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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:I don't see anything different. (Score 1) 132

I used serifed fonts with antialiasing in Windows 95 on an 800x600 display. There were no problems with them.

Yes, there were. That's why new fonts were created specifically to deal with the screens of that day and why techniques like pixel hinting and sub-pixel rendering were created and used: many fonts looked like crap on those screens. I'm not saying they were unreadable, by any means, nor am I suggesting that all of the issues from back then have been solved, but serif fonts are, generally speaking, significantly more readable (and significantly better looking) on a modern, high-res display than they are on a '90s era monitor. The visible artifacts that were commonplace back then, even with antialiasing, were bad enough that everyday folks off the street could see them easily while still being an arm's length away from the display.

Comment Re:shit (Score 1) 132

I'm reminded of this recent blog entry by (well-known typographer) Tobias Frere-Jones, in which he addresses the topic of optical equality vs. mathematical equality, and how two different strokes that may have the same width as you would measure them with a ruler can look entirely different in width to the human eye.

Google would do well to pay attention to him, since those Os look ridiculously fat when sitting next to the capital G. And the crossbar for the G doesn't seem to sit next to the O in any sort of sensible way. It looks like it should either be higher or lower. ...and then there's that rotated E makes me think of Enron and Dell each time I see it.

Comment Re:I don't see anything different. (Score 1) 132

Google has already changed its logo at least a half dozen times in its short history, including changing the color of the G outright from green to blue. This is the third tweak to their logo in the last five years alone (though it is, admittedly, the biggest one). Hardly newsworthy.

Moreover, your suggested "why" makes no sense at all. You're quite correct that serif fonts don't do so well at "different resolutions" (more specifically, at lower resolutions), but we're at the point where an HD resolution is considered the bar for entry with new devices, and resolutions are getting better and better each year (e.g. the phone with a 4K resolution screen that Sony announced today). On the other hand, when it comes to readability at smaller text sizes--like what you might find on mobile devices or wearables--serif fonts are generally considered more readable than sans serif since they help to guide the eye better, which is why nearly all newspapers and books are printed using them.

Don't kid yourself into thinking this move was for technical reasons. It's simply because they wanted to update their logo for design and marketing reasons (e.g. the sans serif font selected is more playful than the previous font, the G is circular now so it'll fit into different designs more easily, the incorporations of multiple colors into the G makes it more distinctive when it stands alone, etc.). Nothing more.

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 205

Following up, here's another image showing me getting 12fps out in the open world with nothing going on. That was about the best that I could ever hope for when using that ancient computer, since it was an 800MHz Titanium PowerBook G4, and the Mac version of WoW had not been optimized very well back when vanilla was fresh. Sometime during TBC the performance of the Mac version picked up dramatically, and there were other cross-platform optimizations that they did as well which further improved the performance.

For instance, it used to be a regular thing for me to have to leap out of the zeppelin to my death and then recover my body if I simply wanted to travel between the continents, because I wouldn't finish with the loading screen I got when switching instances/zones until after the zeppelin had already left the tower at my destination. There were even times when I wouldn't finish the first loading screen before the return flight loading screen had started, resulting in me arriving back at my departure point after having stared at loading screens for about 5 minutes. Turns out, it was happening because Blizzard had done a poor job at optimizing the loading of addons. The really scary thing was that I had actually done a lot of optimizing and scrapping of unused functionality in the addons I was using just to get my addons to load even THAT fast. After Blizzard fixed it, I went from 1-2 minute loading screens on that ancient computer, down to 10-20 second loading screens.

So yeah, that computer sucked.

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 205

I can't prove my statement, since I don't think I kept any of the old screenshots I had that showed me at 0.5 fps, but I did manage to scrounge up this old one still floating around on my Photobucket account from back then. In the menubar at the bottom, you can see that it says 4 fps, and that's with only one other character moving, no enemies on the screen, and no spells going off (we had just had a ridiculous wipe on one of the pulls leading up to C'thun in AQ40). Essentially nothing at all happening on the screen, and yet I was getting 4 fps just to render 40 characters lying dead at minimum settings. Yeah. Call BS if you want, but you'll be wrong.

In the bug tunnel, once you had 40 people running together with dozens of bugs chasing us and everyone casting AoEs with each AoE causing an additional animation every time it hit one of those dozens of enemies...to say the least, 0.5 fps was a regular occurrence for me. During actual boss fights in AQ40, I'd be getting more like 1-3 fps, depending on the fight and whether or not I could safely aim my view at the floor without needing to worry about my surroundings. I'd get slightly higher framerates in MC and BWL, given that the environments weren't quite as large as in AQ40, but I was basically always just playing healer whack-a-mole with the HP bars while staring at the ground or a wall (which made fights like Baron and Vael VERY interesting for me), but I loved raiding and I wasn't holding my guild back, so I kept doing it, despite being at less than single digit fps at times. I stopped raiding in The Burning Crusade until I got a new computer, since a lot of those fights called for more movement than I could manage with my framerate, which meant that I no longer felt like I wasn't holding my guild back.

Comment Re:And? (Score 3, Insightful) 205

My dad had a saying, I think it applies here: "A poor workman blames his tools"

Ehh...yes and no. A workman generally isn't competing against others, which is why he has no excuse. Not so with gamers.

If two craftsman are up against each other in a woodworking competition, their tools absolutely matter. Give one a dull blade to work with instead of the sharp one the other guy has, and he'd have every reason to complain about his tools and how they're affecting his ability to produce results. After all, the fact that he is fully capable of producing absolutely amazing results using just that dull blade doesn't matter one bit in a competition setting, since what matters in a competition is his ability to produce better results than the person he is competing against.

So it is with much of gaming.

A "craftsman" of the gaming world may be more than capable of producing amazing results on an everyday basis by wiping the floor with their opponents, regardless of their tools, but put them up against someone of similarly-masterful skill and their tools can absolutely make a load of difference.

That said, I actually agree with your sentiment, since computers, latency, and other factors get overused as excuses when the bigger issue is merely the player's competency. I recall back when I played vanilla World of Warcraft, I was getting 0.5 frames per second (i.e. 1 frame every two seconds; that is not a typo) at minimum settings in some of the raids, simply because I was at the time running the game on a laptop that was well under the minimum specs (the bug tunnel in AQ40 was particularly bad for me). Yet, despite that, I'd consistently come in with the least "overheal" and the second highest healing among the members of the 40-man raid (i.e. I healed the second most and did so with better efficiency than anyone else). When the raid leaders got wind of how poor my computer was, they started calling the other healers to task over their performances, since if I was able to produce those sorts of results with such a crappy setup, the others had no excuse.

All of which is to say, bad gamers do indeed blame their tools inappropriately in the vast majority of cases, but gamers also have better and more valid reasons for blaming their tools than a typical craftsman.

Comment Re:And? (Score 4, Interesting) 205

From the article (I know, I know, but I was curious):

"The huge bottom line here is that gamers don't have to sacrifice performance to save energy," Mills said. "You can have your cake and eat it too. In fact, the efficient systems run cooler and quieter, both of which are desirable attributes among gamers."

...and...

They were able to achieve a 50 percent reduction in energy use while performance remained essentially unchanged. Additional energy savings were achieved through operational settings to certain components, yielding total savings of more than 75 percent.

Which is to say, quite right, it sounds like they are talking about diminishing performance a bit, but if they've figured out some decent ways to cut the amount of energy the system is using, it would sound to me like they may have created some additional headroom for overclockers dealing with overheating. After all, a cooler system may indicate you're leaving untapped potential on the table.

Having looked through their site, it appears that all they've really done is calculate the cost per watt for the performance offered by various components, and have made some swaps to get similarly- or better-performing components that operate at lower wattages, but their research is far from comprehensive. For instance, they posted a market survey that covers the efficiency of 9 PSUs, but PSUs are already rated based on their efficiency (e.g. Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze), and there are significantly more comprehensive lists out there that address the topic of how well the PSUs live up to their claimed standard (and that are also updated regularly as new PSUs hit the market). Likewise, you can find similar work done for other components.

If their site had done a better job of pulling those various resources together so as to provide a better bang-for-your-buck on your utility bill list and was comprehensive enough that I didn't feel like they were leaving out the vast majority of the products aimed at gamers, I'd have been much more favorably-inclined towards them, but this kinda seems like a weekend project done by a father and son team who have environmental aspirations. Merit worthy, certainly, but not worth much consideration from gamers (yet?).

Comment Re:Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score 1) 493

The F-22 is a twin engine stealth fighter with extremely high operating costs and not exactly stellar reliability/availability levels, even after 15 years of service, but at least it works and is VERY capable.

15 years? The reality is less than 10 years. They first rolled off the line into service in late 2005, and production of them stopped just a few years later because of their admittedly high costs, so it's no surprise that any issues with them have gone unresolved.

And while LM picked up some engineering expertise from cooperating with the development of the Yak-141, saying that the F-22 was based on it appears to be quite a stretch.

Comment Re:Cops shouldn't be allowed to take control (Score 1) 236

Agreed. A woman I personally know was nearly the victim of a fake police officer about 15 years ago, back when she was in college.

As she was driving home on the interstate late one night, an unmarked car came up behind her and turned on a roof-mounted red, spinning light like you'd expect with an unmarked police car. She wisely called the police from her car phone to ask them to tell their unmarked car that she'd be continuing until she reached the nearest gas station, and they informed her that none of their units were pulling her over. They sent out an actual police cruiser to follow her and were able to apprehend the fake cop.

A couple of folks in these discussions are suggesting that cars should be smart enough to recognize police officers and follow their traffic instructions, which makes sense most of the time, but there are definitely cases where it does not make sense to follow the directions of someone who appears to be a police officer. The last thing we need is a rash of crimes where criminals dress up as police officers so as to confuse smart cars into pulling over unexpectedly.

All of which is to say, I'm okay with the default behavior being to follow "police" signals, but there should always be an override available to the driver in case they have good reason for not stopping, such as a belief that something fishy is going on or an emergency of sufficient severity to warrant disregarding police signals.

Comment Where to even start? (Score 2) 588

First off, it's a boarding school, which means that you are choosing to send your child there. Don't like the service they offer? Pull them out and send them to another one, or take advantage of the free, public education provided the state of Massachusetts.

Second, what disability? Every study done has either come back inconclusive or contrary to the notion that this disease exists. Every anecdote I've personally heard has indicated that these people have an accuracy not statistically significantly different from a coin flip when it comes to accurately identifying when WiFi is around in blind tests.

Third, is it really only an issue at school? Every Starbucks and McDonald's has free WiFi at this point, and they're on practically every street corner in America at this point. If your issue is with WiFi, you have bigger problems.

Fourth, 2.4 or 5GHz? Because they're just radio waves, so it kinda makes a difference...or is it just any WiFi at all? Would you still have this disability if we switched WiFi to use the same frequencies as TV or CB radio? Because WiFi?

Ugh, these people.

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 1) 468

No, it was not illegal back then. What was illegal was carrying an unlicensed firearm, which, if you had read the article you linked, you'd have realized was the reason he was arrested and charged. Moreover, I believe it was also illegal to carry a loaded firearm on the plane. Your ammunition needed to be stored separately, but it was quite common for people to carry properly-licensed, unloaded guns on planes just a few years ago.

Comment Re:Work for HIRE!! (Score 1) 280

I think it *is* a work for hire. They fix the food...and serve it to you, then you are free to use it as you please...to eat it, to throw it on the floor, you can encase it in carbonite and hang it on the wall as a trophy.

That's a separate issue. There's no question that they sold goods to you. What's at question is whether the presentation of the goods is done as a work-for-hire, since apparently it's copyrightable.

Comment Re:Guess what? (Score 1) 301

Yes, but as with the previous poster, the tone of your response seems to suggest disagreement, yet the point you've made is entirely orthogonal to the thing being discussed.

Just to sum up my stance while incorporating what you're talking about: a hypocrite is wrong because they've failed to live up to their own standard, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the thing they're advocating is wrong, since the rightness or wrongness of that thing is independent of the hypocrite's actions.

Which is to say, I'm not suggesting there isn't a distinction, and I would quite agree with you that if someone opens themselves up to public scrutiny and then fails to live up to that scrutiny they are deserving of being called out on their hypocrisy. That doesn't invalidate any of what I or the grandparent to my post said (i.e. the post I was defending), which is that being a hypocrite doesn't automatically make you wrong.

Hopefully that makes things clearer.

"Gort, klaatu nikto barada." -- The Day the Earth Stood Still

Working...