Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Real Purpose of DRM

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the man-keeping-us-down dept.

235

Roberto writes "Gorgeous nerd Annalee Newitz hacked a political interpretation to recent vacuum cleaner cockfights at O'Reilly's ETech: 'Hollywood corporations have finally admitted that the real reason they built digital restriction management (DRM) software into PVRs and DVD players was to stop geeks from turning their recording devices into back-alley combat machines. You haven't seen ugly until you've watched what a DVD player without DRM can do to a TiVo.' Don't try to even think of this at home."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dude... (5, Funny)

SigILL (6475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046122)

April fools day is *so* yesterday.

Re:Dude... (1)

Transeau (869731) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046127)

uh - yeah - what he said

Re:Dude... (1)

DetrimentalFiend (233753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046155)

I think this is more a case of 'slow news day'.

Posted March 14, 2006. (2, Informative)

PhYrE2k2 (806396) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046181)

from TFA: Posted March 14, 2006.

Re:Posted March 14, 2006. (2)

SigILL (6475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046217)

Yeah, but the Slashdot editors turned the funny final paragraph of TFA into the whole subject of the story, and that just ain't funny on April 2nd.

TFA's cool though; I'll give you that.

Re:Dude... (0, Redundant)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046269)

Yea but this is /. so the stories are expected to be a day or two late. There'll be a dupe along in a minute.

Re:Dude... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046270)

and because this is /. that comment was modded +3, informative...
wtf

Re:Dude... (3, Funny)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046281)

April Fools was yesterday. Today CowboyNeal goes off on a search for real news, only to find yesterday's fake stories. He then posts it on Slashdot.

Never believe any Slashdot story on April 1st... or April 2nd.

Gorgeous? (-1, Troll)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046125)

Gorgeous? Well according to this pic [alternet.org] of her...beauty really IS in the eye of the beholder.

Re:Gorgeous? (5, Funny)

capt.Hij (318203) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046148)

Dude! This chick just made a joke about Ubuntu *and* Gentoo users in the same sentence and then went on to disparage Red Hat users. I don't know what bug is up your nether regions, but I for one am in love. (She also discusses "USB devices." *drool*)

Re:Gorgeous? (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046156)

Yeah, thats fine and all, and she's probably a real cool chick and has a great personality, but gorgeous describes physical attractiveness, and honestly, it would take MANY free (as in beer) beers for me to consider her gorgeous.

Re:Gorgeous? (5, Funny)

LouisZepher (643097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046179)

In your case then, "beer holder", not "beholder".

Re:Gorgeous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046318)

She's still no Jeri Ellsworth [dickestel.com] (inventor of C64-in-a-joystick). But maybe someone who can actually make cool hardware is more appealing to me than someone who just knows Linux in-jokes... I guess we can each have our own geek-girl appearance modifiers.

Re:Gorgeous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046450)

If you read Slashdot, you've already read Annalee Newitz's columns about 3 months before they come out. If that doesn't give you a limp penis, you're probably a homo.

Re:Gorgeous? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046152)

Another one *shudder* [othermag.org] .

Re:Gorgeous? (2, Funny)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046243)

"That's a man, baby!" - Austin Powers

Re:Gorgeous? (3, Insightful)

Chowderbags (847952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046175)

You're forgetting, it's "Gorgeous nerd". It's relative at that point.

Nerd != Fugly; (2, Interesting)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046274)

it's "Gorgeous nerd". It's relative at that point.

30 seconds on google image search, NSFW! [nerdgirlnetwork.com]

Re:Gorgeous? (0, Offtopic)

Weird O'Puns (749505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046214)

So, you're actually some kind of lord?

Re:Gorgeous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046219)

Re:Gorgeous? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046234)

Which one?

Re:Gorgeous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046222)

I would have to agree I did a search on google images for her, and well
she doesn't seem to be that how shall i put it - attractive.

Re:Gorgeous? (4, Insightful)

PrvtBurrito (557287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046226)

and one wonders why there aren't more geek women...

Re:Gorgeous? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046265)

The photos of her almost make me want to stop being a geek *man*.

Re:Gorgeous? (2, Insightful)

Joe Enduser (527199) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046252)

Obligatory references to the caricature of the desperate slashdot audience aside, the blatant sexism of refering to this intelligent, witty and inspiring woman as "gorgeous" almost counters that of tagging every article on the front page as "gay" in the sense of a general derogatory term.

Btw. Slashdot, thanks for fixing that.

Re:Gorgeous? (2, Informative)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046276)

Some more images here [google.com] ; though sadly the one in bikini is not her. I'm afraid on the "hot or not" scale, it's "not".

Re:Gorgeous? (1)

munehiro (63206) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046375)

Just guessing, but probably this [links.net] is what she is going to reply to the slashdot crowd relatively to this thread :DDD

Re:Gorgeous? (1)

BaldingByMicrosoft (585534) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046510)

Mod parent up please, since I was beaten to the punch.

Oh five-digit member number, I salute thee.

Re:Gorgeous? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046283)

I'd hit it.

...What?

"Looks first" -- even on slashdot (1)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046286)

While I have to agree with everyone who has posted that she doesn't strike me as particularly ravishing, I'm more annoyed with the fact that the submitter has to make any comment at all about her looks. I don't recall any submitted stories that began "Handsome hunk hacker Joe Blow has an article about...". While I'm used to people in the outside world thinking about looks first and substance second, I'm dismayed to find that seems to hold true for slashdot as well.

It's one thing for comments about people's looks to occur in the comments section. Lord knows there's always tons of comments about that one Mythbusters woman everytime a story about that show gets posted. It's more annoying when some comment about a female geek's looks appears on the front page of slashdot. It's almost as though slashdot is officially condoning that kind of crap.

I'm curious to know what the lady nerds here thought when they read the summary. You gals think I'm making too big of a deal of this or are you equally disappointed to find that female geeks are judged first on looks and second on substance?

GMD

Re:"Looks first" -- even on slashdot (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046315)

disappointed to find that female geeks are judged first on looks and second on substance

I think this speaks more about the lack of substance in this article than about general attitudes toward a person's appearance in regards to the validity of their opinions.

Re:"Looks first" -- even on slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046380)

I think it's really disgusting when guys immediately jump all over a woman's looks like that, especially on a site like this. I'd argue that the post itself was in the wrong by calling attention to her looks in the first place, because we should just be paying attention to the work she's done rather than the fact that she's an "OMG GIRL!" and immediately deciding if she's hot or not.

Anyways, speaking as a girl, it's always amazed me when dorky guys rant and rave about how they'd love nothing more than a dorky girlfriend, and then if they actually manage to find a dorky girl who doesn't fit their idea of "gorgeous" they ignore her for somebody who looks better but has a bad personality. Then they always wonder why their relationships never last, and they end up being used...

Re:"Looks first" -- even on slashdot (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046408)

"doesn't fit their idea of 'gorgeous'"
I think you misspelled "mental".

Re:Gorgeous? (1)

GerbilSocks (713781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046339)

All women are beautiful.

Re:Gorgeous? (1)

bitt3n (941736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046489)

OK, time to log off WoW for a few moments and catch your breath.

A little late for April Fools quality articles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046131)

Oh, wait, this is slashdot...

The REAL Purpose of DRM (4, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046135)

A late attempt to keep the secret of printed word hidden from the peasants and the surfs.

Those uprisings do cause ever so much trouble.

-Lord Rove II

Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM (3, Funny)

randomiam (514027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046230)

Peasants don't surf.

Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM (2, Funny)

LordOfTheNoobs (949080) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046308)

A serf on the other hand...

Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM (3, Funny)

macsox (236590) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046268)

...because once the surfs get ahold of the printed word, the ink starts to run, and the pages get all soggy.

What's the point? (2, Insightful)

Phantombrain (964010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046144)

Why would someone even want to turn a DVD player into a battlebot? And even besides that, Why would makers care? If more DVD players get destroyed, that means more are bought. Why spend more money to make less?

What? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046146)

"Don't try to even think of this at home."

What the hell does that mean?

Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (0, Redundant)

OmegaBlac (752432) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046161)

Gorgeous nerd Annalee Newitz...
WTF? Is this is your definition of gorgeous [alternet.org] ? Is this some type of late April Fool's joke or have you been drinking? Or are you refering about her "gorgeous" mind? I guess just about anything with a vagina will look gorgeous to slashdot geeks.

Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (4, Insightful)

munehiro (63206) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046198)

Well, imho she is not that bad, and you should consider that:

1) you don't see the body
2) the photo is BW
3) the photo is small
4) the photo is crappy
5) there are people that appear not so good in photo but they are pretty in real life.
6) and most important, a girl can be gorgeous in her ideas and behavior, and you evaluate more and more this point of view as you get older.

therefore, you have to figure out in real life.

Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046232)

6) and most important, a girl can be gorgeous in her ideas and behavior

So, how was your trip down the rivers of Egypt?
Gorgeous is about looks. This "but she has a great personality" stuff doesn't apply.

Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (4, Insightful)

darkonc (47285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046253)

All you can really tell from the picture is that she's not ugly. As a sometimes photographer, I'd say that they're not particularly flattering pictures.

I've seen people go from drab to sexy with just a change of clothes. These webcam images say that there's a good bit of room for potential. I definitely not expect a date with her to be drab.

.... and a freaking school photo! How many hot babes do you know that have ID pictures that make them look like complete blobs? Besides. Intelligence counts for alot, and she seems to be missing nothing there. we can work on the rest later.

Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046290)

How many hot babes do you know that have ID pictures that make them look like complete blobs?

That's a trick question! ;- )

Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046322)

Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (1)

munehiro (63206) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046344)

ok ok... I saw much better, but also much worse.
Her eyes are really beautiful, though.

Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046485)

You can't fuck her eyes. Only her eye sockets.

You forgot 7 (1)

TCQuad (537187) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046263)

7) Pictures on-line may be hours, days, months or years old and people's appearance will change. Her techsploitation info page has her looking either slightly butch [techsploitation.com] or anime (you gotta have blue hair...) [techsploitation.com] .

So, basically, unless looking at her turns you to stone, let the original poster have his humble opinion and, if you want to disagree, that's fine, but let's not turn this into a discussion over whether this woman is hot or not. There's a website for explicitly for made for that discussion [hotornot.com] if you're into that sort of thing.

Annalee Newitz? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046163)

Gorgeous? lol ppl here are so funny.

Err... (4, Interesting)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046166)

Am I the only one who feels more confused after reading TFA?

Is this supposed to be a joke, or some form of satire? A "jest" at "nerds"?

Re:Err... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046300)

No, that's just the way Newitz writes. I get the treat of reading her on dead trees, namely SF Weekly. She's the print version of slashdot, with just about as much intellectual vigor. Occasionally she'll break the mold with a column of +5 insightful, but it's quite rare. Every column is rah-rah-linux, booh-booh-microsoft, isn't apple so awesome, and isn't sco quite the dastard, my yes. Nothing I couldn't get from reading OSNews or slashdot, and while I'll give her credit for having basic spelling and composition skills, the caliber of her writing barely rises above that.

You obviously caught her dipping below her meager average -- every column is like one giant insider gossip.

Re:Err... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046305)

I asked myself the same question. I get a feeling she knew what she was going to write when she started the article, but forgot when she was half way.

*snort* (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046168)

"the Ubuntu and Gentoo groups are particularly vicious"



hahahahHAHAHAHAha he heheheheheheh

....not nearly as *truly* vicious as getting into a slap fight with a macboi when he starts swinging a designer leather iPod case!

this is stoopid (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046174)

i want more ponies and barbie
i dont like the othe r stupid stories. :( :( :(:(((

Looks... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046200)

It would be nice if women could be judged on the merit of their ideas instead of their looks. Just a thought, you know :-P.

Re:Looks... (5, Funny)

Lispy (136512) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046225)

Please don't complain that /. is not women friendly. Not after yesterday. I am still suffering. :)

Re:Looks... (1)

jrmcferren (935335) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046370)

Pink is not too bad on a black background. But don't take women for their looks. I would love to go out with women that a dying virgin slashdotter would not want to even think about being on the same planet as them.

Re:Looks... (1)

MonkWB (724056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046506)

you TOTALLY posted as AC then responded didn't you?

Re:Looks... (1)

behindthecamera (964294) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046319)

Yes, and then we would all go to the gumdrop waterfall in the land of happy ponies and drink from the chocolate stream, where the fuzzy bunnies roam, free from the wolves of society! A Candyland Utopia!

Re:Looks... (5, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046437)

Bet you're just saying that because you're ugly.

The loud ones (1)

Craig Ringer (302899) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046454)

Like in many things, I suspect it's the negative stuff that gets noticed. That, and the fact that there are a HUGE number of immature geeks on slashdot. I'm not slamming the whole crowd here ... but with this many people and anonymity you'll get a lot of gits turning up.

I cringe at comments quite frequently, but there's just nothing to be done beyond grimace and stagger onward. In an anonymous online situation the chances are that if they said something dodgy in the first place they're not going to care if you pull them up on it.

Gorgeous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046469)

I was thinking more along the lines of "fat-assed, hook-nosed kike", but YMMV.

Re:Looks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046526)

I think the tomatoe has a point, broads are judged by their looks sometimes. Now if we could only keep our eyes off their cans, we might realize dames are more than a nice rack ;)

ummmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046255)

I guess this is funny ???? ?????

Oh, of course (0, Flamebait)

Rodness (168429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046266)

It had nothing to do with preventing unauthorized copying. The Hollywood corporations didn't care about that, no sir.

They were just worried about geeks cockfighting their dvr's and tivos in a parking lot outside Fry's at 2 in the morning. How humanitarian of them.

This (!gorgeous) woman needs her journalism degree revoked, because this article is ridiculously stupid tabloid trash. Whatever she's smoking, I'd like some please.

Re:Oh, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046303)

It's called fun. You should try it some time.

Re:Oh, of course (3, Insightful)

Winlin (42941) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046309)

Let me make formal introductions...Rodness, humor. Humor, Rodness.
Or, in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn "It's a joke son, get it?"

digital rights management (3, Funny)

henster29 (965532) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046275)

Its rights.. not restriction

Re:digital rights management (2, Interesting)

Shai-kun (728212) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046474)

That's what they want you to think.

Re:digital rights management (2, Insightful)

n6kuy (172098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046477)

No, it's restriction, not rights.
Rights are inherent; they don't need to be "managed".

 

"Gorgeous Nerd" (-1, Offtopic)

behindthecamera (964294) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046282)

...now THERE'S an oxymoron. ;-)

Humor (or lack of sense of) (1, Insightful)

muchtooold (826024) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046321)

Some of these comments suggest that urgent humor transplants are needed.

Digital Rights (2, Funny)

Jerf (17166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046326)

Your digital rights to swing your digital arm ends where my digital nose begins!

(Digital, digital, didgeridoo...)

Evasive tactic (2, Interesting)

AnalogDiehard (199128) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046328)

Hollywood doesn't want the words "fair use" to be uttered to their congresscritters, and they want to draw attention away from the Sony fiasco. This is just an evasive tactic to lend legitimacy to DRM.

Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (5, Insightful)

svkal (904988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046332)

Do the Slashdot editors really feel that introducing a woman by a description of her (in this context irrelevant) physical looks is appropriate? (I say "woman" because I have a hard time imagining that Slashdot would introduce a male with a similar adjective: a case in point is that it was obviously a joke when they commended Linus Torvalds on his physical looks yesterday. If they were to do it in a non-joking manner, that would obviously be just as inappropriate as this.)

As was pointed out yesterday by several posters, this year's April Fool's was more than a little misogynistic in that it seemed to imply(obviously through exaggerations as Slashdot normally does on April Fool's) that women would like pink and ponies rather than technology news. I'm quite willing to let that slide, knowing that subtle humour is not really Slashdot's forte - but really, they shouldn't push their luck by describing female writers as being "gorgeous" the day afterwards.

(I do know that "political correctness" is largely frowned upon at Slashdot, but really, this isn't about submitting to some ever-changing and arbitrary standard, it's about basic politeness and showing respect for the people you are describing. You don't bring things like physical looks into the picture unless they are somehow relevant, and you certainly don't set different standards for what is relevant depending on the gender of the person being described.)

(Oh, and if anyone feels the need to argue that though "gorgeous" in this context obviously wouldn't be said about a male subject - given the gender of the Slashdot editors - it is a harmless one-word compliment which doesn't lastingly change the focus of the discussion: do note that there's already a thread contesting [slashdot.org] that Ms. Newitz is "gorgeous" based on a 120x130 grayscale picture in her profile. (Which in and of itself confirms some stereotypes about geeks.) Would there be such a thread debating this unless the submitter/editor had seen it fit to mention this in the introduction?)

Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (2, Interesting)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046393)

Excuse me. Allow me to refer to this particular female, then, as Ugly Ms. Newitz. We wouldn't want to compliment a person just because they look attractive, now would we? Especially if the compliment couldn't, in good faith, be given to a guy. I'm sure nobody ever called Brad Pitt gorgeous, no sir! I shall make certain that all the Slashdot editors are sacked, and then sacked again.

Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (1)

svkal (904988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046499)

If Slashdot was a celebrity magazine, physical looks would be - in a sense - relevant. As it is, I'd be surprised if they referred to Brad Pitt as "gorgeous" if they've ever mentioned him, and I would think them unprofessional if they did. However, Brad Pitt is, at least partly, paid to look pretty - so commenting on whether or not he does in the context of his films is not really horribly impolite, though I would certainly feel it awkward and out-of-place in many different contexts. This woman is a writer; her physical appearance is as irrelevant to the issue as that of a programmer, or for that matter, a Slashdot comment writer.

(As an aside, I'd say that Slashdot is sort of a "celebrity magazine" or a tabloid for geeks in that they are sensationalistic and oversimplify things for entertainment purposes - but still, focus on physical looks haven't been one of their vices until now. I'll be perfectly content to just find something else to read if this does become permanent policy. I note, however, that several other readers reacted to this superfluous description much as I did, so I'm not entirely alone in thinking that this would be a change for the worse.)

(Oh, and you'll note that my issue was not in particular with giving a compliment, but with bringing up the issue of physical looks when it is irrelevant. Thus, calling someone ugly is just as bad as calling them gorgeous when it is inappropriate - though, obviously, societal norms make the former a far worse faux pas.)

Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046419)

I had originally planned on writing an extremely well-thought-out reply, but then an idea struck me that was so powerful I just had to write it here instead:

OMG! Ponies!!!!

P.S. On a more serious note, if you want to see slashdot articles with men described as "gorgeous" therein, why don't you just submit one yourself? Just a thought. :P

Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (1)

eluusive (642298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046438)

Incase you didn't notice, the "editors" don't write the stuff in quotes. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a quote, by definition. Some dude named Roberto used that adjective.

Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (0, Troll)

Copy, Paste, Repeat (965073) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046481)

You're fighting a losing battle. Slashdot is a forum for slovenly males who don't know/don't care how to get along in wider society, much less wider society that cares about such irrelevancies as being polite and having a little class. Apparently that's the way they like it, so don't come here expecting anything else. It's a little like going into a men's locker room and complaining about all the dicks.

Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046487)

Linus is a fatty and one of those Finns who talks funny with long words with too many vowels and umlauts over everything.

Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046508)

Sounds like someone needs a good deep-dicking.

O.M.G. (3, Funny)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046337)

Is this really such a slow news day that this is news?

Did someone have too much to drink yesterday? (2, Insightful)

Ka D'Argo (857749) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046368)

Cause this sure as hell is not "news" of any kind. Mod me down if you want but this was a waste of fucking time to read. Decently hot chick or not, the article was bogus as hell. Who gives a rats ass about this? Sure fighting robots is cool, but some half assed non-true tagline that is full of shit is not cool in the least.

Is it a slow Sunday or what? Is this the best that's come into the old Inbox today?

Ummm (1)

Parham (892904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046391)

I have absolutely no idea what that article was about. Whenever I thought something insightful was about to be said I was disappointed. Can someone actually tell me what that article was about (if anything)? Was it meant to be a joke article? What was the point of it?

Not anymore! (1, Offtopic)

BumpyCarrot (775949) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046412)

That's the last time I do anything in a backalley with a vacuum cleaner and a cock, hur hur hur...

...boring, stupid, etc. (1)

Refrozen (833543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046433)

With the tagging system, we can tag this garbage as stupid! Maybe they'll realize we don't care.

Huh? (2, Interesting)

FullCircle (643323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046455)

Does anyone have a clue WTF this article is about?

If the summary is that bad, I'm not about to click the link.

Re:Huh? (1)

slappyjack (196918) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046472)

If the summary is that bad, I'm not about to click the link.

wow. afraid to click a /. link. I mean, i know the bits are expensive, but geez.

it's tongue in cheek humor. get some.

Gaming for women? (-1, Troll)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046458)

Roomba cockfights sound like a perfect way to not only attract women to gaming, but to do it without distracting them from their God-given task of keeping the floor clean!

Gorgeous?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15046502)

She looks like a man, man!

http://www.techsploitation.com/img/conference.jpg [techsploitation.com]

LAME! NO PONIES!!! (2, Insightful)

SmurfButcher Bob (313810) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046511)

TFA is useless! No kittens! No ponies! No fluffies!

Knew it had to be a joke... (1)

TheRealBurKaZoiD (920500) | more than 8 years ago | (#15046513)

...as soon as I read the first four words: "Gorgeous nerd Annalee Newitz"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?