Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Google Pledges Not To Sue Any Open Source Projects Using Their Patents 153

sfcrazy writes "Google has announced the Open Patent Non-Assertion (OPN) Pledge. In the pledge Google says that they will not sue any user, distributor, or developer of Open Source software on specified patents, unless first attacked. Under this pledge, Google is starting off with 10 patents relating to MapReduce, a computing model for processing large data sets first developed at Google. Google says that over time they intend to expand the set of Google's patents covered by the pledge to other technologies." This is in addition to the Open Invention Network, and their general work toward reforming the patent system. The patents covered in the OPN will be free to use in Free/Open Source software for the life of the patent, even if Google should transfer ownership to another party. Read the text of the pledge. It appears that interaction with non-copyleft licenses (MIT/BSD/Apache) is a bit weird: if you create a non-free fork it appears you are no longer covered under the pledge.

Comment Devil's Advocate (Score 0, Flamebait) 439

I'm probably going to modded into oblivion, but I'm sorry I simply don't buy what this article by the World Bank is selling Temperatures have remained steady for 16 years now in spite of computer models released by the IPCC which show that by now temperatures should be much higher. So there's likely a negative feedback effect that has been left undocumented by most models, and this should be concerning many people in the climate science game. Honestly, this articles smacks of an attempt by the World Bank to scare people into getting on board an ETS - from which they will directly benefit in a financial manner. I really wish that anyone outside of the sphere of science would stop making unfounded claims to push their own agendas.

Comment Re:Something I've been watching... (Score 1) 926

Furthermore drought in Russia, Europe, and Australia means they aren't having bumper crops to offset that loss.


I can't speak for Russia or Europe, but Australia is definitely not in a drought and hasn't been for at least the last 2 years. In fact at the moment we are in the middle of a La Nina event, with more flooding than anything else. Most of our dams are either at 100% capacity, or close to that as well - they'd in fact all be at 100% if it wasn't for "environmental flows".

Comment Incentives (Score 5, Insightful) 154

There's an easy way that they could cajole most people into being tracked, and that's to give them "points" which they can spend on good & services depending on the time spent in the shopping centre, etc. That way, both parties get what they want and Big Brother is happy again as Joe Consumer continues on in blissful ignorance.

Comment Re:Don't matter... (Score 1) 245

Wow, you are misinformed a great deal. Firstly, the water wasn't 100m (300ft) high even in New Orleans. Secondly, New Orleans sits below the water level, which is why they have levees in the first place. They built New Orleans knowing full well that this is a likely scenario, and all it took was a big enough storm to cause this.

Comment Re:There's a difference between Mars and the Ameri (Score 1) 917

Wow, get angry much WindBourne?

Let me answer some of the angry points you made, ok?

And those going to Mars will also have a breathable atmosphere. It is just that it will be a limited confinement.

Indeed, they will have a very limited breathable atmosphere that they have entirely imported with them from Earth and will be reliant for the rest of their lives to ensure that the machines which maintain said breathable atmosphere do not break down.

Look, just because you are afraid of the unknown, does not mean that others are. Many would willing give their life to help build an establishment for their country or just for science. When my children are adults and able to take care fo themselves, I would volunteer (though my wife is likely to nix that). Why? BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL. We NEED to take RISKS. Without those, you do not have the opportunity to make huge discoveries.

There's hardly anything unknown to fear here. The risks are entirely known, although granted, it is possible that there may be some unexpected issues that crop up when we finally do get to mars that the boffins on Earth hadn't foreseen. And yes, if the issue was to start a colony on Mars without a return trip to Earth, then that is fantastic, but more likely, this will be a one way mission for a bunch of astronaughts to do science and not actually establish a colony. Colonisation of Mars is highly unlikely to take place any time in the next 25-50 years. Further, our need to take risk must be mitigated by the potential gains. What exactly is it that we would gain by sending Astronaughts on a one-way almost certain suicide mission at great expense to Mars, which cheaper unmanned missions could not accomplish?

Personally, I am tired of those that want to conqueror others on this planet for their resources (read murder), but then get upset about out taking risks that MIGHT kill a person. The west use to be heroic and be willing to get it done. Now, we act like our individual life is all that. Give me a break.

WTF? Now you're just ranting off at a tangent. How about, personally I am just tired of people responding to a post in a knee-jerk manner and making all sorts of assumptions based on zero factual evidence.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is now. Later is later.