Since the developer even said that there was no written of verbal agreement with the company, the default assumption would be that they are paying you to write code that they will own.
Actually, you've got it opposite. It can be assumed that they will have an interest in the code (i.e. a license to use, possibly even a license to publish...) but it can NOT be inferred that the rights transfer as a work-for-hire unless there is an explicit agreement for the same. No written/verbal agreement that the work was for-hire means that it wasn't. What isn't written down or at least stated never happened in the legal world. And verbal agreements don't carry anything of weight when compared to written ones. Lacking a written agreement, the University may not have a leg to stand on as it wouldn't be a work-for-hire regardless of the "understanding" they might have had.
It all rests in what his employment agreement/contract states. If it lays claim to any intellectual "property" work while under their employ, that explicit transfer will have been deemed to have transpired. Depending on that, is whether they actually have a claim on things here or not.
Unless there is a work-for-hire clause in the contract or employment agreement, it can be said that they may have an interest in the rights on the code in question , but it can't be said that they actually OWN it unless you've got one of those clauses in place or an explicit assignment of rights in play. Moreover, there may be explicit restrictions on the work-for-hire aspects. Some will lay claim to anything you come up with, regardless of whether it had anything to do with your work or while not on the clock- others will only lay claim to the work you directly do for the employer and variations on a theme in-between.
Now...most employers have work-for-hire clauses in the mix, so that's where your assumption comes from. But it's not a foregone conclusion, nor is the one you stated a foregone one.
Why is that? There's nothing ARM specific within the framework.
Seriously. If you're not doing native code, it'll just go straight over without so much as a recompile in both cases. If you've got the API for the native code portions in hand, you're just as likely as not to need only a recompile.
There is no "highly tuned" stuff, save within the VM portions of the frameworks in question. There is no endianness concerns involved. There's an alignment concern within ARM, but if you've abided by it, you're going to get almost 100% optimal code for any modern 32 to 64-bit X86 machine. If you're using floating point, the speed will actually increase. The only concern would be if someone did some NEON or VFP code- that might need translation, but the bulk of the stuff out there isn't doing that.
WHY? Unless you're doing it in Aseembly language, there's nothing magic or special that'd "optimize" it any more than specifying -O3 to GCC. You'd just need to ensure you're not generating bad code there and you'd be done.
More to the point, the bulk of the WebOS applications aren't native code to begin with.
"Highly optimized" is a BS word- the tricks to making it go good on an ARM largely apply to x86 because x86 allows you to do some pretty braindead things with it.
I don't think they'd need to even switch to a new CPU, save for power consumption reasons (a switch to a Cortex-A8/A9 SoC will quadruple the battery life for the tablet and either minimally impact the performance over the Atom (A8) or boost it (A9)...)- the stuff's mostly Linux with the WebOS UI and PDK layered on top of it.
This means you can actually have an Atom based WebOS tablet out of the gate if they so chose.
Actually, you're not licensed to do it even BEFORE the 150k people viewing it- that's just the threshold at which they have chosen to ENFORCE their IP rights. You technically still need a license for it (Check the licensing details on your gear, even the pro-grade stuff will tell you that you need a separate license for professional uses of the gear. They're not kidding.).
And stating that it's relevant to video sharing sites- they're an enabler, but YOU are the one on the hook, not they (because there's yet another license THEY have to have to do what they're doing...) and you're still needing that license in addition to the one they're paying.
As for Theora being better than h.264... No, you'd be right about that. It's on a rough par with MPEG4- VP8's closer to what you're looking for and if rumor's right Theora 2 will be in that space. Having said that, I'd prefer a web (and others...) standard to be something that's utterly unencumbered. All it'd take is for one player to play grab-em like Unisys did with LZW and you owe money all over the place. It could just as easily as not happen with h.264.
Ahh... But you don't know all the places that it requires LICENSING.
Use it to produce a home movie, you're okay. Use it to produce a indie movie, even with "pro" grade equipment and you're not. Use it to produce a demo reel for your work, and you're not.
Only parts of the generation or playback licensing have been paid for- you're on the hook for everything else and they'll enforce if you hit a certain threshold (about $100k of revenue of any kind generated from it...). They'll come mug you for money at that point and it's NOT cheap.
A thousand to one. Oh, man, we get all the hard jobs.
Heh... Sometimes you also have to do it for things that people don't want to believe because of their cherished notions that run so counter to the idea you're proposing.
World not being Flat... A heliocentric universe as opposed to a geocentric one... Disease vectors... Antibiotics......and MANY, MANY more.
The problem with anything world changing/shattering is that it absolutely does require that level of weight of evidence. And if you want the honest truth, NOBODY dealing with the concepts with "Global Climate Change" are being willing to own up to the fact that they NEED this level of scrutiny no matter how those chips fall.
Not a single one of them have HONESTLY done this. Even minor dinking with that data (which HAS happened) indicates that they're not doing it. Seriously. Calling the people that don't believe "deniers" like we seem to have people doing here and in the community doesn't do the community anything other than a disservice and just simply lends to the impression that it's a damned religion instead of the science it's being claimed as. Regardless of the real status of things.
When one considers that we don't have any better trend data (the actual data we have only goes back about 50-60 years of proper measuring, coupled with extrapolations based off of measurements of things like ice cores and tree rings, neither of which actually provide the same data the measurements do...it becomes the same sort of remark.
It depends on the application as to whether you're going to improve the value proposition. Some applications will cost nearly as much as the SSDs when you apply the vibration compensation stuff to the system. Once you get there, the temperature, power, and overall lifespan issues still are present- and you're not getting rid of those any easier than you did with just the vibration problem alone.
For starters, if it was as you claim, it wouldn't have been edged out by the LLVM backend on GCC- but that was the case in most of the benchmark tests.
Second, if it was as you claim, it wouldn't have failed to run some of the benchmarks- if it's better in every way, it should be able to do the SAME things as GCC without failure, without flaws in execution and not fail where there are flaws within GCC (And there are some...).
In the end, superior means robust compilation results, and peak performance. Neither of which Clang brings to the table yet. The main reason Apple did this is that they wanted their OWN compiler toolchain that wasn't beholden to FSF- it's only real "compelling" thing is that it's under the BSD license. Now, having said all of the aforementioned, it's got potential to do what you claim. It's a good redesign of things using LLVM as the backend engine. But your assertion at this point in time is inaccurate.
Chaotic is not totally unpredictable- it's that you don't/can't fully model the variables in the system.
Having said this, the other two items you mention are pre-requisites for the faith of AGW. This is not to say that we don't have a problem- it's that they're going about proving it all wrong and as such, you can't say if they're right or not and shouldn't give them the time of day directly.
What we need is to do this the right way via the scientific method. Start. Over.
Keep in mind, though, we don't have even remotely enough data for a good chaos theory based model- even if they'd collected the data they did get in a correct manner. Not anywhere near enough samples over a long enough time.
It's not that we don't need to be better at things like pollution. We do.
The big problem is that they can't explain things that are going on now, they gamed the data to "prove" their hypothesis, and the things they've gotten proposed happen to be vastly less effective than claimed and more expensive overall.
We don't have a solid handle on Climatology, contrary to anything you might have been told. We don't have enough actual measured data to make models that're even remotely accurate- and we're making models of archaeological samples that MIGHT show us what they're claiming, but then again might very well not. They'll tell you that they do and come up with believable theories as to why the data shows us what they're claiming. But, in the end, we've had believable theories for the day that've been shown to be dead wrong when observed strictly and closely.
Right now, it's big politics mixed in with a batch of what should've been called bad science a long time ago- someone should have red-flagged a good portion of this and tried to get good data points and do a rigorous analysis of the theories against that data and not try to mold the data to fit the theory.
And while we do need answers, the chicken little act we've got going on isn't helping things any. Do we have a problem? We don't honestly know, as much because of the dinking with the data up to this point as anything else. And the histrionics and the lies (yes, they are precisely that, "investigations" not withstanding- you don't trim your data sources like they did, closing down monitoring points in colder climates and increasing the data points in urban settings, and call it "truth".) that have went on for the last handful or so of years has muddied up the works in a way that there is little in the way of actual credibility with this bunch in the eyes of anyone but the "faithful" and the politicians that have something to gain from "believing". Even if it is all true that we have AGW as bad as they're claiming- what they did damaged their message badly.
Comparing the results of the Pwn 2 Own contest, having similar attack surfaces and only lasting 2 minutes doesn't engender visions of "secure". In fact, it was Windows that people thought would last only that long.
What they're trying to bar isn't the content providers (that'd be Google, Yahoo!, etc...)- that's kind of what Comcast and others are doing right now. What they're trying to bar is the people providing the transportation.
A bad car analogy would be one of the roads and highways going from a home to a shopping center or mall. What is going on is more of someone trying to prevent the person who built the roads defining an easy path and a hard path to get to varying places. If the mall doesn't have a relationship with your road provider, your car may encounter lights, traffic, etc. such that it takes HOURS to get there. But, at the same time, this little shopping center HAS a relationship with the road provider, and when the road provider detects that you're driving to the little shopping center, they automagically turn all the lights green, clear the traffic as best as they can, and you get there in minutes- even though they're equidistant from your house.
If you have a situation like this, you don't really HAVE a free market. Lassiez Faire doesn't mean you don't control things. It means you apply the absolute minimum of interference and let the market sort it out. You honestly don't have much of a market for the ISP space, else they wouldn't be playing games like they are- as the customers would bolt from them, in large, if they had credible competition that wouldn't do the same thing Comcast is doing. As it is, their virtual monopoly on things is impairing the real free market- and it's a situation that needs a modicum of control from something other than the market because it won't be coming from the market at this point. Unless you know of something that I don't about the ISP situation...;-)
Satellite: Usage caps apply during prime-time hours (defined by the company)- if you exceed usage, they throttle your bandwidth to ISDN level speeds or worse for the rest of the prime-time period.
Wireless: Usage caps may apply. If you exceed your caps, they cut you off for violating your TOS.
Of the list you mention, only the last three will have any effect as the first two are going to actually be "more of the same" as with Comcast- probably more restrictive, actually.
QoS has nothing to do with "net neutrality" although it is part of the tools used to violate the same.
Net neutrality has to do with applying things like QoS to traffic types for the sole purpose of extracting higher fees out of places like Google or hindering if they don't, hindering competitor traffic, and the like.
Don't confuse the tools with their usage. There IS a distinct difference within the two.
Ah... But you do realize that the backbone provider your CoLo is using could just as easily be blocking your traffic unless you pay your protection racket money (Remember that Verizon talked about billing Google for their traffic...).
Definitely not, but many Ford 3/4-1 ton owners will pull their Ford engine out and put in a Cummins. (There's positive reasons for doing so, but don't expect Ford to fix anything involved with that other engine- or caused by it...)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you've got it opposite. It can be assumed that they will have an interest in the code (i.e. a license to use, possibly even a license to publish...) but it can NOT be inferred that the rights transfer as a work-for-hire unless there is an explicit agreement for the same. No written/verbal agreement that the work was for-hire means that it wasn't. What isn't written down or at least stated never happened in the legal world. And verbal agreements don't carry anything of weight when compared to written ones. Lacking a written agreement, the University may not have a leg to stand on as it wouldn't be a work-for-hire regardless of the "understanding" they might have had.
It all rests in what his employment agreement/contract states. If it lays claim to any intellectual "property" work while under their employ, that explicit transfer will have been deemed to have transpired. Depending on that, is whether they actually have a claim on things here or not.
Perversely, it's not QUITE that simple.
Unless there is a work-for-hire clause in the contract or employment agreement, it can be said that they may have an interest in the rights on the code in question , but it can't be said that they actually OWN it unless you've got one of those clauses in place or an explicit assignment of rights in play. Moreover, there may be explicit restrictions on the work-for-hire aspects. Some will lay claim to anything you come up with, regardless of whether it had anything to do with your work or while not on the clock- others will only lay claim to the work you directly do for the employer and variations on a theme in-between.
Now...most employers have work-for-hire clauses in the mix, so that's where your assumption comes from. But it's not a foregone conclusion, nor is the one you stated a foregone one.
Why is that? There's nothing ARM specific within the framework.
Seriously. If you're not doing native code, it'll just go straight over without so much as a recompile in both cases. If you've got the API for the native code portions in hand, you're just as likely as not to need only a recompile.
There is no "highly tuned" stuff, save within the VM portions of the frameworks in question. There is no endianness concerns involved. There's an alignment concern within ARM, but if you've abided by it, you're going to get almost 100% optimal code for any modern 32 to 64-bit X86 machine. If you're using floating point, the speed will actually increase. The only concern would be if someone did some NEON or VFP code- that might need translation, but the bulk of the stuff out there isn't doing that.
WHY? Unless you're doing it in Aseembly language, there's nothing magic or special that'd "optimize" it any more than specifying -O3 to GCC. You'd just need to ensure you're not generating bad code there and you'd be done.
More to the point, the bulk of the WebOS applications aren't native code to begin with.
I'd bet not.
"Highly optimized" is a BS word- the tricks to making it go good on an ARM largely apply to x86 because x86 allows you to do some pretty braindead things with it.
I don't think they'd need to even switch to a new CPU, save for power consumption reasons (a switch to a Cortex-A8/A9 SoC will quadruple the battery life for the tablet and either minimally impact the performance over the Atom (A8) or boost it (A9)...)- the stuff's mostly Linux with the WebOS UI and PDK layered on top of it.
This means you can actually have an Atom based WebOS tablet out of the gate if they so chose.
Actually, "dreck" means "trash". Now, "scheisse", on the other hand...
...including nerds...kind of stuff that matters (though behind...Obama's announced he was nominating Elena Kagan already...).
Actually, you're not licensed to do it even BEFORE the 150k people viewing it- that's just the threshold at which they have chosen to ENFORCE their IP rights. You technically still need a license for it (Check the licensing details on your gear, even the pro-grade stuff will tell you that you need a separate license for professional uses of the gear. They're not kidding.).
And stating that it's relevant to video sharing sites- they're an enabler, but YOU are the one on the hook, not they (because there's yet another license THEY have to have to do what they're doing...) and you're still needing that license in addition to the one they're paying.
As for Theora being better than h.264... No, you'd be right about that. It's on a rough par with MPEG4- VP8's closer to what you're looking for and if rumor's right Theora 2 will be in that space. Having said that, I'd prefer a web (and others...) standard to be something that's utterly unencumbered. All it'd take is for one player to play grab-em like Unisys did with LZW and you owe money all over the place. It could just as easily as not happen with h.264.
Ahh... But you don't know all the places that it requires LICENSING.
Use it to produce a home movie, you're okay.
Use it to produce a indie movie, even with "pro" grade equipment and you're not.
Use it to produce a demo reel for your work, and you're not.
Only parts of the generation or playback licensing have been paid for- you're on the hook for everything else and they'll enforce if you hit a certain threshold (about $100k of revenue of any kind generated from it...). They'll come mug you for money at that point and it's NOT cheap.
Heh... Sometimes you also have to do it for things that people don't want to believe because of their cherished notions that run so counter to the idea you're proposing.
World not being Flat... ...and MANY, MANY more.
A heliocentric universe as opposed to a geocentric one...
Disease vectors...
Antibiotics...
The problem with anything world changing/shattering is that it absolutely does require that level of weight of evidence. And if you want the honest truth, NOBODY dealing with the concepts with "Global Climate Change" are being willing to own up to the fact that they NEED this level of scrutiny no matter how those chips fall.
Not a single one of them have HONESTLY done this. Even minor dinking with that data (which HAS happened) indicates that they're not doing it. Seriously. Calling the people that don't believe "deniers" like we seem to have people doing here and in the community doesn't do the community anything other than a disservice and just simply lends to the impression that it's a damned religion instead of the science it's being claimed as. Regardless of the real status of things.
Heh... Ironic, isn't it?
When one considers that we don't have any better trend data (the actual data we have only goes back about 50-60 years of proper measuring, coupled with extrapolations based off of measurements of things like ice cores and tree rings, neither of which actually provide the same data the measurements do...it becomes the same sort of remark.
It depends on the application as to whether you're going to improve the value proposition. Some applications will cost nearly as much as the SSDs when you apply the vibration compensation stuff to the system. Once you get there, the temperature, power, and overall lifespan issues still are present- and you're not getting rid of those any easier than you did with just the vibration problem alone.
It's not yet "superior in practically every single way"- and you should avoid making remarks of that nature.
Check the recent benchmarks out : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1
For starters, if it was as you claim, it wouldn't have been edged out by the LLVM backend on GCC- but that was the case in most of the benchmark tests.
Second, if it was as you claim, it wouldn't have failed to run some of the benchmarks- if it's better in every way, it should be able to do the SAME things as GCC without failure, without flaws in execution and not fail where there are flaws within GCC (And there are some...).
In the end, superior means robust compilation results, and peak performance. Neither of which Clang brings to the table yet. The main reason Apple did this is that they wanted their OWN compiler toolchain that wasn't beholden to FSF- it's only real "compelling" thing is that it's under the BSD license. Now, having said all of the aforementioned, it's got potential to do what you claim. It's a good redesign of things using LLVM as the backend engine. But your assertion at this point in time is inaccurate.
Chaotic is not totally unpredictable- it's that you don't/can't fully model the variables in the system.
Having said this, the other two items you mention are pre-requisites for the faith of AGW. This is not to say that we don't have a problem- it's that they're going about proving it all wrong and as such, you can't say if they're right or not and shouldn't give them the time of day directly.
What we need is to do this the right way via the scientific method. Start. Over.
Keep in mind, though, we don't have even remotely enough data for a good chaos theory based model- even if they'd collected the data they did get in a correct manner. Not anywhere near enough samples over a long enough time.
Heh... I wish I had mod points...
It's not that we don't need to be better at things like pollution. We do.
The big problem is that they can't explain things that are going on now, they gamed the data to "prove" their hypothesis, and the things they've gotten proposed happen to be vastly less effective than claimed and more expensive overall.
We don't have a solid handle on Climatology, contrary to anything you might have been told. We don't have enough actual measured data to make models that're even remotely accurate- and we're making models of archaeological samples that MIGHT show us what they're claiming, but then again might very well not. They'll tell you that they do and come up with believable theories as to why the data shows us what they're claiming. But, in the end, we've had believable theories for the day that've been shown to be dead wrong when observed strictly and closely.
Right now, it's big politics mixed in with a batch of what should've been called bad science a long time ago- someone should have red-flagged a good portion of this and tried to get good data points and do a rigorous analysis of the theories against that data and not try to mold the data to fit the theory.
And while we do need answers, the chicken little act we've got going on isn't helping things any. Do we have a problem? We don't honestly know, as much because of the dinking with the data up to this point as anything else. And the histrionics and the lies (yes, they are precisely that, "investigations" not withstanding- you don't trim your data sources like they did, closing down monitoring points in colder climates and increasing the data points in urban settings, and call it "truth".) that have went on for the last handful or so of years has muddied up the works in a way that there is little in the way of actual credibility with this bunch in the eyes of anyone but the "faithful" and the politicians that have something to gain from "believing". Even if it is all true that we have AGW as bad as they're claiming- what they did damaged their message badly.
Heh... I didn't care it wasn't happening... >;-D
I seriously doubt the validity your remarks about "secure".
Comparing the results of the Pwn 2 Own contest, having similar attack surfaces and only lasting 2 minutes doesn't engender visions of "secure". In fact, it was Windows that people thought would last only that long.
Bruce, you're missing the point, I think.
What they're trying to bar isn't the content providers (that'd be Google, Yahoo!, etc...)- that's kind of what Comcast and others are doing right now. What they're trying to bar is the people providing the transportation.
A bad car analogy would be one of the roads and highways going from a home to a shopping center or mall. What is going on is more of someone trying to prevent the person who built the roads defining an easy path and a hard path to get to varying places. If the mall doesn't have a relationship with your road provider, your car may encounter lights, traffic, etc. such that it takes HOURS to get there. But, at the same time, this little shopping center HAS a relationship with the road provider, and when the road provider detects that you're driving to the little shopping center, they automagically turn all the lights green, clear the traffic as best as they can, and you get there in minutes- even though they're equidistant from your house.
If you have a situation like this, you don't really HAVE a free market. Lassiez Faire doesn't mean you don't control things. It means you apply the absolute minimum of interference and let the market sort it out. You honestly don't have much of a market for the ISP space, else they wouldn't be playing games like they are- as the customers would bolt from them, in large, if they had credible competition that wouldn't do the same thing Comcast is doing. As it is, their virtual monopoly on things is impairing the real free market- and it's a situation that needs a modicum of control from something other than the market because it won't be coming from the market at this point. Unless you know of something that I don't about the ISP situation... ;-)
You missed two items there...
Satellite: Usage caps apply during prime-time hours (defined by the company)- if you exceed usage, they throttle your bandwidth to ISDN level speeds or worse for the rest of the prime-time period.
Wireless: Usage caps may apply. If you exceed your caps, they cut you off for violating your TOS.
Of the list you mention, only the last three will have any effect as the first two are going to actually be "more of the same" as with Comcast- probably more restrictive, actually.
QoS has nothing to do with "net neutrality" although it is part of the tools used to violate the same.
Net neutrality has to do with applying things like QoS to traffic types for the sole purpose of extracting higher fees out of places like Google or hindering if they don't, hindering competitor traffic, and the like.
Don't confuse the tools with their usage. There IS a distinct difference within the two.
Ah... But you do realize that the backbone provider your CoLo is using could just as easily be blocking your traffic unless you pay your protection racket money (Remember that Verizon talked about billing Google for their traffic...).
Definitely not, but many Ford 3/4-1 ton owners will pull their Ford engine out and put in a Cummins. (There's positive reasons for doing so, but don't expect Ford to fix anything involved with that other engine- or caused by it...)