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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented (Score 5, Insightful) 164

If you don't know how it works, it's only because you haven't bothered to look it up.

Not exactly. You only know how PageRank worked at the very beginning, when it was patented. That is far from "the" Google search algorithm these days. It remains one of the most important ones, and possibly one that's fundamental to how Google's whole search engine works, but they have many, many other algorithms that govern search results today. Most of these are not patented, mainly for the reasons mentioned earlier: If Google patented them, it would have to disclose how they work. Instead, they maintain them as trade secrets, like the formula for Coca-Cola.

In Disney's case, I think it's not really interested in competing with Google. It would much rather Google, Bing, etc look at its patent, say "OK, I can do that if it will get Disney off my back" and implement the patent for little-to-no royalty fees.

Comment Re:Flaws in Liquid Solid Engine (Score 1) 112

The test included filling the oxidizer tank with 4,500 kg (10,000 pounds) of nitrous oxide, .... Although the tests did not ignite the gas

N2O has some interesting properties, one of which is that it is an amazing oxidizer, and another is that it is the only known gas soluble in creme. Oxidizers, btw (directed at wiki author/editor) are not fuel, they are oxidizers, so unless the tests also involved something that could ignite, the gas would not be expected to ignite under any circumstances (but flower and corn explode, which is weird but understood... they're fuel). Not knowing anything more about the incident, I'd guess it was a pressure explosion, and with that much N2O, if the flying stuff and the sudden temperature drop didn't get you the asphyxiation probably would.

Comment Re:But where are the potentional profits? (Score 1) 116

"There IS profit to be made on mining asteroids."

That's absolutely ludicrous. Go find out the spot price for mineral ore that's available by the tons right here on Earth.

Tell me how you intend to make a *profit* by going into space with massive amounts of technology and resources???

To get the same things we already have here?

Space is not a cash machine. The discovery made getting there, being there, and even failing to get there are not something you can readily take to the pawn shop or stock exchanges. There is not a quite simple enough answer for you that would withstand the scrutiny of slashdot. But your question is answered easily if it is even remotely physically and economically possible to nudge a small asteroid, change its path slightly, and have it eventually collide with the Earth, or get into an accessable Earth orbit, during the lifetime of a company that would lay claim to it before it arrives. Find the right little asteroid, and not necessarily one in the asteroid belt but perhaps other types of objects, and its a flying proverbial goldmine... even if its a mountain-sized chunk of silver or uranium. In a debt based economy, it sounds plausable enough to me, even if it takes 400 years to deliver the thing.

Comment Re:And people who write software (Score 1) 152

The copyright for a movie character belongs to the production team that created that character, rather than an actor who simply portrayed them in one or more films. Actors own the right to their own image, but when they play a character they are portraying an image that the production company owns - presumably this is covered in their contracts. They can't simply walk down to the mall and hold out a hat dressed as Captain Jack, even if they played that role once.

Whatever you're describing, it has nothing to do with copyright.

Comment Re:what a showboat (Score 2) 152

What is really sad if the inventor of Wolverine or any of the original characters were to draw and post them online to sell, perhaps in retirement for extra cash they'd be sued into bankruptcy.

Totally false. I'm not sure there's a single pro who won't take commissions. Many publish and sell sketchbooks full of drawings of characters owned by companies; nothing happens. If they were to try to sell actually comics stories featuring the companies' characters, that would probably get noticed very quickly, but just drawing characters has never been considered a big deal.

Comment Re:Spiritual Needs (Score 1) 268

Drugs gives people who need a purpose in their life one. Some people find one without drugs, others are happy without one. But then there's those that need one, can't find one themselves and for them, drugs may well fill that void. That's fine and ok, as long as they leave me out of it, and that includes leaving the tenets of their imaginary friend out of anything that may affect me, be it education, legislation or noise in the form of people screaming I should go to prayer or bells ringing in my ears.

In other words, drugs is something lovely, just don't make a drug out of it.

Sex gives people who need a purpose in their life one. Some people find one without sex, others are happy without one. But then there's those that need one, can't find one themselves and for them, sex may well fill that void. That's fine and ok, as long as they leave me out of it, and that includes leaving the tenets of their imaginary friend out of anything that may affect me, be it education, legislation or noise in the form of people screaming I should go to prayer or bells ringing in my ears.

In other words, sex is something lovely, just don't make sex out of it.

A good job gives people who need a purpose in their life one. Some people find one without a good job, others are happy without one. But then there's those that need one, can't find one themselves and for them, a good job may well fill that void. That's fine and ok, as long as they leave me out of it, and that includes leaving the tenets of their imaginary friend out of anything that may affect me, be it education, legislation or noise in the form of people screaming I should go to prayer or bells ringing in my ears.

In other words, a good job is something lovely, just don't make a good job out of it.

Marriage gives people who need a purpose in their life one. Some people find one without marriage, others are happy without one. But then there's those that need one, can't find one themselves and for them, marriage may well fill that void. That's fine and ok, as long as they leave me out of it, and that includes leaving the tenets of their imaginary friend out of anything that may affect me, be it education, legislation or noise in the form of people screaming I should go to prayer or bells ringing in my ears.

In other words, a spouse is something lovely, just don't make a marriage out of it.

A cat gives people who need a purpose in their life one. Some people find one without a cat, others are happy without one. But then there's those that need one, can't find one themselves and for them, a cat may well fill that void. That's fine and ok, as long as they leave me out of it, and that includes leaving the tenets of their imaginary friend out of anything that may affect me, be it education, legislation or noise in the form of people screaming I should go to prayer or bells ringing in my ears.

In other words, a cat is something lovely, just don't make a pet out of it.

Posting vacuous comments on Slashdot gives people who need a purpose in their life one. Some people find one without posting vacuous comments on Slashdot , others are happy without one. But then there's those that need one, can't find one themselves and for them, posting vacuous comments on Slashdot may well fill that void. That's fine and ok, as long as they leave me out of it, and that includes leaving the tenets of their imaginary friend out of anything that may affect me, be it education, legislation or noise in the form of people screaming I should go to prayer or bells ringing in my ears.

In other words, stupidity is something lovely, just don't make vacuous comments on out of it.

FTFY

Comment Re:First? (Score 0) 128

It turns out that pretty much all biological processes are disgusting. Some people can't cope with this and become reclusive germophobic stuck-ups. Other people accept reality and find ways to be happy about it.

Incidentally, yours was not the first post, and the fact that you gave your post a title suggesting that you cared about getting first post tells a great deal about your maturity level. Not that it matters, you will get modded troll and your post will be read by hardly anybody.

Hi. Not sure wtf you're talking about, but I, for one, find beastiality repugnant. Apparently, you don't.

The post title was referring to the first cross-species orgy. But if your display of your ability to comprehend is any indication, you never had a chance of seeing that.

I thank the mods for correctly determining that I was trolling neanderthals and those that practice beastiality... and I'd do it again, proudly. Mod on, bitches.

Comment First? (Score -1, Troll) 128

indicating that he lived not long after the two groups swapped genetic material. The man likely lived 7000 to 13,000 years after modern humans and Neanderthals mated, dating the mixing to 52,000 to 58,000 years ago, the researchers conclude

Sounds as though it was the first cross-species orgy, which no doubt started that disgusting trend which lives on even today.

Comment Re:New Object (Score 1) 70

Maybe they have stumbled upon some new type of star or object. There are probably all kinds of large things that we have never run across before.

I think that's unlikely. We've seen all there is to see, we know all there is to know.

...about 100 times brighter than the calculated limits of its luminosity..."

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

- Arthur Conan Doyle

Thus, quote obviously, the object is actually 100 pulsars in close proximity and with their pulses synced, appearing as one bright pulsar. No need to thank me, astronmers.

Comment Re:Maybe it's time... (Score 1) 331

Banning firearms will not finish the problem, but will very likely decrease it.

It's a start, but I think an unncessary over-reaction... the US simply needs better gun-control laws, like other 1st world nations with better gun-control laws. Also, the NRA needs to be held accoutable for the unfortunate things their members sometimes do... that will shut them up with a quickness.

Comment Re:Easily done: (Score 1) 331

Who commits 90% of the gun crime in the U.S.? Certainly not law abiding citizens.

Actually, gun owners commit 100% of the gun crime everywhere.

MILLIONS of crimes are prevented every year by law abiding citizens either brandishing (99% of the time) or using (1% of the time) their legally held guns.

Millions? Ok, cite 50 from 2014. You can't? Stop making shit up. That is total bullshit. Regular gun owners almost NEVER stop crime. They are mostly afraid to, which is why they feel more secure with a gun. They do often make boo boos with their weapons. And you know what? Unarmed people stop crime all the time, far far more often than gun owners. Crime fighting gun owners, take a break! We (the unarmed) got this.

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Working...