Arguing that the show doesn't need to do something like this is one thing, but this sounds an awful lot like you're saying men should be given preference. How would women/minorities ever have gotten where they are today if everyone, everywhere, or even most people, avoided including them based on this widely applicable argument?
A blogger likely would qualify as press for this purpose (but he'd still have to request the waiver). The FOIA has this provision to try to make sure that agencies don't spend inordinate time and money complying with requests that are just for the financial gain of the company/person making them.
Complying with FOIA requests can be expensive, especially for an organization like the NSA which will have to conduct a thorough review to make sure nothing's classified. The FOIA permits agencies to charge fees to cover these expenses (see foia.gov's description of costs).
When disclosure of the information is "in the public" interest, the agency can waive these fees.
Honest question: can you actually count the cost of equipment and electricity toward the cost basis of your bitcoins? I thought that, in order to be part of the cost basis, you had to be able to attribute the cost to specific bitcoins, rather than have lump expenses for the month/year/whatever.
Interestingly, Uncle Sam still gets his cut from Hollywood accounting. Hollywood accounting works by making the movie look like a loss by putting all the profits toward fees paid to various executives and agencies. By doing this, the movie gets out of paying royalties due to the wording of contracts. However, all the executives and agencies still need to pay taxes on those fees.
IANAA (I am not an accountant), but capital gains are only when you buy something and then sell it at a higher price. Buying a bunch of computer equipment and making money by selling it would be capital gains. Buying a bunch of computer equipment and making money by selling the bitcoins it mines is just regular income. You can (and should!), however, deduct the cost of the equipment, etc., as business expenses. The distinction is important because capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular income.
Well, for the truly unexpected, there is always insurance. Oh wait, it's only $5,000 so it's not worth the bother? Tough shit, sometimes home ownership has unexpected costs.
The fact that the couple is responsible for the costs makes enough sense; you're responsible for taking care of your property, not the government. If you found chemical waste hidden in some trap door in your basement, would you expect the state to foot the bill to destroy that for you? Same thing here.
What? This is probably just trolling at this point, but I'll bite just to make sure no one things this complete FUD has any truth. I don't want to get into a discussion of which style license is better (copyleft or permissive), but releasing code under a GPL-compatible license does not affect your patent rights in any way. Take a look at the BSD licenses (they are GPL-compatible); they contain no language which would allow anyone to use your patents. If someone downstream wants to incorporate your code and put the GPL on it, they are only licensing any patents they might have.
I don't know much about this area and what people do/recommend, but there's nothing to stop you from licensing the code and assets separately. You could use whatever software license you wanted for the code, and and Creative Commons license for everything else.
So you're okay with people including your code in proprietary software with nasty EULAs, but not with people including your code in GPL projects? That makes a lot of sense...
Please don't license software under the Creative Commons licenses. They're not GPL compatible, and Creative Commons themselves don't recommend it. (CC0, their public domain dedication, is still OK.)
This is the second comment about the WTFPL, and I don't get it. Sure, it has a cool name, but why not use one of the more common licenses instead, such as the FreeBSD (2-clause BSD) or the Expat license. Both of these allow any use whatsoever, provided you don't strip the copyright notice. These are still extremely short and easy to understand.
It has to be reasonable according to the judge, not according to the police. The protection we have in practice from unreasonable searches is the exclusionary rule.
That's not a reasonable search, as it's based on fraudulent evidence. It's also not really relevant to this case, because I'm not aware of any texting-while-driving-sniffing dogs...
From what I can tell, this is not an obvious 4th ammendment violation.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Common misconceptions aside, the 4th ammendment does not require a warrant, so long as the search is reasonable. If, as the summary states, the bill requires the officer to have reasonable grounds to believe the law was broken, I don't really have a problem with this. I think there are likely few cases in which they would have these grounds, however, unless someone in the car with the driver outright admitted it.
It goes beyond "same playback within the range of human auditory sensation." It is actually lossless, i.e., decoding a flac file will get you an audio stream bit-for-bit identical to the original. It's more like gzip optimized for music than it is like mp3.
That may be part of it, but it's not the only thing going on. As a huge, clumsy organization with a lot of political baggage, the government sometimes has difficulty organizing itself to find the people they need to get a job done and pay them what they need to be paid. For better or worse (probably worse), it's sometimes it's easier for the government to just put out a contract request and let the contracting companies handle all the dirty HR stuff.
There is no way Obama is getting impeached given the legal framework Bush helped build.
It's not the legal framework; it's the cultural and political landscape. No court process, attorney general, or executive order can stop an impeachment. From the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2):
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
If Boehner and his Republican colleagues wanted to impeach Obama over this, they could do so easily. There appears to be no appetite in either party for this, however. If the house were to impeach Obama, it would probably be over health insurance, or the deficit or something.
I disagree. If you can't get your customer to go along with agile, then agile might not be right for you. One of the key observations behind agile is that customers often don't really know what they want up-front, and that they're better at pointing out the differences between an intermediate solution and something workable. As I understand it, that's one of the driving forces behind the short sprints: start with the bare bones, and work on what the customer perceives to be the biggest missing feature. Keep doing that until the customer likes it.
I understand that not all customers can do this, however.
I'm a developer and I also hate Agile -- specifically the daily stand-ups. I really don't care what everyone else is doing. Just have what you said you've have done by the time you said you'd have it done and we're good. The only time I care is if you need to change something or the due date. But then you could just come and tell me the instant you figure that out and not have to wait until the next stand-up.
You're doing it wrong. The daily standups should be about 5 minutes and are mainly for communicating problems encountered, if any.
Everyone's so quick to attack, but he has a point. Whatever the cause, the tech industry seems to want its best and brightest to become toymakers. There are a lot a problems that could be helped by new tech, but none of that seems to be as glorious as working on the new iPhone, a better Google Maps, or the next hit app.
In addition to any desire to spend the money slowly, there are problems with giving away billions of dollars that don't show up when donating smaller amounts. If Bill Gates wants to, say, improve healthcare in Africa, he can't just hand over $20 billion, he needs to actually figure out what the problems are and how best to address them.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes tried and trusted are the way to go.
Arguing that the show doesn't need to do something like this is one thing, but this sounds an awful lot like you're saying men should be given preference. How would women/minorities ever have gotten where they are today if everyone, everywhere, or even most people, avoided including them based on this widely applicable argument?
A blogger likely would qualify as press for this purpose (but he'd still have to request the waiver). The FOIA has this provision to try to make sure that agencies don't spend inordinate time and money complying with requests that are just for the financial gain of the company/person making them.
Complying with FOIA requests can be expensive, especially for an organization like the NSA which will have to conduct a thorough review to make sure nothing's classified. The FOIA permits agencies to charge fees to cover these expenses (see foia.gov's description of costs). When disclosure of the information is "in the public" interest, the agency can waive these fees.
Honest question: can you actually count the cost of equipment and electricity toward the cost basis of your bitcoins? I thought that, in order to be part of the cost basis, you had to be able to attribute the cost to specific bitcoins, rather than have lump expenses for the month/year/whatever.
Interestingly, Uncle Sam still gets his cut from Hollywood accounting. Hollywood accounting works by making the movie look like a loss by putting all the profits toward fees paid to various executives and agencies. By doing this, the movie gets out of paying royalties due to the wording of contracts. However, all the executives and agencies still need to pay taxes on those fees.
IANAA (I am not an accountant), but capital gains are only when you buy something and then sell it at a higher price. Buying a bunch of computer equipment and making money by selling it would be capital gains. Buying a bunch of computer equipment and making money by selling the bitcoins it mines is just regular income. You can (and should!), however, deduct the cost of the equipment, etc., as business expenses. The distinction is important because capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular income.
Why wouldn't it be taxed? There is no "on a computer" exemption to rules that we pay taxes on profitable activities...
Well, for the truly unexpected, there is always insurance. Oh wait, it's only $5,000 so it's not worth the bother? Tough shit, sometimes home ownership has unexpected costs.
The fact that the couple is responsible for the costs makes enough sense; you're responsible for taking care of your property, not the government. If you found chemical waste hidden in some trap door in your basement, would you expect the state to foot the bill to destroy that for you? Same thing here.
What? This is probably just trolling at this point, but I'll bite just to make sure no one things this complete FUD has any truth. I don't want to get into a discussion of which style license is better (copyleft or permissive), but releasing code under a GPL-compatible license does not affect your patent rights in any way. Take a look at the BSD licenses (they are GPL-compatible); they contain no language which would allow anyone to use your patents. If someone downstream wants to incorporate your code and put the GPL on it, they are only licensing any patents they might have.
I don't know much about this area and what people do/recommend, but there's nothing to stop you from licensing the code and assets separately. You could use whatever software license you wanted for the code, and and Creative Commons license for everything else.
So you're okay with people including your code in proprietary software with nasty EULAs, but not with people including your code in GPL projects? That makes a lot of sense...
Please don't license software under the Creative Commons licenses. They're not GPL compatible, and Creative Commons themselves don't recommend it. (CC0, their public domain dedication, is still OK.)
This is the second comment about the WTFPL, and I don't get it. Sure, it has a cool name, but why not use one of the more common licenses instead, such as the FreeBSD (2-clause BSD) or the Expat license. Both of these allow any use whatsoever, provided you don't strip the copyright notice. These are still extremely short and easy to understand.
It has to be reasonable according to the judge, not according to the police. The protection we have in practice from unreasonable searches is the exclusionary rule.
That's not a reasonable search, as it's based on fraudulent evidence. It's also not really relevant to this case, because I'm not aware of any texting-while-driving-sniffing dogs...
From what I can tell, this is not an obvious 4th ammendment violation.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Common misconceptions aside, the 4th ammendment does not require a warrant, so long as the search is reasonable. If, as the summary states, the bill requires the officer to have reasonable grounds to believe the law was broken, I don't really have a problem with this. I think there are likely few cases in which they would have these grounds, however, unless someone in the car with the driver outright admitted it.
It goes beyond "same playback within the range of human auditory sensation." It is actually lossless, i.e., decoding a flac file will get you an audio stream bit-for-bit identical to the original. It's more like gzip optimized for music than it is like mp3.
That may be part of it, but it's not the only thing going on. As a huge, clumsy organization with a lot of political baggage, the government sometimes has difficulty organizing itself to find the people they need to get a job done and pay them what they need to be paid. For better or worse (probably worse), it's sometimes it's easier for the government to just put out a contract request and let the contracting companies handle all the dirty HR stuff.
There is no way Obama is getting impeached given the legal framework Bush helped build.
It's not the legal framework; it's the cultural and political landscape. No court process, attorney general, or executive order can stop an impeachment. From the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2):
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
If Boehner and his Republican colleagues wanted to impeach Obama over this, they could do so easily. There appears to be no appetite in either party for this, however. If the house were to impeach Obama, it would probably be over health insurance, or the deficit or something.
It may be superficially ironic, but it's a petition. You sign your name to petitions; they're inherently not anonymous.
I disagree. If you can't get your customer to go along with agile, then agile might not be right for you. One of the key observations behind agile is that customers often don't really know what they want up-front, and that they're better at pointing out the differences between an intermediate solution and something workable. As I understand it, that's one of the driving forces behind the short sprints: start with the bare bones, and work on what the customer perceives to be the biggest missing feature. Keep doing that until the customer likes it.
I understand that not all customers can do this, however.
I'm a developer and I also hate Agile -- specifically the daily stand-ups. I really don't care what everyone else is doing. Just have what you said you've have done by the time you said you'd have it done and we're good. The only time I care is if you need to change something or the due date. But then you could just come and tell me the instant you figure that out and not have to wait until the next stand-up.
You're doing it wrong. The daily standups should be about 5 minutes and are mainly for communicating problems encountered, if any.
Everyone's so quick to attack, but he has a point. Whatever the cause, the tech industry seems to want its best and brightest to become toymakers. There are a lot a problems that could be helped by new tech, but none of that seems to be as glorious as working on the new iPhone, a better Google Maps, or the next hit app.
In addition to any desire to spend the money slowly, there are problems with giving away billions of dollars that don't show up when donating smaller amounts. If Bill Gates wants to, say, improve healthcare in Africa, he can't just hand over $20 billion, he needs to actually figure out what the problems are and how best to address them.