Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Why is it because of preorders? (Score 1) 221 221

Sorry if I missed the study, but what makes this all because of preorders? I've been playing buggy games for decades, plenty of which I didn't preorder, many of which weren't even expected to be huge hits, why is everyone so sure that preorders are why developers aren't fixing games? I'm not saying they definitely have nothing to do with it, but as someone who preorders a game about once every year or two, I'm genuinely curious what evidence there is that my actions are damaging the games. And for anyone thinking I'm a dumbass for preordering games, I like to get collectors editions of sequels to games I already enjoy because I like having cool things to put on display to represent those games. I genuinely like that extra stuff, lots of people do, I'm not saying you should but don't give people shit because they like different things.

To be honest, I think it has more to do with priorities changing at major game companies. It seems to me like the industry started off as gamers making games they enjoyed for other gamers, and making a bit of money off it. As the industry has grown and become more profitable, many of the people making the games aren't as passionate about the games themselves and are more concerned with making money. This is fairly obvious with larger companies such as Activision, franchises like CoD have a new release every year instead of even attempting to make a game one would enjoy for longer. And we've all seen the Destiny fiasco, a game I enjoy but am getting fed up with at the same time. It seems to me they're just choosing quantity over quality. That's really just me guessing, but without any evidence one way or another, I think anyone's guess is just as good.

Comment: "Result of... Snowden's whistleblowing"? (Score 5, Insightful) 236 236

as a result of NSA spying and Snowden's whistleblowing

Also, FTA:

The actual losses "will likely far exceed $35 billion," according to the ITIF report, because the entire American tech industry has performed worse than expected as a result of the Snowden leaks.

Serious question. Does the leak actually count as part of the cause? I know if everything were still under wraps the spying might not have cost tech companies anything in lost sales, but it seems unfair to suggest that Snowden is partly responsible for the consequences of what he revealed simply because the consequences MIGHT have been avoided or at least delayed if he hadn't revealed it. I might just be making something out of nothing, it just seems like a dick move to act like it's his fault the way some people make it out to be. Not that it's anything new, but it was almost excusable when this was fresh and people still didn't fully understand the situation, now we've all had enough time to take it in and figure out who the real bad guys are.

Comment: Re:Or... (Score 1) 191 191

Because you couldn't be bothered to even read the summary:

the government argued that she "implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."

They're not doing anything to hide the fact that she assisted them, they're actually arguing that she gave them permission to create the account when she gave them permission to access her phone. Even if their argument doesn't hold up in court, they're still acknowledging she gave them some assistance by allowing them to access her phone. You could maybe claim they're downplaying how much she assisted them, but it seems more likely this is exactly what it looks like and they created the account without her knowledge.

Comment: Re:WTF? Jailtime! Boycott violates Anti-Trust (Score 1) 268 268

While I completely agree and feel a handful of people should get locked up for this, I'm no longer shocked to see laws and punishments not being applied fairly to corporations. It wasn't long ago we saw a company get away with killing three hundred people.

Comment: Re:$7142.85 (Score 2) 419 419

Nice job picking out the only quote in the entire thing that suggests Macs are more expensive. You can buy a PC for less than Dell or anyone else charges too if you buy the components yourself. If you actually read the article (instead of deliberately taking out one quote that runs counter to the rest of it) you'll see that between the comparisons they did, the Mac is equal to one system and $200 less than the other. When the components were priced out separately to build a Mac Pro clone, you could save a whopping $5.67. So while they say there's little doubt you could get one for less, they don't actually manage to, and the quote you chose runs counter to the entire rest of the article. But then, that's why you chose the quote, since there's no actual evidence anywhere of Macs being overpriced besides statements from PC fanboys. They don't offer any real budget models or anything, but that's far from the same issue. Personally, I see the value in Macs, it takes a lot less effort to keep it running well for a very long time, and the fact that most people hear that and say you've set your computer up wrong only proves that point. I have two at home that we use regularly, and they're great. But, I also keep a custom PC running Windows 7 for gaming, because it is definitely easier to upgrade than even the Mac Pro and I don't have to wait for ports. There are definitely many pros and cons to each side, but the price isn't really an issue for Apple unless you're only trying to buy a budget system. It's really only fanboys who still say it, and the fact that you deliberately took that one quote out of context knowing what the rest of the article contains suggests that's all you are, continuing on even when you know you're wrong.

As for $7-10k being an absurd amount for an individual to spend on one computer, I'm aware, you'll see I already pointed out most people wouldn't notice any benefit from doing so. However, like I said before, if you're a criminal and you know you're not going to pay for it, why not go all out?

Comment: Re:$7142.85 (Score 1) 419 419

Hasn't this idea been debunked many times? Oh yeah, it has, at this point it's only fools and trolls who say it. If you can't imagine spending that much on one computer, even a Windows PC with power beyond anything you'll ever actually need, I suspect you must have stopped buying computers shortly after that first one. I've worked for businesses that don't mind dropping $10,000 on a single system, and that's not even the upper limit. That doesn't mean everyone's going to go out and spend that much or would even notice any benefit from doing so, but if you know you're a criminal stealing it anyway, you may as well go all out.

Comment: Re:Correction (Score 2) 97 97

I wish I had mod points. Every time I hear about planets not being able to support life, this is my first thought. While it's possible that there's no radically different life forms in the universe, until we actually go out and see it, we don't really know. I'm not even sure if we should call it unlikely until we've managed to examine the planets outside out solar system more closely. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting it and I'll be amazed if we find anything so different from ourselves, but I don't think we should rule out the possibility.

Comment: Licensing Fees? (Score 1) 87 87

I wonder how they managed to work out a deal with the publishers to make this work, if they already have. I was under the impression at least a couple publishers were displeased with Amazon's practices, that was supposedly part of the reason they were offering Apple a better deal than Amazon. I'd like to see this service succeed, though, so hopefully everyone who matters is or will be on board. Maybe one day, a monthly fee to Amazon will allow you access to all media, whether it's movies, books, games, or anything else you can get over the internet. I don't agree with everything Amazon does, but this idea is very appealing to me.

Comment: Drone Strikes w/out Collateral Damage (Score 1) 188 188

This was my first thought as well. I feel like UAVs in particular from this technology, they could designate several targets from the sky and fire a few rounds, taking out the targets with no collateral damage. It could help save soldiers' lives as well, imagine them being able to designate targets from behind cover and shoot without revealing more than their hands. The potential really is limitless, hopefully this technology can be applied to less specialized uses than long-range sniping. Imagine computer-assisted targeting for police so they can target an assailant's weapon instead of killing them in a situation that might normally end with a death.

But, it'll probably end up only being used to kill more effectively.

Comment: Re:The answer nobody likes... (Score 2) 286 286

It's just something the author said because it's catchy. From an interview here:

The “three felonies a day” is really a figure of speech, hardly an exact count. People who are very active in certain fields likely commit more than three arguable federal felonies a day. People who are less active in life and in commerce probably commit fewer. I would imagine that lawyers, accountants, and securities dealers commit more, while fruit-stand vendors commit fewer. But my point was that an active member of our society goes about his or her busy workday not realizing the potential for committing arguable federal felonies in a wide variety of business and personal endeavors on a typical day.

So no, we don't really commit three felonies a day. I'm sure the book explains this, but apparently nobody has time to read a whole book anymore so the title became a "fact" that pops up on the internet from time to time.

Comment: Re:The answer nobody likes... (Score 4, Informative) 286 286

My brother in law is a local cop where I live, and he says the same thing. Do not trust cops. They are just people, some of them are nice, but some of them are not and will enjoy slapping cuffs on you for next to nothing. His advice was along the lines of be respectful, don't talk back, don't ever physically resist them, and don't tell them anything unless you called them. They will get annoyed, but if you're not being outright disrespectful they will generally let it go. Most of the time, they'd rather be getting real criminals off the streets, anyway.

Comment: Re:on behalf of america (Score 2, Insightful) 625 625

Can you explain to me what the medical problem is causing everyone to be obese? Oh you can't? Because there's nothing to actually say there's a medical reason for it other than a bunch of overweight people who insist they can't do anything about it. There are extremely rare conditions that can cause weight gain, but these are the minority cases. Most people have no reason for being obese, only excuses, and those aren't worth anything.

As for choosing to be 450lbs, obviously nobody wakes up one day and says, "Damn, I want to break couches when I sit down!" but every time you choose to drink a soda instead of water, or you choose to eat chips instead of an apple, or you choose to get McDonalds instead of damn near anything else, you are choosing to keep being unhealthy.

In a time where you can order a healthy balanced diet in powdered form over the internet, none of us has an excuse for eating so poorly. None of us ever had an excuse for failing to exercise just a little bit, we just make them up anyway.

Comment: Re:on behalf of america (Score 2, Insightful) 625 625

Just to keep things in perspective, I come from a family of overweight and obese people, and I've put a great deal of effort into developing healthier habits than them to stay healthy. I fell off the wagon after college and gained weight rapidly, but got right back on it and the weight came back off. Your claim that to lose 22lb in 3 months is absurd unless you truly don't do anything, all day, as that much food would provide you with a mere hundred calories a day and that is no attempt at weight loss, that's trying to starve yourself to death. The fact that you'd make such a claim shows you've put literally no effort into finding out how to eat right and be healthy. You sound a lot like my aunt did, before she decided to stop eating fast food and start hitting the gym once a week. She's in her late fifties now, and she's gone from weighing close to 300lbs her entire adult life to weighing under 200 now, all in the last 6-7 years. She took inspiration from my cousins, who took inspiration from my mother, who took it from my father, all of whom have lost a lot of weight since deciding to stop being unhealthy. My parents' exercise consists of walking the beach a few nights a week when the weather is nice enough, and in New England that's not even that often, but it was enough to shed the pounds they've always had.

Stop making excuses, you're not convincing anyone, I've personally known too many people like you who made excuses all their lives until they decided they were done being unhealthy. Obesity is a new epidemic, not something humans have been grappling with for centuries. If you'd stop making excuses and actually put the effort in and try to put together a balanced diet while cutting out all the crap you usually eat you'd realize obese is not a natural state for anyone.

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion

Working...