Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Wow, just wow. (Score 2) 53

No, the cost is small. It's just that the cost of institutionalized bribery (ahem, I mean lobbying) is even smaller, as far as your company is concerned. I'm sure the money your lobbyist threw around was greedily gobbled up by Trump and his cronies, though.

And no, you're being disingenuous: It's stated right in the freaking summary how it will affect the large ones too: They just split their business into multiple distinct 100,000-person "businesses", all of which are owned by Comcast or whomever. These then tell the customers that since you're only doing business with the "tiny company", you aren't entitled to any information on fees, performance or data caps. And that's the real concern here.

Comment Re: Interesting, but... (Score 1) 158

Which will change the energy used to recycle it not one iota, because the recycler doesn't employ someone whose job is to grab things off the line and say "This one's already clean, boys!" All you're doing by washing it out before putting it for recycling is wasting some more water and energy -- it will still go through the exact same recycling process as everybody else's unwashed stuff.

Comment Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... (Score 1) 203

I can tell the difference perfectly well. The original author and copyright holder of the piece has been robbed of their ability to make profits from their work by Slashdot, which has also profited from its act. That is the definition of theft: One party has lost something tangible, and the other has gained something tangible. You can pretend otherwise if you like, but this is copyright theft and focusing on pedantics just makes you look stupid and greedy.

Comment Re:That's not a "quote" of Engadget's report... (Score 1) 203

If the article is so bad, why is Slashdot linking to it in the first place? You can't have it both ways. Either it was newsworthy and contained sufficient content to justify its existence (in which case stealing it is bad), or it wasn't newsworthy or lacked sufficient information to be worth reading it (in which case mentioning it in the first place was bad.) Either way, Slashdot is in the wrong here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself.

Working...