Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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: Re: Oblig (Score 1) 586

by stealth_finger (#49352541) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Punching someone over steak and chips has nothing to do with political correctness. You're going to have to think harder than just relying on the tried-and-busted PC canard again.

People punch people all the time for all kinds of reasons, not all of them have a week long investigation. But are you trying to say the BBC is not highly concerned with it's own political correctness? He almost got sacked over a number plate that may or may not have been selected on purpose but come on, it's a fucking number plate. Every week seemingly he's in the news for saying something slightly dodgy or giving someone a funny look yet the beeb behave everytime as if he's the worst the world.

Comment: Re: Oblig (Score 2) 586

by stealth_finger (#49349247) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear
Well, maybe it wasn't the best thought out post. The main point was the BBC is well into its pc zero tolerance these days, especially after being near the centre of pedogeddon with jimmy Saville, and he's been very nearly sacked a bunch of times for next to nothing and it was all but inevitable now he'd actually done something you can get in trouble for even though there's a lot worse things he could've done.

Comment: Re:in further news show tanks (Score 3, Insightful) 586

by stealth_finger (#49345739) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Doubtful. Top Gear has existed in some form or another for decades. I'll grant you the current incarnation is firmly anchored around Jezza, but this isn't much of a death sentence for the show.

Top Gear was just another boring car show until Clarkson and a different producer (Andy Wilson I think his name is) reinvented it into it's current form, without him that's what it will go back to and we don't need another fifth gear. Considering it's had a ton of spin offs in different countries and they have all died a death. Is Top Gear USA still on, and if so does it still suck? There's something about these three that make the show work so well which would be obviously lacking with three different blokes.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 847 Sheila's Wheels. While they don't flat out refuse men, their service is so heavily geared towards women it's really not worth it if you are breastically challenged, there's another company doing the same but I can't remember the name, something about diamonds. Women only sessions at the swimming pool, they never have a men only time slot. Women's hour on Radio 4. There's no men's hour. Not really the straight definition you demanded but there are times when it's apparently ok to say women only when you can't say men only. This is also UK so another easy reason for you to dismiss it.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 847

They're calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to feed a bullshit persecution complex, while enshrining their hateful nonsense into law. If you can refuse business to gays because your religion says so, then you can refuse business to anyone, and that's bullshit.

Which is why all affected business owners who disagree with this act should refuse service to Christians. Freedom is two way street. See how they like being discriminated against legally, by the same measures they put in to legally discriminate you.

Comment: Re:Journalists being stonewalled by Apple? (Score 3, Insightful) 261

by stealth_finger (#49335797) Attached to: Developers and the Fear of Apple

It doesn't seem to have hurt this site. Not even doing it poorly.

Yeah, but this site doesn't need to be on Apple's good side to get information, /. scrapes it from other people who do that and essentially republishes other peoples articles after the fact. If you're trying to be a breaking-primary news source then being denied information from a company many people are interested in means you lag behind your competitors. For a tech news site that can be a major problem, whereas /. is an aggregator, so being behind the curve is a given and the attraction is community-filtered news, not being the first to publish big stories.

You imply apple give different information to each reporter, they don't. they make an announcement with very few pieces of actual information and every apple shill goes and writes 1000 words on it. All of them saying the same basic exact same thing surrounded by fluff.

Comment: Re:Journalists being stonewalled by Apple? (Score 1) 261

by stealth_finger (#49335775) Attached to: Developers and the Fear of Apple

So what?

The "climate of fear" even affects journalists, who face not only stonewalling from Apple after negative reporting

So a journalist becomes persona non grata with Apple, can't get information about The New Big Thing until long after their competitors have published articles about it, so they get a reputation for being slow to publish about new stuff and probably end up with a reputation for recycling other peoples information because they can't get anything from Apple.

I get what you mean, in the long run that attitude will only harm Apple, but in the short term it'll require a bunch of journalists who aren't concerned about falling behind their competitors.

Bullshit, in that regard a reporter might not get invited to apple events, but that doesn't stop them reporting on real actual news, such as the winner of Bumsville, Idaho Annual Pie eating contest or just reading what all the apple approved writers put down, rewording and posting with a ten minute lag.

Comment: Re:Get out of the goddamn cave (Score 1) 338

Claiming that killing people saves lives is delusional to the point of insanity. Unfortunately this insanity is alive and well, though today we claim "we must kill all the Muslims to get peace" instead of those "dirty Japs".

It's not though. The harsh facts are dropping the nukes resulted in far fewer casualties than would have been suffered through invasion and the war ending sooner than it would have had Japan been traditionally combated. The battle for Japan would have dwarfed anything previous and would likely never be topped. The invasion itself would have made D-day look like a gentle stroll in the park with more people dead in the first day than though all victims of the nukes combined. Any one who thinks Japan would have surrendered is delusional and would probably say the same about America facing invasion. What do you think would happen if America were invaded, would they surrender? I really really really doubt it.

Also, only nutters say we should kill all Muslims. We are not at war with them nor intending a massive invasion of their lands.

With your bare hands?!?