A few years ago, CS was the major to be in if you wanted a great starting salary. So, a lot of kids with no interest in programming and no real idea what they wanted to do with their lives followed the alleged money. Remarkable as it may seem, there are today a bunch of graduates who aren't very good at computer science but are most upset that companies aren't fawning over them.
Such as a 200 degree Fahrenheit heat source. Not servers. And solar only gets you part of the way there. Unless you have a source of high temperature waste heat (e.g. cooking exhaust) or live in a relatively dry climate, you'll spend a lot of money powering the desiccant recycling loop.
That's about right. I program computers for a living. Deep concentration for long periods of time is a key skill. Above the mid 70's I find it difficult to concentrate.
Then there's the humidity. The summer humidity around here is routinely 70%. I own a lot of expensive electronics. 70% plus heat is ruinous. Rust and corrosion. Oxidation. I'd lose half the electricity savings to early failure of my electronics.
Electroic instruments don't like the environment they create either.
That rather depends. The relative humidity standard for data centers (per ANSI/TIA-942 5.3.5.3) is 40% - 55%. If you start out with desert air (20%) and you completely don't seal the room you can get quite a bit of evaporative cooling before you top 55%.
How do you get a kid to play football? You take them outside, throw a football to them and ask them to throw it back. If they like it, they do the same thing with their friends while you're not around.
Yes, but I don't *want* the whole contract voided and in ambiguous cases contracts writing by one party in which the other had little or no ability to negotiate are construed against the author...
Money's not irrelevant! You still have to mine/grow/whatever the raw materials and you still need a source of energy. And with infinite choices that don't magically combine into the car you happen to want (the replicators only copy), even the most enterprising folks are going to want help constructing amalgamations. Today's nicest car becomes the car everybody has, but the rich have -custom- cars.
As for cash, you either find some non-replicable trait to insert into your money or you use a trusted third party (e.g. a bank or a government) to keep track of how much money you have and managing the transfers (cashless society).
The central point is that changing the ease of replicability of a particular owned thing doesn't destroy the economics that surround it; it merely reshapes the economics, changing the nature of the moneymaking part of the activity.
Nonsense. Hobbyists would start modding cars and replicating the modded versions. These mods would become more and more intricate until they were really whole new cars. Then a cottage industry could crop up focused on packaging the best mods together into really nice cars for a modest fee...
Sounds like you're arguing that ``ignorance of the law'' is a (good) defense?
No, actually, I was just directly quoting the linked legal site. The interpretation that ignorance is a defense (or any other interpretation for that matter) is all you.
It is a crime to purchase or accept property that you know or believe was obtained through theft . The crime is separate from robbery, extortion, or theft. Receiving stolen property is a crime in order to deter people from aiding or rewarding thieves by buying stolen property, and to deter theft in general. Receiving stolen property may be a misdemeanor or felony.
In Order to Be Convicted of this Crime, the Prosecution Must Show
* That the property was in fact stolen
* That you were aware, or should have known, that the property was stolen
No, the last three words are correct too. They may be violating some copyrights if they refuse to release their code under the GPL but they can still refuse to do so. The GPL does not (and legally can not) automatically license their new code under the GPL as it is created or distributed. It can only make doing so a condition for lawfully redistributing the base code.
I'm picking a nit here, but it's an important nit. If you were to take the code which they refused to license under the GPL and distribute it yourself, *you would be violating a copyright as well.*
IANAL and this is not legal advice. If you really care about this, you should pay for advice from someone who is a lawyer.
That having been said...
Any software you produced for them for which you directly received W-2 wages belongs to them regardless of the terms of the GPL. It is entirely their choice whether or not to release it under the GPL. They may or may not be violating the GPL if they do not, however any damages from that violation will be monetary; they will not compel the software be released under the GPL.
Any software you produced during hours for which you did not receive a wage reported on an IRS form W-2 almost certainly still belongs to you, regardless of any papers you may have signed prior to writing it. They can't stop you from releasing it, but they can very likely release you from their employ and/or withdraw any other association you may have with them if you do.
A letter from GNU's lawyer to their lawyer can go a long way towards resolving the matter. Writing such letters is one of the reasons the GNU folks keep a lawyer in their employ. Avail yourself of the benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it even slower than Firefox 3.5? Because 3.5 is still too fast; I need a slower, more bloated, less responsive browser.
A few years ago, CS was the major to be in if you wanted a great starting salary. So, a lot of kids with no interest in programming and no real idea what they wanted to do with their lives followed the alleged money. Remarkable as it may seem, there are today a bunch of graduates who aren't very good at computer science but are most upset that companies aren't fawning over them.
I'm told there are health benefits from breathing more humid air instead of dry desert air,
The optimum relative humidity for human health is 50%.
http://www.natural-building.co.uk/microbiological_pollutants.htm
http://www.tradewinds-at.com/images/optimum-relative-humidity-c.jpg
Such as a 200 degree Fahrenheit heat source. Not servers. And solar only gets you part of the way there. Unless you have a source of high temperature waste heat (e.g. cooking exhaust) or live in a relatively dry climate, you'll spend a lot of money powering the desiccant recycling loop.
can't tolerate it mentally.
That's about right. I program computers for a living. Deep concentration for long periods of time is a key skill. Above the mid 70's I find it difficult to concentrate.
Then there's the humidity. The summer humidity around here is routinely 70%. I own a lot of expensive electronics. 70% plus heat is ruinous. Rust and corrosion. Oxidation. I'd lose half the electricity savings to early failure of my electronics.
Electroic instruments don't like the environment they create either.
That rather depends. The relative humidity standard for data centers (per ANSI/TIA-942 5.3.5.3) is 40% - 55%. If you start out with desert air (20%) and you completely don't seal the room you can get quite a bit of evaporative cooling before you top 55%.
Alas my humor remains too subtle...
The Standard Model of fundamental particles posits no mass for the neutrino. For them to be able to oscillate, however, they must have mass.
Unless oscillation is the fundamental thing and mass is just a sometimes effect of oscillation... but then IANAP.
The return from out of bounds? After a catch by the goalie?
How do you get a kid to play football? You take them outside, throw a football to them and ask them to throw it back. If they like it, they do the same thing with their friends while you're not around.
How do you get a kid into coding? Guess.
I feel cheated. Flying to Hawaii the 767 only made it to 30k feet.
You mean besides the fact that it only gets 2/3rds as high as a commercial airliner and commercial airliners don't get up in to the stratosphere?
Yes, but I don't *want* the whole contract voided and in ambiguous cases contracts writing by one party in which the other had little or no ability to negotiate are construed against the author...
No, really?
I believe a court would find that clause unenforceable and sever it from the rest of the contract.
Money's not irrelevant! You still have to mine/grow/whatever the raw materials and you still need a source of energy. And with infinite choices that don't magically combine into the car you happen to want (the replicators only copy), even the most enterprising folks are going to want help constructing amalgamations. Today's nicest car becomes the car everybody has, but the rich have -custom- cars.
As for cash, you either find some non-replicable trait to insert into your money or you use a trusted third party (e.g. a bank or a government) to keep track of how much money you have and managing the transfers (cashless society).
The central point is that changing the ease of replicability of a particular owned thing doesn't destroy the economics that surround it; it merely reshapes the economics, changing the nature of the moneymaking part of the activity.
I'm lazy and impatient.
Yes. Yes, I am. You only have to cater to that if you actually want my money.
Nonsense. Hobbyists would start modding cars and replicating the modded versions. These mods would become more and more intricate until they were really whole new cars. Then a cottage industry could crop up focused on packaging the best mods together into really nice cars for a modest fee...
http://newteevee.com/2010/01/06/netflix-swaps-longer-dvd-window-for-more-streaming-titles-from-warner-bros/
Under the deal, Warner Bros. will continue to make discs available directly to Netflix, reducing the cost of procuring its content,
Sounds like you're arguing that ``ignorance of the law'' is a (good) defense?
No, actually, I was just directly quoting the linked legal site. The interpretation that ignorance is a defense (or any other interpretation for that matter) is all you.
As I understand it, the test for "should have known" is what a "reasonable person" would have known.
Still, one wonders why the Apple employee didn't simply call the lost phone's number and ask that it be returned.
It is a crime to purchase or accept property that you know or believe was obtained through theft . The crime is separate from robbery, extortion, or theft. Receiving stolen property is a crime in order to deter people from aiding or rewarding thieves by buying stolen property, and to deter theft in general. Receiving stolen property may be a misdemeanor or felony.
In Order to Be Convicted of this Crime, the Prosecution Must Show
* That the property was in fact stolen
* That you were aware, or should have known, that the property was stolen
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-stolen-property.html
No, the last three words are correct too. They may be violating some copyrights if they refuse to release their code under the GPL but they can still refuse to do so. The GPL does not (and legally can not) automatically license their new code under the GPL as it is created or distributed. It can only make doing so a condition for lawfully redistributing the base code.
I'm picking a nit here, but it's an important nit. If you were to take the code which they refused to license under the GPL and distribute it yourself, *you would be violating a copyright as well.*
IANAL and this is not legal advice. If you really care about this, you should pay for advice from someone who is a lawyer.
That having been said...
Any software you produced for them for which you directly received W-2 wages belongs to them regardless of the terms of the GPL. It is entirely their choice whether or not to release it under the GPL. They may or may not be violating the GPL if they do not, however any damages from that violation will be monetary; they will not compel the software be released under the GPL.
Any software you produced during hours for which you did not receive a wage reported on an IRS form W-2 almost certainly still belongs to you, regardless of any papers you may have signed prior to writing it. They can't stop you from releasing it, but they can very likely release you from their employ and/or withdraw any other association you may have with them if you do.
A letter from GNU's lawyer to their lawyer can go a long way towards resolving the matter. Writing such letters is one of the reasons the GNU folks keep a lawyer in their employ. Avail yourself of the benefit.