Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Mixed Feelings (Score 1) 48 48

Let's kill all advertising so that you will not be able to find any new products or services and no company could find a client who didn't know the company directly somehow. Wouldn't it be great, not to know about anything people are trying to create for you?

No. What we be great, really great, would be if advertising and marketing shitheads would stop insisting on using broken technology to animate their ads. For every Flash ad out there there is at least one engineer who has said, or tried to say, something like "We should build this on something proper..."

Comment: Re:It's that time... (Score 1) 337 337

In related news - one of the first reporters to tweet about the story works for the Financial Times has a rather unfortunate name relating to deadly machines. The reporters name being Sarah O'Connor.

"Seriously, Sarah. You need to let go of these fantasies. Do you want to end up back in the hospital again?"

Comment: Re:a terrible social crime... (Score 1) 198 198

junkies might similarly claim that taking away their heroin is a dangerous social crime.

And they'd be as guilty as you are at making that lame comparison. Yes, yes, we all know that there are some users out there for whom various content available via the Internet is like a drug, but to lump all Internet traffic into that category is beyond stupid.

Comment: Re:Antropologist (Score 1) 127 127

The article really has nothing to do with nuclear power plants, despite the opening references. He is talking about the poor security at the Oak Ridge facility. If private security guards are so bad, maybe they should call in the experts from Homeland Security.

For those who don't get the sarcasm, the notion that "privatization" is a good thing is proving to be a bad idea, yet again. Without careful regulation, something that itself comes with a cost, a profit-driven industry will, by it's very nature, seek to cut corners (cheat) it's customers in order to increase those profits. Pharmaceuticals, or automobile brakes, or guarding nuclear plants, these are not places to let the mythical free market run the show, and yet we continue to allow the Reagan era meme that "government is the problem" to pervade our thinking.

Comment: Re:Shocker... (Score 2) 278 278

Its just another mastrabatory progressive poll where some collection of halfwits want to claim intellectual superiority by asking a set of cherry picked questions under controlled circomstances and then strip out all context.

Really? Somehow, I suspect that you'd have an entirely different critique if the answers weren't such an embarrassment to those who fit into the "conservative" camp.

The really glaring thing here, to me at least, is that the non-scientist sample is so far off from the scientist sample. Do some research into why the non-scientists believe the stupid shit they do. Come, on, less than half of all laymen believe evolution is a thing? That's scary.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 4, Insightful) 301 301

Rightsholders keep pushing the fact that we're buying a personal use license to the media when we buy a CD/DVD/etc, so why is making a mere copy for personal use unlawful in any way?

You can't have it both ways, greedy bastards.

Oh, yes we can, you little person you. We missed the boat completely when it came to digital media and lack totally the vision to come up with a business model that works in this new age, so we've paid good money, a buttload of it, to have the rules tilt things in our favor. So shut up and take what we so generously offer you. Regards, Your Friends at RIAA

Comment: Re:Congratulations... (Score 3, Insightful) 161 161

By pulling out of the process, they're basically ensuring they will have zero say in the outcome.

Not quite. They're finally recognizing the plain fact that in the United States today, if a "corporate citizen" wants something badly enough, they get it, and the little people can go fuck themselves.
Is this a great country, or what? /s

Comment: What can Facebook do? (Score 1) 219 219

Just what they're doing now - serving as the medium for conscientious journalists and other concerned individuals to publish accounts of the bullshit going on in their corner of the world. Anonymity is tough, but it can be attained for such purposes. Such techniques should not be the responsibility of Facebook. And yes, anonymity tends to dampen credibility, so there's a balancing act to be performed if one wants to avoid the violent response of the corrupt little men being exposed, but let us give thanks that there there are those willing to take such risks for the sake of truth.

Staff meeting in the conference room in %d minutes.