Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Good grief you have a short outlook (Score 3, Insightful) 295

How silly! EVERY company loses favor. Styles change, customs change, companies bet on the wrong horse or stay the course and stagnate.

EVERY company loses favor sooner or later.

Some Japanese hotels like Hoshi have literally been around for ages.

Also, check out Tower Publishing, around since 1772, and JPMorgan Chase, with us since 1799.

Take a quick peek at Wikipedia sometime. Though I can't prove that all of these companies will be around forever, I think that companies that have been around through several generations come close enough for me.

Facebook is not going to be the first immortal company.

I doubt any company can truly be immortal, but the companies on that wiki page are as close at it gets.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 3, Interesting) 534

George Hotz ("geohot") tried his hand at it, given that he had been rather successful at cracking Apple's iStuff. He found an exploit that gave hypervisor access, and in response, Sony removed OtherOS in a firmware update, as geohot's hack required use of OtherOS.

So this can all be traced back to geohot getting involved... though in my opinion, Sony shouldn't have responded by removing OtherOS, causing all the collateral damage. It inevitably was going to result in a lot of really serious people getting involved and, by extension, more stories like this.

Comment Re:Amazon Response (Score 4, Informative) 204

A bald-faced lie? They said Wikileaks was violating several of the terms of service. One of the terms of service is "don't use our service to break US law". It's pretty clear that Wikileaks was violating US law. Ergo, not a lie.

Nearly every legal expert who has spoken on this topic has argued that Wikileaks has not violated US law.

At any rate, you're nitpicking over the wording used by the Amazon representative. Perhaps "doesn't own or otherwise control the rights to the classified content" was not the clearest way to put it, but unless you're deliberately being dense, the meaning is clear: Wikileaks is not permitted by US law to distribute these documents. Clearly, distributing documents in violation of US law qualifies under "don't use our service to break US law".

Publishing classified documents is not illegal, unless the documents fit certain criteria that (so far) these leaks do not. The person or organization who leaks the documents does have some liability, but not Wikileaks. As has been said many times before, Wikileaks is analogous to the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers incident.

Comment Re:Surprising in its unsurprisingness (Score 1) 833

They've been posting things that embarrass the government and affect its public image.

Specifically, I think you mean the US government. One thing (not the only thing though) that bothers me about Wikileaks is that it seems to be exclusively, or at least principally, dedicated to embarrassing the US government.

Here's one that I'm particularly OK with. If I recall correctly, this was the first time that I had heard about ACTA.

Slashdot Top Deals

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...