Comment Re:Summary (Score 1) 497
3. PROFIT!
3. PROFIT!
What next? The Internet and web should be free. There should never be any large-scale blocking of this sort, otherwise they'll add more categories in the future until we're left with a heavily restricted Internet/web, or worse: whitelisted categories.
The title and summary seem to suggest that the system as a whole has had a failure of some kind, though it's nothing of the likes. It's just the analogue > digital switchover means that people will "lose" access to it, however the BBC provides digital services anyway.
Steve Hermann's post on his blog can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/04/from_ceefax_to_digital_text.html
Duh!
I'd be able to see the demo!
Medine..?
Nice to know that the editors are doing their job.
CLC work was performed on a 64Gb RAM MacPro with 6.5Tb of Disk and 12 hyperthreaded Cores (24 threads total).
I looked at the README and cringed. These are really top-notch scientists, though they can't even get their (b)its and (B)ytes correct.
Going by what they said, the setup had 8GB RAM with 812.5GB of disk.
I hope that they don't mix up other measurements like this!
Damn it. I thought I was logged in.
Isn't this funny.
In some way, I hope this thread has helped contribute to the site.
Thanks for your feedback and views. It's been much appreciated.
Hear, hear!
If the editors did this it would make it less of an incentive for submitters (read: advertisers) to throw such 'articles' at us.
But then again, would Slashdot suddenly lose a certain amount of the submission base if the advertisers weren't able to get their jollies?
Yea, that's the only assumption. Shall I go into the list of unspoken implications your statement brings?
Again, I repeat, perhaps you should go to Digg or
No, let me do that for you. I wouldn't want you to assume things that weren't really there.
(i.) New section: "Tell Slashdot"
(ii.) I'll just move on, because I can't see anything here. If I wanted to know this I would've gone to Wikipedia.
(iii.) Somehow I thought this was a news site (maybe it says something about that in the tagline?), but I must have been mistaken. Silly me.
i. Sarcastic reference about the submission style compared to 'Ask Slashdot' (a very worthy section). Inference: I don't expect to be told anything on this website as if I was a child. I do expect to find valuable content which is new and matters.
ii. Sarcastic reference to the Slashdot tagline, then a statement about the article not having any valuable content - plus that I could find this out quite trivially at Wikipedia.
iii. Yet more sarcasm (surprise!).
Nothing at all has been suggested about the intellect of Slashdot readers or where they should go.
Also, have you looked at nearly all of the other comments against this submission? I suggest you do that before replying. You will see that I am not alone with my views.
--
Do you have eyes but fail to see?
Yes, it's on idle.slashdot.org - but this isn't news in any sense of the word.
Just because it's from another computing website and the submitter has put other (dubious) articles through, it shouldn't mean that more drivel is allowed in as well.
See also: "Decoding the Inscrutable Logos On Your Electronics"
One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis
