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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:They'll profit by selling in volume (Score 3, Insightful) 177

That's not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme promises great immediate returns, and uses investors money to pay off other investors to fool people into thinking they are. Nobody is buying into Tesla to make a quick buck. I doubt people invested large sums because they expected every car to be electric by 2020.

They are sold at a loss because it takes continued R&D to bring the costs down. To short sighted people like yourself, R&D is a considered a waste of money. However refining the world's most advanced car manufacturing plant, developing and integrating the software and battery technologies, all takes time and money. In the mean time building up a significant patent portfolio. See the sale of the patent portfolios of Motorola or Nokia to see how much this can be worth.

Starting from scratch is expensive. We all hope they can make it. Mobile phones were sold at a loss for a long time after they came out, but I wouldn't like to be without mine now.


Comment Re:Growing pains of a new technology (Score 1) 117

I'm happy to hear that yet another piece of "alternative", "stick-it-to-The-Man" payment infrastructure has been burgled. Really.
Then you are rather a sick individual.

You see, a large part of the appeal of bitcoin comes from its aura of "under the radar", "the authorities need never find out" financial transactions.
No it isn't. A large part of the appeal of mobile phones to terrorists is ease of communication, however most people are not terrorists. I think a lot of people are interested because you can transfer money anywhere in the world instantly with no transaction charge. No VISA, Western Union, Paypal, etc. You can access your money for free too. I pay through the nose in bank charges for access to my own money. In France, you even pay a monthly charge to own a credit card!

For the first group (criminals) I believe it serves as a useful deterrent, or at least a risk and a complication.
Er no, I don't think criminals keep their money on Bitcoin exchanges.

So to summarise, we should wait outside your house and then kick the crap out of you and take all your belongings so you get a personal reminder that there are not so nice people out there? Enjoy living in YOUR world. And no don't bother talking about the police as your "safeguard", you know there is a 99.99% chance they won't do anything.


Comment Re:We were hacked, honest (Score 2) 117

Not just the Greeks but people lost their money in Iceland and Cyprus. People get their accounts hacked, card cloned, etc, all the time. Credit card fraud is way more than Bitcoin, and that cost just gets passed onto the bank customer (ie you).

It's amazing that people like JustAnotherOldGuy think banks are still safe. In the UK, anybody that has any sense spreads their money amongst multiple banks keeping under £75,000 (the amount guaranteed by the government) in each one.

For under $1000 I wouldn't even keep a backup more effort than a USB stick.


Comment Re:We were hacked, honest (Score 1) 117

Actually when banks get robbed you can lose your money. It happens all the time. Sometimes you get a portion back, in the UK the government guarantees up to £75,000, or in the case where the Spanish banks where supposed to be holding your money for property investment you get none back. Try looking up what happened to those with their money in the Cyprus and Icelandic banks.


Comment Re:Every intelligent person (Score 1) 517

Have you been to Germany? I've driven through a number of times and have been surprised to see how similar it is to driving through England (except with nicer cars). Especially the suburbs where the houses and the shops look so familiar. They also love their pubs, with similar pub grub (but with no horse in their sausages). I was in Berlin yesterday and it's certainly not the prettiest of German cities but it's definitely not the ugliest in the west. If you drive through the large Turkish areas then you will get a bad impression. Then again if a tourist drove down Tooting Broadway they wouldn't think England the most elegant place in the world.

If you think of Rome as a beautiful place to visit then maybe you should try? It's dirty, covered in graffiti, crime-ridden, people trying to force knocked-off goods on you every street corner. The banking system in Italy is on the verge of collapse too. Paris is nice but try going to Marseilles. See how long you can live there before you get your first beating.

Merkel's immigration policy may have upset a lot of people and caused chaos across Europe, but that's not Germany as a people or a place.


Comment Re:Every intelligent person (Score 1) 517

given the level of misinformation being peddled by the anti-EU media

Are you kidding? Did you not see the level of misinformation peddled by the Remain camp? They rolled out everyone from celebrities to the IMF, and even the American President Mr Obama, to say what a disaster it would be telling some real whoppers.. Some in the Leave camp may have published ropey information but there is NO WAY you can say it wasn't both sides peddling misinformation.

The referendum was not unnecessary, it was an election pledge made by Mr Cameron and the public voted him into office with that being one of the promises he made. Mr Cameron has always been a man of integrity, and despite the great political risk he kept his promise. Ok it destroyed him. But he did what he thought was the right thing.


Comment Re:Every intelligent person (Score 1) 517

Can you give an actual, real-world example for the EU appointing some country's government?

The EU government, in Brussels, where their government over-rules the national one.

Yeah... except that the petition for a do-over was opened by a pro-Leave voter and opened BEFORE the referendum.
But why should facts matter, right?

You talk about facts, then bring up a great statistical sample of... ONE PERSON???

Um... you're assuming that everyone was fully informed and aware of all the consequences while voting.

This is never the case. Not even in a general election. It is the best argument for abolishing democracy. But as Churchill once said, "Everything else we've tried is worse".

But we heard enough voices of people who voted leave and then started to realize what benefits they're getting from the EU that they might lose.

And also those that were told it would be gloom and disaster if they leave the EU, and are now all saying it is nowhere as bad as they thought it was going to be.


Comment Re:Every intelligent person (Score 1) 517

Agreed. The reason the referendum result was roughly 50/50 is because the advantages and disadvantages are about that. Both Remain and Leave have winners and losers. Before the vote I thought Remain was best, post vote I can now see why Leave might be better.

The decision will be as good or as bad as we make it. A Remain vote would be for the status quo, not very good but at least you know where you are. The Leave could be a massive boost to the UK, or set it back it back if not handled properly. The fate of the UK is in its own hands. And that is the nice thing about it.


Comment Re:Usual media FUD (Score 1) 517

Brexit is a non-problem because it's not like Y2K, which had a hard deadline. The UK can trigger Article 50 whenever it suits them. Assuming Parliament votes it through. And the House of Lords ratifies it. At the moment it is planned to be triggered the start of next year. Then there are a supposed two years to then negotiate the exit, though as this has never been done before who knows if that won't be extended. More complicated trade deals could take even longer to complete.

Until we go out in a few years, the UK is a fully paid up EU member and will continue to reap the benefits for its continuing contributions. This gives time for science councils to petition the UK government to ring-fence sums in future tax revenues to replace funding that would otherwise have come from the EU. Scientists have been become too accustomed to begging for scraps from the gravy train because EU money is "free". Er no, that EU money came largely from us and goes to you after deducting a hefty Brussels "administration fee".


Comment Re:But they pay more to the EU than they get back. (Score 1, Informative) 517

That's not how it works, iris-n. The pound fluctuates against the euro, it always has done and it always will. It went from 1.3 to 1.2, but it's been 1.04 before. This doesn't make Britain richer or poorer linearly as most of the GDP is spent within the UK itself. For instance the NHS pays doctors and nurses in pounds, therefore the pound going down makes no difference, but it will make drugs more expensive to buy from abroad.


Comment Re:Books, Music, and APIs (Score 3, Interesting) 405

A melody or a lyric is not like an API. A musical note or an alphabetical letter is. To take your own example, "For example, I can play "Yesterday" on a piano, guitar, speak-and-spell, and it's still a Beatles song". The musical notation is the API, and you are able to implement the copyrighted melody via that API on a variety of different instruments. Imagine if somebody held the copyright to the API and only allowed a guitar solo to be performed on a particular brand of guitar? Would music be where it is now?

If you allow an API to be copyrighted then you will destroy a good amount of the software industry. Designers already do lock down APIs when they want to, even 'open' APIs such as Google and Facebook require you to generate an API key which they control the validity of.

It should definitely NOT be copyrightable. It would be detrimental to both industry and society.


Slashdot Top Deals

It's great to be smart 'cause then you know stuff.