Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Desperate to be in ineffective (Score 1) 437

It's obvious the US does not intend to stop illegal immigrants form Mexico, it's just a show to buy votes and hand juicy gobs of taxpayer money to friends. It would be profitable and easy to just fine companies employing illegal immigrants until it was cheaper to hire Americans. It seems this isn't acceptable because some of those companies would just move to Mexico/India/China. Any other method that might actually work has similar problems. But the "I'll spend massive amounts of tax payer dollars on obviously ineffective solutions" seems to work really, really well on America voter if you phrase it right.

Comment Re:real science (Score 1) 672

No, the increased solar activity was part of the warming, just a smaller part. Roughly 20% if I remember right, but that still left the majority of global warming not coming from solar activity.
Image

New App Mixes New Drinks With What You Have 127

Pickens writes "The magic of a new app called 'Top Shelf' is that if you want to mix a new drink, the app thinks the way most of us do — instead of going out to buy the ingredients, it shows you how to build a new drink with the ingredients you have available. Feeling indecisive? Let Top Shelf pick a random recipe for you. You can get a random drink from the entire database, a specific category, your favorites, search results, or the liquor cabinet."
Biotech

Scientists To Breed the Auroch From Extinction 277

ImNotARealPerson writes "Scientists in Italy are hoping to breed back from extinction the mighty auroch, a bovine species which has been extinct since 1627. The auroch weighed 2,200 pounds (1000kg) and its shoulders stood at 6'6". The beasts once roamed most of Asia and northern Africa. The animal was depicted in cave paintings and Julius Caesar described it as being a little less in size than an elephant. A member of the Consortium for Experimental Biotechnology suggests that 99% of the auroch's DNA can be recreated from genetic material found in surviving bone material. Wikipedia mentions that researchers in Poland are working on the same problem."
Image

Police Called Over 11-Year-Old's Science Project 687

garg0yle writes "Police in San Diego were called to investigate an 11-year-old's science project, consisting of 'a motion detector made out of an empty Gatorade bottle and some electronics,' after the vice-principal came to the conclusion that it was a bomb. Charges aren't being laid against the youth, but it's being recommended that he and his family 'get counseling.' Apparently, the student violated school policies — I'm assuming these are policies against having any kind of independent thought?"

Comment Re:easy answer (Score 1) 218

The easy answer to the problem: don't redistribute whatever it is you make.

It sounds easy, but it is actually very difficult to keep from distributing. You see, a distribution is a transfer between any two legal entities. So, for example, you hire a consultant and give him a copy of the software. Then you decide not to use the consultant any longer. He's annoyed, and he asserts his GPL rights on your entire product, and distributes it. You go to sue, and the copyright holder of the GPL piece gets involved and makes a case that you don't have the rights you think you did. Your NDA does not apply to GPL software because GPL prohibits you from adding incompatible terms.

In some cases, transfer between divisions, especially partnerships with one or more additional firms, are distribution. So, in practice, I think that purposefully not distributing is too difficult to do reliably. It also does not work against Affero GPL3. If you perform that as a service, you have to give up the source code.

So, it is much easier to keep your software separate as I advise.

Thanks

Bruce

That was the reasoning used in my current company to never, ever risk integrating GPL software into our code, despite the fact that we never sell or release software. (We use the custom software internally to help build a physical product.)

This seems at odds with the GPL FAQ:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.

Is there something I'm missing? Are there specific provisions that should be included in NDAs and employee contracts to do this safely?

Comment WTF USA? (Score 1) 547

Why doesn't this bother you more? A great many of you even seem to think this is right. Why is punishing technical disobedience of the law to do the right thing so important?

Is it because he is a minor and attends the school, so is almost effectively helpless? Obedience to law must trump benefiting the public, nip it in the bud? Is it criminal and cocky to out smart people society has designated your superior?

Is there no principal, law or philosophy of what once made the USA a respected country that you will not tear down and piss on? Does it hurt to be reminded?

No, really. Its not funny anymore.
United States

Submission + - Why’d we go to war again?

Tanaris writes: "Ok, despite the fact that the New York Times buried the story on page A8 (although I did enjoy the piece on the ambidextrous college pitcher on the front page), today it became official that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Queda. So, by my score card on the reasons for the war in Iraq:

Reason 1: Fear of WMD Did not exist

Reason 2: Ties to Al Queda Did not exist

Reason 3: Spread Democracy Not happening

Reason 4: Oil Supplies are way down

Reason 5: Saddam was a bad man Yes

Thats 4-1 people and if being a bad man gets you the full brunt of the U.S. Military, theres a long list of dictators out there we can target.

In reality, the Bush Administration did not go to war for any of the stated reasons whether that is an impeachable offense I dont know but rather to place the U.S. Military right smack in the Middle East to exact change where diplomacy has failed. The Bush theory was and is with our fighting force right there, Iran and Syria and the Palestinians need to know we can and will use force to dictate policy. I kind of buy this one but it hasnt really worked either. Lets go to the score card once again:

1. Iran: Not scared about capturing British soldiers

2. Lebanon: Hezbollah not scared about war with Israel

3. Saudis: Not scared about calling the U.S. an occupying force in Iraq.

4. Syria: Assad not scared about having tea with Pelosi!!

5. Arabs v. Israel: They are both using positive rhetoric about a two state solution.

Thats 4-1 again! Despite the losing record, I can assure you American troops will not exit Iraq before GW leaves office in January of 09 so lets hope some positive things happen thats the message Im supporting.

Have you supported a message today?

IsupportThisMessage.com"

Slashdot Top Deals

6 Curses = 1 Hexahex

Working...