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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Walt Disney's Kill Bill (Score 2, Interesting) 412

That's already happened - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare: Reflex for Wii, Call of Duty: Black Ops for Wii

I've never played them, so I don't know how they compare to CoD on the HD consoles or PC, but they certainly exist. It's not really been heavily publicised though, so I doubt the kind of person that'd be swayed by it would know about it. Heck, a lot of people I know who're into CoD think it's a 360 exclusive purely because it plays the 360 logo animation, thing, at the end of the ads.

Comment Re:Economics (Score 1) 96

I'm not 100% sure about this but in the UK at least I'm fairly sure most, if not all, ISPs are available everywhere in the country* with the exception of virgin media cable internet (since you need to be in a cabled area, and you can still get virgin broadband via phone-line (ADSL/ADSL2+)). I'm no broadband expert but my understanding is that all equipment is owned by BT and then rented by the smaller ISPs (with the exception of some of the other big ISPs who use their own tech in major telephone exchanges). As such, any ISP is available anywhere that is capable of ADSL*. There aren't the regional monopolies that seem to exist in the US since almost everyone uses ADSL(or 2+) and rely on the same pone system. I don't know if the situation is the same in Eire/ROI, but it I suspect it is and that Eircom is their equivalent of BT.

*some very remote areas with no/very poor phone line are obviously n/a

Comment Re:No hardware? (Score 3, Informative) 225

HDMI port != HDMI cable. The active hardware has to output audio and be HDCP 1.1 compliant to be HDMI. An HDMI-DVI adapter is not active hardware, but a cable (or dongle; but as far as the tech goes they are the same anyway) so is not subject to the same standards. However, I am fairly certain that such adapters cannot be HDMI certified, therefore cannot display the HDMI logo (but can be labelled as HDMI, since saying that it converts DVI->HDMI or vice versa is not false advertising).

Now I think about it, I don't know if HDMI outputs are required to have audio, but certainly all inputs are required to accept at least stereo LPCM (which is why HDMI equipped monitors have audio-outs), so I may have got a little muddled up there.

Comment Re:No hardware? (Score 1) 225

Actually, all HDMI ports have HDCP - it's a requirement of the spec. Of course there is nothing to stop companies or individuals from buying HDMI ports and just attaching them to DVI pins, but if they did that they wouldn't be legally allowed to advertise it or label it as HDMI (false advertising etc). Likewise, it also has to be able to output audio or it is technically not HDMI.

Comment Re:Impossible? (Score 1) 426

I would imagine that the paper example is almost exactly the same as when righties write on the back of a sheet of paper in such a binder or notebook. The only credible differences I see are that a) lefties start the line of text in the awkward position while righties end it in the awkward position (in left-right languages of course) and b) you are slightly more likely to write on on the front side. Both seem like fairly negligible differences to me. Other than that, all the differences that are present are there no matter what you're writing on.

Comment Re:and... (Score 1) 661

The difference there is that it is generally illegal to possess said drugs, so he would have no right to have them regardless of whether they were on a plane. Then there's smuggling of legal items (i.e. items you are allowed to possess in both countries) which is evasion of taxes, import duty (or whatever it's called in the US) etc. Assuming for a moment that neither is the case, and that it would be legal for the Shurikens to be shipped to the US (which I assume it would be), why should the same not hold for his private transport? If he were going to the UK for example, I could understand it as I'm fairly sure it's illegal to possess them here, but when going to the US, why not?

Comment Re:Excellent (Score 1) 255

Just because it is a response to the situation in Russia does not mean or imply that Russia is the only place it will apply. Maybe it applies to all CIS countries, or everywhere that Microsoft deems a similar situation to Russia likely. Also, I didn't say it implied that it applies to all non-US countries, but that it implies that it may apply to all non-US countries.

The New York Times article clearly states (no implication needed) that it doesn't only apply to Russia ("the company indicated that it would apply to other countries as well, though it did not identify them."), while the IT World article makes no implication that it is Russia-only and the part I quoted implies that it would apply worldwide outside of the US (although it's probably just poorly worded).

Comment Re:Excellent (Score 1) 255

Only if they're in Russia.

Ummm, no

From the New Your Times article:

The policy could have repercussions beyond Russia because the company indicated that it would apply to other countries as well, though it did not identify them.

From the IT World article:

Microsoft announced it will issue a blanket software license to nonprofit groups and journalist groups outside the US

Since when does "outside the US" translate to "only if they're in Russia"?

While it may indeed only apply to Russia, there is at least implication that it does not and may apply to everywhere outside of the US.

Comment Re:I want one (Score 2, Informative) 81

I don't know if you were simply using it's to spite the troll or not but I'm fairly sure its is correct. Unlike most words the apostrophe is only added when it's a contraction of "it is", "it has" etc, not to indicate "belonging to it" (possessive). The GP was a troll to be sure, but an accurate troll nonetheless.

Comment Re:I gotta say... (Score 1) 281

people seem to always associate "concentrate on profit" with "being a dick"...the two are not mutually exclusive.

Making as much money as possible isn't inherently's all in how you go about it.

That is very true, but if "making profit" is a higher priority than "not being a dick", then they will be a dick if it increases profit. It's not that being a dick is required for profit, but if you are willing to do so you will get more.

In almost all situations, being just a little bit of a dick is far more profitable than not being.

The real question is how much of "being a dick" does it take before profit starts to decrease due to customer dissatisfaction? If making a profit is the top priority (which it is for most companies) they will be "dicks" as long as the money saved/gained outweighs the loss caused by dissatisfied customers, like if they can grow a crop they need for a product at a third of the cost by cutting down part of the Amazon, but it loses them a third of their customers. In that example profit is the top priority, but other companies would put the long-term well-being of the planet ahead of profit and so would use sustainable crops etc. What about the law - should it not come above profit? I'm sure we have all heard about companies that have done things illegally to cut costs and later been found out, be it evading taxes, using illegal labour, or simply not conforming to regulations.

Slavery might have been a bit of an extreme example, but it is within the realm of belief that it could happen if the company thought they could keep it hidden from the public. If profit is of the highest priority, then no ethical or legal concerns would override that beyond "How much profit would we lose if we are found out?". I wish it weren't the case, but many companies do this (for lesser things than slavery mind), which is why the rainforest is being destroyed, why millions around the world are paid 50c/hour for 28 hour days in a factory, why farmers who grow crops abroad get 0.1% of the sale cost for their goods and so on.

As you said, "it's all in how you go about it" - that really should be the priority, not the amount of profit made, or at the very least they should be equal, balancing concerns (make as much profit as possible AND be ethical/not a dick), which changes "make as much profit as possible" form the top priority to a top priority.

Comment Re:Rights Holder (Score 1) 289

That simply isn't true. We are a unitary state, not a federation. It is a similar concept in some respects, but certainly not the same. While it would be possible to have an English parliament or assembly, it is unlikely to happen simply because the majority of the commons is representing England, therefore that is who is represented the most by the laws made. That is why devolution happens - because the interests of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England tend to be different, and generally laws represent the English due to the large number of seats. Of the 650 constituencies in the UK, Scotland has 59, Wales has 40 and Northern Ireland has 18. England has a whopping 533 and to put it even more in perspective, London has 73. As a result, UK law represents the English vs. everybody else by more than 4.5:1

Back on point though, it isn't possible to have a federal offence in the UK, as it is not a federation. In a federation, a federal offence is basically an offence that applies in all member states of the federation, so the closest equivalent would simply be a law for which appropriate powers haven't been devolved or said devolved powers have not been utilised (i.e. most laws).

In regards to the actual article, the concept is absolutely ridiculous. The Digital Economy Bill is evil/wrong when it comes to suspected piracy, punishment for other peoples crimes, guilty until proven innocent etc, but this is just plain stupid. You might as well fine the electricity companies for facilitating piracy as well - after all, you can't download things if you don't have power; it makes about as much sense.

Slashdot Top Deals

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.