Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Bias (Score 1) 353

Like I wrote, I considered the part after the comma a new sentence; the comma as a mistyped period. It's certainly in no way related to the thing before it, unless Wright is both 372 pages covering three parts and 11 chapters and the author of himself. Sorry, I was simply too tired at the time (11:18 PM CET) to consider how to explain the grammar of something that makes no sense. We can of course bicker over how we're supposed to parse the language, but it's certainly not worth the bother: The writing is shit, QED.

Also, trying to give information to an intended reader that most probably does not exist on Slashdot is no excuse for piling on with irrelevant fluff.

Comment Re:Bias (Score 4, Interesting) 353

I can't speak for the GP, but it's not very well written, for one. The first four paragraphs are about the dangers of speaking out against the CoS, and end up in a -1, off topic point about British libel laws. What is this, self-aggrandisement for daring to write about the CoS? The review lacks focus, and plods randomly from point to point, often without making one:

As 372 pages covering 3 parts and 11 chapters, Wright is a mesmerizing author that creates a non-fiction spellbinding page-turner. The 4 main characters of the book are Hubbard, Miscavige and actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

The first sentence doesn't parse (and who the hell cares about number of parts and chapters anyway?), the second (after the comma) is in dire need of justification, and the third is simply irrelevant. That's just one paragraph, of course, but the first half of the essay is structured almost as poorly. The rest, I consider tl;dr material.

One thing this review does give me is more appreciation for the skill and effort needed for writing book reviews. It's difficult to do well, and perhaps not everyone can do it.

Comment Re:Koch Brothers? (Score 2) 355

Oh wow, you must be a wannabe journalist to feign neutrality like that. "Both sides of the issue." Right. When one side is right and the other side is wrong, you can't expect the right side to stop mentioning facts out of fairness to those who should stop stating falsehoods. Also, your comment is still void of empirical fact. Once again, you obscure the issues you pretend to raise. You may not have declared your position on AGW, but you have proven yourself to be a dishonest prick who will accuse others of doing the things you're doing yourself in the process.

Comment Re:Koch Brothers? (Score 4, Insightful) 355

Almost everyone of those who "raise questions" just regurgitate stuff they've sucked up on internet messageboards, frequently debunked falsehoods that are still recirculated ad nauseam just because those people (look, I called them people, not denialists!) don't really care about facts. I notice that you don't mention any one of those "good points" you pretend to refer to, glossing over them yourself while blaming your strawman of the very same.

Comment Re:Visigoths (Score 1) 63

No, I'm trying to point out that although the East Roman Empire lasted an impressive 1100 years (and more, really), the Roman Empire itself, which it split off from, didn't last quite that long, and that adding them together is disingenuous. If you weren't so busy defending Western civilisation from the Caliphate, you would probably notice that I did in fact not say anything about the Caliphate at all.

Comment Re:One size does not fit all... (Score 3, Insightful) 417

You mean like copy and paste? Oh, I know it exists on tablets, but it's a chore. Hell, iPad users don't even know how to post links to Youtube videos unless it's to Facebook or Twitter via a 'share' icon. The ease of use of tablets is a myth. For even the simplest things: you need an app for that.

The on-screen keyboards are shit as well.

Comment Re:It really is a pity it was killed (Score 1) 176

It's not well specced at all, though. It's got a pentile screen and a slow (even at the time of release) CPU, and the 3G speed is quite slow as well. Oh, and wifi and bluetooth share the same antenna and can't be used at the same time. The 1 GB of RAM is nice, and the polarising glass that makes the screen readable in sunlight is fantastically nice, but available on other Nokias as well, even their Windows phones.

It does look pretty, though, and the UI is something of a novelty (but not much better than the competition). It's not the most underrated smartphone in the world, as plenty of people who have never used one think it's awesome, but promising enough. RIM, Ubuntu and Jolla all use QML and Qt in their upcoming operating systems, so it will have offspring of sorts. Too bad that Nokia decided they would be better off as an OEM.

Comment Re:No Vision (Score 1) 336

The Macbook Air and the ultrabooks aren't just thinner than the ultraportables of two or three years ago, they're just as small, are more powerful and have fantastic battery life at about half the price. I see no reason to complain about the price tag. The market is flooded with alternatives if you want something cheaper and thicker, but the trade-off is always lower quality parts. No, you can't have that 8 GB quad core i7 at netbook prices. You can, however, have an ultrabookish i3 with 4 GB of RAM for $450. No wonder the netbook is dying.

Comment Re:No Vision (Score 1) 336

Google does not have a Macbook Air-like Ultrabook. Asus, Sony, Acer, Samsung and a few more do. Telvin_3d's claim that Apple is the only one is patently untrue, yet he's still at +5, insightful. There's no insight in his comment, it's just fraudulent marketing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Digital circuits are made from analog parts. -- Don Vonada

Working...