Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:A completely unaccountable governing body (Score 1) 508

Saying the UK has no control over the EU is like saying the West Midlands or Greater Manchester have no control over the UK.

This seems like a distortion of the OP's proposition. I read it more like saying that the only control the two sheep have over what the three wolves have for dinner is to get out of the common pasture.

Comment Re:"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score 1) 258

They make very little profit on anything they sell, all the profit comes from membership fees.

Even if true, that seems orthogonal to the question of whether they fit the profile of a "small competitor." Costco reported northward of $2 billion in net income last year.

The cost of a patent battle are large, they could probably afford it but the patent holder is betting they won't want to spend the money.

If true, that was a bad bet -- Costco is the one that filed the lawsuit.

Comment Re:"Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things For Cheap" (Score 2) 258

If you read TFA you will see that "why we can't have nice things for cheap" refers to the tactic employed by large companies of threatening legal action against small competitors that those competitors can't afford to defend against

Yeah, that's the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Costco -- an itty-bitty company that can't afford to defend itself.

Comment Re:Where's the news? (Score 1) 258

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.

Or, you could just as glibly say: those who could, did, and those who couldn't, copied.

I have no idea if that's actually how it went down, just as I presume you have no particular evidence this is a nuisance suit. But if Costco did indeed copy Acushnet's patented features, I take it you wouldn't deny the actual inventor legal recourse.

Comment Re:Good grief (Score 1) 269

Somewhat like the paper wraps a large number of words around a really basic (and laughably ridiculous) premise, you've wrapped a large number of words around a really basic troll technique: isolating one thing I said, plugging in your own set of silly assumptions (e.g., that a couple of tokers in their parents' basement have already saved enough money that a ~10x increase would leave them financially independent, and that they could stay in their parents' basement for the 33 years it would take to reach that point), ignoring the larger context of my analogy, and having your way with the resultant straw man. Thus endeth the benefit of the doubt.

The big-picture point you're ducking is that the authors' math requires worldwide reductions of a degree and over a sustained of a period of time that will not happen. Once more, and all together now: Will. Not. Happen.

Though they of course can't suffer the loss of face that would result from saying this in plain English, the authors themselves pretty much admit their entire premise is a pipe dream: "We cannot predict where civilization will be mid-century, but a decadal staircase based on a carbon law, if adopted broadly, may provide essential economic boundary conditions to make a zero-emissions future an inevitability rather than wishful thinking." So if every country of any size across the globe commits to a framework that would force them to implement every single condition the authors say is required for such sustained reductions at such an aggressive rate (including, according to the authors, little no to oil use worldwide less than 23 years from now -- there are many other hilarious examples, but I think that one most succinctly captures the wide-eyed naivete of it all), ipso facto those reductions will happen. Really sage stuff.

Thus, my original point fully stands: a supposed peer-reviewed science journal is simultaneously wasting space and flushing what remaining credibility it might have by publishing what the authors themselves basically admit is really just a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale -- one which, when you strip away the sciency-sounding veneer and cloud of two-dollar words, is qualitatively indistinguishable from my example.

You strike me as a last-word sort of guy, so have at it. I've spent more than enough time putting the rattle back up on the high chair on this one.

Comment Re:Good grief (Score 1) 269

This is not an argument, it's posturing.

Ok, Matt. Though I've already spelled it out elsewhere for another coy poster, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- once -- that you're not just trolling and you really can't see why the burden should be on people like you to explain why there's a cogent thought in this paper worth discussing, not the other way around.

The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!??? By the time our parents kick us out, we'll never have to work again. We could just, like, go to the bank and tell them they need to do this and stuff, 'cause we'd be totally poor if they didn't. DUUUUDE."

I sure do hope you can see (1) why a thought process like that -- which is indisputably mathematically correct, and yet utterly decoupled from reality -- shouldn't ever leave that basement, much less be published in what professes to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and (2) that most professedly sentient beings would not haughtily demand a blow-by-blow explanation as to why.

Comment Re:Good grief (Score 1) 269

It's hilarious (in a sad sort of way) to see the "consensus" attack dogs come out to defend the kind of mindless drivel that is this paper, published in what alleges to be a scientific journal.

It's doubly hilarious that, rather than even attempting to justify why the mindless drivel is anything but, you simply fall back on the reflexive ad hominem "denialists" -- this, in the midst of a high-horse post about supposed "empty rhetoric."

Post may contain irony


Comment Re:Stupidly not filing in West Texas... (Score 1) 35

Plus he can still sue e-bay according to the article "Quote" A patent can be infringed when someone sells or "offers to sell" a patented invention "End Quote"

No, he can't.

The court extensively analyzed the "offer to sell" precedent and concluded that a listing on eBay is not an offer to sell by eBay. And the patent owner admitted eBay didn't "sell" the products at issue. This is all on pages 4-9 of the opinion linked in the summary (and is also explained in the rest of the Ars Technica article below the soundbite you clipped out).

Comment Re: Liability (Score 1) 499

Libertarians believe that companies that oppress users will fail in the marketplace.

A few thoughts:

1. They generally do fail -- just not in the time frame you would prefer.
2. I think you may have really meant "companies that oppress users to a far greater degree than they benefit them." I can quite comfortably predict that for any company of any size you might care to name there's a disproportionately vocal minority that has come up with something to whine about.
3. The specific situation we're talking about here is not simply a company oppressing users in a vacuum, but doing so using the cudgels of overbearing legislation (DMCA) and court precedent (EULAs). That's about as anti-libertarian as you can get.

Comment Re:Citation needed (Score 2) 374

BTW, College tuition is only really going wacko because the government stepped in and made student loans so easy to get.

538 [] says you're wrong.

Did you even read the article you cited? Here's a fun excerpt (emphasis mine):

"Among for-profit institutions, it is much more difficult to pin down a reason for tuition increases, though recent research suggests that one big cause is the generosity of federal student aid : Some institutions may be raising tuition in order to capture as much government-backed money as possible."

Comment This would be childishly easy to work around (Score 1) 52

From the bill:


So a middleman buys the patents, then turns around and assigns them to an assertion entity. This is often how the larger players do it anyway (so the original patent owner doesn't understand who it really is and thus jack up the price).

Comment Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature (Score 1) 440

Look, it's an easy mistake to make, only thinking of efficiency in one dimension, but it's not that hard of a concept, especially for a /.er.

Maybe you're so fixated on the specific point you're trying to make that (1) you don't comprehend that your point is fully orthogonal to my original point that you jumped on; and (2) ironically enough, you don't comprehend that you're the one who is only thinking of efficiency in one dimension.

I'm looking at efficiency in terms of the number of person-minutes required to complete the end-to-end transaction: walking into the restaurant to holding my food in my hand. That takes all externalities into account, which is sorta what you need to do if you're going to have an intellectually honest conversation about whether a given piece of technology increases efficiency.

You, on the other hand, are focused on the single (and largely irrelevant) measure of how long the first part of the transaction (sending the order to the kitchen) takes. A kitchen during peak times quickly reaches its peak throughput limit, at which point it simply doesn't matter how quickly you're able to push orders back to them: the food will not come out any faster. This isn't particularly complicated.

I have retail software development experience, and line busting is a way of dealing with long lines

And there you have it: as the saying goes, when you're carrying around a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Problem is, here we're not talking about waiting in line for a kiosk that, e.g., dispenses tickets, and thus ends the transaction at the kiosk. We're talking about waiting in line for a kiosk that then dumps you in another line to wait for your food. Context matters.

Slashdot Top Deals

Men take only their needs into consideration -- never their abilities. -- Napoleon Bonaparte