Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re: Illegal Evidence (Score 2) 142

Yeah, IANAL, but this isn't a court. Things don't need to be admissible to be used by private citizens. It doesn't matter how you got the information, it's only libel if it's false and you had no reason to believe it was true when you said it (basically, if you just said it for the lulz). Also, its only defamatory if the primary purpose of the statement was to publicly attack someone. If the primary purpose (as here) was to expose a business practice, and your reputation just happens to get slaughtered in the process, then maybe you shouldn't have been working for a shitty company.

Comment Re: Translated (Score 1) 451

No. Part of being in society and benefiting from said membership is an inherent agreement that there are certain ways in which you, and those around you, will be limited in the damage they can do to one another. You have a case for an argument like that when your decision has no reasonably foreseeable potential victims. This is not one of those scenarios. That is not to say that this should be mandated by any means, just to say that this is not one of those "my consequences, my choice, no discussion necessary" questions. That's why it should be discussed.

Comment Re: Translated (Score 2) 451

It is an issue already. I have PreSafe braking on my car (2015), which will automatically beep if closing on a car such that your rate of deceleration will be insufficient to prevent a collision, and then brakes if you get especially close and are braking but just not enough.

It has gone off quite a few times when I am getting close to a car that is turning, because it can't detect the "rate of turn" and figure out that by the time I get there, the car won't be there anymore. It sometimes even does this on oddly contoured road with no other cars, like a decline approaching an inclining turn (sees the road as an unmoving object).

I like the feature overall, because unless I am already braking, all that happens is a tone sounding, and it's especially nice in stop-and-go traffic. If the car had actually slammed on the brakes each time, though, I would not be nearly as excited.

Comment Re: No thanks (Score 2) 369

I'm not saying anything about the merits of the arguments themselves, and maybe GP touched a nerve by talking something that affects you personally or something. Even so, normal humans can communicate respectfully even when upset, so your response implies you are exactly the person you are accusing GP of being.

Comment Re:Will Drive Sites To Use VP9 (Score 1) 184

You know, that actually sounds halfway plausible. Wouldn't it be crazy if the entity who finally got the US patent system reformed ended up being RIAA/MPAA? Of course, in that scenario, "reformed" would probably end up meaning some scheme where any digital file produced or consumed within the US or any country that has an internet connection to the US has to pay them a fee...

Comment Re:Why do we need H.265? (Score 3, Interesting) 184

IANAL, but that's essentially the idea behind FRAND patents (i.e., those which the inventors have agreed to license for "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms). When you chooses to license using that model, it basically means that you can get a nominal reimbursement (because, after all, you did have to do some work to develop it) for each license, but that is pretty much it. Also, what is considered "nominal" is pretty low (as far as intellectual property goes, anyway) and strongly enforced by the courts. Furthermore, once you go FRAND with a patent, you usually can't really go back, so licensees have a guarantee that they aren't going to get it at a reasonable rate today during the adoption phase, but then see the price go up 500% when some contract runs out.

HEVC, however, is not a FRAND patent, though they would likely see much higher adoption if they were (probably similar to H.264, since they essentially used a de facto FRAND approach).

Comment Re:You might want to brush up on your legal studie (Score 2) 308

It's actually not that uncommon. The criminal trial can certainly weigh heavily on a civil trial, but there are completely different (~95% vs. 51%) standards of evidentiary burden. It's not hard to imagine meeting one without meeting the other. And nowhere does the law, Constitution, or any basis of our judicial system state that being "not guilty" makes you in any way entirely free of any responsibility.

Comment Re:Cancer vs common cold (Score 1) 52

Actually, I've never really thought about it, but cancer is not that different from a zombie. It is a cell that should have died (self-destruction by apoptosis or recognized as abnormal by nearby phagocytes), but didn't, and precisely because of what should've gotten it killed, is now behaving abnormally and often in a way where it is trying to replace the remaining normal entities with more of itself.

Comment Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? (Score 5, Insightful) 313

No, hope is a belief that the world and everything in it has potential energy, and that under the right circumstances that can be converted into "kinetic" energy (i.e., the force of change). It is the belief that just because the ball is not moving does not mean the ball cannot move. It also means that just because a person believes that they have no value (or perhaps even currently do not seem to have much value) does not mean that they are, in fact, incapable of having value or of someday recognizing what their value is or could be.

If "enlightenment" means believing that the world cannot be anything other than it, in its present state, currently is, then I do not want to be enlightened, because my enlightenment would be invalidated one nanosecond later, since even in that time the world would have done that which I had assumed to be impossible, and changed.

Comment Re:Nokia (Score 2) 245

That's actually a really interesting point. It sounds like you're suggesting that maybe the US is so successful because European companies just know that to create a product in a way that would be hugely successful would be corporate suicide, because if it does end up being successful, then you will regret it. Basically, better to have 7 products that have 5% market share each than 1 product that has 50% market share, because once you cross a certain threshold, regulation will eat up more than that 15% difference. In other words, a "keep your head low" mentality...

I've never heard this before (though in some ways it's really just a recapitulation of one of the core tenets of capitalism, which has plenty of faults itself), and I'm not saying I necessarily believe it -- I just find the idea itself interesting. Can any other Europeans speak to whether or not there might be anything to this (preferably without too much vitriol)?

Comment Re:Android without Google (Score 1) 245

So, if I want to make a call using Verizon (lowest chance of dropped calls), but don't mind using Sprint for my data (its OK if that goes in and out for me, not as critical), but then use AT&T for my texts (for some reason they seem to go through faster since most of my friends are AT&T users), I can do that on the same phone, simultaneously, as long as the radios support all those networks, right? I'm not like restricted to some kind of bundle, am I?

Comment Re:Android without Google (Score 2) 245

The problem, though, is that anyone has a monopoly when you get specific enough. The airlines have a "monopoly" on the food they serve while you are on their flight. What if I want Au Bon Pain? I can't get it (and ABP can't sell it there, even if they want to), because a set of specific circumstances limit me while I am on the flight. I have to buy the airline's "gourmet sandwich," if that's what I want. It isn't a real monopoly, though, because those circumstances are not universal and I could easily either work around them (bring my own food) or choose a different airline.

If they want to claim that Google is monopolizing "computing devices that are mobile phones (specific 1), running Android (specific 2), that have access to the Play Store (specific 3)," then we are talking about a pretty specific set of circumstances, any of which could easily be varied using existing viable alternatives for each specific circumstance. If you go to eat at a microbrewery, you don't get to complain when they promote their own beer.

"Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown!" -- The Ghostbusters