Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Netflix has a unique and obvious strategy. (Score 1) 144

There are 2 huge problems with Netflix:

1. The elephant in the room is that Netflix simply can't afford the +x% licensing renewal contract costs. Its days are numbered. This is why every year it has fewer and fewer selection.

No shows = No subscribers. No subs == No income. No income == bankrupt or get bought.

Netflix needs to secure a couple of sitcoms to survive:

  * Big Bang Theory
  * Friends
  * Seinfeld

2. The other BIG problem with Netflix is self-censored results:

a) Last night I did a search for "Expendables 3" on the iOS version. As I type in expen it will list "Explore titles related to" with "The Expendables 1, 3, 2" (yes in that order) but then it shows ZERO results. Instead it shows "Redemption" and "Blitz". WTF? I want Expendables -- either on Streaming or Mail order. Instead I get neither. *FAYUL*

How about showing me the movie I _actually_ want, even if you currently don't have it, and let me vote on it so you guys have a clue how many people actually are interested in it! /sarcasm Gee, what a crazy concept !

b) Search for: Soldier Blue . This is a interesting 1970 political commentary classic with a very young Candice Bergen. NADA. ZILTCH. WTF? How can I provide feedback if you don't give me the option???

Netflix changing their 5-star system to either a thumbs up/down was also another retarded decision. If you have a "legacy" account you see 5 stars, but if you have a new account you only get the new two dumb choices. Gee, thanks. How about letting me set this as a user preference. The back-end already supports it.

Netflix is either going to go out of business or get bought (for pennies on the dollar) in the next 5 years. (I'm predicting the latter.)

> Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want."
> They are in the business of TV wish fulfillment, and nobody has ever done that before.

Not exactly. While technically they are older (1997) then Tivo (1999) they didn't start streaming until 2007.

Tivo created the idea of giving customers "My TV, My Time". Netflix didn't have the high speed internet infrastructure to continue it until ~10 years ago.

Everyone is fighting over a piece of the pie. I wouldn't be (too) surprised to see one of the big cable companies buy it. I'm kind of surprised Google hasn't bought it yet as they could tie in their YouTube branding.

We'll see.

My Device, My Rules. Fuck off with your ads.

Comment Re:Because money (Score -1, Troll) 246

That was obvious all along, and perfectly fine as long as they weren't favouring a candidate in their duties.

Clearly you haven't heard of the superdelegates going to Clinton before a single vote was cast.

So what? That's not rigged, that's just superdelegates endorsing Clinton. That's not evidence of corruption and it's especially not evidence of corruption from the emails.

Comment Re:Because money (Score 0) 246

Because they have terrible critical thinking skills and fall for dumb conspiracy theories?

I don't know about their critical thinking, but there was a real conspiracy here, the evidence is right there on Wikileaks......

What evidence? That the DNC officials preferred Clinton? That was obvious all along, and perfectly fine as long as they weren't favouring a candidate in their duties.

So the "smoking gun" about them fixing the process is that an official once speculate about planting a question about Sanders' religious beliefs, not that he did plant the question, because he didn't, just that he once mentioned the idea in an email.

Comment Re:Because money (Score -1, Flamebait) 246

Clinton is the corporate candidate this cycle.

That's the most concise explanation of why Trump will win that I've seen yet. It also explains why a Sanders voter would willingly switch to become a Trump voter, even though they are different in many ways.

Because they have terrible critical thinking skills and fall for dumb conspiracy theories?

I dunno, that's pretty harsh on Sanders' supporters, though it really does seem to fit the Trump profile.

Comment Re:Sometime a delay is helpful (Score 1) 246

So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.

Slow the story for a few days and it doesn't disrupt the news coverage of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. The goal is not necessarily to bury the info, sometime a delay is helpful.

And you think obvious censorship is how they would choose to do it?

If FB wanted to suppress the news they'd just suppress it in the news feeds, essentially what they were accused of doing with some conservative stories.

It wouldn't be blocked or obviously censored, it just wouldn't show up in news feeds as often as it should, it would be very effective and really hard to detect.

Obvious censoring with a crude block makes no sense.

Comment Re:Because money (Score 1) 246

Clinton is the corporate candidate this cycle. Why would corporations want to harm the candidate that's fighting for them?

So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.

The link was blocked for a short period and then unblocked, this is perfectly consistent with an anti-spam system, that's a narrative that makes sense.

Simply blocking the link to suppress the news, that's not a narrative that makes sense. It draws attention to the censorship which looks bad on FB and throws more attention on the docs themselves.

Comment Simple = Mass Communication (Score 1) 102

What's the issue?

Instead of following someone's blog, or RSS feed, or other social media site, you can listen to someone's textual sound bite and suddenly it is "news." (*)

/sarcasm Because obviously what the Kartrashian's have to say about politics / religion / sex provides such an eloquent and insightful commentary on today's problems. Oh wait ...

(*) Except in China

FazeBook, noun, a webspace with extremely low S:N due to where (almost) everyone posts their dumb shit that no one really gives a fuck about -- except you can't downvote the stupid stuff. Also known as Fadbook, Fagbook, Farcebook, Farcusbook, Fartbook, Fecesbook, Fetidbook, Foolbook, FracasBook, Fuckbook.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 757

I believe "editing" in this context meant "Deciding what emails to publish", not "Changing the content of the published emails", so the DNC releasing the originals wouldn't help.

Wikileaks have made it clear they haven't altered the content of the emails, and the fact real phone numbers and blameless people's names appear in the emails would seem to confirm that (If it turned out they were altered, but Wikileaks left in people's phone numbers, that'd be a spectacular PR own-goal on WL's behalf.)

    • .

      . .

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 757

WikiLeaks has shown great interest in anti-US material, and comparatively very little interest in anything that disparages Russia

I agree with much of what you say but this line is just silly. We all know that Putin's Russia is a corrupt, barely democratic regime with a autocratic strongman in charge (an ex-KGB boss no less.)

Leaking evidence that they're terrible would be a waste of time.

Also add to this that Assange is Wikileaks, and Assange has spent the last few years holed up on an embassy in an environment which would be stressful and intimidating even for someone not considered persona-non-Grata by some of the most powerful countries in the world. It's not hard to believe he'd be far more interested in the machinations of a political party whose leadership currently holds the Presidency of the country most likely to lock him in a dungeon for the rest of his life, than memos at a poisoned tip umbrella company owned by Vladimir Putin.

Comment Re:More useful than current (Score 1) 85

> Then why aren't we programming everything in assembly?

Half joking, Half serious: Who says we're not?

Aside, because a developer's time costs more then the CPU's time -- THAT is why we use higher level languages. It comes down to price. We trade quality for iteration time. Most businesses can't _afford_ to justify writing in assembly. It is far cheaper to just hire a few recent college grads and have them bang out code in the latest iHipster language. High Level language are good enough.

/sarcasm Who cares how inefficient & bloated the code is we can "solve" the 80% of the problem. Who cares if it takes 4 GB of RAM to run and 2 minutes to startup!? This mentality of apathy "I don't care about the user's experience" is why we have crap like computers being 1,000 time faster but tasks still take longer!

> The world indeed doesn't need another rehash of C++ or Lisp:

Sooo when is C++ going to modules?? You know, something every other modern language has had for, you know, decades. Why do you have to copy/paste a function definition header to forward declare it when the compiler could do this automatically??

When you have idiots on the C++ design committee -- a native binary literal took DECADES to add, "A Proposal to Add 2D Graphics Rendering and Display to C++", etc. I would argue it certainly does. That's why we have D, etc.

Every year C++ piles on more and more crap. It needs a simplification, not more over-engineering.

As someone who has worked on a PS3 C++ compiler there are two jokes amongst compiler writers:

There are 2 things wrong with C++.
1. It's design,
2. It's implementation

Slashdot Top Deals

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.