Surely if the threat is being processed, the soldier would be literally split-seconds away from recognising the threat anyway? In which case, the system would only slow soldiers down as described above.
Unconvinced.
Also, not only is his method of referencing entirely wrong for a scholarly article (which he seems to wish it was!), his references include "Elementary Statistics", and "Wolfram Math World". Hardly proof that he's a great statistician.
As someone with insider knowledge, the microsoft system is very relaxed, and basically all they insist on is that you make the "code-drops", but apart from that, it's entirely your call. You can work from home, stay in the building, whatever. (This is in the UK)
Joe
I'm 95% sure that MSN uses a protocol based on e-mail with stripped out headers anyway... so surely that classes as e-mail, just with a dedicated instant client?
Joe
However, this is the U.K., where individuals rarely sue. Yes, it happens, but normally it's only large companies that sue other large companies (or individuals). As such, I think it's better left as a criminal offence.
IANAL either, but surely linguistically the first statement makes an assumption about the plaintiff based on a fact that not only is obviously untrue but is irrelevant. Therefore, logically, the plaintiff should (whether or not he does) be allowed to appeal, either on grounds of the judge being biased, mentally unstable, or both? The second statement makes two seperate assertions, that are not dependent on each other. There is no logical need to dispute the sky being green, even if it's wrong, as it's a completely different statement. If the judge said "You're not a consumer, and I'm hungry", then he may or may not be hungry, it doesn't matter, the first part of the sentence is the important part. (In the example given, this is the second part). IANAL, but I am a linguist, and a pedant.
There are a number of reasons this is not legally required. Number 1, a document produced using a program licenced under the GPL does NOT constitute a derivative work, and as such, these documents are not required to be licenced under the GPL. Number 2, the GPL does not give the user an obligation to distribute his or her work. Admittedly, it's not ideal, but you would not be required to release copies of anything. You could keep all of the document on your computer, and then not be subject to the terms of the GPL. This is purely hypothetical, and assumes that any document produced would be subject to the GPL, which it wouldn't.
Joe Innes
Slashdot Mirror
Surely if the threat is being processed, the soldier would be literally split-seconds away from recognising the threat anyway? In which case, the system would only slow soldiers down as described above. Unconvinced.
Also, not only is his method of referencing entirely wrong for a scholarly article (which he seems to wish it was!), his references include "Elementary Statistics", and "Wolfram Math World". Hardly proof that he's a great statistician.
As someone with insider knowledge, the microsoft system is very relaxed, and basically all they insist on is that you make the "code-drops", but apart from that, it's entirely your call. You can work from home, stay in the building, whatever. (This is in the UK) Joe
I'm 95% sure that MSN uses a protocol based on e-mail with stripped out headers anyway... so surely that classes as e-mail, just with a dedicated instant client? Joe
However, this is the U.K., where individuals rarely sue. Yes, it happens, but normally it's only large companies that sue other large companies (or individuals). As such, I think it's better left as a criminal offence.
IANAL either, but surely linguistically the first statement makes an assumption about the plaintiff based on a fact that not only is obviously untrue but is irrelevant. Therefore, logically, the plaintiff should (whether or not he does) be allowed to appeal, either on grounds of the judge being biased, mentally unstable, or both? The second statement makes two seperate assertions, that are not dependent on each other. There is no logical need to dispute the sky being green, even if it's wrong, as it's a completely different statement. If the judge said "You're not a consumer, and I'm hungry", then he may or may not be hungry, it doesn't matter, the first part of the sentence is the important part. (In the example given, this is the second part).
IANAL, but I am a linguist, and a pedant.
There are a number of reasons this is not legally required. Number 1, a document produced using a program licenced under the GPL does NOT constitute a derivative work, and as such, these documents are not required to be licenced under the GPL. Number 2, the GPL does not give the user an obligation to distribute his or her work. Admittedly, it's not ideal, but you would not be required to release copies of anything. You could keep all of the document on your computer, and then not be subject to the terms of the GPL. This is purely hypothetical, and assumes that any document produced would be subject to the GPL, which it wouldn't. Joe Innes