Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Quite telling (Score 3, Insightful) 91

It is quite telling that billionaire CEOs want to do even LESS work and receive more compensation. Zuck is openly expressing that he can be replaced by an AI, but then he still wants to receive all the monies. This is not a luxury extended to the average person. An AI generated to replace the average person would results in termination. If Zuck wants to go down this road, he should be laid off and put the AI in charge.

Comment Are there options? (Score 1) 105

Too bad there's not an easy way to spin up a Public Benefit Corporation or co-op to step in and take over Intel with opposite effect of a VC buyout. It's just very difficult to pull off. Honestly, I would suspect Elon to bid on it. He has the money and he loves the power and influence, even if it's not a directly profitable endeavor. Imagine him owning all the biggest american industries - space, cars, chips, social media. That is a little disturbing, but honestly, what alternatives for a buyout are there these days besides VC or oligarch? We're in a weird timeline.

Comment So good, a Windows user could use it (Score 2) 83

One thing that's great about Mint is that it's easy to use and has some of the feel of Windows, which makes it easy for novices to move from Windows to Linux (it's really all about Cinnamon). This is what advantages it brings to the table.. familiarity and comfort. Hope more Windows users explore Linux, and Mint is a great place to start.

Comment Re:The Kiosks Do Not Create Jobs (Score 1) 204

What's crazy is they are praising the kiosks as creating more jobs. That's totally disingenuous. The kiosks reduce labor. By total coincidence, around the same time, mobile ordering has become popular. So they needed to hire people to cover that demand. If the kiosks had been introduce a decade ago, or a decade from now, there would be no new trend to offset the loss of jobs. It's total capitalist spin.

Comment Rife for abuse (Score 4, Insightful) 63

Takedown requests are already too easy to abuse. Sadly, it seems most requests aren't even properly reviewed before they are submitted. These "rights holders" are essentially asking for the power to take any site/stream/page offline immediately without oversight by anybody. Since restoration typically doesn't happen instantaneously in the case of error or malicious intent, it's somewhat unfair. It doesn't "cost" these companies anything if a stream stays active (no one can even go buy cable immediately to continue watching). But, a mistake filed against a youtube or twitch stream could cost the creator thousands of dollars in income. Seems pretty unfair.

Slashdot Top Deals

In specifications, Murphy's Law supersedes Ohm's.

Working...