3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSo, no. Well it's certainly been a laugh and a half.