Actually, there's a much easier solution. I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned it. Perhaps it's not well know.
The easy solution is to have packages depend more on FILES, instead of on other packages. So instead of depending on the linux-libc-dev package (under Ubuntu) or the linux-kernel-headers package (under Debian) when I need/usr/include/linux/net.h, the package should just depend on the/usr/include/linux/net.h file that it actually needs. Or if a package needs Python to run, it should depend on a python binary existing in the path, not some python package. If the package requires Python 2.4 or higher, it shouldn't be difficult to check that either. (For example, running python -V will tell you what version you have; the version of the package containing the file should probably match the version of the binary.)
I'm pretty certain that DEBs and RPMs can both be made to depend on files. But the feature needs to be used much more, especially for those creating packages to run cross-distro. It would also be helpful to add some other dependency types, like the Python scenario I mentioned about.
Um, if we were to convert the earth's thermal energy into electricity, wouldn't that lower the temperature? I imagine much of the electrical energy would convert back to heat, but a lot of it would be converted to mechanical energy. So perhaps this is a partial solution to global warming.
Of course, I'm sure we'd hear some people complaining about the new problem of Global Cooling.
I was always under that impression myself, that the US did not recognize dual citizenship for those over 18. However, I recently read through the State Department's web site, and it was pretty clear that the US does recognize dual (or more) citizenship. (They do discourage it though.) In fact, the only way to really lose your US citizenship is to formally declare at an embassy that you are renouncing it, or if you apply for citizenship in another country with the intention of giving up US citizenship.
Uh, no. The international laws and treaties on piracy do not apply to all crimes. They only apply to actual piracy -- i.e. taking of property by physical force within international waters. They would definitely not include the crimes of "copyright infringement" or "inducement to infringe copyright".
I was expecting someone to make that argument. Depriving someone of potential income is not seen as theft in most circumstances under the law. Nor by most people. What if you were selling bicycles, and I invented the motorcycle? I would be depriving you of income, but nobody would consider it to be theft of your income. It would not even be seen as (non-criminal) "taking" of your income. What if you were selling fire, and someone used the fire you sold them to light someone else's candle? Even if that were illegal, few would see it as immoral.
There are several issues with the idea of "rightful income". The whole idea of copyright (enshrined in the US Constitution) is to encourage people to create things for society. Per this theory, the creators are not entitled to unlimited income for their works; they are entitled to enough income to keep them creating. When you have the ability to make an unlimited amount of something at no cost, the "right" thing to do for society as a whole would be to create as much of it as possible, not as little as possible. (Which charging for it implicitly does.) Let's go back to the fire example. If there were many cold people, and they could all share the fire you provided, that would be "right", as opposed to you only allowing those who pay you to have fire.
Many of us here benefit financially from creating copyrighted works. Yet a large majority of us believe that the current system is weighted too far in favor of copyright (and patent) owners. I think that's a pretty good indication that there's something wrong. Your view is more aligned with that current situation than the solution to the problem.
As to your use of the word "theft" or "stealing", we like to make a distinction of using different words when the ideas are NOT the same. We're geeks here, and prefer to have precise language (just as the legal field does). So we see the need to be precise when discussing the difference between taking something that leaves the owner with their original, and taking something that deprives the owner of their original. It's basically the difference between rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods, irrespective of artificially added scarcity.
the 1979 Atari 800 was the most capable [....] and also have high-resolution separate chrominance and luminance video output (S-Video before anybody called it S-video)
The Commodore 64 had the same component video outputs. It used 1 RCA cable for each, whereas the S-Video uses a single cable with 4 wires.
Seriously. "The jury of your peers" is about keeping a ruling class from passing judgment on the masses. It's one of the last lines of defense against corruption in the legal system.
Yes. And that corrupt ruling class is the legislature. So it would seem that jury nullification is in fact completely within the framework of the Constitution.
Although as you point out, the jury is supposed to be ruling on the facts, not the law. The jury is basically there to decide who is telling the truth regarding any disputed facts. I'm not sure that that's the case in practice though. If it were, I would suspect that judges would throw out more cases where the disputes are over the laws. Instead, it's usually only on appeals where those issues get dealt with.
This will continue until the cost of living drops so far through technology that people no longer have to work. Then we will have new problems.
I'm not so sure that this isn't happening already. Look at the small percentage of income that is spent in the US on basic needs. Look at the small percentage of us who actually make things.
It sounds like you'd be happier at the Perl job, and you know it. Money can buy some degree of happiness when away from work. So there really is a tipping point where you should take a better paying job, if taking a low-paying job would make it difficult to get by. But since you'd be getting a significant increase by moving to the Perl job, I don't think you're near that tipping point here.
My advice would be to talk to the company with the Perl job, and let them know about the.NET offer. Tell them that you're having trouble deciding -- that you'd take the Perl job if they were a little more competitive. If not, it'd be a toss-up between the 2. There's a good chance that they'll actually increase the offer, and VERY little chance that they'd rescind the offer. If they do increase the offer, definitely take the Perl job. Otherwise, write down the pros and cons of each, to get a better picture in your head.
I'd also like to agree with everyone who says not to drive 120 miles to work every day. That'd just make you miserable, taking away most of the advantages of the Perl job.
I'd prefer a system whereby local judges were appointed by the state Governor or legislature and subject to a yes / no vote periodically by the voters.
That's pretty much how it works in Missouri. Notably though, many voters do not cast a vote for judges that are on the ballot, as they don't know enough about them. But most judges pass with 90% or more.
Actually, I think that's a pretty good point. There's a similar phenomenon that happens with overly restrictive laws. Once they become too restrictive, people stop following them. Once they stop following the overly-restrictive laws, they have less incentive to follow other laws.
You could have commercial-free cable TV, if you were willing to accept that your cable TV lineup consisted of 10 channels total. But that's not what most people want, and the market has adjusted accordingly.
I think you're wrong about that. I'm pretty certain that there's data showing that most people pretty much watch 10-20 channels. If they were available a la carte, people wouldn't bother having 200 channels -- they'd just pay for the 10-20 that they're interested in watching. That's what people would want, if they had the choice. But this would probably make each channel more expensive, not less.
Uh, the Wikipedia article explains the word, and references several popular culture references. If that doesn't help, Googling the word will give several more.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there's a much easier solution. I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned it. Perhaps it's not well know.
/usr/include/linux/net.h, the package should just depend on the /usr/include/linux/net.h file that it actually needs. Or if a package needs Python to run, it should depend on a python binary existing in the path, not some python package. If the package requires Python 2.4 or higher, it shouldn't be difficult to check that either. (For example, running python -V will tell you what version you have; the version of the package containing the file should probably match the version of the binary.)
The easy solution is to have packages depend more on FILES, instead of on other packages. So instead of depending on the linux-libc-dev package (under Ubuntu) or the linux-kernel-headers package (under Debian) when I need
I'm pretty certain that DEBs and RPMs can both be made to depend on files. But the feature needs to be used much more, especially for those creating packages to run cross-distro. It would also be helpful to add some other dependency types, like the Python scenario I mentioned about.
Um, if we were to convert the earth's thermal energy into electricity, wouldn't that lower the temperature? I imagine much of the electrical energy would convert back to heat, but a lot of it would be converted to mechanical energy. So perhaps this is a partial solution to global warming.
Of course, I'm sure we'd hear some people complaining about the new problem of Global Cooling.
I was always under that impression myself, that the US did not recognize dual citizenship for those over 18. However, I recently read through the State Department's web site, and it was pretty clear that the US does recognize dual (or more) citizenship. (They do discourage it though.) In fact, the only way to really lose your US citizenship is to formally declare at an embassy that you are renouncing it, or if you apply for citizenship in another country with the intention of giving up US citizenship.
Uh, no. The international laws and treaties on piracy do not apply to all crimes. They only apply to actual piracy -- i.e. taking of property by physical force within international waters. They would definitely not include the crimes of "copyright infringement" or "inducement to infringe copyright".
I was expecting someone to make that argument. Depriving someone of potential income is not seen as theft in most circumstances under the law. Nor by most people. What if you were selling bicycles, and I invented the motorcycle? I would be depriving you of income, but nobody would consider it to be theft of your income. It would not even be seen as (non-criminal) "taking" of your income. What if you were selling fire, and someone used the fire you sold them to light someone else's candle? Even if that were illegal, few would see it as immoral.
There are several issues with the idea of "rightful income". The whole idea of copyright (enshrined in the US Constitution) is to encourage people to create things for society. Per this theory, the creators are not entitled to unlimited income for their works; they are entitled to enough income to keep them creating. When you have the ability to make an unlimited amount of something at no cost, the "right" thing to do for society as a whole would be to create as much of it as possible, not as little as possible. (Which charging for it implicitly does.) Let's go back to the fire example. If there were many cold people, and they could all share the fire you provided, that would be "right", as opposed to you only allowing those who pay you to have fire.
Many of us here benefit financially from creating copyrighted works. Yet a large majority of us believe that the current system is weighted too far in favor of copyright (and patent) owners. I think that's a pretty good indication that there's something wrong. Your view is more aligned with that current situation than the solution to the problem.
As to your use of the word "theft" or "stealing", we like to make a distinction of using different words when the ideas are NOT the same. We're geeks here, and prefer to have precise language (just as the legal field does). So we see the need to be precise when discussing the difference between taking something that leaves the owner with their original, and taking something that deprives the owner of their original. It's basically the difference between rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods, irrespective of artificially added scarcity.
The Commodore 64 had the same component video outputs. It used 1 RCA cable for each, whereas the S-Video uses a single cable with 4 wires.
Yes. And that corrupt ruling class is the legislature. So it would seem that jury nullification is in fact completely within the framework of the Constitution.
Although as you point out, the jury is supposed to be ruling on the facts, not the law. The jury is basically there to decide who is telling the truth regarding any disputed facts. I'm not sure that that's the case in practice though. If it were, I would suspect that judges would throw out more cases where the disputes are over the laws. Instead, it's usually only on appeals where those issues get dealt with.
I'm not so sure that this isn't happening already. Look at the small percentage of income that is spent in the US on basic needs. Look at the small percentage of us who actually make things.
What kind of Rails programmers are you looking for? What kind of project? Where? How much? Etc. (I.e. a link would be great!)
The book is published by The Pragmatic Programmers. You can buy the Rails Recipes book directly from them, as well as the PDF.
Actually, it is Deep Thought that says that the 2nd computer shall be called "The Earth". The inhabitants do mistake it for a planet though.
No. The good discussions start with porn.
I can't believe you have a UID that low and still don't know the difference between applets and server side Java.
I can't believe that you consider 97000 a low UID.
I think the word we want here is "collusion". Or possibly "cartel".
-- Ron Gilbert
It sounds like you'd be happier at the Perl job, and you know it. Money can buy some degree of happiness when away from work. So there really is a tipping point where you should take a better paying job, if taking a low-paying job would make it difficult to get by. But since you'd be getting a significant increase by moving to the Perl job, I don't think you're near that tipping point here.
.NET offer. Tell them that you're having trouble deciding -- that you'd take the Perl job if they were a little more competitive. If not, it'd be a toss-up between the 2. There's a good chance that they'll actually increase the offer, and VERY little chance that they'd rescind the offer. If they do increase the offer, definitely take the Perl job. Otherwise, write down the pros and cons of each, to get a better picture in your head.
My advice would be to talk to the company with the Perl job, and let them know about the
I'd also like to agree with everyone who says not to drive 120 miles to work every day. That'd just make you miserable, taking away most of the advantages of the Perl job.
I'd prefer a system whereby local judges were appointed by the state Governor or legislature and subject to a yes / no vote periodically by the voters.
That's pretty much how it works in Missouri. Notably though, many voters do not cast a vote for judges that are on the ballot, as they don't know enough about them. But most judges pass with 90% or more.
Now how did your comment score better than mine?
It already exists. It's called cron. Your crontab should look something like this:
* * * * * congress_did_something_stupid.sh
"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
Not sure how to popularize a new tag, so I figured I'd let everyone know the new tag I added to this story:
strangebedfellows
Actually, I think that's a pretty good point. There's a similar phenomenon that happens with overly restrictive laws. Once they become too restrictive, people stop following them. Once they stop following the overly-restrictive laws, they have less incentive to follow other laws.
You could have commercial-free cable TV, if you were willing to accept that your cable TV lineup consisted of 10 channels total. But that's not what most people want, and the market has adjusted accordingly.
I think you're wrong about that. I'm pretty certain that there's data showing that most people pretty much watch 10-20 channels. If they were available a la carte, people wouldn't bother having 200 channels -- they'd just pay for the 10-20 that they're interested in watching. That's what people would want, if they had the choice. But this would probably make each channel more expensive, not less.
Err, I think you mis-interpreted what he was saying. He was saying that the firm has auditors in the field, who need their laptops protected.
Uh, the Wikipedia article explains the word, and references several popular culture references. If that doesn't help, Googling the word will give several more.
He's a Microsoft engineer. Obviously his delusions of grandeur are not limited to work.
Nor are unfounded claims of originality.