Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Apple

Submission + - Why did Steve Jobs choose not to effectively treat (quora.com)

Mr.Fork writes: Ramzi Amri, a medical student who did 1.5 years of research on the type of tumor that affected Steve Jobs, writes: "I hesitated a long time before addressing this topic, but now that someone asked me to, I'll just do it. To avoid any risks of bias, let me start by stating that all the details on Jobs' specific case are based on secondary sources, albeit from reliable sources in the media. I write this on a personal title, I do not pretend to know anything about the case on a personal level and I never participated in the care of Mr. Jobs. I base all my cancer figures on sources from biomedical research known to me."

Comment Quick question... (Score 1) 410

How would the authorities and new media react be if we didn't have the Fukushima nuclear crisis we have right now? If not, would we as Slashdotters have gone 'COOL BRO! - SOMEBODY HIRE THIS GUY!' and then that would of been the end of it?

But no. Why are we playing armchair bureaucrats? I know it was a big 'oops' - but he was nothing more than a individual who has a passion for nuclear technology and let me remind everyone - it was he who contacted the authorities. Has this reaction from authorities moved the hobby into seclusion when we need it MORE out in the open?

Just something to think about.

Comment Duh (Score 0) 229

Find a local Comic-Con event of course! It's a GEEK's haven. San Diego is just over, but they tend to roam around North America like Midway filled with Geek carnies. I don' t know where you live but it's worth a shot if one is up and coming to your area.

Comment Re:Best value (Score 3, Insightful) 574

Gellenburg - I think you nailed it. What else is out there that provides the quality of signal, selection, or portability of view-able devices out there that is even remotely compatible? I'd pay triple to get access to even more content, like HBO and AMC shows, and new movies on DVD from Paramount, Universal, Dreamworks, 20th Century Fox etc.

What is crazy is that the senior management of these companies can't see ---here we are SCREAMING --- LET ME PAY FOR UNLIMITED ACCESS TO http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/11/07/21/2023219/Why-Netflix-Had-To-Raise-Its-Prices#YOUR CONTENT---HERE TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE!!!... and they would rather send me a subpoena from a RIAA lawyer. Oh the humanity! :)

Comment what? no training program? (Score 2) 300

Where's the baseball head-splat, and chainsaw training programs for citizens assist in the control of the spread of the disease? Ammo depots? Location to get two-for-one specials for Colt 45's? Bait tactics? how about shot-gun modifications? You know, where to saw off the butt and barrel? And of course, Axe control - how to swing an axe at the head to ensure accuracy? You know, maybe if they created one of those diagram cards like we see on airplanes...that would be good.

Comment interesting... (Score 2) 301

The Netflix business model is proving that a payed-for distributed content is 'working' and successful model! Hats off for Netflix's ability to be innovative with client pull-on-demand content that is shifting TV and online media at its core. The mere $9 a month I pay (and that's ALL I pay for TV since I cancelled my cable) is a drop in the bucket to what I would pay if I could get more content.

What MPAA has to learn is that consumers like a business model where actually 'owning' DVD's is not a choice that most want. I've been also saying that Blu-ray is dead (long live blu-ray) ever since it came out. I really don't care to own a plastic disc with a movie burned on it when I can fire up my laptop or PC or Playstation or Wii and watch any move I want, anywhere I have an internet connection. Heck, my P2P downloading of movies and shows has fallen drastically since I subscribed to Netflix. Would I pay to have access to even more content - YOU BETCHA! Would I stop downloading if I could pay monthly fees to have access to quality Disney, Paramount, Sony, et al studio movies and TV shows? YES!!!!

If I, a lone consumer, can figure this out, why can't they? I just want access - irregardless how I get it. If I can pay for it, brilliant! If I have to pirate it to get access, so bit it. But it's their loss, not mine if I'm forced to be a criminal because the studios can get their heads out of there legal asses and figure out their market and customers are screaming to have access to their content.

Comment I'll say it... (Score 3, Interesting) 238

...the problem with this entire situation is that Japan let commercial companies run their entire nuclear infrastructure. I'm not sure about you folks, but all commercial companies do exactly what is required within the letter of the law, but not an ounce more if it would cost more money. Sure, it's a 40 year old facility, sure it was built within the specs for the time. But it was still operational in 2011.

Question is, would a public-run utility design and build nuclear infrastructure to within the letter of the law or would they 'overbuild' for safety? Is this entire situation the cause of capitalism running into its core fault - its lack of concern for the expensive 'doing the right thing' vs the cheaper 'doing things right.'? I don't really know, but it smacks of the reality of letting a company totally focused on making and saving money vs making decisions to protect the people of Japan.
Canada

Submission + - Studio makes Canadian kids camp drop Tolkien name (www.cbc.ca)

Mr.Fork writes: "A small Canadian Community Association was recently forced to rename the camp after entertainment giant Warner Bros. — the studio responsible for the film trilogy — decided it didn't like the use of the trademarked name and sent the Bragg Creek Community Association a Cease and Desist letter. The camp, formally known as Rivendell, decided to change their name to "Camp in the Creek" to avoid any issues. Isn't it amazingly smart for a big giant media company to legal-troll a campsite for children, destroy their image and free advertising all in one swoop? What a wizard of a move!"
Power

Submission + - Giant Fluid Batteries Store Energy for 2,000 Homes (inhabitat.com)

PeteRoss writes: A consortium of scientists is developing a new type of large fluid battery that will be able to store enough renewable energy to power 2,000 homes. One of the roadblocks to large-scale renewable energy adoption is that it is intermittent — if the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing power can’t be generated, so there is a tremendous need for systems that store excess power to be released as needed. These new batteries are based on redox flow technology — which converts chemical energy to electrical currents very quickly — and each one will be the size of a handball court.
Piracy

Submission + - Piracy is a Market Failure - Not a Legal One (thestar.com) 1

Mr.Fork writes: "Michael Geist, Canada's copyright law guru and law prof at the University of Ottawa, posted an interesting observation about the copyright issue of piracy. Canada's International Development Research Centre, came to a conclusion that "piracy is chiefly a product of a market failure, not a legal one" after a multi-year study of six relevant economies."

Comment to further this topic (Score 5, Insightful) 278

Michael Geist, Canada's copyright law guru and law prof at the University of Ottawa, posted an interesting observation about the copyright fight a lot of these organizations like RIAA and MPAA engage. It's marketing failure, not bad behaviour that is the cause of piracy.

Meaning, it's RIAA and the MPAA failure to properly price their products at a reasonable level that makes the consumer believe that the purchase is reasonable. I mean, if a movie to buy was $1 or $2, would you purchase it or DL it? If a music CD was $3, not $20, would you own your own copy? Or if they offered monthly subscriptions, like the Netflix model, would you subscribe or pirate?

Not only are they missing the boat and stifling innovation, they're attacking and going after consumers who don't believe the purchase is worth the money and then lobby governments to put in CRAZY laws that illegally downloading a movie can cost you $250,000 + 5 years in jail if you're charged and found guilty. Yet get in your car drunk and kill a family of 5, spend 2-3 years in jail + $50,000 in legal fees.

Is it me, or does the who copyright debate sound complete like corporate sheit they've bought and paid for and then rammed down our throats?

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Working...