Which should make you ask: if they are afraid of 6 months of lawyer fees, why are you only getting 4 weeks of pay? Unless you make a lot more than a lawyer, you're in a position to bargain for a better deal.
Employees given exit interviews are slightly less likely to sue. The firing side could care less about your input, it's a last gasp opportunity to manage you.
Actually, that doesn't change whether or not on the whole it is better for everyone to do the thing that is best for the group. In fact, it's kind of the whole point.
Well, among other issues you'd have no recourse against someone releasing your source in the wild. And once out there, people could do what they'd like because you'd lack the copyright protections to prevent them from doing so. As one example, windows source has made it into the wild a number of times. No one can make knock off versions of windows, though, thanks to copyright.
No. They are absolutely free not to share. Once they do share, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. But that first choice is ALWAYS theirs. They could even choose only to share with people who have proven themselves willing and trustworthy to share their works no further.
I take my freedom of speech pretty seriously. My right to communicate what I want, when I want, can have restrictions on it that save lives, and that's it.
In fairness to the GP, describing those view accurately makes it much harder to undermine them. Therefore it's actually important to the opponents to NOT describe them accurately.
Making a change to the ORM will make required features possible. Making a change to the ORM will allow us to deliver features faster in the future. Making a change to the ORM will improve reliability. Making a change to the ORM will improve performance.
Lots of very simplified options. Use the one that is closest to the truth. If none of them are true, question whether there is really a benefit to the ORM change.
Then he failed to answer the question of order. Now you face a decision: push back now while he can still get something he wants, or push back later when you've done some of the work and discover he got none of his actual top priorities. It's going to be tempting to go with the first option (delays pain), but with experience you'll discover that the second yields less total pain.
Labeling Agile as a software methodology is misleading. It's a process methodology which should live at a level slightly above the software engineering. You should do your programming motherfucker, and what you should program should be guided by the Agile process.
Slashdot Mirror
Which should make you ask: if they are afraid of 6 months of lawyer fees, why are you only getting 4 weeks of pay? Unless you make a lot more than a lawyer, you're in a position to bargain for a better deal.
Then you have to consider that they thought that was the cheaper option, and you should be thinking: cheaper than what?
Employees given exit interviews are slightly less likely to sue. The firing side could care less about your input, it's a last gasp opportunity to manage you.
That's your opinion, but unfortunately the patent office does not agree.
And probably most relevantly, none of those ran on mobile devices.
The product must be created post patent filing or the suit is sure to be both short and disastrous for the filer.
Why tongue-in-cheek? May as well ask if it's unethical to kill Nazis.
Hear hear! It's the lack of this kind of thinking that is eroding the civil in our civil society.
Actually, that doesn't change whether or not on the whole it is better for everyone to do the thing that is best for the group. In fact, it's kind of the whole point.
Some facebook app for their search engine?
Probably.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkorOOWwnN8
I'll concede you that point, but I find your viewpoint conceited.
While MSNBC is skewed to the left, to suggest they are skewed further from reality than fox has to be either misinformed or disingenuous.
The good news is, I suppose, that 2013 may at long last be the year of the linux desktop, thanks Windows 8!
Well, among other issues you'd have no recourse against someone releasing your source in the wild. And once out there, people could do what they'd like because you'd lack the copyright protections to prevent them from doing so. As one example, windows source has made it into the wild a number of times. No one can make knock off versions of windows, though, thanks to copyright.
No. They are absolutely free not to share. Once they do share, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. But that first choice is ALWAYS theirs. They could even choose only to share with people who have proven themselves willing and trustworthy to share their works no further.
I take my freedom of speech pretty seriously. My right to communicate what I want, when I want, can have restrictions on it that save lives, and that's it.
Yep. If, then.
I assume you missed the point where the GPL is a reaction to copyright. Get rid of copyright, and we'll all happily give up the GPL.
I don't believe he's a proponent of forcing anyone to share. He's an opponent of forcing others not to share.
In fairness to the GP, describing those view accurately makes it much harder to undermine them. Therefore it's actually important to the opponents to NOT describe them accurately.
I'd say one of the following:
Making a change to the ORM will make required features possible.
Making a change to the ORM will allow us to deliver features faster in the future.
Making a change to the ORM will improve reliability.
Making a change to the ORM will improve performance.
Lots of very simplified options. Use the one that is closest to the truth. If none of them are true, question whether there is really a benefit to the ORM change.
Then he failed to answer the question of order. Now you face a decision: push back now while he can still get something he wants, or push back later when you've done some of the work and discover he got none of his actual top priorities. It's going to be tempting to go with the first option (delays pain), but with experience you'll discover that the second yields less total pain.
Yep. Nothing in here really disagrees with my claims, which were related to the customer facing bugs described by the GP.
Labeling Agile as a software methodology is misleading. It's a process methodology which should live at a level slightly above the software engineering. You should do your programming motherfucker, and what you should program should be guided by the Agile process.