Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment I've long thought this should happen... (Score 1) 390

... I just didn't expect it to happen so soon. A mesh network is a natural step to take on the path to fully automating roads and all but eliminating the dangers of the road. Naturally the next step would be to mandate cars to participate in the network, to get the best data. I just wasn't predicting it would be in this decade. Mind you, the recent advances in automatic driving without mesh networking has also been surprising, so maybe I should have seen this coming.

I don't know what the submitter is so worried about. This is simply one of the final nails in the coffin of road fatalities.

Comment Re:Non News (Score 1) 127

You lose many babies, even when trying (even successfully) to conceive. That's not a problem; potential babies are a dime a dozen. We can always just manufacture more, with pleasure!

I can't say the same for potential sales. Once a sale is lost, it's very hard to get back, and impossible to fabricate.

Comment Re:Non News (Score 1) 127

Something is *created* when copying something.

Indeed. Nothing new. Nothing helpful. Nothing that contributes to our culture or understanding of the world. Nothing that is any good to anyone, except the person who obtains it.

Nothing is *taken*

Ah, this is where you're wrong. The fact that there is a component of creation does not imply there is not a component of taking, or destruction.

Comment Re:Non News (Score 1) 127

Not just government-backed, but government-guaranteed. The entire time they were pouring their own money into making this stuff, they were doing so under the assumption that the law saying they would get a monopoly on their particular product would be upheld.

Of course they feel entitled to their monopolies. And, moreover, they are entitled to reparations to those of us who break the monopoly.

Comment Re:HELL NO (Score 2) 387

If you actually have a talent for writing software, you'll find out automatically.

Bullshit. Kids have no way of recognising that aptitude in themselves. How could they? I find that people who haven't been introduced to computer programming previously have no idea what it entails.

Also, I'd like to point out that programming in school is mostly about structuring your thoughts logically and a feel for how computers work, not professional coding etiquette.

Comment Re:It's the JEWS - didn't you notice? (Score 1) 179

Is that not enough to convince you?

Ahhh, if it's all the same to you, I'm not quite done with my critical reasoning skills yet. But, I promise, the moment I'm done with them, I'll come chase shadows with you on your imaginary demon hunt.

Comment Re:Obvious bias is obvious (Score 1) 179

Obvious bias is indeed obvious, but, to be fair, it only points out that the reason is stupid, and does not comment on the law itself. It doesn't really need to either, since the /. groupthink will tell 95% of us what to think about it anyway.

Comment Re:The bigger problem (Score 1) 179

but just check out TV forums and see how many posters refer to actors by their characters' names. For a lot of people, TV is real-life

That might be a bit of a leap there.

When I read a novel, I say/think $CHARACTER did something, even though I know that they don't exist, and I find I do the same in all sorts of entertainment, television included. Also, the names of the characters are a great way to refer to the person without having to memorise their names, or expect others to do so as well.

In fact, come to think about it, I don't know a single person who is even close to thinking that TV is real. I don't even know anyone who thinks it's plausible. Do you?

Sometimes I wonder if "Remember the dumb people" is /.'s "Think of the children".

Comment Re:Something else entirely? (Score 1) 388

No, the worst possible thing already happened, thats the content of the letter.

A slight exaggeration perhaps, but it's beside the point. It's not a competition of who can be more wrong; the fact of the matter is that it's possible for two parties to be in the wrong. And in principle, how wrong one party is should not affect how wrong the other party is.

Think about all those legal penalties for spying, warrantless searches, torture, and all those other illegal methods for obtaining potentially valuable information. Not only do we punish people who use them, we refuse to acknowledge, in court, the information obtained using them. Why? Because if we did, then people would continue to do them, regardless of the penalties. It's not enough to say, "Whoops, my bad, but at least you caught the serial kiddie-fiddler due to my illegal search!", and walk out scot-free. Regardless of how useful the information exposed, we know that the methods to obtain said information are evil, and we do our best to ensure they don't happen, even if it means ignoring valuable information. Basically, as far as the courts' are concerned, the ends never justify the means.

(Now, I don't mean to suggest we should ignore what Snowden turned up, just that we shouldn't allow the magnitude of NSA's crimes to blind us to the issue of whether Snowden himself has done wrong or not.)
