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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:wrong question (Score 1) 54

Honestly, I'd beg to differ. When you cut a human body open you're likely to find a relatively standard set of organs. Even with all conditions and permutations it is a whole less open-ended than say driving a car, where arguably a lot of odd conditions could happen at any time. In short, there's a few vital functions that that the body must uphold and if a robot surgeon does he's not making anything worse. He might not cure everything, but that's not the point.

Comment Re:Well, sure, but... (Score 2) 295

Millennia is a very short amount of time with respect to the evolution of our genes as a species native to this planet and coordinated with the environment.

Humans can evolve surprisingly quickly. Look how quickly Europeans evolved the gene that allows them to drink milk, for example.

Your argument also supposes that rising above hunter/gatherer is a benefit and desirable.

Yeah, it is.

Comment Re:I wish I could buy GMO seeds (Score 1) 295

but that all the types of proteins in the new crop are not known, and their effects when consumed by humans are not known either, neither in the short nor the long span.

Anyone who has these concerns has not actually looked at all the testing that is done on GMO crops before it's released to the public.

Comment Re:Well, sure, but... (Score 4, Insightful) 295

The mistake isn't the GMO part. The mistake is considering *grains* food at all. It is not.

ok, here's where you know you've gone off the deep end....when a food that people have eaten for millennia is considered not a food, you need to re-evaluate your dietary ideas.

Cool history fact: do you know that the ability to store grains through the winter might be one of the major things that allowed humans to stay in the same place and build settlements? It helped them to rise above hunter/gatherer.

Comment Re:Well, sure, but... (Score 5, Insightful) 295

therefore they have a right to know whether or not the food they buy contains GMO ingredients

Then they should only buy food labeled as "GMO Free," which is manufactured specifically for people with those kinds of concerns.

the federal government has a duty to endure that foods and other products are properly labeled, which in this case, would be a large, conspicuous "GMO" on the front label.

Large, conspicuous, and the front of the label? You aren't interested in people being able to inform themselves. If that were the case, you would be satisfied with a line in the ingredients. Your goal is to make GMO scary to people, with a large scary label on the front.

Comment Re:What we have vs. what we want (Score 1) 318

A conversation about the internet that is long, long overdue: Is what we *have* what we *want*, and if not, what can be done about it? What we HAVE is a global network that will never, ever let you forget that silly thing you did whilst young and drunk that everyone thought was so hilarious at the time. Is that really what we want?

Maybe not. But it's kinda meaningless to quibble about the negative side effects when it's obvious the positive effects are so huge there's no way we'll give up on it, nobody likes drive-by shooting but it's obvious we're not going to give up cars. Yes, we would like a free global information-sharing network.

Comment Re:No (Score 2) 318

This. By far most embarrassing things you've said or done are laid dead when you own up to it and say I was young and foolish, okay? Most of the problem actually comes from shielded youngsters who are still too mentally immature to blush, cope and move on. Of course there are situations you might be caught in that would be genuinely embarrassing, like revenge porn but then you're typically dealing with malice and an army of Internet trolls who won't let it go away anyway. In short, either you ought to grow a thicker skin or you have to grow a thicker skin.

Comment Re:Translation ... (Score 1) 66

Which roughly translates into "Wouldn't it be awesome if all you bitches had to keep paying us money?".

At least in this case it seems to be the other way around. MPEG-LA believes that there are already patents in play here, so they want to form a patent pool to get the matter settled before it derails further adoption of media streaming. The organization's entire reason to exist is to form patent pools to bring together disparate parties and avoid a fractured market where members' technologies don't get adopted due to overly-complex licensing terms or fears of patent suits.

The MPEG-LA ultimately serves the interest of patent holders, but they have done a relatively reasonable job of it. No streaming fees on H.264, yearly caps, etc. Which is why the HEVC Advance splinter group formed, because they didn't think MPEG-LA's pool charged enough. Which should tell you what the real money grubbers think of MPEG-LA.

Comment Re:Kickstarter? (Score 3, Interesting) 552

Except that they're coming in way below their yearly outlook which said:

Revenue:
$18 - $20 mm
Adjusted EBITDA:
$5 - $6 mm
Net income:
$3 - $4 mm

But later they're giving Q2 figures saying for the last 6 months:

Revenue:
7,667 mm
Adjusted EBITDA:
0,852 mm
Net income:
0,316 mm

If the last half of the year is the same, they're only making about 15%-20% of their planned net income. In fact, the last quarter they made no money at all. So I'm thinking way, way less.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...