Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Or You Could Just Not Drink To The Point of Intox (Score 3, Insightful) 134

by rsmith-mac (#48580143) Attached to: Facebook Offers Solution To End Drunken Posts

Not to be preachy, but it always strikes me as odd to what lengths some people will go to mitigate the damage their drinking does, rather than exercising just a bit of self control and not drinking to the point of intoxication. Having to make computers take care of us in this fashion and stop us from harming ourselves just seems silly.

+ - Why women's bodies abort males during tough times->

Submitted by sciencehabit
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "In times of trouble, multiple studies have shown, more girls are born than boys. No one knows why, but men need not worry about being overrun by women. An analysis of old church records in Finland has revealed that the boys that are born in stressful times survive better than those born during less challenging periods. The work helps explain why women may have evolved a tendency to abort certain males and could lead to a better understanding of miscarriages."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Yes, let's get rid of alternatives. (Score 1) 139

by rsmith-mac (#48571591) Attached to: California Sues Uber Over Practices

I don't think anyone wants to get rid of the alternatives.

A lot of aspects of Uber are great. GPS and billing aspects for a for-hire car service are a massive step up from traditional taxis and make the system far more convenient for the end-user. The cars are almost always nicer than taxis as well, as even though there are taxi standards, Uber drivers generally hold themselves to a higher standard.

However there are also some real downsides to Uber that need to be dealt with. Their flippant attitude aside, they do not take sufficient (and legally required) steps to insure the safety of their drivers and vehicles. And their surge pricing, though a very traditional microeconomic solution to demand, is not appropriately transparent to all riders.

But the sad thing is that the things that make Uber great and the things that they do wrong are not diametrically opposed to each other. Uber can still offer a superior way to hail and track cars while making sure their drivers are suitably monitored, insured, and investigated. Uber could meet all of these regulations and still offer a great service, yet they don't because of only what can be described as unrealistic cost projections combined with the mother of all superiority complexes.

There's no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too in this situation.

Comment: Re:Is there any... (Score 1) 93

by rsmith-mac (#48442667) Attached to: Samsung Seeking To Block Nvidia Chips From US Market

Is there any evidence (or even suspicion) that either side here used either the patent filing or actual stolen technology to create their product? If not then the laws are clearly broken when we are allowing non-revolutionary ideas to be patented.

NVIDIA holds a very large graphics patent pool. In a lot of ways they're the successor to SGI, and in the interim have picked up companies such as 3dfx, which has further enlarged their patent pool. Which makes it very, very hard to efficiently implement a GPU without violating some of those patents. Proving malice may be difficult, but it's hard to imagine building a competitive GPU and not infringing on those patents.

As for whether the patents are revolutionary, that's a trickier point. If you researched into the same problems as NVIDIA a lot of your solutions would be similar/identical even without seeing how NVIDIA does it. But for a number of these patents the solutions are non-obvious; it's only after doing research and a lot of simulation do you come up with the same answer.

Comment: Re:Weird article (Score 1) 14

by pudge (#48404889) Attached to: Cardow cartoon cannot be unseen

... you did seem to lament the courts' inaction ...

Not in any way, no, I did not.

you ... always singl[e] out one particular issue based purely on the person implementing it

You're a liar.

When talking about transparency, it's yours that is the most obvious...

I agree. I am nearly completely transparent and obvious and clear. I lack pretense or disguise.

Comment: Re:At first glance, I liked the first response... (Score 1) 24

by pudge (#48404647) Attached to: To The Little Untergruber

... exactly the way your financiers want it ...

No. It's true that the framers and most people who understand politics want the people to be ignorant about most issues in government, because otherwise, the people would be spending too much time watching government and not enough time enjoying life and being productive. Everyone should want to be ignorant about most things, especially most things government does. Otherwise you'll be miserable.

But it's not true that they want people to be ignorant, but with a delusion of lack of ignorance. You're just making things up.

... with its present day monolithic two-face one party system. Not a single independent in the house. Smells very bad...

There's no objective reason why it's a bad thing.

Comment: Re:At first glance, I liked the first response... (Score 1) 24

by pudge (#48402667) Attached to: To The Little Untergruber

Gruber was mostly right, although the word "stupid" is probably not what he meant. But the fact is that whoever believed it wasn't a tax, it wouldn't raise rates, it wouldn't force you to change plans and possibly doctors, etc., was ignorant. Not stupid, necessarily, but ignorant. That said, someone who is ignorant and thinks that he actually knows these things is kinda stupid. So all the news folks, for example, who said that what Republicans said about the ACA were lies ... they were stupid.

The fact is that almost everything the GOP said about the ACA was true. Federal funding of abortions, subsidies for illegals, massive government control defined at a later date by an administrator and not Congress, death panels, increased taxes and premiums, decreased choice ... all of it was and is true.

Comment: Weird article (Score 1) 14

by pudge (#48402659) Attached to: Cardow cartoon cannot be unseen

I'd expect an article talking about criminally prosecuting Gruber would at least make reference to some violation of the criminal code. I see no crime. Neither the author nor his interviewee mention any crime. He makes vague references to "Deceit. Fraud. Premeditated felonious theft.," but he simply gave his opinions; he didn't implement anything. The theft was by the government, not him. The fraud was perhaps aided by him, but no court has ever found that government fraud of this type is prosecutable, so prosecuting a private citizen for aiding the government in something that can't be prosecuted makes no sense.

Comment: Re:Today I realized... (Score 1) 60

by rsmith-mac (#48391001) Attached to: FCC Says Net Neutrality Decision Delay Is About Courts, Not Politics

If that were the case, more of us would get mod points more often.

What happens is that the moderation system is biased against frequent visitors. Visit more than once a day and you'll basically never get mod points. Go away for a day or two and you'll come back to a heap of them virtually every time.

I'm not sure why Slashdot does this. One would think frequent visitors would be the people you'd want modding - someone who will see a story before it's too old - but perhaps they want someone a little less fanatical? Or maybe the mod points are to entice you to stay?

Hold on to the root.