Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Defensive (Score 1) 97 97

I don't know how anyone could have modded your post insightful. as you demonstrate a profound lack of even the most basic understanding of the topic at hand.

No, defensive patents are primarily a tool to avoid being sued by patent trolls, when rolling out their new product.

USPTO of course does not distinguish one from the other, and once KA or whomever goes belly up, the offfice furniture and patent portfolio gets sold to patent collectors who quickly turn around and sue the world.

It would however be gross negligence to not seek defensive patents. A single run-in with a patent troll is enough to put a startup out of business.

Comment: Re:and... (Score 1) 299 299

Batteries is not the answer to everything, in fact they are merely a distraction.
Likewise recycling is not the answer to everything, it is a distraction.
Technology is also not the answer, it is a distraction.

Consume less.
Waste less.
Reuse more.

I'm all about conservation, but in the end, it is every bit as much a distraction as that stuff you don't like.

Because in all conservation efforts, the end is people using so little resources that it is effectively zero.

While I suppose you don't believe that, tell me, what is the amount of conservation of materials that compensates for population increase?

Let's say we all use 10 percent less of something. Let's say water.

Each new person on earth then uses up water to the same level the rest of us are using, which is 90 percent of what we used before.

So for every new person, how many people's savings in water have been used by this new person?

So we have to reduce all that much the next year, then the year after that, and on and on. Eventually no one uses any water.

That's easy enough.

Consumption = #consumers * avg consumption per consumer.

When I said consume less, it applies to both factors at the macro level, and at each consumer at the micro level.

So yes, eventually, one needs to make less babies.
Which again, one should encourage policies that tend to reduce overpopulation.
Wealth tends to cause smaller families .
More education causes smaller families.
Atheism etc.
Family planning (no more catholic church throwing hissyfits about condom prevention)
The stone age pension plan of producing many offsprings so that they can care for you in old age is going out of style. In some countries they are plagued with both pests: A very powerful catholic church that is aggressively against prevention ( it is political suicide to go against the church), and a large impoverished population that still uses the stone age pension plan.

Will the world eventually need to re-introduce Mao's 1-child plan?
Politically that is not likely nor very humane, so those who care for the future existence of humanity need to work on the known factors that can prevent overpopulation.

Comment: Because it is a SOFT science (Score 2) 174 174

You can measure how many parts per million of some matter is in teh air.
You can measure how many bacteria of a certain type is in your blood stream.

How do you measure if someone is in a good or bad mood?

The tester's bedside (or couch-side) manners can be enough to tilt the result one way or the other.

And if the researcher has an idea of what he is looking to find, he can (even subcounsciously) manipulate the patient into reacting one way or the other, tainting the measurement.

What do we measure, how do we measure it? The subject could be lying. They subject could be be imagining something. The tester has no way to verify.

Reproducibility is NOT the problem.

Even research that was reproduced can be wrong, for same reasons as above.

The NATURE of the field is the problem, not the lack of reproduciblility.

Lack of reproducibility is merely the proof that there are fundamental problems with measurements and conclusions.

But I agree that the conclusion we can draw, is that there are a lot of false positives.

Comment: Re:and... (Score 1) 299 299

If you simplify too much, you become a simpleton.
While entrenched interests yield their muscle, you cannot ignore the laws of physics and economics.

Batteries is not the answer to everything, in fact they are merely a distraction.
Likewise recycling is not the answer to everything, it is a distraction.
Technology is also not the answer, it is a distraction.

Consume less.
Waste less.
Reuse more.
Avoid wasteful trips.
Stop throwing away useless stuff.
Stop buying shit that has too much packing materials.
Learn how to shower with less than scolding water.
Wear a sweater in winter and don't wear one in the summer.

Example of moron economics:
Buying a hybrid car for $10,000 more to save money on gas, when your existing car has several more good years in it.
In order for that to make economic sense your commute needs to be several hundred miles a day, and gas prices needs to remain at record levels for many years. Most car owners don't realize that the vehicle itself and insurance insurance is by far the most expensive part of owning a car, unless your car is a 15 year old honker, in which case it pays to keep that honker going, unless you're so inept that you don't know how to change a light bulb..

The grid has other more cost-effective options than batteries for energy storage, and there are other more novel, but more appropriate technologies fo rlarge scale energy storage.
FlyWheels, pumping water back into reservoirs, manufacturing of hydrogen gas for fuel cells, manufacture of methanol , etc.

Comment: Re:Because Grief is a harsh mistress (Score 1) 313 313


i suggest you chop your own head off and send to a cryogenics lab, while it is still functioning, and not cancer-ridden.

maybe you can be thawed out and can be their leader in 2150.

And if you find my comment morbid, we have a circular argument going here.

Fucking moron.

Comment: Re:Who to believe (Score 1) 78 78

You should believe it because it makes a whole lot more sense than the shite is refuting.

If you have been to any 3rd world county, you would know that the surplus market, where used goods from richer countries are highly sought after.
That includes bikes, furniture , other household items, electronics, etc.
People happily pay higher price for a second hand european or US made product than the equivalent new product manufactured in china, which often breaks after a few uses.

Ans yes, people in poor countries repair their tvs, cd players, electrical fans etc. when they break. We just toss it out because it would not make any sense to pay some schmuck $50 to fix a $30 item. The math is very different when the repair cost under a dollar per hour,

I applaud your SKEPTICISM but i suspect is it just camouflaged ignorance.
Too many schmucks have never been anywhere or seen anything or have a mind to think outside their little browser.

Comment: It is par for the course, unfortunately (Score 1) 78 78

Agenda Journalism, mixed with sensationalist journalism is doing this kind of shite all the time.
And the lazy journalism does not end there.
The stories and pictures is often translated and copied to other media outlets without proper source attribution.
Teh original articles often lack permission from photo subject, and are ripe with exaggerations, short on facts, and fabrications are common.

The media outlets perpetrating this shite are rarely held accountable.

Comment: So does this prove that Tom Cruise, John Travolta (Score 1) 208 208

and the other crazies were right all along, that psychiatry is not a real science?
Or does it just prove that the general understanding of math and statistics (except among matematicians) are fields that are in free fall, and that a few years from now, college graduates won't even be able to recite the multiplication table up to 10?

Comment: Re:Because Grief is a harsh mistress (Score 1) 313 313


Regardless of religion, all cultures from far back have a concept of peace in death. Death brings peace. Even if peace just means absense of motion. The idea of people being brought back for dead is considered creepy. They are called zombies, exception I guess is the jesus zombie, which was a well publicized parlour trick.
Even atheists care about what happens to their remains.
Some happily give their remains to science, some prefer to get incinerated and sprinkled, others prefer to get buried 6 feet under. I am sure a small minority would be content to be stuck in a freezer instead of incineration of being eaten by worms, but culturally, most humans do not swing that way. Nither do they prefer to be hoistred on a pole and used as a flag, or displayed in a circus side show as a freak.

It might be based entirely on superstition that we need to treat the dead with some respect. In reality, it is the Memory of the dead ones we must treat with respect, and if teh dead one is sent off in a freakish way, that overshadows the other memories of the dead one.

So yes, deep freezing teh girl is a horrible thing to do, and is extremely disrespectful to the girl. Grief can cause people depression, and depressed people can do crazy things, These are mitigating circumstances, but it is still a fact that the girl is being treated with the utmost disrespect.

That you speak otherwise just shows how ignorant you are about the world, humans, and culture. You might think you are being neutral and scientific, but you really are just being pedantic AND ignorant. Science does not exist in a vacuum.

No skis take rocks like rental skis!