Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I must be old (Score 1, Insightful) 79

Well grandpa, do you remember the HiFi craze? we wanted to completely simulate an orchestra, or whatever sound. Turns out that you can get easily to 95% of fidelity while the other 5% still makes the difference and can't be overcome, unless you spend insane amounts of efforts.

Look at this demo. Impressive, yes. Real, no way. At this stage I think we could convincingly fake a super8 movie, sure. So what? what for?

+ - Patent Issued Covering Phone Notifications of Delivery Time and Invoice Quantity->

Submitted by eldavojohn
eldavojohn writes: The staggering ingenuity of the US Patent system has again been showcased by the EFF's analysis of recent patents. This week's patent and follow up patent cover the futuristic innovative idea that when you order something, you can update your order and add additional amounts to your order while it's being processed. But wait, it gets even more innovative! You may one day be able to even to notify when you would like it delivered — ON YOUR PHONE. I know, you're busy wiping all that brain matter off your screen as your head seems to have exploded. Well, it turns out that inventor and patent holder Scott Horstemeyer (aka Eclipse IP, LLC of Delray Beach, FL) found no shortage of targets to go after with his new patents. It appears Tiger Fitness (and every other online retailer) was sending notices to customers about shipments. Did I mention Professional waste-of-space Horstemeyer is a lawyer too? But not just a regular lawyer, a "SUPER lawyer" from the same firm that patented social networking in 2007, sued Uber for using location finding technologies in 2013 and sued as well as a small time shoe seller for using shipping notifications in 2014.
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Try again... 4? (Score 2, Informative) 222

by SydShamino (#49594775) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

The definition of stealing does not require tangible property, it just involves depriving the owner of that property.

If you take a trade secret from someone and share it with the world, you have stolen the trade secret, because, while the owner might still have the information, they have been deprived of a secret that was not yours to share. Plagiarism too is a form of stealing, for you are depriving the author of a work from their name rights. (And yes, while not honored in the U.S. outside the bounds of copyright, I agree with the moral rights of authorship.)

Copying a song does not deprive the owner of the source copy nor the author of the original work of anything, hence it is not stealing. It's not even a crime morally. In the U.S., Congress has decided to sometimes make this a civil crime called copyright infringement, because the Constitution allows them to do so if they think it will encourage more work from those authors. Something it's not a crime at all, like for older works or government publications.

In other words, I agree with your sentiment, but don't wrap the definitions of theft and copyright infringement up in the terms of tangible property. Intangible things can be stolen, too. Focus on how it deprives the author of something they previously possessed.

Comment: Re:This riot started with a press release (Score 5, Insightful) 141

by SydShamino (#49589523) Attached to: Can Riots Be Predicted By Social Media?

Most of us are willing to create civil unrest about something, at least in theory. That's why you have all those guns, right? It just has to be bad enough that you see civil unrest as the only available option.

For emotional teenager minds, police in riot gear surrounding you and presumably yelling at you to disperse while simultaneously preventing you from leaving might be that trigger. Sure the first guy who threw a rock was probably an asshole who should have been expelled for something else months ago, but others might join in who would have also been perfectly happy to just get on a bus and go home if they had been allowed to two hours earlier when school let out.

That's where the police failed - by creating a situation where immature people feel rioting is their only option, when they just as easily could have tackled the rumors of a riot by trying to disperse the kids into the city and away from trouble instead.

In other words, police showing up in full riot gear and marching in unison down the street at you is an incentive to start a riot. Honestly I'm surprised the libertarian gun-loving wing of Slashdot isn't rising up to support people "resisting the police state".

Comment: This is not a matter of neutrality (Score 5, Interesting) 430

by marcello_dl (#49584453) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

As usual, the hotly debated themes are ill structured, intentionally I guess.

The problem is not what the telecom companies should do about their packets.
The problem is that if you sell me INTERNET access I should be expecting:
- a way to send/get packets to all internet peers, at my own risk and responsibility
- an IP with the ability to open the ports I want
- if technically feasible, and now it is, symmetric band I/O

If telcos decide to meddle with anything above they should
- lose common carrier status and become co responsible.
- not call it internet. Youtubenet facebooklink flixnet for netflix or whatever, sell it at reduced price and get the new generation of imbeciles on board there and off the real net.

It's a win/win.
Back to topic, Rand Paul should focus on freedom of communication, which sidesteps this debate once and for all.

Comment: Re:truly an inspiration. (Score 1) 493

If being gay were being blond, the blond agenda is not "we are persons like you", but "all hair color is the same, don't talk about it", which is reactionary. I sure understand the historical reasons, but it becomes an exercise in controlling other people's ideas. Today it's gays, tomorrow who knows.

Comment: Why I refused to sign up (Score 5, Insightful) 359

by SydShamino (#49557795) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

Not that it matters any more, but if you work for Google and wonder why ignored all those invites, it's because you, Google, insisted I change how I share my use of your products as a condition of joining Google+.

Before Google+, I used a variety of your products - blogspot, youtube, search. You know that the same person was using all these services - but the world in general doesn't, and most importantly, none of them were tied to my real name.

Then, to join Google+, you wanted me to "convert" my account, and attach my name to everything.* I was not interested in that, so I diligently stayed away. For Facebook, on the other hand, I knew going in that it would use my real name. (I still waited as long as possible and only signed up to avoid becoming a hermit.) Since I knew my name would be attached from the start, the way in which I share has always been somewhat sanitized.

Because you, Google, are so many things, you can't be a real-name social network, at least if you insist that I retroactively claim ownership over everything else. Sorry.

* Even if this isn't true, this is what I got from all of the media coverage, discussion, and your own promotion. If I understood this all wrong and could have keep using the other services separately and anonymously, then it's your fault for advertising Google+ so badly. That's sort of sad, given that advertising is your business.**

** IIRC they did change this eventually, but by then Google+ was already an obvious failure and it wasn't worth creating an account.

The greatest productive force is human selfishness. -- Robert Heinlein