Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Then let us sue the government! (Score 4, Interesting) 76

by backslashdot (#49779991) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Patent Troll

It is absurd that the USPTO has a massive backlog on patent issuance -- by law, it is expected that a patent term is 20 years from the filing date -- however there is an exception to that rule if the patent is not issued within 2 years -- if the patent is not issued within 2 years (due to a USPTO delay) the clock on that 20 years is paused until the patent issues. There are still hundreds of thousands of patents filed on things like HDTV which havent yet issued. It means that HDTV technology will be patent encumbered for the long term future. Nobody has the incentive to fix it. If you wanted to make an open hardware HDTV, you can't do it royalty free because a lot of the HDTV standards essential technologies are still patented and will STAY patented virtually forever thanks to the USPTO patent backlog. Why would any tech companies object to that? They make money off the patents they filed that got issued PLUS the ones that were filed but the USPTO hasnt taken action on them. Think about it this way if Sony filed two patents on HD technology, they get one of them issued fairly quickly within 2 years .. and then by luck or bribery the USPTO action on the second patent is delayed 19 years just as the first patent is expiring .. then because it's the USPTO's fault that the second patent didnt issue .. they get to claim 17 years of additional monopoly on the HD technology. I am not against patents, I am against infinitely long patents .. which are unconstitutional .. yet in practice the USPTO is enabling it. Let's not forget that the constitution only authorizes patent rights if and only if they enable the advancement of the useful arts and sciences (and those too for limited times).

Comment: Translation (Score 5, Funny) 107

I took a few Khan academy courses on MBA stuff, so I can translate it from corporate speak to straight talk:

1. Long range outlook: batteries or fuel cells?

Answer: I have no freaking clue bro.

2. Charging at gas stations?

Answer: Not gonna happen.

3. The volt has poor aesthetics, will the GM skateboard's swappable chassis concept become real?

Answer: Some people are buying ugly, so we'll continue to sell it. I am going to ignore your question about the GM skateboard and swappable chassis (which are never gonna happen btw) and talk about fuel cells instead. Fuel cells -- I know nothing about them.

4. Will I be able to buy a Spark EV in Georgia?

Answer: No, we don't sell to hicks. We would only consider selling you guys a car that isn't ever going to be made.

5. What is Chevy's plans to extend the Voltec system into other models such as the Trax and/or the Equinox?

Answer: Never gonna happen. We still want your money though, so why don't you buy one of our cars that use the same floor mat as a Volt?

6. Why don't you guys advertise the Volt?

Answer: Have you seen the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" starring the EV1? Well, we are setting up the Volt to star in the sequel.

7. Will you guys make hybrid pickups again?

Answer: No, we rather sell you the gas guzzlers and get the oil company kickbacks.

8. Are you guys benefitting from Tesla's open patents?

Answer: Yes, but we'll never admit it. Btw, did you know that GM's vagina is much deeper than anyone else's?

9. Would you guys ever use ultracapacitors?

Answer: What's an ultracapacitor? I am going to have to google that one.

10. Would you make the charging go faster?

Answer: No. Deal with it.

11. How is the upcoming Chevy Bolt going to get 200 miles per charge with a base price of $30,000?

Answer: It is impossible.

Comment: Re: Compelling? (Score 1) 243

by backslashdot (#49731765) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

I lol at everyone thinking there is no way to break into and dominate the supposedly saturated TV market. First off, as long as there are people who have money, even the market for pet rocks is not saturated as long as you can put some lipstick on it. Is the market for luxury anything saturated? As long as the human need to show off oneself as superior exists the market will never die. You diamond dust the carbon fiber bezel and make it expensive enough someone will want it. Second, current TV interfaces are horrible and unusable. Using a TV should be as easy as walking into your living room and saying "TV, ESPN" then when you see that ESPN is boring you should be able to say "TV, recommend some popular action movies I haven't seen" .. And then a list of choices should pop up. We ALREADY have the voice recognition ability to make this possible. Google Now and Siri work fine with a TV full volume in the background so you can't tell me a TV can't cancel out its own sound. Why is it that Samsung smart tv voice recognition is worse than on a Galaxy phone?? And Samsung smart tv has no natural language query interpretation ability. It can't even identify its own channels!!
So basically it's very simple for a company like Apple to make a compelling TV product if they invest resources in it. And that's even assuming they don't buy or create their own Netflix and offer on demand streaming content for subscription. Mind you they have the $$ capital and heavyweight to offer much better content than Netflix. So yeah a compelling and differentiated TV is certainly possible and plausible in spite of the naysayers. Samsung and Google would never be able to deliver on it, only Apple can.

Comment: Re:What in the actual fuck! (Score 1) 152

by backslashdot (#49470713) Attached to: Sharp Announces 4K Smartphone Display

That's just false. The screen power drain is mostly due to the backlight which is no more brighter than any other screen so that won't draw more power. As for the GPU it doesn't have to render the image fully in situations where 1080p suffices .. it can just render at 1080p and then upscale the image to 4k.

Comment: Re:Humanity is lost (Score 1) 290

How many calls do you fools get that you need to screen calls? "Ring Ring .. let me check my douchewatch .. hmm .. not answering!"
Answer all your calls. I can see the need for a smartwatch to answer texts though. When someone texts you, respond on your douchewatch with "call me" and then don't answer the phone.

Comment: Witricity (Score 1) 290

How could they release this thing without a technology like Witricity or whole room charging?? It should be able to charge in a room or when you are sitting on the couch and also in the car without having to deliberately place your hand/watch in a specific location.

I mean we have the technology for whole room charging, so why not use it? They have like 100 billion dollars in cash couldn't they have spent a few million and figured out how to put Witricity into the watch? Now even Samsung won't do it until they have Apple does it .. so we have to wait for Apple to get this idea.

Well I know they are reading slashdot cause thats where they got the downfacing IR sensor and vibration messaging idea .. http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... so maybe they will grab this one too.

Comment: Select your servant (Score 2) 294

by backslashdot (#49329963) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk

When choosing a servant, you want to interview them to make sure they aren't anywhere as smart as you. At least now in general, maybe in a specific task .. but in general you don't want them overall smarter than you.

In the future, instead of having a job you will own shares in a factory that has robots. In essence you will own a robot .. and the output in terms of productivity will be your salary (or shareholder dividends). For those who do not invest wisely, the government will provide them some minimal amount via taxation of the shareholders. Or maybe the company directly. I don't know. Vote for for what you like.

Since robots will be doing all the work, the cost of stuff will be dirt cheap. Food will be synthetically produced in giant vats, powered by fusion energy.

Comment: Have we handed the government control over it? (Score 1, Insightful) 347

by backslashdot (#49243697) Attached to: FCC Posts Its 400-Page Net Neutrality Order

This may not work out in our favor over the long term. How soon before they start overtly regulating content?

This Net Neutrality "gift" may turn out to be a trojan horse. There must have be some other way to ensure the net stays neutral without classifying it as a utility subject to government meddling.

: is not an identifier

Working...