Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment MMO's (Score 3, Insightful) 119

I USED to consider myself an MMO gamer. Played UO for almost 6 years. Then moved to EQ. I thought, wow, this isn't nearly as feature-filled as UO, but hey, 3D GRAPHICS! Played that for 4 years. Then I started playing DAOC, and a whole host of others, including WoW and even some more recent ones like LOTRO and SWTOR. Each successive game I played lost my interest more quickly than the last. I tried to play ArcheAge and I lasted a whole week before I gave up on it.

Most MMO's have turned into nothing but F2P grind-fests. They are time and money sinks. Either waste a whole crapload of time grinding a quest for a shiny bauble, or, OR... you could purchase the bobble on our store. Not with game money silly, with real money!

I'm still convinced that UO is the most feature-complete MMO created to date, and aside from it's antiquated graphics and interface (Which they may have updated since then) nothing since then has come close.

Now, I play games other than MMO's, but I wouldn't consider myself a fan of any particular genre or style. I do despise most of the mobile F2P games. I don't view them as games at all, they're formulaic, addictive and only designed to get you to spend small amounts of cash frequently so you don't realize that over the last 3 months, you've dumped more into this "free" app than you spend on WoW over the course of a year. Scams are what I consider them.

Sorry if this sounds like a "Back in MY day" rant, but I am getting a bit long in the tooth.

Comment Re: I think it's hilarious and ironic Facebook (Score 1) 220

Cookies aren't even required anymore for tracking. Data can be stored in local storage, global storage, indexed DB, even in your web history and as RGB color values in Canvas-generated PNG images. Google "Evercookie" to see examples.

Unless you have a huge library of flash videos and just need time to convert them, there are virtually no valid reasons to continue using flash, not even nefarious reasons like persistent tracking.

Comment Re:Hmmm. (Score 1) 410

When Google caves to government pressure to remove something from search results, that's effectively government censorship. Yes, there are other search engines, but very few use them. When Facebook caves to government pressure to remove something, that's effectively government censorship. Yes, there are other social sites, but very few use them.

Reddit isn't caving to government pressure. They've basically decided that discussions about certain topics are of little value to the operation of THEIR website. They are allowed to do that since they own the website. Is it censorship? You betcha. Is it a violation of your First Amendment rights? not in the least.

You have the right to say what you want, they have the right to kick you off their property for speaking about things they don't like. If you don't like it, go to a public venue, or create your own website to do it. Just because you perceive this as a restriction of your freedom of speech doesn't mean it is. Just because you have a first amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that any private entity has to facilitate it, or allow you to use their resources to exercise it.

Comment Re:Hmmm. (Score 2) 410

Semantics. Clearly, I was referring to the First Amendment protection from government censorship, not freedom of speech in general.

Another point that I want to make: A website telling you that you cannot speak about certain things is not in ANY way curtailing or abridging your right to free speech. They are not telling you that you cannot talk about a subject, just that you cannot talk about a subject HERE. That is an important distinction. Yes, you have the freedom to speak about whatever you like, whenever you like and wherever you like, however, If it's on my property, I have the right to make you leave if I don't like it and guess what? I haven't violated any of your rights.

And lets be honest, if you are talking about a "touchy" subject on private property, and the owner of the property doesn't like it, who is really being the asshole? Your rights don't trump the owner's rights, and that's the part most people don't get.

Comment Re:Hmmm. (Score 4, Informative) 410

However, the thing everyone keeps missing is that some random internet site (in this case, Reddit) is owned by some other person or entity, and they can censor stuff on their own site as much as they want. If you don't like it, find another site, or buy your own.

This can't be stated enough. Freedom of speech is a protection from government censorship, not websites, stores, or other private operations. It amazes me how many people just don't get that.

Comment Re:DMCA takedown system is a farce (Score 1) 188

I would guess they purchased the rights to a library of old silent-movie music, then submitted it in bulk without bothering to actually check the validity of the copyright

This is a HUGE part of the problem, and there should be a serious penalty for making spurious, un-validated claims like this or it will never stop.

It sounds like your other video qualified as fair use, which doesn't seem to be respected any more either, and that is also problematic, as fair use for the purpose of criticism, commentary and parody is a pretty important method of exercising free speech.

Comment DMCA takedown system is a farce (Score 5, Interesting) 188

About 10 months ago, I found my high school graduation video cassette from 1987, so I picked up a used VCR and ripped it and put it up on youtube for family to view. Last month, I uploading another video and noticed that a DMCA claim had been placed on my graduation video, but the "copyright holder" would allow the video to remain, they were just going to monetize it. My graduation video was shot by my brother and had our high school band playing Pomp and Circumstance, which is in the public domain. There is no way this is under copyright, so I looked them up and the "song" that I was allegedly violating the copyright of. It turns out that the "copyright holder" was a crappy English DJ duo who had appropriated Pomp and Circumstance in one of their soccer fight songs. The funny part is that my video is 28 years old, their song is about a year old.

I countered their claim with all the info above and the claim was removed.

I realize this was probably a simple signature match, but it only goes to show how broken this system is. I didn't actually received an email about the DMCA claim. There are only 2 emails in my inbox containing the video title, one was when I published it and the other was when the copyright claim was removed, so they don't appear to even be notifying people when a claim is made, at least in the case where the "copyright holder" decides to monetize rather than take the video down, and that is even more nefarious in my opinion. I wasn't monetizing my video, and it has less than 50 views, but if I had been monetizing it and had a larger audience, they would have been stealing from me without my even knowing it. I only noticed the original claim when I uploaded another video to youtube.

Comment Re:This legislation brought to you by.. (Score 1) 446

The FDA "document" you linked is an FDA docket SUBMITTAL by known conspiracy nut Mark Gold. If you go here: and read the findings from the relevant bodies, you will see that most (if not all) of them dismiss his (And Betty Martini's) claims out of hand.

He also has NO medical background and professes to be an expert in holistic healing. http://americanloons.blogspot....

If you want to take nutritional advice from people with no medical background, be my guest.

And seriously, Monsanto suppressed reports that aspartame is bad? Monsanto is in the business of GMO produce, like corn for high fructose corn syrup. I seriously doubt they would want to suppress a report that shows their competitor's product is bad for you. Do you even read what you write?

Comment Re:This legislation brought to you by.. (Score 1) 446

Wow, are you being sarcastic? I took you seriously right up until you mentioned aspartame. I challenge you to find ANY scientific study that shows aspartame is harmful in any way.

The FDA called aspartame "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved". More than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population. Source:

That was 16 YEARS ago. This horse has been dead a LONG time. Why are you still beating it?

"Falling in love makes smoking pot all day look like the ultimate in restraint." -- Dave Sim, author of Cerebrus.