Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment "Answer to the Neo?" The fuck? (Score 1) 68

How the hell can this article start with the premise that this is a "Neo killer" and contain the sentence, "We still don't know what Intel will charge for the chip, nor do we know what you'll be able to buy a Core Series 3 laptop for."

"Intel releases chip to compete with $599 Neo, but who the fuck knows what it will cost" is not serious journalism.

Comment Re:The underlying issue (Score 2) 68

I agree with the whole bit about "power users" being... let's go with "misguided" here, but this:

Let me be blunt: macOS is an engineer's machine... I spend 90% of my day in terminal windows on macOS, using make and compilers.

...Okay? You realize you can do that on Windows, too, right? Or Linux, or BSD, or...

And this bit:

Virtually nobody in any form of advanced engineering uses Windows.

GTFO of here with that BS, what could possess you to make such a bullshit claim... oh.

shows that you have never worked in Silicon Valley circles

You're just one of those people that thinks your particular slice is the center of the universe. My dude, there are a shit ton more engineers out there in a ton more disciplines than just "software engineer" and the user population you're talking about is a small percentage of the whole.

Comment Re:That's hilarious (Score 1) 66

Also it's funny this judge hands this down to Anna's Archive, but the judge in the Meta/LLM case did fuck all nothing for their bullshit.

This was a default judgement as no one was present to defend Anna's Archive. As such, since no one objected, the remedy is the one proposed by the plaintiffs. This is how the legal system works, there is nothing unusual going on here.

The "worldwide injunction" is, however, an issue the judge should have stepped in on. The USSC ruled on the subject last year that universal injunctions are beyond the power of a district court to grant.

Comment Re:Arbitration contracts are changing (Score 2) 9

It's better to organize a mass arbitration campaign. One class action lawsuit is likely going to be far cheaper to defend that 50,000 arbitration claims that the company is on the hook to pay for the arbitrator (not to mention the cost of representation at these hearings) even if the case is ultimately found in their favor.

Comment Re:kindof irresponsible (Score 4, Insightful) 41

I think the Archive can reasonably get away with this one. Unlike their "we can give away all the books because copyright is no longer a thing because covid" initiative, this effort is clearly and unambiguously archival in nature. Now, if they go and implement some kind of Pandora or Spotify type service for listening to these recordings, they're going to have trouble, but if the recordings are made available in some kind of academic setting they should be fine.

Comment Re:Broadcom knew this would happen (Score 1) 54

This. I am amazed at the number of posts I see that are along the lines of "Broadcom are really going to regret how they've mismanaged this" because they have flat out SAID that this is their plan, to drive away everyone but the most valuable customers and extract the maximum amount of revenue possible. This is and has always been a short term play, and anyone with a brain saw it coming even before Hock Tan flat out said it.

The only place they're still playing remotely nice is the EU because the regulators there actually have teeth and will take a bite out of their ass for the tactics they are using, which are blatantly unlawful even in the US (but the regulators even under Biden didn't seem to give a fuck about).

Comment Re:Financial in nature, no kidding? (Score 2) 39

"Seem primarily financial in nature" is saying "money can cure any harm they suffer as a result of a stay not being granted." I tend to disagree with the court on this one because the current state of their industry means if you fall behind (which the reputational harm of "The DoD says we are a threat to national security" makes a real possibility) you're almost certainly going to be left behind. The hypothetical "we would have won the AI race and been a ten trillion dollar company" or whatever is a hypothetical the court will not entertain at the damages stage.

Comment Re: So, they invented... (Score 1) 262

Everyone is curious what they were really after sending in actual people instead of drones to being with. Stealing uranium stockpiles seems to be the current running theory, and hence why the C-130 was there and lost.

By "everyone" I assume you're referring to "conspiracy theorists?" Humans were there because the only thing that can actually secure an area are boots on the ground. The C-130s were there to bring the MH-6s. This is pretty simple, and in order to complicate it you have to really want it to be something else.

Comment Re:"for entertainment purposes only" (Score 1) 66

This is why almost every platform for Internet services DOES NOT USE Microsoft software.

This is just plain not true. Microsoft has about 1/4 of the global cloud computing market and, if nothing else, the number of things that just use Entra for auth is insane. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing, I'm just saying your claim that Microsoft is some kind of edge case in "internet service" is ridiculous.

Comment Re:We have all seen Mozilla (Score 3, Insightful) 97

Since they cannot simply put that much money onto a bank-account, they reasonably did all kinds of non-browser related things with it.

They could have created an endowment and then would not have had to worry when the money dried up, because the earnings on the principal would have funded them through the end of time. But, like most non-profits that end up with a bunch of money, they just used the opportunity for mission creep.

Comment Re:too bad (Score 1) 314

A well regulated militia would be one that was well trained and equipped

Excuse you? The entire reason for the Second Amendment was that the government could NOT equip enough militia. Your premise is extremely flawed.

Excuse you? The right to keep and bear arms ensures that the government does not have to equip the militia, the citizenry owns their own equipment. Many states required law that the citizenry own said equipment, the specifics of what the militiaman should be equipped with being enumerated in law.

The (federal) Militia Act of 1792 states "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

But, sure, my premise is extremely flawed.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You'll pay to know what you really think." -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Working...