Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment I dunno (Score 1) 298

Few details, but if he's talking about a box that's actually running games, I have to say I think they're going about this the wrong way. I think they should try solve the problem "How do we bring gaming from your already existing personal computer in another room, to your local devices (TVs, tablets)". Think "short range OnLive", creating a bridge between the computer and the display and sound output/controller input. You could even (for not so resource intensive games) run multiple instances on the SAME computer and have the I/O going to different devices, allowing separate-device multiplayer that way.

If they think they can 'take on MS and Sony' then sure the spoils from a stand-alone box would be greater, but I think growing the existing costumer base makes more sense than trying to build a new one. If you're spending a lot of money on steam, it's because you already have hardware to play games on. You don't need or necessarily WANT more hardware thingymajingies.

Comment Bläurg. (Score 1) 622

I wish I'd be surprised by how easily the "foot soldiers" of the muslim world are manipulated, but I'm not. We all know the video was manufactured for muslims to "blow up", and I realize that there's a muslim leadership on the other side who know this but don't care, feeling they have more to win than lose by using it to manipulate the masses for their ends.

Surely there are people in the muslim world who can stand up and say "Look friends, you're being manipulated. Why are you falling for this?"

Religion. Always festering in uneducated and thus easily manipulated populations, like a cancer on humanity.

Comment Re:Short answer: No (Score 1) 550

I'd invoke some form of principle of proportionality. A law where all programmers were liable for their code (no exceptions, straight up same for something that is given away for free as something used in airplanes) would mean the eradication of industries, a set back of science and progress almost unfathomable. Who would have written the first web-browser under such tyrrany? No one. Who'd write a $4 game when the liabilty at the other end of the balance board weighs in at multiple millions, or conversely, who could write a $4 game using methods that guarantee no software errors? No one. Things we take for granted today couldn't exist. Freedoms we have to distribute our code on the web, no strings attached, would have to go away. And to solve what problem?

At the most basic level, do we really need to give lawyers more tools to fuck us all over with? Really? Because lawyers are the only ones who would profit from this kind of legislation. Everyone else will be losers.

Comment Companies love to talk about free markets (Score 5, Interesting) 233

Companies love to talk about free markets, but they hate to operate on them. Free to them means not the free flow of goods and services, it means the freedom to do whatever they like.

Steam for instance, topical, even has two tiers for europe; western and eastern, with different prices and catalogues. Imagine if they had two tiers for the US! If I go to Steam this very minute, in their "Flash Sale" there are four games listed. Well, normally. Currently one of the boxes say "We're sorry. This game is not available in your region".

They're allowed to produce products whereever in the world it's the cheapest for them -- which is fine -- HOWEVER they are then ALLOWED to segment markets so that consumers can't enjoy the same freedoms. Politicians bend over to give corps the legal tools to enforce these arbitrary restrictions on trade. Is it any wonder that we revile them?

Sorry for the ranting, but I don't have time to rewrite.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...