Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Slashdot April fools is lame (Score 1) 86

by Disstress (#35690838) Attached to: LHC, CERN Has Found the Hugs Boson

It is funny to try to sneak one article in. That would be "cute" and everyone would go about their day. Most of us have slashdot in an rss just for news in tech - why waste a day of not posting anything? Besides the joke articles are lame.

If you read /. for tech news you are about a week or two behind the world.

Comment: Re:Needed crouwd thinning?? (Score -1, Troll) 456

by Disstress (#31682960) Attached to: Gonorrhea As the Next Superbug
This is the stupidest fucking response that I have ever read. Your logic is flawed in the way that people with extra chromosomes smile more than smart people. Let them die, if my mom fucks a crackhead with no personal responsibility then let her die too. Choose your partners, only idiots take the first available option. Survival of the fittest... it wasn't just a quest in a MMO you played.

Comment: Google is NOT a monopoly (Score 3, Interesting) 64

by Disstress (#28290245) Attached to: DOJ Turns Up the Heat On Google's Book Deal
The idea of google as a monopoly is silly. You still have ask, bing, yahoo, and even altavista is still around. There is not one product that google provides that is monopolistic in nature. Being a leader in your field does not mean that you are a monopoly. Look back at Ma Bell's past, that was a monopoly, people had no choice. People have a choice not to use google and are by no means forced to do so out of lack of options or availability.

Comment: Re:I understand... (Score 1) 739

by Disstress (#20169789) Attached to: American Red Cross Sued For Using a Red Cross
Its not the fact that Red Cross uses the cross. They are not suing because of that. The majority of people responding sound like twelve year old girls, bitching because this hurts their feelings... They are suing because Red Cross is selling the use of their red cross, which is Johnson and Johnson's rightful red cross. They won't sue the military or Bob down the street, unless they are trying to make money off of their trademark. This isn't that difficult people.

All the simple programs have been written.