Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Do We Want Privacy? (Score 1) 58

by gnupun (#48682167) Attached to: Google and Apple Weaseling Out of "Do Not Track"

So change that. We can work to subvert tracking online and campaign against tracking (and for regulation) at the same time.

If the solution meant changing the Internet Protocol, can that be accomplished without a huge cost?

Unless we don't really want privacy. But I hope that is not the case.

Yes, the subservient sheeple, the boot-lickers of authority figures, have no problem sharing their data to big authority. The remaining people will not agree this bullshit.

Comment: I knew it (Score 1) 486

by gnupun (#48678667) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

What the anti-immigration people don't understand is that there is a huge variation in ability between competent programmers and exceptional ones, and while you can train people to be competent, you can't train them to be exceptional.

Then why are exceptional and competent programmers paid roughly the same salary?

Comment: Re:Syntax looks gnarly (Score 1) 187

by gnupun (#48676113) Attached to: MIT Unifies Web Development In Single, Speedy New Language

I see a function called double which implicitly takes a parameter n and returns true if n = 0, and false otherwise. Would it have killed them to separate the parameter from the "body", and used proper names?

You have to get used to that. In functional programming, parentheses are usually used to denote function calls. For eg:

x = foo(bar(10), 20); // C
(let x (foo (bar 10) 20) // lisp

Comment: Re:Patents... ugh (Score 1) 60

by gnupun (#48668713) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

I reject the entire concept that an idea can be your property.

It sure as hell is the property of the person who created it. What was your involvement/support in creating that idea? Nothing. Who made you and your kind god to decide what the price of such thing should be? By rejecting the notion of idea as property, you can steal it for free.

Property can really only be physical.

Property is composed of ideas + raw material. Most raw materials are cheap and plentiful on the planet, good ideas are not. The value of the product comes from the ideas that conceive it and the skill and labor that mold and combine the raw material into a product. Therefore you are paying for ideas and product manufacturing skill when you buy a product.

Comment: Re:Patents... ugh (Score 2) 60

by gnupun (#48668651) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

But everyone gets a chance at it, and the inventor is already compensated.

And why should they get a chance? What exactly have they done to deserve this chance? Absolutely nothing, they are just a bunch of evil freeloaders! Well, the inventor has probably been compensated enough according to you, but not according to the inventor.

I want the inventor(s) paid well, and I want it to be related to the actual value of the invention.

To your perceived actual value of the invention? Why should anyone care? The price is set by whatever the inventor can get from the market, not that set by a committee of socialist morons.

What I want to eliminate is the monopoly, because that's an albatross around everyone else's neck, a huge, hemorrhoidal, bleeding, infected open sore on the ass of progress.

Maybe you should learn the ABCs of something before writing on the subject. Every company makes profits due to barriers to entry to competitors. Some examples of barriers are, access to huge capital, favorable real estate, good product design, smart employees, etc. And patents are another type of barrier to entry for competitors and they are completely legal. The intention of patents is that the person who invented the product or sold the invention to makes the profits and not someone who had nothing to do with it.

Are you willing to share 10% of your salary with homeless people? If no, then why should any inventor share his invention with any other people?

Comment: Re: I'm starting to think it's this simple... (Score 1) 60

by gnupun (#48666877) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

If we're going to have patents, why not make them last forever and cover everything?

Yes, there's not much logical reason to time limit the validity of patents, except perhaps the sky high pricing of patented goods. Maybe patented goods should cost less after a while, but not completely free like it is right now.

Let every school pay a fee for teaching Newton's methods and algebra

Algebra and Newton's methods are laws of nature and cannot be patented. However, the discoverers of these laws should be similarly rewarded using a different type of patent system. After all, the technological progress of the entire society is built upon just the works of these idea people, the scientists, mathematicians and patent holders.

Comment: Re:Patents... ugh (Score 1) 60

by gnupun (#48666783) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

Software patents are utter bullshit from word one. They should just go away and stay away.

The main thing wrong with software patents is the nonobviousness bar. That bar should be a lot higher that it is before a patent is accepted. Something like the one-click patent should not be allowed.

Hardware patents are something else, but it's pretty clear they are being *very* poorly managed.

Digital hardware is not very different software, it's just more parallel and more limited than software.
Verilog/VHDL are very similar to C/Ada.

Perhaps a way for society to pay for an invention, and once that's been done, it goes right into the "available to everyone" pool.

LOL, doesn't the current patent system already do that? Oh, you meant a system where the customers (society) decide the price of a patent and pay only once, like a salary. That's stupid, because customers will always low-ball what they want to pay, especially the open source folks, who think everything should be free. The price of any goods/service should be set by the seller, not the buyer. The buyer only has the right to buy or not buy. Anything else is fascism or communism.

Panels of experts setting perceived value and an immediate payment being made, followed by a revisit ten years later to determine how it all went, with extra reward possible if the invention's impact was underestimated?

LOLOL, nobody knows how much a patent is worth beforehand. It could be worthless, or a few bucks, or billions. Unless these experts are mind readers, there's no way they can estimate the price of the patent. You just want to create a system where the patent holders are royally screwed and you can get their ideas for cheap.

Comment: Re:Surge pricing during security incident (Score 1) 187

by gnupun (#48660405) Attached to: Uber Pushing For Patent On Surge Pricing

That would be stupid, and so your idea is stupid, because you're demanding that other people behave stupidly. You don't operate a private transportation concern below cost.

Okay, it's stupid because you say it's stupid. But it's okay for predatory, opportunistic vendors to fleece customers at a time they badly need a service. It's okay to charge 10 to 20 times what it costs them to provide said service, but start whining about some law of nature (it's not) called capitalism to justify their ripping off people.

I don't think it's stupid, in fact it is quite fair and efficient. During low demand periods, these services lie unused and that's a waste of resources. Lowering the price to below cost is counter balanced by the high prices during surge pricing -- therefore the taxi operators don't suffer any losses. This is just a variation of the freemium model which works quite well.

But you do charge what the market will bear, and in fact capitalism works better when you do that,

That would be fair if employees could apply the same principle to employers -- demand from them a salary they can bear. Instead, they are just paid living wages, plus some token amount for their education/experience. I find that capitalists usually just collect and combine works of their employees and deliver them to customers. But they pocket 70-90% of the product price for this simple service. I don't see how this is justified.

Comment: Re:from the what-until-they-get-a-load-of-this dep (Score 1) 291

by gnupun (#48658333) Attached to: Amazon "Suppresses" Book With Too Many Hyphens

And you think proof reading is the only difference between a amazon digital book and a traditionally published book? A paper book publisher does cover design, has a printing press to print books and ships books to distributors and retailers. Those are the main reasons for the small cut for the author. Digital books have no printing and transportation costs. Plus, the paper book author had no choice but to get what tiny income he could because there was no practical way to sell books without a publisher. With the internet, you don't need any publisher, not even amazon.

Simply hosting a few MB file (the book) and processing a credit card payment is not enough to justify charging 30%. The need to proof read too. Apple checks (proof reads) apps before they are published in the app store.

Comment: Re:Missing feature (Score 1) 37

by gnupun (#48648131) Attached to: Google+ Will Make Your Videos Look Better

Automatically fix the dreaded Vertical Video Syndrome.

The fix is quite simple: the video recording software on mobiles should display a warning: "Warning: Hold phone horizontally to get a better video" or something like that. Of course, the warning should be easily dismissible if you really want to shoot a VV.

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening