Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Good (Score 4, Informative) 55 55

Usually the settlement documents specifically state that if the patent/etc. is declared invalid that they get to keep the money anyway.

So... $45 million is not a bad run for this troll. It will probably encourage them to keep the extortion ring going with another worthless patent.

Comment Re:No usb ports. (Score 1) 86 86

I really don't see any need for any plugs or ports on a smartphone. I haven't plugged my phone into anything for at least a year.
It charges wirelessly, backs itself up wirelessly and communicates (WiFi, cellular data, NFC, Bluetooth) with everything.
Why would I ever want to fiddle with a plug?

Comment Re:That's copyright for you (Score 2) 292 292

If they are summaries of cases, they probably could be considered creative works and eligible for copyright. However, if they are being used by the courts to decide cases, we would have the odd situation where a private party was writing law... and if they were then considered "law" then probably not eligible for copyright.

Comment Re:The article should use "ridiculous" 0 times. (Score 2) 292 292

I was wondering... What are these "annotations"?
Are they creative interpretations of the law written by a third party? (probably copyright eligible but odd to have a third party creatively interpreting the law and having that used by the courts)
- Are they "indexes" (as some have stated)? (probably not copyright eligible since no "creative" work done)
- Are they "case law examples"? (probably not copyright eligible since these cases would be a product of the court system and therefore not copyright eligible)

Comment Re:Exactly I've made this point here many times (Score 1) 187 187

You could have Googled this yourself but here are a few references:

The fact that they agree with me on one point about my car has nothing to do with the quality of their study or whether or not "I agree with them".

Comment Re:I see theyre using the Step 2 profit model (Score 1) 187 187

Extraction and distribution of coal and oil are probably about equal. However, refining oil takes about as much energy as cars get out of the gas or diesel. In fact, if you took the electricity that oil refineries use and put that into an electric car, it would drive the car as far as the gas and diesel that the refinery produces (without all that nasty pollution).
Either way, its a major flaw in the study when they don't include major costs of fossil fuel but do include those costs for electricity. Flagrant bias.

Comment Re:How much electricity do refineries use?? (Score 1) 187 187

You are right. The study did not take the costs of extraction, refining and transportation of fossil fuels into account. Major flaw.
The NBER is a right wing think tank (climate change deniers) and this is a biased hit piece against electric cars.

Comment Re:Exactly I've made this point here many times (Score 1) 187 187

The NBER is a conservative think tank with an climate change denier agenda and this "study" is deeply flawed and intended to disseminate misinformation about electric cars which are a threat to the fossil fuel industry.
My electric car is solar powered and costs about $0.04/mile for electricity so much better for the environment (and my wallet) than any fossil fuel or hybrid vehicle.

Comment Re:I see theyre using the Step 2 profit model (Score 3, Informative) 187 187

The NBER is a conservative funded "think tank". It gets most of its money from large corporations and people with an interest in the oil and gas industries.
This "study" is just a hit piece against electric cars funded by the oil and gas industries... it's worthless.
One example of its bias: It uses a "well to wheels" analysis of electric car energy use but for fossil fueled vehicles, it only uses the "pump to wheels" emissions, leaving out all of the energy impacts of extraction, refining and transportation of fossil fuels.

Comment Re:Phase out fossil-fueled power plants by midcent (Score 1) 308 308

Nuclear power has gone from "too cheap to meter" to "too expensive to matter".
There are many problems with nuclear but its high cost will end up killing it.
Solar and wind are cheaper and battery storage can match supply to demand.

Submission + - This Is What Happens When A State Seriously Invests In Clean Energy-> 2 2

mspohr writes: "Solar farms are blooming across California’s deserts, wind turbines are climbing the Sierra, photovoltaic roofs are shimmering over suburbs, and Teslas are the Silicon Valley elite’s new ride. A clean energy rush is transforming the Golden State so quickly that nearly a quarter of its electricity now comes from renewable sources, and new facilities, especially solar, are coming online at a rapid rate. Last year, California became the first state to get more than 5 percent of its electricity from the sun."
This is a big turnaround:
"It’s difficult to remember that just 15 years earlier the state was experiencing an energy meltdown. Electricity prices skyrocketed, supply crashed and blackouts rolled, due mainly to a disastrous deregulation attempt and unscrupulous market manipulation. "

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:SLAPP? (Score 4, Informative) 401 401

The Guardian has been doing a lot of research on police killing people in the US compared to the rest of the world.
Here's a good summary article:

A few statistics from the article:
Fact: Police in the US have shot and killed more people – in every week this year – than are reportedly shot and killed by German police in an entire year.
Fact: Police in the US fatally shot more people in one month this year than police in Australia officially reported during a span of 19 years.
Fact: Police in Canada average 25 fatal shooting a year. In California, a state just 10% more populous than Canada, police in 2015 have fatally shot nearly three times as many people in just five months.
Fact: Police fired 17 bullets at Antonio Zambrano-Montes, who was “armed” with a rock. That’s nearly three times what police in Finland are reported to have fired during all of 2013.
Fact: In the first 24 days of 2015, police in the US fatally shot more people than police did in England and Wales, combined, over the past 24 years.

If you have to ask how much it is, you can't afford it.