Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Except It Isn't (Score 2) 104

by javelinco (#47049617) Attached to: How Virtual Reality Became Reality
2 decades passed since the last time they tried this shit and failed. Now they're trying this shit again, and they'll fail again. People don't want to use touch screen tablets to do their "computing."

2 decades passed since the last time they tried this shit and failed. Now they're trying this shit again, and they'll fail again. People want mobile phones that make calls, not play dumb games.

Etc., etc., etc.

You might be right on this one, but you aren't right because of the argument you are using. There are lots of reasons this will fail, but failing because "it failed before" isn't connected with reality, just sour grapes.

Comment: Re:From Wikipedia: (Score 1) 149

by javelinco (#46991511) Attached to: From FCC Head Wheeler, a Yellow Light For Internet Fast Lanes

...It is the cornerstone of President Obama's campaign theme about limiting the influence of special interests. During the campaign, Obama said many times that lobbyists would not run his White House, and the campaign delighted in tweaking rival John McCain for the former lobbyists who worked on McCain's campaign. Obama's ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect. But the order has a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver. After examining the administration's actions for the past two months, we have concluded that Obama has broken this promise. See Promise No. 240 for the full details.

Comment: Re:Buried the lede (Score 1) 188

by javelinco (#46620841) Attached to: UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

This is one of those rare occasions where it's actually worked because the loser has accepted the ruling rather than saying "Okay, I lost, but I don't care, I'm going to carry on as I was anyway" or alternatively, "Fuck that, I'm not even going to go to that court because deep down I know I'm wrong and know I'll lose", the latter of which is what Argentina has done each time the UK has offered to let the court rule on the Falklands for example.

Why do you imagine that Japan is going to give a shit about this ruling? I don't see any reason to believe that anything is going to change.

Comment: Re: US dollar (Score 1) 192

by javelinco (#46486461) Attached to: Recent news events re: Bitcoin ...
It does matter why people want them. It just doesn't change the fact that they are currently valuable and can be exchanged for things of value (like $$). Why does it matter why people want them? Because, if the reason no longer holds up, then neither does their value. See Tulip mania:

Comment: Re:maybe for people who are all about money... (Score 1) 263

by javelinco (#46345895) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: When Is a Better Career Opportunity Worth a Pay Cut?

I'd never hire someone with your attitude. Someone who puts money above all else is not the kind of person I want to be around or to employee. Even if your asking salary was well within my budget.

And none of us will work for you. For several reasons, starting with reading comprehension. The poster didn't say it was all about the money. They said that money mattered. And of course it matters. Everyone needs to have their basic needs met, and in this world, that requires money. And most people would like a little on top of that - because a well rounded person isn't only about one skill set. And if there are things you want to enjoy besides your job, you often need to make more money than absolutely required to survive. And that's why you're post is moronic - because somehow you missed all of this. No one wants to work for an incompetent, right?

Comment: Re:Bad news for ecologists--new license needed (Score 1) 136

by javelinco (#46345709) Attached to: Major Scientific Journal Publisher Requires Public Access To Data
This may seem naive, but are you seriously telling us, the Slashdot crowd, that you shouldn't have to release your data because *gasp* someone might do SCIENCE with it? And your suggestion is to impose a copyright/licensing scheme on it? I'm a bit surprised I'm the only person commenting on this. I do see your "continuing funding, job opportunities and pay grade" - but if everyone is doing it, then PERHAPS things might change?

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.