Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 287

I personally *despise* the episodic model. I'm all for the serialized one, and in fact, except Netflix's offerings, the serialized versions found on networked shows pale in comparison (in terms of serialization that is). I'm one of those people who really enjoyed the serializing nature of LOST (minus the disastrous 6th season). I absolutely never watch episodic television. I find it cheap, and non-artistic. In a perfect world, I'd like most TV shows (not all, but most) to end in 3 seasons: beginning-middle-end. And each season to comprise from 6-9 episodes: beginning-middle-end. Like a book.

Comment Was anything different ever expected? (Score 1) 77

Were we ever expecting Samsung to actually just toss all these things into the grinder? They had a fairly high end SoC, bunch of RAM and Flash, nice screens, etc. no reason to suspect that the PMIC itself was executing batteries. Why would you scrap something like that?

For 'brand' reasons, it wouldn't be a surprise to see them shunted off to some less-loved market; or even 'de-branded' and sold in more generic livery; but scrapped?

Comment Re: Mint (Score 1) 475

I agree that grovelling for solutions to oddball problems is annoying; but my experience has been that any OS puts you in that place from time to time.

If, say, Windows Update is throwing cryptic errors, it doesn't take too long to be instructed to 'Reset the BITS service to the default security descriptor'. Just open an elevated CMD shell and run "sc.exe sdset bits D:(A;;CCLCSWRPWPDTLOCRRC;;;SY)(A;;CCDCLCSWRPWPDTLOCRSDRCWDWO;;;BA)(A;;CCLCSWLOCRRC;;;AU)(A;;CCLCSWRPWPDTLOCRRC;;;PU)", n00b.

OSX has the virtue of changing at least a few of the command line options that aren't pulled straight from BSD every version bump(changes related to user/directory structure seem to be particularly popular); and not all advice is clear on which versions it pertains to; which can be really annoying.

I don't disagree with the fact that, if a Linux system does something...unexpected...you may well deeply fail to enjoy finding the answer; but any time the automagic fails, regardless of OS, you are usually in for some pain(since, if the answer were trivial and unambigious, the automagic would probably still be working); and a trip to the command line, registry, PLists, or some combination is likely in your future.

If anything, it's the scary, hostile-looking OSes that are least risky in this regard because they never pretended to have automagic to help you in the first place; and so are simpler; and designed so that an unaided human can grind through everything themselves. That's a huge nuisance, which is why most OSes aren't like that; but fallible automatic failing is never pretty.

Comment Re:Don't remake, release the source. (Score 1) 159

I'd be surprised to see Blizzard do either; but he did specify 'the source' rather than 'the IP'; and the two are (relatively) easily separable.

Given that, even at the time, most of the enthusiasm for Starcraft was for a combination of its play balance(having 3 actually-different sides without being horribly lopsided was pretty big news when the standard was two, often basically reskins of each other with a couple of flavor units) and overall style/art direction; I'm not sure who would be interested in just the engine; but Blizzard certainly could release it without giving up any control over the parts of the Starcraft 'IP' that are of actual value. Given the number of people who actually want to look at the code vs. the number of people who just want to play Starcraft, it would be a lot of trouble for not a lot of interest, but it needn't threaten the stuff that is actually worth something.

Comment Re: Uh, why? (Score 1) 207

If you think Vista was bad you're not old enough to remember NT 4.0.

I remember the sound system crashing on my Vista laptop, sending a horrible, unstoppable screeching through the speakers. Basically it was an audio snow crash. Yet everything else worked normally; I was able to save my work and shut the system down. And I remember thinking, "that was horrible, but so much less horrible than it could have been."

Comment Re:Good grief (Score 1) 269

>The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!???

Again this is not a critique of the paper, it is a critique of tokers sitting around in their parent's basement. There is no substance in your criticism to address, it really is just an expression of your feelings toward the paper's author. Aside from the fact that you're just name-calling, the numerical basis you've used for comparison is just wrong.

Now it so happens I have you at a disadvantage: I've actually read the paper. It's closer the tokers sitting around saying, "How can we achieve a 7% annual compound interest rate sustained over ten years with our portfolio," which is roughly what doubling your money in ten years takes. The authors are talking about what it would take to half carbon emissions which would be a 6.6% reduction each year, and they discuss methods for reducing them, which they break down into near term no-brainer, near-term difficult, and long term speculative. As is usual the further out you go the less concrete and certain you can be. This is normal in economic projections that go twenty or more years out.

Now you may disagree with the specific means proposed, some of which are quite drastic (e.g. attempting to recover external costs through inheritance taxes). But there is nothing inherently irrational about starting with a goal -- zero carbon emissions by 2050 -- then asking what it would take to achieve that. Nor is there anything inherently ridiculous with coming up with the answer that it'll take a mix of things, some of which looking twenty or more years into the future we can't predict yet.

Comment Re:Percentage doesn't matter (Score 1) 155

Oh, I think the percentage bit is significant. It shouldn't be news that they've acknowledged reality; but it's remarkable that their responses is so meaningless.

It makes me wonder whether this is just marketing BS or whether they're really that incoherent about strategy.

Many proprietary software companies have prospered in an era of open source acceptance -- even when very good free software alternatives for their products exists (Microsoft, Oracle). But although we don't tend to think of them that way, they tend to be value-priced. You get a lot of (not necessarily great) software engineering for your $199 Windows license fee.

But the play this game you need scale to amortize development costs over many users. If you have more of a niche product competing against a solid open source competitor is going to be really, really hard. As in SAS charges almost $9000 for a single seat license, and that's good for only a year; thereafter you'll have to fork over thousands of dollars every year. That kind of cash pays for a lot of R training.

Comment Re:What videos exactly? (Score 1) 291

People rarely have a lot of love for the party in the position to charge them more; but the fact that a 'search company' apparently can't make any useful promises regarding where your ads will end up is probably not helping their position on this one.

Even in situations where everything is pretty banal; advertisers generally want some targeting of the impressions they are paying for to the audience they are trying to reach. If Google can't demonstrate an ability to avoid certain contexts on request, why would an advertiser believe that they are any more accurate or honest when it comes to targeting certain audiences?

Comment Re:Uhm... (Score 2) 533

Trump's relationship with the truth isn't so much interesting in that it's fairly casual; but in how self-destructive it seems to be.

People lying in order to advance their interests is an issue; but hardly unexpected or particularly abnormal. People who can't stop lying even when they'd be trivially better off keeping their mouths shut are a different matter. Something like the inagural crowd size thing: that's an idiotic lie. Trivially verifiable, hilariously petty; and completely unnecessary. He didn't lose much by it, since nobody actually seems to expect better; but he had virtually nothing to gain even if it had worked; and no reasonable expectation that it would work.

Comment Re:Beyond idiotic (Score 1) 269

Well, there's good reason to hope on the carbon emissions front.

The global trend toward replacing coal with natural gas will have a massive impact on human CO2 footprint. And this isn't the result of the strangling hand of regulation either: gas plants are simply more economically efficient and easy to run. It also coincidentally generates less than half the CO2 per kwH that coal does.

This trend alone makes hitting world CO2 goals a lot more feasible. A better electricity grid will allow more diverse energy sources as well. It's really quite feasible to increase electricity production while reducing CO2 emissions.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A firefly is not a fly, but a beetle.

Working...