Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Sounds like it isn't nearly as good (Score 2) 151 151

Steam home streaming works brilliantly for me. The image quality is every bit as good on the client as it is on the host and input lag is nonexistent (network hiccups aside). What I've heard about XBOX streaming (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/07/xbox-on-windows-10-what-it-is-what-it-isnt-and-whats-missing/) leads me to think that, at least for now, it doesn't compare.

Plus, I don't have an XBOX.

Comment One thing at a time - State AG can't do that (Score 1) 253 253

To say that Google engages in interstate commerce is a bit of an understatement. Sure as hell sounds to me like this AG is trying to regulate what has become a major channel for interstate commerce, thereby exceeding the hell out his authority and violating the f- out of the Constitution.

Comment Re:It makes sense (Score 1) 483 483

God I hope not. You're talking about the global collapse of modern civilization. Billions would die, and we'd have to start all over again. As much fun as post-apocalyptic games and movies can be, actually going through it would be, to put it mildly, nightmarishly horrific.

Not that we'd stay there. After a few hundred years we'd be back where we are now, but that's a lot of time and lives wasted for nothing.

Comment Wait, consumption?? (Score 1) 483 483

Okay, halving carbon emissions, fossil fuel use, or nuclear power use is one thing (though silly in the latter case). But halving consumption of power? How in the hell is that supposed to work? "Welcome to France, there's no air conditioning."? Perhaps instead of electric vehicles, they're adopting Flintstones style cars? Does it mean all electricity use, or can you still wire up a stationary bike to a generator? Will batteries still be sold?

Comment Re:Investigating if laws were broken (Score 1) 312 312

That's not what's happening. This isn't a case of someone arguing ignorance as a defence, the police are the ones who don't know if there was an applicable law. The ignorance != defence rule assumes the accused could and should have been aware of the law. In this case it could not have been possible for him to know, as demonstrated by the police's ignorance. If law enforcement doesn't know if he broke a law, there's no possible way a reasonable person could know either.

If they were to say, "we've decided law X applies to what he did", that should be considered ex post facto, as it clearly didn't apply at the time of the incident.

Comment Re:this is outrageous. (Score 1) 312 312

Baked into the statement is a presumption of guilt and it begs a legislative question, assuming that he must have done something wrong before the People and their representatives have made that determination. That's not how our system is designed to work.

IBM Advanced Systems Group -- a bunch of mindless jerks, who'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes... -- with regrets to D. Adams