Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I must be old (Score 1) 87

Which games are at the other end of that spectrum? I'd probably have to say MMOs.

Yeah, but this is Square Enix we're talking about. They don't let minor details like that prevent them from making the most detailed flower pots MMOs have ever seen.

Not to mention Square Enix has a tradition of making the world's crappiest PC ports. Final Fantasy XIII launched on the PC supporting 1280x720 - and nothing else. Pressing Escape while the game was running instantly quit you out of the game without confirmation. The reason for this became obvious when they tried to add a confirmation dialog - the confirmation dialog wasn't done in-engine, meaning that pressing Escape appeared to lock up your game until you Alt-Tabbed to another app and could see the dialog box.

Square Enix can create some impressive graphics, and they can create games that run well on consoles, but their PC track-record is absolutely abysmal. (Keep in mind I'm only talking about games Square Enix themselves made for PC, not games other studios made that they published.) No matter how pretty their tech demos look, you can be sure that whatever they finally create will be unplayable on the PC.

Comment: Re:What about servers run from home ? (Score 2) 321

by _xeno_ (#49593553) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

Hell, where does that leave web developers who just want to test their website on a locally running copy?

Am I going to be forced to set up an HTTPS server just to test new features? Can you at the very least turn this off so you can test things locally without having to self-sign a certificate and then explicitly trust that certificate?

This is a ludicrously stupid idea from Mozilla.

Comment: Re:VanillaJS Framework (Score 2) 218

by _xeno_ (#49565195) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

Well, sure, but here's a question for you:

What was the first version of Internet Explorer that included it?

Because the IE XMLHttpRequest documentation doesn't list it as a member. (I think that's the most recent documentation, but with MSDN, who even knows.)

And their example uses oReq.readyState == 4 /* complete */.

Then again, who knows when that page was last updated, and the standards they link to do include DONE. (And I checked: IE 11, at least, has it.)

Comment: Re:VanillaJS Framework (Score 4, Interesting) 218

by _xeno_ (#49564887) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

Basically this. jQuery is one of those things that's almost literally bloat: it adds nothing that your browser can't already do, it just wraps around it. You absolutely do not need to use it.

However it saves on development time. It's effectively a bunch of boilerplate code that you don't have to deal with. It's one of those things that if you were to decide not to use it, you're likely to end up rewriting a chunk of it by the time you're done anyway, so you might as well go ahead and use it from the get-go and save yourself some time.

(Which isn't to say you should always use it. I've written pages where the amount of dynamic code was small enough that using jQuery would make absolutely no sense. But the larger your project gets, the more sense it makes to use frameworks like jQuery.)

Comment: Re:VanillaJS Framework (Score 1) 218

by _xeno_ (#49564843) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

You mean it's there now. Going back through previous version of the XMLHttpRequest spec, it wasn't added until June 2007.

Who knows when it finally made it into enough browsers to be safe to use. By now no one uses it more out of momentum than anything else, but it wasn't a part of the spec originally, and people writing tutorials would use "4" because that would work even in browsers that hadn't been updated to use the latest spec.

Comment: Re:Makers or Service providers? (Score 1) 350

Yeah, keep in mind Apple recently bought "Beats by Dre" which is a music streaming service (in addition to the headphones by the same name). Apple Radio (Apple's music streaming service) has been in the iPhone for a while. There's a very good reason Apple doesn't want their users to be able to listen to free radio on their iPhone.

Comment: Re:The answer to the problem (Score 1) 153

by _xeno_ (#49439405) Attached to: ESA Rebukes EFF's Request To Exempt Abandoned Games From Some DMCA Rules

Assuming you're aware that it requires an online server when you buy it.

I recently bought LEGO Batman 3 since I love the LEGO games and enjoyed the previous two Batman games in the series. None of them have ever had an online component. LEGO Batman 3 has no online multiplayer, it only has single player and split screen co-op.

Guess what? It requires an online connection to some server somewhere. This isn't mentioned in the Steam page anywhere. If you can't connect to the server, you can't play the game.

I hadn't thought to check if it required an Internet connection to play because why the fuck should it?!! (And if I had checked, I almost certainly wouldn't have found out about it because none of the reviews mention that fact.)

Comment: Re:The BBC doesn't have much latitude here. (Score 2) 662

by _xeno_ (#49346257) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Hell, just look at the US version of Top Gear which is on a commercial channel (the History Channel because they ran out of WWII video to show and moved on to "reality" programming). The US version just does stunts. They don't do power laps, they don't do the star in a reasonably priced car, they don't do car reviews, they don't do any car news. (They actually did do the power lap times and the star in a reasonably priced car briefly during the first season, but they've since dropped those segments entirely.)

Part of the reason is surely due to time constraints: the US show only has 42 minutes to work with due to the 18 minutes of ads it has to fit the hour slot. But given that the closest to a car review they ever did was a blatant Tesla ad (ironically enough) and the show is almost always "brought to you by $CAR_COMPANY," it's fairly safe to say that the US version doesn't want to offend potential advertisers, and the show is horribly watered down due to it.

Comment: Re:The BBC doesn't have much latitude here. (Score 1) 662

by _xeno_ (#49346117) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Are you talking about D Motor? I've never watched it because as an American I only speak American, dammit, but as I understand it it's a completely separate show done by a completely different company.

Which may be why it's OK.

Because their presenters know how to drive, as opposed to the American ones.

Honestly, that's not the problem with the US show. I mean, Captain Slow works.

No, the problem with the US show is that they removed the Power Laps, car reviews, "star in a reasonably priced car" and news segments, concentrating solely on the stunts. It just doesn't work because you get no sense of the personality of any of the presenters. You don't see them being "normal," you don't see any banter between them, you get no chemistry because they're always out driving cars and doing stupid things. It just doesn't work.

It also has the side-effect of making the "silent racing car driver" (apparently you can't call the Stig "tamed" in the US) a character that has absolutely no context when he shows up. Why is there suddenly a silent racing car driver driving a random car for them to race against? Oh, and now he's gone, never to show up for the remainder of the episode. Uh, OK, that was sure wacky!

Comment: Re:The BBC doesn't have much latitude here. (Score 4, Insightful) 662

by _xeno_ (#49345533) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Meanwhile, the BBC has a chance to reinvent Top Gear with younger presenters and a reinvigorated format (there are only so many new Lamborghinis, Ferraris and Aston Martins that can be driven around a track in a cloud of smoke every week and only so many routes for contrived road trips through war zones in ancient sports cars).

Have you ever watched any of the spin-off Top Gears, like Top Gear US or Top Gear Australia? They've already tried to "reinvent" the show, multiple times. It's yet to work.

The simple fact of the matter is that Jeremy Clarkson is the reason people watch Top Gear. Without Clarkson, there's no reason to watch.

And I agree, the BBC really has no choice, and the blame should be placed on Clarkson for being an idiot. But that doesn't change the fact that losing Clarkson will kill Top Gear. He made the show what it is.

+ - Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: According to BBC News, Jeremy Clarkson, longstanding main host for the automobile television show Top Gear, will not have his contract renewed. This decision came about two weeks after he was suspended due to an altercation with a Top Gear producer involving catering during filming for the show. Admittedly not the nerdiest news of the day, but it can be said that his thirteen-year run on the new format of Top Gear has interested many Slashdot users who love their cars and the entertainment that the show has brought to them.

Comment: Re:Aren't these already compromised cards? (Score 4, Interesting) 269

by _xeno_ (#49275701) Attached to: Fraud Rampant In Apple Pay

It may not be Apple's fault (exactly), but it sure as hell is their problem. If more than 1 in 20 ApplePay transactions are fraudulent, what merchant in their right mind is going to accept it as a payment method? (Remember that fraud is paid by the merchants, not the banks.)

Even if it isn't Apple's fault, it sure is their problem to solve.

Comment: Re:Weird math (Score 1) 48

by _xeno_ (#49177531) Attached to: GitLab Acquires Gitorious

I would assume the repositories themselves could be moved. The thing is that they provide additional services beyond just hosting a git repository like issue tracking, wikis, and continuous integration support. Presumably that stuff can't be moved.

When the company I work for moved from Gitorious to GitLab we were able to migrate the git repositories with all their history relatively painlessly. GitLab had an automated process for doing it, but due to reasons apparently the Gitorious side would randomly flake out if you tried to use that. (It had to do with ulimits or something.) However you can still just clone a git repository and push branches from it to a new remote, which is the way I ended up transitioning most of the repositories.

The issue tracking and other features weren't an issue because we weren't using the built-in Gitorious/GitLab support in any case.

Comment: Re:Management speak, blah blah (Score 3, Interesting) 48

by _xeno_ (#49177493) Attached to: GitLab Acquires Gitorious

GitLab, not GitHub. GitHub is a different solution that provides pretty much the same software.

Strangely enough the company I work for recently (like six months ago) transitioned our internal git repositories from running on Gitorious to running on GitLab. From my experience GitLab is indeed the better product.

GitHub still seems to be better than both but I've never used that in a commercial setting.

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"