What if you're making a copy because you're worried that you are going to lose or damage the original? Fair use, right?
Well, no.
"Fair use" is a clearly defined legal term.
Making copies of a work for your own private use isn't one of them. It's not against the law (says the S.C.), but it isn't fair use, either.
The linked 10 reasons are all bullshit. If the company likes you enough to match the offer, and you are otherwise happy where you are, take it. All you've shown your company is that you have goals, too.
If you have two systems, you can do whatever the heck you want with them. But some of us have to interact with more than that, and often, they aren't ours.
Lets say you have one market, and n businesses in that market. Like, say, accounting, or schools, or manufacturing. All of these entities need to interact with each other, and exchange data.
Now, they could take your approach, and create a custom excange format for every different interaction. That scales, well, not at all.
As an alternative, they could define a few formats using an identical grammar. Then all their systems could interact without having to write custom applications for each of the custom exchange formats that their accounting department escapee came up with.
Then they could fire the short-sighted hacks that "saved" all that time by not using XML in the first place.
Re:My Gripes about Java &tm;
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 1
I'm a first year programming student
Then sit down and shut up. We'll let you know when you're qualified to speak.
Unless there is some underlying complication, a 12 year old can understand this.
It is one thing to have it explained by a parent, and quite another to have it explained by "superStud4U" in the Harry Potter chat room on AOL.
Have you taught your daughter that everyone she meets in the real world is safe and to be trusted?
Is illiteracy really that rampant, or does it just run in your family?
If I were twelve, and someone were telling me that everyone in the real world could be trusted, but absolutely no one online could be trusted, that all were 'liars and losers', I'd probably question their judgement too.
Let me ask you this, Sport. Do you think that a 12 year old isn't going to question your judgment no matter what you tell them?
You claim to be a parent, but all you've told us is that your "partner's" special needs kids are at the job, and that you're "gender confused."
Do your kids live with you? Are they old enough to talk back to you? Do you see them every day, or just alternating weekends and Thursday nights?
Why lie? Why not just teach her not to give out personal information?
Because kids are stoopit, and do dumb things. They think, at the ripe old age of 12, or 15 or 17, that they have the world all figured out. They think that you are old and stupid, and just don't "get it." You do have kids, right?
Do you really mean to say that in "real" life you encourage her to trust everyone she sees?
I said I teach her to not trust anyone she hasn't put a face on. Real life has it's own rules. You can't know someone you've never met, regardless of how much you think you can.
Eh? What about rules such as "don't trust strangers"? They would seem to apply equally as well in real life as when online.
That's a fine rule. The difference is that on line, everyone is a stranger. It doesn't matter if you've been exchanging e-mail and chatting and IMing and ICQing for months. The thing at the other end of the line is a complete unknown to you. And that's the part that is hard to teach kids. They are dumb, and think they know. But really, they don't.
That's because they're children - and even so, I'm sure that many (elder) kids are not as dumb as you say.
Nope. All of 'em. Some less so than others, but they are all eventualy dumber than a box of hammers.
Don't know what you can do when she's away from home - other than try to educate her - but at home why not just fix the computer up so that the only net connection is in the front room
That's pretty much how it is. She uses it supervised. She is a generaly good kid. I don't worry about her, I worry about every other asshole on the internet.
Perhaps you should have explained that anyway, if in fact you really do have a daughter and aren't just shamelessly trolling (and if you have reached parental age without learning to spell "loser" correctly, I hope you aren't helping kiddo with her homework!).
When you get out of high school, and have kids of your own, (assuming you ever get laid), you can teach 'em whatever you want, whenever you want, in whatever manner you want. In the mean time, I'll do the same, and fuck you.
The reason you hear "pedophile" on the news so much is that they have flocked to the internet as a place to troll for kids. It's on the news because it's an issue. Or havn't you been paying attention.
Chat scares the shit out of me. Because of it, I've had to explain what a 'pedophile' is. I've had to encourage her to lie. I've had to encourage her to not trust anyone she hasn't put a face on. I've had to tell her that most of the rules that apply to your day to day life mean jack shit when you're dealing with an anonymous no one. That when you are on line, everyone is a liar and a looser.
She thinks I just don't get it.
Kids are stoopit. Even the smart ones. It scares the shit out of me.
It provides two things. First, you don't have to mark your code, so you can avoid a preprocessor step, and thus reduce complexity. And it provides a client for your units. Your JUnit test case should use your code just like a developer or customer would.
It's also a realy nice framework. You can extend TestResult to do whatever you want, meaning you can have your harness report directly to your defect tracking system, send e-mail to the appropriate place, or some other thing that hasn't been thought of yet.
So three things. Reliability, unit clients, and flexability.
To the professional programmer an algorithm is a tool, and like any other kind of tool it is important to know how it works even if you didn't invent or produce it yourself.
It is far more important that someone know when to apply a particular tool to solve a problem, rather than knowing the detail of the tool itself.
I would much rather have developers that know when to apply a given algorithm, even if they can't describe the detail from memory. Most true CS algorithm problems have been solved a zillion times.
Productive engineers apply those tools to their problems, rather than build those tools themselves.
I can't tell you what makes the blade in my circular saw go round and round, but I know what to use if I have to cut wood.
So? I'm not a mechanic, but I still expect my car to come equipped with an openable hood, just in case something goes wrong
And here is the difference, sport. Market forces pretty much demand that cars come with a hood. Thats because automotive engines aren't that complex, and there is a prescribed maintenence schedule that the owner can do all by hisself.
Ain't so with software. Market forces have not demanded that joe user have access to the source, because there is absolutely nothing %99.9 of the users out there could do with it even if they had it.
Granny can probably change her own oil and filters. Granny thinks lint is what comes out of the dryer.
Stallman's basic argument for free software boils down to this: software has bugs, some of which may be repairable by the user of said software if the source code is available.
Which is preposterous. The average user of software has absolutely *ZERO* chance of ever understanding sources for even the most trivial applications, let alone the ones they use to go about their workaday lives.
While in RMS's ivory tower I'm sure everyone is comfortable opening up and rebuilding source. Out in the mud, no secretary on earth is going to open up the source for Werd, no accountant is ever going to understand the code for Excel, and no grandma is ever going to open up Outlook. And even if they did, do you really expect gramma to understand how the build process works? "What's a compiler? Did that come with my Dell?"
For most people, software is a tool. Most people aren't developers.
Free, forever. Plus support and upgrades. Then I'll switch. I've used this aproach to chase off many a M$ sales droid while working for poor, underfunded public edumakashun institutes.
I've three kids, been married for ten years, and am oft accused of being a troll, a cranky old bastard, and other assorted things by the/. skript kiddies.
This, however, is/.'s finest hour. It made me all misty eyed and goofy.
So, did your boss bother to tell you about the actual system requirements, or does he just want to play "Guess which language I've already decided you are going to use?"
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no. "Fair use" is a clearly defined legal term. Making copies of a work for your own private use isn't one of them. It's not against the law (says the S.C.), but it isn't fair use, either.
Oh come on.
It's not just 'No.'
It's 'Fuck no' or 'Hell no', depending on your bend.
The linked 10 reasons are all bullshit. If the company likes you enough to match the offer, and you are otherwise happy where you are, take it. All you've shown your company is that you have goals, too.
Most employers like that.
If you have two systems, you can do whatever the heck you want with them. But some of us have to interact with more than that, and often, they aren't ours.
Lets say you have one market, and n businesses in that market. Like, say, accounting, or schools, or manufacturing. All of these entities need to interact with each other, and exchange data.
Now, they could take your approach, and create a custom excange format for every different interaction. That scales, well, not at all.
As an alternative, they could define a few formats using an identical grammar. Then all their systems could interact without having to write custom applications for each of the custom exchange formats that their accounting department escapee came up with.
Then they could fire the short-sighted hacks that "saved" all that time by not using XML in the first place.
Then sit down and shut up. We'll let you know when you're qualified to speak.
I am very skilled at HTML programming
You obviously hold a PhD in Trollology.
Well done!
It is one thing to have it explained by a parent, and quite another to have it explained by "superStud4U" in the Harry Potter chat room on AOL.
Have you taught your daughter that everyone she meets in the real world is safe and to be trusted?
Is illiteracy really that rampant, or does it just run in your family?
If I were twelve, and someone were telling me that everyone in the real world could be trusted, but absolutely no one online could be trusted, that all were 'liars and losers', I'd probably question their judgement too.
Let me ask you this, Sport. Do you think that a 12 year old isn't going to question your judgment no matter what you tell them?
You claim to be a parent, but all you've told us is that your "partner's" special needs kids are at the job, and that you're "gender confused."
Do your kids live with you? Are they old enough to talk back to you? Do you see them every day, or just alternating weekends and Thursday nights?
Because kids are stoopit, and do dumb things. They think, at the ripe old age of 12, or 15 or 17, that they have the world all figured out. They think that you are old and stupid, and just don't "get it." You do have kids, right?
Do you really mean to say that in "real" life you encourage her to trust everyone she sees?
I said I teach her to not trust anyone she hasn't put a face on. Real life has it's own rules. You can't know someone you've never met, regardless of how much you think you can.
Eh? What about rules such as "don't trust strangers"? They would seem to apply equally as well in real life as when online.
That's a fine rule. The difference is that on line, everyone is a stranger. It doesn't matter if you've been exchanging e-mail and chatting and IMing and ICQing for months. The thing at the other end of the line is a complete unknown to you. And that's the part that is hard to teach kids. They are dumb, and think they know. But really, they don't.
That's because they're children - and even so, I'm sure that many (elder) kids are not as dumb as you say.
Nope. All of 'em. Some less so than others, but they are all eventualy dumber than a box of hammers.
Don't know what you can do when she's away from home - other than try to educate her - but at home why not just fix the computer up so that the only net connection is in the front room
That's pretty much how it is. She uses it supervised. She is a generaly good kid. I don't worry about her, I worry about every other asshole on the internet.
When you get out of high school, and have kids of your own, (assuming you ever get laid), you can teach 'em whatever you want, whenever you want, in whatever manner you want. In the mean time, I'll do the same, and fuck you.
The reason you hear "pedophile" on the news so much is that they have flocked to the internet as a place to troll for kids. It's on the news because it's an issue. Or havn't you been paying attention.
Go take your Ritalin, loser.
She thinks I just don't get it.
Kids are stoopit. Even the smart ones. It scares the shit out of me.
It provides two things. First, you don't have to mark your code, so you can avoid a preprocessor step, and thus reduce complexity. And it provides a client for your units. Your JUnit test case should use your code just like a developer or customer would.
It's also a realy nice framework. You can extend TestResult to do whatever you want, meaning you can have your harness report directly to your defect tracking system, send e-mail to the appropriate place, or some other thing that hasn't been thought of yet.
So three things. Reliability, unit clients, and flexability.
It's handy as heck.
Obviously, Kien Nguyen is an incompetent boobie, and aught to be fired as quickly as his fat supervisor will allow.
That should read
"keyspace < message space"
The one time I don't preview...
More accurately, not at all.
If keyspace message space, it's not a OTP, regardless of what they say, what else they do, or how they do it.
It is far more important that someone know when to apply a particular tool to solve a problem, rather than knowing the detail of the tool itself.
I would much rather have developers that know when to apply a given algorithm, even if they can't describe the detail from memory. Most true CS algorithm problems have been solved a zillion times.
Productive engineers apply those tools to their problems, rather than build those tools themselves.
I can't tell you what makes the blade in my circular saw go round and round, but I know what to use if I have to cut wood.
And here is the difference, sport. Market forces pretty much demand that cars come with a hood. Thats because automotive engines aren't that complex, and there is a prescribed maintenence schedule that the owner can do all by hisself.
Ain't so with software. Market forces have not demanded that joe user have access to the source, because there is absolutely nothing %99.9 of the users out there could do with it even if they had it.
Granny can probably change her own oil and filters. Granny thinks lint is what comes out of the dryer.
Comprende?
Which is preposterous. The average user of software has absolutely *ZERO* chance of ever understanding sources for even the most trivial applications, let alone the ones they use to go about their workaday lives.
While in RMS's ivory tower I'm sure everyone is comfortable opening up and rebuilding source. Out in the mud, no secretary on earth is going to open up the source for Werd, no accountant is ever going to understand the code for Excel, and no grandma is ever going to open up Outlook. And even if they did, do you really expect gramma to understand how the build process works? "What's a compiler? Did that come with my Dell?"
For most people, software is a tool. Most people aren't developers.
No. We are talking about a 22 year old man who is acting like a kid. He can buy beer, join the army, vote, and drive a car.
He's an adult, and should be treated as such.
Studies show the dumber you are about something, the smarter you think you are about it.
You're quite wrong. Copywrite is real property, just like your car. It's theft, regardless of how you try and justify it.
Right. One is theft, the other is theft and fraud.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Free, forever. Plus support and upgrades. Then I'll switch. I've used this aproach to chase off many a M$ sales droid while working for poor, underfunded public edumakashun institutes.
This, however, is
The occasional all nighter might be fine once and again, but this is pathetic.
So, did your boss bother to tell you about the actual system requirements, or does he just want to play "Guess which language I've already decided you are going to use?"
Nope. I've worked at a few where the "HTML Programmer" was a bit of a running joke.
"Hey, aren't you one of those HTML Programmers?"