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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:eSports commentary is already superior (Score 1) 42 42

No, I've watched national sports coverage of major games.

Compare them to what you get out of esports and you'll see esports for MAJOR games is already better.

As to dumb fucks... your inability to think rationally and instead descend into emotionalism is not helping you. It is ironic that people that make such insults tend to have to have them be more applicable to themselves than anything. ...Watch this:

Now... you show me a clip of a sports game that gives better coverage of a game.

You lose. Don't be stubborn. Just surrender. You're idiotically wrong.

That was terrible, I just watched two kids play a video game for ten minutes and one of them cried.

Comment: Re:eSports commentary is already superior (Score 1) 42 42

Ever listen to football commentary or basketball? Its all color commentary or idiotic observations like "team X won because they scored more points"... no shit, fucktards.

You must have lousy sports coverage in your town, or maybe you just haven't listened to a game in a long time. You get continual analytics in most cases, and statistics that actually mean something. Occasionally, you'll get a fossil like Hawk Harrelson who's just a curmudgeon but even in that case, they teamed him with Steve Stone, who can break down pitch location, OBP, WAR numbers, BABIP, FIP and xFIP.

At least in this town, it's the same for basketball and football, though there haven't been as many advanced statistics developed for those sports. Maybe it's just because Bill James got the ball rolling (sorry) sooner for baseball. But all the announcers are pros and not a single one will give you the kind of obvious nonsense you describe.

Even the hockey coverage in town, whether you're listening to John Weideman and Troy Murry on the radio or Eddie Olczyk on TV, these are guys who will drop numbers on you and give you insights you probably wouldn't have noticed even if you were sitting behind the glass.

Naw man, there hasn't been a "Team X won because they scored more points" in a long while.

We don't need analytics

But people who pay attention to e-Sports and aren't dumb fucks like you might have an interest in analytics. Some people who are interested in video games care about more than whether the female announcer is showing cleavage. One minute you talk about how e-Sports announcers are so great because they give you the "micro" in Starcraft, and then you say you don't need analytics. Do you know what anaylytics are? And did I mention that you're a dumb fuck?

Comment: Re:False Flag (Score 1) 177 177

It's really not hard to think of increased Fed control over fiber being a cover for NSA tapping activity. If the FBI is monitoring your fiber and something goes down, it's easy to say "we're on the job, nothing got cut, you must have an error in your network".

It used to be such ideas were tinfoil hat, but post-Snowden nothing seems tinfoil hat anymore.

Comment: Re:High Priced Meh. (Score 1) 71 71

That's a tad harsh. I have a 1680x1050 display connected as a third display via a USB-3 adapter and while I didn't expect much, it's worked pretty well for sysadmin tasks. I even occasionally throw full-screen Netflix/HBO/Amazon video on it without any serious problems.

I think the real benefit here isn't gee-whiz cutting edge display technology as much as it is a set of display(s) that are fairly seamless to carry around and use with a laptop to give you a triple head display.

It would be nicer, sure, to have displayport chaining and super high resolution display support but even without that you might get a more useful display resolution than 1366x768 and a pretty seamless mounting and portability setup than existing solutions.

And if they manage to use USB3.1 10 gig, it might lessen any lag effects, although it might be argued that displayport would be the more widely available interface.

Comment: Re:Dumb as a Rock (Score 1) 76 76

I think you would probably make a lot of sacrifices for 252 square feet. That's a square 15 feet on a side, smaller than a standard 2 car garage. My dad lived in a 40 foot motorhome (8 ft x 40 ft) and that's 320 square feet and it felt small when I stayed in it; plus, most everything was motorhome-sized (stove, toilet/bath, etc) and a lot of built-ins & storage efficiencies.

This guy says he has a wife and 3 kids -- I think it might take some religious type orientation to live in a cold climate with 5 people in 250 sq ft of space.

The most bare necessities like a toilet, sink, tub, bed, stove, fridge, table, chairs add up pretty quickly. I didn't dig around enough in his web site to see if there were inside pictures, but I'd be curious to see how its arranged.

My biggest beef is just that the poster was disingenuous -- "I built a stone house for $7k". What he built is smaller than most garages and approaches a large shed in actual size. I'm also skeptical $7k can actually cover building, furnishing and decorating even that small space completely. Maybe if he moved in existing appliances. Maybe if he built all his own case goods. Maybe if the finish materials are like prison-basic (just coating the slab with a gloss topcoat instead of tile or carpet), white paint on the walls, etc

Comment: Re:Knock it off (Score 1) 236 236

And there are more people who believe (terrestrial) solar energy will become economically viable but think castles in the skies of Venus are just that. Castles in the air.

To be fair, we have solar energy, getting more economical by leaps and bounds, while our rockets are still blowing up at launch.

Comment: Re:Makes sense. (Score 1) 238 238

Could not one of average intelligence yet above-average perseverance perform an experiment building on another's experiment and be called a "successful" scientist.

Maybe, but they still have to write it up and get it published, and that's where the above-average intelligence comes in. There are drones in science, like in every field, but they don't get "successful" without publishing. And often that means working with others, and working with others requires above-average intelligence.

Comment: Re:Makes sense. (Score 2) 238 238

Intelligence is of little concern and to be honest I'd like to know what defines intelligence.

If only there was some sort of reference that we could use to find such a definition...

the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."


" A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.""

No matter how you define, it is most definitely not the same as "education". I'm not sure if you've ever gotten a PhD or been on PhD committees or been an adviser to PhD candidates, but "education" only gets you partway there (and not that big a part).

The rule on staying alive as a forecaster is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once. -- Jane Bryant Quinn