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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re: Yey for worlds richest man (Score 1) 156

You should hate the game not the players.

The game can't go one without the players. The most powerful players have paid to have the rules changed. You can't hate the game without hating the players.

American capitalism has seen much worse in the past 200-300 years than Gates.

Let me just stroll up and give you a stab wound on the premise that it's better than being shot in the face.

Microsoft is actually a rather decent company in the end.

The DoJ said differently. They said it abused its monopoly position in basically every way possible.

I'd be much more worried about the startups of our latest ongoing IT bubble.

I'm more concerned about large, entrenched companies proven in court to be harmful.

Those guys want nothing more than money and power.

And you think BG is a nice guy? What a moron you are.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 156

If the money is made good use of in the process then it's win-win. Who says you have to be self-sacrificing to help others?

The problem is that the money is being used to do evil. Gates is investing in businesses which are killing the people he's claiming to be helping. As it turns out, you do have to be self-sacrificing to help others.

Comment Re:Stay off the slippery slope (Score 2) 156

We don't need a wealth cap. All we need is to eliminate tax dodges like the Gates Foundation; its first job is to make more money, its second job is to spread strong IP law to developing nations, and its third job is to make Gates look good. It is exactly like the Rockefeller foundation. We should also have a steady and useful rate of inflation which discourages hoarding cash. If you want your money to not lose value, you should have to invest it in something with value. That is how jobs are created.

Comment Re:Nope, no wealth inequality here (Score 2) 156

Without Microsoft having continued so far, computing would be very different today.

Yes, it would be literally years farther forward ahead, which is what the DoJ found when they found them guilty of abusing their monopoly position — right before Ashcroft (under Bush) decided that they would not even get a handslap for it.

If Microsoft had stagnated (Anti-Microsoft jokes elsewhere, please) with Windows 95, and left computing to newer upstarts, I expect we wouldn't have anywhere near the compatibility and interoperability we have today.

What? You are clearly clinically insane. Microsoft has always been the enemy of compatibility and interoperability. They create their own garbage protocols and APIs when the industry already has protocols that do the same thing. They buy out companies making cross-platform software and terminate or deprecate the non-windows versions.

Even among non-Microsoft OSes, interoperability is a mandatory feature.

If only you knew what "Open" meant. Hint: It has nothing to do with the OSI. Openness was a central feature of Unix since time was time. It meant documented (often with source access) and thus interoperable. Microsoft is the odd man out here. Source access is extremely limited; only governments have complete source trees.

In contrast, I'm reminded of the pre-Windows days where particular software was written for a particular system, and that was it.

Less Windows software is cross-platform than software for any other platform except perhaps the Macintosh. Another central feature of Unix is portability. It's also a central feature of C. But Microsoft creates their own specifically non-interoperable garbage APIs to the detriment of all, like Direct3D.

Now, we have OpenOffice, Wine, and Samba, all from different projects united in the goal of slaying the Microsoft beast.

Yes, those are all projects which exist only because Microsoft is hostile to compatibility and interoperability. You don't even understand your own argument.

Comment Re:Nope, no wealth inequality here (Score 1, Insightful) 156

That said, he is giving away a lot of his cash.

Bill Gates is not giving away money. He is spending it. He claims to be spending it on humanitarian aid, but he really isn't. He's spending it to disrupt education, he's spending it to spread strong IP law. He's spending it, ironically, to make more of it; the foundation is invested in profitable businesses which are literally killing people . After that story broke the foundation announced that it would review the ethics of its investments, then un-announced that (took the announcement down from their PR page) and put up a new announcement saying that they wouldn't do that because it would be hard. The Gates Foundation is first and foremost a tax dodge, and second a way to get strong IP protection in developing nations for Big Pharma (in which Gates is massively personally invested.)

Comment Re:Reminds me of a crazy, hot girlfriend (Score 2) 276

This got voted -1, but statistically, nuclear actually does cause the lowest number of deaths per MWh energy produced.

Because nuclear leaves waste that persists for thousands of years, you don't get to determine how many deaths nuclear power causes for thousands of years. You can only determine how many it's caused so far. There's plenty of time for inadequate waste management practices to kill more people.

Comment Re:Need to compare on an energy generated basis (Score 1) 276

Can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say the true decommissioning costs of these solar plants are built into the prices today?

Of new ones? Yes. Modern panels are required to be recyclable. But even of old ones, it's not anywhere near as big a deal as it is to decommission a nuclear plant. It's not the same ballpark. It ain't even the same motherfuckin' sport.

Yes nuke plants have a lot of nasty radioactive materials but solar panels and electronics have a lot of nasty materials of their own that most people ignore.

Not a lot. A small amount. A tiny, minuscule amount compared to nuclear waste. Nice FUD though, troll.

Comment Re:Ignorant fools (Score 1) 189

You honestly don't know what an herbivore is?

It's a near-mythical kind of creature that you've mostly imagined.

I mean, I'd love to talk about frugivores (every one of our closest relatives)

Which kind of ape hasn't been shown to occasionally eat at least insects if not actual meat?

but if you can't wrap your mind around one of the most basic concepts in all of biology, it's going to be difficult.

The fact is that most of those things which "never" eat meat occasionally eat meat, just like the average vegan.

Submission + - The timing of error messages contributes to them being ignored (

sandbagger writes: A new study from BYU, in collaboration with Google Chrome engineers, finds the status quo of warning messages appearing haphazardly — while people are typing, watching a video, uploading files, etc. — results in up to 90 percent of users disregarding them.

Researchers found these times are less effective because of "dual task interference," a neural limitation where even simple tasks can't be simultaneously performed without significant performance loss. Or, in human terms, multitasking.

Submission + - Kim Dotcom's Mega 3, with Bitcoin: two bad ideas that go worse together (

David Gerard writes: "Colourful racing identity" Kim Dotcom has a scheme for his third Mega enterprise: combining MegaUpload with Bitcoin. It is entirely unclear how anything about this makes sense, but I'm sure that with a trustworthy soul with an impeccable track record like Dotcom at the helm, nothing can possibly go badly for anyone involved.

Slashdot Top Deals

Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.