I have a front suspension on my relatively new Boulder SE. Not because I wanted a suspension at all, but because you can't buy a new mountain bike that *doesn't* have a front suspension (a non-department store bike, that is). I wanted to get a reasonably light and capable bike, but I wasn't ready to spend >$500 for a road bike and I wanted the flexibility to go off-road.
I actually never stand up on my bike except to coast down hills (it's fun), but if you see me riding in a situation where shocks are unnecessary or detrimental, just know that it's not about flash.
Hello? People don't complain that LZW is obvious. They complain that Unisys sat on the patent for ten years while it found its way into standard data formats like gif and compress. Hence the term "submarine patent."
It's like trying to save money by playing at a casino--the house has already figured out all the odds, and they're not in your favor....
I don't think it's accurate to compare a casino to insurance. With gambling, you can opt out of risk completely and always be left with what you have. With insurance, you can't avoid playing the game; by virtue of existing, your health and your belongings are constantly subjected to risk.
You could almost think of not taking insurance as gambling. Every month you ante up your health and every valuable thing you own, and each time you "win" (when nothing bad happens) you win back your ante and the insurance premium you're not paying. If you lose a round, you lose your ante, which is much more valuable than any winnings you will ever take away from the game.
My quick search of Google Groups seems to support the idea that it showed up in November of 1997. Search for "Bill Gates $1000" before Nov. 1997 and the hoax doesn't show up. Then do the same search before Dec. 1997 and a bunch of things start popping up, such as this thread where someone asks if the hoax has been seen prior to 25 Nov 97 and gets no reply showing a previous occurrence. Here is another message indicating that it was defnitely hot in Dec 1997 (the poster complains about repeatedly getting it).
I cannot think of a situation where I would want NULL=NULL to be true. I'm no SQL guru and I'm a bit rusty, but:
1. the only situation I can think of where you are comparing two values, where neither is a literal, is when you are joining on a pair of columns
2. if one of the values *is* a literal, there is no reason not to write "IS NULL" instead of "=NULL"
3. if you *are* joining on a pair of columns, letting "NULL=NULL" would not make any sense (you would get the cartesian product of all rows from both tables that have NULL in those columns)
4. also, if you are joining on a pair of columns, one of those should be a primary key, and you shouldn't have NULL values in a primary key column.
Can you illustrate a situation where you want NULL=NULL to be true? Perhaps the situation arises in procedural SQL (stored procedures and such) that I am not as familar with.
If you don't want to hand out source with the binary, then you can use 3(b), which says you have to provide a written offer to give it to _any_ third party. So if you take this option, you are required to distribute it to the public, for three years.
According to the GPL FAQ, you are only required to distribute it to people who have obtained the offer, not the public at large.
"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.
I don't think it's so clear-cut; see the language in section 2(b) about causing derived works to be licensed "as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." I'm not an expert and I could be misinterpreting this provision, but I think it's a stretch to say it's "plainly wrong."
Are you sure? I cannot vouch for the full implications of this, but section 2(b) of the GPL states:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Perhaps the work can be licensed to all third parties without being available to all third parties; under this interpretation the work would not need to be available to the public. But I would like to see a convincing resolution of this issue.
- lose the picture - lose education before college - lose objective (I'll specifically tailor it to jobs I'm applying for - for each "Experience" entry, I added what technologies/skills I used. - changed the order of sections to Experience, Education, Technical Skills. I don't want to list "Technical Skills" first or Education last, because I think my Education is a strong section, so I added skills to each experience entry instead.
Personally I think that it's important to have an objective statment, but that objective should reflect what you actually want to do, and not be just some generic statement like "A job as a computer programmer in an environment where I am challenged and constantly learning new things." That statement tells me nothing. Something that tells me what kind of work you want to do is useful.
If I said that I want to do "real-time multimedia systems" (which is my biggest specialty and greatest joy) I don't think I would be very widely marketable. Not to mention that my skills are more diverse than that, and I could be happy in lots of different roles: web apps, database programming, application programming, I think I could adapt to most things. I don't want to shoehorn myself into one little specialty and give people interviewing for other jobs a reason to turn me away by overspecifying the kind of job I want.
I very much appreciate hearing the opinions of people who read resumes, though.
If you really like doing this, take a look at mine.
I have a picture, but if the discrimination thing is real I'll remove it.
It's also on a domain that has other stuff about it, but nothing that I wouldn't mind a potential employer reading (I intentionally keep public information about myself tame in general).
I have always heard that microkernel is supposed to make things better. The system is easier to get right, easier to debug. Sure it runs a bit slower with the overhead, but it will be rock solid stable and secure.
I think you have it backwards. A microkernel is more complicated and much harder to debug, because the kernel is divided up into a bunch of independent "threads" that communicate via message-passing. It is a monolithic kernel that will be more stable (relative to the amount of debugging) because unlike microkernel threads, the monolithic kernel doesn't preempt itself.
I'm not an expert in this field, but that is my understanding.
Ask them to describe relevant experience (professional, not futzing around on their own time)
That doesn't seem fair. Why discount a person's experience just because it wasn't in the context of a professional position? If they're doing it on their own time, it means (1) they really care about it and (2) they can teach themselves, as opposed to having to be hand-held through everything.
I think you would short-change me if you refused to consider what I've accomplished on my own time. A relatively small part of my knowledge and skills come from professional work.
I don't know much about terminal emulation, so this is a pretty uninformed opinion, but...
It seems like the world could benefit from seeing a new terminal emulation standard, based on the reality that terminal emulation is almost never dealing with hardware terminals any more.
Specifically, it would be nice to see:
- the ability to set colors arbitrarily based on RGB pairs - the delete/backspace thing sorted out. It drives me crazy when I have a host/server/software combination where backspace doesn't work correctly, which unfortunately happens pretty often - a single, standardized set of codes so that terminfo/termcap are no longer necessary - the ability to receive mouse clicks
Again, I don't know much about this area, I just speak as a user who's wasted too much time with the current state of terminal emulation. And while I recognize that there's a lot of legacy hardware/software out there, I'm pretty sure that you could put compatability measures in place.
Have you considered the fact that there is a benefit to always knowing what "if" and "class" do? I'm sure you could pull off some really clever and elegant things by redefining basic language constructs, but the cost would be predictability and readability.
Once again, static compile-time optimizations cannot match run-time optimizations unless the compile-time optimization is to write out every possible code-path that is most optimal for the entire input space.
I realize this. Grandparent didn't acknowledge that every possible optimization that a JVM performs is inherently available to lower-level languages also (even if it's not convenient, or idiomatic) with his silly "Fact:" spiel. What bothered me more was his resort to pedantry and his attitude.
Are you kidding me? This complete joke of a legal analysis is supposed to show that ProCD vs. Zeidenberg did not, in fact, uphold a EULA?
In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, a contract includes only the terms on which the parties have agreed. One cannot agree to hidden terms, the judge concluded.
I think you popped your champagne cork a bit too early. That was the conclusion of the district court. If you had read one more sentence, you would have found:
So far, so good-- but one of the terms to which Zeidenberg agreed by pur- chasing the software is that the transaction was subject to a license.
The paragraph goes into more detail about why the Court of Appeals found that putting the EULA on the inside of the box is appropriate for software.
So, the EULA was not upheld. The judge ruled on a matter of copyright.
Sorry, it doesn't say that at all. The paragraph you quoted was addressing the question of whether section 301(a) of Copyright law prevents the enforcement of EULAs, which the Court of Appeals found it didn't.
No.. because EULAs and Privacy policies in general are non-binding.
I am a broken record that repeats the words ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg whenever someone claims that EULA's have never been upheld in court. Unfortunately they have.
Of course the EULA hasn't been validated in court yet AFAIK, but that's another story.
I am a broken record that repeats the words ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg whenever someone claims that EULA's have never been upheld in court. Unfortunately they have.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a front suspension on my relatively new Boulder SE. Not because I wanted a suspension at all, but because you can't buy a new mountain bike that *doesn't* have a front suspension (a non-department store bike, that is). I wanted to get a reasonably light and capable bike, but I wasn't ready to spend >$500 for a road bike and I wanted the flexibility to go off-road.
I actually never stand up on my bike except to coast down hills (it's fun), but if you see me riding in a situation where shocks are unnecessary or detrimental, just know that it's not about flash.
Hello? People don't complain that LZW is obvious. They complain that Unisys sat on the patent for ten years while it found its way into standard data formats like gif and compress. Hence the term "submarine patent."
It's like trying to save money by playing at a casino--the house has already figured out all the odds, and they're not in your favor....
I don't think it's accurate to compare a casino to insurance. With gambling, you can opt out of risk completely and always be left with what you have. With insurance, you can't avoid playing the game; by virtue of existing, your health and your belongings are constantly subjected to risk.
You could almost think of not taking insurance as gambling. Every month you ante up your health and every valuable thing you own, and each time you "win" (when nothing bad happens) you win back your ante and the insurance premium you're not paying. If you lose a round, you lose your ante, which is much more valuable than any winnings you will ever take away from the game.
This may surprise you, but some technically minded people can discuss things like that rationally.
My quick search of Google Groups seems to support the idea that it showed up in November of 1997. Search for "Bill Gates $1000" before Nov. 1997 and the hoax doesn't show up. Then do the same search before Dec. 1997 and a bunch of things start popping up, such as this thread where someone asks if the hoax has been seen prior to 25 Nov 97 and gets no reply showing a previous occurrence. Here is another message indicating that it was defnitely hot in Dec 1997 (the poster complains about repeatedly getting it).
Not proof, but likeliness of the story's truth.
I cannot think of a situation where I would want NULL=NULL to be true. I'm no SQL guru and I'm a bit rusty, but:
1. the only situation I can think of where you are comparing two values, where neither is a literal, is when you are joining on a pair of columns
2. if one of the values *is* a literal, there is no reason not to write "IS NULL" instead of "=NULL"
3. if you *are* joining on a pair of columns, letting "NULL=NULL" would not make any sense (you would get the cartesian product of all rows from both tables that have NULL in those columns)
4. also, if you are joining on a pair of columns, one of those should be a primary key, and you shouldn't have NULL values in a primary key column.
Can you illustrate a situation where you want NULL=NULL to be true? Perhaps the situation arises in procedural SQL (stored procedures and such) that I am not as familar with.
If you don't want to hand out source with the binary, then you can use 3(b), which says you have to provide a written offer to give it to _any_ third party. So if you take this option, you are required to distribute it to the public, for three years.
According to the GPL FAQ, you are only required to distribute it to people who have obtained the offer, not the public at large.
"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.
...and it appears that I'm wrong.
Reading the GPL FAQ, that does seem to be the interpretation intended by the FSF:
... to all third parties." Who are these third parties?.
The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed
So I have a license to every GPL'd work ever distributed, though I may not have physical access to all those works.
Thats just plainly wrong, please re-read the GPL!
I don't think it's so clear-cut; see the language in section 2(b) about causing derived works to be licensed "as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." I'm not an expert and I could be misinterpreting this provision, but I think it's a stretch to say it's "plainly wrong."
Are you sure? I cannot vouch for the full implications of this, but section 2(b) of the GPL states:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Perhaps the work can be licensed to all third parties without being available to all third parties; under this interpretation the work would not need to be available to the public. But I would like to see a convincing resolution of this issue.
Could you elaborate? I'm applying there now.
Here are the changes I made:
- lose the picture
- lose education before college
- lose objective (I'll specifically tailor it to jobs I'm applying for
- for each "Experience" entry, I added what technologies/skills I used.
- changed the order of sections to Experience, Education, Technical Skills. I don't want to list "Technical Skills" first or Education last, because I think my Education is a strong section, so I added skills to each experience entry instead.
Personally I think that it's important to have an objective statment, but that objective should reflect what you actually want to do, and not be just some generic statement like "A job as a computer programmer in an environment where I am challenged and constantly learning new things." That statement tells me nothing. Something that tells me what kind of work you want to do is useful.
If I said that I want to do "real-time multimedia systems" (which is my biggest specialty and greatest joy) I don't think I would be very widely marketable. Not to mention that my skills are more diverse than that, and I could be happy in lots of different roles: web apps, database programming, application programming, I think I could adapt to most things. I don't want to shoehorn myself into one little specialty and give people interviewing for other jobs a reason to turn me away by overspecifying the kind of job I want.
I very much appreciate hearing the opinions of people who read resumes, though.
If you really like doing this, take a look at mine.
I have a picture, but if the discrimination thing is real I'll remove it.
It's also on a domain that has other stuff about it, but nothing that I wouldn't mind a potential employer reading (I intentionally keep public information about myself tame in general).
I have always heard that microkernel is supposed to make things better. The system is easier to get right, easier to debug. Sure it runs a bit slower with the overhead, but it will be rock solid stable and secure.
I think you have it backwards. A microkernel is more complicated and much harder to debug, because the kernel is divided up into a bunch of independent "threads" that communicate via message-passing. It is a monolithic kernel that will be more stable (relative to the amount of debugging) because unlike microkernel threads, the monolithic kernel doesn't preempt itself.
I'm not an expert in this field, but that is my understanding.
Ask them to describe relevant experience (professional, not futzing around on their own time)
That doesn't seem fair. Why discount a person's experience just because it wasn't in the context of a professional position? If they're doing it on their own time, it means (1) they really care about it and (2) they can teach themselves, as opposed to having to be hand-held through everything.
I think you would short-change me if you refused to consider what I've accomplished on my own time. A relatively small part of my knowledge and skills come from professional work.
Thanks. Why does that work? Does CTRL-V "quote" the next character?
Another idea: scrollback control, so that the scrollbar/scrollback for 'screen' could work correctly (as if you weren't using screen).
I don't know much about terminal emulation, so this is a pretty uninformed opinion, but...
It seems like the world could benefit from seeing a new terminal emulation standard, based on the reality that terminal emulation is almost never dealing with hardware terminals any more.
Specifically, it would be nice to see:
- the ability to set colors arbitrarily based on RGB pairs
- the delete/backspace thing sorted out. It drives me crazy when I have a host/server/software combination where backspace doesn't work correctly, which unfortunately happens pretty often
- a single, standardized set of codes so that terminfo/termcap are no longer necessary
- the ability to receive mouse clicks
Again, I don't know much about this area, I just speak as a user who's wasted too much time with the current state of terminal emulation. And while I recognize that there's a lot of legacy hardware/software out there, I'm pretty sure that you could put compatability measures in place.
Have you considered the fact that there is a benefit to always knowing what "if" and "class" do? I'm sure you could pull off some really clever and elegant things by redefining basic language constructs, but the cost would be predictability and readability.
Once again, static compile-time optimizations cannot match run-time optimizations unless the compile-time optimization is to write out every possible code-path that is most optimal for the entire input space.
I realize this. Grandparent didn't acknowledge that every possible optimization that a JVM performs is inherently available to lower-level languages also (even if it's not convenient, or idiomatic) with his silly "Fact:" spiel. What bothered me more was his resort to pedantry and his attitude.
Are you kidding me? This complete joke of a legal analysis is supposed to show that ProCD vs. Zeidenberg did not, in fact, uphold a EULA?
In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, a contract includes only the terms on which the parties have agreed. One cannot agree to hidden terms, the judge concluded.
I think you popped your champagne cork a bit too early. That was the conclusion of the district court. If you had read one more sentence, you would have found:
So far, so good-- but one of the terms to which Zeidenberg agreed by pur- chasing the software is that the transaction was subject to a license.
The paragraph goes into more detail about why the Court of Appeals found that putting the EULA on the inside of the box is appropriate for software.
So, the EULA was not upheld. The judge ruled on a matter of copyright.
Sorry, it doesn't say that at all. The paragraph you quoted was addressing the question of whether section 301(a) of Copyright law prevents the enforcement of EULAs, which the Court of Appeals found it didn't.
No.. because EULAs and Privacy policies in general are non-binding.
I am a broken record that repeats the words ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg whenever someone claims that EULA's have never been upheld in court. Unfortunately they have.
Of course the EULA hasn't been validated in court yet AFAIK, but that's another story.
I am a broken record that repeats the words ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg whenever someone claims that EULA's have never been upheld in court. Unfortunately they have.