Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:If you're refusing a refund ... (Score 1) 317

NMS promised a lot of things you cannot possibly test in the first few hours of grind and surprise these things are missing.

That's true, but five hours is still enough time to tell whether you're having fun or not. If you force yourself to push through something you're not enjoying for five hours just because you're hoping it'll get good, you're a sucker.

Comment Re:If you're refusing a refund ... (Score 1) 317

50 hours is nothing,when you buy a game it is FOREVER, you are NOT LEASING IT if you think you got ripped off you are ENTITLED TO YOUR MONEY BACK!

Well, at least you're willing to admit that you're acting entitled.

Even if a game has enough content to last a thousand hours, you should be able to tell whether you're enjoying it or not within the first few. If you play a game for two hours and you want your money back, that's totally reasonable. Heck, I'd even say five; there are some games that take a while to get to the meat of them. If you spend 50 playing a game you don't like, you're a moron and should consider the $60 you spent to be the cost of the lesson you just learned.

Comment Re:The elephant in the room (Score 1) 317

I'm not a gamer, but the thing that interests me that no one is talking about is the fact that they apparently know how long you have played the game. Why is anyone OK with that?

Because that's very, very old news. Steam has been doing that for about twelve years now. Every game on Steam has Steam's DRM integrated into it, which makes it trivial for them to track which games you're playing, how long you've played them, who you've played them with, and so on. You can launch Steam in offline mode, but it'll sync up your stats next time you go online, which you'll have to do if you want to buy more games or play multiplayer, anyway.

As a non-gamer you might see it as a "grotesque invasion of privacy," but to most gamers it's not just fine, it's a welcome feature. They like being able to show their friends what they're playing, compare stats, and so on, and Steam facilitates that.

So, it doesn't even warrant a mention because most people like it and the ones who don't have still been used to it for over a decade now.

Comment Re:We love you, mr. Torvalds (Score 1) 221

Um yeah a competitor won't use it? bahaha. They rip off Linux code all the time which is why the point of lawyers are brought up.

Actually, given the vast usage of Linux worldwide, it's astonishing how rare such abuses are.

Shoot some companies like banks have ANTI GNU policies to protect themselves.

Some companies are still clueless enough to do that, yes.

Linux can not be used as a simple link to GPL infects the whole program making it viral.

Poppycock. Programs running on Linux do not link to Linux. It's well-accepted that the GPL does not affect programs that merely make syscalls.

I am not a troll here.

Interesting that you feel the need to make that statement.

GNU geeks do not know the difference between GPL and LGPL and assume anyone can use their API. It is not true and it pisses me off.

Also nonsense. Most F/LOSS software developers understand perfectly the distinction between GPL and LGPL, and choose appropriately based on whether they want to allow their code to be linked to non-GPL code. Personally, I've used both licenses for libraries I wrote. Though for programs I tend to choose GPL and for libraries I tend to choose Apache2 or BSD. I think the use case for LGPL is pretty narrow.

Investors agree and so the lawyers that [BSD] is the best option

Only if your lawyers haven't bothered to think about patents. The BSD license has a severe flaw in that it doesn't include a patent grant. If you're incorporating someone else's code into your product and you aren't absolutely certain they don't hold any patents on it, you may be setting yourself up for a patent lawsuit. Apache2 is often a better choice for that reason.

Comment Re:BSDL vs GPL (Score 1) 221

I don't see how the GPL forces you to push your contributions upstream.

"Forces" is too strong, but there's a powerful incentive to upstream changes. Not upstreaming them means that you end up maintaining a library of patches that you have to port to each new version that's released. Over time this gets to be really difficult and expensive.

Note that this is also true for BSD code... except that in the BSD world there are some legal counter-incentives that discourage you from upstreaming. Too many people will argue that because the license allows you to keep your code to yourself, you should, which leads you into a patch-maintenance hell that the business and legal types don't appreciate or understand. So, the GPL helps the technical staff by eliminating the secrecy argument and encouraging upstreaming, which eliminates patch-maintenance hell.

Also, the upstream argument is something that's been compellingly disproven in the case of BSD.

No, it hasn't. You're right that smart BSD projects do upstream changes to avoid patch maintenance hell, but it takes a particularly enlightened organization to do it. The GPL helps be eliminating the option of keeping your changes secret. In a very few cases, this is a problem because the code in question has crucial competitive value *and* can't be run effectively in userspace. But those cases are rare, and the tendency is for organizations to vastly overestimate the value of their proprietary code.

Comment Very fuzzy thinking. (Score 1) 528

We are talking about two different things here. Secure retention and secure deletion.

Clinton was very cavalier about secure retention.
She was apparently very serious about secure deletion.
And her argument is that the things retained with poor security were those of state, while those deleted with apparently deliberate security were personal.

One could easily thus infer that she wasn't particularly concerned about protecting the secrets of state, but was very concerned about ensuring that her own secrets never saw the light of day. Whether or not that's the case is another matter, but you're conflating a whole several things together here that are in fact conceptually separate—retention, deletion, national, personal.

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 528

If you're a Ron Paul supporter voting for Trump, I fear that "confused" is rather an understatement of your mental state.

I think not so much "confused" as "shallow". I can see a very surface correspondence between Paul and Trump: They both like to buck the establishment. The fact that the do so in very different ways and for very different reasons requires looking past the top millimeter of each. I suppose a vote for Obama (in his first presidential campaign) could fit as well if the same incredibly shallow analysis just focused on the "Hope and Change" slogan.

Comment Google does something like this (Score 1) 174

Google does something like this, on a selective basis.

I think it started as something done only for special cases, but I know a few people who arranged it. One woman I know works three days per week instead of five, for 60% of her normal salary. She has also taken a large chunk of her 18-week maternity leave and uses it one day per week, so she actually works two days per week but gets paid for three, until the maternity leave runs out. Her husband has arranged a similar structure with his employer (not Google), working three days per week so one of them is always home with the kids. She's a fairly special case, though, because she's a freakishly brilliant software engineer who any smart company would bend over backwards to accommodate.

However, it's now been expanded to be made generally available to full-time employees. It requires management approval, but the descriptions I've seen make it clear that management is expected to agree unless there are specific reasons why it can't work. Salary, bonuses and stock are pro-rated based on the percentage of a normal schedule that is worked. Most commonly, people work 60% or 80% schedules (i.e. three or four days per week instead of five). Other benefits, such as health care, etc., are not pro-rated, but either provided or not, depending on the percentage of normal hours worked.

I could see myself going to a 60% work week in a few years, having a four-day weekend every week in exchange for a 40% pay cut.

Slashdot Top Deals

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold

Working...