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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:E-sports! E-sports! E-sports! (Score 0) 88

When Stephen Hawking can play League of Legends, we'll stop calling it an e-sport.

Really that's going to be your line in the sand? Its a sport as long as it requires at least some minimum level of motor control?

I mean, Steven Hawking can't hold a cup of milk steady. So I guess that's a sport now too?

Comment Re:E-sports! E-sports! E-sports! (Score 1) 88

So how do you define a sport then?

I define it, generally, as a athletic competition with a physical challenge.

Golf, skeet shooting, bowling,... all qualify as sports. The athletic fitness may be less stringent, but the ability to place a ball, or a bullet, or a bowling ball 'just so' are still very much a physical challenge. But yeah in the 'hierachy of sport' bowling is on the bottom rung for athletics.

What about a physical activity that involves unpredictability, making precise movements in response to quick decisions? That sounds kind of like...using a mouse to play League of Legends...

Jeopardy has all that too.No advance notice what the question is going to be. Quick decisions. And a even buzzer you have to race to physically push. Its still not a sport either.

Trying to play up videogames as a 'sport' because they use a mouse really accurately and fast is setting yourself up for ridicule. Your right, there's a physical challenge to it. It raises it all the way to the level of smartphone texting competitions and needle point racing.

The real question is "why do you care that it be considered a 'sport' ?" What's the point? You think it will some how be more legitimate if we call it a sport? How'd that work out for chess? (IOC recognizes it as a sport now. Nobody else does.) Hell, most of us, roll our eyes at bowling too. You think boasting about your mouse clicking prowess is the path to credibility??

Let it be its own thing, trying to attach the activity to football and hockey by calling it a "sport"... is pissing upwind. Utterly pointless... unless you like getting pissed on.

Comment Re:E-sports! E-sports! E-sports! (Score 0) 88

Sports are games meant for entertainment of both player and spectator, just the same as video games.

The fact that its a game, is competitive, and people are watching for entertainment doesn't make it a sport.

We're not singling out video games here:

Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Win Ben Stein's Money, and aren't sport's either. You don't hear them complaining.

Likewise Iron the tatoo artists on Ink Masters, and whatever you want to call the contestants on Ace of Cakes aren't playing sports. Nor is the guy on youtube doing crossword puzzles. Nor is your 8 year old spelling bee champion. But they too usually have the sense not to tell people they are in sports.

And poker players, chess payers, and Magic the Gathering pros... yeah they sometimes call their activity a sport, and they usually get laughed at for it too.

Comment Re:He wasn't able to give it up. (Score 1) 364

"Computers to include large data centers run on DC power at the machine level."

While the HVAC is all still running AC.

" Now most of the DC comes from a AC source be this lets them put together a high efficeny AC-DC converter."

Exactly. They moved the AC-DC box out of all the cases and centralized it (saves space in each server, moves a heat generation point out of each server, and lets them improves efficiency etc). But it amounts to plugging an AC/DC box next to my computer and then plugging a DC computer and cellphone charger into it. Big whoop. Its still an AC power supply. Sticking a DC convertor in and pushing the A/C source 20 feet back out of sight doesn't make it 'sustainable DC'.

"They can also use solar power directly."

True. But almost nobody but a few off the grid survivalist types are just running on solar.

Comment Should be... again. (Score 4, Informative) 153

As in " Hasbro and Warner Bros. have announced Dungeons & Dragons will be getting its own film franchise." ... again.

Or are we pretending now that they they didn't already drop a bunch of D&D turds?

In 2000 (saw it, amusing for what it was, but it was awful)

IMDB lso lists this, which I haven't seen
2005 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt04... ("straight to video")
2012 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt17... ("TV movie")

And which seem to have "2" and "3" in the subtitles... suggesting they were sequels? I haven't seen them, and based on the 1st one... I'm not sure if anyone should.

Comment Re:Installer allows you to customize your settings (Score 1) 478

Yup so far, in windows 10. There are 2 folowup settings that I've felt the the need to after turning everything off in the customize privacy screen.

1) Turn off messages about smart screen. (You can turn off smart screen during install, windows evidently thinks this is a security risk, so it's an alert in action center. So you effectively turn off smart screen, and then follow up by turning off messages about smart screen being off. Not a huge deal... since smart screen *is* a legitimate A/V feature. And some non-tech people probably should have it on; despite the privacy implication. Its a standard feature of all modern A/V software. So its not omgz ms is evil.

2) Turn off forwarding windows search to bing. Again, another easy to access setting, but an extra step.

I prefer windows updates on for my personal desktops so I don't worry about that. The risk of a bad update screwing me over has proven to be less than the risk of not having them. In my opinion.

There is some rumbling about some telemetry features that can only be turned off with enterprise. I'd like to know more about that.

Comment Re:my experience (Score 1) 478

You can turn off the nags about smart screen in Action center. (simplest way to get there is to click the flag in the system tray.) but its also via control panels.

The option is literally called "turn of messages about smart screen".

Nagging about the cloud? I setup a local account, the only time i see messages at all about 'their cloud' is when i add new "metro" apps -- which i don't do much. (Same as windows 8.0/8.1).

Comment Re:Yes, unprovoked (Score 1) 205

"Oh, it would have only lasted 55 miles on our track!" SO FUCKING WHAT? That's a frigging RACE you retarded shitepile!

You do realize topgear runs pretty much every car that comes in on its track right? Every other car however, can be filled up and driven home immediately afterwards. That's a fairly signficant difference between other cars and the Tesla. They decided to make much ado about that point. Accept it and move on.

How long would a car able to go so fast last on the same track? 50-80 miles tops.

Did you not read my post? I actually answered that. I said 55 wasn't that bad on the track. I said my 911 needed to be filled up twice on a track day, plus a 3rd time to go home. I figure I was getting around 3-4 mpg... my range wouldn't be much better than a Tesla.

But I could (and did) fill it in the space of time it took to wolf down a sandwich... twice; and then get back onto the track. My track day in a Tesla would have been... cut shorter to say the least; and I'd have had to sit around for a while charging it up again to go home too.

And it would beat the same sized car in acceleration and speed OR in range on the racetrack. No similar car could beat it on all three. You'd need a proper "road legal" racer for that.

That's just fangirl talk. It wins drag races. That's about it.

Here's the Tesla S at the Nurburgring

The car overheated around 5 miles in. Without overheating they figured around 9 minutes. That's pretty good (but it didn't actually do it... what with the overheating.) And 9 minutes while very good is NOT amazing. LOTS of high performance 4 door sedans can do that... Mercedes C55, BMW 335i, Audi S5... are all comfortably sub 9 minute cars.

I like Tesla. I like the car. I like what the company is doing to the automotive world. But I don't want to own one (at least not one they've made so far). Its a pretty amazing car, and the torque is phenomenal... it wins drag races against almost everything.

Its a good car, but not as good your making it out to be.

Comment Re:Yes, unprovoked (Score 2) 205

. Any experienced sports car driver, like Clarkson claiks to be, could roll a Reliant Robin over inside of 50 yards

And if I'd originally written 50 you'd have claimed it should only need 25. No real point even engaging. The point remains that he set out to make the robin look like all it does is roll over, when lots of people have managed to drive one without constantly going over.

As for 'antics', punching somebody in the face isn't 'off-screen antics', it's assult with intent.

I am not defending the assault, per se; nor was i even referring to it; By off screen antics I meant his persona in general. His columns, his books, his political views, his public appearances... etc.

Comment Re:Yes, unprovoked (Score 3, Interesting) 205

it's that they faked it breaking down.


All the coverage I can find of a "fake breakdown" is simply an alternate phrasing for their "dramatization" of it running out of juice, and then being pushed into the garage.


That said, the drivetrain did overheat on one, and the brakes did fail on the other one. (Yes they abused them... but that's what they do. And plenty of other super and hyper cars have broken down on them too and they've taken the piss out of them too.)

Even then, Clarkson was too thick to work out how to use the charger so didn't get maximum benefit from it.

And he wasn't able to run a Reliant Robin more than a 100 yards without rolling it over either. He's Clarkson... his persona for like 15+ years is to be a bit of hooligan gorilla. Taking his on-screen and off-screen antics seriously... says more about the viewer than it does about Clarkson. Its not fair and balanced journalism. Sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

Comment Re:Yes, unprovoked (Score 5, Interesting) 205

I've seen that episode several times. I like the Tesla, but I think Top Gear made a good point.

Clarkson's show also claimed a Tesla ran out of electric power after 55 miles when the claimed range was 200 miles.

The actual quote:

âoeAlthough Tesla say it will do 200 miles we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles.â

55 miles on their TRACK.

55 miles on a track isn't really even that bad... but it would be a terrible track day car. I had to fill my 911 twice last time I took it to a track, and then again to get it home. But a complete fill on my car takes less than 5 minutes at the gas station next to the track. A tesla owner would not have that luxury.

the BBC admitted in court that the scene where the car ran out of power was faked.

Not "faked", but yes it was was done purely for dramatic effect.

And, again, in context, it was simply illustrating the point that after a day on the track the car would be dead; and wouldn't make the trip home. (without another lengthy recharge.)

Only a Tesla fangirl would get all twisted up in knots over the episode. It was a legitimate criticism delivered with typical Topgear dramatic sensibilities. (Ie 'over the top') But Clarkson and the gang routinely slag excellent cars and its all in pretty good humor. Clarkson has called the 911 Turbo a car that plots to kill its driver, and compared the Carrera 4S to a boob job... meanwhile he fell over himself in adulation of the Ford GT which he pre-ordered for himself and which had proven to be something of a lemon to actually own... "leeway" is what the audience wants from that show.

There are plenty of other places to get 'boring'. Few magazines ever say anything remotely critical of anything. Its pretty refreshing and entertaining to see these supercars and hypercars both shown in their best lights but also to see them taken down a peg now and again. To see a ferrari stuck in an alley it's too wide for, to watch them try and park a lambo, to see them collectively decide a cheap VW hatchback is more fun to drive than a BMW... that's what made TopGear.

Comment Re:I found this bit quite funny (Score 1) 255

Am I the only one who thinks that the removal of the pop-out start menu with Windows Vista was a step in the wrong direction

It was terrible before too, if you wiggled the mouse too much and you were 7 layers deep into the heirarchy the start menu would close or flip over to another folder, and you'd have to start all over...it was usability garbage.

The replacement in vista was still tedious, but the previous incarnation was gouge-your-eyes-out-bad if you had to navigate to something that was deep.

Comment Re:I found this bit quite funny (Score 5, Interesting) 255

So why did you remove the start menu in windows 8?

Lol, well said.

However, to be fair to MS, they didn't "remove it" they revamped it. They rightfully identified that there was a ton of functionality jammed into it, and that it was a shitty UI for most of it, while simultaneously its primary design driver was a vestigial hierarchical folder structure from Windows 95 that really was quite hideous and unusable, and rarely used.

Every one used the start menu to shutdown, to get to control panels etc, to access frequently used and pinned apps, and to search.

shutdown? because that's where it was. No real need for it to be there relative to anywhere else.
control panels same thing. So they moved them (and also added them to right click start menu).
pinned apps... you can still create taskbar menus and pin apps etc in win8.

search -- there's two types of search:
-- type one ... "power user quick launch" . For example type cmd to launch command or pow to launch powershell, etc etc... the win7 start menu worked well for this

-- type two -- actual search. Where you want to find something that you don't know what its called, or to find a document. Having your whole search interface in a small popup in the corner that was liable to disappear on you at random was silly and useless. The win7 start menu sucks for real search.

Finally... heirarchical start menu browsing... was clumsy in Windows 95 and all but useless in a modern PC. Nobody used it unless they had to, and browsing multiple levels of nested folders was clumsy.

The start screen in windows 8 ... was better for search. And the other commands were relocated. The problem with windows 8 was simply that the new locations were non-obvious. (how do I shutdown?) And the "type one" quick search-launch functionality was now really clutzy switching to a full screen app for quick launch makes no sense. (And really the whole 'go full screen' was a mistake. The old start menu was broken... but the new one was also broken, better in some ways, but worse in most.

But they were looking for a solution to a definite problem. Anyone who honestly looks at the windows 7 start menu has to acknowledge that it does too much, and does MUCH of it poorly. It needed attention.

Unfortunately windows 8 was a step in mostly the wrong directions. Too touch centric. Too much key functionality hidden off screen. Charms bar was just bad. Not having window border controls for mouse users was just bad. Defaulting to using 'modern ui' for viewing pictures etc was just bad. 8.1 cleaned up a lot of that, but it was still not ideal. Too much was driven by the tablet/mobile design rather than really trying to solve the problem for desktop users in a way that made sense for desktop users.

Windows 10 (build 10240) seems like a pretty good compromise so far. There's still plenty I don't like, but I think its a genuine step forward from 7 rather than a step sideways.

Comment Re:self-serving list (Score 1) 119

"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink (want a bet?)"

Short of violence and/or other behavior that most would consider animal abuse? Go figure that normal people exclude that as a valid solution to the 'problem'.

"doesn't have the horse sense to stay out of the rain"
(clearly never owned horses, they will seek shelter from rain -[...]"

"Horse sense" is a synonym for "good sense" or "sound judgment". The implication is that horses WILL stay out of the rain, and otherwise exhibit good sense. You mis-understood the proverb completely; and it means the opposite of what you think.

"you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" (try that with a fly trap).

Fine you win one, sort of... if you get to pick the species of fly in question. Yes certain species of fruit flies are attracted to the scent of vinegar. Other species not so much.

"In the face of entropy and nothingness, you kind of have to pretend it's not there if you want to keep writing good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer