Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Put it in perspective (Score 1) 347

Big businesses already have cheap methods to print plastic parts in quantity. Here's the part you're missing: And then what price do they sell it to you for? People elsewhere in the comments are talking about tiny pieces of plastic being sold for $100 a pair, simply because most of us can't print them. It's going to be quite a while before even 20% of the population has easy access to a 3D printer. Do you think they're going to lower their prices to something more reasonable when the alternative is to keep their $90+ profits per item and lost 5 or 10% or their market?

Comment Re:Risks of Investment, Rewards of Retail (Score 2) 124

This is particularly bothersome to me when people like Neal Stephenson and Zach Braff who have money themselves, as well as access to investors. Kickstarter ought to be the place where small time folks who've completed the product but don't have access to the funds to get the initial batch made.

While I agree with this statement in principle, there are apparently thousands of people who disagree, and I'm not going to tell them what to do with their money.

Comment Re:Put it in perspective (Score 1) 347

The majority of what you say is correct. But here's the problem. Materials for a part you've designed cost about $0.50. The research and design cost about $5,000. The mold costs about $5,000. They plan on making about 20,000 of these items. Total cost per part is $1.00. The part retails for $10.00. For you to print it on your 3D printer will cost you about $5.00. All of a sudden, that printing cost isn't such a big deal, for you anyway. For the business, it's the loss of a product line with a net 70% profit.

Comment Re:WTF? (Score 1) 196

The problem is that the damage is done. Nokia is dead, the spider venom injected years ago has already liquefied the innards, all that's left is for the spider to suck the guts back out. Stopping it now isn't going to save Nokia.

All we can hope is that future traders will see incoming Microsoft leadership as a strong sell signal.

So...the optimal outcome is that MS will be able to perform this kind of tactic more quickly??

Comment Re:Is it just me? (Score 3, Interesting) 101

Sometimes the best way to solve a big problem is to just get a bigger hammer.

I had a problem once that I could probably have solved using some very pretty, complex, elegant formula. But after examining the problem space, I figured I could brute-force it, with a basic fitness algorithm, in about 2 seconds. The overall process it was a part of took between 90 and 300 seconds. The other benefits were, it was quite readable, and didn't require any advanced math or knowledge of the problem to see what was being done. The fact that the pretty formula would have improved performance at most about 2% made it an easy choice.

Comment Re:The NSA controlled the servers (Score 1) 292

Also go read the first leaked warrant that let the NSA collect all the data (link below), it had the FBI's name on it. It was an FBI request to hand the data from Verizon's phone records to the NSA, a simple reacharound the domestic spying laws. The FBI acts as wing man for the NSA:

I've never had a wing man, so I'm not sure, but I don't thing the expectation is that they'll be engaging in reacharounds.

Comment Re:The USA didn't enter the war. (Score 1) 378

And I'll say to you now what I said either the day of or just days after the 9/11 attacks. You can win a war against a nation, but how do you win a war against an idea? What territory do you have to conquer? Which leaders do you have to depose? The War on Terrorism is a never-ending war because there is no scenario where it can be won, only lost. Exactly how many angry people do you think you'll have to kill before there won't be any more angry people?

From what I've read, bin Laden didn't take part in any typical terrorist attacks - he left the dying to other people. And now that he's dead, is Al Qaeda still around? Are they still a threat?

If you want to reduce terrorism, the idea is really simple: Give people something they're unwilling to lose. Give them the ability to live in reasonable wealth, have a home and family that they are confident won't be destroyed any day of the week, take away their hopelessness and misery, and for added security make it possible for them to be complacent in their lives. You'll still have some kooks that are so into their beliefs that they will be willing to be a part of some anti-establishment group, but even most of those won't be willing to die for their cause. Then you'll have what you see in the United States - huge swathes of people just living their lives, and if they have beliefs that are being affronted, the vast vast majority of them will do nothing more than talk about it. Clearly, from the goals I've listed, this isn't something that is achieved by any military action. At most, military action can lay the groundwork where such things can be achievable.

Comment Re:Zionist Occupied Government (Score 1) 328

And in general, I agree. Especially about things that happened before I was born or my parents were old enough to do anything about them. But the other half of having a healthy sense of nationalism is doing what you can to move your country in the direction you want it to go. That's why I've written letters to politicians, and feel a certain amount of shame to belong to a group, no matter how big it was, that would do such a thing. I don't stay up at night because of it, but I want to keep these actions alive in my thoughts, so I can beware of having some group I'm a part of do something that horrible again.

Comment Re:Zionist Occupied Government (Score 2) 328

Yeah. We're pretty much the only nation on the planet that hasn't tried to corral and exterminate them. Must be that we're mere pawns in their global conspiracy.

No, you're just one of the countries that turned away Jewish refugees from Germany before the concentration camps were opened. Don't be too offended - my country did the same. I'm ashamed, as well.

Comment Re:Complete Failure (Score 1) 378

Actually, they might have foiled a terrorist plot without our ever finding out about it, because if or when a system is working as intended, the tendency is only natural to not notice what it is doing. The lack of any evidence to show that they have foiled any terrorist effort, therefore, is logically insufficient basis to presume that they have not actually possibly done so.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Comment Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... (Score 5, Insightful) 378

I also think you picked a rather ironic day to make that statement, the anniversary of an attack that killed 3,000 people and did $100,000,000,000 damage to the US economy.

Every year, ten times more have their lives abruptly cut off from car accidents alone. That means, as of this anniversary, the deaths from the greatest terrorist attack on American soil cost 1% of the lives as the outcome of something people happily (and not-so-happily) do every day, with little or no concern for their safety. If each of these people had $100,000 insurance, we would be about a third of the way to the same economic cost as the terrorist attack, assuming the only burden their death brought was the insurance payout.

Face it. There are only two reasons you care about this event. First, it's an affront to your (false) sense of security. To assuage that, you do other things to improve your sense of security. The evidence indicates they only return you to that false sense of security. Second, they all died in one small area over a short period of time. Kill each of them, with 9 of their friends each, over the span of a year, and it's just a somewhat upsetting fact of modern living. That's an emotional response with no logical basis on the safety of the average citizen. And yes, that means that a vehicle safety improvement that reduces risk of death by 10% will save more lives than those lost in the Twin towers. Each year. So, which one seems a better use of our resources, and yields a better quality of life?

Contrary to the myopic view of some people, the point isn't to spread fear, or to get people to live in fear, but rather to take reasonable precautions. Keeping hand grenades off planes is a reasonable precaution.

Well, I can hardly disagree. So that explains about 70 confiscations per year that the TSA has performed. Now, please explain to my why this applies to nail clippers, but not a nice pen with a reasonably sharp tip and a nice long metal body? Or 3 ounces of fluid? Even breast milk in a baby bottle, accompanied by said baby?

I'm not saying 9/11 wasn't a tragedy. It certainly was. All the daily activities in my life stopped for about 2 hours, as it did for everyone else in the office where I was working. And I was half a continent and a different country away. And I'm not saying reasonable precautions shouldn't be taken. It's the myriad unreasonable ones I'm frustrated with, and the attitude that there is no such thing as too much intrusion in order to stop the next really big terrorist attack, even though it took about 40 years of hostage takings on planes to get one of this significance. I swear, people won't be happy until airplanes look like they did in The Fifth Element (which was actually a spaceship, but the form factor and purpose was identical).

Slashdot Top Deals

The world is coming to an end--save your buffers!