Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 1) 570

Running against Hillary probably wouldn't have gotten her anywhere anyway; Bernie tried it and look where it got him. The DNC had everything rigged in Hillary's favor, so Warren wouldn't have had a chance there. Maybe that's why she didn't want to run. But if offered a VP spot, that might have gotten her interest because then she wouldn't have had to run against Hillary, and would have at least been able to supposedly have an effect on Hillary's positions. Maybe she wasn't ready, but it's not like she's some youngster either, she's in her 50s or 60s now I think.

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 1) 570

She didn't even have to pick Bernie; there's other not-so-establishment people should could have picked out of the Democratic party. Elizabeth Warren for one, would have been an interesting choice as then they'd have had two women on the ticket, with the VP pick at least being fairly popular among the progressives and Bernie voters. I honestly think even doing this would have won her the election, as it probably would have brought more young voters to the polls, hoping that Hillary would croak early on leaving Warren in charge.

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 1) 570

Sorry, no. She royally pissed off all the Bernie voters with that move (plus hiring DWS). This election was basically about establishment vs. non-establishment. People who wanted a big change were screaming for either Trump or Bernie, because they were both non-establishment. Hillary did absolutely nothing to get the Bernie voters back on her side after winning the primaries (or is it "winning" the primaries?), except getting Bernie to stump for her which just wasn't enough after she picked the most pro-establishment democrat she could find to be her running mate. So lots of Bernie voters either sat out the election, or voted 3rd party, or possibly even for Trump.

Of course, Trump seems to be picking a bunch of establishment people to surround himself with (including his VP), but that's another issue. I never said the anti-establishment Trump voters were smart.

Comment Re:Going to the theater is a pain. (Score 1) 330

The fancy theater you speak of sounds great, but remember a lot of people don't live near one of those. And it still has other problems, including both the ones you mention and also the ones typical to any cinema: you can't pause or rewind or bring your own food.

If you have a whole group of people, that seems like a perfect time to ditch the theaters altogether and find a DVD/BluRay/streaming video you all want to watch instead, and have movie night at someone's home. It's a much nicer experience if you have a nice group of people you get along with, since you're just around them and not any strangers who'll just ruin the experience. Plus you can have a potluck, make dinner for everyone (easier when you have multiple people willing to pitch in in the kitchen), etc.

Comment Re:Almost never go... (Score 1) 330

No uncomfortable squished together seats

The stupid seats aren't even good for going to the movies with a date. They're squished together, so you're uncomfortably close to some stranger that happens to sit next to you (assuming the theater is moderately full), but there's an uncomfortable armrest in the way which can't be lifted out of the way, so you can't snuggle with your girlfriend either.

Much better to just watch the movie at home on your sectional sofa. Then you can sit as near or far from your companion(s) as you want. You can probably even lie down together on the recliner (it helps if you're both thin here...).

Comment Re:Isn't this what caused the Note7 disaster? (Score 1) 102

Your response is stupid. No, this stuff has never happened before, that I can readily recall. All your examples are cases where an older technology was replaced by a clearly superior technology. This simply isn't the case here. The 3.5mm headphone jack is the superior technology. Bluetooth is inferior; its only advantage is eliminating a wire, but the downside is poor audio quality as well as radio interference problems. USBc headphones are not a proper replacement because they prevent charging, and also they simply aren't enough of a technical improvement to justify the cost. In fact, the connectors are likely inferior; 3.5mm connectors are simple, easy to plug in since they're round, and extremely rugged compared to today's ultra-delicate connectors. There's simply no good reason to abandon it at this point. Manufacturers are only dumping it because they're cheap and lazy, and one of them wants to sell all their customers brand-new headphones.

There *is* something inherently wrong with a workaround when the problem was never necessary in the first place. No one asked these companies to abandon the 3.5mm jack. The solution is simple: don't buy their shitty products.

Comment Re:no (Score 2) 330

There was nothing whiny about his "excuses". It's his money and time, and his prerogative how to spend them. If the movie companies want his business, they'll make their product available in a format he prefers (and which many people these days prefer, considering how popular streaming video is these days, as evidenced by Netflix's instant play offerings, Hulu, Amazon video, etc.). If they can't be bothered to do that, then he was every right to call them morons and spend his time and money elsewhere.

It's really no different than a company which offers me information and the ability to order their products on a website, versus a company which has no website and insists that I use a fax machine to communicate with them. Guess which one won't be getting my business. But I will make fun of them whenever I have the chance.

Comment Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score 1) 330

Timing and location makes all the difference. I've had terrible experiences, and nice ones. The nice ones were like when I saw "The Martian" last year: we went when the movie had already been out a while (it was probably just about done with its run at that theater, not sure), and we went I believe on a weekday night, so there was almost no one at all in the whole place. I think there were two other patrons watching The Martian with us in that theater. When you can catch a movie like that, it's a pretty nice experience. Of course, if you have a nice giant-screen TV and your own home theater room, I'm not sure what the theater offers that beats this.

I've also gone to a few movies at a dinner theater in the city I used to live in, and that was pretty nice. No noisy teenagers or inappropriately young children in theaters like that (they serve alcohol, so they're probably not allowed in, plus it's not the environment they'd like).

But any rather recent movie, in a non-dinner theater, at a time when there's likely to be a lot of people (esp. young people), is probably going to be a miserable experience. It's really a lot easier to just avoid it altogether instead of trying to game the system to figure out when the optimum time to view the movie is.

Also, having trouble with uncivil patrons once a year is too much: I probably don't even watch 12 movies a year, so that's a high probability of a bad experience. And all it takes is one bad experience to make me think thrice about bothering with a theater. I had a bad experience back in 2007 watching JJ's "Star Trek" and my movie-viewing (in-theater) went way down after that.

But again, timing and location make all the difference, plus how recent the movie is. Some localities have very, very different patrons than other localities, the mix of people changes drastically depending on the time (matinee vs. evening, weekday vs. weekend), and the mix of people changes based on the movie itself and how old it is (e.g. first week of a Star Wars movie vs. 5th week of some chick flick or boring adult drama).

Finally, there's some things that are universal. For instance, everyone needs to use the restroom at some point, and movies never have intermissions (in American movies at least). So people who urinate a little more often are going to be unhappy no matter what with a theater, whereas watching at home doesn't come with this problem because of something called a "pause button".

Comment Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score 2) 330

I would rather go to a theatre and watch it on the big screen. Watching a movie, in my opinion, isn't just about watching the movie. It's the experience, something I feel I wouldn't be able to replicate on my smartphone or TV at home.

So you actually like having people kick the back of your seat, listen to them talk/text on the phone or talk to their companion, listen to kids talk and scream during an adult movie, and only have access to shitty drinks and snacks at absurd prices?

That's an "experience" I can do without.

Comment Re:no (Score 0) 330

You sound like a complete asshole. WhyTF should anyone hang onto ancient and obsolete technologies just to accommodate the media companies? I for one have plenty of other things to do with my time than worry about hanging onto things like BluRay players or fax machines just because some stupid company refuses to give them up. TechyImmigrant isn't missing out on anything anyway; Hollywood's latest stuff is all garbage, and I'm sure he's perfectly happy spending his time watching stuff that's available in streaming format.

Comment Re:Preempting Apple (Score 1) 102

Everyone seems insistent on copying all of the features of the iPhone, even the absolutely braindead ones like removing the headphone jack..... and then release a new iPhone that has the features people actually want.

The problem with your theory, as much as I really do like it, is that there's no shortage of drooling morons who will rationalize Apple's "braindead" design decisions like removing the headphone jack, even right here on Slashdot. Just watch, some stupid AC will respond here telling me how all I have to do is "buy an adapter" or "get some Bluetooth headphones" and that I don't really need a headphone jack (an AC did just this a few hours ago in response to another comment of mine about the headphone jack).

The fundamental problem is that most people are followers, so if Apple and some of its competitors do something user-hostile but profit-boosting, they'll defend it to their last breath, because they get a positive emotional response by being a follower of something larger than themselves (like a giant corporation), not because there's any logic to the position.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)

Working...