It's just a news site. There are loads of others. Calm down.

Because those are the countries whose corrupt inefficient systems lead to bad choices?
Incompetence in doing things like collecting taxes is left to go unchallenged. Money is spent on things that aren't needed because politicians are bribed. Services are unfairly provided due to nepotism.

Would love to know what your thoughts are on this then: http://www.tnmoc.org/news/news...

This says a lot:
http://www.tnmoc.org/news/news...

In translation: the Bletchley Park Trust are doing over the National Museum of Computing.

This is why we write filters though. This is not a unique problem to Slashdot and is solved elsewhere. That is the most annoying thing.

Then again given how badly the sites works on my mobile device, perhaps I should expect poor engineering throughout? :-(

This is a real BBC report. They were filming in the real Bletchley Park. That's definitely the real Jeremy Cooke.

This is actually the most insightful response. Given the utterly ludicrous comparison with Nazi Germany, Tom Perkin's comments have absolutely no merit whatsoever. Best leave this total crap alone.

Oops silly me. I assumed Slashdot code was written at some point in the last 10 years and might have UTF-8 support.

Î'ν ÏÎ ÏÎÏ...ÎΠήÏαν ÎÎÎÎÎ Îα ήμαÏfÏαν ÎÎÎΠμÎÏ...ÏfÎÎή.

Not quite. That would depend on how much address space was needed for IO. It could address 4GB minus what was needed for IO, for example graphics memory.

LogMeIn know how many free users there are. They will have seen revenues from converting free users to paid users dwindle. They have decided they do not need them anymore and they can grow their customer base without the "freemium" model.
So now they can off-load bandwidth-leeching free users to TeamViewer and focus on providing an even better experience for their paying customers. TeamViewer must spend more on supporting people who have no intention of spending any money.
Very astute business and the free users got all the professional service they paid for.

That would be ridiculous on several counts. First, I assume you are not saying "my god gave me these so that trumps everyone on Earth" as that would require proof that a god gave them for that argument to hold weight.
The US constitutional rights are a product of US culture. Why should every other country share that same culture?

Lots of people review things for no money (me included). Finding fault is a very important aspect of any review regardless, and actually criticizing something dispels the "payola" accusation for a lot of people.
I normally review mountaineering gear that I have bought and used, and my aim is to give a review that I'd have found useful myself. Are the pockets too small on a jacket? Are the boots badly fitting at the heel? Is the compass able to withstand a knock or two? (no it wasn't...!)

You don't see a problem with this? People need to know that some books are not worth buying to save wasting their money. They also need to know what the bad bits of books are, rather than just reading that, hey, everything is OK. To what do we compare your view with to work out what "good" means?
Let me give you an example. I ride a bike. I used to get a commercial magazine that would have cycling gear reviews. Bad products would be marked out as such. Now I don't get that magazine anymore but as a member of a cycling organization I get their in-house magazine. It too has gear reviews but as it is a large charitable organization they are trying hard not to be too negative, perhaps because to avoid upsetting a manufacturer. They feel they can take fewer risks than a commercial publication.
Whatever the reason, the reviews are useless. Bad point for a piece of gear are kind of papered over and a piece of gear that is only suitable for about 5 people is "OK for some". The biting criticism is missing. This means reviews lack teeth, or at least a reference point. When they review a cycle helmet they will say "this is a good product because it will protect your head". Er, great. And this is better at protecting my head than other helmets...why?

So some may ask "what style of writing does Ben Rothke find poor?" and we'll never know. Some may ask "so what layout of information in a book does Ben Rothke consider confusing?" and we'll never know. One thing is for sure I shan't be bothering to buy the books to find out because there's no incentive from reading these reviews.
You realize there are squillions of similar "hey make great content" books out there, right? How does this book fit in with those? Don't know? Then what does your review tell us when we're trying to choose the best one? Think about the cycle helmet example for a second.

!?! Non sequitur, surely? The book is written for organizations.

Most organizations who are in a position to enact this stuff (SMEs and upwards) actually do do this already. You can say "oh if they do it then it must be good advice" but it's just obvious.
Involve stakeholders early? Well blow me down with a feather. Who would guess that (say) the lead technical documentation writer in my organization might want to be involved early in a website rewrite that involved new docs for our software?