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 Movie Makers do NOT get money from candy. (Score 1) 337

...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: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.

Comment Re: So MS is basically bailing on the phone busine (Score 0) 162

Yes, I am on occasion forced to use MS garbage and I just laugh my ass off every time I do. It's so insanely primitive compared to it's competitors, and buggy as hell to boot. The sheer # of bugs I uncover after just 5 minutes of Windows use is fucking hilarious. Don't even get me started on the shitfest that is Azure, Amazon doesn't even give 2 shits about Azure because it is such a buggy, unreliable mess. Randomly rebooting my web service? Pure brilliance MS, how did you know I wanted that "feature".

C# is also a muddled mess of a programming language, grow up and use a real language that is supported by open standards and doesn't constantly contradict itself.

Comment So MS is basically bailing on the phone business? (Score 3, Interesting) 162

What a shock, MS is bailing on the phone business, i.e. an industry where their bully monopolistic practices were useless and they had to rely on their shitty, shitty code, interface, and business practices to compete with competitors who actually know how to make software that isn't a steaming pile of shit. Shocking! But of course, MS won't reverse course on developing shitty bug-ridden software, they have trademarks to protect after all.
Television

Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women (fivethirtyeight.com) 858

FiveThirtyEight has an interesting article today which accuses men of sabotaging the online reviews of TV shows aimed at women. The publication cites an example of "Sex and the City", a show which apparently won plenty of awards and ran for many years on TV, getting hammered by males on IMDb. Compared to women, who amounted to 60% of the people who rated the show with an average of 8.1, men gave it a 5.8 rating. It's not an isolated case, FiveThirtyEight says, citing several other instances where the male audience has downvoted shows aimed at women audience. From the article: The shows with the largest proportion of male raters are mostly sports, video game web series, science fiction and cartoons. The programs with the highest proportion of female voters are -- at least the American ones -- mostly from The CW and Freeform, the new name of the network previously called ABC Family. This list is pretty hilarious. Beyond the top 25, shown in the table above, male-dominated shows of note include: "Blue Mountain State" (92 percent male), "Batman: Beyond" (91 percent), "Batman: The Animated Series" (90 percent), "The Shield" (90 percent), "Ballers" (90 percent), "Justice League" (90 percent), and "The League" (88 percent). "Star Trek: Enterprise" is the most male-heavy of the various official live-action Trek enterprises, while "Battlestar Galactica" still managed to grab 15 percent of its ratings from women, which is somewhat shocking. For women, other skewed programming includes "Private Practice" (71 percent female), "Gossip Girl" and "Gilmore Girls" (67 percent each), "Grey's Anatomy" (60 percent), "Scandal" (60 percent), and "One Tree Hill" (59 percent).

Comment Reverse Calculate Average Lifetime of Civilization (Score 1) 267

I'd be interested in seeing a paper that estimates the maximum lifetime of a technological civilization, on the basis that : (A) the estimates given are right about the number of stars, how many habitable planets are in the goldilocks zone, etc.,., (B) we are not atypical, and then (C) that we have not encountered signals from any radio emitting civilizations.

We might find that there would be so many technological civilizations, that technological civilizations should only exist for a few dozen years. Or we may find that they are so rare, that it's extremely uncommon that they overlap, and they may well last for several millennium.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with a lot of self-made men is that they worship their creator.

Working...