Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:Evidence, or it didn't happen? (Score 1) 412

Microsoft has launched many new features of Windows. Some survive, some don't (SideShow, Gadgets to name a few). "effectively telling developers" isn't the same as "actually telling developers" which is required for malfeasance. It is also not mutually exclusive. It doesn't say "if you're a game studio and developing for Windows, we are not going to let you run your program on our OS unless you make it compatible with UWP." They're also not curtailing users' freedom, though I admit I don't even know what he means by that. Not every piece of software installed on your PC will take advantage of all features of the OS. Why would my game need to manage my drive encryption or be able to set my desktop background? Heck, some don't even care if they're network enabled.

Basically, the statements quoted, to me, do not stand up to the idea of proof. Game studios could go right on doing what they're doing and say nuts to UWP. Besides, after just a shred of thought and research, these criticisms of UWP and any technical limitations that discourage development of PC Games in UWP, Microsoft has already responded to.

http://www.gamespot.com/articl...

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...

The claim being made is that Microsoft will actively alter Windows so as to make alternate deployment platforms like Steam substandard and behave erratically. We are fully within our right to ask for proof of that activity being done. Besides, it seems like we're back to the age old Slashdot problem of reporting on old news.

Comment Re:Evidence, or it didn't happen? (Score 1) 412

I doubt they needed some Random Commenter on Slashdot, or even game studio co-founder, to suggest outlandish subversions of law. High level management seems to at times revel in coming up with stupid ways to screw over others, rather than focus on just making a better product everyone begs to use. If you've thought of it, you can pretty much be sure they already thought of it too.

Comment Re:Evidence, or it didn't happen? (Score 1) 412

Attributing personality to a legal construct is a little like believing a pet rock can bark at you. Good imagination, but doesn't bear practical results.

It is exactly because of history that I did suggest caution and scrutiny. I also realize that random accusations do not make fact, and if someone is accusing someone else of wrongdoing (breaking Steam, in this instance), I have to say to the person making the accusation 'Prove it'. Fairly simple request for them to provide their evidence, which is, literally, all I asked for.

Comment Evidence, or it didn't happen? (Score 5, Insightful) 412

I'd like to know what evidence there is to support this, rather than words on a page ranting about perception. Not that I don't agree caution, it's one thing to make big noise and proclaim persecution when none exists. Show the evidence and remove doubt about Microsoft's intention.

Comment Re:How can there be? (Score 1) 622

I can remember when AT&T decided to provide me that high speed 3 Mbps. In fact, that was when I quit it a year ago. Know when they offered me VDSL (U-verse)? Grand promises made starting near 3 years ago, I check now and it's still not in my area, despite repeated promises that it'd be there 'within 6 months'. I don't live in some rural area, either. I suppose being on the edge of the second largest city in my state might hamper my ability, though I'm only 3 miles from the downtown area. Just a mile closer to downtown in an apartment, I was able to get their 6 Mbps service reliably. Now in a house? Not so much.

So I'm bored with them. I had to bite my tongue and run with Comcast again, despite misgivings about it. And while there are still hiccups and promises, even on a business class line, at least there is speed to be had enough to do what I need on most days. Don't tell me for a second that AT&T has rushed right out to improve jack squat, though, because I'll ask you to go ahead and pull the other one too.

Comment Re:Remove casing from a Wallmart clock - get invit (Score 1) 621

Apparently, as the individual bringing the 'questionable' item in, you can expect to be victim-shaming instead of the people that overreacted taking ownership of the mistake they made. And even when the people overreacting had it pointed out that they overreacted, an apology is simply too far for them to go. That's what you can expect.

Comment Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me (Score 1) 223

And yet there are manufacturer coupons for things like food that grocers accept. Does the grocer accept the hit on that money that the manufacturer decided to entice the customer with, or does the grocer reclaim those funds from the manufacturers? Honestly, I don't know as I haven't worked in that business, but a little logic would seem to imply the grocer gets reimbursed from the manufacturer for discounting the item.

Comment Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me (Score 1) 223

It's more about buying a $100 product at a store that has a $30 rebate, and forgetting or not filing the paperwork to get the money back, instead of, you know, just offering it as a direct rebate or coupon to the seller and allowing the customer to buy it at $70 out of pocket. I'm sure the claim rate of rebates is not 100%, and it probably isn't over 50% if I had to guess.

Comment Re:"or religion" (Score 1) 834

I made a mistake in my response. I was thinking 'religious slurs' and instead typed 'racial' confusing in my head how some religions are conflated or associated with a particular race of people. Additionally, yes, I also confused the straw man and ad hominem logical fallacies. Despite those mistakes of mine, I'm not sure that the intent of my comment was entirely out of line. My point was that, whether religion is a choice or not, it is not relevant to most discussions. Perhaps that may be where someone's morals are based, but unless it has direct bearing in a debate, it has no place in it.

For example, I would not disparage your religion or beliefs if we were having a discussion on what to do about abortion. If the argument being made by a religious person is factually wrong (an IUD is an abortifacient, a position not commonly held by anyone in the medical community) then that point can be refuted WITHOUT calling the person a dumb, blind sheeple. No where in that particular, religiously-charged argument is the position being held that religious adherents personally are being required to do something against their faith (i.e. not required to have an abortion). Other topics are subject to majority choice and Constitutional validation, such as "can a company have a religion?" or "can an employer push their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on employees through their compensation?"

Even if they don't accept commonly held facts, then it is STILL irrelevant what their religion is, because there are more than a few stubborn, atheist and agnostic individuals. Religion doesn't necessarily make you stubborn. They were stubborn before, They are just trying to validate that stubbornness with a reason (God says so). And whether or not the 'common state' is people insulting people, I find it necessary to be better than that, even if it currently fails.

Comment Re:"or religion" (Score 2) 834

Unless a subject's religion is the bearing of a discussion, I don't see where using racial slurs enhances a debate. All too often, though, slurs are used if that is one of the primary defining characteristics about the subject. What all these characteristics amount to is trying to avoid a Straw Man argument.

More simply put: Don't attack the messenger if you cannot refute the message.

Comment Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week (Score 1) 204

The point of ISPs extorting money out of companies like Netflix is to serve one of two goals. 1) Gain more profit for doing less work or 2) kill off the services if such costs make them unprofitable. Then, the competing service said ISP offers (or "exclusive" service contracted in) will be the only one available for those ISP customers to purchase. Win/Win for the ISP, and a loss for all of us, since one often does NOT pick their provider.

Comment Re:Fewer candidates to draw from... (Score 1) 580

Who makes the copy? Does the receiver go onto the physical hard drive of the offering server and read each of those relevant bits itself, or does the offering system, perhaps a web server or bit torrent client, read the file (or file segment(s)) and make the copy, sending them across the wire to the requesting system? Regardless whether or not the requester initiated the copy, the distributor's agent (be it program or person) made the copy to send. The requester (or requester's agent) received and recorded what was sent to it. At most you can say it was a two-party offence, though I would not see it that way.

It seems logical that the offending party is the one OFFERING and SENDING, not receiving, the copy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger

Working...