It wouldn't be smart for a contractor to accept handing over the copyright. I have been working as a software contractor for years, and I keep the copyright on everything I write. So, if I write some generic library, say a fixed point math library for a small microcontroller, I don't want to hand over the copyright, and have to reinvent the whole thing for another customer. Over the years, I've collected a large amount of useful code, which means that I can start a new project for a new customer, and quickly piece together a bunch of old chunks of code, make some modifications, add some customer specific stuff, and be done. The customer is happy because he doesn't have to pay for all the hours I didn't waste, and I give them a permissive license so they can basically use the code for anything they'd like (except to distribute the source code).
It doesn't matter where your copy of the code comes from. You have obtained a copy, and your client is trying to prohibit you from spreading it. Clause 2b states that any of your modifications must be licensed as a whole to all 3rd parties. Your client doesn't have the right to stop you.
Besides, it's all pointless anyway. If the client that you made the code for is making products and selling the binary, any of their customers can obtain the sources, and publish them anyway.
No, GPL clause 6 explicitly states that you may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted in the GPL. So you cannot sign a contract that prohibits you from distributing the program in accordance with the GPL. While it is true that the GPL does not require you to return any code upstream, it does not allow any way to prevent this either.
So instead of a programmer grabbing a Linux kernel, and spending a few days to add a driver for customer specific hardware, you would advocate that he wrote his own operating system instead ?
Why not wait a few hundred or thousand years ? There's absolutely no rush to send fragile humans in a tin can to Mars where there will be nothing but inhospitable wasteland waiting for them. It's much smarter to keep sending robots until Mars is actually a pleasant place to stay. Robots are much, much cheaper, and can be deployed a lot faster too.
How about a much simpler hypothesis: life in the universe is abundant, but just never generates enough energy to be noticeable at the distances involved. For instance, genocide is a much simpler solution to deal with growing energy needs on a planet.
The single-cycle rule is bogus. Plenty of ARM instructions (branches, multiply, load/store multiple) take more than 1 cycle, and plenty of x86 instructions only take 1.
On the other hand, if you look at the ice volume, and extend that line down, it's not very far anymore.
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1343965558784/home/piomas/piomas-trnd6.png
Extend is tricky, because you can have a large extend made from a big layer of really thin ice. The thin ice will melt rather quickly, and in addition to melting in-situ, thin ice will also break into small pieces and be carried away by ocean currents or wind to warmer water.
On the other hand, satellites aren't very good at seeing the difference between open water, and melt ponds on the ice surface, making the area measurements somewhat more unreliable during summer time.
In addition, the heat released from an Arctic sea floor volcano wouldn't even make it to the surface. The top 50 meter layer of the Arctic Ocean has lower salinity and lower temperature than the water deeper down. The low salinity helps to keep this layer intact, and acts as a barrier between the ice and the much warmer water underneath. Heat from a volcano would be mixed in the warm bottom layer, and would be moved away by the ocean currents before it ever had a chance to interact with the ice.
Sure, everybody will be watching in the first week, but then they'll go back to playing Angry Birds, updating their Facebook status, or doing other important work.
The Viking settlements on Greenland are on the coast, and are still green today. It's the mainland that's covered in ice and snow, but that has been the case for at least 100,000 years.
FAT is also a better file system for flash drives, because the flash firmware is optimized for it. For that reason, it's also best not to repartition or reformat a flash drive with different FAT parameters.
The question is: Can an USB device snoop on other devices traffic?
No, it can't. The upstream hub only sends data to a port that's destined for the attached device. I've seen some hubs also "broadcast" some setup packets, but they wouldn't have any useful information. The only exception would be if the device is a USB hub, which naturally has to pass through all the traffic for the attached devices.
How about this: they start doing something other than what they were doing before they got laid off because their particular labour could be done more efficiently without them?
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't be smart for a contractor to accept handing over the copyright. I have been working as a software contractor for years, and I keep the copyright on everything I write. So, if I write some generic library, say a fixed point math library for a small microcontroller, I don't want to hand over the copyright, and have to reinvent the whole thing for another customer. Over the years, I've collected a large amount of useful code, which means that I can start a new project for a new customer, and quickly piece together a bunch of old chunks of code, make some modifications, add some customer specific stuff, and be done. The customer is happy because he doesn't have to pay for all the hours I didn't waste, and I give them a permissive license so they can basically use the code for anything they'd like (except to distribute the source code).
It doesn't matter where your copy of the code comes from. You have obtained a copy, and your client is trying to prohibit you from spreading it. Clause 2b states that any of your modifications must be licensed as a whole to all 3rd parties. Your client doesn't have the right to stop you. Besides, it's all pointless anyway. If the client that you made the code for is making products and selling the binary, any of their customers can obtain the sources, and publish them anyway.
No, GPL clause 6 explicitly states that you may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted in the GPL. So you cannot sign a contract that prohibits you from distributing the program in accordance with the GPL. While it is true that the GPL does not require you to return any code upstream, it does not allow any way to prevent this either.
So instead of a programmer grabbing a Linux kernel, and spending a few days to add a driver for customer specific hardware, you would advocate that he wrote his own operating system instead ?
I'm pretty sure Linus would rather that the old farts and interns stay out of the kernel, so they fact they won't understand it, is only a bonus.
Why not wait a few hundred or thousand years ? There's absolutely no rush to send fragile humans in a tin can to Mars where there will be nothing but inhospitable wasteland waiting for them. It's much smarter to keep sending robots until Mars is actually a pleasant place to stay. Robots are much, much cheaper, and can be deployed a lot faster too.
Physics control the oil. Sorry.
How about a much simpler hypothesis: life in the universe is abundant, but just never generates enough energy to be noticeable at the distances involved. For instance, genocide is a much simpler solution to deal with growing energy needs on a planet.
They'll find nothing.
The single-cycle rule is bogus. Plenty of ARM instructions (branches, multiply, load/store multiple) take more than 1 cycle, and plenty of x86 instructions only take 1.
Here's a reconstruction of the last 1400+ years. On that graph we are now below 4 million. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/1400-years-of-arctic-ice/
On the other hand, if you look at the ice volume, and extend that line down, it's not very far anymore. https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1343965558784/home/piomas/piomas-trnd6.png Extend is tricky, because you can have a large extend made from a big layer of really thin ice. The thin ice will melt rather quickly, and in addition to melting in-situ, thin ice will also break into small pieces and be carried away by ocean currents or wind to warmer water.
Oil from the North Sea is shipped to Europe.
On the other hand, satellites aren't very good at seeing the difference between open water, and melt ponds on the ice surface, making the area measurements somewhat more unreliable during summer time.
In addition, the heat released from an Arctic sea floor volcano wouldn't even make it to the surface. The top 50 meter layer of the Arctic Ocean has lower salinity and lower temperature than the water deeper down. The low salinity helps to keep this layer intact, and acts as a barrier between the ice and the much warmer water underneath. Heat from a volcano would be mixed in the warm bottom layer, and would be moved away by the ocean currents before it ever had a chance to interact with the ice.
Evolution of language is just a theory.
You may want to look a bit further. We do have many examples of speciation by evolution.
Sure, everybody will be watching in the first week, but then they'll go back to playing Angry Birds, updating their Facebook status, or doing other important work.
The Viking settlements on Greenland are on the coast, and are still green today. It's the mainland that's covered in ice and snow, but that has been the case for at least 100,000 years.
FAT is also a better file system for flash drives, because the flash firmware is optimized for it. For that reason, it's also best not to repartition or reformat a flash drive with different FAT parameters.
A CD-R might be considered more suspicious. They don't typically fall out of somebody's pocket while they grab their car keys.
The question is: Can an USB device snoop on other devices traffic?
No, it can't. The upstream hub only sends data to a port that's destined for the attached device. I've seen some hubs also "broadcast" some setup packets, but they wouldn't have any useful information. The only exception would be if the device is a USB hub, which naturally has to pass through all the traffic for the attached devices.
No. If you plug in such a USB device, it will only get the traffic designated for it, and it won't see the traffic for your keyboard or mouse.
and those who do control the production equipment have no incentive to just give away their products for free
"If you give me access to the production equipment, I'll give you your daughter back"
How about this: they start doing something other than what they were doing before they got laid off because their particular labour could be done more efficiently without them?
There's a limit to what people can learn to do.