Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×
Shark

Finally, a Shark With a Laser Attached To Its Head 139 139

Freshly Exhumed writes in with a Wired story about a nerd/super-villian dream come true. "Marine biologist-cum-TV personality Luke Tipple attached a 50-milliwatt green laser to a lemon shark off the coast of the Bahamas in late April. The escapade was sponsored by Wicked Lasers, a consumer-focused laser manufacturer based in Hong Kong that produces some of the most brilliant — and potentially dangerous — handheld lasers in the world. 'This was definitely a world first,' Tipple told Wired. 'Initially, I told them no. I thought it was a frivolous stunt. But then I considered that it would give us an opportunity to test our clips and attachments, and whatever is attached to that clip, I really don't care. It was a low-powered laser that couldn't be dangerous to anyone, and there's actually useful applications in having a laser attached to the animal.'"

Comment: Re:It's not Entrapment. (Score 1) 573 573

Nope this is just another case of something the government is damned good at, and that is the appearance of doing SOMETHING even if that something actually is as useless as moving a rock from the left side of a field only to move it back to the right the next day.

Actually that would be good for some exercise. What the FBI is doing here seems like it would be better left not done.

Comment: Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score 1) 149 149

You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what possible "event" could warrant making the populace unable to communicate with each other, unless said "event" was created by the people who are turning off communications.

Comment: Re:Of course. (Score 1) 1174 1174

Way to be purposefully obtuse.

Uh, no, it was "way to be challenged on the spot". I really wanted to be on that jury, actually, not because of the issue but because I am interested in learning our civic processes. (I'm also slightly afflicted with Asperger's so do not always function correctly, socially.) And, no, I didn't think, when I was on-the-spot, that the question was related to evidence-less claims, I took the question at face value and attempted to answer it as best I could. Next time I will ask for clarification.

Oracle

Oracle and the End of Programming As We Know It 577 577

An anonymous reader writes "An article at Dr. Dobb's looks into the consequences of a dangerous idea from Oracle during their legal battle with Google: 'that Google had violated Oracle's Java copyrights by reimplementing Java APIs in Android.' The issue is very much unsettled in the courts, but the judge in this case instructed the jury to assume the APIs were copyrightable. 'In a nutshell, if the jury sides with Oracle that the copyrights in the headers of every file of the Java source base apply specifically to the syntax of the APIs, then Oracle can extract payment and penalties from Google for having implemented those APIs without Oracle's blessing (or, in more specific terms, without a license). Should this come to pass, numerous products will suddenly find themselves on an uncertain legal standing in which the previously benign but now newly empowered copyright holders might assert punitive copyright claims. Chief among these would be any re-implementation of an existing language. So, Jython, IronPython, and PyPy for Python; JRuby, IronRuby, and Rubinius for Ruby; Mono for C# and VB; possibly C++ for C, GCC for C and C++ and Objective-C; and so forth. And of course, all the various browsers that use JavaScript might owe royalties to the acquirers of Netscape's intellectual property.'"

Comment: Re:Of course. (Score 1) 1174 1174

They've always removed me from the jury pool, by asking a question designed to show whether I was intelligent or not. Last time it was, "How believable is a police officer compared to a member of the public?" My response included that the officer had training in observation and recollection, so would likely be a slightly better recording device than a common human, so perhaps 55%, or 60%, instead of 50/50? The judge said, and I quote, "Next."

You are an insult to my intelligence! I demand that you log off immediately.

Working...