Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Really? Did we ever really want smart watches? (Score 2) 365

Apple didn't invent a lot of things. What they did was find a way to make existing things better in ways that made them mass marketable. Not the fastest, not the most feature rich, not the smallest, but enough of all three to make it appeal to a bigger slice of the market.

Now that Samsung has failed so miserably, Apple knows what worked and what didn't, and can better bring their design to market when it is ready.

IMHO Samsung failed to include the front-facing camera and the ability to play video. This is supposed to be a Dick Tracy watch dammit!

Comment Same as the Canadian national gun registry (Score 4, Informative) 497

Before it was scrapped, the Canadian government had shelled out over a billion dollars to pay for the federal gun registry. It was initially budgeted to cost a few hundred million. Why the bloat? Because they didn't factor in the cost of every single department and major player having a different computer system, and wanting integration with their systems, and they didn't want their individual departments to pay for it, or have to change their own internal systems. So it all got added into the registry's budget instead.

Comment Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (Score 1) 601

Correction: TFA says they can apply for REIMBURSEMENT. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $5000 now and then wait several months to get my money back.

As opposed to TFA, the actual law says:

Where registrar investigates (4) If the registrar is of the opinion that an investigation under subsection (1) would impose an undue financial burden on the land owner, the registrar shall undertake the investigation. 2002, c. 33, s. 96 (4).

Nowhere in the law does it say they have to apply for reimbursement. They can challenge the order to hire the archaeologist by stating they don't have the funds to hire him.

Comment TFA says that they can apply for relief (Score 5, Informative) 601

The Act allows for them to apply to the minister for an exemption, upon granting the state will pay the cost.

The law as written was meant to ensure companies are responsible for the archaeological costs incurred from digging up their land instead of saddling the taxpayer.

The Star is just ginning this up as their usual "GOVERNMENT BAD" drivel.


Canadian Couple Charged $5k For Finding 400-Year-Old Skeleton 601

First time accepted submitter Rebecka Schumann writes "Ontario couple Ken Campbell and Nicole Sauve said a recent fence installation led them to discover what is being labeled a historical find. Sauve, who said the duo originally believed the skeleton to be from bones of an animal, called the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate; Forensic Anthropologist Michael Spence confirmed the bones were that of an aboriginal woman who died at age 24 between the late 1500s to the early 1600s. In spite of reporting their find and Spence's evaluation, Suave and Campbell were told they were required to hire an archeologist to assess their property at their own expense under Ontario's Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act. The act, which requires evaluation for all properties found to house human remains, has the Canadian couple stuck with a big bill."

Comment Re:The farmer's recourse is to sue to sell (Score 2) 579

It likely won't work, as the elevator was selling the other seed as feed, not for planting. The farmer was banking on getting RR seed, because he knew the elevator didn't care what kind of seed went into the stuff for "feed/milling/etc".

He was trying to argue that first sale doctrine means the patent can't tell him he can't use the cheap seed for planting. Which is true. But the patent still applies because he can use the seed to grow more seed, and he knew it.

This isn't a case of a farmer's crop being cross-contaminated. This guy was deliberately trying to get around having to honour the plant patent by obtaining the seeds through other means.

Monsanto may have a case against the elevator for not heat-treating the seeds sold as feed to ensure they could not be used for planting. But the farmer does not have a case, as he was banking on the elevator not treating the seed.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're not Dave. Who are you?