Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Get rid of the fucking adverts completely (Score 2) 194

Out of your two examples, Hulu is the only service that still shows commercials to their paying subscribers. Netflix doesn't (yet).

What other streaming services are there that will still show ads to paying subscribers? Because the only other ones that I am aware of (Crunchyroll, Funimation's streaming service, and as far as I am aware, Amazon) all stream ad-free to their paying subscribers.

Comment Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

Whether it's cops sitting off the side of the highway at night with their lights turned off waiting for someone to speed by

I'm not sure that counts as deceptive. Dangerous sure. There have been a few times where, if I would have needed to swerve to avoid something, I would not have known to not swerve left. But deceptive?

Comment Re:Not surprising. (Score 1) 725

You may find it fun to repeat yourself on things you've already been proved wrong on

Except they haven't yet been proved wrong. Yes, the things they bring up have already been proved wrong time and time again, but they personally were not aware of it.

I forget the exact details, but during the 2008 presidential election, I responded to a thread that I think was about Barack Obama's birth certificate being no business of ours, saying that if the constitution requires the president be a naturally born citizen, then for any presidential candidate, their birth certificate is our business. And the replies I got figuratively bit my head off. I did not know why my post elicited such anger, because at the time I did not know about the large group of people trying to get Obama disqualified on the grounds of his not being a naturally born citizen, and of their dismissal of his birth certificate, or whatever.

Like I said, I don't remember the exact details. But the point is, if I was a different person, then instead of trying to figure out why this hatred got directed towards me, I might've immediately sided with the "birthers" and ignored any future attempts at "proving" me wrong.

It may get annoying debunking the same myths again and again, but please remember that for the person bringing the myth to your attention, they may have just heard about it and are legitimately curious about why this thing they just heard about does not debunk AGW.

Comment Re:First Amendment to what? (Score 1) 104

Aside from "because it suits them" there's no way the government can argue that twitter use is both within their jurisdiction and also that using twitter is 'external'.

Not saying it's right, but prosecuting a UK citizen for what they said on Twitter is not saying that Twitter is within UK jurisdiction, it is saying that regardless of where a UK citizen is, the UK citizen is within UK jurisdiction.

Now, when the UK government demands that Twitter do something about the offending post, that is them claiming that Twitter is within UK jurisdiction.

You might have mail.

Working...