Supposedly, there are elements of the tax code that makes it undesirable for people to hire self-employed programmers. Instead, they would rather hire from consulting companies. The tax code does not classify them as professionals in the same way as doctors, lawyers, and licensed engineers. Here is a possibly out-of-date article that may be relevant:
I cannot find the references, but the reason I remember this factoid is because there was a man who went postal, citing his inability to make a living as a programmer due to tax laws.
Since I explicitly stated that the copyright holder has not pursued legal action, I clearly do not believe that his is continuing his lawsuit, contrary to your first claim, and therefore, you clearly did not read my comment, and I stopped reading your rebuttal at that point, as you clearly have some viewpoint of your own you are trying to push and can't be bothered to form a cogent argument for it. Have a nice day.
I will however, follow the advice of the insightful poster above you and review the judge's opinion.
Lest you forget, and I'm sure you have all forgotten, one of the universally-despised Righthaven's early major defeats in court occurred when a judge decided that a non-profit could use a news article IN ITS ENTIRETY as fair use http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/copyright-troll-righthaven-achieves-spectacular-fair-use-loss/ . Can this woman lose a similar defense over a single image (not that the photographer has yet sued)? Perhaps she can, if only through her own incompetence. Odds have shifted in her favor, and in the favor of 1000s other organizations you may consider undeserving. Yes, that's the taste of victory turning to ash in your mouth. Remember to vote Pirate Party!
There's already 250 comments so you might not even see this. I have spent hours trying to customize my front page. I keep finding stories I want to read, collapsed. The faq says I can customize my front page by clicking on something on the left bar. THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO CUSTOMIZE MY FRONT PAGE.
My front page has stuff I want to read, collapsed, and is full of stuff I don't want to read. If I open all those up, and then start reading articles, when I come back, they are all collapsed again. When I load more articles, they all are gone when I come back, and I have to load them again. But, ARE they loading? Did they start autoloading when I scrolled to the bottom? Do I have to click the tab? Mark Andresson knew to put a progress bar in his browsers, but I have no idea what your javascript is doing at any given moment.
All this trouble with Firefox...do you not support that browser any more?
Oh, and why do I have to decide if I want HTML capabilities before I start composing my comment? Choose wrong, and I'm adding markup just to get newlines. Why do I have to lose my comment if I try to change my settings?
There's been a 100 posts so probably nobody will see this, but I don't think Maximum Prophet understands copyright. What's the difference between a Xerox (TM) machine and a human with a memory and a pen? One is a lot slower
Paraphrasing is paraphrasing. Copying is copying. And tests are valuable only when they test what they are designed to test, and not rote memorization(*)
(*) Apologies to any pharmacology majors who have to memorize more than most people memorize in their life.
This nation worked very hard to elect a vice-president whose highest degree was a bachelor's degree in communications, and she had to transfer 4 times to get it. I don't think the people really care.
I bet you all thought combining the coast guard, customs, immigration and federalizing the airport gropers into DHS was a great improvement. Now it's effective and efficient, right? And how's that Director of National Intelligence working out?
How are the people of North Dakota supposed to ship their wheat to China when a tsunami takes out a west coast shipping port?
Alright, I want every small-government proponent to make a list of 100 things they want to fund, personally? Take a moment, I'll wait.
Was drought-proof wheat on your list? Probably not. Do you need drought-proof wheat? If you don't what to be buying your food from Siberia, you sure do. Is there incentive to develop drought-proof wheat? There sure is. Is anybody going to follow that incentive? No. Why? Because it wasn't on your list or anybody else's. You didn't think of it. Or you (wrongly) believe it's not important. Or that somebody else will do it. Who funds drought-proof wheat research? Department of Agriculture research programs.
Alright, now, I want you to make a time budget. How many hours in a day are you going to spend evaluating who should receive your private funding. And be sure you do your research, we don't want Solyndra fraudsters getting it. The DC bureaucrats do this all day, but now YOU have to do it. What's that, you want to delegate it? To a company that takes your money and decides for you, and keeps a chunk of it for itself? Sounds familiar?
Oh but your system is voluntary. Except you don't actually have time to do it.
Do you really WANT to pay the free-market cost of education? Do you want everybody else to? Just how many burger flippers and drug dealers do you think this society can support? Do you want your cancer operated on by somebody who learned from Khan Academy of Medicine on Youtube?
Do you want clean water? Do you think there are incentives for private companies to keep water clean? Environmental protection is expensive, it's true. Turns out making small settlements and dragging out legal cases with in-house council is a lot less. The true incentive is to not keep the water clean. You live in a free society, but your child is DEAD. Oh well.
I read the sad story of a bitter failure who's full of shit. Let's see you brute force yourself a 1m accuracy GPS system without Einstein. You can do it. You'd just be the latest in a long line of mule-headed engineers going back to Ptolemy. What, it's not accurate enough? Let's throw on another epicycle (correction fit to the residual). Still not accurate? Another epicycle (correction fit to the residual of the residual). Kepler and Einstein are full of shit, we'll just brute force it, right? You want a hand-held gps? Sure, we'll engineer it, and here's the battery in a backpack to power all those corrections.
Please tell me your field and state so I can avoid whatever it is you engineer.
P.S. OPERA is the first neutrino speed measurement. We've been measuring the speed of neutrinos for over 50 years, only one of them has error bars that don't include c. And THAT measurement is outside the error bars of all the other measurements. But you put all your faith in the outlier.
P.P.S. I have the design for a gyroscopic perpetual energy machine. The 'scientists' say it can't work. But I'd be willing to part with the design and give it to your 'engineering' firm for $50k and an NDA.
2. Security is relative. It can always be increased. Criminals have shown they can circumvent almost any security measure. You've cited zero facts to back up your claim that Sony's was negligent.
Uh, well, that's the point. To obtain facts as to whether Sony was negligent, we would have to conduct discovery. And to conduct discovery, we would have to sue. And if we've waived our right to sue, we would stand before the arbitration board empty handed.
`
I hate to quote wikipedia, but at least it's got citations:
"Given an initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals, a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is defined as "Pareto efficient" or "Pareto optimal" when no further Pareto improvements can be made."
"Pareto efficiency is a minimal notion of efficiency and does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources: it makes no statement about equality, or the overall well-being of a society."
Fukushima was a 30 year old reactor that was scheduled to be taken offline in March of 2011, then had a life extension due to Japan's electricity demands. It was a TMI design that was operated to failure and it failed in the TMI way.*
I don't know about the anti-nuclear lobby in Japan, but as far as the US goes, all nuclear reactors are outdated designs because the anti-nuclear lobby has successfully blocked all attempts to build replacement reactors with modern designs. However, they've failed to get all the old reactors taken offline, because you can't have declining energy use with a growing population. Congratulations anti-nuke people. Instead of modern reactors that don't have a billion valves and don't need to be continuously cooled until shutdown+30 days, we have a fleet of aging TMI-type reactors with known flaws being operated until they fail.
I'm not saying pebble-beds in every town are the answer, but dammit, they have NO PUMPS AT ALL. It's like the anti-nukes want TMI reactors failing so they can kill nuclear completely. The reactors need to be replaced. LET IT HAPPEN.
*I am not saying they were identical scenarios so please don't point out the obvious.
Academics can contribute plenty of general subject knowledge that isn't original research. And they're unlikely to want to contribute original research, because they'd rather get it published in a journal, where it counts for boosting their career. Once it's published there, it can be cited, so it's fair game for Wikipedia.
I think this is absolutely the case. All this discussion about publish-or-perish or rewards is completely disngenuous. Sure, academics want their own work published, and they couldn't get past Wikipedia's original work prohibition, but academics want correct information out there just as much as anybody and hate seeing stubs or bad info and would happily contribute.
A much more plausible explanation is simply that academia moves slowly and ponderously, and won't really change to accommodate anything new until long after it's established in society at large. The generation that has grown up with the internet are still mostly undergrads and PhD students (like me). Come back in a decade or two, and I think there'll be a lot more experts contributing to Wikipedia.
I think just about all these people have retired.
No the real problem with wikipedia is that they have ALWAYS been hostile to contributions by experts, like Fox News repelling climatogists. TFA mentions Citizenpedia, remember Wikipedia had TWO founders, one of whom got so disgusted with the anti-expert atmosphere he forked the project. His project didn't become popular, probably because 1) Wikipedia is always at the top of Google's searches, 2) Wikipedia is full of the cruft the public demands, like Anime, American Idol, and the aforementioned professional wrestlers which even the editors want to get rid of but can't keep up, and 3) because of 2), see 1) again.
Citizenpedia failed, but Wikipedia's still broken. So we get Scholarpedia. And then it's still broken. So we get Knol. And Wikipedia is still broken, people know it's broken, but it's at the top of the searches. The only reliable way to get an expert to contribute to an article and have it not get reverted is for an editor to plaster a "This topic needs attention from an expert" which doesn't happen that often. And even then, the expert's contribution will be "fixed" and "improved" until it's as factually accurate as your typical newspaper's sci/med reporting i.e. wrong (see any reporting in the last month about radiation).
Wikipedia will never improve it's reliability until Jimmy Wales and his cabal of editors who treat it as their own personal sandbox are given the heave-ho. Which isn't going to happen, because it IS their own personal sandbox.
The Wire, (cable)
Mad Men, (cable)
Breaking Bad, (cable)
the Sopranos, (cable)
Deadwood, (cable)
the Shield, (cable)
Sons of Anarchy, (cable)
Queer as Folk (cable)
Not disagreeing. Just saying.
Then I should have been more specific. I'm not talking about optional components, but libraries always linked in at runtime when the program launches. Stallman, Moglen, and FSF have long taken the stance that dynamic linking to GPL'd libraries (GPL 2 or 3, not LGPL or GPL + linking exception) requires adherence to the GPL license. Here's a quote:
Eben:
The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the author of the other code had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution to the combined work could be released under any license of your choosing, but by releasing under GPL he or she chose to invoke the principle of "share and share alike."
They claim this, even if your code contains no text from GPL'd code, contains only unprotected API text from GPL'd header files, or is distributed only as a non-compilable package that requires end-user assembly with GPL sources obtained separately.
When he says 'substantial' I hear 'non-empty'. You can't link to a single function in a dynamic library without creating a derivative work. So be sure you strip out all inline functions and macros from GPL header files and just use the structures, typedefs, and enums. Just to be safe. And goodbye C++ templates.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/27/business/how-a-tax-law-helps-insure-a-scarcity-of-programmers.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
I cannot find the references, but the reason I remember this factoid is because there was a man who went postal, citing his inability to make a living as a programmer due to tax laws.
Actually, now that ;you mention it, this makes a lot of sense. I've been looking for the Crazy Cryin' Amazacrazy sketch for years with no luck.
Cars
Mortgages
Viagra
This website www . eternalmemories . com is available. (C) 2015 Godaddy.com
Nothing is so impermanent as an online web service.
Citation needed. Here's mine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffOhr9zo6o . Lot harder to find the retraction, which I found only because I already know it exists.
Since I explicitly stated that the copyright holder has not pursued legal action, I clearly do not believe that his is continuing his lawsuit, contrary to your first claim, and therefore, you clearly did not read my comment, and I stopped reading your rebuttal at that point, as you clearly have some viewpoint of your own you are trying to push and can't be bothered to form a cogent argument for it. Have a nice day. I will however, follow the advice of the insightful poster above you and review the judge's opinion.
Lest you forget, and I'm sure you have all forgotten, one of the universally-despised Righthaven's early major defeats in court occurred when a judge decided that a non-profit could use a news article IN ITS ENTIRETY as fair use http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/copyright-troll-righthaven-achieves-spectacular-fair-use-loss/ . Can this woman lose a similar defense over a single image (not that the photographer has yet sued)? Perhaps she can, if only through her own incompetence. Odds have shifted in her favor, and in the favor of 1000s other organizations you may consider undeserving. Yes, that's the taste of victory turning to ash in your mouth. Remember to vote Pirate Party!
My front page has stuff I want to read, collapsed, and is full of stuff I don't want to read. If I open all those up, and then start reading articles, when I come back, they are all collapsed again. When I load more articles, they all are gone when I come back, and I have to load them again. But, ARE they loading? Did they start autoloading when I scrolled to the bottom? Do I have to click the tab? Mark Andresson knew to put a progress bar in his browsers, but I have no idea what your javascript is doing at any given moment.
All this trouble with Firefox...do you not support that browser any more?
Oh, and why do I have to decide if I want HTML capabilities before I start composing my comment? Choose wrong, and I'm adding markup just to get newlines. Why do I have to lose my comment if I try to change my settings?
Paraphrasing is paraphrasing. Copying is copying. And tests are valuable only when they test what they are designed to test, and not rote memorization(*)
(*) Apologies to any pharmacology majors who have to memorize more than most people memorize in their life.
This nation worked very hard to elect a vice-president whose highest degree was a bachelor's degree in communications, and she had to transfer 4 times to get it. I don't think the people really care.
Press TV IS a web site set up for US citizens to read propaganda and it IS still up. You are an idiot.
Do you know what Bitcoin is? Duqu has been in the news and on the slashdot pages for four weeks at least. Sorry you're behind.
I bet you all thought combining the coast guard, customs, immigration and federalizing the airport gropers into DHS was a great improvement. Now it's effective and efficient, right? And how's that Director of National Intelligence working out?
Alright, I want every small-government proponent to make a list of 100 things they want to fund, personally? Take a moment, I'll wait. Was drought-proof wheat on your list? Probably not. Do you need drought-proof wheat? If you don't what to be buying your food from Siberia, you sure do. Is there incentive to develop drought-proof wheat? There sure is. Is anybody going to follow that incentive? No. Why? Because it wasn't on your list or anybody else's. You didn't think of it. Or you (wrongly) believe it's not important. Or that somebody else will do it. Who funds drought-proof wheat research? Department of Agriculture research programs.
Alright, now, I want you to make a time budget. How many hours in a day are you going to spend evaluating who should receive your private funding. And be sure you do your research, we don't want Solyndra fraudsters getting it. The DC bureaucrats do this all day, but now YOU have to do it. What's that, you want to delegate it? To a company that takes your money and decides for you, and keeps a chunk of it for itself? Sounds familiar?
Oh but your system is voluntary. Except you don't actually have time to do it.
Do you really WANT to pay the free-market cost of education? Do you want everybody else to? Just how many burger flippers and drug dealers do you think this society can support? Do you want your cancer operated on by somebody who learned from Khan Academy of Medicine on Youtube?
Do you want clean water? Do you think there are incentives for private companies to keep water clean? Environmental protection is expensive, it's true. Turns out making small settlements and dragging out legal cases with in-house council is a lot less. The true incentive is to not keep the water clean. You live in a free society, but your child is DEAD. Oh well.
I read the sad story of a bitter failure who's full of shit. Let's see you brute force yourself a 1m accuracy GPS system without Einstein. You can do it. You'd just be the latest in a long line of mule-headed engineers going back to Ptolemy. What, it's not accurate enough? Let's throw on another epicycle (correction fit to the residual). Still not accurate? Another epicycle (correction fit to the residual of the residual). Kepler and Einstein are full of shit, we'll just brute force it, right? You want a hand-held gps? Sure, we'll engineer it, and here's the battery in a backpack to power all those corrections. Please tell me your field and state so I can avoid whatever it is you engineer. P.S. OPERA is the first neutrino speed measurement. We've been measuring the speed of neutrinos for over 50 years, only one of them has error bars that don't include c. And THAT measurement is outside the error bars of all the other measurements. But you put all your faith in the outlier. P.P.S. I have the design for a gyroscopic perpetual energy machine. The 'scientists' say it can't work. But I'd be willing to part with the design and give it to your 'engineering' firm for $50k and an NDA.
Today was also National Coffee Day if you were wondering, like I was, what was up with all the coffee.
Three things about that:
2. Security is relative. It can always be increased. Criminals have shown they can circumvent almost any security measure. You've cited zero facts to back up your claim that Sony's was negligent.
Uh, well, that's the point. To obtain facts as to whether Sony was negligent, we would have to conduct discovery. And to conduct discovery, we would have to sue. And if we've waived our right to sue, we would stand before the arbitration board empty handed. `
In 2.5 years (of which they were in the south atlantic anomaly something like 5% of the time) they found 28 antiprotons.
Windows has done this since time immemorial, and generally makes it a PITA to run any downloaded content.
You can fix this by editing or deleting the :Zone.Identifier:$DATA alternate data stream of the file. The file loses its internetness.
I miss my status bar.
"Given an initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals, a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is defined as "Pareto efficient" or "Pareto optimal" when no further Pareto improvements can be made."
"Pareto efficiency is a minimal notion of efficiency and does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources: it makes no statement about equality, or the overall well-being of a society."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
I don't know about the anti-nuclear lobby in Japan, but as far as the US goes, all nuclear reactors are outdated designs because the anti-nuclear lobby has successfully blocked all attempts to build replacement reactors with modern designs. However, they've failed to get all the old reactors taken offline, because you can't have declining energy use with a growing population. Congratulations anti-nuke people. Instead of modern reactors that don't have a billion valves and don't need to be continuously cooled until shutdown+30 days, we have a fleet of aging TMI-type reactors with known flaws being operated until they fail.
I'm not saying pebble-beds in every town are the answer, but dammit, they have NO PUMPS AT ALL. It's like the anti-nukes want TMI reactors failing so they can kill nuclear completely. The reactors need to be replaced. LET IT HAPPEN.
*I am not saying they were identical scenarios so please don't point out the obvious.
Academics can contribute plenty of general subject knowledge that isn't original research. And they're unlikely to want to contribute original research, because they'd rather get it published in a journal, where it counts for boosting their career. Once it's published there, it can be cited, so it's fair game for Wikipedia.
I think this is absolutely the case. All this discussion about publish-or-perish or rewards is completely disngenuous. Sure, academics want their own work published, and they couldn't get past Wikipedia's original work prohibition, but academics want correct information out there just as much as anybody and hate seeing stubs or bad info and would happily contribute.
A much more plausible explanation is simply that academia moves slowly and ponderously, and won't really change to accommodate anything new until long after it's established in society at large. The generation that has grown up with the internet are still mostly undergrads and PhD students (like me). Come back in a decade or two, and I think there'll be a lot more experts contributing to Wikipedia.
I think just about all these people have retired.
No the real problem with wikipedia is that they have ALWAYS been hostile to contributions by experts, like Fox News repelling climatogists. TFA mentions Citizenpedia, remember Wikipedia had TWO founders, one of whom got so disgusted with the anti-expert atmosphere he forked the project. His project didn't become popular, probably because 1) Wikipedia is always at the top of Google's searches, 2) Wikipedia is full of the cruft the public demands, like Anime, American Idol, and the aforementioned professional wrestlers which even the editors want to get rid of but can't keep up, and 3) because of 2), see 1) again.
Citizenpedia failed, but Wikipedia's still broken. So we get Scholarpedia. And then it's still broken. So we get Knol. And Wikipedia is still broken, people know it's broken, but it's at the top of the searches. The only reliable way to get an expert to contribute to an article and have it not get reverted is for an editor to plaster a "This topic needs attention from an expert" which doesn't happen that often. And even then, the expert's contribution will be "fixed" and "improved" until it's as factually accurate as your typical newspaper's sci/med reporting i.e. wrong (see any reporting in the last month about radiation).
Wikipedia will never improve it's reliability until Jimmy Wales and his cabal of editors who treat it as their own personal sandbox are given the heave-ho. Which isn't going to happen, because it IS their own personal sandbox.
What, citation needed? Anything from Sanger will do. Here's one from the relevant era: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25
The Wire, (cable)
Mad Men, (cable)
Breaking Bad, (cable)
the Sopranos, (cable)
Deadwood, (cable)
the Shield, (cable)
Sons of Anarchy, (cable)
Queer as Folk (cable)
Not disagreeing. Just saying.
They claim this, even if your code contains no text from GPL'd code, contains only unprotected API text from GPL'd header files, or is distributed only as a non-compilable package that requires end-user assembly with GPL sources obtained separately.
When he says 'substantial' I hear 'non-empty'. You can't link to a single function in a dynamic library without creating a derivative work. So be sure you strip out all inline functions and macros from GPL header files and just use the structures, typedefs, and enums. Just to be safe. And goodbye C++ templates.