Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:Seems mostly like a left wing echo chamber (Score 1) 106

Oh, the article obviously very biassed, no question about it. But I like the fact that the author doesn't try to pretend she's not biased or writing in a "balanced" way. It makes it all the more believable to me. But again: it could also be completely made up for all I know, although she's dropping a lot of names of people that were present and specifics that should make it easy to debunk things in that case.

Comment Re: Seems mostly like a left wing echo chamber (Score 2) 106

If the way that Milo guy is portrayed in the article is in any way accurate, he doesn't appear to espouse any viewpoints at all. He just enjoys trolling, including trolling people into believing that what he writes are actually his viewpoints.

Of course Twitter may, like Facebook, help/hurt/hide/quash certain trending topics etc, but I don't think this person's case a particularly good example of how it's ruled by some kind of elite that does not like any dissent.

Comment Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her. (Score 2) 177

and says that nuclear energy is, "dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts", when the actual data shows just the opposite.

If you take into account all of the government subsidies, including covering the industry's uninsurable risks, I'm not sure whether at least the cost argument holds.

You forgot that it's the only form of energy that's currently regulated to include all of externalities in its cost.

No, since for nuclear a bunch of externalities are covered by the government at a rate that is below what the market is willing to offer (since the market doesn't want to cover them at all).

For a fair comparison, you'd need to require coal to catch everything (CO2, sulphur, other toxins, more radioactive isotopes than a nuclear plant, etc)
  from all chimneys, transport and store that securely for hundreds of years.

I doubt Jill Stein is very much in favour of coal fired plants.

And despite that, nuclear is still competitive and causes many orders of magnitude less deaths.

Competitive with massive government subsidies, yes. Of course, coal also gets lots of subsidies.

Comment Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her. (Score 5, Interesting) 177

She's in favor of "homeopathic medicine",

That seems to be a little simplistic, given that she apparently even got the Green Party to remove all mentions of homeopathy from their platform. That said, pure placebo's (such as homeopathy, VR and even the colour of pills) can have their use either separately from (in case of e.g. a hypochondriac) or in combination with regular treatment.

and says that nuclear energy is, "dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts", when the actual data shows just the opposite.

If you take into account all of the government subsidies, including covering the industry's uninsurable risks, I'm not sure whether at least the cost argument holds.

Furthermore, she wants "a moratorium on GMOs", which wikipedia states, "There is a scientific consensus[147][148][149][150] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food".

While she indeed argues against it because of safety arguments, there are plenty of other reasons why many people are against GMOs. Just look at the majority of comments on the Slashdot story regarding one of the "GMOs are safe" studies.

I REALLY want to vote third party, but we need some third party candidates who are not anti-science crackpots.

Bashing using arguments that are either easily refuted, or at the very least less clear cut than presented, is anti-science. Name-calling while posting as AC is just silly.

Comment Re:As it's been said... (Score 5, Insightful) 621

A parliament that cannot propose legislation is a parliament in name only. It's a check/balance, I'll give you that, but it's not where the power lies if it cannot propose and effect a change that it wants to.

In the UK, you elect an MP. That MP directly votes on, and can propose legislation. The "other" house, the House of Lords, can only delay any legislation that the House of Commons votes for by returning it with recommendations a maximum of 3 times. After the third time, if the House of Commons again votes it through, it becomes law (subject to Liz' royal assent, but that's not being withheld...).

This is effectively the inverse of the European "parliament". The EU commission decides what laws will be proposed, the parliament (the people who the people elected) then get to horse-trade the deal until the parliament and the commission agree, and then all countries must adopt the law. This is a significant reduction in the power of the people.

As a bonus, the commission are basically immunised against any effects of their political machinations, the only way for a member of the EU commission to be removed is if the parliament unanimously votes to remove all members of the commission at the same time. Yeah... Not gonna happen.

So to summarise: you have an un-sackable body that is the only group who can propose legislation, which gives them the ability to apply enormous pressure to the elected representatives (oh, you want X do you ? Well make sure you vote for our Y and Z and then we'll consider it). And then everyone is forced to accept the results of this as law.

Sorry. That sucks. Given the mission statement of ever closer union, the desire to raise an army etc., and the binding nature of EU law as supreme, the mismatch in democratic power within the EU *should* be concerning IMHO. Whether it's sufficiently concerning to brexit is a different argument, but I think it certainly played its part.

Comment Re:And ? (Score 1) 25

It doesn't have to be tradeable for the protections to stand. It just means the original person/company-if-it-was-an-employee that had the idea, and who filed the patent, now has the legal protections and can therefore attempt to attract investment that the patent encourages.

The idea of selling the patent to someone who has (a) no intent to manufacture or execute on the idea, and (b) simply wants to prevent anyone else from using the idea without paying some sort of (usually, after the fact, and punitive) licensing fees is what is counter to the original idea of what a patent would provide.

Intellectual property can be a thing - there ought to be some reward for working hard and creating something, but patents don't have to be considered normal intellectual property, they can be either a non-tradeable subclass, or simply defined otherwise.

Comment And ? (Score 4, Insightful) 25

Apple patents a lot of things. It's a big company, sure there'll be people at Apple working on AR/VR. There'll also be people there working on colour-coded mouse buttons... There's also the somewhat-nuts situation of "hey we should absolutely patent this in case we ever need it in the future, and we don't want someone else to patent it first".

Personally I think you should have to have demonstrable progress on anything you patent on a yearly basis until it makes it to the market. Also, the whole idea of patents as a tradeable commodity is nuts. If it has to be tradeable, make the patent lifetime be cut in half for every trade...

Comment Re:Saturation (Score 1) 170

I think we do have that kind of software.

1) Presentation software, sales systems like powerpoint are way more advanced
2) Interactive books (iBooks)
3) Photo viewers and browsers to replace albums
4) Shopping experience websites (tablet users love the interactive shopping experience)
5) Tablet gaming
6) Note taking

I'd say that's a pretty successful. Apple's statistics show that their tablets are still heavily used. Where they have had problems is creating incentives for upgrades.

Comment Re:Saturation (Score 2) 170

One of the big upsides of Android is hardware diversity. Device manufacturers can easily customize the device for markets and sub markets. The downside is you have hardware diversity induced by easy customization and thus support is expensive and complicated. Two sides of the same coin.

Comment Re:TMobile.... (Score 2) 145

It really depends on your location of use and how far from interstates you travel, when you do.

In my case, there is absolutely NO coverage for T-mobile at my lake home on any provider except Verizon. Considering we spend ~40% of our summer months there, this is a necessity.

We also travel, by car, over 3500 miles each summer on a road trip. With Verizon I have never been out of coverage; however, AT&T and T-mobile cannot keep pace--not even close.

Comment Re:future 'rust belt' and detroits (Score 1) 100

Yeah, that list is at best misleading.

According to the second chart, Apple doesn't have 1376 employees in the Bay Area. There are more employees ahead of me in the lunch queue at Cafe Macs than that! Apple are building a second campus (and keeping the first) which will on its own hold 13,000 employees. The first campus is supposed to hold ~7000 IIRC, but it's being pushed to about 10,000 right now with people doubling up.

And if you've ever gone over to the Googleplex, you'll see a whole bunch of buildings taking up a pretty huge space. I can't believe there's only 1374 employees there, either.

Slashdot Top Deals

The road to hell is paved with NAND gates. -- J. Gooding

Working...