Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Google+ failed becuase it's GOOGLE (Score 1) 326

by Jane Q. Public (#49566835) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

You don't want that. Maybe you are too young, maybe you just forgot what search engines were like back when they did just give execute the regex you typed in and return the raw results.

Look, let's not get ridiculous. Google's primary ranking is through visits and links to a site. That's all fine... I *do* want my search results ranked by general popularity in that manner.

But those are pretty much objective measures. Now Google is ranking sites according not to what others think, but to what GOOGLE thinks about the content of the site.

That's a completely different animal, and I am completely NOT interested.

Comment: Re:Talk about creating a demand (Score 1) 21

by Jane Q. Public (#49566729) Attached to: Why Our Antiquated Power Grid Needs Battery Storage
There are other -- probably cheaper -- solutions for local storage than batteries.

A couple of off-the-cuff examples: lifting a very large weight with your excess electricity, then running a generator with it during peak loads or periods. (Did I say VERY large weight?)

Another would be pumped hydro storage. Build a -- yet again very large -- tank at a height. During excess generation periods, use the electricity to pump water into the tank. During peak periods, use the water to turn a generator and reclaim the electricity.

All such systems have inefficiencies, even batteries. But pumped storage and other such solutions are used on a very large scale today... and should be quite workable for the small scale as well. Another advantage of pumped storage is that you now have a nice, big, full water tank with gravity feed in case of zombie apocalypse or whatever.

Comment: Re:Attempting with existing title was a mistake (Score 2) 60

by snowgirl (#49566523) Attached to: Valve Pulls the Plug On Paid Mods For Skyrim

If that was the case you would not have given them 25% and taken 75% for you and the game makers.

You know, I always hate how my grunt work for companies makes them 4 times the money they pay you. It's just greedy theft. We should start a movement where the means of production are owned by the workers rather than investors and management!

Comment: Re:This is a response to RISC-V (Score 1) 34

by Bruce Perens (#49566497) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

Repeating the AC because he's posted at karma 0. That's "University of California at Berkeley", AC, but the rest of this is spot on:

Berkeley University is pushing really hard to get universities to adopt RISC-V (an Open ISA and set of cores) as a basis for future processor and architecture research. The motivation behind RISC-V was to have a stable ISA that isn't patent encumbered, isn't owned by one company, and is easily extensible (OpenRISC didn't fit the bill here).

I can see that ARM and MIPS would have a problem with this, especially as there is nothing particularly innovative or performance gaining about either ISA, and some recent RISC-V cores have demonstrated similar performance to some recent ARM cores in half the area. This is there way of fighting back against something open that stands to lose them significant marketshare.

Cool. Someone found us the agenda!

Comment: Re:It's marketting, not "open source". (Score 1) 34

by Bruce Perens (#49566485) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

I get paid to train EEs within large companies on intellectual property issues, and to help the companies and their attorneys navigate those issues. Infringement is rife within software companies. Not because anyone wants to infringe, but because of a total lack of due diligence driven by ignorance.

Comment: Re:Talk to us first if you wish to patent the chan (Score 1) 34

by Bruce Perens (#49566471) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

You've made my point for me.

And any informed patent holder knows that any violation must be prosecuted, or the validity of the patent evaporates.

No, that's just the ignorance of the uninformed that "everybody knows", but it's wrong. You don't lose your patent from failing to enforce it. You might be confusing it with trademarks, which can go into the public domain if you allow them to become generic terms rather than specific brands. And you can sometimes lose the capability of being able to enforce against a specific infringer if you hold back until the market develops, that's the Doctrine of Laches. But you don't lose your patent. Nor would you lose your copyright due to failure to enforce.

Comment: Re:Mid-engine sports cars (Score 1) 141

by drinkypoo (#49566351) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues

There is no reason that a company couldn't custom design a safe frame first and build a car around that, but the big (3?) names aren't nimble enough or interested to become that until more Tesla-like companies come along to shake up the market.

It costs a lot to build a safe car. Tesla and Audi A8 drivers walk away from accidents that tear their cars in half. But you'll note that these are some of the most expensive cars to produce. Cadillac is now using the same techniques (plus some, so they can build an aluminum unibody with steel floor pans) so your wish has been granted, the first genuinely safe cars are coming out from a big 3 automaker. Problem is, they're coming from the marque that doesn't share platforms.

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson