It is not the job of a company to be the employee's nanny. I don't know where you people get this idea, but it's a profoundly twisted one. The last thing I want my company to do is to start looking out for my well being. After they give me incentives for buying green (such as not firing me), maybe they'll give me incentives for eating less fat, flossing between meals, volunteering at the SPCA, etc.
My employment is an agreement that I will perform certain labor and services for in exchange for a specified salary. It says nothing at all about employer telling me what to drive, let along acting as my surrogate mother.
Pepole from all across the political spectrum are "green", but somehow in the USA it is a "Liberal" idea.
That's because the liberals in the US have made it political. In fact, the very word "green" is political, as it refers to a progressivist liberal party. There once was a time when conservation was an ideal that everyone from all political ideologies could get behind. But sometime in the 70's someone decided to make the environment a political "-ism".
Of course a real way of going "green" would be to simply make it easier for people to telecommute. We saw a huge interest in telecommuting a couple of years ago, but since then, many corporations have cut back on telecommuting or reversed earlier policies.
Bingo. The idea that companies should offer incentives for "green" cars is bizarre, because there is no benefit to the company for employees having "green" cars. Companies are not in the business of pure philanthropy, neither are they social experiments. For a small company it might be possible if enough of the shareholders lean one way or another politically, but it's not viable for larger companies.
It's one thing for a company to organize a weekend charity drive, but to actually redirect revenues towards political posturing is nuts. If the cost savings for fuel efficient cars isn't enough incentive for employees, then maybe they're not the global panacea everyone says they are.
But telecommuting *benefits* the company, so it makes sense to encourage it for those jobs where its practical.
It's like learning a spoken language. You can study all you want about nouns and verbs and tenses, but until you actually learn some vocabulary, it's all meaningless. Your first step in programming is to learn a language, because the principles are pointless without a language.
p.s. I also second the Qt recommendation. To learn C++, I would recommend Practical C++ Programming. This is one of the very few C++ books suitable for a programming newbie.
Someone who has accepted the licence may subsequently break its terms.
You can't "accept" the license as it's not a contract. You can shout from the rooltops "I disagree" and you STILl have the permissions granted in the license, so long as you follow the conditions.
Let's take a swimming pool analogy. If I give you permission to swim in my pool so long as you don't pee in it, then that is license, not contract. Even if you state you disagree with the condition not to pee it in, the permission still stands. It's only until you actually pollute the pool that the permission is revoked.
Of course not.... unless they are on the Supreme Court
You need a majority opinion out of SCOTUS, and even then it's not fixed in stone, as Congress can pass a slightly different version of the law to try all over again.
Otherwise people would routinely use minors to avoid keeping up their side of the bargain in contracts even outside of software.
Except that in real time people are smarter than this. I take my 9 year old down to the mortgage company to sign some papers, they're going to tell me to get stuffed. I take my 9 year old to the auto rental agency to sign the agreement, they're going to tell me to get stuffed.
One of the problem with EULAs (and other "modern" contracts") is that the licensee and licensor, or their agents, never meet. Otherwise it would be quite obvious it's my 9 year old clicking that "I Agree" button (which the software industry seems to consider more binding than a witnessed signature).
AD&D is the Windows of roleplaying games, and WotC is its Microsoft. Unlike others, I'm not going to praise the halcyon days of yore when Gary Gygax ruled TSR, because that's where the problem started.
Re:Only once a year? Nonsense!
on
Zombie Lurch
·
· Score: 1
Hey now! Don't go insulting winos!
Re:Only once a year? Nonsense!
on
Zombie Lurch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't know if you're talking about the politicians or the winos.
But darn it, the machine could actually *do* something with a couple thousand bytes of code!
Actually, modern computers can actually do something with a couple thousand bytes of code too!
There are three main factors contributing to modern "bloat":
1) Error checking. It takes resources to detect error, and further resources to recover from them.
2) Abstraction. Programming in a high level language is not as efficient as programming hand tuned assembly. C is a good compromise, but even there you run across the next problem:
3) Common code. Common shared libraries, by necessity, always do more than you need them to do. Consider "printf" for example.
4) User Interface. Textual interfaces bloated software, but they were nothing compared to GUIs. I'm writing a piece of software now that is probably 95% GUI code. I can't see any way to trim it down without losing user friendliness and ease of use.
I work for a German company. The differences between me and my coworkers in Germany are striking. I don't get the vacations they do and I'm always the first to get laid off. They've had US employees for fifty years, but the "20 Year Employee" list consists solely of German names.
Maybe if the UN was in charge of the internet, we could all sleep easier at night. After all, the UN is legendary for its efficiency, expertise and fairness.
I don't know any full time professional US/EU software developers that make less than $50,000. Most get paid a heck of a lot more than that. Surely they can afford a tiny $1800 license.
No it doesn't. Play around to your hearts content. When you're ready to code for real, then buy the license. Simple. If you're not playing around, then you need to make up your mind quickly if you're going to release it open source or not.
To be blunt: If you're writing code you intend to release under a proprietary license, you need to buy the proprietary license. Of course, that's exactly what Trolltech just told you, but it didn't seem that you heard.
Please explain. I've never heard this idea before, and I want to know the rationale and reasoning behind it. I can think of several naturally occuring monopolies, and wish to know where the flaw in my thinking is.
Example 1) A monopoly on horses in a one horse town
Example 2) A monopoly on gas stations in a town with only one intersection.
Example 3) Licensing fees for iPod accessories when there are dozens of iPod competitors.
Re:Why are we hiding from the police, daddy?
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
VIM is *not* user friendly, and until it is VIM will stay with
I remember when VI first came out. It was a breath of fresh air. It really was user friendly, in relation to what was before. User friendliness is all relative.
Slashdot Mirror
Society benifits so the company does too...
It is not the job of a company to be the employee's nanny. I don't know where you people get this idea, but it's a profoundly twisted one. The last thing I want my company to do is to start looking out for my well being. After they give me incentives for buying green (such as not firing me), maybe they'll give me incentives for eating less fat, flossing between meals, volunteering at the SPCA, etc.
My employment is an agreement that I will perform certain labor and services for in exchange for a specified salary. It says nothing at all about employer telling me what to drive, let along acting as my surrogate mother.
Pepole from all across the political spectrum are "green", but somehow in the USA it is a "Liberal" idea.
That's because the liberals in the US have made it political. In fact, the very word "green" is political, as it refers to a progressivist liberal party. There once was a time when conservation was an ideal that everyone from all political ideologies could get behind. But sometime in the 70's someone decided to make the environment a political "-ism".
Of course a real way of going "green" would be to simply make it easier for people to telecommute. We saw a huge interest in telecommuting a couple of years ago, but since then, many corporations have cut back on telecommuting or reversed earlier policies.
Bingo. The idea that companies should offer incentives for "green" cars is bizarre, because there is no benefit to the company for employees having "green" cars. Companies are not in the business of pure philanthropy, neither are they social experiments. For a small company it might be possible if enough of the shareholders lean one way or another politically, but it's not viable for larger companies.
It's one thing for a company to organize a weekend charity drive, but to actually redirect revenues towards political posturing is nuts. If the cost savings for fuel efficient cars isn't enough incentive for employees, then maybe they're not the global panacea everyone says they are.
But telecommuting *benefits* the company, so it makes sense to encourage it for those jobs where its practical.
It's like learning a spoken language. You can study all you want about nouns and verbs and tenses, but until you actually learn some vocabulary, it's all meaningless. Your first step in programming is to learn a language, because the principles are pointless without a language.
p.s. I also second the Qt recommendation. To learn C++, I would recommend Practical C++ Programming. This is one of the very few C++ books suitable for a programming newbie.
Someone who has accepted the licence may subsequently break its terms.
You can't "accept" the license as it's not a contract. You can shout from the rooltops "I disagree" and you STILl have the permissions granted in the license, so long as you follow the conditions.
Let's take a swimming pool analogy. If I give you permission to swim in my pool so long as you don't pee in it, then that is license, not contract. Even if you state you disagree with the condition not to pee it in, the permission still stands. It's only until you actually pollute the pool that the permission is revoked.
Of course not.... unless they are on the Supreme Court
You need a majority opinion out of SCOTUS, and even then it's not fixed in stone, as Congress can pass a slightly different version of the law to try all over again.
Under Australian Law at least, the contract formed by the sale goods has three phases:
Not only is this Australian law, it's US law as well! A judge or two ruling otherwise does NOT change the law.
Otherwise people would routinely use minors to avoid keeping up their side of the bargain in contracts even outside of software.
Except that in real time people are smarter than this. I take my 9 year old down to the mortgage company to sign some papers, they're going to tell me to get stuffed. I take my 9 year old to the auto rental agency to sign the agreement, they're going to tell me to get stuffed.
One of the problem with EULAs (and other "modern" contracts") is that the licensee and licensor, or their agents, never meet. Otherwise it would be quite obvious it's my 9 year old clicking that "I Agree" button (which the software industry seems to consider more binding than a witnessed signature).
AD&D is the Windows of roleplaying games, and WotC is its Microsoft. Unlike others, I'm not going to praise the halcyon days of yore when Gary Gygax ruled TSR, because that's where the problem started.
Hey now! Don't go insulting winos!
I don't know if you're talking about the politicians or the winos.
But darn it, the machine could actually *do* something with a couple thousand bytes of code!
Actually, modern computers can actually do something with a couple thousand bytes of code too!
There are three main factors contributing to modern "bloat":
1) Error checking. It takes resources to detect error, and further resources to recover from them.
2) Abstraction. Programming in a high level language is not as efficient as programming hand tuned assembly. C is a good compromise, but even there you run across the next problem:
3) Common code. Common shared libraries, by necessity, always do more than you need them to do. Consider "printf" for example.
4) User Interface. Textual interfaces bloated software, but they were nothing compared to GUIs. I'm writing a piece of software now that is probably 95% GUI code. I can't see any way to trim it down without losing user friendliness and ease of use.
Ah, good old Slashdot. No matter how stupid the thought, you'll always find several dozen moonbats who are actively thinking it.
How typically Slashdot. Let's blame big business for the taxes congress passes.
I work for a German company. The differences between me and my coworkers in Germany are striking. I don't get the vacations they do and I'm always the first to get laid off. They've had US employees for fifty years, but the "20 Year Employee" list consists solely of German names.
Maybe if the UN was in charge of the internet, we could all sleep easier at night. After all, the UN is legendary for its efficiency, expertise and fairness.
Thank you for the demonstration of my point.
And don't blame this on "Dubya" this sort of thing has been Agency practice for decades.
But this is Slashdot, where the motto is "Blame Bush!"
In any case, the BSD-style license sounds decent enough...
No! It's the worst thing they could do! The BSD license is a license to steal. Microsoft could take Microsoft code and not give back!
I don't know any full time professional US/EU software developers that make less than $50,000. Most get paid a heck of a lot more than that. Surely they can afford a tiny $1800 license.
Qt isn't for part time shareware authors.
No it doesn't. Play around to your hearts content. When you're ready to code for real, then buy the license. Simple. If you're not playing around, then you need to make up your mind quickly if you're going to release it open source or not.
To be blunt: If you're writing code you intend to release under a proprietary license, you need to buy the proprietary license. Of course, that's exactly what Trolltech just told you, but it didn't seem that you heard.
Thats big chunk of change to write docs that you can release the public.
Yet apparently it's no work writing them for the OEMs. Are you saying it actually costs you money to remove the NDA?
I use FreeBSD, not Linux, so Linux drivers don't help me any. What we really need are OPEN HARDWARE SPECIFICATIONS.
Story Summary: Windows-only hardware works better with Windows.
Nature abhors monopolies.
Please explain. I've never heard this idea before, and I want to know the rationale and reasoning behind it. I can think of several naturally occuring monopolies, and wish to know where the flaw in my thinking is.
Example 1) A monopoly on horses in a one horse town
Example 2) A monopoly on gas stations in a town with only one intersection.
Example 3) Licensing fees for iPod accessories when there are dozens of iPod competitors.
VIM is *not* user friendly, and until it is VIM will stay with
I remember when VI first came out. It was a breath of fresh air. It really was user friendly, in relation to what was before. User friendliness is all relative.