Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: 66 percent of all point-of-sale transactions (Score 1) 753

100 percent of all point-of-sale transactions are done with plastic... at least they are in Australia where we replaced paper notes with plastic ones back in 1988. Australia's $1 notes were also replaced with coins back in 1984 (go figure).

Wrong. Some transactions use coins, which are made of metal, not plastic. Last I checked, not every transaction was in multiples of $5 (the lowest denomination Australian note/bill).

Comment Re:would have been awesome had this happened -- (Score 1) 56

TV Shows now include Twitter names and hashtags quite regularly as watermark bugs ... It's quite telling they put them up as bugs during the actual show ...

I've stopped watching some TV programs because the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has started displaying hashtags during the programs. The ABC is supposed to be non-commercial, and I refuse to watch anything that includes these advertisements. (For what it's worth, I also wrote to them and told them I was switching off. Now if only a few million other people would do likewise...)

Comment Re:Note that it's against the rules (Score 1) 164

Only in theory. In practice, they'll reverse your edits if you're anonymous.

"They" will revert vandalism and other inappropriate edits regardless of whether you are logged in or not. Likewise "they" often keep good edits from editors who are not logged in. Feel free to provide links here to reasonable edits (as diffs) that were reverted just because you were "anonymous", and I'll probably be able to tell you exactly why they were reverted. (Disclosure: I am a frequent editor of Wikipedia - registered with a different name there to what I use here.)

Comment Re:Seriously (Score 1) 179

.... A share of stock is ownership in a company, making a bet that the value of the company will increase - over the long term - faster than inflation will.

Remember the good old days when a share of stock was ownership in a company, making a bet that the company would make a profit and pay a dividend ...

Comment Retroactive law (Score 1) 622

I'll presume that you're a troll but you drag out the age old "If you've got nothing to hide... argument" Here are a couple of issues with this argument. 1. Retroactive violation of new laws: Let's imagine that you're a smoker and that you smoke in your house. The government could pass a law saying "Smoking is not allowed inside any building. Anyone caught must pay a $500 fine." They can now either go back and look at their surveillance data and retroactively charge you for smoking in your house in the past

The problem there is not the surveillance, it's the retroactive law. It's fundamentally wrong that I can do something legal today, and then tomorrow the law might change retroactively so that I can be prosecuted for doing something that was legal at the time that I did it. It's irrelevant whether the evidence is from surveillance (covert or otherwise) or from witnesses who saw me (in public or in private), or by my own admission. If I can't travel back in time to change my behaviour, nobody should be able to change the legality of my past behaviour.

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Working...