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


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

Comment Re:How is this different from arbitrage on the NYS (Score 1) 155

Lucky for us, the BOTS on Wall Street failed to get their own BOT into the White House a month ago...

Right, yeah, the guy who lives in a gilded tower with his name on it in the middle of New York City is really going to stick it to all of those Wall Street people, isn't he? I mean, if there's one person who really understands the common people, it's a guy living in his own 200-meter tower who covers anything he can in gold.

Comment Re:How is this different from arbitrage on the NYS (Score 1) 155

The only "liquidity" that HFT "enhances" is in the bank account of the person controlling the software. It really is parasitic. It feeds off the system without adding anything to it. If I put in an order for a stock at $3 per share and some computer sitting between my broker and the exchange notices that the price is now $2.99 per share, and they buy the shares at $2.99 in order to sell to me at $3, that doesn't do anything except give money to the person who paid however much was required to have only a 3-meter cable between their computer and the trading computer. The people benefiting from the system have a wide range of words that they use to try to explain why it's actually a good thing that they're getting paid for not doing anything, but the reality is that the money belongs in the hands of the seller.

Comment Re:tail feathers from bird (Score 2) 54

That's a wing tip, not a tail. And, incidentally, the same people are quoted in that article, also about amber from Myanmar.

They are the first Cretaceous plumage samples to be studied that are not simply isolated feathers, according to study co-author Lida Xing of the China University of Geosciences.

"The biggest problem we face with feathers in amber is that we usually get small fragments or isolated feathers, and we’re never quite sure who produced [them]," says co-author Ryan McKellar, curator of invertebrate palaeontology at Canada's Royal Saskatchewan Museum.

Comment Re:Whine whine whine... (Score 2) 216

No, it actually is relevant. They've created a de-facto monopoly by buying up as many smaller labels as they can where they are the major player in the industry, it is hard for a band to do anything if they don't cooperate. As a result, the contract terms are famously one-sided because, again, they have the leverage to essentially dictate whatever terms they want. The only reason they own the music that other people write and produce is because that is what they demand in order for the musicians to be allowed into the system which controls the vast majority of music distribution and publishing. When we're talking about the greed of the music industry in general, the contract terms that they force musicians to agree to in order for them to be included in the system are damn well relevant.

Don't like the system, don't consume from it.

Yes, the "our way or the highway" way of thinking has been their business plan for decades. Only relatively recently have bands had a legitimate distribution network which doesn't require them to be part of the system. And, look what happens, now the recording industry is talking about how unfair it is that they only get a billion dollars from one of the distribution outlets when they think they should get a lot more. That's greedy. There's a new system that doesn't require musicians to sign over ownership of their own artwork and the establishment labels don't like it. A lot of other people have agreed and have decided to not consume from their system, and they've been whining about it ever since.

They only have themselves to blame. If they want people to think that they aren't greedy then they need to reverse the contract clauses, so that the creators are the actual owners and the labels get a small cut for distribution while the artists get the majority. And then the artists can decide how their music is used. If that happens then people won't see the labels as greedy, but when you have people working in that industry who own a lot of content while specifically taking pride in the fact that they can't produce the kinds of things which they have the rights to, it is most definitely greedy and it is most definitely relevant.

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 1) 557

We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term. Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.

I sense a certain level of cognitive dissonance when I hear people suggest that a man who literally lives inside of a gilded tower with his name on it might push to solve poverty or has some keen sense of understanding of the problems of the common people. This person is a narcissist of the highest order, he's only interested in making himself look good. Hopefully he has enough of a desire for a positive legacy to actually address real problems with meaningful solutions, but I think a safer bet is that he's going to do something illegal just because he thinks he should be able to do that, and end up getting impeached for it.

Comment Re:When is 2 billion 18 times bigger than 1 billio (Score 1) 216

That was my question also. I'm thinking that they are using the actual number of Spotify users (if it's about $18 per user for $2 billion, that would be around 111 million users), but then assuming that all 800 million "music users" use YouTube for music. I don't think that's a legitimate assumption. If I want to listen to a particular song I'll search on Spotify first, and if I can't find it there then maybe I'll try YouTube or something else. I would be surprised if even 100 million people use YouTube as their primary source of music. If that number is around 55 million people, then YouTube is paying the same amount per music user as Spotify.

Comment Apple told is they do! (Score 2) 329

Seriously, that seems to be the extent of the logic some of the manufacturers use. Apple has/had an obsession with thin, Apple did well, therefore we need to have an obsession with thin.

Personally, I say fuck that. Phones have gotten anywhere from thin enough to too thin. I had a Note 3 for a few years, which I was completely fine with in terms of thickness. However I recently got an LG G5 which is just slightly thicker, and I actually like it better. The slight extra thickness, combined with rounded edged, makes it really comfortable to hold. Of all the smartphones I've had it fits in my hand the very best. I think they've got it pretty close to perfect in therms of thickness.

Oh and it manages to have a removable battery, headphone jack, and SD card so that's nice as well.

I get annoyed with the worship of the cult of thin. I understand the interest back in the day, I had an early Windows CE smartphone which was a massive brick and ya, I wanted something smaller. However we have gotten to the point where they are plenty thin enough and going thinner is less ergonomic, not more.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein