Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:whose payroll is the scientist on? It matters (Score 1, Troll) 448

... whose jobs are dependant on a federal grant getting renewed.

A recent GAO report said that $106 BILLION was spent by the US government through 2010 on global warming research. If you figure that was through the end of 2010, that was still 4 years ago, so the number is now much larger.

That number absolutely dwarfs even the imagined amount of money that fossil fuel companies have been accused of spending in campaigns against "climate change". I mean it's easily more than 2 orders of magnitude larger.

Even scientists are human, and they are smart enough to know which side of their bread the butter is on.

Comment: Re: Regulation? (Score 1) 337

The greatest income inequality in the developed world can be found in probably the least statist country, the US.

Just two comments here, though there are many I could make.

First, income inequality is NOT the real issue. Why should you care who is or is not rich? The PROBLEM is poverty.

Second, my whole point was that it is very easy to show that income inequality has become WORSE, the more statist the U.S has become. I'm not saying that correlation proves causation, but the existence of a correlation is indisputable.

Comment: Re:Heh... (Score 1) 99

by Jane Q. Public (#48918749) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

hint: there's no such thing as a public domain "license"

This is a patently ridiculous assertion. A copyright holder can voluntarily place a work in the public domain (that's what GPL and Creative Commons are all about, for example). In fact that's what this whole discussion is ABOUT. Have you read any of it?

There is no law in the US that allows something to be appropriated from the public domain without modification

Another patently ridiculous assertion. There doesn't have to be a law "allowing" it. That's not how the law works. It would not be possible only if there were a law against it.

The FACT is, not many years ago Congress passed a law that put millions of works that were formerly in the public domain back under copyright. That is the incident that caused EFF to start pushing for a law that would make that no longer possible.

So you are WAY out in left field.

Comment: Re:That'll stop the terrorists! (Score 1) 235

by Jane Q. Public (#48918665) Attached to: White House Drone Incident Exposes Key Security Gap

Ummm. Are you saying that the peoples' will is to keep the skies over the White House open to drones of all sorts? Really?

Or are you just looking for any vaguely political story onto which to dump your anti-government bullshit...

Don't be a jerk. The question is whether all drones should be restricted just because the President is a candy-ass.

A Federal court has already ruled that the FAA does not have authority to regulate drones, except those that enter "navigable airways". REGARDLESS of whether their use is commercial. Their regulatory authority is limited to interstate commerce, which is the basis for the definition of navigable airways.

The solution to the Whitehouse problem is simply to make it illegal to fly drones THERE. Not to regulate them everywhere else.

The FAA has appealed the court's ruling, but based on evidence and precedent it is pretty clear the FAA will lose that appeal.

Comment: Re:Regulation? (Score 3, Insightful) 337

Now that they've got theirs, it's fine if regulations hold back everyone else.

I have nothing against people being rich, if they got there honestly and without coercion. Government lobbying, for example, is one form of coercion because it influences regulation of others via money.

But let's face it: most of them did not get there quite honestly or without resorting to coercion. And in fact, regulations helped to get them there. Not only is that obvious on its face, you can see it in the statistics: the more "statist" and regulatory governments have been, the less well economies have done and the more income inequality we've seen.

Now they're proposing to try to fix the problem they created, by doing more of what created it. Typical government idiocy.

And as for "unrest", they aren't going to be able to regulate that away. On the contrary: at least here in the U.S., if they don't start lightening up on Federal regulation, they're going to see far worse problems and more unrest than they have so far.

Comment: Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? (Score 4, Informative) 461

by Jane Q. Public (#48911725) Attached to: Police Organization Wants Cop-Spotting Dropped From Waze App
The only way it would put cops in danger were if someone were out there with the sole intention of killing cops... and not some particular cop, but any cop. Because the app just says "cop", not who.

So either this sherriff's association has their heads completely up their asses, or what they're really doing is boo-hooing over the fact that people are interfering with their daily traffic ticket quota. Which means they have their heads up their asses, because what they should be doing is solving crimes.

Comment: Re:Heh... (Score 1) 99

by Jane Q. Public (#48910113) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain
I would also like to point out that the cited page about promissory estoppel did in fact use the word gratuitous, but then went on to explain situations that meet the definition of consideration on the part of the promissee.

Their actual example is clearly a case in which there was to be consideration on both sides.

Perhaps it is not a good example.

Comment: Re:Heh... (Score 1) 99

by Jane Q. Public (#48909047) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

No it is not. In this context, it simply means that by declaring something to be in the public domain, you should reasonably expect people to use it as though it is in the public domain.

There is a lot of gray here. For example, some "public" licenses promise that a work will remain in the public domain. Not all do.

Real-world example: rights to the Java programming language were "purchased" by Oracle while the license was public domain. However, Oracle chose to make later versions not entirely public domain. The original license was not sufficient to guarantee the whole product would be public domain in perpetuity.

There is currently no law in the U.S. which requires something in the public domain to remain that way, unless it is so stipulated in the license. There are a number of famous cases in which something that was once public domain is no longer, even though that thing remained otherwise unchanged.

EFF and others are working to change that. But until it is changed, the concept of Promissory Estoppel only applies in some cases of public domain licensing.

There's no future in time travel.