Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze (Score 1) 265

but are Americans willing to pay 50%-100% more for their electronics

No, but they are willing to increase the deficit and debt by allowing government subsidies to companies employing Americans. I suspect that's what will happen with more and more of these deals.

Comment Re:DVR-proof? (Score 1) 136

The "DVR-proof" argument seems backwards to me. The biggest value in seeing the game live is that the window for watching it after the fact is severely limited at best, if it exists at all. Nobody plays World Series reruns. If I'm busy during the game and I don't DVR it, I can't watch it. Outside of network news coverage, it is the only thing on TV that I can't eventually catch later. It's like "Sports are best viewed live" is a command, not an observation.

Near the end of last season while visiting my father we watched some "Jays in 30" episodes on one of the sports chanels (Sportsnet?) he gets in Vancouver. They do a condensed commentary of the entire games - "Catch all the action in 30 minutes." Pretty enjoyable. Looks like it is available "on demand" from a few places:

Comment Re:Slashdot headline wrong (Score 1) 136

who DVRs series or movies any more?

DVRs are very wife-friendly. You go to a program in the guide and press [Record Series]. No waiting for it to appear in the stream, no worry that it's carried on a streaming service you don't subscribe to, no worries about commercials inserted in that you can't skip over, no 'this program no longer available.'

Never underestimate the power of something being wife-friendly.

Comment Re:not just live sports (Score 3, Interesting) 136

My GF watches lots of TV live - reality TV and sometimes drama

I will almost never watch live, but I'll watch quasi-live. Assuming a show like The Walking Dead will have approximately 16 minutes of ads, I'll start playing the recording as the show is still recording. So I'll start watching 15-20 minutes after the show has started, skip the commercials throughout and I'll finish watching just as it finishes the broadcast.

Comment Re: Top down decision (Score 1) 258

Thanks, I've thought so too, but the Anonymous Coward claimed that stores would let him pay 3% less if he paid with cash.

I suspect that many business owners do not properly understand the costs associated with dealing in cash, and it is quite possible that some could give such a discount.

From a business point of view, offering such a discount could generate increased sales that might offset higher costs, so it isn't necessarily a bad move on the retailer's part even if it the discount is greater than the actual decrease in costs.

Comment Re: Top down decision (Score 1) 258

Can you give examples of specific stores that agree?

would they then at least take a check? 3% is probably enough, but I still think it is a pain to have to carry/deal with that kind of cash.

Generally, dealing with cash is NOT 3% less expensive than dealing in credit card payments for the merchant. There are issues of dealing in cash (some of it occasionally gets lost or stolen, someone needs to be paid for counting it and bringing it to the bank and properly entering it into the books, etc.) While it is PROBABLY cheaper for the merchant to take cash, dealing in cash is NOT free of expenses.

Comment A pity, but not a surprise (Score 3, Informative) 95

It only makes sense that you should only be allowed to review something you've actually bought through the site, but man will I miss the comedy reviews. The reviews for the Trump Christmas tree ornament hat are GOLD, as were the reviews for uranium in a can and all the others.

Comment Re:Um... so what? (Score 1) 106

So you are arguing that ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis) should be suppressed because they are so much better for 98% of the population, but may make it harder for the other 2%?

Largely we're not talking about Uber's customers, we're talking about Uber's employees.

...and yes, Uber's drivers are obviously Uber's employees.

When I buy a box on Amazon via their app, the employees that package and ship that box to me work under local labour laws. Uber needs to do the same.

Comment Re:uhm... (Score 1) 284

one should perhaps consider that those reports are likely reflections of the underlying reality.

The fact that "consensus" claim cannot be valid has already been shown in this thread. A small minority within any community can always hijack a political conversation to create a perception of universal "consensus" through intimidation of skeptics and control of resources (thereby starving any voices of disagreement). The tone in which the AGW hypothesis is being defended suggests that critical voices are being stifled and their research is being excluded from the funding considerations. Fear and intimidation will get you consensus on just about any issue. The fact that a political organization is, once again, joining the chorus of politically-tainted claims puts in question the integrity of research. It does not mean that the facts claimed by the research are wrong. But it does mean that the research is not scientifically validated.

While the tone of the AGW hypothesis discussion in the political space does suggest the issues of potential fear and intimidation and the like, there is little evidence that the same holds true in the worldwide accademic research community. Despite a lot of searching for evidence of that type of "cherry picking" of funding or lines of inquiry, there is very little of it that I am aware of - and the claims of this type of biases are fairly weak upon further investigation. While it MIGHT be true that the evil overlords are suppressing the true and honest scientists while the lackey sheep scientists are putting their fingers on the scales in all their research, thus resusting in a paupacy of anti-AGW evidence and an overwhelming pile of pro-AGW evidence, a more likely reason for such a divide is that the AGW hypothesis is a more accurate model of the behaviour of the climate. Sometimes the reason all the results turn out in one way is because reality is in fact that one way (and by "sometimes" I mean "usually").

Similar to the idea that bacterium Helicobacter pylori is the primary cause of stomach ulcers, the initial idea was strongly questioned, but since the idea held up to a number of further studies, it was "quickly" accepted as the best model, and within 10 years from the initial idea, antibiotic therapy became the recommended standard treatment for ulcers. Even against the ecconomic and political pressures of estabilished interests, the science settled pretty quickly. I do not see a whole lot of difference in the global climate science community.

What to do about public policy is clearly not settled, but the science questions have clearly moved beyond the "Is AGW the most accurate current model?" question and more towards the "What are the finer details of particular changes that can be made to the model and/or the imputs, and how do they effect the outcomes?"

Comment Re:New Trump fan here! (Score 1) 600

Think drugs, terrorists, cartels, etc.

I will 'think' about those things once was have some hard numbers from reputable sources.

For example, how many terrorist acts were committed based on people coming in from Mexico? And as for drugs, if you want to eliminate those, just legalese in the USA. Presto, no more market for drug dealers.

Just seems silly to me to contemplate spending 40 Billion on something - Money that could go to education, healthcare, veterans - When there doesn't seem to be hard facts indicating that that spend is a good investment of tax dollars that will solve a real problem.

I'm a fiscal conservative, so I need to see the numbers first, before I can get behind something like that.

Comment Re:New Trump fan here! (Score 1) 600

I've been a big Trump fan ever since he promised to build a wall during the announcement of his candidacy

Just curious - Why would you support spending forty billion dollars to build a wall when net immigration from Mexico is negative?

Seems to me there are way better ways the USA could spend forty billion.


Comment Re:uhm... (Score 1) 284

- I think that there are so many incentives and systems in place to combat those biases that it is possible to draw some fairly confident conclusions in most cases.

There are. But in some inquiries there more incentives for bias while in others there is more incentives against bias. And a purely political organization has more incentive for bias.

But all of the scientists who are actually making the reports have different incentives. Again, just because a bias might exist, does not mean that the results are invalid. Tossing out a report because it might be biased is not necessarily a bad idea, but if that report agrees with virtually every other report and study in broad terms, one should perhaps consider that those reports are likely reflections of the underlying reality.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe