Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Form 278 [Re:What is the story here ] (Score 4, Informative) 200

Typically financial disclosures, such as the ones covered by OGE Form 450 (Confidential Financial Disclosure Report), are not public information and are exempted from FOIA requests

The form in question isn't the 450, which is confidential (hence its name). It's form 278, "Public Financial Disclosure", which is public (hence its name.
From http://www.oge.gov/Financial-D...

Public Financial Disclosure

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, requires senior officials in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to file public reports of their finances as well as other interests outside the Government. The statute and the U.S. Office of Government Ethics's (OGE) regulations specify which officials in the executive branch file an OGE Form 278. Unlike confidential financial statements filed by some mid-level employees, the OGE 278 is available to the public. Reviewing officials within each agency certify and maintain these reports. Agencies do, however, forward reports of Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate and certain other reports to OGE for additional review and certification.

Comment Re:Apollo 11 (Score 1) 46

So they can photograph wheel tracks on the moons surface? It should then be a snap (pun intended) to take a pic of the Apollo 11 landing site and put that conspiracy to rest once and for all.

Uh, you think that people will believe that the entire moon landing program was faked, a hoax going on from 1968 (Apollo 8) through 1972 (Apollo 17), with tens of thousands of photographs, live television, and movies; with hundreds of thousands of people involved, and watched in minute detail by a hostile superpower (the USSR) that was ready to devote its entire resources to discrediting America... but you think these same people would instantly believe a photograph from Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter, because satellite photos can't be faked?

Comment As a general comment... (Score 1) 170

As a general comment... it's pretty funny that this wouldn't be an issue, since they complied with the GPL as they were required to do, and published their sources.

Only the politics of Open Source is such that the projects that they published the changes for were not updated to include the changes, because they felt that it was not their responsibility to update their projects to include someone else's changes to their projects. They felt, instead, that it was the responsibility of the people making the changes to join their projects, and then make the changes with the editorial oversight of the community.

This is somewhat ironic, since they wouldn't have published the sources in the first place, if it hadn't been for the license.

So it's interesting to me that you can more or less not comply with the license by complying with it, and that the license is only effective for however long your product and company are around, and, if not picked up by the community to be carried forward, get lost after a short period of time, even if the company continues to exist.

I guess I wonder if it's legal to sell remaindered product (or used product) without offering the sources, per the terms of the license, or if, after that period of time, the products become illegal to transfer the binary licenses, since the originators are no longer around, and you cant appeal to them in order to get around your personal obligation, as the seller/reseller, to make the sources available any more (but you, as the middleman, failed to take advantage of the offer while it was possible to do so).

Probably, projects need to be a little less pissy about integrating third party changes, fixes, and extensions back into their main line.

Comment Re:SDK available here: (Score 1) 170

Perhaps next time you should do a little searching around for the fille PODS_1_2_OpenSrc_Orig_Mods.zip which can no longer legally be distributed before you ask me to distribute it, rather than merely giving you enough information that you could find it if you were smart enough to be able to do the type of programming that the OP is asking to be able to do in the first place, since it's going to be pretty useless to you otherwise.

Comment Re:This explains a lot (Score 1) 511

No wonder there's so much shitty software being thrown out. People are too stoned or drugged up to have any idea of what they're doing and as a result we get crap such as Windows 8 or the near-monthly Facebook "updates".

But hey, drugs are cool and in no way should the deaths of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Peaches Geldoff, Cory Monteith, Heath Ledger, Dee Dee Ramone and a whole slew of other folks who felt being high was so great that they didn't care if they killed themselves in the process.

Unfortunately we'll have to keep hearing about how poor [insert name] died, how they were a good person and blah, blah, blah.

Fuck that. You think drugs are cool and being high is the thing to do, go for it. Just don't expect the rest of us to give a shit when you're found face down in your home.

I don't give a shit when a person that I don't know died (includes celebrities). Nobody does, if they say otherwise.. they're lying.
If a person that I know die, I care no matter what the reason is. If you don't care when somebody you know dies cuz of drug abuse and you don't care only because of that, then you a def somebody I would never want to meet and know in life.

Comment Re:Slippery Slope (Score 1) 186

Let me repeat that: It is absolutely technically possible to filter based on source IP address country.

Yes, you can also do various trickery to cloak your real source behind another source. That doesn't invalidate the point.

No, it just invalidates the suggestion as an effective method of geographically constraining data away from users in a particular region, which is what you are trying to do by using the IP address as some sort of magic geotag.

Comment Re:Slippery Slope (Score 1) 186

If Google is censoring their results, they could do so no just on the basis of which version of Google receives the request, but on the basis of the requesting IP address.

Google blocks it by domain. Domain is specific to country by registrar. If someone in the UK goes to google.com instead of google.co.uk, it's up to the UK to dick with their ISP and DNS results to force redirect them into the UK legal sandbox where the content is controlled.

You know, just like China.

Legally forcing a commercial entity to act as part of your own implementation of "The Great Firewall of China" is not the same thing as not being censorious dicks yourself. An unfunded mandate to force someone to do your dirty work for you does not make it any less your dirty work.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...