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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Submission + - Microsoft will use Windows 10 UWP to kill game vending competitors like Steam (pcgamer.com) 2

slashdot_commentator writes: In an interview with Edge Magazine, Tim Sweeney is claiming that future updates to Windows 10 could serve to erode the usefulness of third-party applications and storefronts like Steam.

Sweeney states, "The risk here is that, if Microsoft convinces everybody to use UWP, then they phase out Win32 apps. If they can succeed in doing that then it’s a small leap to forcing all apps and games to be distributed through the Windows Store. Once we reach that point, the PC has become a closed platform. It won’t be that one day they flip a switch that will break your Steam library – what they’re trying to do is a series of sneaky manoeuvres. They make it more and more inconvenient to use the old apps, and, simultaneously, they try to become the only source for the new ones."

"Slowly, over the next five years, they will force-patch Windows 10 to make Steam progressively worse and more broken. They’ll never completely break it, but will continue to break it until, in five years, people are so fed up that Steam is buggy that the Windows Store seems like an ideal alternative. That’s exactly what they did to their previous competitors in other areas. Now they’re doing it to Steam. It’s only just starting to become visible. Microsoft might not be competent enough to succeed with their plan, but they’re certainly trying."

Submission + - Subscribers Pay 61 Cents/Hour of Cable, But Only 20 Cents/Hour of Netflix (allflicks.net)

An anonymous reader writes: The folks at AllFlicks decided to crunch some numbers to determine just how much more expensive cable is than Netflix. They answered the question: how much does Netflix cost per hour of content viewed, and how does that compare with cable's figures? AllFlicks reports: "We know from Netflix’s own numbers that Netflix’s more than 75 million users stream 125 million hours of content every day. So that’s (roughly) 100 minutes per user, per day. Using the price of Netflix’s most popular plan ($9.99) and a 30-day month, we can say that the average user is paying about 0.33 cents per minute of content, or 20 cents an hour. Not bad! But what about cable? Well, Nielsen tells us that the average American adult cable subscriber watches 2,260 minutes of TV per week (including timeshifted TV). That’s equivalent to 5.38 hours per day, or 161.43 hours per 30-day month. Thanks to Leichtman Research, we know that the average American pays $99.10 per month for cable TV. That means that subscribers are paying a whopping 61.4 cents per hour to watch cable TV – more than three times as much as users pay per hour of Netflix!"

Comment Re: Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score 1) 801

You seriously regard it as acceptable for someone who seeks public office to lie about an issue of public importance? And I'm the one that's detached from reality? I don't even know the relevance of your story about ambulance chasing. What I do know is that if Hillary was running against any sane candidate she'd be taking a serious hit for being caught in such obvious lies. As it stands, people are voting against Trump, not for Hillary, so she'll probably get away with it, but even still.....

I really don't know if you're an apologist for her or if you just are so afraid of Trump that you can't condone any criticism of Hillary. Trump scares the shit out of me too, but I'm still going to vomit in my mouth when I pull that lever for Hillary. Maybe we'll get lucky and a meteor will land on the debate hall, take them both out, and between the two parties SOMEONE sane and respectable will emerge.

Comment Re: Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score 1) 801

That's a pretty good argument if you have never told a lie or made a misleading statement

You've now crossed into apologist territory. I tell you that I'm going to vote for her but you still can't let it go, you have to defend her at all costs.

Guess what? I'm not running for elected office!!!! She fucking lied, repeatedly, about an issue of public interest, while running for the highest office in the land. Why is it so hard for you to unequivocally condemn such behavior? We have the right to expect better from those that would lead us. The worst part is the lies weren't necessary. She could have simply said, "I make a mistake." and left it at that, but she has too much hubris to do that.

Here's another video that's telling.

H-U-B-R-I-S

Comment Re: Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score 1) 801

but I actually count her gender in her favor

Her gender is irrelevant. I don't like her because I don't trust her. Neither do 57% of our countryman. You can't attribute all of that to sexism, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," or whatever other excuse the Clintons may point to.

Watch that TDS clip. She lied. It's very obvious and straightforward. As I said many posts ago, hubris. Bill and Hillary have it to a degree that's shocking even by Washington standards.

Unfortunately, as you say, the alternative can't be contemplated. As it stands now I fear that he may well win; I would not have that fear if he was running against Sanders, Biden, or almost any other Democrat. I wish the Democrats had gone with almost anybody else. Or that the Republicans had nominated one of the sane candidates. Alas, that was not to be.

We quite literally get to pick between the douche and the turd. The frightening thing is that the world is a very dangerous place right now; never have our problems been so big while our leaders were so small. *sigh*

Comment Re: A simple exercise (Score 1) 166

War is messy. Unlike our enemies, we don't deliberately target civilians. We fight with one hand tied behind our back, obeying the rules of civilized warfare despite the fact that our enemies do not do so. If we chose to play without rules, as they do, we could wipe them out tomorrow.

How do you suppose Ancient Rome would have responded to 9/11? They would have killed every enemy male of military age and sold the women and children into slavery. Be thankful we largely play by the rules of the civilized world, because we could end Islamic terrorism 30 minutes after POTUS picked up the phone if we were so inclined.

Comment Re: Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score 1) 801

You're really going to play the sexist card against me just because I don't like Hillary? Give me a fucking break dude. She's going to get my vote -- the alternative is too scary to contemplate -- but I don't have to be fucking happy about it, and if you think all opposition to her is grounded in sexism you're delusional. Even The Daily Show dislikes her. When the Democrat earns the scorn of TDS there's obviously something wrong.

Or Trevor Noah is a sexist. Yeah, that's probably it. *sarcasm*

Comment Re: A simple exercise (Score 1) 166

You don't count Russia as a peer country? They have the ability to completely destroy the United States 45 minutes after Putin makes a phone call. If nukes are too theoretical for you, consider this: They can occupy several NATO members, overnight, and present us with a fait accompli. Then we get to choose between a protracted war, with a nuclear armed state, or the abandonment of those allies and collapse of the post-1945 world order. NATO would probably win a protracted war with Russia -- assuming it didn't go nuclear, a very big assumption -- since economics, technology, and demographics are on our side, but it would be very costly in terms of blood and treasure.

China is definitely a near-peer country. They already have the ability -- without using nukes -- to make it extremely costly for us to honor our commitments to our Asian allies. They can rain conventional missiles down on American soil -- Guam and the NMI -- and if a conflict went nuclear they could exact a very heavy price from CONUS. The rest of the near-peers are all allies (Germany, UK, France, Japan, Israel) or at least friendly competitors (India), so we've got that going for us at least.

(Actually, I'm glad that we dominate -- I just think it's a bit overkill to do so by so wide a margin.)

Well, that's an interesting observation. You kind of surprised me with that one. Why is it "overkill?" You specifically cited the USN to prove your point but I think you're ignoring the reality that the USN has obligations in every ocean and sea on the blue marble. 10 supercarriers sounds like overkill, but in reality you can only deploy about 1/3 of them at any given time; the rest will be in the yard for maintenance and overhaul. Four of them are deployed right now, which may be four more than anyone else has, but it's still pretty thin coverage when you think about the demands placed on the USN.

Don't get me wrong, I do see a lot of waste with our defense spending. I'm not certain why we still maintain a force of ICBMs when SSBNs are infinitely more survivable. I don't understand why cheap and proven platforms like the A-10 fall out of favor. There's a lot of things I would do differently if I was SecDef. Alas, he hasn't asked me for my opinion. :)

Comment Re: A simple exercise (Score 1) 166

If you don't want American bombs dropped on you there's a surefire way to avoid it: Don't kill American citizens or those of our allies.

I have little sympathy for the enemies of civilization. They deserve what they get. They're modern day barbarians and we owe them no quarter or consideration so long as they refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world.

Comment Re: A simple exercise (Score 1) 166

We don't do it by ourselves. It happens in concert with our allies and occasionally even with competitors -- Russia and China contributed warships to the anti-piracy efforts off Somalia, for instance. As far as "dominating" the world in military operations, I truly have no idea what he's trying to say. The United States hasn't fought a peer or even near-peer country since 1945. Our current military operations are essentially police actions, against the enemies of civilization, the equivalent of Rome resisting the barbarians, not Rome taking on Carthage.

In any case, the true American power isn't hard military power, but rather it's soft economic and cultural power. There's a McDonalds in most every major city on Earth. People all around the world consume our entertainment, follow our fashion trends, utilize Facebook and Google, and covet the next iPhone. They would continue to do these things even if we decommissioned the 19 aircraft carriers that apparently bother you so much.

Comment Re: A simple exercise (Score 2) 166

What's your point? The United States is a maritime nation. We've always had a strong navy. Traditionally there were other strong navies, but navies are expensive, and nobody else wants to spend the money. Incidentally, we spend less of our GDP on defense than many other countries, and the USN keeps the global commons, e.g., the ocean, open for all.

Comment Re:A simple exercise (Score 1) 166

I don't know from where you hail sir, but what you see as domination I see as the United States engaging in bilateral relations. We have a web of security agreements and alliances, all of which help to enforce the post-WW2 global order. We helped to create that order, along with the United Nations, and despite the many failings of the status quo we haven't seen a major power conflict since WW2. The World is still a messy place but it hasn't engaged in total warfare with tens of millions of casualties.

If you dislike the status quo, well, there's currently a loudmouthed asshole running for POTUS that promises to upend it. He seeks to turn our country inward and withdraw from those agreements that you view as dominating. Should he win -- $deity help us all -- you may well get to see the outcome you desire, but I don't think you'll like it, in the long term.

Comment Re:Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score 1) 801

I really can't understand what motivates people like you? Do you spend all your time carefully filtering just the lies you want to hear and see?

There is an entire world of reality out there. You should visit it once in a while.

It would probably help if you turn off your search customization. The google knows what you want now and is trying hard to show it to you.

Dude, I gave you a reply. I don't know what more you want. You're obviously a partisan that would be unwilling to accept any criticism of your party's candidate. That's your right but don't try and lump me in with the partisans from the other side just because you don't like what I have to say.

Not that it's any of your business, but I'm center-left and have supported many more Democrats at the ballot box than Republicans. I campaigned for BHO in 2008 -- took a full week off of work to do it too -- and while he's disappointed me in many areas I still don't regret my decision to work with his campaign. I even referenced him in the post that you're now shitting on, pointing out that nobody has tried to impeach him, despite the fact that he's dealing with a Congress at least as obstinate at as the Gingrich lead one.

I really wish the Democrats had come up with somebody better. They gave us the second least liked nominee in American history. She only misses out on the #1 spot because Trump arrived to steal her crown. What an accomplishment -- you're slightly less hated than the racist that encourages his supporters to beat up protesters. Hillary 2016!!!!!

My hope was for Biden to run. When he didn't I got behind Sanders -- cast my primary ballot for him in fact -- but now we're stuck with Clinton. The way that she muscled everyone else -- including a sitting Vice President!!! -- out of the way is telling. It was "her turn" and to hell with anyone else that might have wanted to throw their hat in. The Democrats are going to be worse off for this in the years to come. You called the GOP primary a clown car, which is an apt analogy, but that clown car introduced a bunch of young charismatic candidates to the national electorate. The GOP will have a deep bench in 2020 and 2024. Who will the Democrats have when Hillary is done? Sanders is older than she is. Warren is little known outside of the net-roots.

Slashdot Top Deals

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal

Working...