Comment Re:/. threw itself under the bus (Score 1) 584
Oh so long ago when it sold itself for $$$ to whoever that company was. The bus has been running it over ever since.
See my
Oh so long ago when it sold itself for $$$ to whoever that company was. The bus has been running it over ever since.
See my
In case you hadn't noticed, this place has been invaded by a succession of increasingly dumber editors, which are probably rejects from Boingboing.
You know Slashdot is going downhill when they're posting articles from the Daily Mail.
\hell, adding the "Politics" section for the 2004 elections was bad enough
Check this one out for example [benton-cn.com]. The good thing about doing this is, you're working directly with the manufacturer and have all the control over the software on the device that you desire.
The spelling errors alone on that page screams worthless Chinese knockoff.
how much wireless bandwidth this uses and how much it counts against what I'm paying monthly for.
but that the entire concept of ownership of one's intellectual work was immoral.
Which is still debatable, since "morality" is subjective.
No, if the market doesn't want it, then you starve - no immorality.
But if people are pirating it, then pretty much demonstrably, people want your product. If they're willing to forego it for the price you charge, you also starve - no immorality.
But where they get the benefit of it *and* you don't get recompense you asked. *That's* immoral.
Which has little to do with current copyright law, as the other poster suggested.
Because the idea of working hard to produce something people want
Fine.
spending a considerable amount of money to make it available to people
Irrelevant. You chose to make that economic risk.
and then expecting recompense is immoral.
Even if the market doesn't want your final product?
He'd farm his own eggs, but then he'd have to distribute the chicken, and the egg, and the chicken...
All modifications to distributed eggs must include the modified chicken as well.
is the most proprietary meal of the day.
Who is writing
Well, if you look at submitter's name link you'll see "http://www.techworld.com.au/", which just happens to be where the summary links to.
and editing this BS?
Why that would be one of the crack Slashdot "editing" staff, who are more than happy to link to subby's techrag clickbait (probably collecting a fee for Geek.net).
Serious fanboi is serious
So Dennis Ritchie and now John McCarthy....
Exec: "Eh, it's still running, probably just a glitch or something."
This post is a series of unrelated facts that come together in a paranoid conclusion. Nowhere in here would I conclude that the state is adding cameras to their EZ-Pass, only that there is a company that COULD do that. Posting this was a really dumb editorial call,
It's just timothy trying to people rile up because he fails at life. And there is nothing even remotely "editorial" about anything on Slashdot.
I wonder if they ever caught the guy responsible for Windows ME.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
