The Unionists are Irish and they are not angry about British Occupation. The British Occupation shields them from Catholic attack and enables them to attack Catholics.
Saying it's not a religious conflict is about as silly as saying it is a religious conflict. The very important religious dynamic cannot be ignored.
I second your point. Teaching computers to kids should be about teaching kids to 'learn how to learn,' not teaching kids how to conform to a particular company's user-interface paradigm.
All the posts that I have seen on this thread assume that Cisco will lie down and admit that their software has copied GPL'd code. That makes sense. They appear to be pretty much caught dead to rights on that one.
There is another question, however: Is the original GPL code subject to copyright protection? In other words, Britney Spears can copy my songs note for note and word for word, and she won't be able to successfully sue me if I copied those songs note for note and word for word from Johann Sebastian Bach.
Think for a moment about how utterly EXPENSIVE it is to prove such a point or defend such a point. Think how COMPLICATED this is. You need really expensive experts to prove this kind of stuff and you pay them godawful fees per hour to do their work.
If the FSF is smart, they ought to be able to enlist a LOT of skilled programmers to grok on this (think about the SCO litigation). They can prioritize and organize their expert code review among expert DONATED help. I would expect (or hope) that the FSF has people organizing this kind of cooperative, coordinated help right now!!
Cisco will have to pay for their labor intensive expert code review--in a declining economy. They'll also have to pay their big-firm lawyers. Those firms salivate like Niagara Falls when they see cases like this.
The point of all this is that Cisco ought to roll over on its back and get really submissive right now because if they want to win their lawsuit against the FSF they are going to have to pay and pay and pay. Cost-benefit tips way in favor of an early amicable settlement.
No early settlement means protracted war. Cisco will have to put scarce resources into its attack on GPL'd code (lawyers and experts), while the FSF has lots of experts motivated and available to donate expert help. This is where the Stalingrad metaphor comes in. The GPL can afford to throw more bodies at the problem than Cisco can.
Get a programmable robot and let the budding programmers have at it.
You could do all sorts of cool stuff, like divide up the class into teams (left arm, left leg, right track, left track, sound generator, etc.) and then have them work together to write the program that integrates the functions that the individual teams have written.
You could have competitions to see who could perform basic tasks most efficiently.
That would be a great motivator for a kid, I think. The language to use would be the language that compiles to the robot.
This is just a fancy way of the music industry trying to hook up an IV drip tube to everybody's credit card account. It is like Netflix, but with music.
My first problem with this is that the music industry is only interested in promoting big-hit mass-market stuff that applies to the lowest common denominator. Excuse me, but I don't want to give my money to Britney Spears.
My second problem is that I want to be able to opt out of paying for more than I use.
My third problem is that a structure like this gives the music industry too much leverage in the internet world, and I prefer a free internet.
What if the applicant for access submits a facial photograph along with his/her application information?
(1) Use facial recognition software to decide whether a human picture has been submitted. Deny access to those not submitting a picture of a human. Store the picture. Keep refining the algorithm.
(2) Determine whether the pictured person has been used in a previous attempt to obtain access. If access has been obtained, don't let them create another account unless their present account is terminated. If access has been rejected, then you have a presumptively bad applicant.
(3) Websites could share database information about the rejected pictured-people. This would bring in more data (like time and volume of a single facial picture's use, for example). That additional information could be used to help refine the algorithm.
Unregulated drugs will destabilize families more. Money will need to be spent to deal with the aftermath--the damaged children. Unregulated drugs will make the highways more dangerous. Money will be needed for enforcement and treatment. Unregulated drugs will increase the need for social welfare programs to deal with the extra detritus.
A doped society will weaken the United States. Deregulation need not increase the 'doped' population, but we must be prepared to help the people who will be harmed by deregulation.
I'd favor decriminalization if people would pay for cleaning up the aftermath. But people won't pay.
Removing all the Word toolbars, etc., is a trivial process. I only use the menu bar with most of my templates. Your post is just trolling Microsoft hate.
Word does suck--and it sucks massively--at combining multiple documents into a larger document. You can't trust its master document feature.
Unworkable. Your implicit assumption is that the downstream programmer will make meaningful changes to the code rather than merely cloning the upstream programmer's product. Anybody seeking a workaround would just add trivial fluff to the source code. So, instead of having a clone, you would have a 'fat' clone. End users wouldn't care much if they had the same functionality. This license would enthusiastically encourage code-bloat. That is very anti-GPL. Adding code-quality language to your license would be a waste of time. Too subjective.
Better would be a license that gives the downstream programmer the right to appropriate your copyright if the downstream programmer optimizes your code for size or speed, or removes bugs. I'm not saying that this would be good, but it would be better than rewarding code-bloat.
In other words, this parent proposes that the student take the job, but then not work to the best of his ability. This parent should be modded down like the incredible shrinking man. Taking a job with the intention of half-stepping is unwise in multiple dimensions.
I perceive (and am gratified) by the "rightness" in what you are saying. These people really do propose to screw their former employer. If this were a world with reciprocal conventions of honor, I would agree with you entirely and call them treacherous scumbags.
Unfortunately, your post assumes that their employer adheres to a convention of honor that is reciprocal to your own. Experience informs that this is probably not the case.
A corporate manager is probably not going to care about loyalty. He is going to care about how his Excel spreadsheet translates to improved shareholder value NOW. He is, more likely than not, a transitory employee with no particular loyalty to his corporation. You cannot expect him (or her) to treat those below him with honor when he himself expects to be treated ruthlessly by others. The subtle and long-term value of reciprocal honor is lost on that manager.
I can't fault these employees for their initiative. Honor is just another asset that corporations exploit.
Nah. What you should take from all the posts is this: (1) Be on the right side of the law; and (2) Be conniving from the getgo.
I have no relevant experience, but it would appear to me that a company disciplined enough to advance-prepare for an anticipated legal skirmish with a former employer is a company better prepared to succeed in business.
Contemplate four things: (1) The "Law." Does it favor you? (2) The "Facts" Will you be able to prove that the law is what you think it is? (3) The "Legal War Chest" Can you afford to prove "the facts?" (4) The "House Lawyer" Can you afford a house lawyer?
If you act on your contemplations, you DEFINITELY need a lawyer. You must assume that your former employer will go after you (if you have a dime) and you must prepare for that. You'll need to be extra-careful about documenting code-origins. Every act that your company takes probably ought to be vetted. You may want to 'chinese-wall' some code development from others. Lots to think about.
You are entering the realm of the blood-sucking lawyers, as the man from Jurassic Park said.
You have a moral component to your decision-making process; I have a moral component to my decision-making process. IBM's out to make money for its shareholders (or its corporate clique, if you're more cynical). IBM's not going to slay the dragon if there's no money to be gained from slaying the dragon.
Slashdot Mirror
The Unionists are Irish and they are not angry about British Occupation. The British Occupation shields them from Catholic attack and enables them to attack Catholics.
Saying it's not a religious conflict is about as silly as saying it is a religious conflict. The very important religious dynamic cannot be ignored.
I second your point. Teaching computers to kids should be about teaching kids to 'learn how to learn,' not teaching kids how to conform to a particular company's user-interface paradigm.
Sorry: I should have said that I won't be able to successfully sue Britney if I copied the note for note and word for word from Mr. Bach.
All the posts that I have seen on this thread assume that Cisco will lie down and admit that their software has copied GPL'd code. That makes sense. They appear to be pretty much caught dead to rights on that one.
There is another question, however: Is the original GPL code subject to copyright protection? In other words, Britney Spears can copy my songs note for note and word for word, and she won't be able to successfully sue me if I copied those songs note for note and word for word from Johann Sebastian Bach.
Think for a moment about how utterly EXPENSIVE it is to prove such a point or defend such a point. Think how COMPLICATED this is. You need really expensive experts to prove this kind of stuff and you pay them godawful fees per hour to do their work.
If the FSF is smart, they ought to be able to enlist a LOT of skilled programmers to grok on this (think about the SCO litigation). They can prioritize and organize their expert code review among expert DONATED help. I would expect (or hope) that the FSF has people organizing this kind of cooperative, coordinated help right now!!
Cisco will have to pay for their labor intensive expert code review--in a declining economy. They'll also have to pay their big-firm lawyers. Those firms salivate like Niagara Falls when they see cases like this.
The point of all this is that Cisco ought to roll over on its back and get really submissive right now because if they want to win their lawsuit against the FSF they are going to have to pay and pay and pay. Cost-benefit tips way in favor of an early amicable settlement.
No early settlement means protracted war. Cisco will have to put scarce resources into its attack on GPL'd code (lawyers and experts), while the FSF has lots of experts motivated and available to donate expert help. This is where the Stalingrad metaphor comes in. The GPL can afford to throw more bodies at the problem than Cisco can.
I sure hope this settles quickly and amicably.
Get a programmable robot and let the budding programmers have at it.
You could do all sorts of cool stuff, like divide up the class into teams (left arm, left leg, right track, left track, sound generator, etc.) and then have them work together to write the program that integrates the functions that the individual teams have written.
You could have competitions to see who could perform basic tasks most efficiently.
That would be a great motivator for a kid, I think. The language to use would be the language that compiles to the robot.
This is just a fancy way of the music industry trying to hook up an IV drip tube to everybody's credit card account. It is like Netflix, but with music.
My first problem with this is that the music industry is only interested in promoting big-hit mass-market stuff that applies to the lowest common denominator. Excuse me, but I don't want to give my money to Britney Spears.
My second problem is that I want to be able to opt out of paying for more than I use.
My third problem is that a structure like this gives the music industry too much leverage in the internet world, and I prefer a free internet.
Never, I say!
Parent's a troll and he landed you, hook, line, and sinker. I enjoyed your post, though.
Such a blatant abuse of a student would not happen at the University of Michigan, I'm sure!
I can feel the internet as it stops repression in Russia and Belaurus. Oh yeah, I can feel it! It's really working!!
I, for one, welcome my Canadian Cultural Overlords!
EH?
What if the applicant for access submits a facial photograph along with his/her application information?
(1) Use facial recognition software to decide whether a human picture has been submitted. Deny access to those not submitting a picture of a human. Store the picture. Keep refining the algorithm.
(2) Determine whether the pictured person has been used in a previous attempt to obtain access. If access has been obtained, don't let them create another account unless their present account is terminated. If access has been rejected, then you have a presumptively bad applicant.
(3) Websites could share database information about the rejected pictured-people. This would bring in more data (like time and volume of a single facial picture's use, for example). That additional information could be used to help refine the algorithm.
Unregulated drugs will destabilize families more. Money will need to be spent to deal with the aftermath--the damaged children.
Unregulated drugs will make the highways more dangerous. Money will be needed for enforcement and treatment.
Unregulated drugs will increase the need for social welfare programs to deal with the extra detritus.
A doped society will weaken the United States. Deregulation need not increase the 'doped' population, but we must be prepared to help the people who will be harmed by deregulation.
I'd favor decriminalization if people would pay for cleaning up the aftermath. But people won't pay.
Read about what happens when Monsanto's patented seeds end up on a neighbor's farmland. Talk about getting the wrong kind of cells . . .
This is a very legitimate torrent use that will frustrate the RIAA in its attempts to stamp out torrents.
Removing all the Word toolbars, etc., is a trivial process. I only use the menu bar with most of my templates. Your post is just trolling Microsoft hate.
Word does suck--and it sucks massively--at combining multiple documents into a larger document. You can't trust its master document feature.
Unworkable. Your implicit assumption is that the downstream programmer will make meaningful changes to the code rather than merely cloning the upstream programmer's product. Anybody seeking a workaround would just add trivial fluff to the source code. So, instead of having a clone, you would have a 'fat' clone. End users wouldn't care much if they had the same functionality. This license would enthusiastically encourage code-bloat. That is very anti-GPL. Adding code-quality language to your license would be a waste of time. Too subjective.
Better would be a license that gives the downstream programmer the right to appropriate your copyright if the downstream programmer optimizes your code for size or speed, or removes bugs. I'm not saying that this would be good, but it would be better than rewarding code-bloat.
In other words, this parent proposes that the student take the job, but then not work to the best of his ability. This parent should be modded down like the incredible shrinking man. Taking a job with the intention of half-stepping is unwise in multiple dimensions.
Of course you can convey your copyrights. This is a silly post.
Very well said.
Your post really saddens me.
I perceive (and am gratified) by the "rightness" in what you are saying. These people really do propose to screw their former employer. If this were a world with reciprocal conventions of honor, I would agree with you entirely and call them treacherous scumbags.
Unfortunately, your post assumes that their employer adheres to a convention of honor that is reciprocal to your own. Experience informs that this is probably not the case.
A corporate manager is probably not going to care about loyalty. He is going to care about how his Excel spreadsheet translates to improved shareholder value NOW. He is, more likely than not, a transitory employee with no particular loyalty to his corporation. You cannot expect him (or her) to treat those below him with honor when he himself expects to be treated ruthlessly by others. The subtle and long-term value of reciprocal honor is lost on that manager.
I can't fault these employees for their initiative. Honor is just another asset that corporations exploit.
Nah. What you should take from all the posts is this: (1) Be on the right side of the law; and (2) Be conniving from the getgo.
I have no relevant experience, but it would appear to me that a company disciplined enough to advance-prepare for an anticipated legal skirmish with a former employer is a company better prepared to succeed in business.
Contemplate four things:
(1) The "Law." Does it favor you?
(2) The "Facts" Will you be able to prove that the law is what you think it is?
(3) The "Legal War Chest" Can you afford to prove "the facts?"
(4) The "House Lawyer" Can you afford a house lawyer?
If you act on your contemplations, you DEFINITELY need a lawyer. You must assume that your former employer will go after you (if you have a dime) and you must prepare for that. You'll need to be extra-careful about documenting code-origins. Every act that your company takes probably ought to be vetted. You may want to 'chinese-wall' some code development from others. Lots to think about.
You are entering the realm of the blood-sucking lawyers, as the man from Jurassic Park said.
Maybe the Neanderthal would turn out to be really superintelligent, like Khan! Strength, plus intelligence. We better watch out!
"Idealism is a luxury for the rich" = Slave Logic
You have a moral component to your decision-making process; I have a moral component to my decision-making process. IBM's out to make money for its shareholders (or its corporate clique, if you're more cynical). IBM's not going to slay the dragon if there's no money to be gained from slaying the dragon.