Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment "well written article" (Score 1) 223

I'm not sure what his point is. He claims people pay a premium for sports and lush serial dramas, because people wouldn't pay for them if the cable companies didn't provide them... duh. I get cable mainly because I want to watch sports. If they didn't offer sports, I wouldn't be paying for the service.
He claims he gets on demand access to Game of Thrones. Where does he do that legally? They only place I see where you legally get Game of Thrones is the DVDs, not on demand and not cheap.
He also mentions the money goes straight to the studios and networks. And then talks about how the cable companies charge high fees for some stuff so they can bundle other stuff. So not all of the money goes straight to the studios.

Comment Re:[citation needed] doesn't help (Score 1) 219

So what is the problem? Wikipedia is supposed to contain information that can be verified. The information exists in "questionable newspapers," but it can still be verified in those newspapers. If this is a problem then Wikipedia needs to change its policy on what can be used for verification.

Comment Re:Internet democracy (Score 1) 219

If the internet organized itself with a sort of government and had votes and such on laws and such governing it, this wouldn't be a problem.

What exactly is the problem? That someone maintains a wikipedia page? That someone PAYS someone to maintain the page?

Comment Re:A deal at twice the price (Score 1) 497

For a system of this size, It's expensive. I agree with GP, $600 million is pretty cheap for a system intended to serviced over 100,000,000 people. Less than $6 a user is a pretty good deal.

Perhaps that is the first problem. Perhaps they should do a better job of estimating how many people will actually use it. There are only 100,000,000 households in America. Roughly half can't use the website, as their state has their own site. And then how many of these people also have insurance through their work? Throw in the fact that the users will use it over several months, and will most likely only use it a few times, and then never again... $6 per user is pretty excessive.

Comment Re:The LSE is a very LEFT-leaning institution... (Score 1) 196

. This report tells us what many of us already knew/suspected. Still, kudos to the LSE for making the effort! +1

What was it the report told you, and what did you KNOW or suspect? The report appears to say that the people who pirate spend more than those who don't pirate. But what does that tell us? Not a whole lot really. Perhaps those who don't pirate don't consume very much. Based on the article we don't really know anything more than we did before.

Comment Re:Your Bullshit is BS (Score 1) 320

You're leaving out something really important and the real reason that he got caught: the casino was cheating too. Otherwise they wouldn't know that he had good cards when he folded.

That's like saying everyone who watches the World Series of Poker on ESPN is cheating. The Casino isn't really playing, so its ok for them to know what your cards are... doesn't mean they are cheating.

Comment Re:Very interesting... (Score 1) 82

If more than one person have a simila idea in a close enough time frame, similar enough to generate competing patents, it should be ruled as obvious and not patentable as too obvious

Why? Is something only non obvious if only ONE person in the world can figure it out? History is rife with two or three people racing to an invention. that doesn't mean the invention is obvious. I would think it would take more than two or three geniuses figuring something out to claim it as obvious.

Comment Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal (Score 1) 225

If I own a hamburger patent, and you own a carwash that does not serve food. Can I threaten you with a lawsuit? Can I threaten you with charging you for a crime if you don't settle the lawsuit? Can I then file a fake lawsuit and make you spend time and money to get it thrown out?
Just because you own a patent, doesn't mean you can threaten people with lawsuits, and when they don't cave in, doesn't mean you can file a lawsuit incorrectly.

Comment Re:hate speach post (Score 1) 225

Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities. There is silliness from both sides here.

I'm not sure what you consider a completely legal activity. Is it legal for me to threaten you with a lawsuit, and then file what is shown to be an illegal lawsuit? Is it legal for me to claim that I will have you charged with what sounds like a legitimate crime, if you don't comply? What the troll is doing might be legal, but if it is it sure skirts the boundaries of legalities. Makes the RICO claim much more likely.

Comment Re: I have mixed feelings about this. (Score 1) 225

not only do they rip off anyone and everyone but they waste the courts time with absurd charges, or the courts are stupid enough to take on such cases

they aren't wasting the courts time with absurd charges (well they are, as the original patent lawsuit turns out was absurd) but they are threatening the defendant with the absurd charge. And that is the whole issue here.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell