Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Yet Another Reason... (Score 1) 214

If a person independently comes up with a way to do something that is already patented, doesn't that mean that it's "non-obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art".

That is what vadim_t seems to be saying-- that there is an obvious solution to a problem that is denied him because someone (presumably with deep pockets) patented it.

Comment Re:Not all religions are bad (Score 1) 910

That is patently untrue. I don't believe in invisible intangible pink unicorns either, but that doesn't imply that I have "faith" that they don't exist. It simply means that I have encountered no factual evidence for their existence.

There are an infinite number of things that a person can imagine for which there is no evidence of their existence, yet I've never had anyone claim that I had "faith" in their nonexistence. It's odd that so many claim that I MUST have faith if I fail to believe in their pet deity.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 910

As a former smoker, I can chime in here. I smoked for ~12 years and quit smoking ~12 years ago. Nicotine is (to my understanding) the only substance with the capacity to selectively flip a person's state. By this I mean that if a smoker is edgy or tense, smoking has a calming effect. If the smoker is tired or sleepy, smoking increases alertness. This is an important part of its addictiveness-- the power to regulate one's physical being. You can choose to be soothed or made alert.

On a more personal level, I do miss smoking on occasion but it's a mere faint echo of the powerful craving that you feel when you NEED a smoke. Smoking is most enjoyable after meals and when drinking alcohol. I used to use my smoke breaks to think and solved any number of work related problems while wandering around outside. Now, I just get up and walk around when I need a break from the office.

Comment Re:Not all religions are bad (Score 1) 910

Actually, you cannot have any concept of free will without God.

From a purely objective and atheist standpoint*, you'd be nothing more than a mere captive to influences and environment: chemical, physical, social, medical, etc. As there is in atheology no divine spark (or soul, or whatever you care to label it), there is nothing in the human mind that should allow a person to decide anything for him or her self. In spite of that, people show the amazing ability to do that very thing quite often, when reason and influences state that their behaviors should be far different indeed.

You start from a VERY dubious unproven assumption and then proceed to base your entire argument on it. That is why there is no rational discussion with religious people. They have as the bedrock of all their arguments assumptions that have no basis in fact or evidence whatsoever. There's no way to contradict that, so I usually don't bother.

Comment Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly (Score 1) 441

Why not just blame atrocities on men with funny mustaches. There is exactly the same amount of evidence linking that to atrocities as there is any particular belief system. A cult of personality is just that. No other reason is needed for the insanity. Just one person's quest for personal power at the expense of (in some cases) an entire country.

Comment Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly (Score 1, Insightful) 441

Why do so many Christians believe this? That there is no morality without enforcement by their sadistic deity? There are plenty of non-christian societies which function quite nicely without some threat of eternal punishment.

The simple fact of the matter is that when humans form a society, they decide on rules (many of which are unwritten) that members of that society must adhere to in order to make it work. Those who ignore those rules become outcasts or criminals. Most of the rules boil down to "don't intentionally harm others". Then there are rules that (for good or ill) protect the social hierarchy. That's pretty much it.

Submission + - Android 4.0 Source Code Released to AOSP (google.com)

kidgenius writes: Finally all the naysayers can be silenced as the source code to Android 4.0.1 has been released to the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). This is in fact earlier than Google had previously announced that the code would be released.

Comment Re:Time to buy a Nook (Score 1) 162

Today’s infringement filing by HTC may be the first time that Google is exercising its patent portfolio to help an Android partner. The nine patents involved were transferred to HTC from Google on September 1. Three of the patents originated from Openwave Systems, two from Palm, and four from Motorola. These patents were acquired prior to Google’s $12.5 billion bid for Motorola...

Link here: http://www.slashgear.com/htc-sues-apple-using-google-motorola-patents-07177865/

So, Google acquired those patents from Motorola before their acquisition bid. Saying Google is Motorola is akin to saying that Google is IBM since they've acquired patents from them as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

Everything that can be invented has been invented. -- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899