Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
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: Game fairness (Score 2) 252

When you apply a cheat like this, you are altering the game into game+cheat. This game+cheat is a derivative work of the original game.

Making derivative works without permission from the copyright holder is a violation of most copyright laws, and you won't get permission from Blizzard to make this kind of derivative work.

That seems to be the legal argument.

Comment Re:The root of the problem lies with ... the peopl (Score 1) 273

I could build a simple application that would allow constituents to vote on any random congressional bill. I would then use this as my primary campaign strategy. "Don't vote for me, vote for you." I would vow to vote the way my constituents wanted me to. Pretty damn simple, really.

Sort of. But - how do you ensure that only voters in your district can vote? How do you ensure that people aren't coerced into voting in certain ways? How do you convince your constituents that their votes remain absolutely secret?

Comment Re:Shocking (Score 5, Informative) 409

So you're perfectly okay with one of the largest companies in the world engaging in salary gouging?

We're not talking about salary in India vs salary in California - we're talking about salary in California vs salary in California. If they want to import workers from abroad, because there aren't enough qualified local workers, they need to pay the same salary to the imported workers as they would to local workers.

That's not only decent behaviour - it's the law. People like yourself - well, you're only going to ruin the game for yourself down the road, and sadly you seem unable to understand this.

Comment Re:already passing it (Score 1) 414

Not having to zoom the view in and out when doing CAD work

And why would a higher resolution help you with zoom? Unless you're only building really simple items, I have a hard time believing, you won't be zooming in and out while working.

Hell, I remember the Space Shuttle cad files included in AutoCad back in '92, and I don't think things have gotten less complicated in the last 21 years.

Comment Re:Not Upgradeable? (Score 2) 464

Yes, upgrades that aren't Thunderbolt-devices will be difficult. But as others have pointed out, most people don't upgrade, and when they do, so much needs to be changed anyway, that you're almost better off buying a new computer.

For example. I built a Sandy Bridge based computer in January 2011. Two and a half years ago. If I wanted to upgrade to the newest line of CPUs, I'd be forced to buy a new motherboard as well as CPU, as the Haswell isn't socket compatible with Sandy and Ivy Bridge (nor are AMD CPUs). Fortunately it still supports DDR-3, so I wouldn't have to upgrade that though.

But pulling everything out of the case, putting in new hardware, reinstalling drivers, the inevitable bitching from Windows about how I'm a damned, dirty, filthy software pirate for upgrading my hardware really doesn't seem worth it compared to simply buying a new computer.

And if you work in an office? I don't think I know any people who does works in corporate IT, who've upgraded internal hardware - they generally buy new stuff when the old stuff doesn't cut it any more, or when new stuff makes it economically viable to upgrade due to time savings.

And considering the cheapest Mac Pro available in the Apple Store at the moment is $2,499, I don't think this is aimed at home users either - they'd be going for iMacs.

Equally upgradable (or lack thereof), but if it works, why bother?

Comment US Mileage? (Score 1) 374

I'd be very surprised if any of the mileage ratings are accurate. They're all done in laboratory settings simulating very specific things.

Just because your car is rated at xx highway, doesn't mean that's what you'll be getting. It's more of an aid for comparison than accurate ratings.

That being said, it would be nice if the rating had an error bar attached to it. Something like 5.5 l/100 km +/- 0.5 would be helpful

Comment Re:The reason terrorists keep terrorizing (Score 4, Insightful) 317

These people didn't do that, so I think they are mass murderers rather than terrorists.

Are they really mass murderers though? Three people died as a result of the bombs.

Comment There is a slight difference (Score 1) 400

If a human tickets you, you'll know right away. If you are speeding, get pulled over, ticketed and then continue speeding, you'll get ticketed next time as well. If it's the same police officer, other things may happen as well. And hopefully people who get pulled over, do not re-offend straight away.

With automated systems you don't know until much later. Typically days or weeks.

Comment Re:Totally unworkable (Score 1) 115

Even if it was igniting and had good fusion gain, there are such a huge array of serious engineering issues that they have got no economic answers for that it is never going to work commercially.

Generally I find it to be better to wait until I know if something will work, before I start wondering about commercial applications.

In 1900 the idea of visiting the moon would probably have made H. G. Wells somewhat annoyed, as his book wasn't published until 1901 (before powered flight). Humans walked on the Moon a scant 70 years later. Making plans for a commercial suborbital venture would be a bit premature. It would have been premature 20 years ago. 10 years ago - not so much, as Virgin Galactic showed in 2004, because at that point the science of it was well established and it became a relatively easy engineering problem./blockquote

Slashdot Top Deals

The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional to the number of bugs in their code.