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).

Technology (Apple)

+ - Apple releases a guided-tour video of the iPhone.->

Submitted by PanchoVilla
PanchoVilla (663869) writes "Today in my email I got a link to a ~20 minute video with a guided tour of the iPhone. It didn't answer any of the questions I had about the "special" plans that AT&T has ready for the iPhone or the worries about how badly they will lock down the phone. It did however show how easy the phone is to use, and how well things are integrated together."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Not Evil? (Score 1) 162

by Neopoleon (#18003826) Attached to: Google Accused of Benefitting From Piracy
Please, next time, don't expect someone who's responding to you to go back and perform a check on every single other comment you've ever left in order to ensure that you're being sarcastic.

The tone was very much in line with many other comments - nothing to set it apart.

Other than your history, of which I know nothing, as there are far too many people registered on /. for me to remember who's who (except for people I actually know, and they consitute a very small portion of the readership).

If "way too many Slashdotters take [you] too seriously," then consider that the problem isn't in their lack of DD - it's your presumption that we've all either read your earlier works, or research every /. member before responding.

If there were only a few dozen people here, that'd make a little sense.

With how many people there are, though, it's ridiculous to assume that we all know who you are.

Comment: Confusion again (Score 5, Insightful) 225

by slavemowgli (#15122015) Attached to: Britain's 400 Years of Cyber Law
Editors, RTFA. This is not about email signatures in the sense of the things people like to put after the "-- " at the end of their emails to add a personal touch; it's about regular signatures (signing your name), and it's about the fact that the LACK of a name or signature in an email means that an email CANNOT be a valid "written offer".

The only thing this means is that if you include your name in your signature (the email signature again, i.e., the part after the "-- "), whatever you wrote in your email can be treated the same way as something you wrote in a regular letter that you signed with your name.

But that's neither surprising nor worrying - quite the opposite. The implicit statement in the story summary that the disclaimers some companies like to put into emails could somehow constitute a valid contract is a big, fat piece of Slash-FUD.

Speaking of which, I propose the term "Slash-FUD" for intentional FUD in and intentionally misleading summaries and headlines of Slashdot stories - the problem seems to have grown so large in recent years that I think it deserves a special name. Death to Slash-FUD! Let that be our battle cry.

Committees have become so important nowadays that subcommittees have to be appointed to do the work.