In addition, there's the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives people the right to peacefully protest, as other people here have mentioned.
The first amendment sets up boundaries that legislatures cannot cross to "stifle dissent". That doesnt mean you can just randomly go onto private property and reserve it for the exclusive use of your own group at any time and then claim "But FIRST AMENDMENT!"
No, but you can go to the owner of the property and ask permission. This is what happened. The city asked for permission to have public access 24/7 and the owner agreed to it.
Im quite sure the Zucotti Park agreement did not entitle members of the public to turn it into a campground, and Im quite certain that the first amendment doesnt get rid of zoning laws.
Why do you think that the agreement didn't allow people to camp there? From the wording of the agreement, it seems pretty clear that it did exactly that.
If career advancement is truely a concern, by first suggestion would be to review job descriptions for higher positions in your projected career path - do the require college degrees? As I recall, MS (if that is where you work) had a couple of very senior executives without college degrees, they most likely included wiggle-room in their job descriptions to allow for alternative education paths.
Finally, you are already inside - typically the folks that care about technical issues like college degrees are in HR, and their main "contribution" is weeding out applicants - you've avoided that threat, and apparently the line managers appreciate your proven talents.
I would have a plan to complete a college degree, but only invoke it if you find that a degree is really *required* for advancement.
But what happens if he loses his job due to the company having financial problems or outsourcing or whatever? He will be competing with people with the same amount of experience and a BS/MS. Why would another company even bother to interview him when they have 100 other people with better qualifications (or at least the ones that can be easily measured?)
What prevents him from simply getting a BSc and leaving for another company with more pay?
Also, it's somewhat strange that the company should make an investment in his level of education, and yet the return will go to him (I'm sure he would expect a higher salary).
Lots of companies do this. You seem to completely ignore the possibility that the company could be interested in having its workers be more skilled, and willing to pay for higher skill levels.
Many companies attach commitments to the money. For example, if you leave within 1-2 years of them paying for a class then you have to pay them back.
I just coded the final lab for bunch of University of Arizona (or some college near by) just for kicks... Took me 12 hours and these dudes probably had more than four months to do it.
If I can do that, there must be some value to my skill... I'm just a high school graduate... Couple of years of University of Helsinki CS (I think Torvalds was still there when I started), but lost interest when I realized I know how to do stuff.
The "final lab" is probably not as hard as a typical assignment in a compilers class.
Take bounce back. Clearly Samsung implemented bounce back, clearly the jury found the Samsung mechanism was closely enough to Apple's to violate the patents. How does this not get upheld?
Look and feel issues like home button, rounded corners, tapered edges... that is making a product that appears to similar to another competing product. That sort of thing gets enforced all the time. Fake watches, fake coats, fake purses, There is nothing unusual there.
etc...
No. You are free to copy the *exact* design for a coat except for a trademarked logo. If you want to compare fashion to this case, it would mean that Samsung would be allowed to copy everything about the i* design except the Apple Logo. Watch this video for details on how the fashion industry has no copyright protection at all: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
I would argue that most of the scientists you hear arguing for atheism have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, because they assume that if it exists in any way, it can be reached scientifically, and that anything that cannot be reached scientifically, cannot exist (that combined with their reluctance to trust the authority of anyone or anything they can't understand tends to lead them to atheism). That doesn't follow. Mind you, anything that occurs in the natural world does (so magic is right out), but you cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural beings existing. You can put conditions on them: for example, they cannot have mass or speed or heat or be visible (otherwise they would fall under physics... part of the reason people attempting magic are foolish), but none of those things are required to actually exist. You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.
I would argue that you have no clue what the majority of scientists think unless you can provide some evidence to back up this belief. I think most scientists acknowledge that things exist that cannot currently be proved/disproved. That part is easy to test. You can ask all sorts of scientific questions that are impossible to prove. Most scientists that argue for Atheism don't rule out the possibility of gods existing. They just don't see sufficient evidence to support that theory. If someone suggests a theory about how wonderful their god is, I think most atheists who are scientists would offer the alternative theory that people invented the so-called god to feel better about themselves. Since we have countless examples of this, it makes a pretty good theory.
You would have a really hard time maintaining it. The stuff that was removed allows them to change a whole mess of things that will become incompatible to backport from
People still using 386's probably don't update very often.
Hi.
I have just purchased the app and e-mailed the author asking for the source code. I got a prompt response that he is away from his desk and that he will forward the code to me tomorrow. He also asked me to forward my google play order reciept, which I did.
I will update everyone when I get the source code.
Is there a particular place that you would like me to put it? Sourceforge? somewhere else? Suggestions are welcome.
~Randy
Attached is a link to the source code that he sent me. I just installed dropbox, so I am not sure how long this will take to be synchronized to the web site.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/19038556/dosbox_151.tar.bz2
Hi.
I have just purchased the app and e-mailed the author asking for the source code. I got a prompt response that he is away from his desk and that he will forward the code to me tomorrow. He also asked me to forward my google play order reciept, which I did.
I will update everyone when I get the source code.
Is there a particular place that you would like me to put it? Sourceforge? somewhere else? Suggestions are welcome.
~Randy
Slashdot Mirror
In addition, there's the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives people the right to peacefully protest, as other people here have mentioned.
The first amendment sets up boundaries that legislatures cannot cross to "stifle dissent". That doesnt mean you can just randomly go onto private property and reserve it for the exclusive use of your own group at any time and then claim "But FIRST AMENDMENT!"
No, but you can go to the owner of the property and ask permission. This is what happened. The city asked for permission to have public access 24/7 and the owner agreed to it.
Im quite sure the Zucotti Park agreement did not entitle members of the public to turn it into a campground, and Im quite certain that the first amendment doesnt get rid of zoning laws.
Why do you think that the agreement didn't allow people to camp there? From the wording of the agreement, it seems pretty clear that it did exactly that.
Software development company with 50K employees?
If career advancement is truely a concern, by first suggestion would be to review job descriptions for higher positions in your projected career path - do the require college degrees? As I recall, MS (if that is where you work) had a couple of very senior executives without college degrees, they most likely included wiggle-room in their job descriptions to allow for alternative education paths.
Finally, you are already inside - typically the folks that care about technical issues like college degrees are in HR, and their main "contribution" is weeding out applicants - you've avoided that threat, and apparently the line managers appreciate your proven talents.
I would have a plan to complete a college degree, but only invoke it if you find that a degree is really *required* for advancement.
But what happens if he loses his job due to the company having financial problems or outsourcing or whatever? He will be competing with people with the same amount of experience and a BS/MS. Why would another company even bother to interview him when they have 100 other people with better qualifications (or at least the ones that can be easily measured?)
What prevents him from simply getting a BSc and leaving for another company with more pay?
Also, it's somewhat strange that the company should make an investment in his level of education, and yet the return will go to him (I'm sure he would expect a higher salary).
Lots of companies do this. You seem to completely ignore the possibility that the company could be interested in having its workers be more skilled, and willing to pay for higher skill levels.
Many companies attach commitments to the money. For example, if you leave within 1-2 years of them paying for a class then you have to pay them back.
I just coded the final lab for bunch of University of Arizona (or some college near by) just for kicks... Took me 12 hours and these dudes probably had more than four months to do it. If I can do that, there must be some value to my skill... I'm just a high school graduate... Couple of years of University of Helsinki CS (I think Torvalds was still there when I started), but lost interest when I realized I know how to do stuff.
The "final lab" is probably not as hard as a typical assignment in a compilers class.
No I don't follow.
Take bounce back. Clearly Samsung implemented bounce back, clearly the jury found the Samsung mechanism was closely enough to Apple's to violate the patents. How does this not get upheld?
Look and feel issues like home button, rounded corners, tapered edges... that is making a product that appears to similar to another competing product. That sort of thing gets enforced all the time. Fake watches, fake coats, fake purses, There is nothing unusual there.
etc...
No. You are free to copy the *exact* design for a coat except for a trademarked logo. If you want to compare fashion to this case, it would mean that Samsung would be allowed to copy everything about the i* design except the Apple Logo. Watch this video for details on how the fashion industry has no copyright protection at all: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?
Because we all know British people can't speak proper English like Americans?
I would argue that most of the scientists you hear arguing for atheism have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, because they assume that if it exists in any way, it can be reached scientifically, and that anything that cannot be reached scientifically, cannot exist (that combined with their reluctance to trust the authority of anyone or anything they can't understand tends to lead them to atheism). That doesn't follow. Mind you, anything that occurs in the natural world does (so magic is right out), but you cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural beings existing. You can put conditions on them: for example, they cannot have mass or speed or heat or be visible (otherwise they would fall under physics... part of the reason people attempting magic are foolish), but none of those things are required to actually exist. You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.
I would argue that you have no clue what the majority of scientists think unless you can provide some evidence to back up this belief. I think most scientists acknowledge that things exist that cannot currently be proved/disproved. That part is easy to test. You can ask all sorts of scientific questions that are impossible to prove. Most scientists that argue for Atheism don't rule out the possibility of gods existing. They just don't see sufficient evidence to support that theory. If someone suggests a theory about how wonderful their god is, I think most atheists who are scientists would offer the alternative theory that people invented the so-called god to feel better about themselves. Since we have countless examples of this, it makes a pretty good theory.
You would have a really hard time maintaining it. The stuff that was removed allows them to change a whole mess of things that will become incompatible to backport from
People still using 386's probably don't update very often.
Hi. I have just purchased the app and e-mailed the author asking for the source code. I got a prompt response that he is away from his desk and that he will forward the code to me tomorrow. He also asked me to forward my google play order reciept, which I did. I will update everyone when I get the source code. Is there a particular place that you would like me to put it? Sourceforge? somewhere else? Suggestions are welcome. ~Randy
Attached is a link to the source code that he sent me. I just installed dropbox, so I am not sure how long this will take to be synchronized to the web site. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/19038556/dosbox_151.tar.bz2
Hi. I have just purchased the app and e-mailed the author asking for the source code. I got a prompt response that he is away from his desk and that he will forward the code to me tomorrow. He also asked me to forward my google play order reciept, which I did. I will update everyone when I get the source code. Is there a particular place that you would like me to put it? Sourceforge? somewhere else? Suggestions are welcome. ~Randy