Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Was there any doubt? (Score 5, Interesting) 136

Once there was a creature called the Short Nosed Bear.

They weighed on average 900 kilograms - basically 2000 lbs. The largest of them were over 12 feet tall. - more than twice my height. They could reach up and grab things 14 ft above the ground. They could run over 40 mph. On all fours, were still taller than men.

They ate meat. Humans are made of meat.

Humans lived in the same place as the Short Nosed Bear. Humans that didn't have bows and arrows, let alone guns. Just spears. With rock points.

Humans probably didn't intentionally kill the S.N.B. - we just killed all it's food, and let them starve.

Humans: The most terrifying killing machine Earth has ever seen. Nothing is worse than a human.

Comment Self-driving car, OBVIOUSLY (Score 1) 138

This car is obviously designed to be self-driving. As such, it makes sense to add a ton of displays. If such a car gets built, it will almost certainly be designed to turn all displays into driving controls (speed, engine temperature, fuel, etc.) whenever manual control is activated.

Comment Re:Good (Score 2) 576

The same is (or at the very least was) true for Roman Catholicism (Rome), Mormonism (Utah), and to a lesser extent the far majority of Christian churches.

The major innovation that the Christians created (and Islam copied) is the idea of "you must belong to us". Christianity used "if you don't you go to hell" - a concept unheard of before then, while Islam came up with "and you can't quit us afterwards".

Up until then, Judaism, Hinduism, and the rest of the world's religions were "If you want to join us, you have to prove yourself worthy".

So don't go complaining about Islam being expansionist, when they just copied the Christians.

Comment Others already do it (Score 3, Insightful) 397

It is now technically possible, we just have to work out the rules and regulations - insurance, financial and legal liability, regulatory approval.

I think that ten years from now, not a single wealthy person under 21 or over 70 will be driving a car. In 20 years, replace "not a single wealthy" with "only very wealthy American", as we flee the dangerous practice of allowing humans to drive on public roads.

Comment My summary of the article (Score 5, Insightful) 43

At heart, most of the issues he said can be described as follows:

Bioweapon creation is so deadly, that any attempt to create by a civilian it will most likely kill you before you succeed, unless you take expensive counter measures that will act as red flags, telling everyone what you are trying to do.

It does not prevent ISIL and similar groups from attempting it. They have sufficient money and size to hide their attempts, just like the USA and USSR did during the cold war.

Comment Uber is evil - and already doomed (Score 1) 26

Uber is a company built on lies (They promised far higher sales than they had, encouraged employees to give false, bad reviews to competitors, and did other similar crap.

But when it comes down to it, their business is getting started less than a decade before robots are going to destroy their market.

Lets face it, we already have viable driverless cars, the only reason we don't already have them available for sale to the wealthy old folk that drive into farmer markets and wealthy parents of drunkard teenagers are the legal and insurance issues.

They have a sellby date, just like Newspapers.

Comment Re:Give it up, Philip Morris (Score 0) 79

And the people that choose to work at a location where asbestos was put in 40 years ago are responsible for their own cancer deaths, correct?

No, They are not responsible - as they didn't know about it.

Choices only give you responsibility if the data you based the decision on was accurate. The Tobacco business lied and continues to lie (although their recent lies are more subtle). Even if they didn't intend to outright lie they advertised which is at best a presentation of a one sided argument, if not an actual lie. By doing that they accept more responsibility - which is why we restrict their advertisements.

And that's not the only 'problem' with your logic. It ignores the addictive nature of the product - and the steps taken by the business to increase the addictive properties.

Few people, if any, have made a well informed, decision to smoke. Most were made by children, most were made before the industry admitted the dangers, most were made unaware of the addiction risks. All of this is by explicit design by the manufacturers. They eliminate your knowledge, and they incur blame.

Comment Re:Fair Use (Score 1) 138

1. is a stretch, but doable if he was careful. He himself would not be violating copyright at all - he sold the unmodified car. Modifying your car to look like the bat mobile is a) not for resale and b) for a legal use if done as part of a charity event, which I suggested.

3. I was not aware that DC ever actively sold Batrmobiles. If that is correct, then they would have a copyright on the Batmobile. But if I am correct and they NEVER SOLD BATMOBILES, then their copyright is on the Batman mythos, not the car itself, and the car is a tiny portion of it. Note, unlike DC/Batmobile, the Beatles did in fact sell the White Album, so your example is worthless.

4. Again, if DC was in the business of selling Batmobiles, your argument would make sense. But again they DO NOT SELL BATMOBILES. As such, the item they do have a valid copyright on - works of fiction, not cars, is NOT negatively affected by the sale of Batmobiles

Your argument requires DC to sell working, full size Batmobiles. If they did that, then my argument MIGHT fall apart (they would have to prove in court that their business was or could be profitable, rather than a mere attempt to stop a fair use) But they do not do so. As such Fair Use was a totally viable defense.

Comment Need the ARC reactor (Score 2) 52

The comic is correct, the only thing stopping us from doing this already is portable power source capable of fueling it for any reasonable amount of time.

Which we DO NOT HAVE.

Without it, all they have is a man in a suit with a long power cord - a cord that can easily also transfer commands, which moves the pilot out of the suit and into a significantly safer nearby workstation. Put in a camera with an optional microphone and you reduces the weight the machine has to move around.

Which means what we can do is create an industrial robot.

Putting the man inside is incredibly stupid - until we have a viable power source. If we get that power source, the mech suit becomes an incredibly GOOD idea.

Comment Fair Use (Score 0) 138

He should have gone for a Fair Use argument.

By law, the fair use exception applies when:

1. Acceptable purpose.

2. Nature of work (idea are not copyrightable)

3. Amount copied.

4. Affect on market for copyright holder.

In reverse, order.

4. The car's sale will INCREASE the market for comics, movies, books, TV etc. Qualifies as Fair Use.

3. Amount copied: Minimal. The car is a minimal portion of the Batman mythos. Qualifies as Fair Use.

2. Nature of work. It is based on design, so it can not escape the fair use by claiming it is an idea - but this does not disqualify it as Fair Use.

1. Finally the Acceptable Purpose. Here he has to get a bit creative. If he was Smart he could sell the unmodified car, then for a fee perform modifications to as per the customer's requests. If the customer's requests happen to be do x, y, and z so it looks like the BatMobile, and then have the customer sign a statement saying they intend to use the car to give rides from Ronald McDonald House to the hospital for children, he has crafted an "Acceptable Use", and his actions become legal.

Also, sick kids get to ride in the BatMobile. Definitely an upside.

Comment Re:Sounds more like Morgan Stanley screwed up. (Score 1) 43

You have made 3 basic mistakes.

1) You are saying the company OWNS the client. NO That is called slavery, which is illegal. Clients are people, people that have not signed contracts. The CLIENTS should decided who they go with and that means the broker should have the right to call up the client and ask them to go with them. The employers try to stop this with abusive contracts with the brokers - but that does not make it "ethical", nor does it always make it legal. Just because a company makes an contract does not make it a legal contract. Companies break the law all the time - and sometimes put that criminal act in their contracts.

2) The Company's theory that you are accepting - the company owns the clients is at heart false. No one picks a broker based on the Corporation because the companies are all almost identical. They have minor differences based on fees and some small services. The major differences are due to the broker - how much work they will do for you, how intelligent the broker is, etc. If your belief and the company's belief was true, than people would be quiet willing to talk to ANY financial advisor at the company. But that's not what happens with the wealthy. They develop a relationship and only talk to their advisor, not a random one.

3) A truly successful broker gets almost no clients from the company, they get their clients from networking. The company does not effectively give them the clients, they get the clients using personal relationships. So when an advisor gets a job at say PaineWebber, he calls up his friend from Harvard, gets his business, then 3 months later gets his friend's cousin and father business, etc. etc. Then when they leave PaineWebber and go to work for Merril Lynch, they keep those clients. When they try to quit and go to work for Fidelity, Fidelity tries to keep all the clients - including the ones they took with them from PaineWebber that even YOU admit belong to the person, not the compay

What you are describing is nothing less than an illegal attempt by a company to steal people's networking. It is illegal and wrong on the part of the COMPANY as much as it is by the broker. Neither side is innocent - but the Company has a lot of power that they abuse while the broker has to try and squeak by. Taking the company side, as you do, is ridiculous. At best, the company is just as in the wrong as the advisor.

In a truly ethical world, it would be simple - the company and the broker would sit in the same room and call the clients up. They would ask the client who they would go with, and they would both ACCEPT the client's decision, neither taking any financial information that the client does not want them to have.

"The urge to destroy is also a creative urge." -- Bakunin [ed. note - I would say: The urge to destroy may sometimes be a creative urge.]