Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Debate? (Score 1) 393

Think of the cart going sideways:

The wind drives the props, this produces energy, this energy can be used to "drive the car". The car's driving does not effect the amount the props spin (within reason for this thought experiment). So the speed of the car is only limited by the friction forces and conversion efficiency between the wind's power and movement. So in this case, there is no reason that car with prop could go faster than the wind.

When the car is pointed into the wind, it now has the additional benefit of any acceleration causing additional energy from the props, but it is limited by friction and conversion efficiency. I was just going to say you can't go faster than the wind "downwind" but then a quick google cleared that up. It would be really interesting to see a polar plot of this car's performance based on angle of wind and angle of car.

Comment Re:Houston, we have a problem (Score 2, Insightful) 145

Why not turn the "company" into an open source one? How about the "Open Source Business Model" OSBM: - Everything is "open": The books, the "source", who owns shares, even the business model/plan. - "Work" is submitted to the "shareholders", and if they approve, then one share is given for each hour worked. - One hour = one share. Everyone's time is equal. - People who already own shares vote on who gets the hours (yes, it is a club, but you can always fork!) - All expenses and "contracted hours" are voted by shareholders. - Each month, the company sets a price where it will "buy back" shares at a specific price (the effective net worth of the company minus a few month's expenses). - The founders can maintain control of their "fork/branch" by not selling in the beginning, and later on have a "salary" by selling their new monthly shares/hours. - If the founders become "corrupt", then the business can always be forked with the goal of less corruption. I know, a very socialist idea. The "1 hour = 1 share" ratio can be changed, but then you are getting into a different issue, which is should some people's time be worth more than others?

Submission + - New "last resort" license

stephenn1001 writes: After following my dream as a hardware designer, I am now just jumping back into the software development side of things. I thought at first I should grab myself a license (why not, everyone seems to be doing it) to release under.I quickly realized that none of them seemed to "fit the bill" so to speak. So after some thought and a few bottles of beer I give you the:


The IDNFC license is best described with a FAQ:

Q: What exactly is the "I DO NOT FUCKING CARE" license?
A: You must be reading this thinking I care what you think about these "works". This is the "I don't fucking care" license. So I really don't care what you do with this stuff.

Q: Wait! Are you saying that we can do anything we want with this "stuff"?
A: Wooo there! You are not listening, I said "I" do not care. You better read the other licenses that accompany this "stuff", because apparently there are other people out there that care a great deal. I wouldn't want to fuck with them, they have the law on their side!

Q: Yes, I realize those licenses exist, and I follow them to the T. But what about "your" stuff that you release, and it only has this license? Say I use your code on a patient monitoring program, and it crashes and someone dies. What is your name so I can sue you?
A: Oh fuck this shit! I knew this would happen! Don't you fucking test your code? Unit tests and more units tests! What is my lawyer's number!

Q: You haven't really put this past a lawyer, have you?
A: Well, I was drinking with a buddy who said he was a lawyer (but you know how mates could be superman and no one would know?). He said that it appears that I had forfeited all rights to any ownership of these works, and that they would then be in a "free market" where other people could claim ownership on it. But then there could potentially be conflict of ownership if another person subsequently claimed ownership. Then because I am being so "flippant" with the use of this whole fucking terminology, it could be argued this "license" was null and void. All of this was making my head spin so I put up my hand and said enough already!

Q: Wooo, you wait right there! You said this license could be "null and void"? So you could potentially claim it back for yourself?
A: Oh fuck! Not more of this shit! Listen, I don't fucking care. You know, when the lawyer buddy started getting excited over how much additional revenue this license could generate, I knew something was wrong. I really, absolutely, positively, (with no swear words), have no interest in what you do with these "works", now, and forever. There, now leave me the fuck alone, I need to code!

Slashdot Top Deals

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.