Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Don't you mean... (Score 1) 99

If anyone knows better, I'd be happy to be corrected but as I see it the correct forms are the OP's's the last person to have done so (adjective before a noun)

and's the person to have last done so (adverb before a verb)

and also's the person to have done so last (adverb after another adverb)

The two "corrections" are incorrect:'s the person to last have done so (adverb in an infinitive: WRONG)

and's the person last to have done so (adjective after a noun: WRONG)

Comment Re:why? (Score 1, Insightful) 401

All monopolies are creations of governments. They don't exist in a free market.

The U.S. government has had to step in many times to break up monopolies. If all monopolies are created by governments then why would they break them up?

Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell) and Standard Oil monopolies and then why they would dismantle what they created.

Comment Re:Salespeople making salespitch (Score 1) 387

While I agree with you and the GP, one thing I would say is that most of the world doesn't give a shit about cursive writing and I don't know why it is still taught in the US. Hand writing, joined up, legibly, sure. But cursive just seems like teaching Latin, maybe because of tradition or something.

I'm confused. You say you don't understand why cursive writing is still taught in the U.S. but it's OK to teach "hand writing, joined up, legibly".

You might not be aware of it but cursive writing and joined-up hand writing are the same thing.

Comment Re:protecting intellectual property is... theft?! (Score 1) 328

Yes, copyright infringement is stealing.

Factually incorrect.Copyright infringement and theft have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each.

You're starting off on a false premise, and using mathy-looking letter variables doesn't make your logic any less sloppy.

It might not have been clear but the person I was responding to said that copyright extensions were "stealing" society but copyright infringement wasn't stealing. I was merely pointing out their sloppy logic that if one of them was an act of theft then they were both an act of theft. I know legally that copy infringement is not theft however, the copyright holder makes less money as a result of the infringement which is why it has the appearance of theft. Of course how much money is lost is the great debate that no one can ever truly settle.

I'm sorry you found the "mathy-looking letter variables" overwhelming but they were simply used for conciseness. Here's a more wordy version that should be more to your liking.

I know logic probably escapes you but in both cases a person deprives another person of something. So if in one case it's stealing then it's stealing in both cases.

Slashdot Top Deals

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?