I am quite sorry, but I do not have time to read that entire document. If you could offer a synopsis, that would be nice.
Hah!
The point is that there actually is a voluminous, appellate-level validated, court document called a "Finding of Facts" that detail, with pain-staking specifics, that the "arguments about a browser monopoly" were (and still are) anything but foolish.
Doen't CUPS have to be working for kde printing to work?
Yes, but it doesn't have to be working for KDE to configure it. In Kcontrol, select Peripherals->Printers, click the Administrator Mode button and select CUPS from the drop down box.
I don't run KDE, but after futzing with the CUPS web interface, finding this was a dream. But I don't think the wizard has anything that actually says JetDirect anyware.
I'd like to apply for a grant to enable the grants.gov grant application process to be platform independent so applicants using non-Microsoft operating systems can apply on an equal footing with Microsoft customers.
But I can't because I don't have any Microsoft operating systems. Am I required to pay Microsoft to get eCitizen support?
# cd/usr/src/linux # cp/boot/config-$(uname -r).config # make oldconfig
If it asks you any questions, those are new features that you weren't using before so just answer "N". when it's done, proceed to build your kernel, and it will be no more bloated than it was before.
Most places make it very hard for you to just go look, you have to have a reason to look at this stuff so again not a valid argument compaired to joe blogger saying so and so is a rapist at so and so address and the truth being far from it.
Uh, Google for "[my county] [my state] property-appraiser" and tell me again how hard it is to "look at this stuff" and who you have to give your reason to. It's not like it's filed in a disused lavatory in a basement behind a door labeled "Beware of the Leopard."p>
I find pinball games too hard, and the apparant need to rely on luck is just tedious. I'm sure there are good players out there, but I guess not enough to make it worthwhile producing new tables.
Actually, I think you've got it backwards. My friends and I used to play at lunch every day. The more you play, luck becomes less and less of a factor. Which means the more good players there are out there, the less $$ the tables produce. For about $1, 3 or 4 of us got a good hour or more entertainment.
It's frustrating as hell when the game isn't working right though, and that's the state of most machines these days. I think it's half "too much maintenance required" and half "if it works, people start beating it."
For example, I needed a swi-prolog installation for a small class project a couple days back. I needed the GUI library, which means the package available in Gentoo (swi-prolog-lite) would not be sufficient. Thus I had to download the.tar.gz and then go through the install steps.
And now, how do I uninstall it,since the Makefiles don't seem to have make remove/uninstall/etc. that would delete the installed binaries.
Checkinstall is what you're looking for. Even for unsupported package management systems you can at least have an inventory of files installed (or changed).
As a contract worker, you are not entitled to any benefits whatsoever. Under some cicumstances, the "employer" doesn't pay payroll taxes, and you are responsible for all taxes, because you are effectively self-employed. My father got swindled into this as a dealer rep for an auto auction in the 80s.
The owner of that auction eventually went to prison for tax evasion and ghost employment (big surprise).
And you don't see the bold sentence as contradicting your opinion about what a "contract worker" is entitled to, or whether or not they just might be an "employee"?
I now work for a company where the IP agreement explicitly _excludes_ anything not directly related to my work for the company. Reading this one was a breath of fresh air. Still working there 4.5 years later.
Are they hiring? I'd like to work for a company that treated "employees" like, well, "people."
As posted above,
from the GPL FAQ. Daimaou and the company he works for are all in the same "organization", so redistribution has not occurred. He may have worked on it before working there, but no distribution occured so the GPL requirements did not kick in. Or if distribution did occur, I assume he already GPL'ed that set of modifications. (If Daimaou didn't care about adhering to the spirit of the GPL, he wouldn't have asked this.)
This is an important toehold for the GPL into companies. Say I bring in some stock GPL code (with permission) and show it has value. Then I note that we could increase the value with some modifications, clarifying that we're stuck with maintaining and integrating these when new releases come out, unless we release them under the GPL. "Nice work! Keep it up but we don't release software under any circumstances" says management and everything plucks along and everyone in the company is happy.
Then I leave for greener pastures (for the sake of argument, somewhere were I'd like to use the same code) and no one is left to maintain the enhancements. "Hey," I say, "If you GPL these changes (or release the copyright to me [exclusive or joint, doesn't matter] so I can), I'll try to get them integrated into the core project. Even if I can't, I'll keep maintaining them for a while at least. And even if I can't do that long enough, the code will be available for others who might maintain them for you. Or maybe by then you'll have someone else here who can and you'll have learned the moral of the GPL."
In the meantime, you get my work, which happens to exactly match your requirements, for free!
(This story is true, except I'm still looking for the greener pastures;)
Like I said, If Daimaou wrote the code prior to the IP agreement than the code isn't his to release to the company. The GPL license holders own it.
I see you've bought the "GPL is viral" FUD. Daimaou's code is Daimaou's code. It may be non-functional without the surrounding GPL code, but it's his none the less.
If Daimaou wrote the code after signing the IP agreement than he couldn't release code to GPL as he isn't the owner. The company owns that portion of the code; therefore Daimaou released the code illegally. Daimaou could potentially be held liable for any damages the company could prove due to the IP release. Furthermore, the code he introduced would have to be removed and possibly recoded. However, if the company wants to use any portion of the GPL code then said company is in violation of the original GPL'ed code.
Daimaou didn't release the code at all, let alone illegally. As long as modifications stay within the "legal entity" they are not being redistributed according to the GPL, so the company is free to use the software all it wants. The GPL explicitly states "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted..." (emphasis mine). They can even make modifications and use the modifications internally. They only have to GPL the modifications if they make them available to others, along with the original GPL code.
The company can patent the new technology and can also decide to release the entire packaged software to GPL - these are the only two legal scenarios that can exist without rewriting the GPL code.
The company can patent technology used in the code, but in order to distribute it under the GPL it must be made available, at least for GPL purposes, under a royalty free, fully re-distributable license which (mostly) defeats the purpose of patenting it.
Although apt is great, the Debian Policy Manual is what makes apt (and everything else on Debian) Just Work(TM). Apt and various other dependency management tools are available for other distributions, but without a consistently applied policy no automatic tool can work the miracles that Debian's apt can.
For 4 players, bridge is the chess of card games. I had it forced upon me, and it took 3 years for me to want to play. Once I decided to take it seriously (but not competitively seriously), I realized just how good the game really was.
For 3+ players, or those not wanting a game they have to study to get good at, I recommend Cosmic Encounter. Think Risk where each player is allowed to cheat differently. No game is ever the same. I have the original with 9 expansion sets, and prefer playing with 2 "alien powers" per player. I haven't tried the most recent edition, but it would be hard to screw it up.
All kitchen tools are used to violate the copyright of recipe authors! We must outlaw cooking utensils immediately! Kids are being taught to create infringing works every day with these things. Someone, please, think of the children!
Can you provide another lawyerly observation, please?
How can anyone, individual or business, existing with the jurisdiction of a government not have standing to challenge the legality of a government action?
Isn't this a fundamental exercise of consitutional rights (as in "that power was not enumerated to you, therefor you don't have it")?
It may be a buzzword, but it is also a legitimate feature.
"Scalability" is a pure and meaningless buzzword, unless specific metrics of the precise scale is provided. That's the point.
We have a "scalable" application that scales by adding servers and dividing the work between them. That's not so bad in and of itself except that in order to get the information you want out of it you have to know which server to ask and none of the servers can tell you anything about the big picture.
Your not a company, true.. your also not a network access provider either, are ya?;)
Hi, youngster.
When some of us registered our domains only.com,.org and.net were available. Per the RFC's.com was for businesses,.org was for non-profits, and.net was for for network access providers which was more loosely defined as "anything else." So we get hit first because we chose the best fit the guidelines gave for "personal" domains?
And guess what the #1 reason was for getting personal domains? So I would never have to change email address again. Switching to another TLD everytime the price structure changes would kind of defeat that, no?
Maybe there needs to be a fee of some kind. Maybe not. But if there needs to be a fee, it should be levied on domains that produce income.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah!
The point is that there actually is a voluminous, appellate-level validated, court document called a "Finding of Facts" that detail, with pain-staking specifics, that the "arguments about a browser monopoly" were (and still are) anything but foolish.
This might help your understanding.
You used "Congress" and "efficiently" in a single, articulate sentence.
If you can reject Congress too, we might have a deal.
Yes, but it doesn't have to be working for KDE to configure it. In Kcontrol, select Peripherals->Printers, click the Administrator Mode button and select CUPS from the drop down box.
I don't run KDE, but after futzing with the CUPS web interface, finding this was a dream. But I don't think the wizard has anything that actually says JetDirect anyware.
Try this:
If it asks you any questions, those are new features that you weren't using before so just answer "N". when it's done, proceed to build your kernel, and it will be no more bloated than it was before.Uh, Google for "[my county] [my state] property-appraiser" and tell me again how hard it is to "look at this stuff" and who you have to give your reason to. It's not like it's filed in a disused lavatory in a basement behind a door labeled "Beware of the Leopard."p>
They could be holding hearings on "bread and circuses."
Actually, I think you've got it backwards. My friends and I used to play at lunch every day. The more you play, luck becomes less and less of a factor. Which means the more good players there are out there, the less $$ the tables produce. For about $1, 3 or 4 of us got a good hour or more entertainment.
It's frustrating as hell when the game isn't working right though, and that's the state of most machines these days. I think it's half "too much maintenance required" and half "if it works, people start beating it."
And now, how do I uninstall it,since the Makefiles don't seem to have make remove/uninstall/etc. that would delete the installed binaries.
Checkinstall is what you're looking for. Even for unsupported package management systems you can at least have an inventory of files installed (or changed).
And you don't see the bold sentence as contradicting your opinion about what a "contract worker" is entitled to, or whether or not they just might be an "employee"?
Are they hiring? I'd like to work for a company that treated "employees" like, well, "people."
This is an important toehold for the GPL into companies. Say I bring in some stock GPL code (with permission) and show it has value. Then I note that we could increase the value with some modifications, clarifying that we're stuck with maintaining and integrating these when new releases come out, unless we release them under the GPL. "Nice work! Keep it up but we don't release software under any circumstances" says management and everything plucks along and everyone in the company is happy.
Then I leave for greener pastures (for the sake of argument, somewhere were I'd like to use the same code) and no one is left to maintain the enhancements. "Hey," I say, "If you GPL these changes (or release the copyright to me [exclusive or joint, doesn't matter] so I can), I'll try to get them integrated into the core project. Even if I can't, I'll keep maintaining them for a while at least. And even if I can't do that long enough, the code will be available for others who might maintain them for you. Or maybe by then you'll have someone else here who can and you'll have learned the moral of the GPL."
In the meantime, you get my work, which happens to exactly match your requirements, for free!
(This story is true, except I'm still looking for the greener pastures ;)
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
I see you've bought the "GPL is viral" FUD. Daimaou's code is Daimaou's code. It may be non-functional without the surrounding GPL code, but it's his none the less.
If Daimaou wrote the code after signing the IP agreement than he couldn't release code to GPL as he isn't the owner. The company owns that portion of the code; therefore Daimaou released the code illegally. Daimaou could potentially be held liable for any damages the company could prove due to the IP release. Furthermore, the code he introduced would have to be removed and possibly recoded. However, if the company wants to use any portion of the GPL code then said company is in violation of the original GPL'ed code.
Daimaou didn't release the code at all, let alone illegally. As long as modifications stay within the "legal entity" they are not being redistributed according to the GPL, so the company is free to use the software all it wants. The GPL explicitly states "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted..." (emphasis mine). They can even make modifications and use the modifications internally. They only have to GPL the modifications if they make them available to others, along with the original GPL code.
The company can patent the new technology and can also decide to release the entire packaged software to GPL - these are the only two legal scenarios that can exist without rewriting the GPL code.
The company can patent technology used in the code, but in order to distribute it under the GPL it must be made available, at least for GPL purposes, under a royalty free, fully re-distributable license which (mostly) defeats the purpose of patenting it.
Although apt is great, the Debian Policy Manual is what makes apt (and everything else on Debian) Just Work(TM). Apt and various other dependency management tools are available for other distributions, but without a consistently applied policy no automatic tool can work the miracles that Debian's apt can.
Now I know how to install it without clicking "I agree". So we'll be seeing some benchmark results on .NET real soon now, right?
For 3+ players, or those not wanting a game they have to study to get good at, I recommend Cosmic Encounter. Think Risk where each player is allowed to cheat differently. No game is ever the same. I have the original with 9 expansion sets, and prefer playing with 2 "alien powers" per player. I haven't tried the most recent edition, but it would be hard to screw it up.
All kitchen tools are used to violate the copyright of recipe authors! We must outlaw cooking utensils immediately! Kids are being taught to create infringing works every day with these things. Someone, please, think of the children!
Well, we won't really know that until this decision is rendered, will we?
How can anyone, individual or business, existing with the jurisdiction of a government not have standing to challenge the legality of a government action?
Isn't this a fundamental exercise of consitutional rights (as in "that power was not enumerated to you, therefor you don't have it")?
"Scalability" is a pure and meaningless buzzword, unless specific metrics of the precise scale is provided. That's the point.
We have a "scalable" application that scales by adding servers and dividing the work between them. That's not so bad in and of itself except that in order to get the information you want out of it you have to know which server to ask and none of the servers can tell you anything about the big picture.
Scales great and "less filling" too!
So, how do you nominate something for a Pulitzer?
Hi, youngster.
When some of us registered our domains only .com, .org and .net were available. Per the RFC's .com was for businesses, .org was for non-profits, and .net was for for network access providers which was more loosely defined as "anything else." So we get hit first because we chose the best fit the guidelines gave for "personal" domains?
And guess what the #1 reason was for getting personal domains? So I would never have to change email address again. Switching to another TLD everytime the price structure changes would kind of defeat that, no?
Maybe there needs to be a fee of some kind. Maybe not. But if there needs to be a fee, it should be levied on domains that produce income.