Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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 Even worse than that (Score 3, Insightful) 207

Of course they care if net neutrality will kill off 800 startups. The government loves to kill off small corporations, small business, etc. Big corporations lobby for laws which benefit them and harm new players. These 800 startups would have better stayed quiet, because all they've done is just give just one more reason to kill net neutrality.

Only a total cuck dumbfuck could believe that our government supports free trade.


NASA Delays First Flight of New SLS Rocket Until 2019 (arstechnica.com) 90

schwit1 writes: Despite spending almost $19 billion and more than thirteen years of development, NASA today admitted that it will have to delay the first test flight of the SLS rocket from late 2018 to sometime in 2019. "We agree with the GAO that maintaining a November 2018 launch readiness date is not in the best interest of the program, and we are in the process of establishing a new target in 2019," wrote William Gerstenmaier, chief of NASA's human spaceflight program. "Caution should be used in referencing the report on the specific technical issues, but the overall conclusions are valid." The competition between the big government SLS/Orion program and private commercial space is downright embarrassing to the government. While SLS continues to be delayed, even after more than a decade of work and billions of wasted dollars, SpaceX is gearing up for the first flight of Falcon Heavy this year. And they will be doing it despite the fact that Congress took money from the commercial private space effort, delaying its progress, in order to throw more money at SLS/Orion.

Comment Re:Not a backdoor (Score 1) 83

> so the mining activity benefits a Bitcoin address different from the one configured by the owner of the unit

I'm sure someone would benefit from a sudden, unexpected, and precipitous drop in mining capacity and some manner of hit on transactions as well. It isn't like the price of bitcoin is exactly stable.

Comment Re:Still missing obligatory comments (Score 1) 83

> It's a Bitcoin article on Slashdot, but as of yet nobody has complained that this is some sort of guerilla BUY BTC marketing

It doesn't look like a pump, so why would anyone call it that? It's a vulnerability with apparently a lot of mining rigs. I imagine most of them will be guarded by the end of the week, if they aren't already, now that this vulnerability is exposed. Almost everything about bitcoin is some kind of sketchy, I'd be surprised if miners trusted their hardware anyway.

Comment Re:I hope this fucking fails (Score 1) 135

I mean, no, it's not simpler for the player to run the game locally. It's merely vastly better. In theory, you could play on ANY device with a good connection, as long as it supported a controller you liked enough. You could play on an old iPad, some pre-Core x86s, anything that was able to drive a video stream and read your inputs.

The problem is that latency. Everything else is a problem on the remote side, which, presumably, they would be highly motivated to run efficiently.

Comment Re:COBOL isn't hard to learn (Score 2) 320

Indeed. If there is a market for COBOL programmers (and it's clear there is), then the obvious solution is for unis and colleges to spit out more COBOL-literate CS graduates. Honestly, if I was ten years younger, I'd probably delve into it myself. It is, after all, just a programming language, and hardly on the same level of trying to learn Sanskrit.

Comment Re:I hope this fucking fails (Score 1) 135

> First of all I see this as a platform that can host everything and is cloud based so they are only transmitting what you view to you.

Latency. So much lag. There's actually services that offer this right now, and they all tooootally suck. A modern client uses a lot of power on your side, but as a result, it is displaying the server state, and also making predictions based on that. This cuts dramatically down on the amount of latency you personally have to deal with. But if your input device and your output device both have serious latency, you will be in for a WORLD of hurt.

> You would no longer have to buy any additional hardware or worry about DRM/which platform you are on.

I mean, do you think we don't all do this today for some bad reason? Your hypothetical is already something that people try to do, for single and multiplayer games alike.

> As you can see each publisher/developer would receive their equivalent funds and we start voting with our money as an extension of our time.

Right, that it itself the problem. In your hypothetical, the guy making Madden 2018 realizes that he needs to get his Xbitch subscribers to play his game more than the others. So the first thing he does is offer a passive reward, maybe even for being just logged in. Tell your team to go practice. The practice plays itself on loop, but you can interact for slightly greater rewards per time. Now he's getting 8 hours a night while you leave your team practicing. Since the game is now rebuilt around the idea that teams practice while their owners are asleep, this isn't really an advantage to the player in any way (except for the players that aren't doing this yet), but it totally dicks up the accounting system.

So Microsoft walks in and says, none of that. But once the incentive is established, everyone will walk up to that line and do what they can. Now EA offers a bonus in game A for playing a bunch of game B. Or any game simply offers rewards for heavy playtime.

You get more of what you pay for. And this system absolutely encourages it to be gamed.

> this might incentivize developers to build and support games for longer

It might incentivize developers to try to drag out playtimes, even when they aren't fun. Which is more likely?

Also, there's a cap to how much game can be paid for this way. If I need to pay 15/month to play, say, WoW, why would I expect a game of that quality to be delivered to me as part of another 15/month subscription? If I was EA, would I launch my title on this system, or wait 6 months and offer a gimped, or maybe very grindy version?

It's a bad idea. I very much hope it fails for this reason. It pays people to make shitty game, and it chokes out good games. Very probably.

Comment Re:I hope this fucking fails (Score 1) 135

> that there is one, singular, successful subscription MMO: World of Warcraft

I mean, that's not quite true. It's close to true, though. Final Fantasy XIV is subscription based (they have a free-to-play trial up to level 35, similar to WoW's free-to-play trial up to level 20 or 30 or I forget). They use the EXACT same model as WoW, with a real-money store for a few cosmetics (they don't offer a level boost, or the ability to buy in-game currency, but they may eventually- both of those things are things that WoW has added in the last few years). While FFXIV doesn't enjoy the same success that WoW does, they are absolutely a profitable game.

Other games might be profitable as subscription, but use a hybrid model where all their serious players are on subscriptions, and their free trial is level capped or otherwise similar. Star Wars: The Old Republic uses this model. I think Wildstar has something like that, but I doubt Wildstar is profitable yet.

Profitable subscription based MMOs that are not WoW exist. What took so long to get through the heads of various investors is that a given subscription MMO is extraordinarily unlikely to get to WoW's level of success or profitability, so this should definitely inform your development costs, and model- it should not need to get to "at least half of WoW" in order to turn a profit, because it almost assuredly will not.

> Of course, what Microsoft wants to do is eliminate the discs entirely, to try and kill the resale market. Which is what this is really about.

That's actually a really good point, and I'm sorry I missed it.

Comment Re: Steam? (Score 1) 135

> Wrong. If you break Steam TOS, you lose access to those games. You don't own the game, you lease it.

You lease it, but it is often a one-time lease cost that lasts indefinitely. Sometimes the one-time lease cost is literally zero.

I get your desire to jump on anyone making the mistake between Steam offering you a game, and you actually going and buying the game. But it's still a reasonable analogy to make, especially given that your Steam library will last for years, and probably eventually decades. Given that the same type of shenanigans needed to free a Steam-installed game from Steam are also needed to free most modern games from their licensing servers, it's reasonable to talk about it like that. It takes serious effort to exert your ownership over your purchased products, be they on Steam or in physical disk form.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller