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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment So how else do you do this? (Score 4, Insightful) 192

Isn't this the way it should be working? Allocate X dollars to group. Group really needs X + Y dollars to do everything they want so they create a group to review all the projects and allocate the dollars. If you don't have enough funding, programs WILL be cut or scaled back. Save program A and program B is cut, which costs jobs around program B. Congrats though, program A's jobs are intact.

Prioritization sucks but if you don't have all the funding you need you have to make the call at some point. Having a (theoretically neutral) group review everything and make the call is better than having Congress make the decisions for you. And yeah, it would be much better for everyone if there was enough funding, that's the easy way out of this dilemma.

-- Ravensfire

Comment Re:Pre-election laws (Score 1) 339

"1) Transparency. If an opponent is making a claim against you then be transparent about the issue and prove them wrong. Allow an independent body to investigate and verify your taxes or whatever is in question."

Congrats - utterly ineffective. Candidate A releases a claim shortly before the election about Candidate B. Claim is false, but has JUST enough plausibility to get it through libel laws. Claim affects the election because you can't prove it false in time. Yup, happens now quite often and one of the most effective dirty tricks out there. Transparency is a great way to make someone feel better ... after the fact and rarely makes up for the damage done.

-- Ravensfire

Comment Re:And what do "Sanctions" mean? (Score 3, Informative) 90

The appeal court decision mentioned that the original request was for some 26k. Personally, I think the fine is intended as a "wake up" slap. The nice part of the sanction is #2. He's been bad and now potentially lots of other courts will know about it and be able to check if he's pulling the same stunt again. And usually subsequent sanctions get harsher.

-- Ravensfire

Comment Re:And what do "Sanctions" mean? (Score 5, Informative) 90

From the ruling,
"the court imposed $10,000 in sanctions on Stone and also required the following:
1) Stone shall serve a copy of this Order on each ISP implicated and
to every person or entity with whom he communicated for any purpose
in these proceedings.
2) Stone shall file a copy of this Order in every currently-ongoing
proceeding in which he represents a party, pending in any court in
the United States, federal or state.
3) Stone shall disclose to the Court whether he received funds,
either personally or on behalf of Mick Haig, and whether Mick Haig
received funds for any reason from any person or entity associated
with these proceedings, regardless of that person’s status as a Doe
Defendant or not, (excepting any fees or expenses paid by Mick Haig
to Stone).
4) Stone shall pay the Ad Litems’ attorneys’ fees and expenses reasonably
incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions. The Ad
Litems shall file an affidavit or other proof of such fees and expenses
with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Stone may contest such proof within seven (7) days of its filing.
Stone shall comply with these directives and supply the Court with
written confirmation of his compliance no later than forty-five (45)
days after the date of this Order."

-- Ravensfire

Comment Re:BSOD (Score 1) 725

Since you linked to the article with the announcement from Germany, you really should have actually read the article.

If you had, you'd have known that the German announcement was just a general warning, posted on the shipping page. Contrary to the ominous warning about the Lusitania you make it sound like, it was anything but.

Of course, I shouldn't expect any less from someone that links to Conservipedia.

-- Ravensfire

Operating Systems

Submission + - Why Linux is not an option.

Conor Turton writes: From The Inquirer , an excellent article illustrating why Linux will never be an option for most people. This is a follow on to another story on The Inq showing why Product Activation will kill Microsoft and push people to Linux . As the author points out, the rant against Microsoft's Product Activation completely misses the point — that 90% of PC users will never open their PC and use it until it dies at which point they'll just go buy another so product activation will never be an issue.

It seems to me that this is the massive point that Linux advocates seem to not understand when bleating on about Product Activation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Heisenberg may have slept here...

Working...