Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:30? (Score 1) 78

It primarily comes down to: How many games does Nintendo themselves own the license and distribution rights to?

Certainly more than 30. I can see perhaps not 300, although would not at all be surprised if it was.
Those are basically "free" so far as Nintendo has to pay anyone for rights to.

Then looking at the selection of games included already on the thing, we can at least determine publishers that are willing to license out their games to Nintendo.
Yes these games will each have a per copy sold royalty Nintendo must pay, but on the same token this is Nintendo, and it should be clear to anyone the demand this thing has on the market.
At that point it's just a matter of arm wrestling between them to determine a price.

So sure, they can't put on it every game (there's only just over 10000 in existence, this isn't a storage capacity problem)
As you say, they can't even include all popular games.

But they certainly could have done better than they did for no extra cost to them, and much better than they did with said cost.

The former is the confusing "WTF nintendo?" question.
The latter is only a question of how much they would need to sell the unit for to pay for everything on it and still make a profit. And I've no doubt in my mind that they would still sell at least some.

I mean paint the thing zelda cart gold, only release 1000 numbered units, and sell it for a thousand dollars. They would still sell out just as fast as the current units on the market did, and that's a "worst case" situation (for the customers that is)

But they certainly have all the data needed to know what that would cost them, what they can sell it for on the market, and roughly how many would still easily sell.
All they had or have to do is build the things.

Comment Re:No, Aumented Reality is the next big thing. (Score 1) 114

AR is a massive privacy invasion waiting to happen.
VR isn't.

Oh yea, heaven forbid we gain AR and lose all of the privacy we currently have with the likes of Google and the NSA.

AR requires cameras in public places.
VR doesn't.

Nearly everywhere you go in public right now, you are on at least one camera if not ten. All of which are owned by other people than yourself.
One more camera of your own that isn't recording doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

AR pretends you can navigate in the real world while being distracted by a game.
VR doesn't.

That's about the only good point you've listed.

AR can be spoiled / interrupted by other people's pissing about in front of the idiot with the headset.
VR cannot.

Challenge accepted!

AR requires high-end computer vision, equipment and processing to operate properly.
VR doesn't.

Tell that to the VR headset makers that all want me to upgrade my video card or purchase a next gen console.

Comment Re:My Apologies (Score 2) 174

I still see no functional difference what so ever. Both options in your example are identical.

Publisher takes the servers offline?
Then no you can't download the software from them anymore.
If you have a copy of the downloaded software, you can't activate it because the servers are down, and it is useless.
If you have a copy of the software on disc, you can't activate it because the servers are down, and it is useless.

They look functionally the same to me so far.

In order to get either copy to work, you have to modify the software in a way deemed illegal to do.
But legality aside let's say we go down that path.

I can go to the pirate bay and download the patch to modify the software to run without activation.
That patch will apply to the software you have on disk.
That same patch will apply to the software from the download servers, which will be on the pirate bay included with the patch.

In both cases the software would then work. Again they look functionally the same to me so far.

The only real difference is if you refuse to download anything, including the modification to patch the software to work.
In THAT case, my downloaded software can be fixed with the downloaded patch and will work.
Your software on disk will still require that patch to work, which you refuse to download.

Downloaded version works, disk version does not.

In any realistic situation both versions of the same bits are identical.
Only in an idealistic world where you never download anything is your method of having the software on disk worse off in the end and leave you with non-functional software.

Comment Re:They respond to warrants?! (Score 1) 106

Apple has already publicly stated exactly this during the FBI lawsuit that clearly no one paid any attention to.

They stated they have and will continue to honor legally issued warrants for data on a specified customer.

What they will not do is hand over data for all customers at once without a warrant, and they would not remove their customers encryption leaving them vulnerable to attack by basically everyone.

Those last two are what the FBI demanded, and failed to sue Apple over.
In fact during the lawsuit Apple stated they already handed over the data they had on Syed after getting a warrant. It was the crippling of every customers phone by disabling everyone's encryption the FBI didn't (and couldn't) produce a warrant for which Apple refused to do.

You don't need a wikileak to show what Apple said in their own announcement to the public and what is in public court records.

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 330

I actually thought Apple would have had the better success with a smart watch than most other vendors, as in if any technology company could get the jewelry status symbol angle right, it would be them.
And I suppose looked at relatively that could be argued is the case, as their watch sales are a bit higher than the others lacking that angle.

But the problems with the current crop of smart watches run much deeper than just Apple, and spans pretty much every vendor making general purpose smart watches.

The only real successes are the devices primarily targeted at primary purpose. Think along the lines of the FitBit.
But at least from the point of view of companies like Apple or Google, those target markets are way too small for their tastes, and even without that the expectations of such companies are significantly higher.

As far as the iPhone went, I could see the potential of such a device made well even as far back as the first gen.
My first iPhone however was still the second (or maybe third?) gen, with the 3gs model, and after the application model was in existence for a time. The concept of nothing but webapps just wasn't the right way to go before that point.

Even so there was a window of time when it was clear the iPhone was going in the right directions that Windows CE and Blackberry just wasn't willing to go yet desperately needed to somehow.

A handheld general purpose computer with a phone built in to it was a great concept to start with, but what was desperately needed was a user interface designed around the limitations such hardware inevitably had to have.
I may not have agreed with all their choices, such as an on-screen keyboard which have all traditionally sucked so bad as to be useless (which even now is only a partially overcome problem), and choices such as locking the system down so much as to no longer be fairly called a general purpose computer (which I still very much disagree with.)

A jailbroken iPhone 3 or 4 however was practically my dream come true for such a device.
But sadly when Apple chose to fight against all of the advantages brought about by jailbreaking instead of embarrassing the concept and providing a better way to give us the same features, the writing was already on the wall, and things have only gotten much worse ever since.
Between Apples lockdown of their platform and fighting back against the user doing with their property as they wish, and Googles UI being so ugly clunky and bad to work with, I've no idea what I will be doing for a phone in the future once my iPhone 4s dies completely. If anything :/

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 330

To be fair I wasn't (or didn't intend to imply) the problem lies with developers, but specifically with the problems brought upon by the vendors themselves.

I would certainly agree the entry fee and sometimes inconsistent approval rules are a problem though, and at least in Apple and Googles cases, brought upon fully by themselves.

Be it cost to publish apps, or the input data an app can have available to it, the devs can only work within the limits of the hardware and the stupidity of the app stores provided for them to use.

Only the vendors could change that, and they don't seem to be wanting to do all that much to fix such things.

Comment Told ya (Score 2) 330

Remember how smartwatches were supposed to be the next big thing?

But do you remember how we told you they were just an early adapter fad, and would remain so until a killer app came along, or at least some more useful functionality than as shipped?

About that...


The market intelligence firm IDC reported on Monday that smartwatch shipments are down 51.6 percent year-over-year for the third quarter of 2016. This is bad news for all smartwatch vendors

Well as we all mentioned back then, perhaps the vendors should now be working on coming up with new features and functionality so the watches would be even more useful, and perhaps spend a bit more effort searching out for those killer apps that still don't seem to exist.

Then they can make those available to the current early adapters that already bought the things, so when asked "How do you like the watch?" they could rant and rave about the awesome things they are doing with it, instead of just replying "meh"

That just might spur more people to buy the things.

Comment Re:Which is the bigger crime? (Score 1) 212

Does the IRS even legitimately call non-businesses on the phone?

For the adamantly small sample size of the two people I know of with issues on their taxes or back taxes owed, the first step was getting papers by certified mail.
For one of those two cases, who I'm pretty sure was actually trying to pull something and ignored those letters, they sent an agent to his home that brought along a uniformed sheriff, I'm sure both with plenty of identification of who they were.

Even if no red flags like gift cards were involved in the call, they would still need to send paperwork showing what you owed and why (which is generally what comes with the information required to make payment)

It's mind boggling such scams could work.

Comment Re:Hacked executables are hacked?!?!?! (Score 1) 67

And at this point I tried struggling through the first paragraph in your first link, and I really want to ask: WTF, taxes? Really?

Is that some complex analogy you're making to an argument I didn't bring up or mention?
You may want to find another example that isn't so boring and obviously baseless. I couldn't even get past the first paragraph so really don't get the point you intended to make.

I also didn't mention taxes let alone claim we don't owe them. Is that what you think?
Personally I pay my taxes in full and on time, and don't run my own business so no potentially questionable deductions (or any deductions)

I happen to both love living in society and have grown very dependent upon it.
I may not agree with each and every little thing the govt spends that money on, but similar to my employer may or may not agree with what I spend my paycheck on, not paying at all is not the right way to go about it.

Back on the actual topic, are you trying to claim that because most things downloaded off torrent sites are not legal to be there somehow means people don't still do it?
Are you claiming *I* do it?

Sorry to repeat myself but WTF?

Comment Re:Hacked executables are hacked?!?!?! (Score 1) 67

Ok fair enough, "impossible" was a poor choice of words.

However is it provably not what they are doing. In Google search for "Bing torrent [some game or pirated app]", and note you do not get the same warning even though the result contains the same SHA1 hash.
So that is clearly not what is triggering it.
The actual malware they scan for isn't in the SHA1 so that is clearly not what is triggering it.

The only likely place a malware signature would match is in the ads.
A more unlikely place would be if the site itself was hacked and changed to serve up malware directly too of course.

As for legality, I made no such claim so I'm not sure why you'd mention it or insult me over it.
We are talking about malware detection here, which is purely technical.
Of course uploading something under another persons copyright is illegal.

Comment Re:Hacked executables are hacked?!?!?! (Score 2) 67

Pirate Bay has categories "Applications" and "Games" (aka executables). It seems most of these are supposedly hacked to get around the licensing check.

Chrome may be indicating that some of these hacked executables are ... wait for it ... HACKED!

That wouldn't be possible, since there are no executables on the pirate bay to download.

Those pages have only an SHA1 hash, which is all that's required to get the needed magnet link into your bittorrent client.
Any potential infected executables would be coming in over your bittorrent client, and would be completely invisible to your web browser.

That said, the site does use an ad network, which many of the smaller ad networks are known to deliver malware via javascript and such.
Malware containing ads are certainly delivered through the browser, and are a legit infection method to be blocked.

NoScript or a similar extension would provide full protection in such a case.
AdBlock I would like to think would also block the maware containing ads, but these days that's less assured and I don't feel like going there to verify that.

Slashdot Top Deals

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.