Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:"TV series" (Score 1) 438

I think it loses the ability to call itself a "TV series" when it refuses to air over a conventional method for getting television into your home... Just sayin'.

How come? Consider the source of the word "television," tele meaning from a distance, and vision being to view something. The show is still being presented to a large audience over a great geographic distance, you're still viewing something remotely from where it's produced. Only the technology behind it has changed, moving from radio frequencies over the air to radio frequencies over a coaxial cable, and now to pulses of light over fiber.

I love Trek, but I hope this flops so CBS will know their service is lame.

In what way is it "lame"? Shows cost money to produce, and that money has to come from somewhere. Consider that a lot of scripted prime time shows cost in the $3-4 million range to produce. You'd need 3-4 million people to chip in a buck to cover the cost of a show, but consider how many shows CBS is running and how many shows people watch. Scorpion, The Big Bang Theory, 2 Broke Girls, NCIS and its two spin-offs, Blue Bloods, The Good Wife, Code Black, CSI and CSI: Cyber, Extant, Limitless, Hawaii Five-O, Madam Secretary, Elementary, The Mentalist, Mom, The Odd Couple, Person of Interest, Stalker, Supergirl, Life in Pieces, Criminal Minds, and the pending Angel from Hell, plus a few more. That's a lot of money, and considering that ads on the web don't snatch nearly the same kind of value as ads from OTA/MSO grab they have to make up the deficit somewhere.

So that's $6/mo to cover the production of more than twenty five different scripted television shows (not to mention the cost of licensing NCAA games, game shows, news programs, and reality shows). Assuming an average run of 25 episodes per season for each show, and a 12 month run, that's 12 per episode that CBS is getting to cover the cost of production of everything, advertising/promotion, and bandwidth for streaming. Even if you only watch three shows, you're paying 96 per episode which is cheaper than the going rate on iTunes, Amazon Prime or Google Play.

Comment Re:Ob (Score 1) 438

Just the movies. TOS was enjoyable, TNG was enjoyable, DS9 eventually became enjoyable, but Voyager was spotty throughout (maybe 40-50% of the episodes not being totally cringe inducing), and Enterprise had some good arcs.

The Prime-verse series just degraded over time, as the core crew that contributed to the best parts of the earlier series just drifted away. TNG was a clean break from TOS, but the fact that they still had some of the original writers and Gene behind it meant it still had some roots in the series before it. Same story with DS9, carrying over a lot of the iconic writers. Voyager was where we saw them drift away and the franchise was never the same after that.

Comment Long overdue (Score 1) 113

About freaking time. Software has always been ATI/AMD's biggest problem, and the Catalyst Control Center at this point is ancient and awful. They've just been tacking new stuff on to it, kludging together something for each successive release to try and keep up with Nvidia, but making it worse each time. All they're doing here is integrating the Gaming Evolved Experience features into the software for manually controlling the GPU. It's to simplify things for the majority of people who wouldn't know the difference between Anti-Aliasing and Ambient Occlusion. The Game Manager is no big deal. They've been trying to do that for a little bit, but Nvidia has been mopping the floor in that department with the GeForce Experience. It's just optimal settings for people who don't have the know-how to hand optimize games, which is probably the majority of PC gamers; not the PC gaming enthusiasts who know what they're doing, but people who buy a PC and play games on it. I also don't get why people are so bent out of shape about the "social integration." That's been a part of the Radeon software ever since AMD bought up Raptr. Chances are they'll roll in support for Twitch or YouTube or something, too. Streaming gameplay has become such an enormous thing that they'd be foolish not to get in there, because Lord knows Nvidia isn't, but Microsoft is (see: Xbox One streaming). If you don't like it, don't use it. Same thing I do with the Nvidia equivalent.

Comment Re:You cannot succeed (Score 1) 57

So if your grandma gets hacked we should sue her and throw her in jail?

If your grandma swerved across three lanes and caused a traffic accident because she never went in for the manufacturer recall to fix the malfunctioning rear view mirror she'd certainly at least get a talking to. If you knew about the problem with the mirror you'd probably talk with her about how important it is to get it fixed before she causes a problem too.

How about we hold Microsoft accountable for the shitty fucking security in their operating system?

That's the real problem here.

No, the problem is that Microsoft issues fixes for their security problems, but people don't want to stop using their computer long enough to install them. That's how we ended up with Windows 8 forcing people to reboot to install updates, and Windows 10 making it more difficult to turn that system off. People bitch and moan about it, and in some cases go out of their way to disable it. A Google search for "Windows 10 Automatic Update" has the first two results as instructions on how to disable it, even Forbes has a write-up on how to disable it.

Comment Re:Windows 10? Really? (Score 1) 224

In the hotel, you connect it to the TV in the room, which usually has HDMI now.

And are typically blocked off either physically or in software. But if you're in a hotel you could just plug it into the wall anyway. Plus most laptops and tablets have HDMI out, and if you're carrying around clothes for a trip adding a laptop or tablet into the mix doesn't add too much weight or bulk to your luggage.

In the meeting room, you connect it to their projector, or to your own portable battery-operated unit.

But you'd have to have the entire room up and running before people come in, unless you want to waste their time watching you boot the thing and load everything up. And if you do have access to the meeting room before hand you'd have the extra time to plug in the device, negating the need for a battery. A laptop or tablet would still be superior here since all you have to do is load up your stuff, put the thing in sleep, walk into the meeting room, wake it up, plug it in and hit "Present" and you're off to the races.

Comment Re:Windows 10? Really? (Score 1) 224

It's not even a good thing for presentations. I can understand being in a situation where simplicity is best, and a single-cable solution would be ideal (multiple people presenting) but this would be a poor solution for that, because you'd still need a screen, mouse, and keyboard just to boot it up before your presentation (unless you want everyone waiting around while you're doing it while hooked up to the projector), and then you'd still need a mouse and keyboard at wherever you're presenting to operate the thing. An iPad with an HDMI adapter is a much better solution, or if that's too expensive, one of those $100 Windows tablets with a microHDMI port. At least then you could use PowerPoint or Keynote's presenter's tools too.

This is just a solution looking for a problem.

Comment Re: Windows 10? Really? (Score 1) 224

The problem is, though, that operating it in such a way would violate FAA regs that require the device to be powered off during take-off and landing, so in order to keep it legal you'd have to fiddle around in your baggage anyway. But that's all pretty trivial when you consider that you have to dig around in your bag to get out the iPad in the first place, so you may as well take this thing out too, which mitigates the whole point of not having to worry about it being in your carry-on.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.