How did a content-less buzzword ad get to the Slashdot front page?

Yeah, really sounds like management problems. There is no technological reason whatsoever his movie can't look exactly the way he wants it to in HDR. Having greater contrast available does _not_ force you to use it.

See the widely varying implementations in recent video games: https://arstechnica.com/gaming...

That sort of thing - especially color - is not dynamic. You calibrate the television to properly display the colors encoded in the media it's given, and then you leave it. A properly calibrated television merely accurately displays what it is given - it doesn't re-calibrate itself on the fly because it thinks the input is "wrong" somehow.

Resolution up-scaling is a bit different, but that's a necessary consequence of high-res displays (unless you want the image occupying only a tiny patch in the center of the screen, anyway).

I dream of the day when higher-fidelity video stops being seen as "bad."

Have you ever read an article that was much more mundane or equivocal than the headline promised? Scientists rarely use sensational phrases like "scientifically impossible" to describe their work, and anyone who does is basically giving you the "headline version" of what was actually found.

The main problem here is that none of the leaked documents are _from the Clinton Foundation_. If it is from a CF hack, the only folder they got was "Stuff from DNC and DCCC."

The assertion in the article that CF donor lists are in the dump is false, just part of the red herring. There IS a donor list in the dump . . . from the DCCC.

Why on earth would the Clinton's charitable foundation have be on the same network as the Democratic National Convention? Are . . . you suggesting they're like in the same office building or something? Like maybe some dentist's office in the same building also had their files ganked because it was all shared? That's just bizarre.

It's important to note the headline is a lie from the hacker: the "dump" is a collection of docs from the previous DNC hack and has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation.

The ploy clearly worked though - too many people stop at the headline.

http://arstechnica.com/securit...

Higgs Boson Truther ITT. Never thought I'd see the day.

I had to uninstall the version of Office that came with Windows 10 to get rid of the 'Upgrade Office Today!' notifications. I upgraded to LibreOffice, of course.

This is more like charging for the lights in the restaurant. They were going to be on all day anyway, so it doesn't change the company's costs, but because you were there for an hour and fifteen minutes instead of the average forty-five minutes, you used thirty minutes "extra" of light and they're going to charge you for that.

The issue is money. For a long time, broadband subscriber growth was massive - all companies had to do was sit and watch as their subscriber base (and profits with it) grew steadily without them lifting a finger. In recent years, the market has started to reach a saturation point and growth has greatly slowed. That's natural for a relatively young industry, but it doesn't look good on a balance sheet, so ISPs have gone looking for new ways to boost their profits back to the levels they're used to.

The reason you paid for speed and not data in the past is that's the part that actually costs the ISP money - more speed requires more backhaul and other infrastructure to be built. Once that has been done, however, it doesn't matter how much or little data flows through that infrastructure - the cost of maintaining it doesn't change. Routers don't have moving parts that wear out when so many bits have gone through.

The golden age of crazy broadband subscriber growth have passed, and ISPs are looking for other ways to boost their income. That's all this is about.

Since Correia and Torgensen between them have sold many more, that isn't a useful question. Almost none of their much larger number of fans heeded their call to arms, and I think that's very interesting.

Personally, I love the 'Monster Hunter' series, but I thought the Puppy nomination block was a dick move, and would have voted against them if I'd been one of the voters. I think a lot of people had a similar opinion, and the votes show that.

Sidenote: if the nomination system weren't so easily gamed, the story would be entirely different. It's completely reasonable to lead a campaign for recognition of a group you feel is underappreciated - it's the poor sportsmanship aspect here that bothers me.

If you weren't aware of Vox Day's personal outspoken advocacy for Men's Rights, you haven't been paying attention. Which I could hardly fault you for, as he's mainly a clownish sideshow.

A significant part of the justification here was that many of the conservative authors involved have larger (even much larger) sales numbers than many Hugo stars (Scalzi being the most cited), and therefore they felt there was a conspiracy against them, such that the awards did not truly reflect the "best" authors (judged in part by sales), but rather the most ideologically progressive authors.

Part of this was an attempt to use their larger fan base to change that equation, which clearly failed. You may say, "Scalzi's minions followed his lead and defeated us!" but that only makes sense if Scalzi has more loyal fans than the other authors combined. By sales, he doesn't. It's not even close.

This means that many works by popular authors were passed over by their own fans in favor of 'No Award.' The only rationale I see for this is resentment over the gaming of the nomination process. I don't think the Puppies anticipated the size of the backlash from that perception of poor sportsmanship, and it cost them a lot.

At the very least, the cry of "It's time we conservatives got some recognition!" was nowhere near as compelling as "Don't let these guys break the system for everyone!"