Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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: I see, you like being wrong cause you can't read (Score -1) 209

by GuloGulo (#30912980) Attached to: AMD Launches Budget Processor Refresh

"Are you honestly arguing that a poster's choice of "an" vs "some" disqualifies his entire argument? "

Nope, he's arging that gp is lying about the situation, and thus is not credible.

Gp's claim is in direct opposition with OP's post, so he's either lying or ignorant, and neither makes him credible.

However, specifically op said he had TWO AMD 64 processors, which he used in a professional capacity,thud belying the assumptions made in gp's reply.

"However, a person is not a fanboi for pointing out obvious inconsistencies, regardless if he mis-remembered a not particularly significant number."

No, but their credibility suffers when OP says "I had two different systems, both of which I used in a professional capacity" which is what he DID say, versus GP's lie that he is" someone who tried an AMD CPU once, didn't do due their due dilligence, and just assumed all AMD procs were broken because their system was."

THAT difference IS significant, despite your clearly incorrect assertion that it isn't.

In short, you replied to something you didn't bother to totally understand and got it wrong.

Comment: I get it, you're a fucking idiot (Score -1, Troll) 209

by GuloGulo (#30912728) Attached to: AMD Launches Budget Processor Refresh

"1. Screaming and yelling at a poster for being a idiot because they do not agree with you,
2. Failing to recognize that the commenting system on /. is to be a meaningful, intelligent, mature discussion of a particular article, and
3. Not understanding that capitalization of words is to be done in accordance with proper rules of grammer, and not as a means to yelling louder over your percieved persecution."

In other words, you abused you mod points and used them incorrectly.

Nice job douche, you should quit modding posts until you learn how to do it without abusing it.

And it's "GRAMMAR" you fucking twat.

Comment: So what? (Score -1) 853

by GuloGulo (#29237635) Attached to: Emergency Government Control of the Internet?

If you'll bother to think back 10 years ago, you'd recall that the slashdot hivemind was just as outraged over Clinton's Echelon.

SO what? You do know that "BHO" doesn't stand for "Clinton" right?

Or are you pretending the current political climate is the same as it was for Clinton?

Why do you think you totally non-insightful observation about someone who wasn't discussed, and served as President during a vastly different political climate, has anything to do with this discussion other than as a diversion?


Please allow the non-apologists to talk, although it is nice of you to prove OP's point.

Comment: God, you should have just posted "Yes I am" (Score -1) 267

by GuloGulo (#28654013) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

Considering the last time any comment by you was NOT modded -1 was last January, you might not be the best person to judge anyone's life as "empty and meaningless".

I see, so you think the moderation of one's comments is somehow related to... the value of their life?

I suppose those two totally unrelated things prove SOMETHING...

No, see, what really happened is that you ARE a loser with no life, and the ONLY thing you had to come at me with was comment moderation.

So you tried desperately to find a way use comment moderation against me. Even to the point of making what, to anyone who isn't brain damaged, is a patently moronic association.

It's kind of funny that in trying to prove you aren't a total loser, you piled the evidence even higher against you.


See that guy, that conclusion was just as valid as the one you pathetically spewed out in your Shakespearean "doth protest too much" rebuttal of your own loserdom.

God, how could you even try something so retarded? And then POST it?

Comment: No, it's that you're obviously lying (Score -1) 434

by GuloGulo (#28650939) Attached to: To Get $18 Million Redesign

"Well, I'll get right on justifying my math to you *after I just did so above*. You don't like my costs?"

It's not that, we just know you're full of shit and lying about them.

"That's what health insurance costs when you're not a healthy 20 year old."

No it doesn't, you're lying again.

"So I'll go back to lying about running my small business"


Comment: Re:Too much detail (Score -1) 267

by GuloGulo (#28616385) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

It says a lot about just how empty and meaningless your life is that you think mundane court proceedings are worth your time.

Of course, you're probably not informed enough to know this was the definition of mundane, so your claims of how important the legal equivalent of a lunch order is sound slightly less retarded in light of your ignorance.

Comment: Re:Um, great (Score -1, Offtopic) 209

by GuloGulo (#26499083) Attached to: RIAA Tries To Appeal Order Allowing Internet TV Court Broadcast

"It's not possible for you to make an intelligent post.

Try all you want. You will fail."

Hi Zironic! Still pissed off I proved you were a liar here:

Sad though that you wasted ALL of your mods points on me, especially since you just made it obvious it was you.

Comment: 6 mod points wasted (Score -1, Troll) 209

by GuloGulo (#26499045) Attached to: RIAA Tries To Appeal Order Allowing Internet TV Court Broadcast


You wasted 6 mod points on me in my attempt to get this self procalimed "lawyer" to be MORE CLEAR AND CONCISE in his description of this situation.

Well done, very responsible use of mod points.

And yet my objection is STILL true, and his description is STILL wrong.

Comment: So that's all you've got? (Score -1, Flamebait) 209

by GuloGulo (#26499013) Attached to: RIAA Tries To Appeal Order Allowing Internet TV Court Broadcast

Well mods I'm disappointed. In my attempt to get this "lawyer" to actually clarify what he meant, and avoid posting his useless opinion in place of fact, you decided I was a troll.

And yet, I;m still factually corrct and this "lawyer" isn't.

Making people be ACCURATE with their discriptions of the case doesn't make me a troll, and if NewYorkCountry"so-called"lawyer ahd any self respect, he'd admit I was right and his description of the situtation was unclear at best.

What's that, I didn't slurp the pet-anti-RIAA "lawyer"? Oh, THAT'S why you think I'm a troll. I get it now.

Comment: Re:Um, great (Score -1, Flamebait) 209

by GuloGulo (#26498919) Attached to: RIAA Tries To Appeal Order Allowing Internet TV Court Broadcast

"He meant the act of that actually bringing about an appeal is impossible. which it is. and they have not done, nor will. So his claim is 100% accurate."

No it isn't.

You're artificually confining the definition of the word to what makes his assertion correct.

They CAN appeal.

There may be NO LEGAL BASIS for their appeal to succeed, but that CAN and HAVE appealed, so you're both wrong now.

And this is stupid, you're both arguing they can't do something they've already done.

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.