Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:My guess is their licensees yelled at them (Score 3, Interesting) 495

You appear to be confusing a UDK license agreement with an Unreal Engine license agreement. UDK is the indie non-source code product. With an Unreal Engine license, you are free to modify the engine source to your heart's content, and most licensees do precisely this. It's also the only license you can get for consoles.

This license costs considerably more than UDK.

Comment Re:Aperture Science (Score 1) 118

And he threw a fit when he discovered the need to right-click.

Not that one again. At the risk of being repetitious: Macs have supported a three-button mouse for at least the last ten years and have shipped with them for at least five. Even before that, there was generally an alternative involving pressing one of the meta keys when making a mouse click.

So when do they start shipping with sense of humour implants?

(Now I have to preview / submit before my machine BSODs)
---
If you think you've spotted a spelling mistake,
we probably live on different continents

Comment Re:What are they going to do? (Score 1) 1217

Or how about "No, I'm not going to buy my kid a POS Mac."? I'm sure at least one Windows or Linux adminstrator's child goes to high school there.

Don't you think a Windows administrator would be very happy to know that they can put their feet up when they come home from work and don't have to administer their kid's computers as well?

Nope, I think a windows administrator is going to be pissed off to come home from work and not only have to administer their kid's laptop, but - to add insult to injury - have it be a POS Mac!

The Internet

Submission + - U.K. bill would outlaw open Wi-Fi (zdnet.co.uk)

suraj.sun writes: The government will not exempt universities, libraries and small businesses providing open Wi-Fi services from its Digital Economy Bill copyright crackdown, according to official advice released earlier this week.

This would leave many organizations open to the same penalties for copyright infringement as individual subscribers, potentially including disconnection from the internet, leading legal experts to say it will become impossible for small businesses and the like to offer Wi-Fi access.

"This is going to be a very unfortunate measure for small businesses, particularly in a recession, many of whom are using open free Wi-Fi very effectively as a way to get the punters in.

Even if they password protect, they then have two options — to pay someone like The Cloud to manage it for them, or take responsibility themselves for becoming an ISP effectively, and keep records for everyone they assign connections to, which is an impossible burden for a small cafe" Lilian Edwards, professor of internet law at Sheffield University told ZDNet UK.

ZDNet : http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,40057470,00.htm

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 821

So you think that only people going on holiday fly? What about those of us that have to travel as part of our jobs?

And no, teleconferencing will never replace spending serious time face-to-face with customers or partners. It's managed to dramatically slash but not entirely eliminate our carbon budget.

Submission + - Does your PC really need a SysRq button anymore? (pcauthority.com.au) 2

An anonymous reader writes: Ever wondered what the SysRq key on your keyboard does? Lenovo has decided it's so rarely used that it has started removing the key from some new Thinkpad Edge laptops. We already know that Lenovo are something of the fastidious scientists when it comes to keyboard design. Last time they fiddled with the age-old key layout, it was after painstaking research to count exactly how many times users press the Delete and Escape keys. Now it seems another relic of computer keyboards is starting to disappear.
Music

Submission + - Digital music prices: are they illegally fixed? (arstechnica.com) 1

suraj.sun writes: A federal lawsuit against the major music labels calls them a cartel which has banded together illegally to fix the prices of digital music. A New York appeals court has ruled the case can proceed.

As lawsuits go, this one's a humdinger, charging that the labels engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy to ensure that they each made about 70 cents per track sold online, and that no one received a better deal than anyone else. The case had earlier been tossed for a "failure to state a claim," but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated it and ordered the trial judge to proceed with the case.
Most Favored Nations

The case in question, Starr V. Sony BMG, actually began life as a host of cases filed by various plaintiffs in various state and federal courts in 2005 and 2006. The cases were eventually consolidated into a single one to be heard in a New York federal court, and that case covers behavior that goes all the way back to those dark post-Napster days when the labels attempted to foist MusicNet and pressplay onto an unsuspecting public.

Those early services were at first the only way that the labels would allow their music to be sold over the Internet, and the control exercised was extreme: they were actually label-controlled ventures, neither store had a complete selection of music, and the DRM was flat-out ridonkulous.

ARSTechnica : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/digital-music-prices-are-they-illegally-fixed.ars

Submission + - Antitrust case against RIAA reinstated (blogspot.com) 2

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In Starr v. SONY BMG Music Entertainment, an antitrust class action against the RIAA, the complaint — dismissed at the District Court level — has been reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In its 25-page opinion (PDF) , the Appeals court held the the following allegations to sufficiently allege antitrust violations: 'First, defendants agreed to launch MusicNet and pressplay, both of which charged unreasonably high prices and contained similar DRMs. Second, none of the defendants dramatically reduced their prices for Internet Music (as compared to CDs), despite the fact that all defendants experienced dramatic cost reductions in producing Internet Music. Third, when defendants began to sell Internet Music through entities they did not own or control, they maintained the same unreasonably high prices and DRMs as MusicNet itself. Fourth, defendants used [most favored nation clauses (MFNs)] in their licenses that had the effect of guaranteeing that the licensor who signed the MFN received terms no less favorable than terms offered to other licensors. For example, both EMI and UMG used MFN clauses in their licensing agreements with MusicNet. Fifth, defendants used the MFNs to enforce a wholesale price floor of about 70 cents per song. Sixth, all defendants refuse to do business with eMusic, the #2 Internet Music retailer. Seventh, in or about May 2005, all defendants raised wholesale prices from about $0.65 per song to $0.70 per song. This price increase was enforced by MFNs.'

Slashdot Top Deals

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Working...