Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Are people reading fewer paper books? (Score 1) 330

I've read enormous amounts of text off of CRTs and LCDs, frequently in single long sittings, ever since the mid 90s. It's okay.

That said, I'm uninterested in buying ebooks because I don't think they provide good value for money. I have hundreds of books on my iPad right now, but all free.

Comment Re:Are people reading fewer paper books? (Score 4, Funny) 330

It doesn't help that most of the store is devoted to all kinds of crap like toys, cards, god books, and astrology.

Some of the God books are good, such as "Where God Went Wrong," "Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes," "Who Is This God Person, Anyway?," and "Well, That Just About Wraps It Up For God."

Comment Re:Some fundamental, unchecked assumption here ? (Score 4, Informative) 210

His hypothesis makes sense but it only looks at the time constraints. I assume he did this because it is the easiest thing to legislate and not have to deal with constitutional matters in the US, since the constitution directs the government "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

No, the Constitution only empowers the federal government to grant patents and copyrights. Article I, section 8 does not direct it to do so, however, any more than it directs the government to grant letters of marque and reprisal to privateers, which is another power it holds. Making the US a patent free zone mitt be a bad idea, but it would be perfectly constitutional.

Comment Re:NIMBY (Score 1) 436

I believe it, but I still don't trust it. The design may be perfect but humans will still be involved and will still screw it up at many points between mining the fuel to final containment of the waste. Maybe the reactor won't be built up to spec due to contractors using cheap materials or not following instructions. Maybe radioactive materials will accidentally be released into the environment because someone hits the wrong switch. Maybe there will be a fire in the reactor. Maybe fuel will be stolen for possibly nefarious purposes. Maybe waste will be stored in a way that seems safe but turns out not to be due to lack of foresight by the designers.

All of these sorts of things have happened at one time or another. If a windmill explodes because someone uses a cheap, inferior material to build it, the debris could perhaps kill a cow in a field or something. Screw up with nuclear reactors -- which is inevitable if you have scads of them around -- and the consequences can be far worse. Again, since some sort of catastrophic failure will happen eventually, I'd rather use a technology that doesn't cause such a bad catastrophe.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.