I disagree, two weeks notice is a professional curtesy and four weeks means your a doormat. It is, quite frankly, entirely the former employers problem. The lack of foresight and employee concern this boss seems to portray is indicative of what most likely mean a dead company.
to the poster: You never want to work there or for that boss again, so go nuts with it. Tell them to eat you. They did the same thing during your time there and with this request. If you already have other things lined out don't even give the boss two weeks (unless you have accrued vacation, then take that for pay). If they say anything other than "rehirable" to a future employer sue them (hehe, ok that may be going overboard.)
I have been in a similar situation and as long as you have something lined up, the rest doesn't matter.
More important than bending over and taking it is not to complain about it at your next job. The last thing new management/coworkers want to hear about is how crappy your last boss was. It makes you look bad and not them.
* No really, he was comparing and contrasting "illicit drug use" with "domestic violence". When I contrast those two I see two very distinct categories of action, one reality avoidance through personal sensory deprecation and causing harm to others through means of physical harm. He didn't not expand on that to any satisfactory degree for me or you to conclude that we shouldn't be making those camparisons. Now I have this "drug use abuses others" argument left hanging in the air. That is more inflamatory then illustrative so I called him on it.
* For me all topics are on the table, with the caveat that we at least stay on topic for it's discussion. The GP had been seeking to illumate ways of better arguing his position on drug use. If he could not determine any good points of argumentation, it becomes a belief not based on reason and he should drop it. It is OK to have those beliefs if you do not confuse them with facts, but mixing them leads to frustration by all.
sidenote: Running for president and not answering that "lame" question would be political suicide. Voters just seem to eat up decisive stances no matter how untenable they may be.
I appreciate the fact that you focused on being defensive, instead off discussing the forward looking points. Oh well.
points in order:
* The only interesting debate on this subject should be had strictly on the merits of facts. This has been an exploited politcal theme that has shown itself to ignore data to inflate it's importance in average american lives. There are interesting conclusions both ways on various parts of this topic that can be explored and are not subjective. If you have a hard time discovering those conclusions on your own, stay out of the debate. It's ok to not be a great debater as long as you understand your limitation and don't waste peoples time.
* normally when illustrating that an argument is a strawman, call your rival out on it. No need for idotic comparisons to irrelivant inflamatory nonsense. Of course "____" hasn't destroyed western civilization since we are living in it. Your second responce was indeed all you needed to say without losing objective credability.
* Your personal theological view has nothing to do with the fact that all people, as best they may try, do indeed believe passionately about certain topics without any rational reasons why. I bring that up only for the fact the you alluded to your strong belief and your difficulty atriculating that position. I did imply that this may be one of those topics for you due to your discourse.
"Domestic abuse `hasn't destroyed western Civilization yet', either."
What an insightful reply. Let's just have at it and say that Hitler was a drug addict and weed eat the brains of babies.
If this is how you beleive in something it is no wonder that people think you couldn't support your weak arguments. Stop, take some time to collect your thoughts about this subject and test your assumptions. If you have a hard time finding credible data on the subject, realize that the position is one that isn't defensible and either keep it to yourself (drop the inane comparisons to violent crime). If you can't do that you can always tell people that you have a religous belief on the subject and go from there.
Now some talking points for you to research could be... Crack, in the 80's in urban locations, led to gang violence and broke up families. A similar phenomena is happening now with methamphetamine in the rural midwest, where people are getting poisoned by mercury and fertilzers during its production.
Since I am one of the he's I can safely answer that I am working on gnome in _my_ spare time. I spend it trying to understanding the system I use daily, for work and home, and making improvements where I see fit that are compatible with the project. I don't get paid for it. I would consider it a hobby.
Because it does not have a utility Where have I seen pure math in action, hmmm. Turing Machines like computers. You, sir, are a moron. I am sure that your software patents are all sorts of legitmate.
How about nail-guns and the like. They are definitely guns, using a propellent to accellerate a projectile. I would rather use that anyday when building a house.
The point is that we're beginning to slide down a slippery slope where the constitution is taking a backseat to the whims of..
This is nothing new except for who is pushing it. This plays with the worried parents who think they can't shelter their children (or worse other peoples) from the evils of the world. Rewind 20 years and you'll see the same junk coming from the liberal left about music censorship. Rewind another 30 and see McCarthy in his prime. Keep the wheels a-spinning and you'll see someone raise some reason why information needs filtering to suit an agenda.
If you think it is getting worse, your wrong. Remember that Tom Sawyer, catcher in the rye, and others to numerous to mention were banned from public libriaries in the past. Whenever people feel helpless to stop change they lash out at whatever cultural thing that is blame-du-jour.
Having said that, the great thing about america is that we can all talk about it without worry of having your family off-ed or yourself tortured for your thoughts.
It's much worse than you think. Knowing that any trivial codebase probably hits multiple patents in just one code block; you could have to defend multiple obvious patents, in multiple countries from multiple companies. If some monopolistic software company decides that they can't compete on merit or without vendor lock-in, they just start piling on lawsuits, along with "partners" in every country possible. forget tens of millions, think billions to just get them all nullified.
Business patents are insulting to anyone who both understands how patents are meant to work and what a business patent looks like. For classical patents I can go and build without R&D the physical product being described by the patent. In a business patent I need to design the implementation itself if it can even meaningfully be implemented in the first place. The "claims" of these patents are usually so general as to be advise from a fortune teller.
At this point in the circus of the absurd that is commercial software, I can only find it funny that people who are pushing this stuff are credible to anyone.
A lot of banter both ways here so just to clear this up... according to C99 section 6.3.2.3 Pointers:
[#3] An integer constant expression with the value 0, or such an expression cast to type void *, is called a null pointer constant.46) If a null pointer constant is assigned to or compared for equality to a pointer, the constant is converted to a pointer of that type. Such a pointer, called a null pointer, is guaranteed to compare unequal to a pointer to any object or function.
[#4] Conversion of a null pointer to another pointer type yields a null pointer of that type. Any two null pointers shall compare equal.
then
46) The macro NULL is defined in as a null pointer constant; see 7.17
Notice that NULL is a macro and not a token so can be changed and still be compliant code, just not friendly.
Do you think you contributed enough to demand access to their work on your terms?
IANAL. The point is it doesn't matter what I think.
Having said that, to port a driver, filesystem or any other kernel feature is going to require you to use copyrighted code to make your port work. That code is given to you under terms of a license. It is not your right to relicense that code under any other terms. The contribution you make to the kernel is insignificant compared to the contribution the kernel is making to your code. So I do think that the kernel developers have every right to claim your port as an extension of theirs.
Please note that this is an ideal and does not actually represent how things happen in practice. Linus and crew do not go after binary driver code nor do all of them view the issue that cut and dry. What you will note is that while they don't go after that code they also will not provide a stable internal API/ABI for the convience of people who won't play ball. The reasons why are mostly technical and probably uninteresting to you, but know that it isn't to spite people.
What does owning a copy of windows have to do with a web service that updates microsoft products automatically? Just because you buy one product it doesn't entitle you to another. They don't even owe you updates at all as a windows user and owner, they do it for customer retainment.
Hardware manufacturers do not make money on drivers. Binary drivers are not and never will be _supported_ by linux developers. A driver (being a kernel module) is capable of stomping over whatever it wants any developer can do about it if you don't have the source. This is why binary modules "taint" the kernel, so they can know for sure what is causing the issue. I prefer my kernel stable so I don't want them to ever not do this.
he surplus funds are in a trust fund, that is invested in US government securities to be paid out when the boomers retire.
While this is superficially true the actual mechanism that accomplishes this makes this false. Any difference between what is collected and what is distributed is kept as a accounting entry, but is then spent on other government programs. What the fund is made up of are special issue T Bills, given to the government from the government. Now what this means is that the governement owes _itself_ the money.
If you don't see why this is different you need to figure out how they are going to pay that interest. The only way the government can pay that "interest" is to pay from other tax revenue sources. This means more taxes or less spending. While you may feel comforted about the fact that they track these IOU's that isn't going to magically make more money appear when payments exceed income.
As for how to sell it, Social Security has always been an insurance plan.
Call it whatever you like but it is still a ponzi scheme.
The debate you think is happening is not amongst the scientific community. I would love to give up and say "to each their own.", if not for the fact that you are trying to poison the minds of MY children. You won't be content until the scientific community gives you something that they can't. The legitimacy you seek is not in the fossils you ignore, the simulations you don't understand nor in the arm restling of the community you hate.
Your faith is misplaced if you think that anyone has ever discredited evolution. The arguments of creationists are tired, debunked and specious.
Mine is a universe that is discoverable through application of a rigorous method that is unwavering in its uncaring treatment of failed ideas. My only notion is that all knowledge is subject to revision including your bible you thump. The sooner you understand that you are unwelcome at the adult table where we discuss observable phenomena, the sooner I can stop questioning your intelligence.
Scientifically speaking what is in dispute is really two things: 1. Whether species adapted from one type of creature to another type (Cat to dog, or something equally different.) 2. How the whole thing got started.
WRT #1, there's the issue of the significant dispute within the scientific community about whether it was gradual change or immediate change.
There is no dispute in the scientific community about whether speciation occurs. Notice punctuated equilibrium attempts to explain why changes are greater during catastrophic events. It does not supplant addaption through natural selection.
At best, I'd have to say that major, significant change in creatures happening gradually over time is speculative.
This is a sign of mental disease.
However, if you approach your study of the universe and pre-suppose that there is no design, no creator, then you must search for any explanation, no matter how far-fetched it is to fit in with your pre-conceived notions.
Evolution is not a study of the universe at large. It is a fact which results from the study of vast amounts of observed data. Additionally no amount of data is going to convince your ilk to understand that is indeed a fact; so it is pointless to try to illustrate it to you. The only thing we scientifically literate can do is try to minimize your damage to others.
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution. R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
To use comments out of context is a disengenous ploy. Willful ignorance and deceit are not virtous behaviour.
Apparently the scientific community disagrees with you (as seen on the BBC). Though I am sure you understand the underlying concepts much better than they do. It's a wonder that biologists don't come to you looking for answers.
not really, though there are satellite phones. If you've ever seen a news report via satellite you will notice the lag between questions and answers. Calls oversees go through undersea fiber optic links for reasons of bandwidth, price, availability and latency. Also repairing a undersea fiber optic line is trivial compared to repairing or replacing a satellite.
Considering that a sata card with eight channels is roughly $500 and 6 $200 gig drives can be had for less than a grand I would say that for a home/small office $6k is to expensive for what you get. considering file/print services can be handled very well by the cheapest processor on the market, a total system can be had easily for half that with full support. 4TB is a different situation since you need a lot of io channels and I would think that, realistically, $6k is too cheap.
This isn't true. You can link BSD-licensed or other similarly GPL-compatible code to GPL'ed libraries to your heart's content.
A answer by fsf on exactly this issue can be found here. An elloboration on GPL compatibility can be found here.
GPL is a one way street. If you modify the source (including linking to a GPL (note: not the LGPL), you have one choice about how you can license the redistribution of your work, i.e. the GPL.
Now, discussing the Linux kernel, opinions are not in any way varied by the copyright _owners_. As illustrated by Linus. If you want a different opinion then the actual owner of the copyrights, you need to talk to a lawyer and accept the risk associated with copyright violation.
I hope this clears up any misconceptions you may have. happy coding!
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree, two weeks notice is a professional curtesy and four weeks means your a doormat. It is, quite frankly, entirely the former employers problem. The lack of foresight and employee concern this boss seems to portray is indicative of what most likely mean a dead company.
to the poster:
You never want to work there or for that boss again, so go nuts with it. Tell them to eat you. They did the same thing during your time there and with this request. If you already have other things lined out don't even give the boss two weeks (unless you have accrued vacation, then take that for pay). If they say anything other than "rehirable" to a future employer sue them (hehe, ok that may be going overboard.)
I have been in a similar situation and as long as you have something lined up, the rest doesn't matter.
More important than bending over and taking it is not to complain about it at your next job. The last thing new management/coworkers want to hear about is how crappy your last boss was. It makes you look bad and not them.
* No really, he was comparing and contrasting "illicit drug use" with "domestic violence". When I contrast those two I see two very distinct categories of action, one reality avoidance through personal sensory deprecation and causing harm to others through means of physical harm. He didn't not expand on that to any satisfactory degree for me or you to conclude that we shouldn't be making those camparisons. Now I have this "drug use abuses others" argument left hanging in the air. That is more inflamatory then illustrative so I called him on it.
* For me all topics are on the table, with the caveat that we at least stay on topic for it's discussion. The GP had been seeking to illumate ways of better arguing his position on drug use. If he could not determine any good points of argumentation, it becomes a belief not based on reason and he should drop it. It is OK to have those beliefs if you do not confuse them with facts, but mixing them leads to frustration by all.
sidenote: Running for president and not answering that "lame" question would be political suicide. Voters just seem to eat up decisive stances no matter how untenable they may be.
I appreciate the fact that you focused on being defensive, instead off discussing the forward looking points. Oh well.
points in order:
* The only interesting debate on this subject should be had strictly on the merits of facts. This has been an exploited politcal theme that has shown itself to ignore data to inflate it's importance in average american lives. There are interesting conclusions both ways on various parts of this topic that can be explored and are not subjective. If you have a hard time discovering those conclusions on your own, stay out of the debate. It's ok to not be a great debater as long as you understand your limitation and don't waste peoples time.
* normally when illustrating that an argument is a strawman, call your rival out on it. No need for idotic comparisons to irrelivant inflamatory nonsense. Of course "____" hasn't destroyed western civilization since we are living in it. Your second responce was indeed all you needed to say without losing objective credability.
* Your personal theological view has nothing to do with the fact that all people, as best they may try, do indeed believe passionately about certain topics without any rational reasons why. I bring that up only for the fact the you alluded to your strong belief and your difficulty atriculating that position. I did imply that this may be one of those topics for you due to your discourse.
"Domestic abuse `hasn't destroyed western Civilization yet', either."
What an insightful reply. Let's just have at it and say that Hitler was a drug addict and weed eat the brains of babies.
If this is how you beleive in something it is no wonder that people think you couldn't support your weak arguments. Stop, take some time to collect your thoughts about this subject and test your assumptions. If you have a hard time finding credible data on the subject, realize that the position is one that isn't defensible and either keep it to yourself (drop the inane comparisons to violent crime). If you can't do that you can always tell people that you have a religous belief on the subject and go from there.
Now some talking points for you to research could be... Crack, in the 80's in urban locations, led to gang violence and broke up families. A similar phenomena is happening now with methamphetamine in the rural midwest, where people are getting poisoned by mercury and fertilzers during its production.
Since I am one of the he's I can safely answer that I am working on gnome in _my_ spare time. I spend it trying to understanding the system I use daily, for work and home, and making improvements where I see fit that are compatible with the project. I don't get paid for it. I would consider it a hobby.
Int€l?
Because it does not have a utility
Where have I seen pure math in action, hmmm. Turing Machines like computers. You, sir, are a moron. I am sure that your software patents are all sorts of legitmate.
How about nail-guns and the like. They are definitely guns, using a propellent to accellerate a projectile. I would rather use that anyday when building a house.
I suggest tracking Alans fork. It is AFAIK the most stable of all the trees. I have been using ubuntu and it seems very stable as well(Herbert Xu).
If you think it is getting worse, your wrong. Remember that Tom Sawyer, catcher in the rye, and others to numerous to mention were banned from public libriaries in the past. Whenever people feel helpless to stop change they lash out at whatever cultural thing that is blame-du-jour.
Having said that, the great thing about america is that we can all talk about it without worry of having your family off-ed or yourself tortured for your thoughts.
It's much worse than you think. Knowing that any trivial codebase probably hits multiple patents in just one code block; you could have to defend multiple obvious patents, in multiple countries from multiple companies. If some monopolistic software company decides that they can't compete on merit or without vendor lock-in, they just start piling on lawsuits, along with "partners" in every country possible. forget tens of millions, think billions to just get them all nullified.
Business patents are insulting to anyone who both understands how patents are meant to work and what a business patent looks like. For classical patents I can go and build without R&D the physical product being described by the patent. In a business patent I need to design the implementation itself if it can even meaningfully be implemented in the first place. The "claims" of these patents are usually so general as to be advise from a fortune teller.
At this point in the circus of the absurd that is commercial software, I can only find it funny that people who are pushing this stuff are credible to anyone.
Do you think you contributed enough to demand access to their work on your terms?
IANAL. The point is it doesn't matter what I think.
Having said that, to port a driver, filesystem or any other kernel feature is going to require you to use copyrighted code to make your port work. That code is given to you under terms of a license. It is not your right to relicense that code under any other terms. The contribution you make to the kernel is insignificant compared to the contribution the kernel is making to your code. So I do think that the kernel developers have every right to claim your port as an extension of theirs.
Please note that this is an ideal and does not actually represent how things happen in practice. Linus and crew do not go after binary driver code nor do all of them view the issue that cut and dry. What you will note is that while they don't go after that code they also will not provide a stable internal API/ABI for the convience of people who won't play ball. The reasons why are mostly technical and probably uninteresting to you, but know that it isn't to spite people.
What does owning a copy of windows have to do with a web service that updates microsoft products automatically? Just because you buy one product it doesn't entitle you to another. They don't even owe you updates at all as a windows user and owner, they do it for customer retainment.
Hardware manufacturers do not make money on drivers. Binary drivers are not and never will be _supported_ by linux developers. A driver (being a kernel module) is capable of stomping over whatever it wants any developer can do about it if you don't have the source. This is why binary modules "taint" the kernel, so they can know for sure what is causing the issue. I prefer my kernel stable so I don't want them to ever not do this.
If you don't see why this is different you need to figure out how they are going to pay that interest. The only way the government can pay that "interest" is to pay from other tax revenue sources. This means more taxes or less spending. While you may feel comforted about the fact that they track these IOU's that isn't going to magically make more money appear when payments exceed income.
Call it whatever you like but it is still a ponzi scheme.
Social security allows you to leach off of other people's kids.
The debate you think is happening is not amongst the scientific community. I would love to give up and say "to each their own.", if not for the fact that you are trying to poison the minds of MY children. You won't be content until the scientific community gives you something that they can't. The legitimacy you seek is not in the fossils you ignore, the simulations you don't understand nor in the arm restling of the community you hate.
Your faith is misplaced if you think that anyone has ever discredited evolution. The arguments of creationists are tired, debunked and specious.
Mine is a universe that is discoverable through application of a rigorous method that is unwavering in its uncaring treatment of failed ideas. My only notion is that all knowledge is subject to revision including your bible you thump. The sooner you understand that you are unwelcome at the adult table where we discuss observable phenomena, the sooner I can stop questioning your intelligence.
There is no dispute in the scientific community about whether speciation occurs. Notice punctuated equilibrium attempts to explain why changes are greater during catastrophic events. It does not supplant addaption through natural selection.
This is a sign of mental disease.
Evolution is not a study of the universe at large. It is a fact which results from the study of vast amounts of observed data. Additionally no amount of data is going to convince your ilk to understand that is indeed a fact; so it is pointless to try to illustrate it to you. The only thing we scientifically literate can do is try to minimize your damage to others.
If you think any fact is apriori you are ignorant.
You are certainly allowed to refute the fact all you want, but it won't make your reasoning any less specious.
To use comments out of context is a disengenous ploy. Willful ignorance and deceit are not virtous behaviour.
Apparently the scientific community disagrees with you (as seen on the BBC). Though I am sure you understand the underlying concepts much better than they do. It's a wonder that biologists don't come to you looking for answers.
not really, though there are satellite phones. If you've ever seen a news report via satellite you will notice the lag between questions and answers. Calls oversees go through undersea fiber optic links for reasons of bandwidth, price, availability and latency. Also repairing a undersea fiber optic line is trivial compared to repairing or replacing a satellite.
Considering that a sata card with eight channels is roughly $500 and 6 $200 gig drives can be had for less than a grand I would say that for a home/small office $6k is to expensive for what you get. considering file/print services can be handled very well by the cheapest processor on the market, a total system can be had easily for half that with full support. 4TB is a different situation since you need a lot of io channels and I would think that, realistically, $6k is too cheap.
This isn't true. You can link BSD-licensed or other similarly GPL-compatible code to GPL'ed libraries to your heart's content.
A answer by fsf on exactly this issue can be found here. An elloboration on GPL compatibility can be found here.
GPL is a one way street. If you modify the source (including linking to a GPL (note: not the LGPL), you have one choice about how you can license the redistribution of your work, i.e. the GPL.
Now, discussing the Linux kernel, opinions are not in any way varied by the copyright _owners_. As illustrated by Linus. If you want a different opinion then the actual owner of the copyrights, you need to talk to a lawyer and accept the risk associated with copyright violation.
I hope this clears up any misconceptions you may have. happy coding!