Yes! Same with Robocop, a satire on corporate greed and its influence on capitalism. Even the studio that produced it doesn't seem to have understood the joke judging by the two sequels they made.

Apparently the exchange rate was updated while they were in the middle of writing that sentence.

I only mean that, in isolation from other configuration, turning hyperthreading off produced a higher benchmark result than turning it on. Dell didn't publish details of how they had configured the computer to produce their numbers although the compiler probably had a large part to do with it; according to the follow-up article, the host OS was different (Linux vs Windows) and they had probably used the Intel compiler whereas the VeriTest study used gcc (for both the x86 and the G5, which makes sense if your aim is to compare chip performance as opposed to compiler performance).

From the article:

That report was later discredited. The accusation was largely based on the fact that the testers had disabled hyperthreading on the compared Dell PC: it turned out they had done this because it made that benchmark result *better*. They showed the x86 in its best possible light, so that those in the peanut gallery couldn't credibly accuse them of bias in favour of the G5.

Is there an upper limit to the number of times we can sarcastically quote "Open Always Wins!" after news articles like this one, before it stops being funny?
I know we haven't reached it yet, I'm just asking for information.

iTunes had a DRM-free deal with EMI, which was launched as iTunes+, before Amazon launched their MP3 store.

Challenge Accepted!

I'm convinced that he only got that job because Hunt and Health start with the same letter. There was an Embarrassing Incident in his previous role as Culture Secretary.

Well, that's utterly dodging the question. iTunes has two prices for most of its movies - £1-5 for a "rental" you must watch in a 30 period, or £8-15 to "buy" and you can keep until Apple go out of business. I kinda agree that the "buy" option is a long-term rental in disguise, and I wasn't arguing against you wanting to remove DRM from it. But the explicit "rental" option does have a considerable price discount, and makes it clear what you are getting (and what you are not getting) for your money. Are you saying that iTunes "rental" option should send a non-DRM movie file, and just ask you nicely not to keep it?

What about something like Netflix? You pay one month at a time, for one month's access to their library. It's explicitly a rental arrangement, and if they go out of business you don't lose anything you'd paid for in the past. Do you think their movies should be without DRM too? How do you stop someone from buying a subscription, downloading enough movies to occupy themselves for a year, and then cancelling the subscription after one month? Or is that not something that should be stopped, and Netflix would have to "just alter their business model" to cope with people doing it?

So do you have any objection to DRM on rentals, then?

Why would we need so many people to work with Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopes anyway?

No, I think the OP's remark is entirely justifiable.

This particular news item may only have been about mixing up samples and vandalizing a lab, but in the UK there have been numerous examples of animal rights protestors setting bombs and making death threats to academics. Life-threatening intimidation with an expressly political aim is precisely the definition of terrorism.

No, I think the OP's remark is entirely justifiable.

This particular news item may only have been about mixing up samples and vandalizing a lab, but in the UK there have been numerous examples of animal rights protestors setting bombs and making death threats to academics. Life-threatening intimidation with an expressly political aim is precisely the definition of terrorism.

The "update" (retraction) of this story was posted after the story had left the front page. Slashdot readers are only going to see yesterday's unjustified criticism of Apple and their supposed agenda. How many times in the next six months are the Android-trolls going to refer to this story as an example of Apple's control-freak tendency, without being aware that it was based on a lie?

The only use I can see for new TLD is to distinguish between different possible uses of the same name. e.g. consider how many web sites now have $(thing)-movie.com or $(thing)-band.com : if .movie and .band were TLDs, that's actually providing some benefit. But these are generic words, not trademarks. They're only useful if a registrar sells subdomains at a reasonable price, and the TLD will live or die depending on whether it can get a foothold in the market. This is a good thing.

I just don't see a case for corporations buying their own TLD. Is there a substantial usability or branding difference between www.disney and disney.com? Everybody will just type "disney" into the address bar anyway, it will find the right site even if it has to go via google...