4 ms·

It's a shame people have this view. They don't seem very interested in the actual facts of the matter either, judging by the reaction to the other post I made o

• justin66 10y ago
  You "balanced out" an Arstechnica article with a really mediocre one from The Register. You expected a positive reaction?
  • spangry 10y ago
    The Arstechnica article was actually a series of two: the first harshly criticising the CSIRO and the second 'clarifying' the first because of the outcry it caused. I thought the Register article was highly relevant because it directly addressed some of the assertions made in the Arstechnica article. I'm not asserting the Arstechnica article is wrong and the Register article is right. But it's an alternate view from what is, as far as I can tell, an unbiased observer. I'm sorry it doesn't line up with the views that you quite obviously hold, but that's just how life is sometimes. You might also wish to consider whether your dismissal of The Register's assertions is logical, as it basically amounts to: P: I don't like A. P: A is asserting X. C: Therefore X is wrong.
    • justin66 10y ago
      I've read all these articles. The Register article didn't strike me as any less tabloidish than is standard for them.
      • spangry 10y ago
        Other than a vague assertion that that The Register article is 'tabloidish', what in the Register article do you think is untrue? They make pretty specific and easily falsifiable claims (as opposed to the Arstechnica articles), so it's really not that hard to point out where you think they're specifically wrong. Do you have anything of actual substance to add to this?
        • justin66 10y ago
          (none of the below has anything to do with CSIRO, really) I haven't got the slightest idea why you view The Register's article as being of superior quality to Ars's, regardless of how you stand on the issues, since it's just a small, sarcastic ("Evil Aussie tax on Wi-Fi") attack on what the author views as the weakest parts of what Ars wrote. Even a blogger would put more effort in. But it seems to me the Register adds a useful, but douchey ("Cisco was scammed!") elaboration on the role of Radiata, sidesteps the question of whether the amount CSIRO was asking was RAND (which is the whole point of everything), and makes some very pathetic attempts to appear balanced in the last two paragraphs. "The hyperbolic statements made by Australia’s science minister and various press should be challenged." But not in this article. Sorry, but this is crappy writing not worthy of deeper consideration. At least Ars tried to write something. edit: thanks for really putting the effort in with your reply!
          • spangry 10y ago
            So, no. Well it's certainly been a laugh and a half.