GG never made sense. projecting data onto your visor for real-time augmented reality? that's cool.

Onto or into? That makes a huge difference here.

They won't, because they'll be dead.

And that's exactly the point.

It's not quite as short-sighted as business managers only looking after the next quarter, but when people are being asked to sacrifice now for a payoff that is beyond a human lifetime, that's a very hard thing to sell. Especially when no one believes that other major countries such as the BRICs will sacrifice as well.

Define "device".

"Device" has always meant the motherboard.

More proof that this debate is political and not scientific.

It has been political all along. Regardless of the scientific basis, the consensus view of the American public is that they do not want to sacrifice their lifestyles for the environment, especially in this case since the benefits are non-tangible. All of the political debate is simply an extension of that.

If you live in the USofA, you are in more danger of being killed by someone in your family than by a terrorist.

I see where you're going, and fair enough on a statistical basis. But my family is composed of good, just, and law-abiding people. They are not the people I am worried about dying from

The question is whether you believe there are more terrorists in the USofA or more bad cops/contractors/other-people-with-access-to-track-your-daughter.

Without question, the former. My daughter is being raised to say yes sir and no sir, please and thank you. A proper respect for authority (be it her parents or police) but also the wisdom to understand that humans are not perfect.

You know who has trouble with "bad cops?" The people who don't respect authority in the first place. The people who have done things that harm others and the society at large. My daughter will never be in a confrontation with the authorities - never become a Michael Brown - because she has been raised to understand the need for the police and for keeping the peace (as much as I can teach her).

Once you sign away her privacy she probably won't be getting it back.

I grew up through the end of the cold war, the rise of the Internet, and the integration of Lawful Intercept into telephone communications. I am still here, still free, and still have my privacy. This is no different, and I expect to be able to say the same about my privacy 30 years down the line.

I dont like the scumbags that shoot up chocolate shops and newspaper offices or crash airplanes into buildings or blow up nightclubs but I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated.

And I would rather not die.

Freedom is an incredible, wonderful thing. But there comes a point where I need to balance that with other things such as seeing my daughter grow up.

Bad Google BAD! *Smacks the nose*

In all seriousness, when the hell did we vote an advertising company as the security czar for the Internet?

Not only is releasing right now stupid - patch Tuesday isn't for another month, so they've just done maximum damage - but we've seen what happens when outside forces try to rush MS security patches. Things get broken in hilarious-but-awful ways.

When you're dealing with a codebase as large as Windows and have to maintain compatibility across an impossibly large array of hardware configurations, 90 days (really more like 60, depending on when PT falls) is not going to be enough time to patch and fully test every flaw.

There's no excuse for making gamers spend time with their families on Christmas, damn it.

Some of us spent quality time with our families by gaming, you insensitive clod.

Not to be preachy, but it always strikes me as odd to what lengths some people will go to mitigate the damage their drinking does, rather than exercising just a bit of self control and not drinking to the point of intoxication. Having to make computers take care of us in this fashion and stop us from harming ourselves just seems silly.

I don't think anyone wants to get rid of the alternatives.

A lot of aspects of Uber are great. GPS and billing aspects for a for-hire car service are a massive step up from traditional taxis and make the system far more convenient for the end-user. The cars are almost always nicer than taxis as well, as even though there are taxi standards, Uber drivers generally hold themselves to a higher standard.

However there are also some real downsides to Uber that need to be dealt with. Their flippant attitude aside, they do not take sufficient (and legally required) steps to insure the safety of their drivers and vehicles. And their surge pricing, though a very traditional microeconomic solution to demand, is not appropriately transparent to all riders.

But the sad thing is that the things that make Uber great and the things that they do wrong are not diametrically opposed to each other. Uber can still offer a superior way to hail and track cars while making sure their drivers are suitably monitored, insured, and investigated. Uber could meet all of these regulations and still offer a great service, yet they don't because of only what can be described as unrealistic cost projections combined with the mother of all superiority complexes.

There's no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too in this situation.

Is there any evidence (or even suspicion) that either side here used either the patent filing or actual stolen technology to create their product? If not then the laws are clearly broken when we are allowing non-revolutionary ideas to be patented.

NVIDIA holds a very large graphics patent pool. In a lot of ways they're the successor to SGI, and in the interim have picked up companies such as 3dfx, which has further enlarged their patent pool. Which makes it very, very hard to efficiently implement a GPU without violating some of those patents. Proving malice may be difficult, but it's hard to imagine building a competitive GPU and not infringing on those patents.

As for whether the patents are revolutionary, that's a trickier point. If you researched into the same problems as NVIDIA a lot of your solutions would be similar/identical even without seeing how NVIDIA does it. But for a number of these patents the solutions are non-obvious; it's only after doing research and a lot of simulation do you come up with the same answer.

No one pays the compulsory licensing fee anymore. It's all done by negotiation now. That's one of the changes Congress made in the last decade when they made licensing a viable alternative to must-carry.

If that were the case, more of us would get mod points more often.

What happens is that the moderation system is biased against frequent visitors. Visit more than once a day and you'll basically never get mod points. Go away for a day or two and you'll come back to a heap of them virtually every time.

I'm not sure why Slashdot does this. One would think frequent visitors would be the people you'd want modding - someone who will see a story before it's too old - but perhaps they want someone a little less fanatical? Or maybe the mod points are to entice you to stay?