Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:or stop hiding... (Score 2) 377

If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.

You do know that the British courts have already decided to extradite him to Sweden, don't you? He didn't run off to the embassy until his appeal of the extradition failed.

Comment Re:Giant Bomb (Score 1) 361

they aren't going to publish things just to make one advertiser happy

I was referring to the fallout from the giant bomb that hit GameSpot

Doesn't that support my claim? That is, GameSpot did adjust its editorial policy just to make one advertiser happy, and it imploded. Hence no *rational* company would do that.

Comment Re:Conflict of interest (Score 1) 361

If the newspaper has more than one subscriber, it has a conflict of interest. Your interests won't match the other subscriber's.

They aren't going to publish things just to make you happy; they aren't going to publish things just to make one advertiser happy. We're talking about the NYT, not some trade magazine that depends for all its revenue on one sponsor.

Comment Re:NYT for me, but paying somewhere is important (Score 2) 361

if we don't pay for it, who will?

Advertisers?

who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in

You said you pay for the NYT. Do they let you determine what articles to include? Only to the extent that if they do a bad job, you won't renew your subscription. If advertisers were paying, the same would be true: they won't get eyeballs if they don't have content that attracts them.

Comment Re:WTF... (Score 1) 279

But coming back to the beginning of the thread: Even though the GPL2 is perfectly valid, the FSF has declared in GPL3 that it is not a compatible license. Through their required copyright transfer, they are able to change the license on their projects from GPL2 to GPL3, thereby putting pressure on other GPL2 projects to relicense as well. That's not promoting freedom, that's promoting control.

Comment Re:WTF... (Score 0) 279

Canonical vs the FSF is a matter of degree, it's not incomparable.

If the FSF didn't require copyright assignment, then most GNU stuff would still be GPL2 licensed, and that would make my life easier. Moglen says they need the copyright assignment in order to defend the copyright, but really it has mainly been used as a club to try to force people to switch to GPL3. It's about power, not about freedom.

Comment Re:Not the sun (Score 1) 320

Okay, so I read the story there about flooding in Somerset. The article itself is pretty reasonable, but many of the replies to it met the characterization of "only one cause":

"The EA was taken over by environmentalists years ago."

"The UK EA ... was created by Blair to promote the myth of CAGW."

There's no possibility that the lack of dredging is due to budget cutting or a lack of a need for dredging now that the rivers aren't used for barges any more (I don't know if they ever were), it's the AGW proponents who caused it. And there's no possibility that the floods have multiple causes, not just the lack of dredging. For example, places that used to be swamps tend to subside as the water is taken out.

Comment Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (Score 1) 1038

Not at all. Blackmail is where you threaten to reveal something that the victim doesn't want to be known. The USA is quite open about the fact that it executes people.

This is more like shunning. You're doing something I don't like, so I won't deal with you.

Comment Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (Score 1) 1038

No, it seems like an effective way to apply pressure. If you're going to use our drugs to murder people, we won't sell them to you, even if you also use them for good purposes. All you need to do is to agree not to murder people.

Comment Re:Would of been impressed if (Score 1) 464

I don't understand why the court is using assumptions (i.e. "we have no evidence of this person using Glass while driving"), when they can simply figure out the truth by sending a subpoena to Google to request that information (given that Glass is surely phoning home all the time).

It's not the court's job to collect evidence. If no evidence of use was presented, then there's no evidence, and the ticket is dismissed.

So why didn't the investigating officer collect this data? It's a distracted driving ticket, not a murder investigation.

"Once they go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department." -- Werner von Braun

Working...