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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Too little, too late (Score 1) 262

To add to this, it's not unlike what was going on when the first Athlons came out. AMD was having a rough time meeting demand for lower speed chips so they started re-badging higher speed chips as the lower. I lucked out and it turned out my 750MHz CPU was actually a 900MHz CPU clocked at 750MHz. Other buyers of proper 750's would have no valid complaint, they got what they paid for.

Comment Re:An idea... (Score 2) 172

Or, you know, stick to the tried and true method of "once it's bought, the seller and author are right the fuck out of the picture, and the owner can do whatever they want with it," as it should be. Seller and author get their cut on the sale, and never again, also as it should be.

Anything else is greedy people trying to cook up greedy schemes in self interest only.

Comment Re:Entirely disingenuous (Score 1) 239

The only mental gymnastics here are the ones you use to avoid the real issue at heart and piss and moan about "those bastard commie pirates that want it all free!!!!11!" and Bethesda trying to legitimize the whole thing because "hey, one dev made more money during that than they ever made on donations!!!" as if a single outlier justifies the whole thing. It smacks of greed.

Here's the reality: The mods developers deserve the majority of the cash. The game developers deserve none of it. They get their cut when people buy the game. They release the tools to make mods as a means to increase the popularity of their game, which in turn drives more sales. They don't deserve a single cent of the mod devs money. I understand Steam/Valve getting a cut, they have their infrastructure to maintain. But in no way was the current system even remotely fair. If you can't get it through your apparently plate steel skull, then I can't help you.

I'm sure there *are* some who simply revolted because "OMG I WANT MAH FREES!!!1" but I doubt they are the majority.

Comment Should be pretty obvious... (Score 1) 46

...that what they really want is to keep people from using drones to film stuff if they didn't pay to see. Their reasoning is bullshit otherwise.

As for FAA regs, yeah, whatever. I don't think any of what's been posted so far could successfully be used in court unless you really acted like a tool while using a drone over SXSW. Good luck catching the operator unless they're a moron and standing right outside the fences. Most drones are too quick and agile to be followed, and there is very little they can do to knock it down (unless you fly right above heads, at which point fuck you anyway for being a dipshit) that wouldn't endanger all the other people around.

Comment What's good for the goose is... (Score 1) 468

...apparently only good for the goose.

"who often undercut official stores by purchasing cheaper boxed retail copies of games and selling their key-codes online,"

Simple solution here Ubi: stop charging different prices for the same fucking game. It's a real novel concept. Nevermind that part of Capitalism is the purchaser doing what they can to obtain things at the lowest price possible. But hey, it's only good when it's more money in *your* pocket, right?

Comment Re:How about tell them of the benefits (Score 1) 127

Stop using the water analogy. The technology is fundamentally different. Using QoS, we can control the priority of packets which are on a shared line. That is impossible with water droplets in pipes. If it were possible, I would support it. Because 1. I'd pay less money for "hard" water for rinsing, but a little more for "soft" water for the washing mashine 2. water utilities would be much better run, with better services, tiers, etc.

It's a fine analogy for what is needed, stop being a worthless pedant. You mention QoS. That's fine and great, but it needs to be an opt-in thing that the customer requests, not something we all have to cope with because $ISP is busy putting the squeeze on another content provider for more money for another McMansion for all the execs and board members despite the fact that the end user is already paying for the content and its delivery.

I don't see anyone complaining about socializing (through legislation) the grocery chains to ensure that they build stores in places which some social justice warriors...

Oh shit, here we go with this dumbassery...

...deem to be necessary. We know how such central planning works out, and we as a globe have decided to leave grocery stores to the free market. Despite the fact that poor rural areas don't have hipster eco expensive grocery stores. Oh the humanity!!!

Except grocery stores already do that by themselves, because a customer is a customer, and they would only be punching themselves in the nuts by refusing to build in poor areas. Swing and a miss!

Taken to their logical conclusion, your arguments would have us forcing every style of every grocery store to build in the stupidest of locations.

Where you're going is hardly the logical conclusion, and as I already pointed out, your grocery store analogy is a lame duck that doesn't fly.

What I don't get, is if social justice warriors and socialist thieves (from the common good) think it's so important to have grocery stores in poor rural areas, why don't they get off their asses and actually do that (by commercial or co-operative or whatever means available).

You must be a 1%er or a shareholder in a major ISP or something. That or you're just that special kind of stupid. You're not even trying, you're just spewing bullshit and insults. Do you really expect anyone to care one whit about what you're saying (besides me, obviously) by doing that? I'm guessing not, you're probably just here to rip juicy ones into cyberspace and get high on the fumes and ride the unearned feeling of smug superiority (even though you're not remotely superior in any way that I can see so far).

Why is it necessary to force OTHERS to do your bidding??

Well, you see Corky, when people refuse to do the right thing of their own volition, it eventually becomes necessary to force them to behave in the appropriate manner rather than keep going on like the selfish and narcissistic jack-offs they are and would otherwise continue to be. Maybe if people didn't take their self absorption and selfishness to such ridiculous degrees then such regulation wouldn't be necessary.

(through the genuine threat of violence through law).


Oh, and btw I think my analogy is valid for purpose: if you think that the internet is more important than nutrition for the purpose of given everyone a fair start in life, get a grip on reality man. Get outside your comfort zone. If you spend time trying to help people who are mentally STUNTED for all aspects of human life, even the ones outside the intarwebs, then come back and try to repeat your arguments.

Looks like I was right on the money about selfishness, narcissism, etc. You're a sad person, and not nearly as intelligent as you'd like to think you are, this much is clear. Luckily you're a dying breed. Fight it all you want. Change is happening all around you. We don't need nor do we want people like you. See ya around Corky.

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan