Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:What about the cost for enrichment waste? (Score 1) 169

Lockheed starting with not using a tokamak is probably the best idea. ITER has sucked up 16 billion Euros and still is far from completion. When done, it will create only 500MW (goal is for 1000 seconds).

One way I've heard suggested to store both clean and non-clean energy is Flywheel Kinetic storage with magnetic bearings and in a vacuum to reduce friction. I don't remember a lot about it (saw an online video or a TED conference or something on it), but I recall a company buying off-peak hour electricity and then selling it at peak hours, so it may be the Beacon Power listed in the wiki article.

Comment Re:Yes, but because (Score 2) 189

Except Taylor Swift failed to curry favor from any studio and her dad bought a studio to get her signed and recorded, so that is probably a bad example. That kind of got her a leg up, but aside from that she has earned her own success. I still say she always has been a pop artist though - if your hits are mostly I-V-vi-IV progressions (four times on this list), you are as pop as P!nk or Nickelback (she has gone full pop now, but was originally marketed as country).

Comment Re:Yes, but because (Score 1) 189

Except that isn't true for over-the-air broadcast radio. The musicians and the studio don't actually get a penny from radio play, even sometimes the singer - that is considered promotional. Only the songwriter (they guy or gal that writes the lyrics, if any) gets paid. For many years the studios would be forced to pay money to get airplay, as well (payola).

Furthermore, musicians get screwed by the recording studios, as well. Usually the contract requires ownership rights of a recording to be owned by the studio and not the musician. Even worse, some studios make this a "work for hire,' meaning the rights never transfer back to the original artist (it is corporate owned with a longer copyright). EMI retroactively made their entire catalog works for hire, meaning bands like Pink Floyd are perpetually corporate owned. If you think that is the end of the screwing, nope - all production costs come out of the musician's cut - recording, promotion, packaging, etc. As a musician, you can sell 20000 albums and still owe money, especially if you got an advance. The studio can then go after your gear if you didn't pay back your advance (very easy to do if your band is a business, not so easy if it isn't).

I got out of the business precisely because it is unfair and leeching. I did try my hand at songwriting for a bit, but I got a Software Engineering degree and it was far easier to do that than try to peddle songs.

Comment Re:WTF is the matter with you people? (Score 1) 246

it should not be mad max, since NONE of the ORIGINAL CAST, CREW, OR MEMBERS IS APART OF THIS NEW PROJECT AND PROBLLY FOR GOOD REASON.

As opposed to the Star Trek 2009 which had Nimoy alone, and in a bit part.

screw mad max, lets cal it what it is, Mad charlez, the rise of estrogen in a post apoplectic world..

Oh, you're one of those guys. OK. Thanks for clarifying; that explains a lot. I'm not a feminist (except in the "women are equal, we should treat them like people" sense), but you'd have to be a major MRA to have any problems with Fury Road. Oh, there was a strong woman character and Max had a peer and an equal. Shock! Horror! [insert eye roll here] If you can't enjoy Furiosa being as fierce of a survivor as Max, then there's something broken in you.

Comment WTF is the matter with you people? (Score 1) 246

"News for nerds." It's right up there in the tagline. Mad Max is near the top of the geek movie franchise pantheon, probably just below Star Wars and Indiana Jones. This isn't a new Fast & Furious, it's a new freaking Mad Max. You know, that thing that got a lot of us into postapocalyptic / dystopian sci-fi flicks. If this doesn't count as cultural news for nerds, I can't imagine a lot else that would.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 321

Why would anyone, ever, think that me not looking at their ad should be illegal?

It goes a lot deeper than that. I am running software on a device I own. That software requests a resource from a remote service. After receiving it, the same software manipulates that resource in ways I have specifically asked it to in order to meet my needs.

The plaintiff's case is that they have a legal right to tell me how to view a resource once it's on a machine I own. Copyright etc. isn't involved; I'm consuming a properly licensed copy of the resource that they sent to me. I'm not distributing it, either in original or modified form.

There are already a million other ways I might modify that content today. I can apply my own CSS so that font sizes and contrast are to my liking. My web browser may actually be a speech synthesizer or braille reader. I may be viewing it on a mobile device that simply can't render it in its original form. But according to the plaintiffs, none of that matters: either I view it as originally intended or not at all.

If they're going to assert insane things like that, I suggest they form a W3C working group to publicize a standard way of describing what uses are acceptable for that content. Then my web browser could parse it, see "ADS_MAY_BE_REMOVED: FALSE", and give me a popup saying "This page is published by sociopaths. Continue?".

Comment Re:Which string theory? (Score 1) 148

No, I agree. If Feynmann can't follow their calculations, there's something largely amiss. Then again, that was a while ago and for all I know they might be making perfect sense now.

But I still contend that "it sounds like gibberish to laypeople" is a pretty low bar to set. It's almost impossible to describe something like QCD to non-phycisists without stopping twice a sentence - "well, not a literal color", "not 'up' like in 'gravity'", etc. - even at the high school textbook level.

Comment Re:Thanks, Obama (Score 4, Informative) 389

Um, someone WAS trying to do something about it - Congress actually tried to sneak in an extension - there was a provision in the USA FREEDOM Act that extended section 215 until 2019 (originally it was 2017, and Rand Paul especially objected to tacking on another 2 years). That was passed by the House but defeated in the Senate. Incidentally, Obama was pro USA FREEDOM Act as well (and yes, all those caps are necessary - FREEDOM is a backronym, though I don't remember what it means).

Comment A year from now: TWC on Overstock.com (Score 1) 206

"Please buy me! Won't someone please buy me?" How FUBAR is TWC that they're so ready to sell to someone, anyone? Either a) they had this in the pipeline before the Comcast deal fell through, in which case how many other deals are on standby?, or b) they brokered a major corporate sell deal entirely within the last month, presumably under immense pressure.

In my opinion, TWC is desperate to sell because there's an internal house of cards that's about to fall over. Someone needs to unload it quickly so that a pending spectacular failure will be on someone else's watch.

Slashdot Top Deals

You must realize that the computer has it in for you. The irrefutable proof of this is that the computer always does what you tell it to do.

Working...