Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Music (Score 1) 195

Yes, I get all that, but does no one here understand how profit is calculated? When your expenses are zero, any money you make at all is profit. (Though for a gig 100 miles away, the gas for that is going to cost a few dollars.) This isn't a profession, it's a hobby job, so the costs of the gear aren't accounted for, and the musician needs the car anyway to go to his day job so that doesn't count either (though the mileage does).

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 694

Funding is not the problem with government acquisition. Lack of funding is not what causes it to take 6 months to buy a simple commercially-available part, it's sheer bureaucracy. Some idiot Congressman gets the idea that they need to set up a huge government program to look through all the government's property to make sure they don't have that $5 part in inventory somewhere, even though it'll take much more than $5 to get it and ship it after you account for the time and salaries of all these government workers, but they do this to "prevent government waste".

Comment Re:Music (Score 1) 195

If you're playing gigs as a side job, then presumably you have some kind of real job. McDonald's is not going to hire you to work 3 hours every weekend, so that's an invalid comparison.

As for practice, that's free: if you're counting your practice hours, you're doing it wrong. Music is a hobby that you're making some side money on by playing local gigs, it's not an actual profession for you if you're in this position.

It's only a "waste of time" if you don't truly love playing music. People who do that do it because they really like playing music, and they play gigs to make extra cash because they can. If the gigs dried up, they're not going to sell their instruments and go play video games instead, they do it because they love it.

Comment Re:Music (Score 1) 195

If you're playing locally and they give you at least $5, that's still enough to turn a profit. That's enough for 2.5 gallons of gasoline, which should be enough to drive you 50 miles at a bare minimum. My whole point is that there are nearly zero expenses if you're a musician; your vehicle is the only cost. So unless you're traveling far to perform, it really shouldn't cost you anything except your time.

Comment Waste of effort (Score 1, Flamebait) 47

Sorry, but theaters are obsolete, and gimmicks like 3D are only going to slightly delay the inevitable. Why would I want to waste my time and money watching a movie at a theater when I can just watch it at home and get many benefits: no screaming kids, no people talking on their cellphones, a rewind button so I can go back if I didn't understand a line of dialog, a pause button so I can go to the bathroom, no sticky floors, the best-positioned seat instead of one way off to the side, whatever food I want instead of some crappy overpriced concessions, whatever kind of seat I want (such as a recliner), and the ability to watch the movie at whatever time I want?

Comment Re:Music (Score 1) 195

How do you not turn a profit playing in a band? How is "breaking even" even a consideration? Your expenses should be very close to zero. I would hope you already own your own instruments (which you would have anyway if you're a musician), so the only expenses are going to be minor incidentals like the gas needed to drive to the gig, and maybe consumables like guitar strings. If you're not making enough money to pay for gas and strings, you're doing something really wrong.

Comment Re:TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 1) 188

What you need is software in the phone that detects how you swipe your finger over the sensor. So, if you down-swipe, it unlocks the phone and works fine. But if you up-swipe, then it erases the phone and then unlocks it.

To avoid you getting prosecuted for destruction of evidence, the software needs to "wipe" the device back to an innocuous-looking state: delete all the photos, contacts, texts, etc., except for a few pre-selected harmless cat photos, and the only contacts and calls and texts left are ones to your mom.

Comment Re:Next: All orders will be secrecy orders (Score 4, Interesting) 158

I'm pretty sure the government in going into the direction of using only secrecy orders ALL THE TIME. Easier, no complain, no report, no end date... why using the "normal" process anyway?

Whats going to end up happening is that all the tech companies that are currently headquartered in the USA will move offshore. They will move all management staff offshore as well; they may have some contractors still in the USA but no high level employee will be in the USA, so there will be no one to whom a national security letter can be delivered. This would render this method of demanding secret access effectively neutered.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 694

I'm not saying Russia's government doesn't have its own bureaucratic problems, but 1) its government is smaller than ours, and smaller organizations tend to be more agile than bigger ones, and 2) smart people are more likely to go to work for the government there than here in my opinion. Russia doesn't have a Silicon Valley or booming tech sector for their smart computer experts. Even in a government with bureaucratic problems, smart people are going to do a much better job with computer security than utterly incompetent people who can't get a job in the private sector.

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 3, Insightful) 694

Actually, it is a bit of a surprise (well, not really):

The thing about Bernie is that he could actually win the election: his polling numbers are much higher than Hillary's when you poll everyone, not just Dem voters. He was a lot like Obama in 2008: he energized the youth vote (youth apathy has long been a big problem for the Dem party), and if he was on the ticket they'd be out there in droves voting for him, and also for down-ticket Dem candidates.

This just isn't the case with Hillary: the younger people either despise her or at least have no enthusiasm whatsoever for her.

She's still likely to win (but it's not a sure thing), but only because the Rep candidate is so awful. If she were running against McCain or Romney or even Jeb, I'd fully expect her to lose.

So the only thing that's surprising is that the DNC is so dumb that they'd double down on such a lousy candidate, banking on the Republican candidate being even more horrible (and they decided to back her *long* before anyone had a clue that Trump was going to win; most people probably assumed that Jeb would).

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 1) 694

I'm not endorsing Trump or anything but lets not pretend the last couple Democratic administrations knew what they were doing.

Bush wrecked the economy too with his various actions (including two big wars).

The simple fact is that none of the administrations (D or R) in the last 20 or so years have had any clue what they were doing. And it's not going to change for the foreseeable future either, no matter who gets elected.

Slashdot Top Deals

"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"