Just because a few lines of code interact with the same database and APIs, they have to be free? I don't think that is really a good way to look at it.
The owners of Wordpress should have no rights over images, stylesheets, and html code created for themes and plugins. These work wiithout wordpress, and are portable to any platform.
The only question is the php code in the template that generates the html. Although, if there is any "magic" html that wordpress expects to have in the output, that might also be under the GPL
Now, allegedly, Thesis lifted sections of code from a GPLed work. This affects things quite substantially, however, there's an argument about fair use here that I'll not get into.
Aside from that, Jaquith is completely wrong.
Indeed Wordpress and Thesis are run as the same unit. That does not make Thesis a derivative work. It makes the work that the user made combining the two of them into a derivative work. Thesis does not derive from Wordpress any more than Wordpress derives from Thesis. The fact that two works interact does not make them derivative. That's not what the word means. The word means "derived from". It does not mean "intended to be used with". Revision notes on books are not derived works even though they directly reference specific parts of a work of fiction.
There is no court precedent on Linux modules. These are typically licensed under the GPL because it's convenient to do so. However, I see no reason why they must be.
As for copying from existing themes - there's a clear fair use argument here. Themes must interact with the copyrighted software. Code for interoperability is often considered to be fair use.
The opinions of Drupal and Joomla are completely worthless. Their knowledge of content management is formidable but they are not legal professionals.
The Thesis code is completely separate from Wordpress. Granted, it is useless without Wordpress. It may well be that it's not legal to use Thesis with Wordpress, but the copyright on the Thesis code is owned by whoever wrote that. They can distribute it as they want. The person combining it with Wordpress code is the one at risk of violating the GPL.
That's what I thought, unfortunately that is not the case, copyright has expanded is some stupid ways, a derivative work is quite expansive and seems to be growing, as that allows more litigation. It also means that Disney, (who is most at fault for the current law) can sue for creating things that are only, substantially, mostly, somewhat, a little more useful with something copyrighted by Disney. (I don't know where in the chain we are currently at, I think we are at substantially or mostly) Software is just caught in the cross fire of Mickey Mouse protection laws.
Personally I feel like GPL over steps its bounds when it try to grab plugins under its wing. For me its a simple test.
What if I just just so happened to make a closed source word press competitor. it just so happens that this theme/plugin works perfectly in my closed source solution without any reference or dependency to WordPress. Please explain to me why that plugin needs to be under GPL just because it just so happens to work under WordPress. Doesn't that seem silly to anyone else?
Remember I'm just talking plugins in general not this specific case however it may apply. I haven't sifted through all the details
There is no rule for plugins in general, if there were lawyers would make less money, and that would be unacceptable.
yes I work for one of the major publishers and after this WP is dead to me - and my boss was a fan as well so we arn't going to be lobying for using WP any time soon.
I wonder what laris Ventures (Mike Hirshland), Blacksmith Capital (Phil Black, now at True Ventures), Radar Partners (Doug Mackenzie), and CNET (Shelby Bonnie). think about this (atomattics backers)
I suspect that they knew about the time bomb and let a nice community grow up, and since copyright is NOT an enforce it or lose it law, unlike trademark, they let a sizable group of people violate their copyright and can now go shake people down, these are venture capitalists after all, they don't need to be nice they just want their payday.
Matt may or may not have known about the time bomb, but anyone familiar with open source CMSes saw what Joomla went through, and was pretty clear about what the reaction would be from this, and that copyright law has a slightly more expansive definition of derivative work than most people would expect, so I have a hard time believing that Matt was completely unaware of this, although he may have figured that whatever the outcome it was in Automatic's favor so he could put dealing with it off for a while.
The FSF FAQ is not part of the GPLv2, is not incorporated by reference into the GPLv2, and, in terms of what constitutes a derivative work, is simply a statement of the FSF's opinion on copyright law. Note that even if it was a part of the GPLv2, it wouldn't matter if you were distributing just the theme you created, since what would matter is whether or not you needed a copyright license in the first place, which, if its not a derivative work under copyright law, you don't.
The terms of the GPL can't change copyright law to make people restricted by the license in performing acts that aren't within the exclusive rights of the copyright holder under copyright law in the first place.
IANAL, however, most copyright attorneys I've talked to fall someplace similar to the FSF's position that if your template requires GPL code to render correctly, it is probably a derivative work. Most wordpress themes will not render correctly without wordpress, hence at least the php files have a very high likely hood of being considered willfully infringing derivative works.
The images and CSS are probably not dependent on wordpress, as you can just use wget or fetch to create a static html page that looks correct. However, if the resultant html is somewhat unique to wordpress, the css might be found to be a derivative work as well.
You are right that the GPL doesn't change copyright law, the problem is copyright law is a mess. (well that's not a problem if you are a copyright lawyer being paid by the hour, that would be considered a good thing)
Personally however, I think any judge would see through that and realize that the electronic ability to distribute only the modified part of a work doesn't change the intent to distribute a modified work itself.
If I publish an unauthorised errata for a paper book, would you expect me to get convicted of copyright infringement?
IANAL, However, you could be found guilty of copyright infringement if you intended people to purchase your errata instead of the second edition. You would probably find yourself liable for the lost sales, plus statutory damages.
An example of this would be if you were to offer a competing update service for annual updates to a reference book that is designed to be updated periodically. (if that makes any sense)
Read PylonHead's comment again. He has hit the nail on the head. The basis for GPL enforcement is that you need a license to distribute copyrighted works. The GPL can be that license. If you reject the GPL, you need another license or you're a copyright infringer, but only if you distribute someone else's copyrighted work. If you don't do that, nobody can force you to abide by the GPL. Coding to an API is not copyright infringement and the resulting code does not constitute a derived work in the sense of copyright law, unless you link in code that is not yours and not necessary to use the API.
IANAL, but the law is not as clear as you would like to believe (and I used to believe). If it was this simple lawyers would go broke, so there is a grey area where if your code requires other code it could under some circumstances be considered a derivative work. (the conditions are not clearly defined, but after giving your lawyer lots of money, your lawyer should be able to give you a guess at how much it will cost for you get a definitive answer for your specific case.)
There is a simple way around this "problem": Don't distribute any WordPress code. As long as you only distribute your own code, which is written to the WordPress API but does not itself include any of WordPress's GPL licensed code, you can choose any license you want. The user combines the two and thereby creates the derived work. The user however does not distribute, so the GPL doesn't apply. This is how binary-only Linux kernel modules are legal and this is also how there is no issue here. Now calm the fuck down, everyone.
IANAL, however it turns out that this is not completely the case.
Copyright law in the US at least allows that if a snippet of code (which is what a theme is) requires a specific response from an underlying program, and the response is not based on an external API, you can under some circumstances, based on rules that as far as I can tell is completely devoid of logic (well not really but rules have several paradoxes in it which means they may as well be devoid of logic) be a derivative work, even though it is unique code.
An example of this is Open Source Matter's opinion that any Joomla extension that contains "include mainframe" is a derivative work subject to the GPL.
There are rules of thumb about when the boundary has been crossed, but there are a lot of places that copyright law is very vague, and seems primarily designed to enrich the lawyers.
In a joomla template (theme) the overrides are considered to be under the GPL, the index.php file is considered to probably be under the GPL, although it could be so generic as to possibly not subject to copyright law, much like a header file, the CSS file(s) and the images are considered to not be subject to the GPL unless they are based on a CSS file or image that is licensed under the GPL.
The reason for this is not the GPL per se, but copyright law, and the fact that the GPL tries to be as inclusive as possible.
As an aside, binary only Linux kernel modules are generally considered to be a copyright violation, unless they are generic enough to run on a kernel other than Linux. The ATI, and Nvidia blobs are contained in the Windows drivers as well. If this makes no sense to you, then you are starting to get the fact that copyright law, at this level, makes no sense. The legality of binary kernel blobs really can depend on if the blob was originally developed for Linux, and if it runs on a non-GPL kernel. This is really stupid, but that is the way copyright works, as it has been explained to me by attorneys that work with copyright in the US.
More or less, if there is more than one license involved things get dicey.
I can see medical transcriptions being the best point of transcription software.
The vocabulary is largely devoid of slang.
You have long specialized lexicons that are similar to very few other words.
The vocabulary is probably fairly small as most doctors have a fairly specialized practice, so internists don't deal with the same areas as podiatrists, reducing the words that are used.
The repetition is probably fairly high, allowing for training to be more effective than speech on random topics.
In conclusion, for what the original poster wants, voice recognition software is probably not viable, but if you have a medical practice, and are not a general practitioner, you may well find that voice recognition software is usable.
The answer to your question is not what is missing from the model, but the question "What does the model not account for?"
The login prompt is a perfect example of the failure of the windows security model.
The login prompt requires the ctrl-alt-del key combination to be pressed so that the user can be sure that the login prompt is genuine, however, it fails to take into account the architecture of firewire ports, and their ability to directly access memory, hence the existence of firewire dongles that circumvent the login screen and grant Administrator access.
Security has to be a holistic process if it is to succeed.
I have never delved into activex, but there are several people that have made the plausible claim that the security model around activex is provably broken. (all of the people that I can think of off the top of my head had economic reasons to denigrate activex, however, experience seems to indicate that there is at least a reason to suspect they are correct.)
Programs like Microsoft Office should require hoops being jumped through to run them as Administrator instead of "user"
The big problem with the Microsoft security model is that for the most part, it is in the off position. the UGW security model is archaic compared to what is possible with Microsoft Security, but Software for windows is not developed in an environment where everything runs in a least privilege mode, so a lot of software does not run in that type of environment.
If you run all processes in Linux as root, use a six character password and allow remote ssh logins by root, it is not that far from the normal situation under windows. My workstation that I am typing this on has process running as 22 different users. Windows usually has Administrator, System, and one other user that I cannot remember off the top of my head.
Restating yet anther way.
The issue with windows is more or less unknown, as widescale deployments of windows using least privileges are not in general use, therefore the problems with windows in that environment is mostly unknown.
Security is not a checklist of features, the features have to be setup correctly. SELinux is just now starting to see general usage in a very limited fashion. mostly bind, and sometimes httpd.
Does this start to explain why you never get an answer to your question, even though your question seems reasonable at first?
will "random delay" improve things much? you'd have to have a small upper bound for the delay (pausing for a year is not likely to carry much favour) - and on most machines, the granulative of 'delays' is limited to 1/100s or 1/1000s. Surely, given enough iterations, you could quickly average out the delay factor? Would it not be better to just return results after a fixed elapsed time from the moment the login attempt began? Then no information seeps out.
A random delay is non-trivial and expensive to implement. (/dev/random is generally blocking, and does run out of entropy)
An approach like the following pseudo code would help:
ReturnErrorTime = now() + 2 seconds;
if FunctionCheckPassword() == false:
return LoginFunction at ReturnErrorTime; else:
continue;
Interesting, but you seem to have assumed something HUGE in your first sentence of which _needs_ a citation provided.
"Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay."
How in the world can you make that claim?
A huge percentage of modern English literature can be traced to Shakespeare. Plots, story lines, language, lexicons, pacing, etc.
The percentage of literature that is heavily based on public domain works is probably over 99%.
The percentage of people that have paid for public domain works is probably pretty small, but I do know that there have been dvds made of cartoons that have fallen into the public domain.
Frameworks are great but they are also overused. JQuery is fantastic if you're doing a big site that you want to feel like an app, but many people load JQuery just to do an image fade or animation - stuff that you can easily code yourself.
To add insult to injury, sites made with Joomla, WP, Drupal, etc. often rely on plugins, which use their own libraries. The end result is a site that loads JQuery, Mootools and Scriptaculous just to do some trivial effects that would be achieved just as well with document.getElementById(), setTimeout() and the element.style property.
The problem with doing things yourself instead of using a framework for common things like fades is that you have to remember how to code for each of the common browsers. The libraries hide that nastiness from you.
Actually I've got an idea. What Linux or BSD distro are you running? Do you update sources to the bleeding edge every night and rebuild the system from sources? Do you just assume everything will work? If you do, you already know stuff breaks. If you don't, STFU and stop blaming the cautious among us.
IIRC E*Trade updates gentoo about three times a week, and QA's the entire system. (the website is an internal gentoo package)
Why would you have to set up a build system for a new patch? Shouldn't you be able to use the existing QA system and just add the patch to the beginning of the process and re run the existing build/QA/deploy process?
The problem is that many of the "cautious" types never set up a proper QA system and cannot rebuild their systems from scratch in an automated way, much less auto build, QA, and deploy.
Sorry for the rant, I've just seen too many messes and been around too many organizations that were unwilling to pay a penny for reproducibility.
Wars are a different matter, you gotta fight wars.
Or what happens?
Troops overseas are always questionable if they are draining more resources than they are gaining.
The variables are so numerous that nobody can know, and anybody that does claim to be able to analyze all the possible outcomes, is pulling the answers out their rectum.
Switzerland has survived for a very long time without fighting a war, they do have a defense force, and a military, but they don't piss a substantial portion of their GDP away on munitions and such.
I urge you to consider that maybe, not having so many troops abroad would improve our boarder security, and allow us to allocate more resources to R and D, business development, social programs, the arts, and improved education systems. Just a thought. and maybe the wars are the best thing for the country, but it is still unlikely that the foreign wars "need" fought, even if it turns out to be the most advantageous course of action for the country.
That would be like saying that a spammer/customer relationship is satisfied by the fact that the spammer was selling toilet paper and the recipient was a user of toilet paper.
As a vendor of toilet paper, I may be free to spam my existing customer base, but I'm not free to spam yours (or any other potential customers that aren't already engaging me an existing and ongoing relationship).
With that in mind, even if we could assume that just by the fact that a voter voting for her automatically satisfies the requisite relationship criteria, there is still no way for her to know who voted for her and who voted for another candidate.
The judge is going to be hired or not hired based in part on Thomas Hawks vote.
If someone has the ability to fire you, you have a relationship with them.
Unfortunately for the judge, this was like someone calling when the application page says do not call about this job.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because a few lines of code interact with the same database and APIs, they have to be free? I don't think that is really a good way to look at it.
The owners of Wordpress should have no rights over images, stylesheets, and html code created for themes and plugins. These work wiithout wordpress, and are portable to any platform.
The only question is the php code in the template that generates the html. Although, if there is any "magic" html that wordpress expects to have in the output, that might also be under the GPL
Now, allegedly, Thesis lifted sections of code from a GPLed work. This affects things quite substantially, however, there's an argument about fair use here that I'll not get into.
Aside from that, Jaquith is completely wrong.
Indeed Wordpress and Thesis are run as the same unit. That does not make Thesis a derivative work. It makes the work that the user made combining the two of them into a derivative work. Thesis does not derive from Wordpress any more than Wordpress derives from Thesis. The fact that two works interact does not make them derivative. That's not what the word means. The word means "derived from". It does not mean "intended to be used with". Revision notes on books are not derived works even though they directly reference specific parts of a work of fiction.
There is no court precedent on Linux modules. These are typically licensed under the GPL because it's convenient to do so. However, I see no reason why they must be.
As for copying from existing themes - there's a clear fair use argument here. Themes must interact with the copyrighted software. Code for interoperability is often considered to be fair use.
The opinions of Drupal and Joomla are completely worthless. Their knowledge of content management is formidable but they are not legal professionals.
The Thesis code is completely separate from Wordpress. Granted, it is useless without Wordpress. It may well be that it's not legal to use Thesis with Wordpress, but the copyright on the Thesis code is owned by whoever wrote that. They can distribute it as they want. The person combining it with Wordpress code is the one at risk of violating the GPL.
That's what I thought, unfortunately that is not the case, copyright has expanded is some stupid ways, a derivative work is quite expansive and seems to be growing, as that allows more litigation. It also means that Disney, (who is most at fault for the current law) can sue for creating things that are only, substantially, mostly, somewhat, a little more useful with something copyrighted by Disney. (I don't know where in the chain we are currently at, I think we are at substantially or mostly) Software is just caught in the cross fire of Mickey Mouse protection laws.
Personally I feel like GPL over steps its bounds when it try to grab plugins under its wing. For me its a simple test.
What if I just just so happened to make a closed source word press competitor. it just so happens that this theme/plugin works perfectly in my closed source solution without any reference or dependency to WordPress. Please explain to me why that plugin needs to be under GPL just because it just so happens to work under WordPress. Doesn't that seem silly to anyone else?
Remember I'm just talking plugins in general not this specific case however it may apply. I haven't sifted through all the details
There is no rule for plugins in general, if there were lawyers would make less money, and that would be unacceptable.
yes I work for one of the major publishers and after this WP is dead to me - and my boss was a fan as well so we arn't going to be lobying for using WP any time soon.
I wonder what laris Ventures (Mike Hirshland), Blacksmith Capital (Phil Black, now at True Ventures), Radar Partners (Doug Mackenzie), and CNET (Shelby Bonnie). think about this (atomattics backers)
I suspect that they knew about the time bomb and let a nice community grow up, and since copyright is NOT an enforce it or lose it law, unlike trademark, they let a sizable group of people violate their copyright and can now go shake people down, these are venture capitalists after all, they don't need to be nice they just want their payday.
Matt may or may not have known about the time bomb, but anyone familiar with open source CMSes saw what Joomla went through, and was pretty clear about what the reaction would be from this, and that copyright law has a slightly more expansive definition of derivative work than most people would expect, so I have a hard time believing that Matt was completely unaware of this, although he may have figured that whatever the outcome it was in Automatic's favor so he could put dealing with it off for a while.
The FSF FAQ is not part of the GPLv2, is not incorporated by reference into the GPLv2, and, in terms of what constitutes a derivative work, is simply a statement of the FSF's opinion on copyright law. Note that even if it was a part of the GPLv2, it wouldn't matter if you were distributing just the theme you created, since what would matter is whether or not you needed a copyright license in the first place, which, if its not a derivative work under copyright law , you don't.
The terms of the GPL can't change copyright law to make people restricted by the license in performing acts that aren't within the exclusive rights of the copyright holder under copyright law in the first place.
IANAL, however, most copyright attorneys I've talked to fall someplace similar to the FSF's position that if your template requires GPL code to render correctly, it is probably a derivative work. Most wordpress themes will not render correctly without wordpress, hence at least the php files have a very high likely hood of being considered willfully infringing derivative works.
The images and CSS are probably not dependent on wordpress, as you can just use wget or fetch to create a static html page that looks correct. However, if the resultant html is somewhat unique to wordpress, the css might be found to be a derivative work as well.
You are right that the GPL doesn't change copyright law, the problem is copyright law is a mess. (well that's not a problem if you are a copyright lawyer being paid by the hour, that would be considered a good thing)
If I publish an unauthorised errata for a paper book, would you expect me to get convicted of copyright infringement?
IANAL, However, you could be found guilty of copyright infringement if you intended people to purchase your errata instead of the second edition. You would probably find yourself liable for the lost sales, plus statutory damages.
An example of this would be if you were to offer a competing update service for annual updates to a reference book that is designed to be updated periodically. (if that makes any sense)
Read PylonHead's comment again. He has hit the nail on the head. The basis for GPL enforcement is that you need a license to distribute copyrighted works. The GPL can be that license. If you reject the GPL, you need another license or you're a copyright infringer, but only if you distribute someone else's copyrighted work. If you don't do that, nobody can force you to abide by the GPL. Coding to an API is not copyright infringement and the resulting code does not constitute a derived work in the sense of copyright law, unless you link in code that is not yours and not necessary to use the API.
IANAL, but the law is not as clear as you would like to believe (and I used to believe). If it was this simple lawyers would go broke, so there is a grey area where if your code requires other code it could under some circumstances be considered a derivative work. (the conditions are not clearly defined, but after giving your lawyer lots of money, your lawyer should be able to give you a guess at how much it will cost for you get a definitive answer for your specific case.)
It seems they are confusing specifications with code.
Code you can copyright; specifications are a different matter entirely.
Clearly someone needs to write a competing system with the same APIs and blow their argument clear out of the water.
Amazingly that has real legal weight, how many systems does the code run on matters.
IANAL, however, this would only pertain to the php code, not the css or images, which I imagine are both important to you.
So, theme developers more or less go whatever, and everyone else works out a new business model.
There is a simple way around this "problem": Don't distribute any WordPress code. As long as you only distribute your own code, which is written to the WordPress API but does not itself include any of WordPress's GPL licensed code, you can choose any license you want. The user combines the two and thereby creates the derived work. The user however does not distribute, so the GPL doesn't apply. This is how binary-only Linux kernel modules are legal and this is also how there is no issue here. Now calm the fuck down, everyone.
IANAL, however it turns out that this is not completely the case.
Copyright law in the US at least allows that if a snippet of code (which is what a theme is) requires a specific response from an underlying program, and the response is not based on an external API, you can under some circumstances, based on rules that as far as I can tell is completely devoid of logic (well not really but rules have several paradoxes in it which means they may as well be devoid of logic) be a derivative work, even though it is unique code.
An example of this is Open Source Matter's opinion that any Joomla extension that contains "include mainframe" is a derivative work subject to the GPL.
There are rules of thumb about when the boundary has been crossed, but there are a lot of places that copyright law is very vague, and seems primarily designed to enrich the lawyers.
In a joomla template (theme) the overrides are considered to be under the GPL, the index.php file is considered to probably be under the GPL, although it could be so generic as to possibly not subject to copyright law, much like a header file, the CSS file(s) and the images are considered to not be subject to the GPL unless they are based on a CSS file or image that is licensed under the GPL.
The reason for this is not the GPL per se, but copyright law, and the fact that the GPL tries to be as inclusive as possible.
As an aside, binary only Linux kernel modules are generally considered to be a copyright violation, unless they are generic enough to run on a kernel other than Linux. The ATI, and Nvidia blobs are contained in the Windows drivers as well. If this makes no sense to you, then you are starting to get the fact that copyright law, at this level, makes no sense. The legality of binary kernel blobs really can depend on if the blob was originally developed for Linux, and if it runs on a non-GPL kernel. This is really stupid, but that is the way copyright works, as it has been explained to me by attorneys that work with copyright in the US.
More or less, if there is more than one license involved things get dicey.
I can see medical transcriptions being the best point of transcription software.
The vocabulary is largely devoid of slang.
You have long specialized lexicons that are similar to very few other words.
The vocabulary is probably fairly small as most doctors have a fairly specialized practice, so internists don't deal with the same areas as podiatrists, reducing the words that are used.
The repetition is probably fairly high, allowing for training to be more effective than speech on random topics.
In conclusion, for what the original poster wants, voice recognition software is probably not viable, but if you have a medical practice, and are not a general practitioner, you may well find that voice recognition software is usable.
The answer to your question is not what is missing from the model, but the question "What does the model not account for?"
The login prompt is a perfect example of the failure of the windows security model.
The login prompt requires the ctrl-alt-del key combination to be pressed so that the user can be sure that the login prompt is genuine, however, it fails to take into account the architecture of firewire ports, and their ability to directly access memory, hence the existence of firewire dongles that circumvent the login screen and grant Administrator access.
Security has to be a holistic process if it is to succeed.
I have never delved into activex, but there are several people that have made the plausible claim that the security model around activex is provably broken. (all of the people that I can think of off the top of my head had economic reasons to denigrate activex, however, experience seems to indicate that there is at least a reason to suspect they are correct.)
Programs like Microsoft Office should require hoops being jumped through to run them as Administrator instead of "user"
The big problem with the Microsoft security model is that for the most part, it is in the off position. the UGW security model is archaic compared to what is possible with Microsoft Security, but Software for windows is not developed in an environment where everything runs in a least privilege mode, so a lot of software does not run in that type of environment.
If you run all processes in Linux as root, use a six character password and allow remote ssh logins by root, it is not that far from the normal situation under windows. My workstation that I am typing this on has process running as 22 different users. Windows usually has Administrator, System, and one other user that I cannot remember off the top of my head.
Restating yet anther way.
The issue with windows is more or less unknown, as widescale deployments of windows using least privileges are not in general use, therefore the problems with windows in that environment is mostly unknown.
Security is not a checklist of features, the features have to be setup correctly. SELinux is just now starting to see general usage in a very limited fashion. mostly bind, and sometimes httpd.
Does this start to explain why you never get an answer to your question, even though your question seems reasonable at first?
will "random delay" improve things much? you'd have to have a small upper bound for the delay (pausing for a year
is not likely to carry much favour) - and on most machines, the granulative of 'delays' is limited to 1/100s or 1/1000s.
Surely, given enough iterations, you could quickly average out the delay factor?
Would it not be better to just return results after a fixed elapsed time from the moment the login attempt began? Then
no information seeps out.
A random delay is non-trivial and expensive to implement. (/dev/random is generally blocking, and does run out of entropy)
An approach like the following pseudo code would help:
ReturnErrorTime = now() + 2 seconds;
if FunctionCheckPassword() == false:
return LoginFunction at ReturnErrorTime;
else:
continue;
You do know that v 0.01 of Linux was about 10,000 lines right?
That should be about a three to six month project for a CS major.
Just don't forget to pay your SCO licensing fees you cock-smoking teabaggers!
Okay. Now I'm really confused. What does Sarah Palin have to do with SCO???
Teabagging is a colloquial term for a gay male sex act and has been for a long time.
I don't know the details, but one can safely assume it involves a scrotum. If you care to know more google it.
Most people (numerically) pay someone else to set up their email client.
$50 is the going rate in the USA to set up google for domains, and most third graders should be able to do that in an afternoon.
These same people can use skype.
The relatively user friendly skype IDs also help. As soon as someone sees a SIP ID they want to leave, unless you have a wrapper so they never see it.
I think you under estimate the level of polish that skype has.
Most SIP solutions are more or less raw in places that are visible to the end user.
Nice for techies, not so for the masses.
Interesting, but you seem to have assumed something HUGE in your first sentence of which _needs_ a citation provided.
"Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay."
How in the world can you make that claim?
A huge percentage of modern English literature can be traced to Shakespeare. Plots, story lines, language, lexicons, pacing, etc.
The percentage of literature that is heavily based on public domain works is probably over 99%.
The percentage of people that have paid for public domain works is probably pretty small, but I do know that there have been dvds made of cartoons that have fallen into the public domain.
Frameworks are great but they are also overused.
JQuery is fantastic if you're doing a big site that you want to feel like an app, but many people load JQuery just to do an image fade or animation - stuff that you can easily code yourself.
To add insult to injury, sites made with Joomla, WP, Drupal, etc. often rely on plugins, which use their own libraries. The end result is a site that loads JQuery, Mootools and Scriptaculous just to do some trivial effects that would be achieved just as well with document.getElementById(), setTimeout() and the element.style property.
The problem with doing things yourself instead of using a framework for common things like fades is that you have to remember how to code for each of the common browsers. The libraries hide that nastiness from you.
There is nothing inherently wrong, immoral or illegal about filesharing
there is absolutely something inherently illegal about it.
No, there is something illegal about filesharing things you don't have the right to share.
Either that or we should make sure that ftp http sftp, and scp are banned. (I know, that is RIAA's dream, but get real)
Computer skills obviously... Don't they have a PhD in Internet Shopping?
It is called a PhD in retail micro economics.
The problem I had was that every browser had different printing preference settings.
Do background images print?
Are images scaled?
Do images print at 72dpi? 300dpi? the alt text?
Are fonts over ridden?
The list just went on and on.
Use a pdf library, it will save you time.
Make sure that you can embed the fonts in the pdf. otherwise you will be dealing with all sorts of stupid bug reports.
Actually I've got an idea. What Linux or BSD distro are you running? Do you update sources to the bleeding edge every night and rebuild the system from sources? Do you just assume everything will work? If you do, you already know stuff breaks. If you don't, STFU and stop blaming the cautious among us.
IIRC E*Trade updates gentoo about three times a week, and QA's the entire system. (the website is an internal gentoo package)
Why would you have to set up a build system for a new patch? Shouldn't you be able to use the existing QA system and just add the patch to the beginning of the process and re run the existing build/QA/deploy process?
The problem is that many of the "cautious" types never set up a proper QA system and cannot rebuild their systems from scratch in an automated way, much less auto build, QA, and deploy.
Sorry for the rant, I've just seen too many messes and been around too many organizations that were unwilling to pay a penny for reproducibility.
Or they could automate their testing a little bit more and get a 48 hour turnaround or so.
They could also re-evaluate the ROI of using Microsoft based products, and budget the proper amount for QA.
Wars are a different matter, you gotta fight wars.
Or what happens?
Troops overseas are always questionable if they are draining more resources than they are gaining.
The variables are so numerous that nobody can know, and anybody that does claim to be able to analyze all the possible outcomes, is pulling the answers out their rectum.
Switzerland has survived for a very long time without fighting a war, they do have a defense force, and a military, but they don't piss a substantial portion of their GDP away on munitions and such.
I urge you to consider that maybe, not having so many troops abroad would improve our boarder security, and allow us to allocate more resources to R and D, business development, social programs, the arts, and improved education systems. Just a thought. and maybe the wars are the best thing for the country, but it is still unlikely that the foreign wars "need" fought, even if it turns out to be the most advantageous course of action for the country.
The established relationship is voter, candidate.
That would be like saying that a spammer/customer relationship is satisfied by the fact that the spammer was selling toilet paper and the recipient was a user of toilet paper.
As a vendor of toilet paper, I may be free to spam my existing customer base, but I'm not free to spam yours (or any other potential customers that aren't already engaging me an existing and ongoing relationship).
With that in mind, even if we could assume that just by the fact that a voter voting for her automatically satisfies the requisite relationship criteria, there is still no way for her to know who voted for her and who voted for another candidate.
The judge is going to be hired or not hired based in part on Thomas Hawks vote.
If someone has the ability to fire you, you have a relationship with them.
Unfortunately for the judge, this was like someone calling when the application page says do not call about this job.
You can do it, you are not going to get hired.