Don't do that. Instead, vote for someone better. Better yet, actively support someone outside the usual two-party system. For as long as people keep thinking in terms of choosing the lesser of two evils or not voting at all, you will continue to be ruled rather than represented.
Kinda hard to figure out where you're coming from with just eight words, including the title. I'll assume you mean I am hard of hearing and Hillary is a regular party animal. Thanks for letting me know!
Jack and Hilary both had positions where they were expected to push the party line. A very unpopular party line. They were both mouthpieces who parroted an often highly hypocritical line. And as part of their job, they got to be the focus of a lot of flak and hate. And occasionally good arguments, which at times they no doubt thought "hey, that makes sense" but couldn't say as their job revolved around changing what people thought, rather than actually paying any attention to what they are saying.
Once they are out of such organisations, they are in a position where they are highly unpopular and quite hated by the general public. No matter how much of a weasel a person is, do you really think they want to be universally loathed when they are no longer being paid good money to do so?
Not a chance. Once they've been out for a bit, you're going to see them pop up from time to time to say what they really think. And occasionally, they'll just say what is popular at the time. They're in damage control. They're fixing things so that their family and few remaining friends no longer feel uncomfortable around them. They're rebuilding the many, many bridges they're burned. They've probably had more than enough of the hate and just want to move on.
I'm not advocating sympathy for them; in fact, far from it. It takes a special kind of moral bankruptcy to be the figurehead of organisations that regularly cheat both their customers and employees to make massive amounts of money whilst simultaneously crying poverty and having the audacity to hypocritically call others criminals. They knew what they were getting into, and they could have looked for other work and snapped it up when the chance was there. Be that as it may, they have an image problem on departing such organisations, and they will be looking to fix it.
I've been there and I can't believe all the sheep who state to stay longer and work hard for him and baaaaaa....
Perhaps you should skim through my post again. At no point do I suggest working hard for him. I don't even remotely suggest this. My response is a suggestion on how to get through things so that it doesn't bite you in the ass in the future, whilst setting youself up to crush the asshole boss on your terms afterwards if you feel that you should. You must know some pretty fearsome sheep.;)
Anyway, an interesting rant, may I suggest you attach it to a comment more suited to it in the future.
Here's my advice. Take what you will. I've been somewhere similar once. I didn't follow this advice entirely, but if I had to do it again, I would. Hopefully you can learn from my mistakes.
Do the time from your notice there. You aren't obligated to find a replacement, but tell your boss that you're happy to spend your remaining time looking for one and training one up if you find one. Be polite, even though the prick doesn't deserve it. Do not let yourself be intimidated. Let him dig his grave in front of the other employees. Politely disagree or ask for clarification when you are attacked or discredited. Do not work one extra minute beyond what notice you've given, do not work one extra minute overtime. You owe your boss nothing due to those threats. But make sure that any potential future employer can look back and see that you delivered 100% on what you owed, and that the employer was the one who fell short. You need to be 100% in the right because your employer will trash you when a future employer calls up to confirm your employment there. You need to show you did nothing wrong.
Expect nothing in return. You probably won't get the pay. Move to your next job and concentrate on that. If your pay doesn't show, consult a lawyer, and write a polite but firm letter stating exactly what you are owed, with a due date, sent by registered mail. Take your time, discuss things in writing only. If he calls by phone (likely) and offers anything, ask for confirmation in writing (unless it is money, in which case ask when it will arrive). Don't let yourself be intimidated. If they won't play ball, after you're settled and have a steady income, then weigh up legal action. Do not fight this without a stable income behind you, it will be one of the most miserable experiences in your life. I've been there. Get a position of strength whilst attempting to be "reasonable", and if you feel it important to crush the prick afterwards, do so. Don't go light on them because they "might" give you a bad reference. Think about what they are going to do if you let them off. If they'll trash you anyway, you've got nothing to lose, assuming you can show you've been reasonable through the whole process.
Give Microsoft a break! They just want to chat to them, see if they can get some partnerships going. All they want to do is treat a few selected OSS individuals just like they treat their business partners.
C'mon, man. If the plane's going down, even a slahdork could probably find some girl on the plane who would be interested in a final go-round. Don't underestimate the power of impending death. It might be your best hope for losing your virginity.
And no doubt you'd be halfway through doing the deed when an announcement is made: "we've regained control of the plane".
Or worse, you could all survive the crash. Talk about awkward.
Your quote from the LSB is for third-party applications, not the OS.
Could you please point me to the relevant bit of the standard that states this, especially regarding the footnote saying that RPM may be required by a future version of the LSB. This was not the impression I got from reading it.
Applications shall either be packaged in the RPM packaging format as defined in this specification, or supply an installer which is LSB conforming (for example, calls LSB commands and utilities). [2]
[2]
Supplying an RPM format package is encouraged because it makes systems easier to manage. A future version of the LSB may require RPM, or specify a way for an installer to update a package database.
Which is basically use RPM, or you might be forced to use it in the future to remain in compliance.
There really shouldn't be a requirement to use a particular package management system in the spec, unless there happens to be a quality, proven, popular system to choose from. Unfortunately, there isn't, and rpm really doesn't fit the bill. I'm not going to get into a debate over the shortcomings of rpm (suffice to say that I packaged software using it and hated it with a passion) as my feelings on it aren't important to the point. My point is there are valid reasons why multiple distros are trying their own package management solutions rather than settling on rpm. Forcing a particular solution arbitrarily (and the selection of rpm is arbitrary) is not going to encourage adoption of a standard.
Add to this a number of other valid concerns from a whole bunch of people (flick through the replies above for a ton of examples) and you may start to find reasons why LSB hasn't been more warmly received.
Didja read the post? I see you got the sublte parts, how about the part's where he points to THREE other options already having drop in gnome for slackware? the door's alway's been open...
Why yes, yes I did. Most appreciated that you've got my back and are keeping an eye out just in case I forgot.
Removing the default option makes it more likely that other options will be considered by users.
Sounds like a way of saying that they aren't terribly happy with the GNOME releases but don't want to start a big fight over it. Read the comments in the ChangeLog; when justifying the decision they hint repeatedly at the problems. I suspect they wanted to say a lot more than they did.;)
This does open the door for third-parties to tidy up the GNOME releases and provide a drop-in package for the distro though. Perhaps one of them will become strong enough to make it back in the door again.
Heh, think you hit the nail on the head there. Out of the CS class I graduated with in college I'd say 50% would be willing to fight tooth and nail to get a job with a game company. It will probably always be this way as long as games get people into computers - and they probably always will.
A large google-like company with a decent reputation would probably cause a big shakeup in the industry. Until then, I think we're stuck with things.
I don't think they are, no. There's a reason the standard work week steadily moved toward 40-hour over the past two hundred years. It's the sweet spot between maximum output and reliability.
No offense meant, but I don't believe this for a second. Are you saying that the optimal output for all desired values of reliability and all work functions (from hard labour to deskwork) all fall at 40 hours? Even roughly?
People work 40 hour weeks because people work 40 hour weeks. They work 40 hour weeks because everyone else works 40 hour weeks. People are told they should work 40 hour weeks and so they see 40 hour weeks as what they should work. And who tells them this? People who work 40 hour weeks.;)
Try this experiment sometime. I've done this a few times. Say to someone that there is no reason for anyone to work more than a 2-day work week unless they want to. Whatever the answer, ask why. Disregard the "0-day work week" answers of course. A lot of people will say the 5-day work week (40 hours) is needed but can't explain why.
So EA deliberately killed the MOH franchise by switching developers in midstream and leaving MOH Rising Sun to a bunch of n00bs?
I'm not too familiar with the franchise, so my comment will not be terribly informed. Hence forgive my use of generalities. Having said that, when things get taken too far and too many people leave at once, the strategy backfires. As well it should.
Of course a complete switchout of developers is going to come at a cost, and someone somewhere will have weighed up that the benefits of such a switch outweigh the costs. Or they took a bribe or got some personal benefit.;)
Also bear in mind that the success of a game in the eyes of their upper management is going to be measured in dollar terms, and the number of developers crying themselves to sleep at night and swearing to get out of the industry isn't going to be an issue to them. Nor the tormented cries of half the development team as they are axed on project completion. Royalties you say? Hope you got that in writing. Again, not saying it's right, just saying what the case is.
At first glance, that seems absurd, but having observed how managers think, you could be right. The managers got paid (and bonuses too no doubt).
Ah, upper management. The one profession where you can list spectacular failures on your resume and loot the company coffers and have them considered as positive points indicating that you are a bold risk taker.;) I see we have the same "respect" for such people.;)
It's called "false economy". EA believes that they'll get more work out of employees for less money by making them put in a rediculous number of hours. The problem is that EA fails to take note of how that impacts inidividual performance, team relationships, and overall morale. Not to mention the amount of experience they lose everytime they pitch out a burned-out programmer.
Management in such organisations are quite aware of what they are doing. What you say is very true in general. Unfortunately, in the games industry you have people lining up at the door looking for a way in. They can work their existing employees to death and if anyone has a problem with it, there are ten more people fighting to take their place. Hell, they could have daily whippings and there'd be someone who'd see it as a fringe benefit. Experience? They don't care. You need a couple of good developers at the top (and sometimes not even that!) and an endless rotating roster of 100 hours/week wage slaves working the oars.
Not saying it's right, just saying how things are. I'm trying my way at indie development myself because I hate this state of affairs and deep down, I completely agree with you.
Sounds like there is going to be demand for a VB-workalike very soon. Some app developers would be happy to drop $50 ($100? $1000? $10000? Maybe even an annual fee?) to keep things running on a supported platform than migrate to the latest one.
Of course anything successful is going to be facing either lawsuits or buyouts from a certain monolith. Sounds like a risky investment.;)
First of all, I am not a lawyer, this is just my opinion.
Now casting aside that whoever in the company making this decision is a complete prick (patenting someones past work? That's disgusting), and the desire to keep GPL code free, here's how I see the situation.
First of all, I'll assume Daimaou wrote the code, released it under GPL, signed that awful agreement, and then the claims were made. If the order is different, my thoughts are different. For example, the following is completely invalid if he signed the agreement and then released code. In that case, he had no rights to release the code under GPL.
Daimaou signed away his rights to his past work "if it enters the building". I'll assume this has been met. I'd just like to add: WHAT THE FROCK WERE YOU THINKING SIGNING THAT!?
- The company can do whatever it wants with the code he has written. They'd have to obtain it from him, not just strip it out of the latest release; they have no agreement to do that. - They have no ownership of subsequent patches made to that code, which is why they'd have to get it from him. - The company can't claim ownership over the surrounding code, ie. the code that surrounds his code. Just because he contributed to a GPL project doesn't mean that the company can claim the rest of it. If his code doesn't work without it, tough. Any such use would be a breach of the copyright terms of the other contributors/authors. Tip off the copyright owners anonymously if they try to do this. They are not bound by your agreement. - If they patent any bit of it, the company personally can no longer distribute the GPL software, under any terms whatsoever. Read the GPL. They could quite easily distribute Daimaou's code under terms of their choice due to the agreement though. - The company cannot make a blanket demand that the relevant code can no longer be distributed under GPL, as the code was released with a license (GPL) that does not permit subsequent alterations of distribution rights. The company would have to challenge each and every case of perceived patent or copyright infringement with each person, arguing that the license Daimaou or others gave them is revocable, which to be honest I'm not sure it is. It would be a hard fight and they'd have to take action against people individually. They'd have to file more suits than copies distributed. - I'm not sure how a subsequent patent claim affects the distribution of infringing code that was developed prior to the claim. Talk to a lawyer. Either way the company could not distribute the full GPL work if they tried this.
Depending on the location, some laws may override the above. Some localities will not allow you to sign away rights to work undertaken personally, many will definitely not allow you to sign away past work.
As for the advice bit: Talk to a lawyer. Ask them exactly what your past works clause means to you; I guarantee that "if it enters the building" is not the exact term. You may have exposed yourself to legal action from the company and people using your software for signing that. Do not ever sign anything like that again. If you're desperate for work in the future, swallow your pride and wait tables, rather than going for an extra bit of cash that could cause you to lose everything in the future. And if they try to release other peoples code under a license of their terms, tip of the authors of that code anonymously, they will have a case against them.
So, do we change the definition each time we get a slightly more accurate measure of true weight of some unobservable entity (atom)? Or perhaps keep the definition the same, but just adjust the specification of weight of said entities when we discover new information, rather than saying, oh crap, let's change the definition again? Or worse, let's declare the weight of everything to be invalid and start afresh each time?
One of the best things about medium to difficult games is the satisfaction of defeating them in the end.
In most "Eventuwin" games that are out now days, the average (read, Unskilled) gamer will beat them with sufficient devoted time.
Warning/Disclaimer: Shameless self-promotion but on-topic post ahead.
If you're frustrated by games that don't provide much of a challenge, you could try one of the games I've been working on this year. It's called Arena, and is part of E.V.E. Paradox, a game suite. I'd seriously recommend some sort of gamepad to play it. Check it out here.
Basically it's a Robotron-inspired top-down retro-ish 3D shooter. The site has a free version with less levels which should serve as a sample. In theory you can then get the full version, although it's still in beta so you can't actually buy it yet. Having said that, I might be able to organise the beta of the full version for you if you like what you see- contact me if you try it out and like it.
I mention Arena because it gets difficult very fast. Beating some levels will take you dozens of tries and the sense of satisfaction on doing so is quite immense. Despite being the author of the game I still get my rear handed to me on a regular basis in the harder levels. Fighting against such ridiculous odds can be quite exciting. I keep coming back for more.
Slashdot Mirror
In unrelated news, professional lobbyists are now experiencing an effect that makes Viagra look like expired Tic-tacs.
That's it... I quit voting
Don't do that. Instead, vote for someone better. Better yet, actively support someone outside the usual two-party system. For as long as people keep thinking in terms of choosing the lesser of two evils or not voting at all, you will continue to be ruled rather than represented.
You're dumb.
Hers is the party line.
Think.
Kinda hard to figure out where you're coming from with just eight words, including the title. I'll assume you mean I am hard of hearing and Hillary is a regular party animal. Thanks for letting me know!
Expect to see a lot more of this.
Jack and Hilary both had positions where they were expected to push the party line. A very unpopular party line. They were both mouthpieces who parroted an often highly hypocritical line. And as part of their job, they got to be the focus of a lot of flak and hate. And occasionally good arguments, which at times they no doubt thought "hey, that makes sense" but couldn't say as their job revolved around changing what people thought, rather than actually paying any attention to what they are saying.
Once they are out of such organisations, they are in a position where they are highly unpopular and quite hated by the general public. No matter how much of a weasel a person is, do you really think they want to be universally loathed when they are no longer being paid good money to do so?
Not a chance. Once they've been out for a bit, you're going to see them pop up from time to time to say what they really think. And occasionally, they'll just say what is popular at the time. They're in damage control. They're fixing things so that their family and few remaining friends no longer feel uncomfortable around them. They're rebuilding the many, many bridges they're burned. They've probably had more than enough of the hate and just want to move on.
I'm not advocating sympathy for them; in fact, far from it. It takes a special kind of moral bankruptcy to be the figurehead of organisations that regularly cheat both their customers and employees to make massive amounts of money whilst simultaneously crying poverty and having the audacity to hypocritically call others criminals. They knew what they were getting into, and they could have looked for other work and snapped it up when the chance was there. Be that as it may, they have an image problem on departing such organisations, and they will be looking to fix it.
Ignore this sheep.
;)
I've been there and I can't believe all the sheep who state to stay longer and work hard for him and baaaaaa....
Perhaps you should skim through my post again. At no point do I suggest working hard for him. I don't even remotely suggest this. My response is a suggestion on how to get through things so that it doesn't bite you in the ass in the future, whilst setting youself up to crush the asshole boss on your terms afterwards if you feel that you should. You must know some pretty fearsome sheep.
Anyway, an interesting rant, may I suggest you attach it to a comment more suited to it in the future.
Here's my advice. Take what you will. I've been somewhere similar once. I didn't follow this advice entirely, but if I had to do it again, I would. Hopefully you can learn from my mistakes.
Do the time from your notice there. You aren't obligated to find a replacement, but tell your boss that you're happy to spend your remaining time looking for one and training one up if you find one. Be polite, even though the prick doesn't deserve it. Do not let yourself be intimidated. Let him dig his grave in front of the other employees. Politely disagree or ask for clarification when you are attacked or discredited. Do not work one extra minute beyond what notice you've given, do not work one extra minute overtime. You owe your boss nothing due to those threats. But make sure that any potential future employer can look back and see that you delivered 100% on what you owed, and that the employer was the one who fell short. You need to be 100% in the right because your employer will trash you when a future employer calls up to confirm your employment there. You need to show you did nothing wrong.
Expect nothing in return. You probably won't get the pay. Move to your next job and concentrate on that. If your pay doesn't show, consult a lawyer, and write a polite but firm letter stating exactly what you are owed, with a due date, sent by registered mail. Take your time, discuss things in writing only. If he calls by phone (likely) and offers anything, ask for confirmation in writing (unless it is money, in which case ask when it will arrive). Don't let yourself be intimidated. If they won't play ball, after you're settled and have a steady income, then weigh up legal action. Do not fight this without a stable income behind you, it will be one of the most miserable experiences in your life. I've been there. Get a position of strength whilst attempting to be "reasonable", and if you feel it important to crush the prick afterwards, do so. Don't go light on them because they "might" give you a bad reference. Think about what they are going to do if you let them off. If they'll trash you anyway, you've got nothing to lose, assuming you can show you've been reasonable through the whole process.
I could go on, but you've probably got the gist.
Give Microsoft a break! They just want to chat to them, see if they can get some partnerships going. All they want to do is treat a few selected OSS individuals just like they treat their business partners.
(heh heh heh)
What's wrong with the acronym? I liked the Boy Scouts of America, they let me climb tall things and play with fire, sometimes both at once.
Y'know, the acronym doesn't sound quite so bad when you put it that way.
World Intellectual Property Day eh? From our good friends at the BSA (oh, how appropriate the acronym, but I digress).
:)
How about ingrown-toenail day? BSOD day? Stomach ulcer day? Patent appreciation day?
It's a regular party.
C'mon, man. If the plane's going down, even a slahdork could probably find some girl on the plane who would be interested in a final go-round. Don't underestimate the power of impending death. It might be your best hope for losing your virginity.
And no doubt you'd be halfway through doing the deed when an announcement is made: "we've regained control of the plane".
Or worse, you could all survive the crash. Talk about awkward.
Oh God, where's the +1 Groan moderation? ;)
Your quote from the LSB is for third-party applications, not the OS.
Could you please point me to the relevant bit of the standard that states this, especially regarding the footnote saying that RPM may be required by a future version of the LSB. This was not the impression I got from reading it.
One gem from the LSB:
Applications shall either be packaged in the RPM packaging format as defined in this specification, or supply an installer which is LSB conforming (for example, calls LSB commands and utilities). [2]
[2]
Supplying an RPM format package is encouraged because it makes systems easier to manage. A future version of the LSB may require RPM, or specify a way for an installer to update a package database.
Which is basically use RPM, or you might be forced to use it in the future to remain in compliance.
There really shouldn't be a requirement to use a particular package management system in the spec, unless there happens to be a quality, proven, popular system to choose from. Unfortunately, there isn't, and rpm really doesn't fit the bill. I'm not going to get into a debate over the shortcomings of rpm (suffice to say that I packaged software using it and hated it with a passion) as my feelings on it aren't important to the point. My point is there are valid reasons why multiple distros are trying their own package management solutions rather than settling on rpm. Forcing a particular solution arbitrarily (and the selection of rpm is arbitrary) is not going to encourage adoption of a standard.
Add to this a number of other valid concerns from a whole bunch of people (flick through the replies above for a ton of examples) and you may start to find reasons why LSB hasn't been more warmly received.
Didja read the post? I see you got the sublte parts, how about the part's where he points to THREE other options already having drop in gnome for slackware? the door's alway's been open...
Why yes, yes I did. Most appreciated that you've got my back and are keeping an eye out just in case I forgot.
Removing the default option makes it more likely that other options will be considered by users.
You're quite rude btw. In case you're not aware.
Sounds like a way of saying that they aren't terribly happy with the GNOME releases but don't want to start a big fight over it. Read the comments in the ChangeLog; when justifying the decision they hint repeatedly at the problems. I suspect they wanted to say a lot more than they did. ;)
This does open the door for third-parties to tidy up the GNOME releases and provide a drop-in package for the distro though. Perhaps one of them will become strong enough to make it back in the door again.
... is futile. ;)
Heh, think you hit the nail on the head there. Out of the CS class I graduated with in college I'd say 50% would be willing to fight tooth and nail to get a job with a game company. It will probably always be this way as long as games get people into computers - and they probably always will.
A large google-like company with a decent reputation would probably cause a big shakeup in the industry. Until then, I think we're stuck with things.
I don't think they are, no. There's a reason the standard work week steadily moved toward 40-hour over the past two hundred years. It's the sweet spot between maximum output and reliability.
;)
No offense meant, but I don't believe this for a second. Are you saying that the optimal output for all desired values of reliability and all work functions (from hard labour to deskwork) all fall at 40 hours? Even roughly?
People work 40 hour weeks because people work 40 hour weeks. They work 40 hour weeks because everyone else works 40 hour weeks. People are told they should work 40 hour weeks and so they see 40 hour weeks as what they should work. And who tells them this? People who work 40 hour weeks.
Try this experiment sometime. I've done this a few times. Say to someone that there is no reason for anyone to work more than a 2-day work week unless they want to. Whatever the answer, ask why. Disregard the "0-day work week" answers of course. A lot of people will say the 5-day work week (40 hours) is needed but can't explain why.
So EA deliberately killed the MOH franchise by switching developers in midstream and leaving MOH Rising Sun to a bunch of n00bs?
;)
;) I see we have the same "respect" for such people. ;)
I'm not too familiar with the franchise, so my comment will not be terribly informed. Hence forgive my use of generalities. Having said that, when things get taken too far and too many people leave at once, the strategy backfires. As well it should.
Of course a complete switchout of developers is going to come at a cost, and someone somewhere will have weighed up that the benefits of such a switch outweigh the costs. Or they took a bribe or got some personal benefit.
Also bear in mind that the success of a game in the eyes of their upper management is going to be measured in dollar terms, and the number of developers crying themselves to sleep at night and swearing to get out of the industry isn't going to be an issue to them. Nor the tormented cries of half the development team as they are axed on project completion. Royalties you say? Hope you got that in writing. Again, not saying it's right, just saying what the case is.
At first glance, that seems absurd, but having observed how managers think, you could be right. The managers got paid (and bonuses too no doubt).
Ah, upper management. The one profession where you can list spectacular failures on your resume and loot the company coffers and have them considered as positive points indicating that you are a bold risk taker.
It's called "false economy". EA believes that they'll get more work out of employees for less money by making them put in a rediculous number of hours. The problem is that EA fails to take note of how that impacts inidividual performance, team relationships, and overall morale. Not to mention the amount of experience they lose everytime they pitch out a burned-out programmer.
Management in such organisations are quite aware of what they are doing. What you say is very true in general. Unfortunately, in the games industry you have people lining up at the door looking for a way in. They can work their existing employees to death and if anyone has a problem with it, there are ten more people fighting to take their place. Hell, they could have daily whippings and there'd be someone who'd see it as a fringe benefit. Experience? They don't care. You need a couple of good developers at the top (and sometimes not even that!) and an endless rotating roster of 100 hours/week wage slaves working the oars.
Not saying it's right, just saying how things are. I'm trying my way at indie development myself because I hate this state of affairs and deep down, I completely agree with you.
Sounds like there is going to be demand for a VB-workalike very soon. Some app developers would be happy to drop $50 ($100? $1000? $10000? Maybe even an annual fee?) to keep things running on a supported platform than migrate to the latest one.
;)
Of course anything successful is going to be facing either lawsuits or buyouts from a certain monolith. Sounds like a risky investment.
First of all, I am not a lawyer, this is just my opinion.
Now casting aside that whoever in the company making this decision is a complete prick (patenting someones past work? That's disgusting), and the desire to keep GPL code free, here's how I see the situation.
First of all, I'll assume Daimaou wrote the code, released it under GPL, signed that awful agreement, and then the claims were made. If the order is different, my thoughts are different. For example, the following is completely invalid if he signed the agreement and then released code. In that case, he had no rights to release the code under GPL.
Daimaou signed away his rights to his past work "if it enters the building". I'll assume this has been met. I'd just like to add: WHAT THE FROCK WERE YOU THINKING SIGNING THAT!?
- The company can do whatever it wants with the code he has written. They'd have to obtain it from him, not just strip it out of the latest release; they have no agreement to do that.
- They have no ownership of subsequent patches made to that code, which is why they'd have to get it from him.
- The company can't claim ownership over the surrounding code, ie. the code that surrounds his code. Just because he contributed to a GPL project doesn't mean that the company can claim the rest of it. If his code doesn't work without it, tough. Any such use would be a breach of the copyright terms of the other contributors/authors. Tip off the copyright owners anonymously if they try to do this. They are not bound by your agreement.
- If they patent any bit of it, the company personally can no longer distribute the GPL software, under any terms whatsoever. Read the GPL. They could quite easily distribute Daimaou's code under terms of their choice due to the agreement though.
- The company cannot make a blanket demand that the relevant code can no longer be distributed under GPL, as the code was released with a license (GPL) that does not permit subsequent alterations of distribution rights. The company would have to challenge each and every case of perceived patent or copyright infringement with each person, arguing that the license Daimaou or others gave them is revocable, which to be honest I'm not sure it is. It would be a hard fight and they'd have to take action against people individually. They'd have to file more suits than copies distributed.
- I'm not sure how a subsequent patent claim affects the distribution of infringing code that was developed prior to the claim. Talk to a lawyer. Either way the company could not distribute the full GPL work if they tried this.
Depending on the location, some laws may override the above. Some localities will not allow you to sign away rights to work undertaken personally, many will definitely not allow you to sign away past work.
As for the advice bit: Talk to a lawyer. Ask them exactly what your past works clause means to you; I guarantee that "if it enters the building" is not the exact term. You may have exposed yourself to legal action from the company and people using your software for signing that. Do not ever sign anything like that again. If you're desperate for work in the future, swallow your pride and wait tables, rather than going for an extra bit of cash that could cause you to lose everything in the future. And if they try to release other peoples code under a license of their terms, tip of the authors of that code anonymously, they will have a case against them.
So, do we change the definition each time we get a slightly more accurate measure of true weight of some unobservable entity (atom)? Or perhaps keep the definition the same, but just adjust the specification of weight of said entities when we discover new information, rather than saying, oh crap, let's change the definition again? Or worse, let's declare the weight of everything to be invalid and start afresh each time?
One of the best things about medium to difficult games is the satisfaction of defeating them in the end.
In most "Eventuwin" games that are out now days, the average (read, Unskilled) gamer will beat them with sufficient devoted time.
Warning/Disclaimer: Shameless self-promotion but on-topic post ahead.
If you're frustrated by games that don't provide much of a challenge, you could try one of the games I've been working on this year. It's called Arena, and is part of E.V.E. Paradox, a game suite. I'd seriously recommend some sort of gamepad to play it. Check it out here.
Basically it's a Robotron-inspired top-down retro-ish 3D shooter. The site has a free version with less levels which should serve as a sample. In theory you can then get the full version, although it's still in beta so you can't actually buy it yet. Having said that, I might be able to organise the beta of the full version for you if you like what you see- contact me if you try it out and like it.
I mention Arena because it gets difficult very fast. Beating some levels will take you dozens of tries and the sense of satisfaction on doing so is quite immense. Despite being the author of the game I still get my rear handed to me on a regular basis in the harder levels. Fighting against such ridiculous odds can be quite exciting. I keep coming back for more.
Nope, you summed up my experence when I was the only employee of a small support firm with only one boss/owner.
;) Or do you mean dealing with clients?
That's quite an accomplishment on your boss' part. Imagine if your boss used his/her powers for good.