Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Necissary, not sufficient. (Score 2) 97

Not that I doubt specifically, but here's my problem:

If what you say is true, we wouldn't have the problems with the patent system that we have now. It should be mostly self-regulatory, with less trivialness since companies have an interest in each other's patents. This is clearly not the case, and as you can point to Apple or Microsoft, I can point to drug and agricultural companies that effectively pursue perpetual patents. Not all patents are created equal, and if you hold the keys to a cash cow, or a DNA sequence, that alone is worth more than any benefit from cross licensing. Prilosec earned over a billion dollars yearly while its patent was active. Now it earns about $300 million. And that's just one drug.

Not to mention you already stated patent has only been extended through treaty, and yet here we are with another treaty in the wings which no one wants to disclose the terms of, and would all but put any patent reform out of the reach of the courts or congress.

That should give everyone a moment of pause.

Comment: Re:Necissary, not sufficient. (Score 1) 97

You're not even a little bit fearful that "patent reform" isn't doublespeak for bringing patents more inline with copyrights or some such nonsense?

Call me paranoid, but with the secrecy of TPP still lingering in the wings, I don't really trust Congress to approach this sanely, We may have a sudden outbreak of common sense, but I trust that more to come from the courts than lawmakers at this point.

Sad but true.

Comment: Re:never again (Score 3, Informative) 64

Or after a decade of neglect, releasing Space Hulk 3rd edition, only to release 4th edition 5 years later, but making the sets incompatible, and offering no way for people who supported them with the 3rd edition to upgrade, making it orphaned to expansions.

Fuck them to the bowels of hell. Such arrogance to their customers.

Don't even get me started with what they did with Blood Bowl.


Comment: Re:They worked out an algorithm to define genre (Score 3, Interesting) 57

But it's not just popularity; it's relationships, and still the data used is flawed.

        Last FM genre tags aren't the most comprehensive (hence music nerds can get into endless debates about whether a band represents this genre or that genre), and it also assumes influence comes within the realm of popular music, and not less popular forms that get co-opted into pop music, and how those less popular lineages developed (as the trope goes, someone like the Sex Pistols never sold many albums, but what albums they did sell ended up in the hands of people who started more popular bands).

        More importantly, this study shows the flaws with quantitative vs. qualitative analysis; using the less descriptive measure as definitive just because it is supposedly "objective", and basically ignoring all other data that doesn't fit the model. They've proved they can measure what they set out to measure, nothing more. This has been most egregious in the soft sciences, like psychology, that tries so very hard to quantify data in an attempt at being definitive, and end up making absurd associations as that isn't the most useful analysis of the data on hand. Some music historians would have been able to point out the obvious flaws (like the progression of the Beatles throughout their history. Twist and Shout is miles away from Revolution #9).

Comment: Re:Colour me apprehensive. (Score 1) 94

No, actually my complaint with Prometheus was that it was poor storytelling across the board. It seemed to purposely tell half a story in an attempt to hide this under the guise of interpretation, or possibly a Prometheus Mark II.

It may be I am like those naysayers that panned Blade Runner upon release, and only some time after have come to see its true merit, but I don't think so. At least with Blade Runner there were reasons to view it multiple times, and that definitely can't be said for Prometheus.

Comment: Re:Human Life (Score 1) 218

by quintessencesluglord (#39010421) Attached to: Boiling Down the Meaning of Life

Compared to life imprisonment it costs the same (or sometimes even more) and has the same outcome of preventing recidivism (re-offending).

Not really.

The costs of the death penalty are externally elevated. The cost of a bullet is quite cheap.

As far as re-offending-

The murder is not kept in perfect isolation (cruel and unusual), and has the opportunity to re-offend with what are essentially other wards of the state (not to mention prison guards). Anyone who has been around prisons knows there is far more crime in prison than outside.

So what do you do with a person with a life sentence who rapes/kills another prisoner? You have already invoked the worst punishment your scenario allows, and it has failed.

And what of the safety of the other prisoners? Is the state not obliged to keep them safe from further crime? The death penalty ends all future recidivism from this individual permanently.

(It should be noted I generally oppose the death penalty, but as a practical matter understand that it is, and should be, a method of last resort).

Oh, and the conflating with abortion? Pure ideological claptrap.

Comment: Re:Very easy explanation (Score 1) 383

by quintessencesluglord (#34515952) Attached to: Angles On Anonymous

But one of the problems is more conventional means of protest are equally liable to garner negative publicity.

Either you are carted off to freespeech zones which are equivalent to no protest at all, or some instigator turns the whole event into a riot, garnering the derision of the public.

Even commenting to your congressman is pointless if the one topic that drew the largest public disapproval is passed anyway (bailouts).

So what options do you have left?

I'm just pleased that there are enough folks paying attention to do something like this rather than the apathy that marks most of the public. I am frightened to death that most of them aren’t old enough to vote.

Comment: How GM kills interest (Score 1) 657

by quintessencesluglord (#33867292) Attached to: GM Criticized Over Chevy Volt's Hybrid Similarities

Evolution of the Volt as seen by me.

Promised: Oh wow! That's a pretty shape. I'd buy that.
Actual: Uhh, that's nearly as sexy, but if they keep the drive train idea...

Promised: Oh, hey, I drive more than 70 freeway miles a day. This fits my needs better than an all-electric.
Actual: How is this better than a diesel VW? But at least they are developing something interesting like the Jaguar C-X75 drive train...

Promised: You know, if it is a series hybrid, I bet you tinker with the car. Simple drive train.
Actual: How is this different than a Prius again? If I wanted a Prius...

Promised: a car that actually made me consider a hybrid as suitable to my needs.
Actual: I wonder what Honda is doing...

Comment: Re:A Libertarian World (Score 0) 2058

by quintessencesluglord (#33810122) Attached to: Firefighters Let House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay Fee

Gosh, if we only had the same consideration for corporations who skip out on taxes. Would you support cutting them off from government services? Answer truthfully now.

No kids, this is an example of the tragedy of the commons looks like. You know, everyone pays in to get fire service, except some folks decide they can free ride something as basic as fire service and got burned.

So don't be putting a decision by a government entity in same class as private fire service. This is not a libertarian paradise, this is the dystopia libertarians complain about.

Comment: Re:This Is a Comment Expressing New Found Skeptici (Score 1) 193

by quintessencesluglord (#33716846) Attached to: This Is a News Website Article About a Scientific Paper

Here is the thing though- Given were are at an age where war is waged under false pretenses, where we now find out ERT is crock but no one decided to verify until recently, where damn near every event and study has a multitude of spins and talking points: shouldn't we scrutinize everything we read?

And I don't mean in that contrary to be contrary sort of way (but even that sometimes yields useful results), but seriously consider what is being stated, why is it being stated, and who is stating it?

Many years ago, in my physics textbook, it stated that a tire's friction was the same regardless of contact patch. Now being somewhat of a gearhead, this struck me as contrary to everything I've seen. So I questioned my instructor about it with my rationales as to why this is probably incorrect. He hand waves it, and I'm left stumped as to why dragsters have such large rear tires, and a low resistance tire on a bicycle have such a small contact patch.

And you know where this is going, but that is exactly point: mistakes happen, something gets lost in translation, and some people don't give a damn enough to question an idea.

Personally, I blame poor science reporting to the poor knowledge of science by the general public, and the inevitable simplifying that is going to happen to explain what is a foreign country to most people.

Comment: Re:so what's the free market solution? (Score 1) 276

by quintessencesluglord (#33622386) Attached to: Google, Apple and Others Accused of 'No Poaching' Deal

Dear sir,

I appreciate in these divisive times rhetoric is at an all-time high, but let's look at some facts, shall we?

First, these practices took place with government regulation in place. Two: the current actions of the government coddling... errr, negotiating with the companies may adversely affect the ideal libertarian solution: workers suing the companies directly. Three: if the end result is companies not admitting wrongdoing and a government who failed to stop the practice in the first place now promising that not pursuing legal action will halt such practices in the future, I'd rather take my chances on the free market solution.

Comment: Bigger, stronger, with more destructive capability (Score 1) 86

by quintessencesluglord (#33547576) Attached to: (Don't) Make Your Own Fire Tornado

Back before I knew such things existed in nature, I had the idea of hopefully causing a fuel/air explosion with a regular tornado.

The idea was to pump a bunch of fuel into a regular tornado and ignite it, theoretically causing the tornado to dissipate.

Unfortunately a lack of funds and people brave enough to man the trebuchets kept me from my plan.

But it just seems more _eventful_ than a lazy susan and lighter fluid.

Yes, my house insurance has extra coverage.

Comment: Re:200,000 dollars (Score 1) 239

by quintessencesluglord (#33477610) Attached to: Simon Singh Talks With Wired About His Libel Battle

Indeed, the court system does seem to favor the wealthy (unless you are the deep pockets being sued), but even loser pay rules struck me as unfair.

It would seem that at the beginning of the trial, if both the plaintiff and defendant would throw the sum total of funds to be spent into a common pot (to be split equally among them for their court cost), then the amount paid would be the cost at arriving at a _judgement_ instead of paying more to win the case.

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.