Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:The emulator is not fully supported (Score 1) 150

Sony would prefer games to be optimized for their latest hardware, but if a company pressures them enough to simply use an emulator to save development costs they will allow it.

Yes, they might fix up the emulator in the future to support more games, which is why it is not for general purpose right now.

Sorry, if my last line was confusing, I was referring to Sony, not Blizzard in reference to an emulator.

Comment The emulator is not fully supported (Score 1) 150

They haven't tested it for all games. So, they only support using it for this special case. Also, they probably don't want to encourage game makers to use it, but rather recompile (and retarget) their game for better support.

It is like running World of Warcraft on linux. The company has a linux build of the game. They don't release it. They don't support running WoW using Wine. They won't ban you for playing WoW using Wine. Their anti-cheat program will detect you using Wine to run their game, and will appropriately adjust.

In short, they don't want to deal with the customer support issue or any negative PR about a not fully functional emulator.

Comment Make it like tax returns (Score 1) 305

If there is one thing that comes to mind when it comes to good online submission in the government it is tax returns. The government contracts out to online businesses and essentially offers a bounty for each successful return filed. Simply adopt a similar solution for other forums, make it so the bounty is only given for a form that results in being processed (instead of rejected for errors) and companies will put in their own reasonable filtering.

P.S. Please no comments about the complexity of the tax system in the US.

Comment Re:How can the "Cloud" be more secure? (Score 1) 220

The admin is given a choice, hand over data in secret or go to jail. A company would be on shaky legal ground for firing someone for following a court order.

For every big business you hear that they handed over data to the government, there are a dozen of small businesses that do so you don't hear about, as they just aren't news worthy. Pretty much every small agency that tried to oppose the government went out of business trying.

Comment Re:How can the "Cloud" be more secure? (Score 1) 220

Except when your admin is issued a court order to turn over the data, and a gag order not to tell anyone. Does your small business have audit logging for read operations? Mandatory shadowing when working with data directly?

Big business have a reputation to hold up, and have the deep pockets to eat the court battles and potential fines for non-compliance. A small business has a major risk of going out of business for pulling a stunt like that. Very few will try and take the high ground. Plus, if the government raided a major business for data, it would be all over the news and the media would have a field day. No reasonable government official is going to push the envelope for that, and if they do, they ain't going to be with a job for very long.

Comment Is company profit a good metric? (Score 1) 500

Take a company like Amazon, they show very little profit, and instead reinvest the money into the business. I'm not saying this company hasn't improved, but wouldn't something like average stock price over the last month compared to 6 months ago be a better indicator of how well a company is doing, assuming the hype over the move has died down?

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 1) 470

Malicious would be if Hillary left a security hole in the server with the intent to transfer state secrets to a spy. (Once again I only refer to the incident indicated in the article). I don't see any other way this could be considered malicious.

> repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious
I am trying to understand what "it" refers too. Lying about the server being secure? That is kind of a stretch.

Comment Don't trust the gov to use good technical solution (Score 3, Interesting) 470

When it comes to building, or using, or setting up software for consumer use, it just sucks. They often have a bidding contract and hand it out to whomever pays the least.

Hillary isn't a techie, she simply reiterates what she is told about things like this. All this shows is that politicians need additional training on the proper way to handle security and privacy. Clinton's mistake is she tried a "do it yourself" or "hire someone yourself" approach, which in some areas isn't a good idea unless you really know what you are doing.

Comment How is this an issue? (Score 1) 203

Even without self driving cars, it is quite possible that you can be found to have 0 liability for injuring someone:

It was dark, you were driving with your headlight on the highway. As you turn the corner a small kid is out on the street chasing after her ball. You slam the breaks, but you still hit her. Your car was in full working order, and you reacted as fast as reasonably expected. Good chance that the judge finds no one liable, or maybe the parent of the kid for letting them be in a dangerous situation.

You are driving along, and hit the break at a stop light. Your breaks fail and you get into an accident. You've had a recent checkup, and you took all reasonable steps to ensure a safe car. Maybe the manufacture is responsible, maybe the last mechanic you saw, maybe no one.

The only case I see for someone being liable for an accident using self-driving car is:

1. Not keeping your software updated. It would be like not responding to a car recall.

2. Using unauthorized software,, beta software, or software that isn't compatible with your car (including modifying your car).

3. Operating the car beyond the safe operating parameters. Like running the car in extreme weather (in this case the car should detect this and pull over or not start unless the user enables an override, which may be needed in case of emergency).

Comment This may not turn out well (Score 2) 127

Having been a long time player of the 1 vs 1 hearthstone game I can tell you that 80% of the time the emote button, which is the only way to communicate with your opponent, is often used in a negative way.

Some of the emotes are:

"Well played": Should be used to indicate a good move by your opponent of that you admit defeat. Often used to indicate "Give up I've already one"

"Thank you": Should be used to indicate a move by your opponent that was beneficial to you. Often used at the start to indicate "Thank you for the win I will get scrub"

"Hello": Should be used to indicate a friendly greeting. Often used to announce a play that swings the game in your favor.

If facebook simply allows any emotion for any post, people will associate certain emotes as "hate".

Laughing at misfortune.
Being sad at accomplishments: "You call that an accomplishment, that is sad"

No matter how friendly you make them, people will associate some actions as less than favorable

2 pints = 1 Cavort