A wholesaler buys from the manufactures and sells to the retailers. If the retailers go bankrupt, fail to pay, etc. the wholesaler is still responsible for paying the manufacturers.
Microsoft is the manufacturer. The MCPs are the wholesalers. The MCPs' clients are the retailers.
And, the same situation can be made to new car dealers who do self-financed leases. The dealer buys the cars from the manufacturer and leases the cars to the customers. If the customers can't or don't pay, the dealer still owes the manufacturer money.
The only reason anyone is pissed off is because it is software and Microsoft is in the picture.
His comments are very hostile to certain ways of thinking or belief systems, and that hostility has no place in a tolerant society
As opposed to Christianity which states that anyone who doesn't believe in it will burn forever in a hell? As opposed to Christianity which continually tries to codify bigotry and hatred into the laws? As opposed to Christianity which has and still does kill people who will not conform to it's rules? As opposed to Islam which says it is OK to lie, cheat, steal from, and kill non-believers? etc.etc.etc.
Exactly how is his "acidic tone towards Christians" dangeous? Will the Christians kill him, as they done to others in the past? Or, will they merely find a way to put him under house arrest for the rest of his life, as they have done in the past?
Religion has no place in a tolerant society because religion is never tolerant to those who will not conform to the tenets of religion.
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.... The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments to enact bills of attainder, in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively. It was considered an excess or abuse of the British monarchy and Parliament. No bills of attainder have been passed since 1798 in the UK. Attainder as such was also a legal consequence of convictions in courts of law, but this ceased to be a part of punishment in 1870.[5]
This is not even close to a Bill of Attainer. Quit being a dumbass.
What does that mean that "you will not entertain any such nonsense"? If I'm having a discussion about my beliefs with someone, will you insert yourself into the conversation and try to convince me that I'm wrong? Will you yell insults from across the room? Will you run over to us and start yelling jibberish so that we can't continue our discussion? Or will you just put your headphones on and mind your own business?
If you add something along the lines of "Will you run over and kill me?", you would have the reactions of religious people the atheists.
Remember, most, if not all, religions allow for the murder of non-believers for the heinous crime of not believing.
The theory of creation is the natural product of theological studies of specific scriptures.
That makes it the product of the study of fairy tales with no basis in reality. Attempting to put science and fairy tales on the same level is ridiculous and is the same as passing laws banning kryptonite because it is harmful to Superman or allowing people to shoot at one another because in the cartoons it just makes one's face dirty.
And I see every popular religionist as demonstrating an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking when they attempt to get their fairy tales taught as science, discriminate against people who do not believe in their fairy tales, murder doctors, and harass rational non-believers, sometimes driving them to suicide.
Every time I see a group of religious people protesting against abortion or for led prayer in schools or the teaching of creationism (and so-called intelligent design is nothing more than creationism in a new set of clothes), I see them as ignorant, vicious fools who would resort to burning people at the stake to get their way, just as they did less than 300 years ago.
So, in other words, it is not "The Real Reason For Microsoft's TomTom Lawsuit", but rather the theory of someone who is not connected to Microsoft, has no actual knowledge of Microsoft's reasons and strategies, and who could be considered hostile to Microsoft.
For instance, I imagine it would be quite simple to find a pair of dogs (or even a pair of dog breeds) that were entirely genetically compatible, but were, for mechanical reasons, unable to interbreed.
Then, would a female primordial dwarf and a man with an extremely thick penis would be considered separate species because they can not couple for "mechanical" reasons? How about to extremely fat people?
other people are willing to consider any change in a population that increases its fitness in response to a change in the environment
So, being fat enough to survive a famine makes fatness an evolutionary change? Being able to swim in an area that is flood prone an evolutionary change? Being able to run faster or longer or both? Are world class marathoners an evolutionary change in humans?
This is no more evolution than the development of different breeds of dogs, which are all the same species, was evolution. Take a population and select a specific trait. Breed the population to amplify that trait.
Take a population of dogs. Bread the population to be big, and you end up with a population that is bigger and bigger. Eventually, you end up with great danes, mastifs, etc.
Continue this kind of divergent breeding long enough, with a large enough group of traits and one might be able to force evolutionary change and the creation of different species.
This is an example of change due to environmental pressure. But, the pressure has not been applied long enough to make the change permanent or complete.
The article shows a simplistic understanding of the Theory of Evolution and a simplistic and misinformed interpretation of the data.
Your point is foolish, disingenuous, and a red herring.
In a strip club, one is in a semi-private location and what occurs in the public areas of a strip club is free to be known to other patrons of the strip club. Assuming the "private" area in the strip club one would go to to get a "special dance" is some sort of closed room and there are no cameras, such an area can be considered private for the duration of the occupation. In both situations, one has some expectation of privacy; in one area, there is a greater expectation than the other and, in both, a great expectation than out in a public park or on a public street.
But, the minute one spreads information to the general public about what one did, or what occurred in any area of the strip club, one loses all expectation of privacy. It doesn't matter if it is a flier, an article in a news paper, word of mouth, or a web post, once you put private information and actions before the eyes of the public one loses the right to claim those actions and information as private.
This is not about "issues fundamental to human psychological well-being". This is about people who refuse to accept that once they make something public, it is no longer in their control and they have no say in how the information is interpreted by others.
The primary thing you purposefully overlook is that this information is being made public by the very people who are now crying foul. If you don't want something private to be publicly known and possibly used against you, don't make it publicly known.
I really don't give a fuck if you are sick of hearing the argument because the argument is true, and how you feel about it is irrelevant.
This may, in fact, threaten all systems that use a similar set up and haven't paid for a license. This could be a first step lawsuit testing the waters to go after larger companies.
Otherwise, patent law does not advance the common good, it merely makes programming more expensive/less productive.
The common good is not merely programming and decisions as to whether or not patent law advances the common good can not be restricted solely to matters concerning programming.
A system for exchanging data between an object-oriented system and a relational system having tables defining a relational model, the system comprising:
at least one object class definition defining an object model;
an object relational mapping (ORM) data structure defining a mapping between the object model and the relational model, the object relational mapping data structure produced from a declarative ORM Specification based on an ORM grammar and from object model information derived using a reflection facility of a programming language; and
an exchange unit for translating data from the object model to the relational model and for translating data from the relational model to the object model.
This is not, as you say, "basically translating one computer language to another". This is a connection methodology between two specific types of systems: a relational database and an object oriented system using at least one class to map between the two.
While this could be "an attack on Hibernate", it has nothing and is in no way applicable to what you have described in the rest of your post.
Section 1.10 defines Licensed Patents to include Specified Patents, which are in turn defined in Section 1.22 to include U.S. Patent No. 6,101,502, U.S. Patent No. 5,937,402, U.S. Patent No. 5,826,268, U.S. Patent No. 5,542,078, and U.S. Patent No. 5,522,077, and any other patent owned, controlled, or enforceable by DataTern before the effective date, any patent issuing from or claiming priority to a pending patent application by DataTern, and any foreign counterpart of the listed patents.
FTFA:
Software Tree claims the patent in question, U.S. Patent No. 6,163,776, was awarded in December of 2000.
Different company and different patents, so, the answer is "no".
Then, don't complain when you don't fit the mold and are thus rejected.
You choose not to fit the mold and you choose to publicize the fact. If a job requires you fit the mold, don't complain when you don't get the job because you don't fit the mold.
However, one who has a tendency to get drunk and pass out and then post pictures of themselves passed out on the internet shows that one has poor judgment, possibly has a drinking problem, and may have poor performance as an employee due to excessive drinking.
Any of those is a good reason not to hire someone. And, seeing as the information was found in public, and placed in public by the subject, there is no ethical or moral reason not to use the information in any decision.
by law to give prospective employees an honest reason why they were rejected. I know they don't like to do this because of potential repercussions, but that is really not as big of an issue as they try to make it.
The explanation can be as simple as "others were more qualified". There is nothing wrong with this explanation. But if the real reason is different ("I liked the look of Potential Secretary X's legs better", then they should not lie about it... although they will anyway.
So, in other words, you are proposing a law which you admit will be both unenforceable and ignored.
The phrase "We/I like candidate X better than you and think X will fit in with the organization better" is a valid reason to higher someone less qualified than another applicant. It also includes reasons such as "X gave me a blowjob and you didn't" and "X has better legs".
Even if you think someone else was hired for an illegal reason, all the employer has to say is "I think X is a better fit with the organization and had a better attitude." and no one can prove different because it is an opinion.
It is no more illegal that looking through the newspaper or doing a background check.
They are not asking you questions. They are looking at the information you have put out in public. They are not invading your privacy, because you have no expectation of privacy on the net.
Suppose I Google the name of my prospective employer to find out if he or she is an irresponsible dickhead who likes to post pictures of himself drunk online? Should I be allowed to do that, or not?
Yes, you can and you should. You should know about the companies you wish to work for and the people who might be your manager. Otherwise, you might end up working 60+ hours a week because they work their employees to death. Or, you might find that they have a high turnover rate. Or, that they are a resume stain. Or, that you will have to do your boss' job and his buddies jobs because they are too hung over from partying to work. Or, you might get hired and have the company fold in six months.
You have the right to say pretty much what you want without the government interfering. But, that doesn't mean there will not be repercussions of said speech.
It is not snooping to see what you have said in public. Yes, the internet is a public place and if you have a tendency to say and do things that would be embarrassing or disconcerting to a prospective employer, don't be surprised when the prospective employer search public information and decides you are not what he wants for an employee.
Stop being a dumb-ass and keep your private life private and quit flaunting your stupidity in public if you don't want it held against you.
Slashdot Mirror
But, but, see, it's Microsoft so it has to be horrible. /sarcasm
A wholesaler buys from the manufactures and sells to the retailers. If the retailers go bankrupt, fail to pay, etc. the wholesaler is still responsible for paying the manufacturers.
Microsoft is the manufacturer.
The MCPs are the wholesalers.
The MCPs' clients are the retailers.
And, the same situation can be made to new car dealers who do self-financed leases.
The dealer buys the cars from the manufacturer and leases the cars to the customers. If the customers can't or don't pay, the dealer still owes the manufacturer money.
The only reason anyone is pissed off is because it is software and Microsoft is in the picture.
That word you use, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Congratulations, you are an asshole.
As opposed to Christianity which states that anyone who doesn't believe in it will burn forever in a hell?
As opposed to Christianity which continually tries to codify bigotry and hatred into the laws?
As opposed to Christianity which has and still does kill people who will not conform to it's rules?
As opposed to Islam which says it is OK to lie, cheat, steal from, and kill non-believers?
etc.etc.etc.
Exactly how is his "acidic tone towards Christians" dangeous? Will the Christians kill him, as they done to others in the past?
Or, will they merely find a way to put him under house arrest for the rest of his life, as they have done in the past?
Religion has no place in a tolerant society because religion is never tolerant to those who will not conform to the tenets of religion.
From the site listed:
This is not even close to a Bill of Attainer. Quit being a dumbass.
If you add something along the lines of "Will you run over and kill me?", you would have the reactions of religious people the atheists.
Remember, most, if not all, religions allow for the murder of non-believers for the heinous crime of not believing.
Oh, come on, Bluto was much more open minded than that.
And.....
FOOOOODFIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!
The theory would argue that this shows a historical track of evolution. But all these bones belong to the same species and are contemporaneous.
No, it wouldn't because the science, through radioactive and other dating methods, would show them to be contemporaneous.
As your entire argument is based on that false premise, the rest of your argument and post is likewise false.
That makes it the product of the study of fairy tales with no basis in reality. Attempting to put science and fairy tales on the same level is ridiculous and is the same as passing laws banning kryptonite because it is harmful to Superman or allowing people to shoot at one another because in the cartoons it just makes one's face dirty.
And I see every popular religionist as demonstrating an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking when they attempt to get their fairy tales taught as science, discriminate against people who do not believe in their fairy tales, murder doctors, and harass rational non-believers, sometimes driving them to suicide.
Every time I see a group of religious people protesting against abortion or for led prayer in schools or the teaching of creationism (and so-called intelligent design is nothing more than creationism in a new set of clothes), I see them as ignorant, vicious fools who would resort to burning people at the stake to get their way, just as they did less than 300 years ago.
So, in other words, it is not "The Real Reason For Microsoft's TomTom Lawsuit", but rather the theory of someone who is not connected to Microsoft, has no actual knowledge of Microsoft's reasons and strategies, and who could be considered hostile to Microsoft.
Then, would a female primordial dwarf and a man with an extremely thick penis would be considered separate species because they can not couple for "mechanical" reasons?
How about to extremely fat people?
So, being fat enough to survive a famine makes fatness an evolutionary change?
Being able to swim in an area that is flood prone an evolutionary change?
Being able to run faster or longer or both? Are world class marathoners an evolutionary change in humans?
This is no more evolution than the development of different breeds of dogs, which are all the same species, was evolution. Take a population and select a specific trait. Breed the population to amplify that trait.
Take a population of dogs. Bread the population to be big, and you end up with a population that is bigger and bigger. Eventually, you end up with great danes, mastifs, etc.
Continue this kind of divergent breeding long enough, with a large enough group of traits and one might be able to force evolutionary change and the creation of different species.
This is an example of change due to environmental pressure. But, the pressure has not been applied long enough to make the change permanent or complete.
The article shows a simplistic understanding of the Theory of Evolution and a simplistic and misinformed interpretation of the data.
Your point is foolish, disingenuous, and a red herring.
In a strip club, one is in a semi-private location and what occurs in the public areas of a strip club is free to be known to other patrons of the strip club. Assuming the "private" area in the strip club one would go to to get a "special dance" is some sort of closed room and there are no cameras, such an area can be considered private for the duration of the occupation. In both situations, one has some expectation of privacy; in one area, there is a greater expectation than the other and, in both, a great expectation than out in a public park or on a public street.
But, the minute one spreads information to the general public about what one did, or what occurred in any area of the strip club, one loses all expectation of privacy. It doesn't matter if it is a flier, an article in a news paper, word of mouth, or a web post, once you put private information and actions before the eyes of the public one loses the right to claim those actions and information as private.
This is not about "issues fundamental to human psychological well-being". This is about people who refuse to accept that once they make something public, it is no longer in their control and they have no say in how the information is interpreted by others.
The primary thing you purposefully overlook is that this information is being made public by the very people who are now crying foul. If you don't want something private to be publicly known and possibly used against you, don't make it publicly known.
I really don't give a fuck if you are sick of hearing the argument because the argument is true, and how you feel about it is irrelevant.
This may, in fact, threaten all systems that use a similar set up and haven't paid for a license. This could be a first step lawsuit testing the waters to go after larger companies.
The common good is not merely programming and decisions as to whether or not patent law advances the common good can not be restricted solely to matters concerning programming.
This is not, as you say, "basically translating one computer language to another". This is a connection methodology between two specific types of systems: a relational database and an object oriented system using at least one class to map between the two.
While this could be "an attack on Hibernate", it has nothing and is in no way applicable to what you have described in the rest of your post.
From the Firestar settlement:
FTFA:
Different company and different patents, so, the answer is "no".
Then, don't complain when you don't fit the mold and are thus rejected.
You choose not to fit the mold and you choose to publicize the fact. If a job requires you fit the mold, don't complain when you don't get the job because you don't fit the mold.
Do you really want to work for someone who thinks you are a dick? Especially when one considers that you will probably think your employer is a dick?
However, one who has a tendency to get drunk and pass out and then post pictures of themselves passed out on the internet shows that one has poor judgment, possibly has a drinking problem, and may have poor performance as an employee due to excessive drinking.
Any of those is a good reason not to hire someone. And, seeing as the information was found in public, and placed in public by the subject, there is no ethical or moral reason not to use the information in any decision.
You forgot that "We like the person we hired better than we like you" is a valid reason to hire someone else.
So, in other words, you are proposing a law which you admit will be both unenforceable and ignored.
The phrase "We/I like candidate X better than you and think X will fit in with the organization better" is a valid reason to higher someone less qualified than another applicant. It also includes reasons such as "X gave me a blowjob and you didn't" and "X has better legs".
Even if you think someone else was hired for an illegal reason, all the employer has to say is "I think X is a better fit with the organization and had a better attitude." and no one can prove different because it is an opinion.
It is no more illegal that looking through the newspaper or doing a background check.
They are not asking you questions. They are looking at the information you have put out in public. They are not invading your privacy, because you have no expectation of privacy on the net.
Yes, you can and you should. You should know about the companies you wish to work for and the people who might be your manager. Otherwise, you might end up working 60+ hours a week because they work their employees to death.
Or, you might find that they have a high turnover rate.
Or, that they are a resume stain.
Or, that you will have to do your boss' job and his buddies jobs because they are too hung over from partying to work.
Or, you might get hired and have the company fold in six months.
You have the right to say pretty much what you want without the government interfering. But, that doesn't mean there will not be repercussions of said speech.
It is not snooping to see what you have said in public. Yes, the internet is a public place and if you have a tendency to say and do things that would be embarrassing or disconcerting to a prospective employer, don't be surprised when the prospective employer search public information and decides you are not what he wants for an employee.
Stop being a dumb-ass and keep your private life private and quit flaunting your stupidity in public if you don't want it held against you.