×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

DRJlaw Re:A Bridge Fuel... (380 comments)

The reasoning is that natural gas releases less carbon than coal, so if we switch from coal to natural gas, then we'll reduce climate change.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that, and unlike you I know the science behind it. The problem is the next sentence of my post that you conveniently left out of your quote -- which is, if we don't actually reduce energy demand, we'll eventually run out of natural gas and have to burn the coal/oil anyway. So we just end up in the same place, just a few decades later.

Unlike you, GP is viewing the entire situation. You simply refuse to work your assumptions into both scenarios.

Also note my primary objection is to the beginning of TFS which implies we could STOP climate change by this substitution, which is in fact idiocy if anyone thought it true.

Let's imagine two scenarios:

1. Burn coal until coal becomes impractical, then switch to natural gas.

2. Burn natural gas (with declining use of coal due to current policy and economic factors) until that becomes impractical, then increase or switch back to coal.

If we don't actually "reduce energy demand," as you put it, we burn the same amount of carbon under either scenario. Yet the second scenario reduces carbon introduced into the system in the earlier years. If we do reduce "energy demand," by whatever means and at whatever time, there is a net carbon reduction.

Only your strawman is claiming that substition = solution. The rest of us are claiming that substition = mitigation. In any of the two scenarios where we dont burn until we "run out" of both resources, there is less carbon emitted by switching to natural gas. In the scenario where we do burn until we "run out" of both resources, there is a nominally greater amount of time for society and nature to adapt by using natural gas first. In the meantime we continue to develop and drive down the cost of other sources, to deploy those technologies, and to develop storage technologies to support personal and bulk transportation.

You claim that switching to natural gas is idiocy yet using natural gas is somewhere between neutral-to-improvement, is currently somewhat cheaper, and under a carbon tax would inherently be cheaper due to factors that you claim to be perfectly aware of. Yet science and economics be damned; you just want the biggest stick possible to force us to do it your way -- right now, all the way, regardless of cost, and "what storage problems?".

The idiocy is not only seeking to internalize the costs of fossil fuels, but seeking to reject any improvement in their use that is not a complete solution. The idiocy is thinking that people won't recognize that fact and call you on it. The idiocy is thinking that once the sciene is proven (which it is), everyone must automatically adopt your particular priorities and timetable because there are no value judgments involved (or only yours).

People rately cooperate with those who call them idiots. Until you have a comfortable majority -- which you do not -- you cannot afford to alienate those who are supporting relative improvements. So become perfectly aware of the sitatuion and stop engaging in equal idiocy yourself.

3 days ago
top

Apple Antitrust Case Finds New Consumer Plaintiff

DRJlaw Re:I hate Apple (39 comments)

Good, we need more hate because we certainly need less life on this planet. Let's start with politicians and lawyers, first.

As long as you people insist upon trying to control what your neighbors do, weaseling out of paying your debts, cheating the people you do business with, and making up your own rules that totally suprisingly favor whatever side you're supporting at the moment, there will be politicians and lawyers.

The politicians are just doing what you tell them to do -- or more specifically, what the people who actually care are telling them to do. Those who sit on their ass writing meaningless missives of how it's all rigged against them without actually organizing their neighbors get what they deserve.

The lawyers are usually trying to prevent you from being screwed by the other guys. And before you retort that lawyers are encouraging the screwing, remember that our technological surveillance state is being created by the engineers and computer scientists -- not politicians using off-the-shelf parts. You're no better. Behave yourselves and lawyers won't have clients. Then there'll be less of them.

4 days ago
top

Microsoft Files a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit For Activating Pirated Software

DRJlaw Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation (268 comments)

Courts should punish intentional facilitation.
If you can't be bothered to sell a $1 security dongle with the software as other software companies do, then you must be intentionally facilitating piracy.
The courts are not there to be abused in the face of intentional facilitation, especially as best practice is already known.

Or you could use software activation, as other software companies do? As Microsoft does? Because Windows 7 and Office 2010 activation were certainly put there to intentionally facilitate copying.

As for your comment that hardware dongles are a "best practice," pull the other one, mate. Nevermind that the $1 dongles don't work.

about two weeks ago
top

Canada's Ebola Vaccine Nets Millions For Tiny US Biotech Firm

DRJlaw Re:Newlink's license invalid? (70 comments)

It would seem from http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/e... last week's coverage that Newlink had already violated the terms of their license.

How would it seem so, since the very article that you link says "BioProtection Systems Corporation (BPS), now a wholly owned subsidiary of NewLink Genetics Inc., has performed at or above expectations thus far." Outside critics don't get to retroactively cancel a contract signed five years ago because progress under the contract doesn't meet their post-hoc expectations.

Seems like they sat on it as long as possible, then sublicensed to Merck.

Funny, the very article that you linked to says that "[l]ast week, we announced the beginning of clinical trials of the vaccine in Canada." Do you have any direct knowledge of the typical work and time involved in setting up clinical safety trials? I doubt it. Note the following:

Preclinical Testing: A pharmaceutical company conducts certain studies before the future drug is ever given to a human being. Laboratory and animal studies must be done to demonstrate the biological activity of the drug against the targeted disease. The drug must also be evaluated for safety. These tests take on the average 3 1/2 years.

At this point though, who cares about the lousy $50M,

TFA.

[T]hey should just get on with producing the fricking stuff while testing in parallel.

Because mass producing an experimental drug that has not been shown to be safe, much less effective, in vivo goes against more than a half century's worth of applied medical knowledge and ethics, notwithstanding the losses you would suffer if you stockpiled a drug that failed clinical trials? But hey, you can assume safety since nobody has been hurt yet, right?

about three weeks ago
top

Class-Action Suit Claims Copyright Enforcement Company Made Harassing Robo-calls

DRJlaw Re:Copyright is turning into religion (67 comments)

I think the key phrase is "were accused of illegal downloading." If the robo-call can prove that they are right on whatever they accuse, the case will be thrown away due to the Clean hand doctrine... The lawyer (Pietz) is relying on and hoping that the point can't be proven...

No, the lawyer (Pietz) is relying on the fact that he is a trained lawyer and you are not.

The Clean-hands doctrine is something that a court might use if a party were requesting an equitable remedy. That means, in legal matters, that a party is seeking specific performance of an agreement, an injunction, payment of the value of services rendered when there was no specific contract with an agreed price, etc.

The clean-hands doctrine does not allow the court to deny rights and legal remedies -- like the remedy in 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3) of $500 for each violation -- that are specified by statute enacted by the government.

If you think that simply because the other guy has "dirty hands" the only thing you need to worry about is whether a government agency decides that you've crossed a line, you are sorely mistaken. Your lawyer will eventually explain that to you. You will not like it.

about three weeks ago
top

Court Rules Google's Search Results Qualify As Free Speech

DRJlaw Re:Responsibilitiy (137 comments)

So, if Google's search results are considered free speech, do they also have the same responsibilities as other forms of free speech.
What if you search for a person and the results incorrectly suggests that the person is a pedophile? Does that qualify as libel, or is that suddenly not Google's problem?

It's not-so-suddenly non Google's problem -- specifically it's not Google's problem ever since the passage of the Communications Decency Act and the section 230(c) immunity in back in 1996.

If you search for a person and the results incorrectly suggest that the person is a pedophile, you need to go after the person who wrote and posted the material, not the search service that automatically indexed the material because, truth or falsehood aside, that material is relevant to the search.

You simply wish to shoot the messenger, or the big bad corporation, rather than deal with the actual author of the libel. It's been decided that that is a poor strategy, and that the benefits of automated indexing and searching outweigh your reflexive need to strike against the most convenient target at hand.

about a month ago
top

Apple Disables Trim Support On 3rd Party SSDs In OS X

DRJlaw Re:Summary is misleading, you can work around (327 comments)

If you read the rest of the article, you find that you can simply disable the driver loading security to have it working again.

The article paints this as a huge security issue, but why?

Because you cannot simply add your own key, but you have to disable all driver signing in order to use one non-approved driver?

Cn anyone reasonably argue that having a system highly secure for non-technical users with easy workarounds for actually technical users is a bad compromise?

Yes. See every argument ever about UEFI secure boot on PCs intended to run Windows 8.

about a month ago
top

Apple Disables Trim Support On 3rd Party SSDs In OS X

DRJlaw Meet the new Microsoft (327 comments)

I look forward to posts from all those who decried the "Microsoft-sponsred" secure boot UEFI feature.

After all, at least with the former you could turn it off or add your own key to boot what you like.

The latter is merely a giant F U from Tim Cook to anyone who does not purchase Apple OEM or Apple-approved hardware.

about a month ago
top

The 7th Underhanded C Contest Is Online

DRJlaw Re:The previous entry page leads to 404 (41 comments)

What defunct are you talking about? ;-)

We want the funct!
Give up the funct!
We need the funct!
We gotta have that funct!

Owww! Stop the hitting...

about a month and a half ago
top

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

DRJlaw Re:What did you expect.. (144 comments)

So if a person merely thinks that they're gay, they're gay.

If an overweight person doesn't think they're overweight...

about a month and a half ago
top

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

DRJlaw Re:What did you expect.. (144 comments)

Overweight people can (with a few exceptions due to medical conditions) change the fact that they're overweight. Gay people by and large cannot make themselves not gay.

Citation needed. For both.

Your "exceptions" are the rule.

Gay people can be celibate.

Frankly I'm more interested in the first point. While gay people can "not be gay," I wouldn't wish it upon them, they've worked hard not to be looked down upon for being gay, and all the more power to them.

Now on to your implied point that it's ok to shame overweight people because they supposedly can change the fact that they're overweight -- just like gay people can change the fact that they have same-sex relationships -- by overcoming fundamental physiological urges that you're oh-so-sure can be overcome by pure willpower.

about a month and a half ago
top

Creationism Conference at Michigan State University Stirs Unease

DRJlaw Re:It makes you uneasy? (1007 comments)

And you think we should "let them wallow in their beliefs" even to the point of using tax payer funded facilities to do so?

I'm pretty certain that they pay taxes as well. The mere fact that you contributed an infinitesimal amount to "tax payer funding" does not mean that you get to dictate how each and every dollar of that funding is spent, much less whether other members of the public have the ability speak at and use a public resource.

You're merely a censorious ass who doesn't believe that they are proposing censorship because they are oh-so-certain that they are right. Yet at the same time you decry "the hate of the masses," because, hey, that affects you...

about 1 month ago
top

Steve Ballmer Gets Billion-Dollar Tax Write-Off For Being Basketball Baron

DRJlaw Re:Misleading- Good will is common accounting (255 comments)

Goodwill is the 'gap' between the valuation numbers and the purchase price by definition (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/goodwill.asp).

No. Valuation only combines identifiable tangible and intangible assets. If you do not break out and assign distinct values to intangible assets like copyrights, trademarks, patents, or especially other intangible assets such as distribution contracts, those items do not fall within "book value," but rather the goodwill account. Read your own link. There are times that this needs to be done -- for certain tax benefits -- but otherwise you try to avoid this exercise.

To assign a book value to an intangible asset you have to be able to demonstrate that you've given it a so-called "fair value" . For intangible assets that can extremely difficult to do. The value of the "Coke" trademark is not traded on a market, or readily comparable to equivalents, or entirely described by a separate revenue stream (it is in part - licensing revenue for merchandise - but it is also inextricably part of the value of the base product). The entire point of "goodwill" is to provide an account mechanism for that portion of the fair market price -- the non-book value -- that cannot be marked to an asset market like most physical goods.

about 1 month ago
top

Steve Ballmer Gets Billion-Dollar Tax Write-Off For Being Basketball Baron

DRJlaw Re:Misleading- Good will is common accounting (255 comments)

The implied assumption in the article and in the commentary indicates a deliberate misdirection or a simple understanding of the accounting principles involved in how a business accounts for a BAD DECISION. Every business has the ability to use this 'loophole'. But it's not a 'loophole'. It's a simple recognition that a capital purchase that turns out to not be a good deal should have the loss (cost of the purchase price minus the fair market value of the asset) amortized over the book life of the asset against the income produced by the asset.

Kids, this is basic accounting 301 (Intermediate management accounting).

If it were basic accounting 301, then you would have learned that "goodwill" does not equate to the purchase price minus the "fair market value" of the asset. Goodwill represents the "fair market value" of the asset minus the value of the tangible assets -- the inventory, machinery, real estate, etc. that can be quantitatively and qualitatively priced by sales or marking to a known market.

If you were to purchase the Coca-Cola corportion, then you would be spending an enormous amount on "goodwill." That is because the value of the trade secret for the formulation of Coca-Cola, the value of the brand recognition for Coca-Cola, and the value of the bottler network relationships are all intangible assets that do not have a concrete or easily ascertainable value. A significant part of the value of Coca-Cola lies not in the value of the HQ building (real estate), the office computers, lab, and pilot plant equipment (you don't think the actual corporation owns very many bottling lines and delivery trucks, do you?), but in the value of being Coca-Cola and not Royal Crown Cola.

That's goodwill. You didn't necessarily make a bad decision buying Coca Cola because you didn't buy it for the price of RC Cola, you paid for intangibles that contributed to the medium term P/E ratio (or similar metric) that you actually used to detemine the price tha you were willing to pay. If you try to pack that value into the tangible assets of the corporation, which depreciate over time and must be replaced (note, also over much shorter depreciation scales), then you end up with silly values that are way above market. If you offer a price only based on "real" values of the physical assets, the seller is going to tell you to take a long walk off a short pier.

The difference between (1) the price of the tangible assets and (2) the price the buyer is willing to pay and the seller is willing to accept, i.e., the very definition of a "fair market value," is the value of the intangible assets. Some of those you can estimate a value for, if need be, but frequently they are all lumped together as "goodwill." Sure you can overpay and make a bad decision, but that's because you eff'ed up the value of the revenue stream you could generate versus the cost of the debt you took on(or the opportunity cost of the money you took out of whatever other investment you shifted out of to) to buy it, not simply because you spent money on goodwill.

Signed,
A guy who does M&A work

about 1 month ago
top

Employers Worried About Critical Thinking Skills

DRJlaw Re:Want Critical Thinking? Fix the Public Schools (553 comments)

Freedom first of all means protection of the individual against the destructive power of the collective, freedom to own and operate his/her own self and his/her property, freedom of movement and freedom of contract.

Ah yes... your civic entitlement to protection against the collective, and other individuals, to be secured for you by others (yet without cost). Your freedom to move... on the property of others... since you cannot plausibly own the all the roads you use much less the water you sail upon or the air you travel through. Your freedom to contract... which only has meaning by dint of the power of the collective to enforce the contract.

And last time I checked, you were free to own yourself and your property... unless I understand you to be objecting to eminent domain, in which case you are of course free to abandon your use of those roads, railroads, etc. that the nasty collective forced upon your noble and downtrodden individuals.

Sick, paternalistic societies will end themselves so that eventually freer societies can emerge, too bad we are living here today before that happened.

Good luck with that one.. the period after the fall of Rome was such a grand improvement that I'm totally rooting for a modern repeat.

Go kooks!

about 2 months ago
top

Employers Worried About Critical Thinking Skills

DRJlaw Re:Want Critical Thinking? Fix the Public Schools (553 comments)

Example, Arkansas:

the State shall ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of
free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the
advantages and opportunities of education.

Shall ever maintain... general... free public schools... secure to the people...

Your inability to parse a governance document for mandatory language which establishes a right does not mean that there are none. You'll note that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution only uses the word "right" once -- a "right to vote" -- yet there are multiple rights protected by the 14th amendment.

It's amazing what one can learn by actually studying and being tested upon Constitutional law, rather than making up ad-hoc theories about how the law works.

about 2 months ago
top

Employers Worried About Critical Thinking Skills

DRJlaw Re:Want Critical Thinking? Fix the Public Schools (553 comments)

Education is a public good, that isn't the same thing as a civil right.

Seeing as the right to a thorough and free public education is written into the constitutions of most, of not all, of the states within the US, that would make education a civil right.

Civil: a : of or relating to citizens b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry

Civil right: : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress.

Nevermind that you'd be hard pressed to find a society that doesn't provide at some level of education as a matter of right by constitution, law, or the like.

You may mean that it's not a "natural right," but your personal philosophy does not have the power to override the actual state of the world.

about 2 months ago
top

Solar System's Water Is Older Than the Sun

DRJlaw Re:Of course it does. (173 comments)

For anything in the solar system to be YOUNGER than the sun, it would have to be MADE by the sun, or as a byproduct of the sun achieving fusion. Our planet is younger than the sun itself, but the elements that comprise it are much, much older.

That only applies to atoms, not molecules. I can point to oodles of molecules that in a "most recent step" sense were made by the sun (e.g., through UV radiation or 'solar bleaching') and oodles of molecules that in that same sense were not (e.g., plastics).

TFA is referring to molecules of water and whether they tended to form during planetary disk formation and consolidation:

[Shielding from cosmic radiation] makes it quite hard for these regions in the disk to synthesize any new molecules. This was an 'aha' moment for us -- without any new water creation the only place these ices could have come from was the chemically rich interstellar gas out of which the solar system formed originally."

There is still active debate over when and where the typical water molecule arose in the course of events leading to the formation of water-bearing planets. See this article, for example. If verified, this theory tends to favor interstellar formation.

about 3 months ago
top

3 Recent Flights Make Unscheduled Landings, After Disputes Over Knee Room

DRJlaw Re:my solution is the gym (819 comments)

I win more times than not and the jackass in front of me gets a sore back for their troubles.

I'll be the jackass complaining to the flight attendant in the sweetest manner possible that the passenger behind me is intentionally burying his knees into the seatback.

With your attitude, you'll be the jackass having a conversation with the air marshalls after backtalking the flight attendant while desperately trying to explain why your knees absolutely must be placed right there.

Winning...

about 3 months ago

Submissions

DRJlaw hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

DRJlaw has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?