Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Some facts... (Score 1) 555

In most places I have worked, if anyone needed training and didn't pick up stuff by themselves, they weren't useful and didn't last long. No matter what gender.

Mentoring, yes. Training, no. Unless you're a line worker, training does more harm than good, turning people into stunted robotniks.

Comment Re:On the Internet no one knows you are a dog... (Score 1) 555

People are turned away. Anyone saying that "code is the only thing that matters" is completely wrong. If that were the case, why do we have conferences? Why do we have communities?

I don't go to conferences. I don't know of any "communities". I contribute code, and rarely has any code been turned away. No-one has ever asked me any personal questions like gender, age or ethnicity. People don't know, and yet they accept my code.

Same with a couple of apps I maintain - I don't give a flying fuck whether you are a 60 year old hairy dyke or a 13 year old boy from Minnesota, and I have no interest in finding out. It's irrelevant. If the code passes sanity checks and improves something, and you accept the license, in it goes. Whether you have a dick or not doesn't matter, as long as you're not being one. I probably won't know unless you go out of your way to tell me, and if you do, you've just wasted some of my time.

Comment CDDL and GPL don't mix (Score 2) 217

Regardless of what Ubuntu has convinced themselves of, in this context the ZFS filesystem driver would be an unlicensed derivative work. If they don't want it to be so, it needs to be in user-mode instead of loaded into the kernel address space and using unexported APIs of the kernel.

A lot of people try to deceive themselves (and you) that they can do silly things, like putting an API between software under two licenses, and that such an API becomes a "computer condom" that protects you from the GPL. This rationale was never true and was overturned by the court in the appeal of Oracle v. Google.

Comment Re:Gravity ... (Score 1) 238

They can't PROVE anything - but they can certainly demonstrate what slow-motion movement looks like and compare it to real footage of people moving around on the lunar surface and let you make up your own mind. They did that - and I made up my mind. Slow-motion earth-gravity doesn't look like moon-gravity...mostly because in low g, people modify their gait in ways that aren't just faster versions of full-g gaits.

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 1) 324

Your instincts about the article smelling kind of skechy are almost certainly right. Yes, that's what your source says happened, but as you note, they don't back it up with anything. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that anti-GMO activist groups are, if anything, even less trustworthy than international megacorporations when it comes to spinning the truth, omitting important factors, or just making stuff up from whole cloth. They're up there with creationists and anti-vaxers when it comes to needing to follow up on the primary documents for every claim they make.

If an article quotes those activist groups and they phrase something in such a way as to "not exclude" what they want you to think but not to actually come out and say it, it's usually not a real thing. If it was, they'd be pounding the drum and saying it outright and stating the facts clearly. My guess is when you hear meaningless phrases like "Monsanto went after" instead of "Monsanto threatened/filed suit against" what they really mean is that an investigator went to the farmer and asked if they were saving unlicensed GMO seeds, didn't find evidence of a violation, and then closed the case.

From what I've actually been able to verify, actual actions against farmers are extremely rare. Only a handful have actually gone to court, and the cases I've followed up on by reading the court decisions have been obviously one-sided with the farmer obviously intentionally violating the rules. The fact that when they're asked for specific cases, their big figurehead "victim" is usually Percy Schmeiser (side note: This is Monsanto's web site summarizing the situation and they link to the relevant decisions, which should tell us something) is an indicator that there isn't much in the way of real collateral damage here.

I'm generally pretty quick to believe accusations against big corporations because they're very often true. Unfortunately, the anti-GMO lobby has done so much to burn my trust that I'd take a peek outside if they told me the sky was blue. Will Saletan at Slate has a good summary that just scratches the surface of the whole mess here.

Comment Re:This is not about science. It's about dependenc (Score 1) 324

Are there corn or soybean compatibility issues I'm not aware of? Because I'm pretty sure Microsoft held on to its monopoly because people who used other software had a hard time inter-operating with the dominant software. Is there something about most farmers growing one type of corn that makes it too difficult for some farmers to grow another type of corn?

Comment Re:This is not about science. It's about dependenc (Score 1) 324

Plenty of breeders have bred the same exact resistance to Round-up as Monsanto. Turns out, SURPRISE, selective breeding is a pretty good way of developing gene lines with specific traits. Know what happens? Monsanto sues them tohave the cultivars destroyed. BECAUSE IT HAS A PATENT ON THE GENE.

All of this appears to be complete horseshit. Unless you have some sources to back it up, of course.

Comment Re:And you call the Americans anti-science (Score 1) 324

Could you link to that ruling? Because I remember reading the ruling and I don't remember that sentence or anything quite like it. Google results only produce links to activist web sites that also don't actually quote from the ruling.

Also, Percy Schmeiser was the defendant, not the judge. And his fields were full of Roundup Ready crops because he intentionally put them there, not because of bad luck.

Comment Re:Anti-science is a PR plague (Score 1) 324

I've never quite understood this argument. On the one hand, people rail against the use of glyphosate. Then they turn around and point out that evolution is eventually going to produce glyphosate-resistant weeds and glyphosate will become less useful. First, that's going to be true for any weed control method. Second, why are they worried about the day when "super weeds" make us stop using glyphosate and move on to something else when what they really want is the elimination of glyphosate?

They're generally not arguing, "use glyphosate judiciously to slow the creation of resistant weeds," like we are with antibiotics. They're generally arguing, "Glyphosate turned me into a newt! It should all go away! Also, glyphosate creates glyphosate resistant superweeds!"

Comment Re:Anti-science is a PR plague (Score 1) 324

But you can't tell me that spraying our food with not just a little bit of poison but a TON of poison is not absorbed by the food.

What is poison, though? If you're a dog, onions and chocolate are on the list of things that are poison, but not so much if you're a human. If you're a caterpillar, Bt toxin is on the list, but not so much if you're a human. If you're an organism that produces EPSP enzymes, glyphosate is a deadly poison, but not so much if you're a human.

Also, nobody seems to be curious about the pesticides that Bt and glyphosate replaced. A lot of those are seriously nasty, and we're better off with more modern methods that use more benign chemicals.

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 1) 324

It's the companies who "own" the super-rice when it becomes mixed up with non-GMO rice and tell you you have to destroy your crop and buy only their super-rice.

1) When has this ever happened?
2) If this is actually a real problem, do you think there might be a way to deal with the problem short of completely banning a tremendously promising technology?

Be careful when a loop exits to the same place from side and bottom.