Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says ... no (Score 1) 251

Spotted the SJW.

And you're going to spot more and more as the world moves on. You can be bitter about that and reminisce about bad old days when people were forced to pretend bullshit designed to keep everyone in their place wasn't bullshit, or you can let them go and enjoy the good progress brings. Either way they won't return.

Comment Re:The frog is boiling (Score 5, Insightful) 114

Hate to break it to you, but things are cheaper nowadays. I can't even begin to think what my 1000-game Steam library would cost, or the size it would take up in real disks / packaging. Probably several SHELVES judging by the DVD's I have in front of me.

And, to be honest, my girlfriend bought a tablet Windows PC - the cheapest available - and it came with a year of Office 365 for up to five machines. We've since installed all five copies of the latest office. Back in the day, to do that legitimately, would have cost a lot more - hell, it could easily have cost upwards of $500-1000. Sure, next year we have to pay a pittance to keep it up, but we also get all the new versions too, and the option to use what we want.

That would have been unthinkable before online downloads. And, even now, if you buy volume editions on a proper licence of Windows, Office, Server, Exchange, etc. they are ALL downloads. You can pay extra for a DVD, but who the hell is going to do that?

To be honest, factored over the life of software, downloads are not a huge deal. And Steam is as "permanent" a licence as you can get nowadays. Why that stops replayability, I don't know. And the used game market is dead because I can get my own copy in a year's time for less than a used copy would ever be able to go for. We actually cut out a middle-man there.

To be honest, when done properly, it's hard to argue against it. Certainly my Google Play and Amazon Instant Video libraries are more useful, convenient and cheaper than anything on DVD too. And when it comes to DRM done properly, it's hard to pick fault with Steam, to be honest. There's a reason I have 1000 games on it. I'd be shocked if they cost anywhere near the cost of 1000 DVD-ROM's, even blank ones, plus the cost of storing those online for 24/7 download for 10 years, let alone the licence to the software in the first place.

Comment Re:Not all that uncommon in reality (Score 1) 114

Half Life 2 - wasn't that the first proper use of the Steam platform, and basically the same as this?

I think it had some cached gcf's but the fact was by release day, you had to download the whole thing anyway because it had all changed.

Quite what's different between then and now? Now, I can't even REMEMBER the last time I bought a physical copy of a game. Honestly. I have a shelf of old-favourites and I have them all either on Steam, or similar services or - at least - an ISO of their disk.

Who the hell puts a physical disk into their computer nowadays? When Half-Life 2 shipped like that, people moaned because a lot of them were still on dial-up. Nowadays? Fuck, you can't even log into the authentication server over dial-up in any sensible time, I shouldn't think.

This isn't new, and certainly not "news", except maybe that some people are still dumb enough to buy a pretty box for vanity reasons. Hell, even back-in-the-day most of my games were budget titles in plain CD/DVD cases by the time I bought them. But, like I say, my last PHYSICAL game? Maybe CS:CZ. What's that 2004? 11 years ago? And even that was because I bought it as a present for someone, so a physical box was slightly nicer. Nowadays I just email Steam gifts to people if I want to do that.

Comment Re:couldn't hurt (Score 1) 251

That's stupid or disingenuous bullshit. Emoji makes an expressed thought harder to understand, while the HTML presentation coupled with a web browser makes it easier. It's exactly the opposite.

Smileys make it easier for the people who use them to express their thoughts. That is why they use it. And you know that too, at least based on your comment: "Instead of expecting people to exercise their language skills, we're just enabling stupid people to be more stupid. Their last motivation to learn to speak properly was to communicate with other idiots like themselves, and emoji shits on that."

So it's you who's disingenius here. Or, to put it bluntly, a complete hypocrite. Especially since your own grip on the English language appears to be tenuous at best, as demonstrated below.

I don't expect if I get a polite response, and since you appear to understand English,

Pity you can't write it :-D. Perhaps you should focus more on your own language skills rather than those of others.

Such as when displaying a short message, for example. They are typically displayed in system font sizes, which are usually non-trivial to change for the average user.

So now average user's convenience matters. Of course, they seem to be just fine with smileys since they keep using them... So perhaps it's you who finds changing font size non-trivial?

Why is everything HTML to you? Is that the only technology you "understand"?

HTML is cross-platform, allows embedding images, and is often used to render messages, so your "small-smiley" scenario could theoretically happen with it. Was that really too hard to figure out?

Never mind, rhetorical question. I see little reason to continue this, since it's obvious you have nothing besides playing(?) dumb to add. So long, and the next time you have trouble with technology simply ask for help, rather than coming up with a ridiculous tale about trying to protect "idiots" from too much convenience.

Comment Re:Alternate headline. (Score 1) 231

Honestly, do not give a shit about Sweden's charges. They can charge or not, it makes NO difference to his situation at the moment. Potential charges were just dropped in fact, and nothing has changed.

However, he is prima facie guilty of skipping UK bail on a UK arrest warrant validated by the EU. The UK police sent the forms back MULTIPLE times for Sweden to dot the i's and cross the t's. Nothing happened until that was done, and done by the book. He then exhausted every possible point of appeal with ZERO success.

The "UK bail" bit is all I give a shit about. He doesn't need a trial for that - by not turning up, he's automatically guilty before a UK court. The rest was about an extradition which isn't the same as an arrest which isn't the same as a charge which isn't the same as a crime which isn't the same as guilt of that crime.

But until the fucker actually comes out and receives the punishment for the UK crime, and serves it, and then gets handed over anyway (it's not like we can ignore the requests we STILL have before us), it's all moot. Literally, the Swedes can say "Oh, all the limitations have expired, there's nothing we can do", or "Oh, we don't want to talk to him now". Literally. It makes NO difference. He's not even arrested for that - and you arrest BEFORE THE GUILT IS PROVEN in order to prove the guilt. You charge when you have good cause to believe you can prove the guilt. But this is still "wanted for questioning", with all the paperwork to back that up.

Except in the UK. Where he's a criminal proven by his very existence outside of the court he took bail from.

You can push or ignore all the trumped-up charges all you like. He played by the book in the UK, lost, fled and now continuing to play by the book he's not only a criminal already, but will have to still be handed over if the Swedes want anyway. What the fuck has anyone, even himself, gained out of that?

Comment Re:Bail jumper? (Score 1) 231

Why? How much did we spend to pick up the teacher who run off with his over-the-age-of-consent and consenting student throughout Europe? How much have we spent chasing beds-in-sheds or anything else? How much on securing the UK border at Calais?

It's not a matter of cost. It's a matter of principle. If all you have to do to avoid the law when you skip bail is find a friendly embassy and camp there until the government decides it's costing too much to watch you, then that's what EVERY criminal (and Assange is a criminal in the UK at the very least, no matter what Sweden want to do or what silly "statute of limitation" laws they have) will do to escape justice.

Given that it's a high-profile case, that's amplified.
Given that they are handing over to an allied nation, that's amplified again.
Given that all the appeals and paperwork have gone through EVERY possible avenue to "save" him, and he still needed to appear but instead ran, that's amplified again.
Given that it's an obstruction of justice charge, effectively, that's amplified again.
Given that he is clearly baiting the law system, playing up to the media and doing it deliberately, that's amplified again.

All he's managed to show is that skipping bail means that the police will happily camp outside for years and not leave you alone, and that you'll STILL face court at the end of the day, and all it does for you to run is make the problem worse, that's doing exactly what it should.

The alternative is that he'd be in South America crowing about the crap UK justice system that didn't care about criminals skipping bail, while every person seeking asylum, or escaping the law, or anything would use every embassy in London as a bolt-hole until the law was changed so that they couldn't but - in the meantime - showing the law system to be toothless.

He needs to be caught, and face justice, and we know where he is but international diplomacy (note... not diplomatic law) prevents us from arresting him. But like a kid in trouble, the longer he hides there, the worse the problem will get for him, and he's not going to be allowed to escape without facing some justice.

Sweden doesn't even figure. We honestly don't give a shit, that's someone else's problem. But you made a vow to a UK court and broke it. That means we'll screw you to the wall so you know you can't do that to the UK. If, after we've dealt with you, the Swedes can't charge him after all - not our problem, and not our embarassment to deal with. But, fuck, you aren't going to try to skip UK bail after that.

In effect, Assange has put himself in prison voluntarily and - when he comes out - is going to spend some real time in a much more real prison. That's hardly attractive to people who want to follow suit, and that's how it SHOULD be.

Comment Alternate headline. (Score 1) 231

"Major retailer offers surveillance location and co-operates with law-enforcement to help bring known fugitive to justice."

Fuck off trying to discredit everyone, Assange, and come out of your hole and stop costing me money (or, at least, cost me money by being in jail until the UK has finished all ITS business with you).

Comment Re:pros and cons (Score 3, Insightful) 397

> IF the F-35 does four different roles

But it can't do _any_ of the roles well. The tradeoffs made to accommodate all different military branches needs have played havoc with doing _any_ role well. The repair and upkeep costs are astronomical, it's a fuel glutton, it's fragile, and it's clumsy.

Comment Re:Instead of technical solutions (Score 2, Interesting) 202

The religion of Islam creates many terrorists.

As opposed to freedom fighters who blow people up in order to "liberate" them?

It's not the religion of Islam but the religion of violence - the idea that the ends justify the means - that creates terrorists. And violence is pretty much universally worshipped on Earth, in forms ranging all the way from ritualistic animal sacrifice to all-out war. Our future depends on if it's a true universal constant or a mere option that could potentially be unchosen before our luck runs out and we wipe ourselves out.

Comment Re:"never to have worked a day in his life," ... (Score 1) 54

Trust me, your employer will be hurt more for not complying - especially if YOU can prove they're not complying, or you were sacked because you tried to make them comply. This is what employment law is for. To protect both the employer and the employee.

My boss has been on at me since June - I have two week's paid leave to take before September. I took one week, and an extra day. They aren't happy. But because of the timing, there was nothing they could do about it. They aren't CLOSE to the legal minimum, so it's not a matter for law, but they cannot be seen to be mistreating an employee.

In countries with employment law, the law comes and sits on you hard if you don't do the basics. As such "forced leave" is a real thing, a very real thing. But if you're being asked to take it, something's already going wrong anyway.

As the other poster says - people get ejected from the building and their access rescinded to MAKE them take a holiday. Because, for sure, if they don't do that and you later leave or have a heart attack or get pissed off and make a complaint, they have evidential and witnessed proof that they fulfilled their statutory "duty of care" to their employees and so can't end up the wrong side of a tribunal.

Welcome to civilisation.

(P.S. Overworking your staff deliberately makes you a fucking idiot as you either experience high-churn or stressed-out employees. Neither contribute to productivity. It doesn't matter how much you pay if no fucker will work for you).

Comment Re:couldn't hurt (Score 5, Insightful) 251

First, I am quite capable of retrieving the page content via telnet.

But did you? Y'know, to practice your skills?

Second, the page content was actually deliberately formatted to be interpreted with a web browser. A whole layer of material was added to the content specifically to make that convenient.

So your convenience matters, but other people should "exercise their language skills". How utterly unsurprising.

In what way am I using grammar or spelling to silence people? I am trying to encourage grammar and spelling, so that people can have a voice. You are trying to encourage people to engage in the digital equivalent of baby talk, so that they can never express a complex thought. You've got it completely backwards, fucko. You want to disempower. I want to empower.

Really? Because this is what you actually wrote: "Instead of expecting people to exercise their language skills, we're just enabling stupid people to be more stupid. Their last motivation to learn to speak properly was to communicate with other idiots like themselves, and emoji shits on that."

So tell me: if smileys enable "stupid people" (to use your elitist terminology) to express the thoughts they wish, which is the logical requirement for them to replace some other form of communication, such as written text, in what way would disabling them "empower" said people? All it does is make communication less convenient and thus less frequent. Of course, if that's your actual goal, your means make perfect sense.

If you insist on being a disingenuous douchebag, you can only talk meaningless shit.

I assure you, my dislike of your ideas and attitude is quite sincere. Also, perhaps you shouldn't call people "idiots" and expect a polite response. Douchebags exist to deal with shit, after all.

There's plenty of places where you're not allowed to zoom, yet where emoji can appear.

Such as? And in any case, if they can render modern fonts, which are vector graphics, making said smileys part of the font should actually solve this problem. Or at least let you read the HTML source, which you above imply you're capable of doing.

Seriously, everything you said was wrong. Why do you even bother?

Because malevolent bullcrap like yours is slowing down progress everywhere I look. If you want to communicate solely through six-page hand-bound letters written in calligraphed Oxford English, that is certainly your right. And if someone else chooses to use pornographic smileys to imply that getting a blowjob from a duck turned out to be a bad idea, that's theirs. But no - you insist on having a say on how they may or may not communicate, for their own good of course.

If I'd known computer science was going to be like this, I'd never have given up being a rock 'n' roll star. -- G. Hirst