Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Or not. (Score 1) 610

This is the same argument that people make for abstinence-only sex education. When it's done perfectly, it's perfect. When it's not done perfectly, it's a fucking disaster.

I have a 2 and a 4-year-old. I bust my ass to keep tabs on them and I'll rip the face off of anyone who claims otherwise. But I'm not perfect, and neither are they. Why the hell would I gamble everything on my ability to be perfect?

Whenever someone mentions tracking technology, everyone gets their panties in a giant knot, and there are real issues there, so that's fine. But let me put it to you this way: If you had the ability to put a small device on your child that communicated in an encrypted fashion with a mobile that you carried, and it was impossible for anyone else (your mobile provider, Google, Apple) to learn ANYTHING about where you child was except you, wouldn't you do it? I sure as hell would. It would be negligent not to.

So the problem isn't knowing where your toddler is through electronic means, the problem is third parties knowing where your toddler is through electronic means. This is a software problem, and one we know how to solve. Let's move on to finding a better way for parents to look after their kids.

Lemon out.

Comment Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (Score 1) 286

That's certainly what a lot of people think. What I'm trying to say is that is not what the evidence says. The innovation happens anyway. Only after the innovation has happened to patents get applied to the new field.

Anyway, check out the book I mentioned (Against Intellectual Monopoly). It spells it out in much greater detail.

Comment Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (Score 1) 286

There's a lot of good stuff in your post. We often forget the historical perspective.

My objection is your conclusion that innovation happens in spite of and because of these patent battles. This is incorrect. Research shows that in almost every field, there was rapid innovation, then patents were brought in to consolidate. The evidence is outlined in the freely available "Against Intellectual Monopoly".

TL;DR - Innovation does not happen because of patents, innovation happens, then patents happen.

Comment Re:SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY! (Score 1) 180

I'm not sure that's possible. However, you can show it "likely" to be true by analyzing industries that do not have intellectual property now, and industries that did not have intellectual property, but now do.

Fortunately, someone has already done this work for you. Search for "Against Intellectual Monopoly", a freely available book, which explores this very issue.

Comment Re:focus on one activity at a time (Score 1) 204

I think this is a naive comment. A lot of us don't have time to not mix the two. I can work, or I can exercise. I don't have time for both. Since I don't get paid to exercise, guess which one doesn't happen? That's the appeal of standing or walking while working.

You're not completely wrong, however. I set up a walking workstation for when I program at home. I found I needed to stop and stand whenever I encountered a difficult issue. It was truly a surprising development. I cannot think as hard or in the same way walking as I can sitting.

It may be there's an adjustment period, and the problem goes away in time. I don't know. Never got that far...

Slashdot Top Deals

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Working...