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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Peter Thiel didn't bankrupt Gawker (Score 1) 241

Gawker's behavior bankrupted Gawker, end of story. Peter Thiel picked up the legal bills so that the person they wronged could afford to sue them.

This is only one of the cases we've heard about. I would not be surprised if Thiel picked up legal bills for every lawsuit against Gawker. Put together, it's a full-on campaign to use the legal system to destroy a company for a personal vendetta. If Thiel didn't like Gawker, he should have sued them.

Comment Re:Big surprise some jackhole Silicon Valley (Score 1) 241

startup wanted to cash in on this. Lawsuits as a Service! Can't wait until this extends to software patent litigation.

This idea is nothing new, and in fact, there are many companies out there that are already doing the same for patent litigation. Patent litigation was really where litigation funding hit the mainstream. This is a neat company, but the ideas and tech are all old.

Comment Ups and Downs (Score 3, Interesting) 102

This list is interesting, but hardly anything new. I'd like to see a list of tech millionaires and billionaires that lost the most amount of money. That is, take their peak net worth and subtract their current net worth, and rank the decline. I'm sure Elizabeth Holmes would make that list.

Comment Another Case of Palsgraf (Score 4, Informative) 140

I skimmed the full opinion, but a 1928 case is instructive. In the 1928 case of Palsgraf v. LIRR a women in a train station was injured when another passenger dropped a box of fireworks that caused some heavy equipment to fall on the women. The women sued the railroad company (as they likely had deeper pockets than the person dropping the fireworks). The court found that the rail road was too far removed from the events that occurred to find them liable. Here too, Twitter is too far removed from the actions of terrorists to find them liable.

This is a pretty interesting example of classic legal concepts being applied to new technology. Anyone who says that the law is outmoded or needs to catch up, only needs to read this opinion.

Comment Re:H.265 (or HEVC) (Score 1) 204

You're wrong about H.265. It offers massive compression improvements but also requires massively greater processing power to play back.

I've heard that on real-world cases, you typically see a 20-30% improvement. That's laudable and will certainly reduce YouTube's bandwidth bill, but hardly groundbreaking. It doesn't seem to be significant enough to enable new use-cases. And given the increased playback requirements, it may actually be a step backwards on mobile devices.

Comment Re:This already happens (Score 3, Funny) 195

If you think that "s(:Ú÷Sòoè/$QÓ4dr£'XåÒúZúsUjÏpáåìa±‘2à¥n úÜê–¦G÷ájç4Íï`Ý^în&ä\ð}.Fú?x¥P. øòzóæ|w;¥Jt/6VÑTUýõ$mHôÿ ]}uóæ|/3àj½óTá`ümØ{*.?@8ÕG3àiå{üæò(#ÿ ñãWQÄÀ—€|åyð£ÎWÀü+‘\]r{25½öBÆaúvç+Ìø'3à~EX©5—ßÝ(ÊÆÛ]" is hot, then you're an idiot...

Until you get used to it. All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead.

Dude! You mistook that upper case "I" for a lowercase "l"... that chick has a dong.

Comment Re:The small amount of fraud (Score 1) 182

the path we're on right now is what has us voting for the worst possible people to hold office. The only effort I'm suggesting is showing up on election day...presumably only those that care enough would make the sacrifice. It would also severely limit the ability to vote harvest over weeks - and by that I mean individuals or groups that round up what can only be called "useful idiots" to cast votes in return for whatever - food, money, a ride, something to do, nothing, etc.

If the goal is improving vote quality, then it's much safer to improve the media and education apparatus, than to come up with artificial hurdles for voters. While it would be nice if there was a philosopher king that could choose voters based on education, intelligence, effort, etc., it's just too much power to give any one person or government entity. It's better to make voting incredibly easy, and develop strong first amendment rights (free flow of information) and quality institutions that utilize those rights. This way, the power to influence voting is spread among many instead of the few. It's not ideal, but it much less prone to developing too much power in too few.

Comment Tech has lost its luster (Score 1) 213

I'm unsure whether technology itself is slowing down, humans have become accustomed to technological innovation, or constant marketing hype of failed tech dreams have taken a toll (there are arguments for all), but technology has begun to lose its luster. Long are the good old days when the mass of nerds would wait at the edge of their seat for the newest chip from intel, a new linux distro that did package management differently, a new type of modem or internet connection that was X% faster. Now, even drones and the constant ho-hum of AI technology barely raises most nerds attention from their breakfast cereal.

Comment Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? (Score 2) 331

Making threats easier to make increases the number of threats

Some points:
A - The purported purpose is to reduce violence, not reduce threats.
B - How does a gun emoji make it "easier" or encourage people to make threats when they can just type "gun", or "I'm gonna shoot you"?
C - Even assuming there is a link (which I don't think there is), how can that possibly be more important than censorship?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan