Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Environmental impact? (Score 1) 168

I imagine the best you can hope for would be proper disposal rather than recycling.

Although even that is the same as the plan for disposing of most household hazardous waste: trash it. Because of a lack of federal, state, and local regulations requiring special handling of stuff like this, there exist no facilities which can handle it.

The scale of waste produced by households is also so comparatively small that forcing every little thing to be handled would be insanely expensive. If you're lucky you might have an annual community collection of hazardous waste where you can drop off a year's worth at once; although you have to collect and store the stuff yourself until then and the net impact is so insignificant that it's probably not worth the trouble.

One great thing about most of these systems is that they can take a certain amount of abuse/damage and will continue to function with just a reduction in power output or efficiency. In most cases the engineer would plan for the reduced output over the (20 year?) lifetime of the installation with plenty of extra capacity. Repair/replacement would be unnecessary unless something dramatic happens to the entire roof.

Comment heavily screens reviews (Score 1) 454

I don't know. In the USA, maybe more or less consumer protection; maybe more or less freedom. The status quo is known and personal responsibility is not that bad. It turns the issue into the matter of whether advertising is technically speech protected by the First Amendment. One can argue that since it can only be effectively employed by certain entities it is not. These free press entities have the freedom to report the news without fear of retribution. This does not mean that the press is obligated to publish all content directed at them. What would be the solution then? Not allowing merchants to publish any consumer generated content? I don't think it's possible to force a possibly international merchant to publish all viewpoints. Where is the line drawn? Would it except spamming, trolling, flamebaiting? How can you tell the difference between a troll and a legitimate negative review and who would be the one to do it?

Comment heavily screens reviews (Score 2, Informative) 454

I have written many reviews of varying content and rating for a couple products on and whenever the review has a possibility of impacting sales negatively it is never posted. Not ethical but it's their prerogative as they are the ones publishing it. There is a conflict of interest but making this type of thing illegal would be a slippery slope. Just take it as a matter of course and get on with it.

Comment Re:Motivation (Score 1) 334

It's not that it's an unfree market, it's more of a natural monopoly. Free market is not the solution to all problems. You are free to write and promote a new OS and take over the market but you won't because it's hard. Antitrust law is fundamentally anti-free-market so you obviously understand that market freedom has to be limited because of the human nature to take advantage of freedom. Leveraging antitrust law on MS is not a bad idea but it is of course a lot more complicated than that. I'm not sure about your proposed result but I suppose it could be possible. Alternatively, if software patents weren't such a problem maybe ReactOS would become a reality faster and implement some of the changes you wish for as a real competitor.

Comment Re:Getting these all over the place (Score 1) 334

Hopefully you are licensing it properly because the free license does not seem to cover using it in the way you are describing.

"1. Not to use this software for commercial use without proper licensing."

You should consider donating to the combofix developers as well if it's benefiting your company so much.

Slashdot Top Deals

Progress means replacing a theory that is wrong with one more subtly wrong.