Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Want big Hollywood movies? Eliminate Hollywood (Score 1) 142

A cracked copy is always going to more be useful. A player that does things it's not allowed to, is always going to be more useful than one that does not. The so-called copy-protection schemes don't do any thing of the sort and never did. All they do is reduce the usefulness of "legitimate paid for copies".

Even if you actually did pay for it, it's still more useful to strip the DRM yourself or have someone else do it for you.

That's even assuming that the work in question is being made available.

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 1) 142

> 1: Satellite is hack-proof, and hasn't been compromised.
> 2: The latest HDCP handshake has been the bane of pirates everywhere.
> 3: Blu-Ray (BD+ actually) has yet to be cracked.

I think these three are just wrong.

I decrypt BDs all the time myself. The other two also have well known cracks that are often discussed in forums more specialized than this one.

Or were you attempting sarcasm...

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 1) 142

> Old music outsells new music because there's more of it.

The new shiny shiny should be able to outsell the back catalog regardless. The new shiny shiny is getting all of the marketing support. The fact that the back catalog is selling better than the new stuff is still pathetic, even if it's only in the aggregate.

Comment Re:Density is nice, but what about longevity? (Score 1) 152

And what do you see with "enterprise" drives?

Costs comparable to that of SSDs and small drive size.

Additionally, in enterprise solutions, you should not be using singular drives. You should be using drives in conjunction with RAID or similar disk concatenation technologies.

Doing so lowers the load on individual drives and contributes to longer device lifespan.

Comment Most ad providers don't want "reasonable" (Score 1) 301

Because they can't monetize it enough to make it worthwhile.

This is why online advertising will be a dirty, dangerous place that makes the Wild West and Mad Max look like a Sunday church service.

And, consequently, this is why end users who have a clue and actually give a shit, will opt for the most draconian forms of ad blocking possible.

Comment Re:Depends on your data (Score 1) 152

No. You cannot get a 1TB SSD for a "decent price" in any form factor.

People seem to be forgetting that this is the consumer market where people would rather "eat dirt" so long as it's a bargain. This is the same market that favored the command line over the GUI based on cost.

Based on price, a 1TB SSD is an enthusiast item only. Even that's pushing things.

Whereas multi-TB spinning rust comes in multiple form factors that truly does qualify as "decently priced".

Comment Re:Flash won already (Score 0) 152

A mere 256G isn't even going to hold Linux + Games.

Once you start getting into AAA titles and the accumulation of same over time, 256G just isn't going to cut it for the "Windows + Games" use case.

Even phones have managed to catch up to that level of storage.

I find it amusing that someone thinks that Windows can manage with so little. With various sorts of "artistic" assets only growing larger and larger, even the rubes are likely to accumulate stuff even if they aren't trying.

Comment Re:Wake me up when there's a patch (Score 1) 118

> So you want to go back to shell scripts? A system in the style of your father's CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT is what you want?

That presupposes that a DOS batch file is anything like a Unix shell script. All you've really done is demonstrate how utterly clueless you are about either of the things you're whining about.

People who have no clue, should be in no position to force anyone else to "abandon the past". They simply aren't qualified to judge. This is the fundemental problem with the SystemD crowd. They are idiots distracted by shiny objects.

Comment Re:Why not support the top of the booster (Score 1) 39

Yes.

However, if I am designing an experiment, I try to limit any simultaneous changes to dependent variables.

That's not to say that I *won't* (I have) vary multiple independent variables at the same time, but if I do, I usually have at least a "hunch" that the direction I'm moving them both (all) is toward a saddle point.

Perhaps the person deciding this has already concluded the independence of the variables and the probable location of the saddle point. If so, good on them; from outside, I really haven't reached the same conclusion, but, alas, I do not have all of the data they have.

Which is why I stated my comment the way I did, rather than accusing them of bad judgement.

Comment Re:On paper, this is a good decision (Score 2) 107

But I can't help but wonder in practice if it won't leave a lot of poor people with no internet access at all.

Sure, it's nice to have an even playing field. But when you're starving, do you really want the government telling McDonalds that they can't give you free food because that wouldn't be fair to Burger King?

This is the intent.

You didn't think that all the poor people with no internet access at all were the ones posting online about the lack of neutrality in the offering, did you? The people posting already have Internet access, and so the only impact on them would be:

(1) If they were one of the companies that refused to partner with Facebook, which means that they were unable to successfully compete in markets (e.g. job sites, etc.) where they were already underdogs, or

(2) They were ordinary Indians, more well off than the poor, who were suddenly forced to compete with well educated poor, who had the ability to apply for jobs which they coveted

(3) They were people who had to pay for their service, felt that if poor people received free service, they should too, and were upset that the free service was not as extensive as their current paid service

So it's basically a strategy to keep the target market segmentation of startup sites focussed on "not the poor", anti-competitive for labor, against the currently disenfranchised (keeping them that way), and people wanting their existing something for nothing, rather than a new thing that is a lesser something for nothing.

Welcome to India.

Comment Re:Some "facts" (Score 1) 39

- 100% of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust landings have been successful.
- 0% of the Falcon 9 v1.1 landings have been successful.
- There has been one F9 FT flight so far.
- The F9 FT has (among others) improved thrust (and thus more reserves for the return flight) and improved landing gear.
- After the successful return of the F9 FT some things were noted about the FT drives and launches were pushed back 4-6 weeks as it looks right now.

Or the ground landing was a "Oops! We accidentally landed successfully! Let's blame the equipment! Back to the barge! Arrrrrr, maties!".

Multiple successful ground landings would have been good. But they aren't planning to refly the thing even if it's a successful landing at this point. But that does move us 3 launches to reuse from first landing to probably 6 launches to reuse. If they have money to burn on it because they are rolling it into launch costs, it makes sense to roll as much of it as you can into the costs before you end up being forced to drop the prices.

And yes, I know: being cheapest, they aren't "forced", but visible reuse would encourage others more, if it had corresponding visible cost reductions.

Slashdot Top Deals

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.

Working...