"perhaps some some expanding" Is that what you call "more than doubled"?
Bush sucked. He outspent. Obama more than doubled the deficit. Bush supported questionable intelligence gathering. Obama more than doubled it, actually recording more cometh medications between US citizens than foreign communications.
By any objective measure, Bush sucked, then Obama sucked twice as much.
The HUGE difference there is that Apache doesn't have code copy-pasted from the kernel. Themes generally have a lot of code, in some cases most of their code , copied directly from the default theme. That means the theme, the entire theme, is under the GPL.
In a more borderline case, say a small extension that doesn't use any code copied directly from the original project, there is a simple test for "derivative work". You said "Linux build" of Apache. The same source will build and run on FreeBSD or Mac OSX. That strongly suggests it's an independent work from the Linux kernel. On the other hand, a WordPress plugin can only run as part of WordPress. You can't consume compile a WordPress plugin for VBulletin instead. Therefore it's not separate and indrpendent from WordPress.
So long and thanks for all the fish, Altavista. I first learned search engine optimization by studying Alatavista, then moved on to Hotbot (Inktomi). That was the beginning of a great business, and my first good paying job.
Absolutely. I used to do security for adult sites and even I had informants in the "haxor" community, and a few message board nicks on cracker forums. Funny, after being on some of those boards for fifteen years I was pretty well trusted. If the true professionals at the FBI, CIA, and NSA didn't have informants they'd. Z be completely incompetent .
> Please, if you can't use SSL+TCP for text chat and keep it real time
They could have, but QUIC is "better" for their use cases. In many ways, it's like an improved version of TCP. It runs on top of UDP simply because routers, firewalls, etc. often only speak TCP and UDP. From the FAQ:
> it is unlikely to see significant adoption of client-side TCP changes in less than 5-15 years. QUIC allows us to test and experiment with new ideas, > and to get results sooner. We are hopeful that QUIC features will migrate into TCP and TLS if they prove effective.
> You can outright lose data. Your packets can arrive out of order. It's okay with video data where a hiccup only makes a few missing pixels, > but with text, that's a terrible idea.
Unless of course the protocol you're running over UDP handles that stuff, just like TCP handles that stuff. Normally, it's a bad idea to use UDP to run a protocol that has in-order packets, guaranteed delivery, etc. because TCP already gives you that. Why re-invent TCP? Unless you're going to spend a few million dollars on R&D to make your UDP-based protocol actually be better than TCP, you should just use TCP.
That "unless you're going to spend a few million dollars on R&D" is the key here. Google DID make the investment, so the protocol actually does work better for the particular use than TCP does.
Slippery slope is a fallacy only when there is no evidence that the slope exists.
It's well produce proven that government will in fact stretch any powers they are given to the limit. As example, the US federal government was given the power to regulate commerce between the states. Based on that power, they made it illegal to grow vegetables in your home garden, for you to eat. There's nothing interstate about that, and no commerce, but nevertheless govt did that under the interstate commerce clause. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
My friend built a better programmed social network before anyone had heard of Facebook. It had more features, done better. That friend got around 5-20 people to sign up. Guess who won, my friend, or Zuckerberg? A social network is an extreme example of what's generally true - good technicians are one of the least important things for building a huge business. Zuck is a great business person and leader. (I don't personally use Facebook, FYI).
Has McDonald's sold a hundred billion burgers because Ray Kroc was an amazing cook? He was an amazing entrepreneur. McDonald's isn't even in the food business. It's in the _real_estate_ business. They make most of their money leasing buildings to their franchisees. Similarly, Facebook isn't in the programming business.
The point of the resume is to show how you are qualified for the job you are applying for. If you apply for several similar jobs, you might submit similar versions of the resume, of course. Therefore, how you should present X on your resume depends entirely on what job you're seeking. Since you gave no clue what job you're trying to qualify yourself for, there's no way to answer.
For example, if you were applying for a job where they are looking for someone who is obsessive about getting every detail exactly precise 100% of the time, such as "nuclear powerplant _____", your resume would indicate that you operated a $30 million plane precisely, delivering your payload with pinpoint precision, where the consequences of error were literally life and death. You'd point to similar aspects of your engineering work - blah blah 6 nanometers blah.
If you're going for a position where the big deal is leadership and chain of command, tat would be a completely different presentation of your experience.
Compare.NET code to the compiled machine code. Which is easier to understand and work on? The.net runtime is nothing but a set of functions in a separate file. using simple functions means main()can be an outline of the program, for example .
By any measure, Linus Torvalds is an incredibly successful programmer. His guideline is 6-8 lines per function or so.
Consider these two example programs: Stand Turn left Walk four steps Turn right Walk two steps Turn right... 1000 more lines
Vs: heatlunch() readslashdot()
Even if the function heatlunch() is used nowhere else, using it makes the program far more understandable than inlining the walking code to get to the microwave.
> a distributor can distribute something that is "the work" alongside (and potentially intermingled with) something that isn't "the work" without causing the two to become mixed
I'm not sure how you can have it "intermingled with" but not "mixed", but les pretend that sentence somehow makes sense. You pointed to the aggregation clause. You looked at the second half of the sentence, how about the first half of the sentence you point to:
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it..
So that applies to "separate and independent works" which are NOT extensions of the original work. So would that apply to the stuff on http://extensions.joomla.org/ ? Interesting URL, isn't that? Your argument can make sense only if you claim that Joomla extensions aren't extensions of Joomla.
"Mere aggregation" is when two SEPARATE works such as Apache and Firefox are burned to the same disk.
I imagine they'll do the same thing as all the scribes, elevator operators, and weavers who have been replaced by machines. Some of them will be like my buddy and get paid better money to maintain and operate the new machines, he is an engineer taking care of weaving machines. The rest will become datacenter techs, web designers, whatever new jobs are required.
As I typed this post my phone auto corrected "elevator operator" to "website operator". My phone knows elevator operators are replaced by website operators. It is seemingly smarter than the person I'm replying to.
The GPL license isn't that long . You could probably read it in one trip to the bathroom.
If you read it, you'll find that: No, you do not have to make your modifications public . If you CHOOSE to distribute a binary, you must offer to distribute the source as well.
The intent, the spirit, IS made explicit in the first paragraph, the preamble.
It seems like the biggest reason people buy Red Hat is because it's a trusted brand. There are thousands of software packages on a Red Hat disk. People trust that Red Hat has selected good software, patched it as needed, and integrated the various pieces of software.
That's an interesting point. Section 5(c) of the GPL copyright license seems to give you COPYRIGHT rights to distribute the art under GPL:
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
However, according to both RedHat and the CentOS project, most distribution of RedHat logos and other "proprietary images" is still covered under TRADEMARK rights. The Red Hat logo marks it as a Red Hat product, so though they may not have a COPYRIGHT claim thanks to the GPL, they'd still have a trademark claim if you used their name and logo on something other than their product. Therefore, the CentOS project replaces images of the RedHat logo, the RedHat name, and similar trademarks.
I'm quoting the plain text of the license. Section 5(c) for you:
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
I don't understanding what it's implying, you say? That's not an implication, that's a plain declaration, and in case anyone was too dense to understand "you must license the entire work, as a whole", they repeated it AGAIN, saying "the whole of the work, and all its parts".
As for "if you're using the stock GPL license" look at the VERY FIRST LINE of the license, even before the preamble:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
So yeah, you're using the stock GPL license. Funny you want to act like you're an expert on the GPL, even though you've clearly not even read the FIRST LINE of it. Seriously dude, it's okay not to be THEexpert on everything. You don't have to act like you know more than everyone else on every topic and act like I"M clueless when I've actually taken legal action under the GPL, so I kind of know WTF it says. Next time, instead of arguing from ignorance, try reading the darn thing and learning what it says. It's not that long.
The GPL license under which I give away my work says that IF YOU WANT TO DIDTRIBUTE A MODIFIED VERSION , you have to also license "the complete work, as a whole" as GPL. You are free to sell image sets that can be used with WordPress and user any license you wish . However, if you want to distribute my code with it as a complete theme, the only license you have for distributing my code is if you distribute the whole thing as GPL. Icons and CSS COULD be sold as completely separate works, but that would mean not including any WordPress derived PHP in the package.
Also, Google's engineers LIKE nifty algorithms. They like to play around and see if they can get a computer to do X, whether that's speech recognition, driverless cars, whatever. Once the engineer had a working algorithm, the suits could choose between two options: A) show results with child porn B) show results without child porn
Once you have the option, B seems to be a fairly obvious choice.
About a year ago I started working for a government agency, one that is lauded for it's enforced efficiency compared to other agencies. The waste is absolutely. obscene. We spend ten times as much money and yen times as long to do anything compared to a typical company. For the same cost, corporations will save ten times as many lives. Government in America was designed to be fair, rewritable equitable, and accountable, not effective or efficient. If you wanted to cease any progress in medicine, the best way to ensure no new treatments are developed may be to assign the task to the government.
Yeah, the cuffs are mainly to get the person to the car safely, and talking to them. I wouldn't be to concerned about a suspect picking the cuffs while an officer is talking to them. The LEOs who still use chain cuffs do so not because they are a dollar cheaper, but because they are safer for the suspect's wrists. On the other hand, the extra flexibility means they are less safe for the officer (or bounty hunter or whoever.). I'm sure some still use the cuffs they've been using for a long time, too, just because they don't feel a need to change after many years.
This is based on first I was a magician/escape artist who studied Houdini's notes, then I was a locksmith for a little while, then a bounty hunter.
You are confusing pentalobe with something else. Apple calls them "Pentalobular security screws" and introduced them in 2009. What exactly do you think "security screws" means? A standard description is: "The head of this type of screw is impossible to reverse. It requires special tools or mechanisms.
A leading manufacturer of security screws says they are: Security fasteners,as the name indicates, are fasteners that provide an added level of security by their drive design that prevents removal with ordinary screw drivers.
Apple doesn't call them "pentalobular won't strip screws", they cal them "pentalobular security screws", telling us exactly what their reason was - to make sure you couldn't easily replace your own battery or anything using standard tools.
It sounds like you are only with one type, chain cuffs. They were popular for a few decades. They could be opened with a wire while wearing them,especially if not double locked.
Most cuffs before and since don't have the chain in the middle, so if applied correctly it's nearly impossible to TOUCH the keyhole, much less pick it. If you can get the sound your butt and legs, you might be able to learn to pick them while holding the pick in your mouth.
The last two places I've lived cooks did have permits. That is in addition to license the restaurant, daycare center or other business handling food has.
For a food handler making $8 - $10 / hour, the permit requires a one-day class. If they screw up, someone might get food poisoning . For an attorney to make ten times as much, the license requires seven years of school. If they screw up, someone might go to prison.
Where on the professionalism / risk scale should web developers be? Should they require LESS training than a fry cook?
Slashdot Mirror
"perhaps some some expanding"
Is that what you call "more than doubled"?
Bush sucked. He outspent. Obama more than doubled the deficit.
Bush supported questionable intelligence gathering. Obama more than doubled it, actually recording more cometh medications between US citizens than foreign communications.
By any objective measure, Bush sucked, then Obama sucked twice as much.
The HUGE difference there is that Apache doesn't have code copy-pasted from the kernel.
Themes generally have a lot of code, in some cases most of their code , copied directly from the default theme. That means the theme, the entire theme, is under the GPL.
In a more borderline case, say a small extension that doesn't use any code copied directly from the original project, there is a simple test for "derivative work". You said "Linux build" of Apache. The same source will build and run on FreeBSD or Mac OSX. That strongly suggests it's an independent work from the Linux kernel. On the other hand, a WordPress plugin can only run as part of WordPress. You can't consume compile a WordPress plugin for VBulletin instead. Therefore it's not separate and indrpendent from WordPress.
So long and thanks for all the fish, Altavista.
I first learned search engine optimization by studying Alatavista, then moved on to Hotbot (Inktomi).
That was the beginning of a great business, and my first good paying job.
Absolutely. I used to do security for adult sites and even I had informants in the "haxor" community, and a few message board nicks on cracker forums. Funny, after being on some of those boards for fifteen years I was pretty well trusted. If the true professionals at the FBI, CIA, and NSA didn't have informants they'd. Z be completely incompetent .
> Please, if you can't use SSL+TCP for text chat and keep it real time
They could have, but QUIC is "better" for their use cases. In many ways, it's like an improved version of TCP. It runs on top of UDP simply
because routers, firewalls, etc. often only speak TCP and UDP. From the FAQ:
> it is unlikely to see significant adoption of client-side TCP changes in less than 5-15 years. QUIC allows us to test and experiment with new ideas,
> and to get results sooner. We are hopeful that QUIC features will migrate into TCP and TLS if they prove effective.
> You can outright lose data. Your packets can arrive out of order. It's okay with video data where a hiccup only makes a few missing pixels,
> but with text, that's a terrible idea.
Unless of course the protocol you're running over UDP handles that stuff, just like TCP handles that stuff.
Normally, it's a bad idea to use UDP to run a protocol that has in-order packets, guaranteed delivery, etc. because TCP already gives you that.
Why re-invent TCP? Unless you're going to spend a few million dollars on R&D to make your UDP-based protocol actually be better than TCP,
you should just use TCP.
That "unless you're going to spend a few million dollars on R&D" is the key here. Google DID make the investment, so the protocol actually does
work better for the particular use than TCP does.
Slippery slope is a fallacy only when there is no evidence that the slope exists.
It's well produce proven that government will in fact stretch any powers they are given to the limit. As example, the US federal government was given the power to regulate commerce between the states. Based on that power, they made it illegal to grow vegetables in your home garden, for you to eat. There's nothing interstate about that, and no commerce, but nevertheless govt did that under the interstate commerce clause.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
My friend built a better programmed social network before anyone had heard of Facebook. It had more features, done better. That friend got around 5-20 people to sign up. Guess who won, my friend, or Zuckerberg? A social network is an extreme example of what's generally true - good technicians are one of the least important things for building a huge business. Zuck is a great business person and leader. (I don't personally use Facebook, FYI).
Has McDonald's sold a hundred billion burgers because Ray Kroc was an amazing cook? He was an amazing entrepreneur. McDonald's isn't even in the food business. It's in the _real_estate_ business. They make most of their money leasing buildings to their franchisees. Similarly, Facebook isn't in the programming business.
The point of the resume is to show how you are qualified for the job you are applying for. If you apply for several similar jobs, you might submit similar versions of the resume, of course.
Therefore, how you should present X on your resume depends entirely on what job you're seeking. Since you gave no clue what job you're trying to qualify yourself for, there's no way to answer.
For example, if you were applying for a job where they are looking for someone who is obsessive about getting every detail exactly precise 100% of the time, such as "nuclear powerplant _____", your resume would indicate that you operated a $30 million plane precisely, delivering your payload with pinpoint precision, where the consequences of error were literally life and death. You'd point to similar aspects of your engineering work - blah blah 6 nanometers blah.
If you're going for a position where the big deal is leadership and chain of command, tat would be a completely different presentation of your experience.
Compare .NET code to the compiled machine code. .net runtime is nothing but a set of functions in a separate file. using simple functions means main()can be an outline of the program, for example .
... 1000 more lines
Which is easier to understand and work on? The
By any measure, Linus Torvalds is an incredibly successful programmer. His guideline is 6-8 lines per function or so.
Consider these two example programs:
Stand
Turn left
Walk four steps
Turn right
Walk two steps
Turn right
Vs:
heatlunch()
readslashdot()
Even if the function heatlunch() is used nowhere else, using it makes the program far more understandable than inlining the walking code to get to the microwave.
That's what the nanny state is for, to coddle those who'd rather eat Cheetos and watch honey boo boo than do something productive.
> a distributor can distribute something that is "the work" alongside (and potentially intermingled with) something that isn't "the work" without causing the two to become mixed
..
I'm not sure how you can have it "intermingled with" but not "mixed", but les pretend that sentence somehow makes sense.
You pointed to the aggregation clause. You looked at the second half of the sentence, how about the first half of the sentence you point to:
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it
So that applies to "separate and independent works" which are NOT extensions of the original work.
So would that apply to the stuff on http://extensions.joomla.org/ ? Interesting URL, isn't that? Your argument can make sense only if you claim that Joomla extensions aren't extensions of Joomla.
"Mere aggregation" is when two SEPARATE works such as Apache and Firefox are burned to the same disk.
I imagine they'll do the same thing as all the scribes, elevator operators, and weavers who have been replaced by machines.
Some of them will be like my buddy and get paid better money to maintain and operate the new machines, he is an engineer taking care of weaving machines.
The rest will become datacenter techs, web designers, whatever new jobs are required.
As I typed this post my phone auto corrected "elevator operator" to "website operator".
My phone knows elevator operators are replaced by website operators. It is seemingly smarter than the person I'm replying to.
The GPL license isn't that long . You could probably read it in one trip to the bathroom.
If you read it, you'll find that:
No, you do not have to make your modifications public .
If you CHOOSE to distribute a binary, you must offer to distribute the source as well.
The intent, the spirit, IS made explicit in the first paragraph, the preamble.
It seems like the biggest reason people buy Red Hat is because it's a trusted brand. There are thousands of software packages on a Red Hat disk. People trust that Red Hat has selected good software, patched it as needed, and integrated the various pieces of software.
That's an interesting point. Section 5(c) of the GPL copyright license seems to give you COPYRIGHT rights to distribute the art under GPL:
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
However, according to both RedHat and the CentOS project, most distribution of RedHat logos and other "proprietary images" is still covered under TRADEMARK rights.
The Red Hat logo marks it as a Red Hat product, so though they may not have a COPYRIGHT claim thanks to the GPL, they'd still have a trademark claim if you used
their name and logo on something other than their product. Therefore, the CentOS project replaces images of the RedHat logo, the RedHat name, and similar trademarks.
I'm quoting the plain text of the license. Section 5(c) for you:
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
I don't understanding what it's implying, you say? That's not an implication, that's a plain declaration, and in case anyone was too dense to understand
"you must license the entire work, as a whole", they repeated it AGAIN, saying "the whole of the work, and all its parts".
As for "if you're using the stock GPL license" look at the VERY FIRST LINE of the license, even before the preamble:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
So yeah, you're using the stock GPL license. Funny you want to act like you're an expert on the GPL, even though you've clearly not even read the FIRST LINE of it.
Seriously dude, it's okay not to be THEexpert on everything. You don't have to act like you know more than everyone else on every topic and act like I"M clueless when
I've actually taken legal action under the GPL, so I kind of know WTF it says. Next time, instead of arguing from ignorance, try reading the darn thing and learning what it says. It's not that long.
The GPL license under which I give away my work says that IF YOU WANT TO DIDTRIBUTE A MODIFIED VERSION , you have to also license "the complete work, as a whole" as GPL.
You are free to sell image sets that can be used with WordPress and user any license you wish . However, if you want to distribute my code with it as a complete theme, the only license you have for distributing my code is if you distribute the whole thing as GPL. Icons and CSS COULD be sold as completely separate works, but that would mean not including any WordPress derived PHP in the package.
Also, Google's engineers LIKE nifty algorithms. They like to play around and see if they can get a computer to do X, whether that's speech recognition, driverless cars, whatever. Once the engineer had a working algorithm, the suits could choose between two options:
A) show results with child porn
B) show results without child porn
Once you have the option, B seems to be a fairly obvious choice.
About a year ago I started working for a government agency, one that is lauded for it's enforced efficiency compared to other agencies. The waste is absolutely. obscene. We spend ten times as much money and yen times as long to do anything compared to a typical company. For the same cost, corporations will save ten times as many lives. Government in America was designed to be fair, rewritable equitable, and accountable, not effective or efficient. If you wanted to cease any progress in medicine, the best way to ensure no new treatments are developed may be to assign the task to the government.
Yeah, the cuffs are mainly to get the person to the car safely, and talking to them.
I wouldn't be to concerned about a suspect picking the cuffs while an officer is talking to them.
The LEOs who still use chain cuffs do so not because they are a dollar cheaper, but because they are safer for the suspect's wrists. On the other hand, the extra flexibility means they are less safe for the officer (or bounty hunter or whoever.). I'm sure some still use the cuffs they've been using for a long time, too, just because they don't feel a need to change after many years.
This is based on first I was a magician/escape artist who studied Houdini's notes, then I was a locksmith for a little while, then a bounty hunter.
You are confusing pentalobe with something else. Apple calls them "Pentalobular security screws" and introduced them in 2009.
What exactly do you think "security screws" means? A standard description is:
"The head of this type of screw is impossible to reverse. It requires special tools or mechanisms.
A leading manufacturer of security screws says they are:
Security fasteners,as the name indicates, are fasteners that provide an added level of security by their drive design that prevents removal with ordinary screw drivers.
Apple doesn't call them "pentalobular won't strip screws", they cal them "pentalobular security screws", telling us exactly what their reason was - to make sure you couldn't easily replace your own battery or anything using standard tools.
"you are only FAMILIAR with" of course.
I was on a mobile. You can tell it's not an iPhone, because on an iPhone the first sentence would read:
Is stands hike ewe er any family are width won tip, change cops.
It sounds like you are only with one type, chain cuffs. They were popular for a few decades.
They could be opened with a wire while wearing them,especially if not double locked.
Most cuffs before and since don't have the chain in the middle, so if applied correctly it's nearly impossible to TOUCH the keyhole, much less pick it. If you can get the sound your butt and legs, you might be able to learn to pick them while holding the pick in your mouth.
The last two places I've lived cooks did have permits.
That is in addition to license the restaurant, daycare center or other business handling food has.
For a food handler making $8 - $10 / hour, the permit requires a one-day class. If they screw up, someone might get food poisoning . For an attorney to make ten times as much, the license requires seven years of school. If they screw up, someone might go to prison.
Where on the professionalism / risk scale should web developers be? Should they require LESS training than a fry cook?
The real villains are the local authorities who allowed buildings that had been safe for centuries to be occupied.
FTFY?