Maybe you should use C++ before posting stupidity like this. If you mean to say C++ doesn't have built-in stack tracing you'd sound less stupid. Getting a stack trace, like many things in languages built before JAVA is a matter of including some other code and turning on a feature of your compiler. I get stack traces just fine in my exceptions.
C++ has mountains of capabilities in libs/code outside the standard, JAVA has it all packed into the standard - what's the big deal?
conclusion: languages are tools in a toolbox, stop getting pissy about any one of them. Hammer? Good. Screwdriver? Good. Right tool for the right job.
No, it isn't. The majority vote was in favor, and it was ENTIRELY written by Scalia - and yes I read it. He clearly misuses the language (not accidentally, not subtly - 100% for political purpose.)
Don't be confused about me either, I agree with the decision, but Scalia's opinion is ridiculous.
OK then, let's stick with the language. You're prepared to dispense with all of the founders' other personal-arms-ownership-related writings and commentary at the time because you're can't get your head around their punctuation choice as you seek to conflate and flip upside down the words they've chosen to use.
Not at all. Suggest a writer and particular writing and we can discuss. You're being quite vague - pick something that one of the writers of the 2nd amendment wrote which you claim contradicts my statements. Your choice.
My Dad told that they had them firing Thompson's in UDT school in 1962 and that the damn thing almost lifted him right over when firing full auto.
What I dislike is the virtual banning of certain firearms. I can buy (and own) a fully automatic AK-47. The tax stamp puts it out of the reach of nearly everyone.
It's not the tax stamp that gets you (iirc it's around $200) it's that there's a limited supply of pre-1996 full auto weapons in the U.S. (would have been a great time to have these in stock!) I hear that MP-40's go for $20k.
Anyhow, the mish-mash of legislation is because no one can sit down and have a rational discussion about guns sadly.
I do not intend to harm anyone with it and the about the only time it comes out of the safe is when I take it to the disabled vets "machine gun shoot."
The problem isn't you though;) - it's the rest of the irresponsible majority.
Personally, a mossberg is more than enough self defense for me. I use the Mark 23 because I have big hands and it's a great target shooting weapon.
You're actually completely wrong. If you really want a comprehensive examination of the language of the second amendment (rather that just blather on cluelessly about it)
Oh, you mean I should read Scalia's *opinion* (which is what you linked to) about what it is supposed to mean despite 4 of the supreme court justices claiming that he's intentionally reading it wrong, and the other 4 are notoriously silent on the topic?
I was actually glad that the decision went this way, but it had nothing to do with how the second amendment is actually written, and everything to do with a conservative court having a 5-4 majority.
Rather than relying on a supreme court justice with a clear political agenda, why don't you study some American history...?
I know exactly what it means. And the authors are clear that having a well regulated militia is necessary. Are you foggy about that, somehow?
Where have I suggested you can't have a well regulated militia?
They're also very clear, having stipulated that, just like with their British overlords had one, they're going to have a continually armed and well regulated military... that they're not (UNLIKE their previous British overlords) going to let the necessary existence of that entity be an excuse to deprive the rest of the people from keeping and bearing arms.
You are making it quite clear that you do not know what the phrase "well regulated" means in 18th/19th century English. It doesn't mean subjected to rules or laws - it means "normal" or "as one would expect."
You also clearly have some other, bizarre, interpretation where you separate the "well regulated militia" from "the people" - as if the writers were just lazy and couldn't be bothered to write two sentences rather than one.
The "people" referenced in the amendment ARE the constituents of the well regulated militia. It is saying "let's make this clear that when we say militia we mean a normal militia made up of civilians - NOT the troops of a standing army."
Again, pointing out that each of these amendments was written in such a way as to restrict the federal government from overreaching STATE governments.
This concept of modern America being a giant nation that happens to have geographic distinctions called 'states' is a relatively new thing. In 1791, states were basically little countries unto themselves that happened to share strong cultural similarities.
Their urge to use that word was a reflection of how distasteful they found the notion of a large standing federal military
They who? The word militia is used because the states need to be assured that if there ever was a federal army the federal government would be bound by law to allow states (and smaller representative local governments) to maintain militias - in other words "if you ever have a standing army, we are still entitled to have our own militias - not that we don't trust you, it's just that we don't trust you that much.)
Do you foresee a situation where the right to free expression or the right to assemble perhaps should be considered just a little too dangerous, and we should consider taking that away?
What on earth are you talking about now? Is this your odd segue to turn an academic discussion of the grammar of the second amendment into a political discussion of your personal views?
...if you think that's also a "living" amendment that's worth scrapping...
What? Who wants to scrap any amendments? I think you've made some assumptions about what was being discussed that was neither stated nor intended.
This has been a discussion about second amendment LANGUAGE usage. Not personal political views.
I realized, long ago, that I can not be pro-choice. I am choice-accepting.
Pretty much where I am. Almost as if I divorce myself from the legal issue simply because I'm not female. But as to the moral issue - it's reprehensible unless it's a question of the mother's life versus the baby's.
That is one of the major reasons the Revolution started...
I would rephrase that as the march on Concord being the British crossing the rubicon. The British marched to capture an arms cache that belonged to the colonial militia.
It is because the previous poster already did, I merely asked him what he thought the "well regulated militia" meant since he clearly left that inconvenient part out.
..is known as a prefactory clause...
I think you're referring to a prefatory clause - and the only people who consider it prefatory are those who want the primary focus of the sentence to be what is, in point of fact, the clause that makes clear that the militia is not to be confused with a standing army.
...short of conviction(or commitment),,,
I'm not sure how you can argue that "shall not infringe" mean the government has no say (as you do in your last paragraph) in the regulation of arms, yet you make a spurious case for keeping them out of the hands of convicts and the insane - that's a bit hypocritical - don't you think?
I own a handgun, and being as objective as possible - the amendment rather clearly states that the federal government cannot deprive the individual states from bearing arms in some form of a militia.
The fact that people are constantly trying to twist those words to mean what it is they want is the problem with the second amendment; however, as I'd previously stated elsewhere - I believe the writers of the amendment intended for it to be less than specific just so it would stand the test of time and be argued in order to fit the times in which it was being applied.
Really rather ingenious of them actually.
I'm ex-military, own one gun - (target shooting), and I have always been pro-choice but am having a harder time with it than ever these past few years.
You're looking at the language and purpose of the amendment incorrectly. To translate its essence into more modern parlance, if would go something like:...
Given that you clearly do not know what the term "well regulated" meant in 1791, it's much easier to believe that you don't know what the phrase means - and telling people what the people who wrote the document *intended* is borderline delusional.
I'm looking at the language and purpose objectively, you're clearly looking at it subjectively; otherwise you wouldn't have projected whatever it is you *think* my interpretation is when I've not stated it at all - instead asking the other poster what they believe the phrase means when they clearly ignored it.
Just for the record I'm not anti-gun and I'm not gun-crazy either.
To save you the time - 'well regulated' was a turn of phrase that meant 'in the proper form of' - or for a terse and modern interpretation - "normal" and militias were in 1791 primarily organized at the state level as a unifying body.
So, what the document says (the amendment that was passed by Congress) is basically that the federal government shall not infringe upon the rights of local government militias (primarily targeting the states who were to ratify the amendment - albeit in grammatically different form.)
It's open to lots of interpretation - but that's how I believe it should be - and I hope it is what they intended. I don't think the early American government believed it could be specific and have these amendments stand the test of time (and they've been proven right over and over.)
Whatever the interpretation of the grammar, it's clear as day that it was meant that the amendment was intended to retain state powers in the face of a federal government gone amuck - not for anyone to have a gun. Militia had a very specific meaning at that time as well.
That being said, I enjoy breaking out my Mark 23 periodically and punching holes in targets.;)
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons.
Since you're apparently an expert in the colloquial interpretation of 18th century American English, could you please explain what this part of the 2nd amendment means?
"A well regulated Militia"
As a serious student of 18th century American History (not focusing particularly on the genesis of the Bill of Rights) it would read comparably to other documents of the 1780's and 90's (this example being 1791) as: "A well regulated militia, by which we mean an armed militia and not a standing army, shall always be allowed."
Your translation doesn't seem to mention a militia at all...
...Greece probably won't care if no one wants their drachmas; creditors (like Germany) will have to either take it or forfeit the debt.
Wow - is that ever simplistic. That kind of thinking leads to foreign investment dropping to absolute zero, tariffs and sanctions from your biggest sources of tourism (which makes up something like 20% of the Greek economy) - that's a bright future for Greece you're advocating. If they play all their cards right, maybe in a hundred years or so they'll be back at the level of Portugal.
So you went to a Bay Area High School for a few years and you think that makes you dis-advantaged? LOL.
Talk about crap...
How was your childhood before that, in regards to education and parental support/motivation? Did you run away from home or did you have the tacit permission and support of your family in China? Did you live on the streets or, if you were basically penniless - how'd you avoid starving death entirely on your own?
I'm willing to bet you had PLENTY of educational advantages. This doesn't detract from what you've accomplished at all - congratulations on bootstrapping into Taco heaven.:) BTW - San Jose La Taqueria on 4th in San Rafael - amazing super burritos. Best in the world.
The problem is that you think everyone is like you, so they should be able to do 'like you.' It's just not the case.
Actually, regarding the Jewish case in particular - Numerus clausus - it was oddly enough motivated primarily (it would seem) by anti-Semitism but also from the overwhelming prevalence of Jewish faculty and staff in schools that did not follow these strictures in the same areas.
It isn't interesting because they were Jewish, replace Jewish with anything - it was interesting because it was a case of the empowered (white/male/protestant) being out-advantaged by a minority (Jewish mothers!)
...Ultimately, admission is still done purely on merit. Let's be absolutely clear about that.
That's just not the case though. Merit likely plays, by far, the most important part of the selection process; however, enforced diversity exists and is prevalent at "not for profit" universities and colleges. Heck, the older form of it was referred to as Numerus clausus. It still exists today in a more legally acceptable form and with much better intentions.
There are positive and negatives aspects of that behavior. There will always be people complaining about the process as well.
While I can appreciate your intentions, the irony is that - as with schools and everyone involved in this topic (myself included) - you are projecting your own discrimination on the process.
The entire process of selecting students is discriminatory and openly acknowledged as being highly subjective; otherwise, a trivially simple software application would resolve the matter in a few hundred milliseconds.
Why isn't it discrimination to select students who score higher on a standardized test?
If you want to argue that this selector speaks directly to the abilities as a student, then we're back to arguing that there are selectors that *others* believe speak directly to student abilities as well - some of which you may not agree with.
I would suggest that the difference at Caltech is two part:
1. Their requirements are so high that you can weed out the 'grinders' whose parent only care about those specific numbers.
2. When you get there, if you don't have the real goods - you'll drown.
I've got an old work buddy who got in '89 (iirc), and it was so brutal that he dropped out in his sophmore year. He's a brilliant guy, and he wasn't angry/bitter - he said he just couldn't cope with the pace.
Yes, any contractor who has any idea of what is at stake should incorpate as a Chapter S at least.
Ignoring the huge tax advantages that comes with a Chapter S, it is the most protection for the least amount of effort.
If you're doing it full time, or you make at least $20k/year in income from your contracting, it's crazy to do anything else - it more than pays for itself. That $500 tax prep bill is worth every penny I saved by claiming capital gains on distributions.
You are conflating two different yet semantically related things.
"Work For Hire" and "Works For Hire" (sometimes referred to as "Works Made For Hire".)
Work For Hire refers to the actual work done by an employee/contractor that has been designated as falling upon the IP rules of Works Made For Hire.
Works Made For Hire is part of the the IP doctrine of copyright law.
If you are a contractor, and you do not have the money nor legal team to fight off an IP assignation case, you must carefully and clearly stipulate who owns what IP REGARDLESS OF WORKS MADE FOR HIRE. It IS ambiguous, and a contract lawyer will tell you - do not leave it up to interpretation outside of your contract..
I had a contract just two years ago that ran into an issue where the client (and their a**hole lawyer) were getting confused because I was going to provide them a solution that was built off of some code of mine that I owned all of the IP for.
I clearly delineated that they would own the solution, but that they were only receiving a license to use my previous inventions (and here's the part they choked on for a while) and any necessary extensions to my product that were necessary in order to provide them with a solution.
Their lawyer spent weeks arguing that they needed to own the changes I made to my existing product. That didn't happen...
So, as anybody who has dealt with an unfriendly lawyer would tell you - don't ASSume anything. Don't assume they won't be jerks, that they're not idiots, that the court isn't stupid, that jurors aren't stupid, et cetera ad nausem. Make it clear in your contract, as in 'clear to a 4 year old', who owns what, when, and for how long.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should use C++ before posting stupidity like this. If you mean to say C++ doesn't have built-in stack tracing you'd sound less stupid. Getting a stack trace, like many things in languages built before JAVA is a matter of including some other code and turning on a feature of your compiler. I get stack traces just fine in my exceptions.
C++ has mountains of capabilities in libs/code outside the standard, JAVA has it all packed into the standard - what's the big deal?
conclusion: languages are tools in a toolbox, stop getting pissy about any one of them. Hammer? Good. Screwdriver? Good. Right tool for the right job.
Sensationalism at its worst...
...for approximately 15 minutes to hack the unhackable today and then resumed normal business with smirking faces all around...
This. Thank you.
Please throw up when I do something this stupid so that I don't end up with inexplicable zeroes in the field.
No, it isn't. The majority vote was in favor, and it was ENTIRELY written by Scalia - and yes I read it. He clearly misuses the language (not accidentally, not subtly - 100% for political purpose.)
Don't be confused about me either, I agree with the decision, but Scalia's opinion is ridiculous.
OK then, let's stick with the language. You're prepared to dispense with all of the founders' other personal-arms-ownership-related writings and commentary at the time because you're can't get your head around their punctuation choice as you seek to conflate and flip upside down the words they've chosen to use.
Not at all. Suggest a writer and particular writing and we can discuss. You're being quite vague - pick something that one of the writers of the 2nd amendment wrote which you claim contradicts my statements. Your choice.
Why? Because I'm a gun owner who can be honest about the constitution as well as the political realities of one 'Honorable' Justice Scalia?
There are conservative Justices worthy of respect, Scalia is not one of them.
It's a 930 - I use it to hunt too. It certainly puts holes in things though.
My Dad told that they had them firing Thompson's in UDT school in 1962 and that the damn thing almost lifted him right over when firing full auto.
What I dislike is the virtual banning of certain firearms. I can buy (and own) a fully automatic AK-47. The tax stamp puts it out of the reach of nearly everyone.
It's not the tax stamp that gets you (iirc it's around $200) it's that there's a limited supply of pre-1996 full auto weapons in the U.S. (would have been a great time to have these in stock!) I hear that MP-40's go for $20k.
Anyhow, the mish-mash of legislation is because no one can sit down and have a rational discussion about guns sadly.
I do not intend to harm anyone with it and the about the only time it comes out of the safe is when I take it to the disabled vets "machine gun shoot."
The problem isn't you though ;) - it's the rest of the irresponsible majority.
Personally, a mossberg is more than enough self defense for me. I use the Mark 23 because I have big hands and it's a great target shooting weapon.
You're actually completely wrong. If you really want a comprehensive examination of the language of the second amendment (rather that just blather on cluelessly about it)
Oh, you mean I should read Scalia's *opinion* (which is what you linked to) about what it is supposed to mean despite 4 of the supreme court justices claiming that he's intentionally reading it wrong, and the other 4 are notoriously silent on the topic?
I was actually glad that the decision went this way, but it had nothing to do with how the second amendment is actually written, and everything to do with a conservative court having a 5-4 majority.
Rather than relying on a supreme court justice with a clear political agenda, why don't you study some American history...?
I know exactly what it means. And the authors are clear that having a well regulated militia is necessary. Are you foggy about that, somehow?
Where have I suggested you can't have a well regulated militia?
They're also very clear, having stipulated that, just like with their British overlords had one, they're going to have a continually armed and well regulated military ... that they're not (UNLIKE their previous British overlords) going to let the necessary existence of that entity be an excuse to deprive the rest of the people from keeping and bearing arms.
You are making it quite clear that you do not know what the phrase "well regulated" means in 18th/19th century English. It doesn't mean subjected to rules or laws - it means "normal" or "as one would expect."
You also clearly have some other, bizarre, interpretation where you separate the "well regulated militia" from "the people" - as if the writers were just lazy and couldn't be bothered to write two sentences rather than one.
The "people" referenced in the amendment ARE the constituents of the well regulated militia. It is saying "let's make this clear that when we say militia we mean a normal militia made up of civilians - NOT the troops of a standing army."
Again, pointing out that each of these amendments was written in such a way as to restrict the federal government from overreaching STATE governments.
This concept of modern America being a giant nation that happens to have geographic distinctions called 'states' is a relatively new thing. In 1791, states were basically little countries unto themselves that happened to share strong cultural similarities.
Their urge to use that word was a reflection of how distasteful they found the notion of a large standing federal military
They who? The word militia is used because the states need to be assured that if there ever was a federal army the federal government would be bound by law to allow states (and smaller representative local governments) to maintain militias - in other words "if you ever have a standing army, we are still entitled to have our own militias - not that we don't trust you, it's just that we don't trust you that much.)
Do you foresee a situation where the right to free expression or the right to assemble perhaps should be considered just a little too dangerous, and we should consider taking that away?
What on earth are you talking about now? Is this your odd segue to turn an academic discussion of the grammar of the second amendment into a political discussion of your personal views?
...if you think that's also a "living" amendment that's worth scrapping...
What? Who wants to scrap any amendments? I think you've made some assumptions about what was being discussed that was neither stated nor intended.
This has been a discussion about second amendment LANGUAGE usage. Not personal political views.
I realized, long ago, that I can not be pro-choice. I am choice-accepting.
Pretty much where I am. Almost as if I divorce myself from the legal issue simply because I'm not female. But as to the moral issue - it's reprehensible unless it's a question of the mother's life versus the baby's.
That is one of the major reasons the Revolution started...
I would rephrase that as the march on Concord being the British crossing the rubicon. The British marched to capture an arms cache that belonged to the colonial militia.
And yours doesn't mention 'the people'
It is because the previous poster already did, I merely asked him what he thought the "well regulated militia" meant since he clearly left that inconvenient part out.
..is known as a prefactory clause...
I think you're referring to a prefatory clause - and the only people who consider it prefatory are those who want the primary focus of the sentence to be what is, in point of fact, the clause that makes clear that the militia is not to be confused with a standing army.
...short of conviction(or commitment),,,
I'm not sure how you can argue that "shall not infringe" mean the government has no say (as you do in your last paragraph) in the regulation of arms, yet you make a spurious case for keeping them out of the hands of convicts and the insane - that's a bit hypocritical - don't you think?
I own a handgun, and being as objective as possible - the amendment rather clearly states that the federal government cannot deprive the individual states from bearing arms in some form of a militia.
The fact that people are constantly trying to twist those words to mean what it is they want is the problem with the second amendment; however, as I'd previously stated elsewhere - I believe the writers of the amendment intended for it to be less than specific just so it would stand the test of time and be argued in order to fit the times in which it was being applied.
Really rather ingenious of them actually.
I'm ex-military, own one gun - (target shooting), and I have always been pro-choice but am having a harder time with it than ever these past few years.
You're looking at the language and purpose of the amendment incorrectly. To translate its essence into more modern parlance, if would go something like:...
Given that you clearly do not know what the term "well regulated" meant in 1791, it's much easier to believe that you don't know what the phrase means - and telling people what the people who wrote the document *intended* is borderline delusional.
I'm looking at the language and purpose objectively, you're clearly looking at it subjectively; otherwise you wouldn't have projected whatever it is you *think* my interpretation is when I've not stated it at all - instead asking the other poster what they believe the phrase means when they clearly ignored it.
Just for the record I'm not anti-gun and I'm not gun-crazy either.
To save you the time - 'well regulated' was a turn of phrase that meant 'in the proper form of' - or for a terse and modern interpretation - "normal" and militias were in 1791 primarily organized at the state level as a unifying body.
So, what the document says (the amendment that was passed by Congress) is basically that the federal government shall not infringe upon the rights of local government militias (primarily targeting the states who were to ratify the amendment - albeit in grammatically different form.)
It's open to lots of interpretation - but that's how I believe it should be - and I hope it is what they intended. I don't think the early American government believed it could be specific and have these amendments stand the test of time (and they've been proven right over and over.)
Whatever the interpretation of the grammar, it's clear as day that it was meant that the amendment was intended to retain state powers in the face of a federal government gone amuck - not for anyone to have a gun. Militia had a very specific meaning at that time as well.
That being said, I enjoy breaking out my Mark 23 periodically and punching holes in targets. ;)
What, exactly, would *you* not allow between consenting adults?
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons.
Since you're apparently an expert in the colloquial interpretation of 18th century American English, could you please explain what this part of the 2nd amendment means?
"A well regulated Militia"
As a serious student of 18th century American History (not focusing particularly on the genesis of the Bill of Rights) it would read comparably to other documents of the 1780's and 90's (this example being 1791) as: "A well regulated militia, by which we mean an armed militia and not a standing army, shall always be allowed."
Your translation doesn't seem to mention a militia at all...
...Greece probably won't care if no one wants their drachmas; creditors (like Germany) will have to either take it or forfeit the debt.
Wow - is that ever simplistic. That kind of thinking leads to foreign investment dropping to absolute zero, tariffs and sanctions from your biggest sources of tourism (which makes up something like 20% of the Greek economy) - that's a bright future for Greece you're advocating. If they play all their cards right, maybe in a hundred years or so they'll be back at the level of Portugal.
So you went to a Bay Area High School for a few years and you think that makes you dis-advantaged? LOL.
Talk about crap...
How was your childhood before that, in regards to education and parental support/motivation?
Did you run away from home or did you have the tacit permission and support of your family in China?
Did you live on the streets or, if you were basically penniless - how'd you avoid starving death entirely on your own?
I'm willing to bet you had PLENTY of educational advantages. This doesn't detract from what you've accomplished at all - congratulations on bootstrapping into Taco heaven. :) BTW - San Jose La Taqueria on 4th in San Rafael - amazing super burritos. Best in the world.
The problem is that you think everyone is like you, so they should be able to do 'like you.' It's just not the case.
Actually, regarding the Jewish case in particular - Numerus clausus - it was oddly enough motivated primarily (it would seem) by anti-Semitism but also from the overwhelming prevalence of Jewish faculty and staff in schools that did not follow these strictures in the same areas.
It isn't interesting because they were Jewish, replace Jewish with anything - it was interesting because it was a case of the empowered (white/male/protestant) being out-advantaged by a minority (Jewish mothers!)
...Ultimately, admission is still done purely on merit. Let's be absolutely clear about that.
That's just not the case though. Merit likely plays, by far, the most important part of the selection process; however, enforced diversity exists and is prevalent at "not for profit" universities and colleges. Heck, the older form of it was referred to as Numerus clausus. It still exists today in a more legally acceptable form and with much better intentions.
There are positive and negatives aspects of that behavior. There will always be people complaining about the process as well.
...is based on diversity, not reparation.
There's no effective difference. Embracing diversity is a reparation for discrimination against minorities.
While I can appreciate your intentions, the irony is that - as with schools and everyone involved in this topic (myself included) - you are projecting your own discrimination on the process.
The entire process of selecting students is discriminatory and openly acknowledged as being highly subjective; otherwise, a trivially simple software application would resolve the matter in a few hundred milliseconds.
Why isn't it discrimination to select students who score higher on a standardized test?
If you want to argue that this selector speaks directly to the abilities as a student, then we're back to arguing that there are selectors that *others* believe speak directly to student abilities as well - some of which you may not agree with.
I would suggest that the difference at Caltech is two part:
1. Their requirements are so high that you can weed out the 'grinders' whose parent only care about those specific numbers.
2. When you get there, if you don't have the real goods - you'll drown.
I've got an old work buddy who got in '89 (iirc), and it was so brutal that he dropped out in his sophmore year. He's a brilliant guy, and he wasn't angry/bitter - he said he just couldn't cope with the pace.
Yes, any contractor who has any idea of what is at stake should incorpate as a Chapter S at least.
Ignoring the huge tax advantages that comes with a Chapter S, it is the most protection for the least amount of effort.
If you're doing it full time, or you make at least $20k/year in income from your contracting, it's crazy to do anything else - it more than pays for itself. That $500 tax prep bill is worth every penny I saved by claiming capital gains on distributions.
You are conflating two different yet semantically related things.
"Work For Hire" and "Works For Hire" (sometimes referred to as "Works Made For Hire".)
Work For Hire refers to the actual work done by an employee/contractor that has been designated as falling upon the IP rules of Works Made For Hire.
Works Made For Hire is part of the the IP doctrine of copyright law.
If you are a contractor, and you do not have the money nor legal team to fight off an IP assignation case, you must carefully and clearly stipulate who owns what IP REGARDLESS OF WORKS MADE FOR HIRE. It IS ambiguous, and a contract lawyer will tell you - do not leave it up to interpretation outside of your contract..
I had a contract just two years ago that ran into an issue where the client (and their a**hole lawyer) were getting confused because I was going to provide them a solution that was built off of some code of mine that I owned all of the IP for.
I clearly delineated that they would own the solution, but that they were only receiving a license to use my previous inventions (and here's the part they choked on for a while) and any necessary extensions to my product that were necessary in order to provide them with a solution.
Their lawyer spent weeks arguing that they needed to own the changes I made to my existing product. That didn't happen...
So, as anybody who has dealt with an unfriendly lawyer would tell you - don't ASSume anything. Don't assume they won't be jerks, that they're not idiots, that the court isn't stupid, that jurors aren't stupid, et cetera ad nausem. Make it clear in your contract, as in 'clear to a 4 year old', who owns what, when, and for how long.