Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Look, I can change the subject line too!!1! (Score 1) 24

Ahh, so when your argument is demonstrated to be false

You must have a very creative definition of the word "demonstrated" -- or did you perhaps mean to say "semi-incoherently argued without a shred of support"? I'm happy to engage with facts and evidence -- not so much with conclusory conspiracy theories.

And as far as ad hominem goes, you might consider that your own "amazingly well thought out reply" [cough] labeled me "gullible" and accused me of "attempting to spread opinions based on ignorance." Apparently you're one of those special little snowflakes that can freely dish it out but can't take it.

Comment Re:Are you that gullible? (Score 1) 24

My friend, you clearly have a well-established opinion about all this, so I'll not waste any more of my time trying to persuade you otherwise. But my answer -- which is both legally and factually accurate whether or not it fits your ill-informed worldview -- stands. Now run down to Wally World and stock up before China confiscates all the tin foil.

Comment Re:Um (Score 1) 24

Why is China allowed to sue anyone for patent infringement anywhere except in China?

"China" isn't suing anyone. Chinese companies like Huawei can sue for patent infringement outside China because they don't just have Chinese patents. It's exceptionally common for larger companies to file for a given patent in a number of different countries (the heavy hitters including the U.S., Canada, Europe, China, Japan, and South Korea), generally based on expected sales/manufacturing footprint.

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 1) 260

The articles about that death covered the fact that AirBnB sweeps in with cash in exchange for confidentiality in the event of mishap, effectively hiding most deaths' associations with AirBnB.

Yes yes, I know -- just like the 300mpg carburetor that everyone could have had decades ago had the evil auto industry not suppressed it. (Here, the claim actually consumes itself: if there really were all these incidents and they really were cloaked with a confidentiality blanket such that there's no way to verify who and how many there are, then the journalists that claim to know this are either relying on inherently unreliable sources or outright lying.)

But bigger picture: People sue big companies all the time these days over much less than this, and sometimes it's not about the money as much as it is simply to be vindicated -- to tell your story to the world and have a jury of your peers agree that you were wronged. Conspiracy theories aside, it would be unlikely (to say the least) if at least some of the survivors wouldn't choose to take that route.

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 1) 260

Seriously, think that through. Prior to regulations high rise fires killed LOADS of people.

Prior to [the past several decades], individual house fires killed LOADS of people too -- hopefully we can at least agree on that. And United States fire deaths have decreased dramatically over the past several decades. So in an intellectually honest universe, there are a number of confounding factors you would have to work through before simply declaring that hotel "regulations" (whatever those might be) are responsible for an allegedly significant decrease (that you have yet to quantify) in hotel deaths. Say, the significant decrease in smoking rates. Or significant improvements in fire-retardant materials. But at this point I'm guessing intellectual honesty is not the order of the day here.

And I didn't bother looking for airbnb specific fires. Because there is no reason to. Given airbnb doesn't require any additional regulation then best case scenario is that it will have a fire rate the same as the wider building population.

So instead of looking at the actual data to determine whether your hypothesis just might be incorrect, you're declaring the actual data doesn't matter (and even better, that you know what it would be if you did look) because you're taking your hypothesis as a given. Wow. Just wow.

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 0) 260

Impossible to compare AirBNB stats as the information is completely unavailable.

So you have no idea. And come on -- given how much publicity there was over the dude who was killed by the falling tree branch/tire swing, how many deaths from fire at an Airbnb property do you really think could sneak under the radar? That's why I challenged you to simply find one. I take it you haven't.

However there were 1.24 million building fires in the US in 2013. Which claimed the lives of 3240 people. Of those fires 7700 were in high rise buildings. Those high rise fires contributed 27 deaths. That gives you a fatality chance per fire of .35% in a high rise and .26% in all fires.

And in the link I posted, fatality chance per fire in your "much higher standard for fire safety" hotels works out to about .38%. If you're ultimately less likely to survive a hotel fire than one in a freestanding house, then the regulation you think you want is worse than useless.

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 1, Troll) 260

It is materially less safe than the existing hotel market. A simple example is hotels are held to a much higher standard for fire safety.

I call bullshit -- that is, if you care about actual outcomes as opposed to bureaucratic box checking. Show me one Airbnb death from fire. One. If you can find one, then we can go on to discuss whether Airbnb's effective per-room-night death rate is higher or lower than the hotel industry's, which in the U.S. alone has thousands of fires and double-digit deaths each year.

Comment Re:I'll cheerfully stop bashing it (Score 1) 470

You've succinctly captured one of the truly amazing things about socialists -- no matter how many devastating failures have come before, hope springs eternal that if you just tweak a thing or two, all will be puppies and rainbows. The problem y'all just can't come to grips with is fundamental to any flavor of socialism: it strips the individual of any motivation to excel. And that motivation to excel is the reason we're not still drawing pictures with burnt sticks on the walls of caves. To pretend that humanity in the aggregate is going to go the extra mile solely for the benefit of others is to recklessly ignore fundamentals of human nature that won't be changing any time soon. Capitalism plus reasonable taxation harnesses that human nature for a true win-win -- society overall benefits far more than it ever has or ever could under a socialistic regime.

Comment Re:I'll cheerfully stop bashing it (Score 1) 470

My hopes of a rational discussion were dashed by your admission that you're advocating for full-blown socialism -- as the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. But a few points:

Because we're letting a sizable portion of humanity starve for no reason. We're already making enough food in raw calories to feed everyone, but we still have mass starvation. Think about why.

My question was why you know Monsanto et al are making more profit than they would need to in order to continue to develop the products they do. Your answer was completely orthogonal to my question. Care to try again?

They don't. 90% of the _hard_ R&D is paid for by your tax dollars and mine.

A laughable proposition that might not even be true even under whatever twisted definition of "_hard_" you have in mind. Feel free to send any actual data you have on the subject.

Fun Fact: The US Housing market currently has a housing shortage. Is it because of evil gummint bureaucrats? Nope, it's because they ran out land developed by the American Taxpayer.

Again, feel free to send any support you might have for this. It seems clear enough that cities that have not opted to artificially restrict new development are experiencing a great deal of it in response both to the need and to the increase in prices -- free markets have a pesky tendency of working that way, whether or not that agrees with your worldview. See, for example, here.

Comment Re:I'll cheerfully stop bashing it (Score 1) 470

Just regulate it already so there's enough profit motive to keep people interested as opposed to living like god-kings.

1. How much is "enough profit motive to keep people interested"?
2. How do you know "companies like Monsanto" are currently making more than that? (Bonus question: If they are, how much cheaper do you think their products would be at the "enough profit motive" level?)
3. How would these companies continue to have "enough profit motive" to engage in R&D in a world where farmers need only buy seeds from them once, then replant saved seed every year thereafter?

Comment Re:Quit it already! (Score 3, Informative) 470

It's amazing how much misunderstanding of the U.S. patent system (and its history) you've packed into a single sentence.

Drop them back to the original term of 14 years

Sounds enticing on the surface, but keep in mind that was 14 years from issue. The U.S. didn't start measuring term from filing until 1995. Before that, people like Jerome Lemelson could manipulate the system by keeping applications tied up in the Patent Office literally for decades, all the while massaging the claims to cover wherever the market happened to be going in the meantime, and still get 17 years of fresh term when each patent finally was issued. I doubt you really want to go back to that kind of a system. And given that it can often take 3+ years for the Patent Office to examine a patent, the current term of 20 years from the filing date isn't effectively that much longer than the scheme you're proposing going back to.

close the "change one minor thing and re-patent" loophole

No such "loophole" exists. Right now today, advances over the prior art are only patentable if they would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 35 U.S.C. 103. If your real quibble is that the Patent Office issues too many patents with claims that actually would have been obvious, I won't disagree, but the solution is to more consistently enforce the rules that currently exist, not change them. The new procedures put in place by the America Invents Act (such as inter partes review) are helping with this a great deal.

and make damn sure they STAY at 14 years and don't let them ever become renewable or extended and grow out of control like copyright has.

Nobody is suggesting doing any of these things, so there's nothing to "reform."

Comment Re:Where does the money come from? (Score 1) 1116

Even McDonald's workers need $15/hr ($30k/year)

Most fast food workers don't work even close to 40 hours a week, 30 hours now being the cutoff for being considered "full time" and thus eligible for health insurance. The average is more like 24. So even at $15/hr (ridiculous, I agree), that's only about $18k/yr.

Slashdot Top Deals

To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.