Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I look forward to hearing about why this will f (Score 1) 741

by jedidiah (#43789463) Attached to: Microsoft Unveils Xbox One

> I'm speaking globally, not US-centric. And why does it have to be 1080p? Lower resolutions don't exist?

Lower resolutions and bitrates are certainly less satisfying.

If you are talking "not US-centric" then you have the problem of alternate language tracks and subtitles. This is an area where streaming services tend to fall down rather badly.

It's not just the low quality video stream.

Comment: Re:I look forward to hearing about why this will f (Score 1) 741

by jedidiah (#43789451) Attached to: Microsoft Unveils Xbox One

$5? Are you kidding? The retail cost of some BluRays is that low now. Even at $10, you're not leaving a lot of room for other things like retailer markup or the studio actually making some money.

NOBODY streams nowadays. Despite the hype, the numbers are still pretty low. They just get a lot of attention because most people have no grasp of numbers.

They have a staggering lack of perspective as well as extreme narcissism and a tendency to think they represent everyone.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 256

by hairyfeet (#43788707) Attached to: IBM Takes System/z To the Cloud With COBOL Update

Well anybody who has followed me here knows I'm quick to call out bullshit where i see it and saying "X is bad" because X can be used badly while ignoring that A-Z can likewise be made to run piss poor code? Bullshit.

And maybe I should have made myself more clear, when i think of server backends i think of one or more X86 units doing the job whereas the big iron is a completely different story. Sure it CAN be used as a generic server backend but considering how much those suckers cost that wouldn't be the brightest thing to do, last article i saw said the biggest growth for the mainframe were in these huge MMOs and military simulations, jobs where you would need such a huge pile of X86 units it just wouldn't be practical.

Comment: Re:Brains are a funny thing (Score 1) 203

by hairyfeet (#43788615) Attached to: Narrowing Down When Humans Began Hurling Spears

Waste mod points all you want but name ONE TIME, just one, in human history where the entire planet was sent backwards by anything OTHER than religion. Religion is the ONLY thing that can give a man the God like powers to ultimately destroy pretty much everything, be it the math revolution in the Arab world or the centuries of knowledge built up by the Romans, religion is the ONLY way to gain enough power over enough people to completely wipe everything out like that until the invention of the atomic bomb.

Now if you want to argue its not the fault of the religion itself, but the assholes in charge of it? Fine but I would argue that you are splitting hairs as throughout history religion ALWAYS gets taken over by the assholes, from the Catholics burning anything and anyone they didn't agree with to the mullahs having anything that didn't say Allah destroyed it always ends up in the hands of major douchebags, but unlike politics this is not something one can have an opposition for easily because "You are against God you heathen" and so on and so forth.

There is a good reason why religion has been called "the opiate of the masses" you know, its because it allows a handful to have control over large populations in such a way that only drug addiction comes close.

Comment: Re: How are we supposed to know (Score 2) 225

by hairyfeet (#43788515) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can Yahoo Actually Stage a Comeback?

Yeah this is a giant fail because the whole point of "Ask Slashdot" is to ask solvable problems that are too geeky for your usual places, stuff like "How can I record securely in my car" or like the problem I had with a customer whose computers kept getting hacked i asked in the comments where it turned out his router had been compromised, its for questions which can actually be ANSWERED.

Whether Yahoo can pull off a come back or not should really be under general, not under Ask Slashdot. As for the question itself, if they continue to not be MSFT? Its possible, I've been making countless Yahoo accounts for customers pissed off at MSFT killing Live Messenger and Hotmail so they could pick up those users and run with them as long as they don't shit all over the UIs like MSFT does.

Comment: Re:Movies are real! (Score 1) 697

by hairyfeet (#43788183) Attached to: House Bill Would Mandate Smart Gun Tech By U.S. Manufacturers

It reminds me of an interview I saw where one of the guys that worked on drone tech was laughing about that shit. He said he was brought into a meeting with the brass and they asked "how much would it cost to build this?" and they handed him...a picture of the T-800 from Terminator. He said he laughed and laughed...until he realized they were serious and then he REALLY laughed. They honestly thought you could just build a T-800 if they threw enough money at it. The same thing happened to the director of Blue Thunder who said he phone was swamped for 6 months after the movie was released from different military and SWAT forces all wanting to know "How much for the chopper?". he was pissed though as he made a movie against too much power in the wrong hands and the same powers thought it was a tech demo.

I'd say this just shows how much of a bubble those guys live in compared to reality when they can see something in a movie and think they can just wave their magic pen and make that shit work. Not only is this impossible from a practical sense as the gun would be more likely to fail than it would be to work but frankly it is also a little racist when you think about it since this would raise gun prices to the thousands per handgun and a LOT of the past gun laws can be summed up as "fear of an armed negro". Hell look up the history of gun laws, for nearly a century going back to the very first gun laws they can be summed up as that, and I don't even want to know how much putting all that tech into a gun would cost even IF you could somehow make it functional.

Comment: Re:But I like guns! (Score 1) 697

by jedidiah (#43786901) Attached to: House Bill Would Mandate Smart Gun Tech By U.S. Manufacturers

The dead children are primarily a victim of crime fueled by poverty.

The guns are just a distraction for clueless suburbanites hiding safely behind walls in gated communities.

I find the lack of control that most suburbanites have over their large dogs to be far more disturbing. No one bothers to train the things. They seem to view them as fashion accessories rather than living creatures.

Comment: Re:Movies are real! (Score 2) 697

by jedidiah (#43786853) Attached to: House Bill Would Mandate Smart Gun Tech By U.S. Manufacturers

Every time I watch Westworld, the first thing that goes through my mind when seeing that explanation is "richochet".

The next thing that occurs to me is that bottles, chairs, and windows don't have any of those safeguards built into them. The same probably goes for the swords and lances in Roman and Medieval world.

Comment: Re:When people who've never seen it write the rule (Score 0) 697

by jedidiah (#43786819) Attached to: House Bill Would Mandate Smart Gun Tech By U.S. Manufacturers

The real problem is that Global Climate Change hysterics are ultimately completely irrelevant from a public policy perspective. This is especially true for Republicans that like to wrap themselves in the flag and declare that they are defenders of the Boy Scouts.

Dogma can be a tricky thing.

Comment: Re:Movies are real! (Score 5, Insightful) 697

by jedidiah (#43786759) Attached to: House Bill Would Mandate Smart Gun Tech By U.S. Manufacturers

Regardless. Any policy driven technology adoption should be first forced upon the police and the military before it's forced on civilians. If a cop wouldn't want this technology then it's not something that anyone else should have forced on them either.

Mandating that civilians can only own guns that don't work is just a transparent attempt to side step the law.

Let cops and soldiers adopt this stuff first.

Comment: Re:Genius! (Score 1) 246

There should be a formally named principle about how you can't assume that something is said in jest just because we perceive it to be obviously absurd. You are bound to find someone that will take any wild statement seriously at face value.

You never know when you are dealing with that kind of person.

Comment: Re: So what? (Score 1) 142

by hairyfeet (#43776191) Attached to: Yahoo Board Approves a $1.1B Pricetag For Tumblr
Not unless tumblr lets you create communities around particular subjects. I haven't used the thing but from what I was told it was more like Twitter than Geocities. With Geocities say you liked "Buffy TVS" you could then go to a Buffy site and it would have links on the left to all the other affiliated Buffy sites and then that would be broken down to various actors,spinoffs, future and past story arcs, you could land on a single page and from there find out pretty much everything there was to know about a subject with no more than 3 clicks.

In any world menu, Canada must be considered the vichyssoise of nations -- it's cold, half-French, and difficult to stir. -- Stuart Keate

Working...