Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Can't see the forest for all the trees (Score 1) 384

Batman vs Superman was an okay one time movie, not worth the popcorn and soda that a theater experience requires, but watchable one time movie, just to see WonderWoman and Aquaman.

Certain actors shouldn't fill certain roles. It would have been much better to find an unknown to play Batman than put Ben Affleck in that role. He doesn't have the ability to pull it off. Being behind the mask, requires greater acting ability than normal, because you have to convey more with movement. It doesn't work for Ben as Batman. Though He works in "The Accountant" because his acting ability is fairly wooden, like the character, it works.

Henry Cavill sort of works for Superman, mainly because he "looks" the part.

Comment Re:Conversely... (Score 1) 242

If the situation is exactly the same up to the point of your two options, then there is a "Self digging shovel" available at some level in both situations. In situation #2, it isn't for sale, and unless you can conclusively promise shovel in one year, for only $5,000 then option 1 is still the only valid consideration. Further, if option 2 says there are no patents (assuming that is the change) then I can build a shelf digging shovel today for whatever price, and as long as the value I get out of it is better than before, I'll get my $20,000 shovel either way.

1) 20000 for shovel get 30000 use from shovel in year one. Year two is how much (no answer in option 1) is it free, or nearly free? Does it cost 20K / year forever (unlikely) or what. Incomplete information leads to bad decisions.

2) Can't buy Self Digging shovel (unknown reason). Promise that they will be available in a year for $5000 (if you believe vaporware promises)

all the unknown variables make your assumptions useless, which is why I chose (and still choose) option 1. Based on the INFORMATION I have, it is the only real choice.

Comment Re:Conversely... (Score 1) 242

Heck, you can still charge the same amount as a well-written patent, but can crank it out in an afternoon!

Legal profession robots coming soon for this reason alone. Yes, good lawyers will always be needed, but most "lawyering" today is boilerplate legal forms and processes that can be replicated by a series of questions that pick which process one needs. We can get rid of most lawyers and and streamline the legal processes.

Comment Re:Conversely... (Score 1) 242

In that world, do you think we'd successfully get rid of patents? Also, have you given thought to the implications of getting rid of patents?

No. And Yes.

We'll never because its in the Constitution, and that is next to impossible to change. And I have, and it is liberating of enterprise. I prefer "trade secrets" to Patents for protection anyway.

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 1) 496

Well what is a warranty? It's a promise by the manufacturer to repair or replace equipment if it fails. If you modify the equipment and it fails because of your modification, they are not liable for the failure and not held responsible for the repairs. Right? You make modifications that cause a failure then it's no longer their problem.

I will concede though that often manufacturers will claim that any modification releases them from all responsibility, regardless whether that modification has any impact whatsoever on whatever failures might have or may eventually occur. That's outside the bounds in my mind, and the law you pointed to would seem to support the notion.

Obviously there are circumstances that could lean the "right" decision to one side of the fence or the other.

Comment Charitable crime-fighting (Score 1) 307

"$450 billion ($1,800 per resident) per year from 1987–1990."

Yeah, and the next sentence explains that figure as: "These losses included $18 billion in medical and mental health care spending, $87 billion in other tangible costs, and $345 billion in pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life."

Different ways to count it can result in vastly different numbers — depending on what one wishes to demonstrate, ha-ha... The point remains, though, the cost of crime, however you count it, is still below the "commie socialist programs" that serviscope_minor attempted to justify.

And, the "war on poverty" isn't solely about reducing crime

Of course, it is not! Moreover, I argue, that it is not about reducing crime at all. It is about genuine compassion for some and the ability to spread the wealth around for others. That "spreading" of the wealth of captive taxpayers is pure unadulterated tyranny, of course, and the folks advocating it usually have a vast conflict of interest.

The overhead of charities ranges from 15% to as much as 70% — with government's operations being on the greater side of it. It is an incredibly lucrative and powerful position to be in control of spending even $1 billion, even if a mere $150 million of it are yours to dispense on the "overhead". With $800 billion per year you can find words, sponsor poems, finance movies and other artworks, and even find a smooth talking nincompoop, who will sincerely protect your trough, while denouncing opponents as greedy and egoistic bastards...

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 1) 496

While I will admit to not having read the legal content of the law, I did read a couple of summaries. The law you cite is primarily meant to require those companies who issue warranty agreements to clearly and unambiguously define the terms, and protect consumers from shady or deceptive warranty jargon.
One line that was up on Wiki and the meaning repeated elsewhere states:

The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.

In other words if you disassemble the product, place new/different/altered components on it, and it can be determined that those new/different/altered components caused the product to fail, then the manufacturer is not liable to repair it under warranty.

Slashdot Top Deals

No extensible language will be universal. -- T. Cheatham

Working...