Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Another possible lesson (Score 1) 168

by guttergod (#44223547) Attached to: The Dangers of Beating Your Kickstarter Goal

Secondly because his company managed to deliver several games already, so he is obviously capable of doing so.

Just because a company has released some games doesn't necessarily mean they released *all* the games they've worked on.

But taking a huge lot of peoples money and then run hurts alot more (in reputation) than just taking some publishers', so chances are this game will see the light of day in some form. :)

Comment: Re: You keep using that word... (Score 1) 158

by guttergod (#44110429) Attached to: Proof Mooted For Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot says:

verb (used with object) 4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion. 5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.

So meaning 4 seems appropriate. Strange that a word simultaneously means to introduce it and to remove it from consideration, but it is a pretty old word I think so it has probably evolved quite a bit.

Origin: before 900; Middle English mot ( e ) meeting, assembly, Old English gemt; cognate with Old Norse mt, Dutch gemoet meeting. See meet1

Sounds like "theory" to me. What's with science and ambiguous words? :)

Comment: Why? Here's why! (Score 1) 196

by guttergod (#43229471) Attached to: Samsung Also Making a Smartwatch
The why is blindingly obvious to me.... Because with the trend of phones being 5"+, a watch is a HUGE lot handier to manage than having to pull out the phone unlock it, read some sms or email which likely doesn't require an immediate response anyway, or hang up a call from someone you don't have time to talk to at the moment. Add to that some other on-a-glance features, like... *the time*, a stopwatch, countdown timer etc, and hey presto, a whole package of quite useful stuff which may come in handy.

Comment: Re:OMG! (Score 1) 283

by guttergod (#41303427) Attached to: Samsung Expected To Sue Apple Over iPhone 5 LTE Networking
The problem isn't that they got sued. If they hadn't played the patent card things would never have gone out of proportion like this. They should have just sued and said "this phone looks too much like ours" and be done with it. Instead they said "this phone looks like ours" AND included the alleged "theft" of all kinds of things they lie about having invented. The only reason they played the patent card is because if they win, it will put the *entire* smartphone industry years behind because it would mean all their baloney patents would be validated. What better way than to hide it within a obvious case. I'm almost ready to put on a tin foil hat and consider this whole thing a made up plot by Samsung and Apple. Apple builds the smartphones, Samsung builds the components. All competition are ridiculously gimped by idiotic, and because of this obvious "simple case", now legally valid patents. Seems like a good deal for both Apple *and* Samsung in the end, right?

Comment: Re:Because it sucks (Score 1) 208

by guttergod (#39159547) Attached to: Is Hypertext Literature Dead?
I can't remember who said it, but this brings to mind something I heard on TV (some standup or maybe QI?) some time ago about how the wheel in itself is a less impressive idea than the idea of putting more of them together and using them for transport. Perhaps it's just a question of nobody finding the right format for a "readable" kind of hypertext literature rather than it just being crap? Also, I ask myself if interactive storybooks wouldn't fit under the banner of "hypertext literature" even though it's not technically text, it still is clickable images.

Comment: Re:I almost started to cry... (Score 1) 177

by guttergod (#38141170) Attached to: Viacom's SOPA/PIPA Pitch Video, Annotated
Yes, I read your post, and I did understand the point you were trying to make. But evven if you won't generate a "sale" now, there's nothing saying that you'll never do. They're counting potential revenue, not guaranteed revenue. It's a budget-calculation. They're not doing anything that most people wouldn't do when filing their tax return.

Comment: Re:I almost started to cry... (Score 1) 177

by guttergod (#38140576) Attached to: Viacom's SOPA/PIPA Pitch Video, Annotated

They don't allow me to watch it, because I'm not in the USA.

Then you're not part of their target audience (for now anyway). There is no moral obligation on companies to make everything they do available to the entire world, that's not the way it works. They don't have to sell their product to every possible person who might be interested (in fact, that could potentially end up being illegal). Consume what is available to you if you want to be morally right. You can opt to pirate it and watch it anyway, but you ARE consuming something of commercial value if you do. You know it, they know it, I know it, *everyone* knows it. You can choose to disregard the fact, but there's no way that will ever be the morally right thing to do (unless someone comes up with a unique piece of media that will cure cancer or something like that).

Comment: Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 244

by guttergod (#37653320) Attached to: Apple Tries To Patent 3rd Party In-App Purchasing
Let's test your reasoning here: It's an app because it runs on a "small thing". Tablets are well known to run apps. They are 10". So, if I buy a small netbook with windows 7 on it, all of the sudden MS Office is an app and not an application? No. Doesn't make sense at all... In fact, there is NO difference at all between an app and an application, ANY phone is a small computer, nothing else.. It's perfectly obvious. A phone has the same basic components as a computer. A motherboard with a CPU, memory, storage and the other essential stuff. Apple is working their ass off to make sure everyone thinks there is a difference because it allows them to patent everything that is done in applications as "innovation" in apps. It's ridiculous.

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...