Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 130

Are they selling an object like a car or a service like access to a fairground?

Even ignoring quasi-legal arguments like software licensing, I'm inclined to feel this is an example of the latter.

This is not like selling costume packs for Skyrim, where both parties were involved in a transaction presented as a purchase of an object (again, legal arguments like licensing aside - user buys a box called "Skyrim", expects that to be the end of their relationship with Bethesda and Bethesda expected that to be the end of their relationship with the user, save for bug fixes and purchases of other products or services)

This is a straightforward "You pay us $X for access to our service.

And as such, just as paying money to access to a fairground doesn't mean you can reconfigure the rollercoaster, likewise you don't get to mod a multi-user game just because you paid money for access to it.

Comment Idiot (Score 0) 68

This guy is an idiot. Renewables haven't failed, they are rapidly improving and winning against everything else on economic grounds. Nuclear isn't failing because of fear, it's because it isn't economically viable.

Comment The usual suspects (Score 1) 68

It's always the same brands too. The fall into two categories:

1. Crap brands who bought the name of a previously respected company, e.g. Polaroid. If people buy a "Logik" brand device they don't expect much, but if they buy Polaroid and it's terrible they will return it. Plus the Polaroid name usually costs more.

2. Expensive brands that don't live up to expectations. Apple refurbs are a good example. You might save 50 Euros but people still expect it to be perfect.

Comment Re:If it's really a policy (Score 1) 290

It's not true that the CofE is tolerant anyway. More tolerant than some other religions, but still a long, long way from where most the country is. Look at how much stuff is legal that used to be illegal based on the will of the Church. Blasphemy, same-sex marriage, abortion, suicide... And of course they have to have a special exemption from the law in order to discriminate against women, among other classes. The idea was that they would get the exemption to give them time to put their house in order, and decades later they still haven't.

Worst of all, some of their religious teachings are child abuse. Telling children that if they do perfectly natural and healthy things, that if they were born gay or trans, that if they have certain thoughts and feelings they will go to hell and be tortured for eternity is abuse. We put 18 certificates on films for a reason. Books featuring rape and murder and promoting them as being preferable to homosexuality are not allowed in the children's section of the library, and unless it says "Bible" on the cover reading such a book to children would get you in a lot of trouble.

Comment Re:If it's really a policy (Score 1) 290

Not all religions are the same. The Jedi don't seem to believe in a god, and their only teachings are fairly mild and frankly trite philosophical points or concerned with mastering a made-up superhuman ability. Islam has some pretty hard core beliefs about the way you should live your life, the way you should treat other people and the penalties for doing things it doesn't like such as trying to leave (apostasy carries a death sentence).

The CofE is fairly mild by monotheistic standards, but even so has some very backwards views on things like the role of women and homosexuality. So yeah, I would quite likely find an advert for the CofE mildly offensive, and it would make me less likely to go to that cinema, or any cinema, next time. That's my right. It's a commercial decision for the cinema chain if they want to provide a platform for the CofE to offend and irritate their customers.

Comment Re:Oh, really? (Score 1) 198

IPS displays offer more accurate colour overall, but AMOLED has better blacks and colour seem to "pop" more. Having said that, AMOLED is already 99% as good as IPS now, when properly calibrated. LG AMOLED TVs are pretty accurate, for example.

There are some other advantages too, like they can go into a low power black and white mode for display notifications while the screen is "off", or rather in an ultra low power state. AMOLED also reproduced motion much better than LCD, with much lower transition times. One of the reasons why video looks fantastic on AMOLED is that there is no LCD blurring as pixels change colour. LCDs try to hide it by flickering the backlight, but they are never as good.

Comment Re:Or just make the diesels hybrids (Score 1) 174

Petrol-electric hybrids would be better. Diesel is just dirty, even if the MPG is a bit better. Or just go fully electric. When you look at the number of expensive BMWs, Mercs, Audis, Land Rover tractors and the like in London it's obvious that they could afford a Tesla too. For businesses operating within London a Leaf or eNV-200 van would be fine.

There are taxi companies that use Leafs. Very cheap to run, range is no problem as they have their own rapid chargers that only take 30 minutes to add 80 miles.

Comment Re:Oh, really? (Score 2) 198

Imagine if they used different manufacturers for their OLEDs and one had slightly better color accuracy.

They have done this in the past. When MacBooks first started getting "retina" displays they used two LCD panel suppliers, LG and Sharp. The Sharp displays were perfect, but the LG ones suffered from quality issues. Most of them had ghosting to some degree. People found a way to determine if they had an LG or Sharp panel and were demanding to have their MacBooks swapped for Sharp models because they knew that problems with the LG panels were inevitable. The command used was:

ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6

It's quite a common problem. Manufacturers like to have at least two sources for every part. One source turns out to be defective or measurably lower performance, even if it is still in spec. Customers always find out.

Comment Re:Will Apple be able to spec/source a good OLED? (Score 5, Informative) 198

That's odd, all those sound like problems you get with LCDs, not AMOLED screens.

The uneven brightness is common with LCDs due to them being backlit, and I have to say that the iPad in particular is terrible for it (well, the older ones, I haven't looked at the new ones). Same for uneven brightness and splotches. AMOLED is generally immune to them, if it fails it tends to be via banding rather than blotching.

The yellow discolouration is the glue used to stick the screen layers together, affects LCD as well. The noise at low brightness was an issue but has been fixed on newer panels, from the last couple of years. Burn in with AMOLED clears up pretty quickly, I used to get it with the status bar on my old Samsung but after a few seconds in a full screen app it would fade away.

You have been incredibly unlucky it seems.

Comment Re:he should know better (Score 1) 290

It's a purely commercial decision. People hate the cinema experience enough already, with the fake start times and the sticky seats and the annoying ads. I'm order to make sure enough people will tolerate it they have to avoid any kind of controversial ads, which means no politics and no religion.

Comment Re:Wrong way around (Score 1) 720

Better explanation:

sysvinit is widely considered awful by most distro maintainers.

How do we know this? Well, because distro maintainers have been trying to get away from it for years. Even when everything was run from 'init' there have been multiple refactorings of /etc/*.d to try to produce a better start up environment.

At some point, some distributions, notably Ubuntu, switched to an initd replacement called Upstart. Because they were desperate to get away from sysvinit. ChromeOS, possibly the most widely used Desktop GNU/Linux distribution, was also an early adopter of Upstart. Again because it was considered better - more reliable, faster, etc - than horrible old init.

So why are they switching to systemd? Because systemd is considered better than Upstart (which in turn is considered better than sysvinit.) systemd has a better process model, and doesn't ignore required functionality (yes, the same program that configures devices at start up probably should configure USB devices that are plugged in dynamically, and the same processes that configure the network based upon what devices are plugged in at start up should probably configure the network based upon what devices become available later, etc. So yes, this supposed "monolithic" approach is basic common sense.)

Most of those complaining about systemd are actually fighting an argument they lost in 2006, when Upstart became part of Ubuntu 6.10. They've lost it not just in the GNU/Linux world, but also in, say, the Mac OS X world, where sysvinit was unceremoniously ejected back in 2005. Or the Solaris world. etc.

You know, I could understand this if we were actually losing anything by switching to systemd. The desire to remove X11 from *ix, for example, replacing it with a dumb graphics engine with a fraction of the functionality, I think is genuinely a tragedy. We'll lose much of what made *ix what it is if and when Wayland is adopted. But systemd doesn't remove anything. It's fast, efficient, and it fixes huge holes in GNU/Linux, problems we've been aware of since the mid-nineties but haven't had the spine to fix.

It's something to be welcomed.

Comment Re:Mistakes? (Score 1) 66

The rules are entirely consistent. They state that companies are only allowed to hold and provide personal information if they have a need to do so. What is allowed is defined. Reporting things like spent convictions or that someone was raped long ago has been ruled by the court to be outside that definition.

Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.