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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:If??!?!?!! Really, now Twitter?!?!?! (Score 1) 1013

but he has thousands of followers and some of them are off the chain. Between the ones spewing all kinds of anti-muslim slogans and then the haters that come there to bitch and moan to Trump like he even cares what they have to say.

This seems to be true of most public figures with enough importance. Even Justin Trudeau's tweets are followed by many replies as described above. Twitter seems like a great place to make public announcements and inquiries, but any actual important discourse is guaranteed to attract more trolls than anything else.

Comment Re: Fake News? (Score 2) 624

Seems to me the main difference was that Sander's camp responded to Snopes' inquiry about where the numbers came from, which they looked up and generally agreed upon his overall point. Trump's camp did not respond to Snopes' inquiry, so they essentially had to guess on where the number came from and decided it was a misrepresentation of that data.

Transparency = credibility.

Comment Re:Tough times ahead (Score 1) 294

Actually, the geologists weren't predicting the earthquake, they were DENYING the earthquake.

Speaking of fake news, that is incorrect. The geologists were predicting the earthquake, and they said it was improbable but not impossible. A government official said there was "no danger" in an interview before actually meeting with the scientists, and the public accepted that statement as being the scientific consensus.

"A large earthquake along the lines of the 1703 event is improbable in the short term," said Enzo Boschi a member of the Italian Serious Risks Commission, during the meeting. "But the possibility cannot definitively be excluded." After the meeting, the government held a press conference in which it told Italians that a major earthquake in the region of L’Aquila was improbable. And in a television interview, government official and hydrologist Bernardo De Bernardinis said that "the scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy" during the seismic disturbances. That interview, however, was actually taped before the meeting on March 31st, and the statements made by De Bernardinis were false — tremors don’t release energy that would otherwise be implicated in an earthquake. But given its airtime and De Bernadinis’ authority, residents of L’Aquila who saw the interview were given the distinct impression that his comments were representative of the scientific meeting.

Source.

Comment Re:Stealing (Score 1) 149

I believe that the coins can be purchased from EA directly (in addition to being slowly earned via gameplay). The "black market" is black because it's against the TOS for the game, and essentially means that EA loses money when players get their coins from that market rather than from EA (there are apparently dozens of sites out there). If the black market undercuts EA too much then EA loses more sales, and flooding the black market with millions of ill-gotten coins likely leads to undercutting.

This is just based on limited research... maybe an actual player could clarify. So is EA losing money? I would guess that the $17M could represent lost coin sales, since somebody paid those guys for those coins that they may otherwise have bought from EA. At best it is unauthorized use of their servers or possibly a breach of TOS, which I guess in the US is equivalent to whatever crime the writer of the TOS wants.

From a player point of view, having automated generation of in-game currency leads to market inflation and essentially leads to items being priced out of your average player's range. However since EA is selling the currency themselves and making the goods scarce (it seems that certain player purchases used to be auctioned) I don't feel bad that someone is pissing in their pond.

Comment Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score 1) 2837

The Liberals never planned any surplus if they came to power, their campaign firmly stated they would increase short-term spending. The fact that the Conservatives campaigned on their intent to have a $6B surplus doesn't magically mean there was $6B on the table that the Liberals came in and swooped away. Also that $6B figure also included amounts that didn't exist in reality, like legislating away public service sick leave (which would have gone to court) and claiming it magically put hundreds of millions of dollars in their pocket.

Slashdot Top Deals

No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.

Working...