Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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

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) 158 158

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) 196 196

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) 283 283

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) 208 208

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.

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Working...