Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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 Politicians playing at looking busy? (Score 1) 226

Doesn't broad legislation like this hinder new technology advancements that could benefit drivers and improve safety? How about HUD displays wearable or projected on the windshield providing information at a glance instead of turning your head and looking for the idiot lights on the console. Some of these HUD systems can improve safety by improving early warning during poor visibility as well as traffic alerts such as warning about accidents ahead and warning you to reduce speed.

Where was the legislation when complex audio systems were introduced that require more attention from driving to operate? Handheld devices are just 'another' example along with Google Glass that are additional distractions 'when used in an unsafe manner'. Better get rid of the AC/heater controls as they are just a distraction from the driving task as well. There are already laws on the books to address negligence. Do we really need to add laws specific to each new device type that comes on the market?

Comment Worst company in America? (Score 1) 346

I think this is somewhat simplistic. EA operates by the use of unethical practices to milk their customers out of money, but this is a video game company. If they folded tomorrow, the country's economy would not be impacted. Wall Street would not really care. The only people who would be impacted would be their employees.

There are worse businesses out there that do cause significant harm to people in the US. How about Oil Companies? How about Walmart?

This is as silly as Barack Obama and Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace prize for playing politician at their day jobs.

If you don't like EA that much, then Don't give them your money. End of story.

Comment Re:More explicit descriptions than others (Score 1) 219

If they are being more explicit about it, then it should not involve a 'take' on it. It should be stated clearly.

We will only use your data if you mark it public. We will only use it in these explicit ways. ie., We will aggregate types and number of files, we will target ads to you in other Google services based upon content within your drive... Only when marked public. We will not scan your personal naughty documents and serve ads based on those unless they are marked public.

If it is explicitly well stated, then I shouldn't need to ask for clarification.

Comment Possible options (Score 1) 157

Simplest would be a laptop with the right software. I don't know what might be available software-wise, but a little research should turn up something.

Is there a reason you can't use a grow light instead of solar power from the sun?

For an elaborate solution, assuming you have internet access from the remote sites... Do a 'Silent Running' type Biosphere somewhere sunny, with robots that can be remotely controlled to perform tasks as needed in this biosphere. The students would love it and you would get good publicity for the program as well as some corporate sponsorships if you pull it off.

That's all I got for you.

- WildTech

Comment He's dead... (Score 1) 426

Since he is dead, he will not care if the series goes on. His wishes stopped carrying any weight when he stopped breathing.

The part that irks me is that the rights persist with his heirs. Too many people are getting by on the success of their ancestors.

If you are a musician, artist or author and you die, then you are not longer contributing to society. Your family needs to succeed or fail on their own ability and merits.

I can see a case for some rights to persist for a short term. Under the current system those rights are blown out of proportion to their relative contributions to society. Give the family 2-5 years to capitalize on the death of the rights holder, then put it in the public domain. Allow their contributions to society to really be a contribution and not a measure of greed.

As to whether or not a series should be continued against the 'dead' authors wishes, the market will show the viability of the product/work. If no one buys it then it speaks for itself. If it is popular, then it reinforces the reality that the original authors are not the only source of good ideas on that theme.

Some authors actually seem to understand this... They open their 'Story Universes' up to other authors to explore.

You can disagree if you like... That's what makes this system work... The 'right' to agree or disagree.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama