It is *impossible* to even allocate more than about 31,000 threads under windows on 32 bit machines. You simply CAN'T do it. The minimum thread stack size is 1 64KB page. You an only address 2GB of memory on a 32 bit windows OS. Do the math.
Very thread uses a minimum of *1 PAGE* of reserve memory for its statck, which is 64K. However, you have to go out of your way to use less than 1 megabyte of reserve memory. Since only 2GB of reserve memory (addressable memory) is available to user applications, this would fit your 2000 thread figure like a glove.
Well. Erm. I was going to say "what the fuck are you talking about, Candada?". Then I reviewed the article, and saw that I missed that part. Silly me. Anyway, at a guess, if the severence is larger than the minimum amount, the difference between the minimum and the actual offered award is entirely discretionary. If the difference is small, I woudln't bother signing at all.
These provisions are in no way unusual, they are boiler plate. And yes, they have the right. You do not have to sign, it's optional. Your severance pay is a courtesy, and they aren't required to pay you any. So if you want your severance pay, sign your papers. You're not going to get it if you don't. Your only reason to not sign these papers is if you believe you have a legitimate cause for legal action against this company.
Um. No. Larger pointers does not mean less paging. It simply means more memory. If your computer has 4GB of real memory, there's nothing to page, as nothing more can be addressed.
What I want is a cheap, affordable, fast 4-8 GB flash ram disk. The long pole in the tent in all standard computer systems right now is the disk drive. By having a very large "almost as fast as memory, but with persistence" unit to attach to my computer, the whole system performance profile changes dramatically.
End-user documentation, when present, must prominently give credit to both [COMPANY-NAME], the [SOFTWARE-NAME] software and its list of contributors, and likewise must include an associated reference to [WEBSITE NAME AND URL].
When an "About Box" or other primary user interface element which is routinely used by end-users to get version or status information about a graphical application constructed using this software, this user interface element must prominently give credit to [COMPANY-NAME], the [SOFTWARE-NAME] software and its list of contributors, and must also include a reference to [WEBSITE NAME AND URL].
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. I was referring to the tendency for intellectual property rights holders to sometimes eschew the distributor (where the risk of patent contention is higher) and to go directly for consumers of the distributor. For example, an IP company could come along, notice that AT&T has 10,000 Linux workstations deployed, and ask for a 10$ per seat licensing fee. Since the cost finding an alternative and then deploying it is so high, the customer could cave. This is actually a trend in intellectual property. Happens all the time. The trick is to be _reasonable_ in your licensing terms (where "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, I'm sure, but $100K is piss money to AT&T).
You're quite mistaken about the bigness of the deal. A large corporation with an investment in Linux could quite easily be gone after for license fees or be serviced with a cease and desist order. It's only a matter of time before these sorts of patents come out of the woodwork, actually.
As a software professional, I know that my it won't be long before I will have to either work for a big company (that can cross license patents) or quit.
Not really. People would have to aggressively disassemble code to figure out if it constituted a violation. And yet most source code is in house, private, locked up, and not subject to scrutiny.
A statement of truth in virtually all cases worth considering, can never be defamatory.
Furthermore, in some states (such as my state, California), companies which attempt to quell free speech criticism of their products face SLPP ("slap") sanctions. These are quite harsh. Essentially, once a SLPP allegation has been made (to wit: "hey! you're just attempting to quell my free speech with an intimidating lawsuit! you evil corporation, you!"), if the judge agrees that it's an SLPP issue, the corporation must prove adequately the judge that they have a real case. If they do not, they automatically lose, and must pay the _DEFENDANT_ court costs and damages.
It's even wierder, because if you explore the law in more detail, distribution is very clearly later specified in punishments. I'm not sure, but I believe this law says that receipt is a crime, but unpunishable. Strange.
"Civil disobediance". I can respect that. But if you were going to perform REAL civil disobediance, you would walk up to the porch of your local police station, and begin distributing copyrighted works in a highly public fashion. Secretive civil disobediance isn't civil disobediance. It's just some punk secretely breaking the law.
But this is the thing. Government employees should not be in the business of giving up their intellectual property rights to private organizations. Why? "Their" intellectual property rights are actually _ours_.
It's true. If your manager or you have had an executive officer delegate to you the right to unilaterally surrender the intellectual property rights of your company at your discretion, you can do so. I'd advise you to get it in writing, however. Making a mistake here could be a career-busting move.
Hyperbole aside:), and rhetorically, how many people do you think in major corporations are given the right you describe? Come now. You _know_ the right answer is "miniscule", right?
The problem here is not with LGPL, BSD, or other licenses. My angst is specifically against the full GPL and its linking clause. It's bad mojo if not handled with the greatest of care, and wildly inconvenient.
Keep in mind that I've opined previously right here on slashdot that _all_ software developed under contract to the government by open sourced. Outside of security concerns, things paid for by public money should enter the public trust.
The GPL, however, excludes software sellers from creating interesting derivatives of these works. Derivitive works which are substantially original should be protectable intellectual property.
Treating intellectual property generating organizations like third class citizens is not the correct thing to do with works made from the public's money.
Your point is germaine. It's not the job of government to select business models. Picking GPL is a selection; one that specifically excludes certain models. Hence my original comment that public domain is more appropriate; or more open licenses (like the essentially unrestricted BSD, Apache, and similar licenses).
Try reading it and thinking, instead of just typing insults and punching "Submit", for a change.
Your bad behavior began as you entered this thread, as is plain for anyone to see. Review it yourself. You began it with and insult, and proceeded full steam ahead. I made three attempts to converse with you reasonably. You've justifiably earned my contempt. Go away, little man.
Now, how about you come out from behind your cloak of anonymity so we can all learn who you actually are?
I note how you are now attempting to use intimidation and harrassment to further your goals. Am I to assume that if you knew who I "really am" that you would do something about it? Interesting implication. Am I supposed to feel frightened? LOL.
It appears that you can't open your mouth without revealing more and more about your inner nature. By all means, do continue speaking.
But this is just my point. The U.S. government shouldn't be in the business of selecting a particular business model to favor. Keeping it all open and public is correct for the U.S. government. Contrary to your (and the other rather rude poster's) seeming impression, I'm not anti-GPL. I've used GPL products in the past, and even have some in development that are planned for release _under_ the GPL. I am, however, quite painfully aware of what it means to me as an intellectual property worker to consider integrating GPL code. It's a big deal.
While I have nothing at all against a private intellectual property owner releasing their own things under GPL, I'm very much against the government doing so as a matter of preference. It's fully discriminatory in the sense that it discriminates against an entire business model.
The government should _NOT_ be in the business of doing that.
I have neither run out of intellectual ammunition nor have engaged in shooting blanks. I have...
What you have done is become increasingly shrill and aggressive, thrown around insults, stooped to name calling, and otherwise fully engaged yourself in the normal tactics of dominance that are usually attempted by individuals who have weakly articulated positions and can't stand to have their opinions openly criticized in a public forum. Those are the facts. Do with them as you will.
The statement of character is yours, where you illustrate for the general public that the best you can do is become obusive when run out of intellectual ammunition. *sploink*. Omigosh, he's shooting blanks.
I have quite aptly demonstrated the way that GPL limits commercial organizations. This was my basis for observing that government should not be in the business of preferring or mandating such a license. Public domain is unrestricted, and should be the preferred model for works produced by the public's funds.
Well, I agree with you in spirit, but not in practice. In this case, taking a proactive step to assure that its users' computers are not ATTACKED ELECTRONICALLY is a good step and a wonderful political statement that's almost certainly in the best interests of most individual citizens and in particular its customers.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a Windows limit, and it's in the documentation.
C//
It is *impossible* to even allocate more than about 31,000 threads under windows on 32 bit machines. You simply CAN'T do it. The minimum thread stack size is 1 64KB page. You an only address 2GB of memory on a 32 bit windows OS. Do the math.
C//
Very thread uses a minimum of *1 PAGE* of reserve memory for its statck, which is 64K. However, you have to go out of your way to use less than 1 megabyte of reserve memory. Since only 2GB of reserve memory (addressable memory) is available to user applications, this would fit your 2000 thread figure like a glove.
C//
Well. Erm. I was going to say "what the fuck are you talking about, Candada?". Then I reviewed the article, and saw that I missed that part. Silly me. Anyway, at a guess, if the severence is larger than the minimum amount, the difference between the minimum and the actual offered award is entirely discretionary. If the difference is small, I woudln't bother signing at all.
These provisions are in no way unusual, they are boiler plate. And yes, they have the right. You do not have to sign, it's optional. Your severance pay is a courtesy, and they aren't required to pay you any. So if you want your severance pay, sign your papers. You're not going to get it if you don't. Your only reason to not sign these papers is if you believe you have a legitimate cause for legal action against this company.
C//
Um. No. Larger pointers does not mean less paging. It simply means more memory. If your computer has 4GB of real memory, there's nothing to page, as nothing more can be addressed.
C//
What I want is a cheap, affordable, fast 4-8 GB flash ram disk. The long pole in the tent in all standard computer systems right now is the disk drive. By having a very large "almost as fast as memory, but with persistence" unit to attach to my computer, the whole system performance profile changes dramatically.
C//
Oh yeah? Well you can't spell "you're".
How then is the programmer to get his due?
End-user documentation, when present, must prominently give credit to both [COMPANY-NAME], the [SOFTWARE-NAME] software and its list of contributors, and likewise must include an associated reference to [WEBSITE NAME AND URL].
When an "About Box" or other primary user interface element which is routinely used by end-users to get version or status information about a graphical application constructed using this software, this user interface element must prominently give credit to [COMPANY-NAME], the [SOFTWARE-NAME] software and its list of contributors, and must also include a reference to [WEBSITE NAME AND URL].
C//
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. I was referring to the tendency for intellectual property rights holders to sometimes eschew the distributor (where the risk of patent contention is higher) and to go directly for consumers of the distributor. For example, an IP company could come along, notice that AT&T has 10,000 Linux workstations deployed, and ask for a 10$ per seat licensing fee. Since the cost finding an alternative and then deploying it is so high, the customer could cave. This is actually a trend in intellectual property. Happens all the time. The trick is to be _reasonable_ in your licensing terms (where "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, I'm sure, but $100K is piss money to AT&T).
C//
You're quite mistaken about the bigness of the deal. A large corporation with an investment in Linux could quite easily be gone after for license fees or be serviced with a cease and desist order. It's only a matter of time before these sorts of patents come out of the woodwork, actually.
C//
As a software professional, I know that my it won't be long before I will have to either work for a big company (that can cross license patents) or quit.
Not really. People would have to aggressively disassemble code to figure out if it constituted a violation. And yet most source code is in house, private, locked up, and not subject to scrutiny.
C//
A statement of truth in virtually all cases worth considering, can never be defamatory.
Furthermore, in some states (such as my state, California), companies which attempt to quell free speech criticism of their products face SLPP ("slap") sanctions. These are quite harsh. Essentially, once a SLPP allegation has been made (to wit: "hey! you're just attempting to quell my free speech with an intimidating lawsuit! you evil corporation, you!"), if the judge agrees that it's an SLPP issue, the corporation must prove adequately the judge that they have a real case. If they do not, they automatically lose, and must pay the _DEFENDANT_ court costs and damages.
C//
It's even wierder, because if you explore the law in more detail, distribution is very clearly later specified in punishments. I'm not sure, but I believe this law says that receipt is a crime, but unpunishable. Strange.
C//
"Civil disobediance". I can respect that. But if you were going to perform REAL civil disobediance, you would walk up to the porch of your local police station, and begin distributing copyrighted works in a highly public fashion. Secretive civil disobediance isn't civil disobediance. It's just some punk secretely breaking the law.
C//
But this is the thing. Government employees should not be in the business of giving up their intellectual property rights to private organizations. Why? "Their" intellectual property rights are actually _ours_.
C//
It's true. If your manager or you have had an executive officer delegate to you the right to unilaterally surrender the intellectual property rights of your company at your discretion, you can do so. I'd advise you to get it in writing, however. Making a mistake here could be a career-busting move.
:), and rhetorically, how many people do you think in major corporations are given the right you describe? Come now. You _know_ the right answer is "miniscule", right?
Hyperbole aside
The problem here is not with LGPL, BSD, or other licenses. My angst is specifically against the full GPL and its linking clause. It's bad mojo if not handled with the greatest of care, and wildly inconvenient.
Keep in mind that I've opined previously right here on slashdot that _all_ software developed under contract to the government by open sourced. Outside of security concerns, things paid for by public money should enter the public trust.
The GPL, however, excludes software sellers from creating interesting derivatives of these works. Derivitive works which are substantially original should be protectable intellectual property.
Treating intellectual property generating organizations like third class citizens is not the correct thing to do with works made from the public's money.
C//
Your point is germaine. It's not the job of government to select business models. Picking GPL is a selection; one that specifically excludes certain models. Hence my original comment that public domain is more appropriate; or more open licenses (like the essentially unrestricted BSD, Apache, and similar licenses).
C//
Try reading it and thinking, instead of just typing insults and punching "Submit", for a change.
Your bad behavior began as you entered this thread, as is plain for anyone to see. Review it yourself. You began it with and insult, and proceeded full steam ahead. I made three attempts to converse with you reasonably. You've justifiably earned my contempt. Go away, little man.
*sneer*
C//
realize none of this can possibly change your closed-source mind,...
You're making stuff up, now. If insults and name-calling don't work, try blowing over straw men, is that right?
I should have to say? A full page diatribe? I must have really struck a nerve.
C//
Now, how about you come out from behind your cloak of anonymity so we can all learn who you actually are?
I note how you are now attempting to use intimidation and harrassment to further your goals. Am I to assume that if you knew who I "really am" that you would do something about it? Interesting implication. Am I supposed to feel frightened? LOL.
It appears that you can't open your mouth without revealing more and more about your inner nature. By all means, do continue speaking.
*sneer*
C//
Since their business has so little
But this is just my point. The U.S. government shouldn't be in the business of selecting a particular business model to favor. Keeping it all open and public is correct for the U.S. government. Contrary to your (and the other rather rude poster's) seeming impression, I'm not anti-GPL. I've used GPL products in the past, and even have some in development that are planned for release _under_ the GPL. I am, however, quite painfully aware of what it means to me as an intellectual property worker to consider integrating GPL code. It's a big deal.
While I have nothing at all against a private intellectual property owner releasing their own things under GPL, I'm very much against the government doing so as a matter of preference. It's fully discriminatory in the sense that it discriminates against an entire business model.
The government should _NOT_ be in the business of doing that.
C//
I have neither run out of intellectual ammunition nor have engaged in shooting blanks. I have...
What you have done is become increasingly shrill and aggressive, thrown around insults, stooped to name calling, and otherwise fully engaged yourself in the normal tactics of dominance that are usually attempted by individuals who have weakly articulated positions and can't stand to have their opinions openly criticized in a public forum. Those are the facts. Do with them as you will.
C//
The statement of character is yours, where you illustrate for the general public that the best you can do is become obusive when run out of intellectual ammunition. *sploink*. Omigosh, he's shooting blanks.
I have quite aptly demonstrated the way that GPL limits commercial organizations. This was my basis for observing that government should not be in the business of preferring or mandating such a license. Public domain is unrestricted, and should be the preferred model for works produced by the public's funds.
C//
Well, I agree with you in spirit, but not in practice. In this case, taking a proactive step to assure that its users' computers are not ATTACKED ELECTRONICALLY is a good step and a wonderful political statement that's almost certainly in the best interests of most individual citizens and in particular its customers.
C//