can one of their customers take ALL of their code, including the new interface, and give (or sell) it to someone else?
if not, then it's not open source.
there are other B&W binary yes/no tests (incl. freedom to modify, freedom to use for ANY purpose), but from what I've read about SugarCRM, it would fail on the first test alone.
if libertarians are against corporate control of government, then why are they always against government having any powers to regulate corporations? that just makes the govt toothless and ensures that they can be nothing other than a tool for corps.
could it, perhaps, be that Libertarianism is just a propaganda branding exercise for corporate interests? fill your head with nonsense equating liberty with "the free market" (an entirely mythical notion) so that you'll automatically interpret any attempt to control their actions as an assault on YOUR liberty?
no, of course not. Libertarians are Rugged Individualists who are Far Too Smart To Be Fooled By That.
ok, so you're a libertarian. which means you believe that government should be absolutely minimal, only existing for essential services like prevent coercion and protecting property rights.
answer this then - why the hell should someone with bugger-all assets working in some shit minimum wage job pay taxes to protect the property of the rich?
they don't benefit at all, they just get to subsidise the propertied classes asset protection schemes.
With the Libertarian party it is easy. "Maximize economic and personal freedom and reduce the role of the government in everyday society"
simplistic slogans are always easy. reality is somewhat more complicated.
> Well actually, overstating by 200% the amount of land underwater in a small country is not really a "small" error.
yeah, it's about as serious as overstating the difference between 26% and 55% by about 100%.
hint: 55% is just over double 26%, not triple. so it would be an ~ 110% overstatement, not 200%.
hint2: anyone can make simple mistakes.
> Some of the other errors are small, true. But it's hard to put a lot of faith the conclusion is correct when so many other little things are wrong.
see, that's the thing. you don't put "faith" into the report. science is not about faith, it's about evidence and reason. faith is belief despite evidence or even despite the evidence. instead, you examine the evidence and analyse the rationale and the conclusions and decide a) whether they are consistent, logical, and rigorous, b) whether they match observed reality, and c) whether, over time, they are shown to be a good predictive tool for future observations of reality.
Once again, you don't have a choice whether you're Asian or not. I agree with laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on factors like this.
why? they clearly made the choice not to get plastic surgery to make their appearance more acceptable to bigots like you. why should they be let off the hook just because they were born asian rather than born fat?
Fat, however, is a choice.
you clearly have no idea how human metabolisms work. for the majority of people who are fat, it is NOT a choice. they have a highly efficient metabolism that is far more suited to lean times than times of abundance...it doesn't matter how little they eat (and many fat people eat surprisingly little), they can eat FAR LESS than skinny people (those who have inefficient, fast-burning metabolisms) and still be significantly fatter.
these are just two (of the many) useful survival strategies for the human organism - slow burning metabolisms that are very efficient at storing energy and very "reluctant" to give it up once stored, and fast-burning metabolisms that are very good at using energy, but not very good at storing it. both have obviously provided significant survival advantages in previous generations because they're both widespread genetic types.
and not just the human organism, either. many animals show the same variations.
fat discrimination is genetic discrimination.
and, regarding those few fat people for whom being fat is a choice - so what? WTF gives you the right to say that your personal choices regarding how fat/skinny you want to be are not merely superior to the choices of other people, they are so superior that it entitles you to discriminate against them.
Fat doesn't present a professional image, fat employees make the company's health insurance, etc.
watch it - your bigotry is showing.
If clients are bigoted, the company loses money on anyone the new employee turns away, so the smart hiring manager won't hire them. It's perfectly okay because the potential employee made that choice so now they get to live with it.
oh, that makes it alright then, does it?
the same argument has been made to justify refusing to hire blacks, jews, women, gays, married people, single people, old people, young people, and every other target for discrimination. some variations are no longer made because they're so well-known (and lame and tired) that even bigots are ashamed to make them. some are still in common use today.
now if only your ex-colleagues weren't such gutless lickspittles, they might have stood up with you in solidarity....preserving their own rights as well as your own.
do you really have no idea how the parliament works in australia?
we, the people, have NEVER elected the prime minister. they have always been selected by their party using internal party processes. they are PM because they are the leader of the party that gained the most seats during the most recent election, NOT because the people voted them in to that position.
we don't have US-style presidential campaigns, and that's a good thing (it's the only reason i'm against the idea of australia becoming a republic if the change includes a president directly elected by the population)
when i read a name like "theora" or "thusnelda" or this latest abomination "Ptalarbvorm", i can't help thinking that the various ogg codecs might be more successful if they didn't have such DUMB names.
all american cultural exports (tv shows, newspapers, etc) are exactly like this (pro-american, pro-free-enterprise, pro-christian). if they export such propaganda, why is it any surprise that they'll brainwash their own children with the same stuff?
do real-life americans really think or talk about god or faith anywhere near as often as characters on tv? are the constant biblical stories, re-tellings, and themes in everything really that interesting?
or is all this just to bombard american viewers with it so that they start to think it's normal?
consult a lawyer, but IMO the key thing you said is:
"I did start the project on my own. And, since no written or verbal agreement was ever made to transfer copyright over to my employer, I question whether they can claim that they now own the extended version of the project."
it was yours to start with. they paid you to do some extra work on it. there was no transfer of license.
they may "own" any of the work-for-hire stuff you did while employed by them (depends on the nature of the employment - usually, in simple terms, if you're a contractor, you own your work but if you're an employee, they do) BUT THEY DO NOT OWN THE COPYRIGHT, AND THEY DO NOT OWN YOUR PRIOR WORK.
BTW verbal agreements are worth the paper they're written on - doesn't matter what they claim you said, if they can't produce a signed transfer agreement, it means nothing. same as if an employer verbally agrees that you will get paid quadruple for working overtime, unless that's standard practice where you work it's unenforcable unless it's in writing. and same as if the salesman says you can opt out of the contract at any time for any reason without penalty - if it's not what the contract says, it means nothing.
never trust a verbal agreement. they're worthless. this is true anywhere, not just in employment.
BTW, crap like this is why i *NEVER* sign an employment agreement without carefully looking at the clauses to do with ownership of work. if it says anything other than "what i do during work time on work equipment is yours, what i do on my time on my own equipment is mine" i send it back for another edit. i've had one or two bosses quibble about that until I ask them if they want to start paying me for 24 hours a day rather than 7.25.
(that question was always a good answer to the occasional managerial whinges about long hair and beard too)
IT employees are probably the most abused, neglected bunch of employees in the world just because of that kind of an attitude.
yep, they certainly are......right after factory workers, checkout chicks, shop assistants, office clerks, [...], third world sweat shop laborers, and pretty much everyone else in the world below middle and senior management in large corporations.
sure, IT workers get shafted by their employers making unreasonable demands. but there's a huge difference between someone making 60-90K per year for physically undemanding work who has the skills to get a similar or better job pretty nearly whenever they want, and someone working a physically demanding minimum-wage (or lower if they're in a seriously exploitable category like "immigrant" or "stupid") shit job that barely pays enough to live on, let alone save anything to improve their situation. or worse, someone working for a $1 a day to make t-shirts and other stuff that rich western programmers pay $40 or more for.
so, while i know from personal experience just how much IT workers get taken for granted and ripped off, we're still MUCH better off than most.
BTW, this is absolutely *NOT* saying "just put up with it and stop whinging" (i'm way too much of a socialist to ever think that exploitation of any worker is acceptable). it's saying "being outraged by it is sensible, but get a sense of proportion and lose the ridiculous exaggeration".
(it was forked from the older CustomizeGoogle plugin because CG hadn't been updated for a few years)
i currently have scribd.com, swik.net, and experts-exchange.com in my filter list. IMO they're all worthless crap that turns up in google search results and make it HARDER for me to find what i'm looking for....they're noise drowning out the signal. AKA spam.
maybe now scribd won't be a completely worthless waste of space on google searches and i can reconfigure my firefox Optimize Google plugin to stop filtering out scribd.com search results.
"I made no comment whatsoever about other things that may cause wars, death, tortures, or human-rights abuses."
in case you still find that difficult to understand, I'll try saying it a different way:
I have never claimed that it is the *sole* or *exclusive* cause of wars, deaths, etc. The *ONLY* thing i said was that belief in supernatural powers has caused more of those things than child labour has. which is undeniably true.
if you really insist on arguing with me, then at least have the common decency to argue with what I actually said - rather than what you imagine i said, or what you prefer i had said because it would make a convenient straw man to demolish.
insist that the bad religious people were only bad because of their religion.
i don't recall saying anything even remotely like that.
what i said was "belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has".
I made no comment whatsoever about other things that may cause wars, death, tortures, or human-rights abuses.
belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has.
if you look at the evidence, rather than consult your prejudices, it's perfectly rational and not in the least bit delusional to believe that belief in supernatural powers is more harmful than sending children to work for low wages.
Slashdot Mirror
can one of their customers take ALL of their code, including the new interface, and give (or sell) it to someone else?
if not, then it's not open source.
there are other B&W binary yes/no tests (incl. freedom to modify, freedom to use for ANY purpose), but from what I've read about SugarCRM, it would fail on the first test alone.
if libertarians are against corporate control of government, then why are they always against government having any powers to regulate corporations? that just makes the govt toothless and ensures that they can be nothing other than a tool for corps.
could it, perhaps, be that Libertarianism is just a propaganda branding exercise for corporate interests? fill your head with nonsense equating liberty with "the free market" (an entirely mythical notion) so that you'll automatically interpret any attempt to control their actions as an assault on YOUR liberty?
no, of course not. Libertarians are Rugged Individualists who are Far Too Smart To Be Fooled By That.
ok, so you're a libertarian. which means you believe that government should be absolutely minimal, only existing for essential services like prevent coercion and protecting property rights.
answer this then - why the hell should someone with bugger-all assets working in some shit minimum wage job pay taxes to protect the property of the rich?
they don't benefit at all, they just get to subsidise the propertied classes asset protection schemes.
simplistic slogans are always easy. reality is somewhat more complicated.
> Well actually, overstating by 200% the amount of land underwater in a small country is not really a "small" error.
yeah, it's about as serious as overstating the difference between 26% and 55% by about 100%.
hint: 55% is just over double 26%, not triple. so it would be an ~ 110% overstatement, not 200%.
hint2: anyone can make simple mistakes.
> Some of the other errors are small, true. But it's hard to put a lot of faith the conclusion is correct when so many other little things are wrong.
see, that's the thing. you don't put "faith" into the report. science is not about faith, it's about evidence and reason. faith is belief despite evidence or even despite the evidence. instead, you examine the evidence and analyse the rationale and the conclusions and decide a) whether they are consistent, logical, and rigorous, b) whether they match observed reality, and c) whether, over time, they are shown to be a good predictive tool for future observations of reality.
why? they clearly made the choice not to get plastic surgery to make their appearance more acceptable to bigots like you. why should they be let off the hook just because they were born asian rather than born fat?
you clearly have no idea how human metabolisms work. for the majority of people who are fat, it is NOT a choice. they have a highly efficient metabolism that is far more suited to lean times than times of abundance...it doesn't matter how little they eat (and many fat people eat surprisingly little), they can eat FAR LESS than skinny people (those who have inefficient, fast-burning metabolisms) and still be significantly fatter.
these are just two (of the many) useful survival strategies for the human organism - slow burning metabolisms that are very efficient at storing energy and very "reluctant" to give it up once stored, and fast-burning metabolisms that are very good at using energy, but not very good at storing it. both have obviously provided significant survival advantages in previous generations because they're both widespread genetic types.
and not just the human organism, either. many animals show the same variations.
fat discrimination is genetic discrimination.
and, regarding those few fat people for whom being fat is a choice - so what? WTF gives you the right to say that your personal choices regarding how fat/skinny you want to be are not merely superior to the choices of other people, they are so superior that it entitles you to discriminate against them.
watch it - your bigotry is showing.
oh, that makes it alright then, does it?
the same argument has been made to justify refusing to hire blacks, jews, women, gays, married people, single people, old people, young people, and every other target for discrimination. some variations are no longer made because they're so well-known (and lame and tired) that even bigots are ashamed to make them. some are still in common use today.
good for you.
now if only your ex-colleagues weren't such gutless lickspittles, they might have stood up with you in solidarity....preserving their own rights as well as your own.
WTF do you think they meant by "corruption of youth"? his teaching of "heresy" was the so-called corruption.
do you really have no idea how the parliament works in australia?
we, the people, have NEVER elected the prime minister. they have always been selected by their party using internal party processes. they are PM because they are the leader of the party that gained the most seats during the most recent election, NOT because the people voted them in to that position.
we don't have US-style presidential campaigns, and that's a good thing (it's the only reason i'm against the idea of australia becoming a republic if the change includes a president directly elected by the population)
thank you for your words of wisdom. i always listen to the opinions of cretins like yourself and value them very highly.
when i read a name like "theora" or "thusnelda" or this latest abomination "Ptalarbvorm", i can't help thinking that the various ogg codecs might be more successful if they didn't have such DUMB names.
all american cultural exports (tv shows, newspapers, etc) are exactly like this (pro-american, pro-free-enterprise, pro-christian). if they export such propaganda, why is it any surprise that they'll brainwash their own children with the same stuff?
do real-life americans really think or talk about god or faith anywhere near as often as characters on tv?
are the constant biblical stories, re-tellings, and themes in everything really that interesting?
or is all this just to bombard american viewers with it so that they start to think it's normal?
if you're taught visual basic, you will not understand programming.
start a campaign to get as many people as possible to put the following note in EVERY amazon ebook they've bought:
"Amazon are evil bastards who should keep the fuck out of my private notes".
then see that become the most popular.
consult a lawyer, but IMO the key thing you said is:
"I did start the project on my own. And, since no written or verbal agreement was ever made to transfer copyright over to my employer, I question whether they can claim that they now own the extended version of the project."
it was yours to start with. they paid you to do some extra work on it. there was no transfer of license.
they may "own" any of the work-for-hire stuff you did while employed by them (depends on the nature of the employment - usually, in simple terms, if you're a contractor, you own your work but if you're an employee, they do) BUT THEY DO NOT OWN THE COPYRIGHT, AND THEY DO NOT OWN YOUR PRIOR WORK.
BTW verbal agreements are worth the paper they're written on - doesn't matter what they claim you said, if they can't produce a signed transfer agreement, it means nothing. same as if an employer verbally agrees that you will get paid quadruple for working overtime, unless that's standard practice where you work it's unenforcable unless it's in writing. and same as if the salesman says you can opt out of the contract at any time for any reason without penalty - if it's not what the contract says, it means nothing.
never trust a verbal agreement. they're worthless. this is true anywhere, not just in employment.
BTW, crap like this is why i *NEVER* sign an employment agreement without carefully looking at the clauses to do with ownership of work. if it says anything other than "what i do during work time on work equipment is yours, what i do on my time on my own equipment is mine" i send it back for another edit. i've had one or two bosses quibble about that until I ask them if they want to start paying me for 24 hours a day rather than 7.25.
(that question was always a good answer to the occasional managerial whinges about long hair and beard too)
you wouldn't have had to figure that out yourself if you'd read the books. all that's covered in the first chapter. more advanced topics come later.
yep, they certainly are... ...right after factory workers, checkout chicks, shop assistants, office clerks, [...], third world sweat shop laborers, and pretty much everyone else in the world below middle and senior management in large corporations.
sure, IT workers get shafted by their employers making unreasonable demands. but there's a huge difference between someone making 60-90K per year for physically undemanding work who has the skills to get a similar or better job pretty nearly whenever they want, and someone working a physically demanding minimum-wage (or lower if they're in a seriously exploitable category like "immigrant" or "stupid") shit job that barely pays enough to live on, let alone save anything to improve their situation. or worse, someone working for a $1 a day to make t-shirts and other stuff that rich western programmers pay $40 or more for.
so, while i know from personal experience just how much IT workers get taken for granted and ripped off, we're still MUCH better off than most.
BTW, this is absolutely *NOT* saying "just put up with it and stop whinging" (i'm way too much of a socialist to ever think that exploitation of any worker is acceptable). it's saying "being outraged by it is sensible, but get a sense of proportion and lose the ridiculous exaggeration".
PDF is crap for ebook readers. why not epub?
yeah, it's way too bloated and heavy for that.
a plugin for firefox does that: OptimizeGoogle
(it was forked from the older CustomizeGoogle plugin because CG hadn't been updated for a few years)
i currently have scribd.com, swik.net, and experts-exchange.com in my filter list. IMO they're all worthless crap that turns up in google search results and make it HARDER for me to find what i'm looking for....they're noise drowning out the signal. AKA spam.
maybe now scribd won't be a completely worthless waste of space on google searches and i can reconfigure my firefox Optimize Google plugin to stop filtering out scribd.com search results.
that word does not mean what you think it means.
and i repeat:
"I made no comment whatsoever about other things that may cause wars, death, tortures, or human-rights abuses."
in case you still find that difficult to understand, I'll try saying it a different way:
I have never claimed that it is the *sole* or *exclusive* cause of wars, deaths, etc. The *ONLY* thing i said was that belief in supernatural powers
has caused more of those things than child labour has. which is undeniably true.
if you really insist on arguing with me, then at least have the common decency to argue with what I actually said - rather than what you imagine i said, or what you prefer i had said because it would make a convenient straw man to demolish.
i don't recall saying anything even remotely like that.
what i said was "belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has".
I made no comment whatsoever about other things that may cause wars, death, tortures, or human-rights abuses.
belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has.
if you look at the evidence, rather than consult your prejudices, it's perfectly rational and not in the least bit delusional to believe that belief in supernatural powers is more harmful than sending children to work for low wages.
and edible too, when you get bored of them.