Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Gamers are dead. (Score 1) 239 239

And, of course, streaming and "let's plays." Why are people sitting around watching OTHER PEOPLE play games that they themselves could be playing? But they do!

I'm too busy playing games to play games. Instead I have twitch.tv on in the background while I play games.

Does this make me less of a gamer, or more of a gamer, than were I just playing games on my own?

Comment Re:A Sympton of the Problem (Score 1) 310 310

They are right in the effect. However, you never see anyone take it to the next step. Do we NEED to market to be THAT liquid?

We can't really know the answer to this. The applications that would benefit from instant liquidity haven't been developed because instant liquidity has not been available.

Maybe there are some true killer applications for this that just need a few more years of HFT-provided instant liquidity for someone get around to inventing, and once they do, we'll all wonder how people could even pay their bills under the old system let alone live their lives to the full.

Comment Re:Heisenberg compensator ... (Score 1) 83 83

To me, the weird thing is the notion that you could live in an N dimensional universe yet only be able to interact with N-1 of its dimensions.

The 2D person who cannot perceive up and down: both up and down are there and they produce various forms of inputs to the 2D world so how could he possibly not observe them?

What it is about the Nth dimension that makes it fundamentally impossible to observe directly?

With this concept being so weird it doesn't really explain anything for me wrt QM, it just adds a new question.

Comment Re:Of course it is ... (Score 1) 224 224

TSA is a place where money goes to be spent on the premise that spending money on things which do nothing is better than doing nothing, even if the outcomes are the same.

It that were only the case it wouldn't be so much of an issue.

One billion dollars of pork is just one billion dollars of pork: payouts to the friends of the king, business as usual.

But what they are in fact doing is spending that one billion in order to make the entire rest of the economy less efficient. They are spending one billion so they can make sure another 100 billion is lost or never produced that otherwise would have been.

The one billion isn't the problem, the one hundred is.

Comment Re:So, such rules are bad for keeping people worki (Score 1) 327 327

A coke oven is a chemical?

Strictly speaking pretty much everything we sorround ourselves with is a chemical. (Although a coke oven will typically be several chemicals.)

Obvious exceptions include light and other EM phenomena, plasmas, and elementary particles. Neutrinos aren't chemicals but then we don't really see much of them either even if they are everywhere.

Comment Re:Patents are not the problem. (Score 1) 240 240

Or, according to /. earlier today. The people approving the patents are actually doing whatever the fuck else they want, instead of their job, and getting paid for it.

Which may be rational enough. Patent examiners are educated, intelligent people and they are inside the patent system so they know it well. They probably realize what a complete and unmitigated disaster it is from end to end and figure they have better things to do with their lives than try to polish a turd.

They do like the wages though.

Comment Re:Govt panders to short-sighted voters, news at 1 (Score 2) 291 291

Cheer up and take heart in the fact that even in these tough times of austerity they did at least commit to buying 58 more Joint Strike Fighters for $12.4 billion. Cut down on sicence and buy more flying lemons, at least they have a sound strategy.

That $12.4 billion buys them the continued good will of the world's strongest military power. It's not really about the Australian air force, it's simply cheap insurance.

My country does the same but only half heartedly tries to claim it's all about strengthening the air force. Hell, if we're really lucky there might actually be some decent jet fighters in it for us in the end. That's not the main point though.

Comment Re:It's a tragic story, but.. (Score 1) 249 249

Given the nature of trademarks, DC is pretty much forced to deny such a request since each request granted represents a dilution of the trademark and introduces a small risk of the trademark being lost to DC.

On the other hand it is not clear why their permission is required at all in this case. Trademarks protect against someone other than the trademark owner selling products displaying that mark, but, there is no reason to believe that the intention is to create this statue and then try to sell it to someone as a genuine Superman product. There therefore cannot exist any confusion in the market as to the provenance of the statue since the statue isn't in the market in the first place, and so it doesn't constitute a violation of anyone's trademark.

This would only be an obvious trademark issue if they also intended to create merchandise based upon the statue and then sell that, I don't know if this is the case since as any good slashdotter I never cared to RTFA.

Had this been a copyright issue things would be different.

(I am not a lawyer and these are the random babblings of an amateur.)

Comment Re:What's the big deal, Occulus? (Score 1) 131 131

That isn't consistent with them selling the units. The moment you charge money you are just selling them. If you are selling them, you can't argue you're trying to target devs.

But of course you can, if that is in fact what you are doing.

Then they shouldn't be selling them to anyone who orders one.

And apparently they are not anymore: they're no longer selling to China because they've learned they don't tend to end up with developers over there.

The devkits are theirs to sell to whoever they wish, and if they don't want to sell to China then that's their business.

Comment Re:What's the big deal, Occulus? (Score 1) 131 131

I realize they have the right to stop selling anything to anyone at any time for any reason, but I'm struggling to figure out what their beef with this is.

The value of the Oculus brand is greater the more developers they can snag to work on/with their product, and so the more developers that get their hands on the devkit the better for Oculus. They are limited in how many devkits they can build however and so it is important to Oculus that every single one that they make goes to an actual developer, because that developer increases the brand value. Every devkit that goes to a non-developer is a net loss to Oculus because that is a devkit that did not go to a developer.

This would be different if they were not production constrained but I expect that they are.

... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. -- Fred Brooks

Working...