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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:IMO (Score 1) 196

by nitehawk214 (#48899525) Attached to: Doomsday Clock Moved Two Minutes Forward, To 23:57

Climate Change Deniers have taken to calling themselves Skeptics precisely because of this negative connotation to our cause, just as AGW proponents changed to talk of Climate Change when they saw that Global Warming was no longer winning over the masses with their fear-mongering.

Yep, it is hilarious considering that those deniers are part of the religious right (often stating their reason for denying climate change is something about god). To them, skeptics have the negative connotation. I guess they can't ask for people to believe their claims "on faith" anymore.

Comment: Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score 4, Informative) 102

by nitehawk214 (#48899413) Attached to: Fark's Drew Curtis Running For Governor of Kentucky

Also, in that comparison, one of the entities is pure evil and the other is at least trying to do the right thing.

Also, the GP says that the EFF opposes net neutrality. That is not the case. I think what the oppose is the current FCC's flawed attempts at implementing it with a bunch of special case provisions that completely gut the idea of it.

Comment: Re:Heirs. (Score 1) 83

by nitehawk214 (#48899087) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

This goes into the "should we honor the will of a dead person" argument.

Reason dictates "yes, unless they are an asshole about it." But the law kind of says "yes, as long as the will is legal and actually enforceable." I would assume this applies to copyright. If someone had a no-copyright-copyright in effect, then upon their death, doesn't that make the thing public domain.

I am sure if there were any heirs that cared about the copyright, they would manage to get their hands on the thing before the person dies.

Comment: Re:X-Files vs. Bab-5 - ouch! (Score 1) 298

by nitehawk214 (#48893129) Attached to: Best 1990s Sci-fi show?

The first season of TNG was terrible. I think the first regular episode was a reused plot from TOS... seriously? But the first season of B5 while was more interesting with its foreshadowing, wasn't nearly as good as the rest of the show from both a production and acting standpoint. I still love both shows, though.

Anyhow, the first season of most things is relatively crappy. Television executives want money and viewers now now now... thus shows that show promise get cancelled after half a season all the time. The only shows that are given a chance are ones with a built in audience.

I very rarely watch a SF show before it is on for 2 seasons. Granted there are vanishingly few of them to choose from now.

Comment: Re:X-Files vs. Bab-5 - ouch! (Score 4, Insightful) 298

by nitehawk214 (#48893081) Attached to: Best 1990s Sci-fi show?

Which would have been useful if her powers were used or well defined enough. Instead each writer for the show went his or her on way. Does telepathy work through a video screen? Depends on which episode of TNG you watch. At least the writers realized they were being idiots by the later seasons and stopped doing that stuff.

With B5, no problem. A single guy made all the important decisions (and wrote more than half of the episodes), and any "superpowers" were very well defined. This allowed B5 to have arcs that extended across entire seasons.

DS9 tried to emulate this, but the sheer number of filler episodes and the acting and writing not being up to par with the later seasons of TNG really hampered it.

Comment: Re:Poor delusional old man (Score 1) 190

by nitehawk214 (#48856359) Attached to: Japanese Nobel Laureate Blasts His Country's Treatment of Inventors

If you are someone capable of creating something patentable, don't sign the document and don't work for a company that insists on it. Same goes for unreasonable non-compete agreements.

Of course, they will sue you document-or-not, but its pretty much a guaranteed win without it.

Or, if you want, put a value on that part of your agreement. If they pay you enough that you don't need to worry about inventing stuff, why not go for it?

Comment: Re:Poor delusional old man (Score 1) 190

by nitehawk214 (#48856303) Attached to: Japanese Nobel Laureate Blasts His Country's Treatment of Inventors

That is flatly untrue, especially jobs where the employee is not doing any knowledge work.

I got around this by simply refusing to sign the document on a job I had been working at for several years. I told my boss and we wrote up a new document that did not include that clause. You can do that when the company could not afford to lose you.

Amusingly enough, the boss must have done the same thing, as he left the company for a rival some time after that. The company we worked for sued... and lost badly.

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker