Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:Alternative (Score 1) 147

EME isn't really that much of an improvement over plugins, though it does its best to never call the 'CME' a 'plugin'. It's slightly better than just using the 'object' tag, since it standardizes a few details of interaction between javascript on the page and the 'CME'; but aside from a bunch of 'this section is non-normative' comments at the bottom to the effect of 'please don't write insecure CMEs, especially if they are going to run in a trusted context'; EME requires absolutely nothing of a CME aside from support for setting up a playback session.

If you feel like implementing a pure toy of a system, they have their goofy little cleartext-key javascript thing; but fully replacing the browser's media playback mechanism is accepted(and probably expected, since any DRM system that just hands the decrypted media back to the browser for play is going to be absurdly weak); and the standard neither requires any particular methods for interacting with the CME to be available, nor forbids the CME from having additional functions, communicating through channels unknown to the browser, or doing just about anything else it wants to.

The 'CME' does have the advantage of not starting with legacy baggage, which certainly isn't true of Flash; but architecturally browser plugins are much more tightly under the control of the browser than CMEs are.

Comment Re:Treat it like all other medicine (Score 1) 101

doctors and medical researchers do not understand basic statistics

That is a sweeping generalization that would most likely come from someone who themselves does not understand basic statistics. In the case of the former group, many physicians opt to take statistics in undergrad (instead of calculus) and have had at least a full year before starting med school. Med school curriculum is often rather statistics-heavy, as well. There may be some older physicians still running around who had little or no statistics exposure on their way to MD, but they are in the minority.

As for the second, the PhD researchers can't get anywhere without a solid background in statistics. Frankly nobody earns a PhD in the hard sciences without a good grasp on statistics, and this has been the case for decades. Manuscripts that are not statistically rigorous don't get published, and unpublished manuscripts don't become theses.

Comment Some other country will lead the ethics of this (Score 1) 101

Our country is too fond of market-based solutions to matters like this. Once (at least) one company finds a way to make a lot of money off of this, the discussion will be over and we will convince ourselves that it is for the better.

Arguably the bigger loss is in the fact that it will force even more scientists away from ethically sound research and into profit-driven work instead because there won't be any other careers.

Comment Re:The Source? (Score 1) 147

Oh, no. I blame everyone involved.

from the complacent masses to the corporate shills and everyone in between, including the actors, the writers, the media manufacturers, the game console and television makers, the people who designed HDCP, the people who make sure that I get to suffer through the threats before every film i PAID for, while the actual people who are copying the stuff quite happily remove same... the list is quite well populated.

I benefit directly from media sales, as I own a very successful business in the publishing industry, and I am 100% totally against "copy-protection" of all kinds. But like politics, the masses just won't stand up for themselves, they don't even understand why they should... and so this is what we all end up with. Shite.

Comment Re:Summary is so broken (Score 2) 133

Christ, whilst it looks like you're trolling because you're one of Slashdot's premier PC master race guys and displaying a certain arrogance towards the guys who designed these consoles assuming they must just be less competent for only producing a primitive OS (when the reality is they're undoubtedly smart guys, making smart choices), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer.

It's got nothing to do with one being more primitive than the other. On the contrary, because consoles can do away with all the legacy and general processing cruft that PCs have to be able to cater, coupled with the fact you're looking at dedicated hardware fulfilling a specific goal if anything the opposite is true - console OS are less primitive, because they don't have to cater to decades of previous software like Windows has to. It doesn't matter though because primitive is an entirely subjective term anyway. A lightweight cutting edge OS written yesterday might be primitive because it's lightweight and it lacks features, or it might be cutting edge because it was written yesterday.

The reason is simply that the two systems are different, neither is superior to the other, both have different purposes and goals and that inevitably results in different design decisions being made.

Consoles perform a lot of background services, and whilst talk of console cost-performance ratios inevitably involves some smartass pricing up some PC components that they claim are superior for the same price the reality is that they never are as they typically exclude everything in the box from the game controllers, through to the very bespoke hardware that achieves certain types of processing more efficiently than an equivalently priced PC ever good. The Xbox One for example constantly handles background processing of gesture recognition, voice recognition, multi-user voice chat, friends list, constant recording of games with the ability to save off the last 5 minutes of that record to disk, streaming of said video across the internet, as well as background apps including things like live TV display and so on. The reality is that you cannot build for £250 a PC that can do all that whilst still pulling off 1080p, 60fps or equivalent with other areas of high graphical fidelity.

Which isn't to say that you can't pay more and build a PC that does all that and then some - that's not my point, I'm not saying one is better than the other, merely making the point that there is nothing inherently deficient about console hardware for the price. It's good at what it does, it gives you the best gaming processing for that amount of money, but certainly if you have money to spare then yes, absolutely, a PC can do you all that and then more without a doubt.

So with that out the way, to answer why they reserved cores, the answer is that it's about user experience, yes, I know that's a wishy-washy term, but bare with me. On a PC you're in charge of the system, you're in control and that means you've both in control in terms of having flexibility of what you want to do, but also have to take responsibility when you fuck things up - if you decide to farm bitcoins whilst trying to play a game and either or end up crawling to a halt and being useless then that becomes your problem, you have to make a concious choice to do one or the other, or to restrict one or the other to do both. Consoles don't give you that choice nor are they meant to, they're meant to be easy to use and for you to not have to have any hassle with that, and as such the Xbox team has to make different design choices to the Windows team - whilst the Windows team gives you full control of your system, the Xbox team needs to make sure the system can always perform it's minimum baseline without fail and that anything the developers do or don't do doesn't break that.

And this is where it comes to a head, essentially if you fuck something up that impacts performance of a game or a background task on a PC then that's your problem, but if on a console a game stutters to a halt or a background task like voice chat or streaming starts to fail because something has hogged too many resources then that becomes the THEIR problem. Given this, I hope you can see why the console designers prefer to reserve resources and make sure that the experience is consistent and that developers know what bounds they must design their game within.

As for why now in terms of freeing up cores, I'd wager there are two reasons:

1) We're 2 years into a console cycle that may only be 5 or 6 years long. Initially they may have judged that they may need 2 cores to implement future unknown functionality, but now they're far enough into the lifecycle they can confidentally say that if in 3 years they desperately need more power then it's time for the next generation console release, or at least, time to start planning it.

2) At release they have no idea what curveballs the competition are going to throw and that they may need to dig out resources to respond to. If Microsoft did something really innovative with Kinect and it became a killer feature, Sony will have wanted to be sure they could respond to that without having to say "Oh shit, our console is all out of capacity, we can't". Again, now the competition is known and the roadmaps are pretty settled they're probably confident enough that they don't need a whole core of extra capacity reserved so are happy to free it up.

Probably the last big question mark on the horizon that led to these decisions was VR - how much guaranteed processing capacity do we need to keep aside for VR? as those technologies have begun to mature they probably said right, there's now nothing known on the horizon that would ever need this capacity so let's release it to the devs.

Is that a sufficient answer or is this going to be another one of those "but my PC is magic and only cost £20 but beats a cluster of PS6's" type discussions that are rife but pointless on Slashdot?

Comment Re:Legality? (Score 1) 327

"This is a poor assumption, there are plenty of web based only services out there that don't provide a service compelling enough to be able to use a pay model so they use advertising as a means of revenue. People are not going to take up a subscription of $9.99/mo, $4.99/mo, or even $19.99/yr for each service they use because there are just to many."

I agree, but what you're really highlighting here is the underlying problem - the market place is crowded and in a crowded market place profits will always be pushed towards zero with the least competitive going out of business and this is accelerated in a globalised world where Western companies entering such a market place are up against entrepeneurs in low salary 3rd world nations that have inherently lower costs. The problem is that these sites feel they have a right to make large profits, and that's the issue - these companies rather than recognising the reality they're operating in are instead trying to fruitlessly change that reality and yet all they're doing is alienating their users and accelerating their decline towards absolute failure.

So the choices are two fold, accept this isn't the great mythical dot com unicorn land where you get rich by just making a website and the reality is that you'll barely scrape a living and be happy with that because that's just the way it is, and that's what you have to live with, or figure out how to beat the competition and become a top tier site such that you can paywall, or can live with even 90% of your users blocking ads on your site.

You can't change the technology, and you can't change people so your only option is to accept reality and run with it or stay the fuck out of the business and find some other way to make money.

Comment Re:Why do you insist on misquoting me? (Score 1) 128

who wanted me permanently unemployed

It's hard to remember that the "conspiracy theorist" is *me* sometimes.

I can see how someone reading that statement with no context whatsoever could imagine it to be some sort of conspiracy. I do not see the conservatives as having an ambition to destroy me, personally; rather I am a victim of the Conservative War on Science. I have been training my entire life for a position in scientific research, and they are proudly do everything they can to bring science to a screeching halt in this country. That results in my permanent unemployment.

I'm impressed that you so proudly attempted to make two contradictory arguments in one sentence. I'm not sure why this impresses me, though, you do it quite often.

"Trollin', trollin', trollin'

You do a much better job than most of convincing others that you actually believe the contradictory statements you spew out on a regular basis.

Comment Re:But intel... (Score 0) 133

But intel keeps telling us we only need 4 cores for games?!

They're right. A quad-core intel chip beats the pants off an eight-core AMD chip... for twice the money. The maximum frame rates are only maybe 5% higher, but the minimums are almost 50% higher. If it's worth the money to you to keep your minimum frame rates up, which really can make the difference between killing and being killed in an online match mind you, then you buy the Intel chip.

To me, saving a hundred bucks (and almost another hundred on the motherboard, which was also cheaper) was more important. But to each their own.

Comment Re:Summary is so broken (Score 3, Informative) 133

"Wouldn't two more cores, or approximately 25% of the processor power of the system, be useful to gamers that want better gameplay?"

Yeah but it'd also mean no free resources to support things like a common interface for inviting friends to your game, or still chatting to friends playing different games and so forth.

It'd mean no resources to just hop out of the game to check a video on YouTube if you're stuck, or resources to record your gameplay and stream it without each and every game having to support these things themselves.

Fact is modern consoles have a baseline of functionality that is common between games - friends lists, chat, recording/streaming gameplay and so on and that needs dedicated resources.

All that's happened here is that they've realised they don't need quite as many resources as they originally thought they might to support this baseline functionality.

It benefits game developers and users too - developers don't have to implement this stuff themselves, and users don't have to put up with completely different implementations between every game they're in, so it's a good thing.

Comment Re:BUILD (Score 1) 322

My you're an angry little fellow aren't you?

You obviously really really hate being wrong on the internet to shed that many tears over it.

Sucks to be you, I'd hate to spend my life as stressed and angry over life as you clearly are.

But then, you do live in a country where it's legal for companies to fuck you over in this sort of way so it's not surprising you assume you'll get fucked. Me? Nah, I ain't gonna get fucked, my country has sane laws, I'm protected whatever happens because corporations don't run my country like they do yours, but thanks for your concern.

A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.