Haven't read the details yet, but wouldn't that be funny; Orren Hatch and I on the same side. Who'd a thunk it?
Re:Advancing beyond programming?
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 1
Some still don't know the difference between a creation and a lump of shit. I haven't had a manager make a decision for me in many years. The manager's job is to run interference between me and the marketing dipsticks.
Spoke with my Pop. He is a lawyer. It clearly states you cannot distribute your code in anything but executable form.
He thinks it is unenforceable, but admits it's not his field, and, ultimately, you need enough money to stand-off with them through preliminary motions at a minimum should they choose to sue.
As I understand, you have implied (or flat-out stated) that you don't really think about deeper meaning while writing (Vonnegut has said the same thing I believe). Have you looked back at something you've written and wondered if some long buried beast within is trying to tell you something?
Politics, people. the French have chosen to create a large public broo-ha. They win just by stateing the facts publicly. Politics is like trying to screw a cat in the ass. -- Bukowski
Personally, I like the idea someone here had of filling these databases with bogus info. Swap store-discount cards with others; anything that asks for personal info, give 'em garbage. Yes, I'm a midget, transexual, she-male, who enjoys rugby and Chanel #5 I don't recomend doing this on your taxes though.
It's simple. Options are nice, but in a 'Pre-IPO' company, they are lottery tickets. I won't sacrifice salary for options. I won't bust my ass doing unpaid overtime for options. I do do overtime to learn more, thus making my self more valuable. I think one should find a good environment where training is available, a good salary, and room to grow. Options at this point are just an incentive not to leave. Most options vest yearly, over four years. Once you pay for them, you need to hold them for a year if you want to avoid Capital Gains taxes. mho tom
Actually, I haven't seen too much about this on the mainstream news. Yes they've reported, but it seems subdued, and I'm not hearing what it is really about. Maybe noone is sure, as Katz implies, but--and im definately not a conspiracy theorist--I suspect it hits too close to home for the corporate owned media. They want to depict the violence (good ratings), but avoid the anger spawning it. Corporations do things that would get individuals thrown in jail for extended periods. They get away with it, or are fined. Free trade does not benefit people working for 25 an hour; they have no ability to buy the kinds of goods they produce, and they do not buy anything significant from the wealthier country they trade with. On top of that their environment is destroyed. Their children no longer starve, instead they polluted with chemicals that will cause illness' when they are adults. I don't have to go to Seattle to know the anger and frustrated belief that nothing I do will change things can create. Disclaimer: Non-responsive comments will be stricken from the record.
What a complete load of crap. As I posted in another reply to the tediously literal and elitist legions that read slashdot, I can't see a world wherein I'm required to make a disclaimer each time i use a phrase in normal conversation that might be 'Trademarked.' I see email and message boards as everyday speech, albeit with a slight lag. I suppose you could argue that there is more permanence to web, but it's not like most people forget what they talked about when the conversation is finished. All this is colored my my political leanings. It wouldn't bother me in the least to see all corporations lose their corporate status, and to have the stock market dissolved for the shell game that it is. The only damage from this might be a loss of Economy of Scale. Perhaps with Internet price watching sites that track the prices of multiple manufacturers, all should be equalized; then everyone would need to complete on the quality of their products, rather than creating an inferior product and selling it cheaper. Take care. Jon Frisby wrote: > > doesn't apply to what is protected by the first ammendment.>> > > Actually, it's trademark law not copyright law. (totally different!) > > And yes, it does apply. Just as plaguerizing a book is not protected by the > first amendment, neither is misappropriation of a trademark. > > Trademarks have to be something that is not likely to come up in common > speech. If it is something generic, or common then it is considered diluted > and invalid. Thus, IDG must actively protect their interests. > > Technically the poster of the message needed to put a trademark notice in > the message, but he didn't. > > -JF
kay, so what if I post frequently on all the Perl newsgroups and constantly refer to "Learning Perl" as "Perl for Dummies"? This is legitimate trademark dilution.
I think that's pretty weak. It's still just emails. If you consistantly reffered to "learning Perl" as "Perl for Dummies" you'd be talking about "Perl for Dummies," and noone would have a clue what you meant. (Is there a "Perl for Dummies"?)
The first amendment has nothing to do with it. Plenty of kinds of speech are not protected by the first amendment. If you don't believe me, go into an airport and yell "I'VE GOT A BOMB!" Then, when they arrest you, argue that you were just exercising your first amendment rights and see if they let you go.
'Fighting words' and other exceptions to the first ammendment have well established precedents. this doesn't come close. They present no danger except in the imagination of a tradmark laywer. And you accused me of pulling out the big guns for a small issue.
IT's A FUCKING EMAIL! Since when do trademarks apply to everyday speech.
Once again, OY!
And yes. I'm aware that the first ammendment refers to "Congress shall make no law..." etc. What is written in the bill of rights is a tiny drop compared to the ocean of its real meaning and significance.
Sure. and next we'll get cease and desist letters if we use the tradmark in a conversation without explicitly adding the disclaimer "'For Dummies' is a tradmark of the IDG Corp." Like this; "I just read 'Cornholing Sheep For Dummies.' Best book on the subject I've seen. 'For Dummies' is a tradmark of the IDG Corp. You should check it out!
Truly pathetic. Reminds me of a friend who was babysitting neighborhood kids and had Disney send a cease and desist because of the Goofy sticker on her front window. Oy!
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't read the details yet, but wouldn't that be funny; Orren Hatch and I on the same side. Who'd a thunk it?
Some still don't know the difference between a creation and a lump of shit. I haven't had a manager make a decision for me in many years. The manager's job is to run interference between me and the marketing dipsticks.
just kidding.
In all seriousness, how can "only in executable form" be interpreted to mean oh yeah, and source too?
He thinks it is unenforceable, but admits it's not his field, and, ultimately, you need enough money to stand-off with them through preliminary motions at a minimum should they choose to sue.
There it is.
As I understand, you have implied (or flat-out stated) that you don't really think about deeper meaning while writing (Vonnegut has said the same thing I believe). Have you looked back at something you've written and wondered if some long buried beast within is trying to tell you something?
something like that is legal in your country?>p>if he lives in the US, no, it is Not legal. nuff said.
I know in California, these clauses are disallowed. Even if you sign, it's unenforceable. So, where is AO-Hell anyway?
Politics, people. the French have chosen to create a large public broo-ha. They win just by stateing the facts publicly.
Politics is like trying to screw a cat in the ass. -- Bukowski
Personally, I like the idea someone here had of filling these databases with bogus info. Swap store-discount cards with others; anything that asks for personal info, give 'em garbage.
Yes, I'm a midget, transexual, she-male, who enjoys rugby and Chanel #5
I don't recomend doing this on your taxes though.
Not to mention the Chumps with knee-jerk reactions who take no time to think. There is nothing wrong with the URL. That's his name at the end. Duh.
It's simple. Options are nice, but in a 'Pre-IPO' company, they are lottery tickets. I won't sacrifice salary for options. I won't bust my ass doing unpaid overtime for options. I do do overtime to learn more, thus making my self more valuable. I think one should find a good environment where training is available, a good salary, and room to grow. Options at this point are just an incentive not to leave. Most options vest yearly, over four years. Once you pay for them, you need to hold them for a year if you want to avoid Capital Gains taxes. mho tom
And he spoke Swedish at home while growing up. About 10% of Finns do.
Your argument is well thoght out. I have but one response.
tthhhhhhhppppppppppppppppppppptttttt.
I'm guessing you were about ten thousand people. Bless you. tom
!
Actually, I haven't seen too much about this on the mainstream news. Yes they've reported, but it seems subdued, and I'm not hearing what it is really about. Maybe noone is sure, as Katz implies, but--and im definately not a conspiracy theorist--I suspect it hits too close to home for the corporate owned media. They want to depict the violence (good ratings), but avoid the anger spawning it. Corporations do things that would get individuals thrown in jail for extended periods. They get away with it, or are fined. Free trade does not benefit people working for 25 an hour; they have no ability to buy the kinds of goods they produce, and they do not buy anything significant from the wealthier country they trade with. On top of that their environment is destroyed. Their children no longer starve, instead they polluted with chemicals that will cause illness' when they are adults. I don't have to go to Seattle to know the anger and frustrated belief that nothing I do will change things can create. Disclaimer: Non-responsive comments will be stricken from the record.
i'd have said, he doesn't know his scrotum from Kentucky Fried Chicken; but that's just me.
What a complete load of crap. As I posted in another reply to the tediously literal and elitist legions that read slashdot, I can't see a world wherein I'm required to make a disclaimer each time i use a phrase in normal conversation that might be 'Trademarked.' I see email and message boards as everyday speech, albeit with a slight lag. I suppose you could argue that there is more permanence to web, but it's not like most people forget what they talked about when the conversation is finished. All this is colored my my political leanings. It wouldn't bother me in the least to see all corporations lose their corporate status, and to have the stock market dissolved for the shell game that it is. The only damage from this might be a loss of Economy of Scale. Perhaps with Internet price watching sites that track the prices of multiple manufacturers, all should be equalized; then everyone would need to complete on the quality of their products, rather than creating an inferior product and selling it cheaper. Take care. Jon Frisby wrote: > > doesn't apply to what is protected by the first ammendment.>> > > Actually, it's trademark law not copyright law. (totally different!) > > And yes, it does apply. Just as plaguerizing a book is not protected by the > first amendment, neither is misappropriation of a trademark. > > Trademarks have to be something that is not likely to come up in common > speech. If it is something generic, or common then it is considered diluted > and invalid. Thus, IDG must actively protect their interests. > > Technically the poster of the message needed to put a trademark notice in > the message, but he didn't. > > -JF
kay, so what if I post frequently on all the Perl newsgroups and constantly refer to "Learning Perl" as "Perl for Dummies"? This is legitimate
trademark dilution.
I think that's pretty weak. It's still just emails. If you consistantly reffered to "learning Perl" as "Perl for Dummies" you'd be talking about "Perl for Dummies," and noone would have a clue what you meant. (Is there a "Perl for Dummies"?)
The first amendment has nothing to do with it. Plenty of kinds of speech are not protected by the first amendment. If you don't believe me, go
into an airport and yell "I'VE GOT A BOMB!" Then, when they arrest you, argue that you were just exercising your first amendment rights
and see if they let you go.
'Fighting words' and other exceptions to the first ammendment have well established precedents. this doesn't come close. They present no danger except in the imagination of a tradmark laywer. And you accused me of pulling out the big guns for a small issue.
IT's A FUCKING EMAIL! Since when do trademarks apply to everyday speech.
Once again, OY!
And yes. I'm aware that the first ammendment refers to "Congress shall make no law..." etc. What is written in the bill of rights is a tiny drop compared to the ocean of its real meaning and significance.
You must spend a lot of time wondering about the irrelevent. Yes, Ive read it. Feel better.
btw. What the hell is a D00d?
Tea
Sure. and next we'll get cease and desist letters if we use the tradmark in a conversation without explicitly adding the disclaimer "'For Dummies' is a tradmark of the IDG Corp."
Like this; "I just read 'Cornholing Sheep For Dummies.' Best book on the subject I've seen. 'For Dummies' is a tradmark of the IDG Corp. You should check it out!
It's good. Subtle yet biting. You might add that copyright law probably doesn't apply to what is protected by the first ammendment.
I Will. I'll do it, I will. This is your day, Arthur Pewty. From now on, it's Dummies in all my subject headers.
Truly pathetic. Reminds me of a friend who was babysitting neighborhood kids and had Disney send a cease and desist because of the Goofy sticker on her front window. Oy!