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 I've tried Kodi before (Score 4, Interesting) 156

All the content I need is on a computer connected to my TV over HDMI. I don't need kodi for myself, but when my mom is babysitting my 2-year-old, I would like something with an easy menu interface that I can program content from multiple sources on. So whether my daughter wants to watch a show on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, or a mp4 video file on the hard drive, my mom shouldn't have to know or care what the source of the content is.

Hopefully, Kodi can get to that point someday, but without official support from those streaming providers, it will never get there. Maybe this is a step in the right direction.

Comment Maybe I'm missing something (Score 2) 422

But reading the actual text of the bill, it seems to me that it only requires that enough information be publicly available so that the research being used *can* be reproduced, not that it *shall* be reproduced. I don't think it is making it mandatory to replicate the research before it is used in rule-making, but that the information be available in case someone wants to try to reproduce it at any future date.

Comment Re:Easy answers (Score 1) 305

There is a difference between having a locked door that the player can find a key for and open, versus a door that can never be opened.

In real life, there is no such thing as a door that won't ever open, so if you put such a thing in a game, you have created something that the player should reasonably expect to be able to interact with (by finding a way to open the door) but can't because you only put it there for decoration or whatever. This will lead to frustration when the player wastes time trying to figure out how to open the door. Unless, you've made it obvious that the door will never open by making it look fake, but then you've broken the immersion.

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: How do I convince management to hire more IT staff?

An anonymous reader writes: I work at a manufacturing company. We have roughly 150 employees, 130 Desktops, 8 physical servers, 20 virtual servers + a commercial SAN. We're a Windows shop with Exchange 2013. That's the first part.

The second part is we have an ERP system that controls every aspect of our business processes. It is heavily customized with over 100 customizations (VB but transitioning over to C#). We also have 20 or so custom-made support applications that integrate with the ERP to provide a more streamlined interface to the factory workers in some cases, and in other cases to provide a functionality that is not present in the ERP at all.

Our IT department consists of:
1 Network Administrator (me)
4 Programmers (one of which is also the IT Manager)

I finally convinced our immediate boss that we need another network support person to back me up (but he must now convince the CEO who thinks we have a large IT department already). I would like them to also hire dedicated help desk people. As it stands, we all share help desk duties, but that leads to projects being seriously delayed or put on hold while we work on more mundane problems. It also leads to a good amount of stress, as I can't really create the solid infrastructure I want us to have, and the developers are always getting pressure from other departments for projects they don't have the manpower to even start.

I'm not really sure how to convince them we need more people. I need something rather concrete, but there are widely varying ratios of IT/user ratios in different companies, and I'm sure their research turned up with some generic rule of thumb that leads them to believe we have too many already.

What can we do?

Comment Re:Cue the young earth creationists (Score 1) 267

It is open to interpretation, and mine still allows for this. Like I said, if the atmosphere was full of dust and ash, and then cleared enough for light to get through (like an overcast day), you would have day and night, but you would not be able to see stars, the moon, or the sun. When the atmosphere finishes clearing up (on the fourth day), they become visible.

Obviously we look at it from different perspectives. I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is divinely inspired and meant to teach us. I also believe science is another way of discovering the work of God. If one seems to contradict the other, I assume it is a failure in interpretation, because they should both agree.

My assumption is that you totally reject the Bible to begin with, so you can very easily conclude that it is any perceived inconsistency with what you already think you know just reinforces your opinion that it is rubbish.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." -- Richard J. Daley