Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Apple Mail (Score 1) 388

Apple's Mail is a delightful replacement for Thunderbird. I left Thunderbird in 2004? I think. Started running the default mail app in OS X, and although I have a few small complaints, I'm generally happy. Happier mail-wise than before I stopped using Thunderbird.

Back when I ran a large website and replied to 300+ emails a day, I used mh under emacs, but that's not really for everyone.

Comment I love my Garmin (Score 1) 141

I love my Garmin Fenix2. Accurate Heart Rate Sensing, GPS, swim stroke analysis, power meter, plus it keeps time pretty well. 7 Days of Battery Life, 24+ hours of continuous data collection. I'm eagerly looking forward to the Fenix3.

Prior to that, I'm normally a bit fan of purely analog for the watch.

Comment Agreed. As long as humans control them.. (Score 2) 203

As long as humans control the flying cars, they will never become a reality; and thankfully so. Most people who have licences to drive shouldn't have them, but at least when they prove their incompetence in piloting their car the damage is somewhat limited (compared to a Cesna falling out of the sky). I'm all for flying hovercraft cars, but only as long as ONLY ME gets one. The rest of the idiots I meet on my bike ride home shouldn't be allowed to drive in two dimensions, much less three.

More seriously, the only way we should (will) allow flying anything is when proven computers control the piloting. We're still 10 to 20+ years away from accepting computers controlling our cars (it's a matter of personal freedom!) so add on a few more years to extend it to the 3rd dimension.

And seriously, stop driving like a f*cking tool. Failure to signal should be a capital offence, it goes up from there.

Comment Re:If Netflix is in Canada, why isn't Hulu? (Score 2) 259

I'm in Canada, and I don't use Hulu.

The point though, is that for people wanting to pay for the content they consume, there needs to be options.

If you don't allow me a timely (ie: available at the same time as the earliest showing somewhere else in the world), reasonably priced (ie: charge me for the show, not for a base tier + advanced tier + channel subscription costs), high quality (1080p) steam that I can pay for; then I will just torrent or otherwise pirate said content.

Personally I wouldn't ever do Hulu as I understand that they show advertising to paying subscribers. I refuse to support advertising.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 3, Interesting) 578

No one is owed "free" content. When you've laced your content in ads however, it's no longer technically free. I have to pay a toll of time.

Sure NBC can buy the rights and then restrict the delivery any way they deem fit.

However, the bigger point is, why is it easier to acquire the content surreptitiously than it is to gain lawful access to it? I'm a cord cutter, I don't pay for cable because I don't ever watch it, and I don't want to subsidize the constant creation of crap programming it carries. I shouldn't have to subscribe to basic cable to be an additional set of eyeballs for the one piece of easily streamable content I want in a month.

That said, I don't have to. I'm in Canada, and all the olympic coverage is available online. I'd suggest the submitter find a proxy and go from there.

Comment Re:Good Question (Score 1) 655

That article is poor and slanted, there were a bunch of them all appearing at the same time last winter.
Bad -
Globe -

Better -
A better more balanced series of articles appeared a couple months later, for example:
or which appeared

Comment Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere? (Score 1) 293

>>>> Someone on $20k a year will be spending essentially all their income; someone on $200k a year is much less likely to be.

Provide rebates for people who make $whateverAmount. It also encourages tax filing, which is always good. In Canada, if you make less than a certain amount, the government will send you cheques quarterly for what your GST expenses would be.

VAT Taxes are a good, useful tax, but they should not be the only tax. Income taxes are better at targeting high value targets with more appropriate tax rates, but they're ass backwards in that they target the generation of income, which the government always wants to encourage.

What we most need across most of the west is a better way to prevent money from pooling the way it does into the pockets of certain individuals and corporations; or to pull it out of those pools when it does. Each dollar or euro or peso or whatever is a little bit like matter, they create wells which attract similar objects. When you have 0 dollars it's very difficult to get more, when you have $10,000,000, it's very easy to get more. Money forms pools, it's the government's job to break up these pools and keep the money flowing.

VAT taxes tax the flow of money, which is ok in small amounts, but shouldn't be used in large amounts.

Comment Teh hell (Score 1, Insightful) 625

How is this, in any sense of a safe, sane, rational world; a good thing?

I love building, creating, discovering. The first thing that the ability to self-produce a meaningful firearm, should produce though is a limitation on the right to do so.

No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force, much less the ability to casually produce the tools that do so.

Comment From an (ex) gaming site operator (Score 2) 978

We've seen this all happen before.

Back in 1999, I co-founded A gaming database site which was specific to one game, and eventually grew to cover others. We witnessed the complete collapse of the online ad industry in 2000/2001, and as a result we worked very hard at establishing alternative monetization strategies. It worked, it worked very well, and in 2006 we sold the company doing very well as a result.

I then spent 3 years arguing against focusing on an Ad-focused revenue model, and renewed focus on the user experience.

Ad focused revenue models on websites are lazy, and very very broken. With a couple minor exceptions, most people are not swayed by the presentation of random imagery on the sides of the page they're trying to look at. Tech savy users either block the ads in the browser or they are just used to the ads and block them out internally. Most sites use 3rd party ad networks to sell the ads they're going to display, and as a result we get useless context-free ads displaying at the wrong time in a users day. Ads for Hyundai cars are pretty useless to someone reading a video game review for example.

Furthermore, having an ad-focused revenue model means that your customers are not your users. Your customers are now the ad networks or your directly sold advertisement. Your users are just a means to getting your customers to pay you more, and as a result the users often find that their user experience degrades. From articles which take multiple clicks across many pages, to invasive and irritating advertising, to vending of the users browsing habits, negatively impacting the user experience results in dollars for the operator.

Switching to a subscription model allows you to focus on developing content for the users as your customers. You no longer need to have the dichotomy of negatively impacting your users for money. Now you want to please them with a positive user experience, good compelling features and content. Good content is hard though. There are 10001 bloggers out there willing to write content for nearly nothing to free. So you can't assume that putting up a couple articles a week is going to be enough reasoning to get people to subscribe. Also many sites over value the value of a subscription. Make it small and I might be interested ($3/month), if you're going to charge me $20/month you're probably not going to get my money at all.

Subscription revenue is rewarding though. We had 50,000 subscribers paying us $3/month. We strove to constantly add features to the subscribed users. Ad revenue wasn't even a shade of that, despite doing over (at that time) 5 million uniques / day.

Comment Re:I'm doing my part, are you? (Score 1) 312

I do do my part.

I bought cable and HBO for the 2 months it was on.

Last monday, I canceled cable, because it was over.

I also download it every week, but I don't believe that I count amoung pirates as I have paid to watch it.

They should allow digital streaming (in 1080) the moment it airs for $price/episode tho.

Comment Wasn't it obvious? (Score 4, Insightful) 215

Simple grade 3 math explained why the shares went down. It's hard to justify that kind of multiple of earnings. Their income growth rate makes it unlikely it'll ever sustain that kind of value. It's got nothing to do with generational shifts to mobile.

Facebook is different than Google, very different. Facebook is one well developed web app, with remarkable popularity. Google is founded on the strengths of their search engine. Search is key, search is where you start. Search means you're looking for something, and susceptible to being introduced to something else that you might not have been looking for. Facebook is a tool, an application. Ads in applications diminish my experience with my application, ads in my tools make me not use said tool.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!