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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So, the other side? (Score 1) 421

by AxeTheMax (#49803933) Attached to: Mandriva CEO: Employee Lawsuits Put Us Out of Business

So? You think running a successful business takes some kind of extra special skill set? Higher levels of skill, talent, and perseverance than earning a PhD, and/or making a discovery, advancing science? More than it take to create and play a hit song or write a best selling book? But it seems more and more that the most important things successful businesspeople have are connections, and the skills and willingness to finesse the legal system to bribe the powerful and cheat the most vulnerable.

Lots of things are tough. Doing the right thing is one of the them.

Cancel undintended moderation.

Comment: Re:Zero tolerance (mainly of birds) (Score 1) 225

by AxeTheMax (#49796681) Attached to: Why Detecting Drones Is a Tough Gig
Yes, this is what I suspect the result will be. That birds will be killed indiscrimately whenever and wherever the military / security situation deteriorates. Even in normal times I can see this happening over key locations, over tense borders, et.c.. Birds that keep to small territories will be less affected, those that migrate or have large ranges might be in increased danger of extinction.

Comment: Re:How is this tech related? (Score 1) 156

by AxeTheMax (#49769889) Attached to: EU Drops Plans For Safer Pesticides After Pressure From US
Yes, I did read the summary. Then I also read the stories referenced there. You're implying that there was no lobbying by the US, while the articles clearly states that there was lobbying both from the US industry association and the US government, as well as from some European businesses. There is also mention of pressure from Canada and Brazil, but funnily enough it lists the US first.

Comment: Re:A flat universe is not conclusion of the articl (Score 1) 235

by AxeTheMax (#49656821) Attached to: Shape of the Universe Determined To Be Really, Really Flat

If we are affected, we can observe these effects.


No, it literally does mean that nothing else can affect us.

Absolutely not. We know only what we have observed and deduced in the limited life of the human race. Other things that we have not observed or deduced yet will emerge. But until they do, we don't know that they are there.

Comment: Re:A flat universe is not conclusion of the articl (Score 2) 235

by AxeTheMax (#49652981) Attached to: Shape of the Universe Determined To Be Really, Really Flat

The problem is, that as far as can be determined, what we have observed, is all that mankind will ever reasonably be able to observe on this matter. So unlike the glass of water above, its like observing 99% of the lake and finding no lochness monster, then concluding there is no lochness monster.

What we have observed is what we can observe, and it may be all that we can ever observe. It does not mean that there is nothing else that can affect us. A better example is of someone stuck in a little cove, observing the ocean from that viewpoint, hence seeing only a fraction of it. As far as that person is concerned there need be nothing else anywhere.

Comment: Re:And probably infinite (Score 2) 235

by AxeTheMax (#49652947) Attached to: Shape of the Universe Determined To Be Really, Really Flat

Flat does not imply "infinite". I see no reason that it is "likely" the universe is "infinite". "Infinite" in actualized physical terms is meaningless,....

'Infinite' in mathematics is not a meaningless concept, hence the possibilities of applying that maths to the physical universe remain. You probably mean that in your model of things there is no place for this concept.

Comment: What else is driving this (Score 1) 58

by AxeTheMax (#49452587) Attached to: After EFF Effort, Infamous "Podcasting Patent" Invalidated
I'm amazed that the USPTO is allowing patents to such ridiculously obvious notions, and that they take huge amounts of money to even challenge. What, apart from greed and lawyers, is keeping this system alive? Is it the possibility of control it gives big players over small ones?

Comment: Re:Wait... what? (Score 0, Troll) 228

by AxeTheMax (#49337425) Attached to: How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament
One of the 'good actors' was the first to develop and has been the only one to ever use nuclear weapons. Despite there being no military reason for it other than to demonstrate a more efficient method of killing civilians than anything that had been developed before. You're talking poppycock, either because you chose to be deluded in favour of one side, or because you're stupid and swallowed all the propaganda you've been fed.

Comment: Pigeons could be drones (Score 1) 92

by AxeTheMax (#48038415) Attached to: China Worried About Terrorist Pigeons
Whether this story is true or not, one thing is certain, the next time there is a land battle between two technologically advanced armies, they will shoot every bird out of the sky in case it is an enemy drone. A major land war could be another significant extinction event for wildlife. Rats and cockroaches will survive of course.

If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.