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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:makes no sense (Score 2) 263

by Rockoon (#48595301) Attached to: Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

I personally take a XR medication, even though there are cheap generics for the older two-a-day formulation. If my insurance situation changed for the worse, I'd switch in a heartbeat...

The people in your insurance pool should see to it that you are removed from it, one way or another. Seriously. You are a selfish bastard. Fuck you.

Comment: Re:Can you say... (Score 1) 263

by Rockoon (#48595239) Attached to: Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

Patents have traditionally had an exploitation requirement: you can't just patent something and then sit on it...

You missed the step where they have to disclose, to the public, their invention. Thats why you CAN patent something and then do nothing with it. If you dont want to profit from it before the time is up, then the jokes on you.

This is also why many of the techniques that Intel uses to manufacture chips are not patented. They do not want to disclose, to the public, all of their methods.

Intel now sits on un-patented techniques that it no longer uses, and that my clueless friend is "sitting on it."

Comment: Re:Can you say... (Score 1) 263

by Rockoon (#48595217) Attached to: Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

That's effectively what they are. They don't do the testing.

They do banning, which is NOT "effectively" what he talked about.

The FDA should not be banning things. Speak from that perspective when you wish to trot out your anti-libertarian bullshit. Whats that? Can't do it without the strawmen? yeah... you can't.

Comment: Re:C is primordial (Score 0) 641

by Rockoon (#48577677) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

Times have changed.

People have changed, too.

When C was invented, their werent language snobs. Now there are, and they so desperately want C to be low level (so that they get "low level" cred) that they will invent insane arguments such as "times have changed" and "C occupies a space pretty low down the language landscape"

Its really simple. The definition of "low level language" does not subscribe to a "place" on a "list", or what "time" it happens to be. The fact that you so desperately want to change the definition in a way that makes you a "low level programmer" proves that you are a fucking language snob. You dont magically become a low level programmer while banging C code out just because python was invented, you fucking moron.

Comment: Re:C is primordial (Score 1) 641

by Rockoon (#48554115) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

C is almost ML because almost all features of the langage can be directly translated into a few assembly instructions.

Behold the backward belief system of some of the "C is low level" crowd.

A language is low level if almost all of the features of the hardware can be directly translated into the language. See, you've got it backwards. You want it to be the other way around, but when its the way you want then its trivial to get to the argument that BASIC is low level too.

Another segment of the "C is low level" crowd focuses on pointers. You are all wrong. Was paying attention when the language was invented. Always understood to be a high level language until the snobs came.

Comment: Re:Stop this stupid First past the Post system (Score 1) 413

by Rockoon (#48478751) Attached to: Mathematicians Study Effects of Gerrymandering On 2012 Election

Start using a democratic system where every vote is equal, it's called Proportional Representation and works very well.

Thats fine for House elections, not so fine for Senate elections. The House represents the People but the Senate is supposed to represent the States. We should go back to appointing Senators rather than electing them.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 1) 193

by Rockoon (#48474507) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

What the EU court has set in motion here leads, eventually, to either a Great Firewall of Europe, or the EU getting to perform global censorship against everyone. Neither outcome seems plausible, so, what next?

Why do you think that neither outcome is plausible? Did you also think that It wasnt plausible for the U.S. government to go around seizing domain names? What do you think now that they do it? Did they totally get away with it because of your short attention span?

Maybe you didnt think it plausible that the U.K. would have set up a firewall? What do you think now that they have one? did you already forget that they have one? Did they totally get away with it because of your short attention span?

There is no reason to believe that the E.U. setting up a firewall is not plausible. There is every reason to believe that its plausible, and good reason to believe that its inevitable.

Comment: Re:Uh... no (Score 1) 135

by Rockoon (#48398071) Attached to: Can the US Actually Cultivate Local Competition in Broadband?

. It was too expensive to build out the infrastructure w/o a guaranteed profit

Complete bullshit, multiple levels of ignorance.

First level: It was not too expensive to build out the infrastructure without guaranteed profits because there are plenty of fucking places that didnt grant guaranteed profits but still got cable companies that wanted in You are basically lying right now. You are saying something thats not true in order to justify an argument that doesnt have true justifications that you can easily sell to us.

Second level: Businesses that have guaranteed profits are not part of the free market. They are part of the very thing you appear to be arguing against, but somehow amazingly you dont see the problem with actually using the thing you should despise as a justification for your argument. You are basically saying that businesses should have guaranteed profits, and that we better get the god damed federal government involved to make their monopoly a federal level institution rather than just a local one, and make sure that it guarantees them profits for ever.

What the fuck is wrong with you people. The problem is the monopoly. The monopoly is created in your local government. They gave it to these companies. The federal government isnt the solution. The solution is that instead of complaining on slashdot about how apathetic you are about local politics, you stop being so fucking apathetic about local politics.

Comment: Re:What, exactly, can What, exactly, can do about (Score 1) 135

by Rockoon (#48397267) Attached to: Can the US Actually Cultivate Local Competition in Broadband?

I don't care who does it. It just has to be done, and if somebody has to step because the locals won't handle it, all the better.

Going to be rude here because you deserve it. You are the fucking locals.

What you are saying is that you wont fucking handle it, so someone else better handle it for you, and you dont care one bit who gets hurt in the process of you not handling your own shit.

Comment: Re:That worked out well for AT&T (Score 4, Informative) 135

by Rockoon (#48396791) Attached to: Can the US Actually Cultivate Local Competition in Broadband?

AT&T did not buy everything back up. In fact, AT&T lost it all. AT&T is gone.

It was the baby bells that merged, most aggressive was Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC) which picked up the completely failing AT&T in 2005 and took over its name.

AT&T is dead. Long live AT&T.

Comment: Re:Ted Cruz is Already Attacking Net Neutrality (Score 2, Insightful) 706

by Rockoon (#48351729) Attached to: President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility

Well, except that Obamacare is a conservative approach to healthcare

Only implemented twice ... once in Massachusetts which leans extremely left, and then upon the nation as a whole when the left controlled house, senate, AND whitehouse.

You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.

A conservative government wouldnt do that.

Comment: Re:no dimocrats (Score 1) 551

by Rockoon (#48308349) Attached to: In this year's US mid-term elections ...

so therefore I'm logically going to vote for a party whose official platform includes saving unborn humans, preventing another group of people to also enter into the special rights club, and treat all people the same regardless of their color.

Fixed that for you. You liberals commonly redefining things to sound politically correct rather than actually correct. Go ahead... keep making politically correct excuses for literally murdering a million defenseless people per year, not admitting that homosexuals just want to join the special rights club known as marriage, and calling attention to peoples skin color every chance you get and even sometimes when you dont really have a chance.

You (A) support mass murder, (B) continue to support creating special classes of people with special rights reserved only to the class, and (C) are a racist.

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce