Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:highly tendentious language (Score 2) 173

What you say would be true if we were talking about sample letters put out by organizations funded by George Soros or Tom Steyer, but these are not like those. No, these sample letters were put together by organizations which got a small amount of money from organizations which got a small amount of money from the Koch brothers. Everybody knows that the Koch brothers are truly evil, unlike George Soros, who unrepentantly collaborated with the Nazis as a teenager, and everything with even a remote connection to them is therefore evil.

Comment: Re:The real issue is... (Score 1) 269

by Attila Dimedici (#48589219) Attached to: Apple's iPod Classic Refuses To Die
Other posters address the issue of repair-ability. But I will point out that while computers (and related devices, such as Ipods) may soon be something that people rarely, if ever, upgrade (and therefore there is no significant market for making them upgradeable), that does not address the issue the poster you replied to made.
That poster asked the question, how does a "boutique" vendor compete once they have turned their product into a commodity? They are going to discover they have the same problem which Schick and Gillette have. They both spent a lot of time and money convincing men to buy disposable razors. Then they discovered that it was hard to compete when a razor was something someone bought and threw away after a week or two. They are now spending large amounts of money to convince people to buy their razors with replaceable blades.

Comment: Re:Wrong conclusion: not "unintended consequences" (Score 1) 118

by Attila Dimedici (#48551377) Attached to: How One Man Changed the Ecology of the Great Lakes With Salmon
That would make sense, except, why would you throw fish into a pond so that you can catch them again next year to eat them? It takes several years before a new born fish is large enough to eat. So, if you are stocking a pond you are either doing it with fish that are already large enough to eat (or close to it), or you are willing to wait a few years before you are expecting to catch them. BTW, if you want to suggest that your uncles would have thrown the ones they caught that were too small that year, to catch them again next year, they were taking a very large risk, since fish that small risk a significant fine if you are caught with them by the game commission.

Comment: Re:Wrong conclusion: not "unintended consequences" (Score 1) 118

by Attila Dimedici (#48548731) Attached to: How One Man Changed the Ecology of the Great Lakes With Salmon

I would recommend that you reword your statement to "...were never intentionally stocked..."

The word "stocked" contains within it the connotation of being done intentionally. Since, the general theory about how fish get into a landlocked body of water is that from time to time some fish eggs stick to the legs of waterfowl and rinse off/hatch in a different body of water. I have never heard that referred to as being stocked.

Comment: Re:Wrong conclusion: not "unintended consequences" (Score 1) 118

by Attila Dimedici (#48547017) Attached to: How One Man Changed the Ecology of the Great Lakes With Salmon
You are missing my point. Some of these ponds were never stocked by anyone, yet they have fish in them. As I said, I know this because I know the people who built the ponds and continued to own the land the ponds were situated on when fish were found in them.

Comment: Re:Wrong conclusion: not "unintended consequences" (Score 2) 118

by Attila Dimedici (#48545997) Attached to: How One Man Changed the Ecology of the Great Lakes With Salmon

because you can find the same fish in tiny, isolated ponds that don't show up except on detailed topographical maps. Even the neighbors seem scarcely aware of these ponds, but at some point maybe a hundred years ago the federal government planted fish there.

The problem with your theory is that I know for a fact that those same fish show up in ponds that did not exist a hundred years ago. For that matter I know that those fish show up in ponds that the federal government (nor any other organization) ever planted fish in. The reason I know this is that I know the people who built the ponds and owned the land they were situated on when fish started to appear in them. And yes, some of these ponds now have fish in them, even though no one put them there and there is no way for fish to swim there from elsewhere.

Comment: Re:Hard to say (Score 5, Interesting) 345

From other sources we learn that the staff resigned over the fact that he fired the top editor for the magazine by announcing his replacement on Gawker. This action followed bringing in a new CEO who acted in ways they interpreted as having no respect for the traditions of the organization (there is, by the way, a difference between deciding that traditions need to be changed and disrespecting those traditions).

Comment: Re:Who cares... (Score 0, Troll) 345

You have a good point. The U.S. considers those who espouse totalitarianism to be outside of the main stream. Once you enter into the realm of supporting totalitarianism, we no longer consider it worth our time to discuss how you disagree with someone else who supports totalitarianism. Whereas most of the rest of the world considers the political spectrum to run from totalitarianism on one end to totalitarianism on the other, with the distinction being how that totalitarianism is run and who runs it.

Comment: Re:So let me see if I get this right. (Score 1) 61

by Attila Dimedici (#48533309) Attached to: DOJ Launches New Cybercrime Unit, Claims Privacy Top Priority
I see, you read that wrong. Privacy is one of their top priorities. The problem is that you think of privacy as a good thing. They, on the other hand, view privacy as a bad thing. So, privacy is a top priority for them. That is making sure that you have as little as they can possibly manage.

Comment: Re:is it really bad in the first place? (Score 1) 342

by Attila Dimedici (#48496495) Attached to: Breath Test For Pot Being Developed At WSU
The thing is that while people constantly talk about the problems with older drivers, the statistics indicate that it is young drivers who are more likely to be a problem than older drivers. My recollection is that older drivers are not statistically more likely to be in an accident than drivers in general. The fact of the matter is that most people, as the impairments that come with age start to affect their driving, begin to drive less and more carefully, until they stop entirely when they believe they can no longer do so safely.

Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.

Working...