Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not pointless... (Score 1) 317

by flopsquad (#49770571) Attached to: D.C. Police Detonate Man's 'Suspicious' Pressure Cooker
Sounds like they pretty much did this. So there are two lessons for any cops are reading:

1) If you want to blow up someone's stuff, just go ahead and do it and find some BS you can arrest them for later.

2) If you want to really publicize someone getting arrested for some BS, you should blow up their stuff, too.

Comment: Re:toxic microbeads? (Score 2) 244

by flopsquad (#49756701) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

The article doesn't support the statement that the microbeads are toxic.

Is there any information that the microbeads are actually toxic?

True story. Had a friend in college who would tell you any chance he got to stay away from microbeads, they were the worst thing ever invented, Satan's gift to mankind, etc.

Seems he'd gotten a handjob from a girl who used microbead-laced lotion and it burned the hell out of his junk.

Comment: Re:Principal Needs to Talk to an IP Attorney (Score 1) 375

I'm thinking of starting a hotline, staffed by IP attorneys, where misguided belligerents and would-be Streisanders can call in.

"Hello, if you were thinking about making an absurd intellectual property claim that might get you fired, sued, or laughed at by the entire internet, press 1 now." (normal advice line)

"If you were thinking about making a perfectly reasonable threat, and you're positive it won't get you fired, sued, or laughed at by the entire internet, press 2 now." (emergency intervention line)

Comment: Re:Trademark Fair Use (Score 2) 81

by flopsquad (#49745463) Attached to: Take Two Sues BBC Over Drama About GTA Development
I thought about that. With a quick scan of TFA, I didn't see whether they were filing in the US or UK. Since the BBC has a solid presence in the US, it's conceivable TT could file here, especially if there were plans to broadcast the movie here.

If the suit is in the UK, I can't comment on the jurisprudence. IIRC, they have analogous (weaker) fair use provisions for copyright, not sure about trademark. Any input from a UK IP attorney would be welcome.

Comment: Trademark Fair Use (Score 2, Informative) 81

by flopsquad (#49745185) Attached to: Take Two Sues BBC Over Drama About GTA Development
Between the First Amendment protection for comment/criticism, nominative fair use (how do you do a movie about Take Two without saying "Take Two"?), and zero likelihood of confusion, I don't see how this case has any legs.

See also Louis Vuitton v. Warner Bros (LV's suit over bag scene in Hangover 2 dismissed). This is a good resource generally, though it deals mainly with advertising.

Slap a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie and call it a day. If they want to be extra safe, give it the subtitle "The Unauthorized Take Two Story" or something like that.

Comment: Re:Political hit job (Score 1) 99

by flopsquad (#49740547) Attached to: Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?
Ah but it's so clear! Dice fabricated this story in an intricate plot to get people to come to their news aggregation site Slashdot to post lots and lots of comments arguing politics.

They were counting on an extra boost from the people who come in to say "Hey that's not news for nerds!"

But the final thing that put them over the edge, earning them a coveted 6.2 Internets/$^2, was this very post unmasking their evil plot. By exposing the depth of their depravity, I have made them more powerful than I could ever imagine.

Comment: Re:Not all bad (Score 1, Troll) 318

by flopsquad (#49728067) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

So you've never taken a taxi in a small town? This is pretty much how it works in rural america. The taxi driver drives his own car. You need a new word for that, too?

Honestly, I haven't. For years I had enough trouble getting a taxi in my large (non-NYC) city, and it's even worse where I grew up (both are top 25 US pop). Pretty much any place I go anymore, if I need to hire transportation, I'm not looking up the number for Yellow Cab... it's just much faster and more convenient to pop open the Uber app.

And I do think the Uber/Lyft paradigm is different enough to merit it's own terminology. If I tell a friend I'm taking a taxi, she doesn't think "Oh, he's hailing one of many different types of paid transportation services, one of which is popularly referred to as 'ridesharing.'" She thinks I flagged down an actual cab that was driving by.

Then again, I don't think that "tweep" and "freegan" are all that worthy of new words, but language marches on. Ridesharing isn't really a ride you share with a serendipitous stranger and a peanut is neither a pea nor a nut.

Comment: Re:Not all bad (Score 1) 318

by flopsquad (#49726797) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States
That's a very strange sentiment, given your sig. You don't actually advocate that governments require that, do you?

I think we can all agree that the majority of business on Uber or Lyft is not ridesharing under your definition. Drivers are going to destinations to pick up fares. So maybe the semantics are off on "ridesharing."

But in terms of the demographics, I think a much higher proportion of Uber drivers are able to part time taxi in addition to going to school or another job. In that sense, they are sharing their car and time with the Uber/Lyft pool, as opposed to a full time taxi driver with a bright yellow taxi cab.

The fact that you're in another person's non-taxi vehicle makes it different enough that it merits it's own word. And I can't think of a name that's catchier and more apt than ridesharing. I'm open to suggestions, though.

Comment: Re:Mixed reaction (Score 1) 318

by flopsquad (#49726127) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

the regulations are there to make sure there is is possible to get a taxi at all times, the taxi companies get a monopoly on the good times in exchange for also driving at the bad times

I agree this is one of the reasons taxi regs (ostensibly) exist. I know they're not solely there to protect taxi monopolies.

However, in practice, I have only ever been unable to get an Uber once, when the entire region shut down in a snowstorm. On the other hand, I stopped using taxis precisely because I could never reliably get one, especially during the off times.

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.

Working...