URL WTF

OzPeter

InfoQ has a wonderful story on Sun's plans for the future: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/11/oracle-sun-palns

Shamelessly stolen from /.

belgariontheking

I think I'm going to give a very loud meh.

Is this the best that slashdot can find these days?

OzPeter

@belgariontheking said:

I think I'm going to give a very loud meh.
Is this the best that slashdot can find these days?

It was not a story on /. but rather a comment to the actual story .. so I think your "meh" counts more as a tl;dr - couldn't be bothered.

morbiuswilters

@OzPeter said:

@belgariontheking said:
I think I'm going to give a very loud meh.
Is this the best that slashdot can find these days?
It was not a story on /. but rather a comment to the actual story ..

Damn, for a minute there I thought Slashdot might be interesting again.

@morbiuswilters said:

Damn, for a minute there I thought Slashdot might be interesting again.

Here, maybe this is entertain you.

<font size="1">Disclaimer: I've never read that blog before nor am I think of doing it from now on.</font>

PJH

@Zecc said:

Here, maybe this is entertain you.

Diocese spokesman William Genello said the photos were not pornographic and did not display nudity or sexual activity.
The photos were not of the Rev. Lyman, nor did he take the pictures, Mr. Genello said.

There were no pictures of minors and no evidence of illegal activity, he said.

[...]

[Rev. Lyman] apologized to those who were hurt by the incident.

Erm - wot?

morbiuswilters

@PJH said:

@Zecc said:
Here, maybe this is entertain you.

Diocese spokesman William Genello said the photos were not pornographic and did not display nudity or sexual activity.
The photos were not of the Rev. Lyman, nor did he take the pictures, Mr. Genello said.

There were no pictures of minors and no evidence of illegal activity, he said.

[...]

[Rev. Lyman] apologized to those who were hurt by the incident.
Erm - wot?

Balderdash! If I had to apologize every time I accidentally showed gay porn to a room full of devout Christians, why, I'd never have the time to take the photos in the first place!

bstorer

@PJH said:

@Zecc said:
Here, maybe this is entertain you.

Diocese spokesman William Genello said the photos were not pornographic and did not display nudity or sexual activity.
The photos were not of the Rev. Lyman, nor did he take the pictures, Mr. Genello said.

There were no pictures of minors and no evidence of illegal activity, he said.

[...]

[Rev. Lyman] apologized to those who were hurt by the incident.
Erm - wot?

The only people hurt in the incident were the guys in the photographs with various items in their rectums.