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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It must be true! (Score 1) 156

Because scientist's interpretation of what they see is never wrong! When did science start to feel more like religion to me...

Did you forget a sarcasm tag, because there's nothing in TFA about global warming or evolution that I could see.
Does this fucking troll apply to all science articles now?...

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 259

Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie. What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices. Not this drivel.

It is not the case that the increasing prevalence of the internet unambiguously hinders price discrimination; on the contrary, it makes some forms of discrimination, like those that rely on information asymmetry, more difficult and some, like loyalty systems and the like, easier.
Consider the case of Amazon. One one hand, the ability of the customer to buy books online for the same price from any location makes geographic price discrimination by the brick-and-mortar firms much more difficult. Amazon's Kindle, however, makes books relatively non-transferable, making sophisticated complete price discrimination feasible.

Comment Re:Well, I'm glad thats settled. (Score 1, Troll) 209

, or if it is that no one knew that Eisenhower was actually a Republican. My guess is most people here didn't know he was a Republican since he sounds so different than the current breed.

Well there's a reason for that. Eisenhower came from the era when the military had no political affiliation, and didn't vote. Not because they couldn't, but considered it an affront to civilian control. Because of this, Eisenhower was actually heavily lobbied by BOTH political parties to be their nominee for president. As this Life Magazine article from April 12, 1948 entitled "The Democratic Plan to Draft Eisenhower", says, "With this fact also generally accepted most of the important Democrats of all factions, even within the White House, last week agreed on a thrid fact: the one man who can unite the party and take it to victory is General Dwight D. Eisenhower."

Also, the Republican party went off the tracks back in the 60s with Nixon and the Southern Strategy that primarily is based on southern racism, militarism, and evangelical Christianity.

Comment Re: Thus spoke the empire (Score 1) 1079

Though I'm as much against stupid governments following the policies of other stupid governments, I think you citizens of the US need to take responsibility for your own privileges of citizenship, such as the casual way in which you can provide arguments such as the above. Sometimes, our crappy governments dare to oppose your crappy government, and we end up having to experience certain problems such as "foreign"-funded assassinations, military coups, "sanctions", economic interferences (eg IMF, WB), covert "operations," or even "civil" wars or pretty much outright military attacks, wars, and invasions...

If you live in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even some poor Latin American countries, this argument might have some validity.

If you live in Canada, UK, any Western European or NATO-member country, Russia, China, Australia, or similar country, then you're full of shit. The idea of the USA bringing about a military coup in Australia to pass silly IP laws is just ridiculous. And with these IP laws, it's not the poor, backwards middle eastern and Latin American countries that Slashdotters are complaining about these dumb IP laws being passed in. It's countries like Australia, Canada, and the UK; countries that are completely free to give the US the finger if they wanted to, and more than strong enough to get away with it. As someone else here pointed out, the French give our government the finger all the time; maybe the rest of you need to start acting more like them.

So basically, your argument is full of shit.

Comment Re:Oh really? (Score 3, Interesting) 227

Time to apply the cluebat: * infringing copyright is against the law * if The Industry has evidence that copyright has been infringed, they should report it to the police (because laws have been broken, and it's the POLICE who follow up on law breakers) * if The Industry does NOT have evidence that copy has been infringed, then they cannot reasonably expect The ISP to do ANYTHING it *REALLY* is NOT a complex problem. The problem is, today. it's easier and often cheaper to JUST GO AND SUE SOMEBODY FOR BAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS than pursue the issue in a straightforward and naturally legal manner.

I'm not sure about AU, but in the US copyright infringement, while unlawful, is not criminal. One cannot be arrested for it, convicted of it, or subsequently incarcerated (with exceptions.)
Suing for bazillions of dollars is precisely what the offended party is supposed to do.
Moreover, it's up to the offended party to decide who to sue. If A downloads a movie from B, with software written by C, over a communication medium owned by D, who is to be sued? One; All? If this is a simple problem, then please, offer your solution. Maybe we can get this whole copyright/internet thing sorted out over the weekend

(but don't take my word for it:

Comment Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en (Score 1) 208

You're thinking of the PG-13 rating or the R rating. PG is the second lowest rating, and movies rated such are considered harmless by most. Also not that the rating system only actually applies to movies, they are set by a secret group of "parents" in the MPAA, but the structure is so well known it often gets applied to other things, like photographs and web sites and such.

In the US the ratings are as follows: G - General audiences, PG - Parental Guidance, PG-13 - parents strongly cautioned, no admittance under age 13 without parental consent, R - Restricted, no admittance under 17 without parental consent and in the company of an adult, and NC-17 - No Children under 17, kids under 17 can't get in, parents or no.

It's rare for a movie to be rated NC-17 that isn't a porno, in which case they tend to go all out for the X-XXX ratings, as an NC-17 rating for a non-porn is generally a death sentance unless you have a following before the movie even airs.

Comment Re:Anyone bet that they don't totally ruin it? (Score 5, Insightful) 174

We don't have attention spans long enough for story ideas that cannot be swiftly resolved with guns. Let's try an jive thing up a bit, eh? You know, like 24, with brainwashing!

I know this is a joke, but the thought of tv moving so smoothly from a show about a villainous agency who kidnaps and tortures the hero, to a show about a heroic agency who kidnaps and tortures the villain has left me too wistful to laugh.

Comment Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 327

Sure it does. "This is the address bar. This part is the hostname. 'http' means you're in danger, 'https' means there's a bit less danger, a green bar with the name of the company you're trying to do business with means there's even less." "Don't open unexpected email attachments, no matter how much free porn they promise." "If the lights on your modem are always on even when you're not using the computer, get the computer looked at by a professional."

This is the idea. Not so much computer "driver's license", as computer "driver's ed."


Submission + - Google to release Linux based ChromeOS (

erlik writes: "The blogosphere is aflame with news that Google finally decided to go after Microsoft and release it's own Linux based Operating System targeted at netbooks: ChromeOS. The frenzy was started by a post on the official Google blog were Sundar Pichai announced the new OS. But is it really a new OS? I don't think so! Complete story"

Comment Re:This reads like electoral interference to me (Score 5, Informative) 512

Also, if the protesters have to rely on Twitter uptime ... They're pretty much screwed.

Does Twitter need to introduce the "Fail Camel" to not alienate the Iranian population?

Just to clarify, Iran is a mountainous and largely forested country inhabited neither by Arabs nor Arabic speakers.

Comment Over what time? That is the question. (Score 1) 290

The average visitor to YouTube is costing Google between one and two dollars [...]

Over what time? In total?
Because I'd have no problem, paying $2 a year for YouTube. Even more, if most of it goes straight to the creators of the videos I'm watching, and the videos are in the uploaded quality (up to full-HD). Kutiman alone would be worth that.

I'm all for micro-payment. Sounds fair to me. And they would make good money off of it, while supporting artist directly. (As long as they do not do it like the old media industry, and take 96.5% for themselves, and then still expect the artists to pay for the studio and everything... off of that money.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.