirdness about sex.

Not that i have a problem with sex in books in general, but Heinlein always had to make the sex "edgy", and unfortunately wasn't very good at writing it IMHO. In particular if i'm reading a book for the story (rather than just erotica/porn) i prefer to have better developed relationships than he was ever willing to take the time to invest in.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 227

I'm never going to forgive them for that stupid fucking name change, but they actually seem to have gotten their act together recently. Season one of "The Expanse" was great, (going by the post-analysis it probably would have been nominated for a Hugo if the fans could just have agreed on which episode to vote for) and I've heard mostly good stuff about their other new shows too.

Comment Re:Give up (Score 1) 435

I'm 39, I've been programming since I was 6. I relate to this completely.

I observe, as Alan Kay has observed, that the industry is fad-driven and youth-focused. I remember when Node.js was exploding out, and asking myself, "What's the big deal here?" People were getting insanely excited about... ...call-backs. As if it were this bold new paradigm in programming.

I think what happens is that young people get into programming, discover some idea, and then hype the fuck out of it. Other new programmers hear this idea, their brain explodes, and they start tapping the shoulders of all the other young programmers. Next thing you know, they all want to learn this programming language and it's the best thing in 4ever.

I have a very hard time getting excited about most "new" technologies; I have a very hard time getting excited about most "new" **ideas.** Reason being: I see very little that is new in them, a lot that is very old, and I see terrible implementations behind them most of the time.

I often find myself asking:
* "Why not just use TCP sockets, cron, and a couple hundred LOC, rather than importing this entire massive technology stack?"
* "I hate to be a jerk, but do you know it should only require about 12 bytes of data to store each entry here?"
* "Have you thought about using shared memory here?"

I see far more work going into sorting out and arguing for technology stack X vs. Y, rather than in what the problem actually is, and what would be the simplest and most direct way of solving it. Then our energy is lost in upgrade hell, attack vectors, and work-arounds for simple things that are very basic but didn't happen to be included in the stack.

I have seen more code written in work-arounds and patches and side-solutions and configuration systems, then it would take to simply just write our own solution -- with total control, all versatility required, easier flow, and far fewer places for bugs and attack vectors to arise.

So, I don't care about New Language X, or New Technology Y. I can learn the pieces of it as needed, but I just can't work up the exuberance for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

System checkpoint complete.