Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment How is this legal? (Score 0) 149

Sounds to me like Fairfax and Blackberry negotiated a back-room deal where Blackberry would announce massive layoffs and a $1B writedown to tank the share value, paving the way for Fairfax to acquire the company at a fraction of the cost. How is that legal? Companies don't make acquisition decisions overnight, so they have been planning this for a while...

Comment Monsanto (Score 0) 196

Hmm...this could solve a huge problem in the food industry. The documentary, Food Inc. explains how companies like Monsanto intentionally plant their patented, genetically modified soybeans into the fields of farmers who don't want to grow their product. Although the farmers have done nothing wrong, Monsanto keeps the patent litigation going until the farmer in question can no longer pay his legal fees and is forced to shut down. According to the film, this is a main reason why in the US there are so many super-powerful GMO companies and so few independent farmers.

Comment Re:Vigilante Justice (Score 1) 184

Sony pissed off a lot of geeks, many of whom are smart and amoral. Some of them vowed revenge. Sony got hacked to an absurd degree soon after.

"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."

You are aware that immoral != amoral? I think you mean immoral. Just sayin'. Immoral: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics Amoral: not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral

Comment Re:Or they flew over a CAFO (Score 1) 577

If everyone stopped eating meat today, they would have to immediately slaughter billions of cows, chickens, pigs, sheep etc. as the market as every day keeping them alive would be just sinking money for nothing. Nice short-term outcome, is that what you want? Then rather than saving these animals, the majority would cease to exist, as one of the main reasons we keep them is for their meat. It would also cause the price of products like dairy to skyrocket, it may even become totally uneconomical, in which case rather than saving these animals, you may just drive them extinct. These animals are domesticated, it's not going to be like a Disney movie where they are all freed into the wild to survive happy and free on their own, they don't have survival skills - we keep them alive. The trade is really that they get to exist at all, and we get to eat them.

I'm all for non-cruel livestock raising methods but ceasing to eat meat is completely illogical, it doesn't do anything to solve that problem at all, in fact it may exacerbate it, since by stressing the market for meat products you directly put pressure on farmers to cut corners price-wise. There are better ways to solve that problem; lobbying for regulation and enforcement, raise public awareness, and selective boycotting - e.g. name and shame the worst farms. These methods have done huge amounts to help improve farming conditions for animals.

Coles notes version: "If everyone in the world became a vegetarian simultaneously, it would be devastating for the meat industry". Thank you for sharing your wisdom.

Comment Re:Why do they call it the Xbox 360? (Score 1) 422

You need to learn basic geometry.

Actually, turning 360 degrees and walking in a straight line WOULD in fact take you away from the XBox (although you would pass over it first). However, since you are now dizzy from turning around, you will probably step on it in the process. Since the OP intended to portray his disgust at the XBox 360, I am sure this is what he intended. ZosX, you fell into his trap! :D

Comment Re:Less editorialization please (Score 1) 351

That so many Windows users see value in, and frequent, a site that is definitely pro-linux/bsd/open source, and what is arguably, even with all the "web 2.0" junk, the most influential tech forum on the net, says that Ballmer is right when Microsoft tells the SEC that linux and open source are the biggest threat to Microsoft.

Think about it - even with less than 1% of the desktop, and being distributed for free, it's more of a threat than Apple, who are worth more than Microsoft.

I don't call them poseur wannabes - I call them fresh blood :-)

Actually, I'm a Windows user, I've been coming to Slashdot for years, and I'm not interested in open source, linux, or BSD, and probably never will be, because they don't offer me anything I want that I don't already have with Windows. As a gamer, Windows gives me everything I need - certainly much more than an open source OS. I come for the tech articles and news posts. I would wager that this is true of the general Slashdot population. That's not to say that the number of folks interested in open source isn't higher here than in the general population, as a large number of the articles deal with open source topics.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're at Witt's End.