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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Servers *seriously suck* in this department (Score 1) 557

The current models are just as bad. I have a brand new G7 on the bench, takes about 8 mins to get through POST. Ugg.. I have a feeling it's partly because of ECC, but there is no way to disable it while your building it. And that thing about getting into the RAID config seriously blows (better off doing it within SmartStart).

Comment Re:Ads (Score 1) 182

I should also add that I find it amusing they are claiming unfair competition and "Defendants' conduct as aforesaid has caused great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and unless such conduct is enjoined, it will continue and Plaintiff will continue to suffer great and irreparable injury." Really? A fan site that encourages people to play a GW product is injuring you? Seems that this act of suing is causing more injury to GW than the fansite is.. :D

Comment Ads (Score 1) 182

The only legitimate claim I see here is that they are profiting by using the name Warhammer and it's connection to GW's Trademark of Warhammer by having banner ads on the site, which don't appear to be working for me at the moment. The claim of anonymity by shielding their domain registration information is lame, they are only trying to use that to their advantage and claim they knowingly hid their info so they couldn't be found. Last I checked, you could still get that information through legal means. Cybersquatting they are not as the domain name is being used legitimately to host a site and not as a landing page for ads or to just resell the domain for money. But, since they are looking for a trial with a jury, GW will probably be sure to pick the most technologically illiterate people they can to serve on the jury. But, being that this is about a Trademark, GW has to sue regardless of merit or else risk losing the Trademark.

Comment Not entirely about the environment (Score 1) 819

From what I gathered in the article, they didn't tear out their grass to be "environmentally friendly" hippies, it sounds like that was just the overall excuse when really, they just can't afford to throw money at paying to water it. I am sure that if they stopped watering it the city would have had the same reaction to their brown grass. I don't buy the "I wouldn't want to live next to that" excuse since the article stated they erected a fence and planted plenty of plants, it's just that the city treats grass as plants and thus, easily cover the 40% requirement to their liking. I am surprised there wasn't some sort of permit required before they could do their landscaping, then I would understand being fined, but jail time for not having grass? Sounds like something for a higher court to decide on if the city council isn't going to hear their case, trust me, I've seen it happen.

Comment Oh Please... (Score 1) 369

A Sony Vaio is all of a sudden "the best technology available"?? I'm pretty sure they aren't using Red 4k cameras either.. Sounds more like a propaganda piece against P2P networks and open source encryption solutions. And please, replace Al-Qaeda with "Fundamentalist Group" like it should be. I'm still under the impression that Al-Qaeda is a CIA construct..

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...