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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment So... (Score 1) 412

Is that The World's Largest Internet Encylopedia in your pocket, or am I happy to see you (leaving)?

Seriously, who are they marketing this toward? Most people who like Wikipedia enough to want to spend $100 to always have it with them probably already have some form of internet-capable device that gives them access at almost any location they could want (laptop, cellphone, netbook, etc). And many of those same people probably enjoy Wikipedia because they can modify articles as they choose (for good, bad and/or ugly), something this does not sound like it would allow them to do as it only transfers data internet-to-device. So I guess their market is toward that segment who believes that The Great Wiki is made up entirely of articles free from all forms of bias and subjectivity thus making it unconditionally gospel, and who have never heard of a "wireless connection" before.

...which, upon further thought and remembering past articles, may actually be a rather large target market...so I guess I do understand why they've made this, even though I'll pretend I don't.

Comment Re:Victimless crimes? (Score 1) 223

I started to do without movies and TV in general about 3 years ago because I was getting bored. As of now, I am saving additional money which I'm putting away in my savings account, having already used it to help get myself out of student debt sooner. I also have a clean appartment, clean and wrinkle-free clothes without going to the dry cleaner, and have taught myself to cook so my health has improved. I've also started a weight-lifting regimen a couple of weeks ago, and have missed only one day so far. Not to mention that I have more time to get online and search for w-browse Slashdot.

Comment Re:Crime was not accessing the data (Score 1) 241

Doesn't quite work like that in the US:

If someone signs something which supposedly makes them give up their human rights (I imagine "freedom from theft" would be included in those), then the US courts declare the contract to be non-binding, EVEN IF that person does so willingly. The assumption being that basic human rights are things which NONE of us would want to give up, and which are required for any sort of life as a full citizen to be possible.

So it's only a small leap to assume that people who install Limewire, even though they've created a backdoor onto their personal property, still have a right not to have that property misused or stolen.

As another example, if I place a chair on my front porch because I enjoy sitting in the sun, and don't latch my gate or have a guard dog, does that give you the privilege of taking my chair from me?

Same deal here (though I admit that it's not that applicable since the article mentions that most victims weren't even aware that Limewire was on their computer in the first place).

Comment Dangerous Future Tech (Score 2, Interesting) 101

So, if this works, would we then have whole artifical forests creating hydrogen and methanol? How safe would these things be? I imagine a forest would require access to sunlight, but it's somewhat difficult to have proper safeguards on a place that has a big window in it. And with these "trees" being full of methanol/hydrogen, one spark or too MUCH sun/heat and the whole place goes up like a bomb.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Working...