Employment is (or should be!) a more complicated situation than "how much cash am I given". If money was your sole reason for leaving and you were happy otherwise, then hey, the counteroffer should be fine. On the other hand, if there were other factors -- job duties, coworkers, schedule, general happiness, whatever -- then you need to consider whether the counteroffer addresses those. If it's just a larger bribe to tolerate a still-bad situation, you probably don't want to stay. If, on the other hand, your employer really doesn't want to lose you and demonstrates an effort to make you stay, than you should definitely consider it.
Those FAQ sections are really beside the point. There's really two things -- the "look somewhere else for support" bit (which is fair enough), and the aforementioned wishful thinking.
Do you think Red Hat will ship a Mozilla-based version of their old Red Baron web browser, or will they include Mozilla? What about Debian? Slackware? UnitedLinux? Anyone?
Hmmm. I'm curious to ask Cyc if Linux is better than MS Windows, if free software is better than proprietary, if sharing music is stealing, and so forth. "Common sense" -- especially when collected in a database like this -- can't help but showing the biases of its creators. If this tool becomes as important as the linked-to article implies it will, let's hope it has common sense that fits with our agenda....
I'm just saying: "We're going to get a huge supercomputer from IBM or SGI" sounds a lot better than "we're going to have a buncha kids go down to Fry's and buy some stuff and make us a big ole computer", when it comes to the actual asking to get the money.
I work for a university. Anything this big is funded by a grant. You can't get a grant that says "yeah, we're going to build all this stuff ourselves"; the people giving out the money won't believe that you can do a decent job (especially if you say "we're going to get a bunch of students to put it together"). If you're doing research into the theoretical possiblity of building a big machine out of parts, maybe, but if your goal is to actually build a functional system for some purpose, you'll have much better success going with a vendor -- preferably a big-name one -- even if it costs a lot more.
I don't understand why they called the chip makers -- wouldn't it be more appropriate to call a systems vendor? It's not like you take a bunch of CPUs, put them in a pile, and have Beowulf cluster.
Except certain kinds of failure are built into the model, when perhaps they shouldn't be. The everyone-must-have-a-car thing is a very American assumption.
And considering that he obviously *understands* English (or whatever language people speak in the Star Wars universe that just happens to coincide with English), and that understanding language is much much harder than making sentences, we've got to conclude that the only reason he beeps and whistles is because he doesn't feel like bothering to form words....
IE doesn't use MDI because MDI is evil. I don't want a full-screen browser window (with its own subwindows for each page) that obscures whatever other apps you have open at the same time. That kind of interface is so Windows 3.1.:-P
Have you even looked at the interface being discussed? It's not a nasty windows-within-windows situation, but rather tabs along the top of the page. It's actually pretty nice.
Apache, sendmail, bind... famous open source projects designed for single users. It's a good idea someone came along to do this new innovative infrastructure sorta stuff. Maybe someday we can have a whole inter-network of computers using open protocols.
Yes, definitely. However, many server/workstation scsi cards plug into 64-bit pci slots, for twice the bandwidth. (No reason to do that with IDE yet, because if you've got money....)
You might think it would be something logical like that, but in fact, the dispenser containers aren't visible at all -- they're open in front so you can see the individual foil packets of pills. It doesn't say that you have to be sure to use the right dose -- it says you have to use refills from them.
Final Fantasy whatever is neither violent nor sexually explicit. Neither is Black and White. Nor Myst. Nor Civilization. Nor any of the other games that were mentioned to defend "video games" as protected speech.
Actually, the article made a large deal about Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, and the speech implications of a particularly violent part at that.
At the office where I work, we've got a little cardboard-box contraption which dispenses single-dose medication -- Tylenol, Excedrin, etc. This device says, in large red letters: "Warning! Use only genuine refills", and then goes on about how not only would it be illegal to put Tylenol obtained from some other source in the dispenser, it would also be very dangerous.
Isn't a corporation just a collection of individuals, no matter how much the Left tries to depersonalize things?
Um, no, it has nothing to do with "the Left". As it stands, a *corporation* does in fact have the legal rights of a human being. Read the message you're replying to. Meanwhile, individuals in the corporation are shielded from personal responsibility for the corporation's actions. If a corporation where indeed legally treated as a collection of individuals, the situation would be totally different -- and probably much better. But it's not, thanks to, I'm going to have to say, "the Right".
I'm a bit confused -- you seem to have quoted my first point and replied to the second.
Anyway, the FAQ says that an organization can use a modified version internally without releasing it outside the organization. That's nice, but jsse's MSCE is concerned about what might happen if another department would release it to the public (go back and read the post). The GPL certainly allows this, and might actually disallow forbidding it -- it's certainly contrary to the spirt. (Of course that'd be something to check with a lawyer about.)
Furthermore, the fact that another department might act so autonomously with regard to the code makes me wary of the claim that this is, for the purposes of the GPL, all one organization. See my earlier comment -- if a government is all one organization, aren't all of a countries citizens? And so on. Again, bring out the lawyers.
1. "we are only required to release the source code when the recipents has the binary."
This is true, but you can't keep the people you've given it to from giving it to other people. (At least not under the GPL -- you'd have to add some further restriction, which might conflict with your original right to use the GPL'd code at all.)
2. "we do not need to release the source code if we use them within an organization. A Government is one big organization, which is very suitable to adopt GPL...."
This is where the lawyers come in -- *is* a government one entity under the GPL? If so, what about "citizens of a given country"? Or, "members of our club"? At what point are you "distributing"?
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to say it, but maybe we need a standardized "registry" idea like in MS Windows? I hate to say it, but they do have a good idea with that.
/etc.
We have something like that. Something superior, in fact. It's called
Red Hat uses i686 optimizations designed to still work on an i386.
Employment is (or should be!) a more complicated situation than "how much cash am I given". If money was your sole reason for leaving and you were happy otherwise, then hey, the counteroffer should be fine. On the other hand, if there were other factors -- job duties, coworkers, schedule, general happiness, whatever -- then you need to consider whether the counteroffer addresses those. If it's just a larger bribe to tolerate a still-bad situation, you probably don't want to stay. If, on the other hand, your employer really doesn't want to lose you and demonstrates an effort to make you stay, than you should definitely consider it.
Those FAQ sections are really beside the point. There's really two things -- the "look somewhere else for support" bit (which is fair enough), and the aforementioned wishful thinking.
Do you think Red Hat will ship a Mozilla-based version of their old Red Baron web browser, or will they include Mozilla? What about Debian? Slackware? UnitedLinux? Anyone?
Hmmm. I'm curious to ask Cyc if Linux is better than MS Windows, if free software is better than proprietary, if sharing music is stealing, and so forth. "Common sense" -- especially when collected in a database like this -- can't help but showing the biases of its creators. If this tool becomes as important as the linked-to article implies it will, let's hope it has common sense that fits with our agenda....
I think you're confusing "choice" with
and of course
They're not remote X terminals. They're remote frame buffers -- they don't even have the brains of an X term.
Do you have Linux running on it? I have a Libretto CT50 which I'm quite attached to, but its maximum of 32MB of RAM is killing me.
Your TiBook is about ten times bigger than a Libretto. If I wanted something that huge, I'd carry my desktop PC around.
I didn't say all universities are the same. I'm just giving my observations.
I'm just saying: "We're going to get a huge supercomputer from IBM or SGI" sounds a lot better than "we're going to have a buncha kids go down to Fry's and buy some stuff and make us a big ole computer", when it comes to the actual asking to get the money.
I work for a university. Anything this big is funded by a grant. You can't get a grant that says "yeah, we're going to build all this stuff ourselves"; the people giving out the money won't believe that you can do a decent job (especially if you say "we're going to get a bunch of students to put it together"). If you're doing research into the theoretical possiblity of building a big machine out of parts, maybe, but if your goal is to actually build a functional system for some purpose, you'll have much better success going with a vendor -- preferably a big-name one -- even if it costs a lot more.
I don't understand why they called the chip makers -- wouldn't it be more appropriate to call a systems vendor? It's not like you take a bunch of CPUs, put them in a pile, and have Beowulf cluster.
Except certain kinds of failure are built into the model, when perhaps they shouldn't be. The everyone-must-have-a-car thing is a very American assumption.
And considering that he obviously *understands* English (or whatever language people speak in the Star Wars universe that just happens to coincide with English), and that understanding language is much much harder than making sentences, we've got to conclude that the only reason he beeps and whistles is because he doesn't feel like bothering to form words....
IE doesn't use MDI because MDI is evil. I don't want a full-screen browser window (with its own subwindows for each page) that obscures whatever other apps you have open at the same time. That kind of interface is so Windows 3.1. :-P
Have you even looked at the interface being discussed? It's not a nasty windows-within-windows situation, but rather tabs along the top of the page. It's actually pretty nice.
Apache, sendmail, bind... famous open source projects designed for single users. It's a good idea someone came along to do this new innovative infrastructure sorta stuff. Maybe someday we can have a whole inter-network of computers using open protocols.
Yes, definitely. However, many server/workstation scsi cards plug into 64-bit pci slots, for twice the bandwidth. (No reason to do that with IDE yet, because if you've got money....)
and, how much are the bulbs for those $500 ebay projectors?
You might think it would be something logical like that, but in fact, the dispenser containers aren't visible at all -- they're open in front so you can see the individual foil packets of pills. It doesn't say that you have to be sure to use the right dose -- it says you have to use refills from them.
Final Fantasy whatever is neither violent nor sexually explicit. Neither is Black and White. Nor Myst. Nor Civilization. Nor any of the other games that were mentioned to defend "video games" as protected speech.
Actually, the article made a large deal about Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, and the speech implications of a particularly violent part at that.
At the office where I work, we've got a little cardboard-box contraption which dispenses single-dose medication -- Tylenol, Excedrin, etc. This device says, in large red letters: "Warning! Use only genuine refills", and then goes on about how not only would it be illegal to put Tylenol obtained from some other source in the dispenser, it would also be very dangerous.
I am not making this up.
Isn't a corporation just a collection of individuals, no matter how much the Left tries to depersonalize things?
Um, no, it has nothing to do with "the Left".
As it stands, a *corporation* does in fact have the legal rights of a human being. Read the message you're replying to. Meanwhile, individuals in the corporation are shielded from personal responsibility for the corporation's actions. If a corporation where indeed legally treated as a collection of individuals, the situation would be totally different -- and probably much better. But it's not, thanks to, I'm going to have to say, "the Right".
I'm a bit confused -- you seem to have quoted my first point and replied to the second.
Anyway, the FAQ says that an organization can use a modified version internally without releasing it outside the organization. That's nice, but jsse's MSCE is concerned about what might happen if another department would release it to the public (go back and read the post). The GPL certainly allows this, and might actually disallow forbidding it -- it's certainly contrary to the spirt. (Of course that'd be something to check with a lawyer about.)
Furthermore, the fact that another department might act so autonomously with regard to the code makes me wary of the claim that this is, for the purposes of the GPL, all one organization. See my earlier comment -- if a government is all one organization, aren't all of a countries citizens? And so on. Again, bring out the lawyers.
There's two things you talk about there:
1. "we are only required to release the source code when the recipents has the binary."
This is true, but you can't keep the people you've given it to from giving it to other people. (At least not under the GPL -- you'd have to add some further restriction, which might conflict with your original right to use the GPL'd code at all.)
2. "we do not need to release the source code if we use them within an organization. A Government is one big organization, which is very suitable to adopt GPL...."
This is where the lawyers come in -- *is* a government one entity under the GPL? If so, what about "citizens of a given country"? Or, "members of our club"? At what point are you "distributing"?