Actually, there is a lot of truth to that. My physics instructor told us how to make a light bulb that will (almost) never burn out. Light bulbs burn out because they are 120 volts, and the rms of American electricity is 170 volts. I think I remember this right. Essentially, a light bulb almost always burns out when you turn it on. That's because if you turn it on, when its at the top of the sine wave, it's well outside of the spec the light bulb is designed to run in. That's because they are specifically designed they are are capable of burning out. They could easily make a filiment that almost never burns out when you turn it on. It'd last nearly forever. They don't because you'd never make money at it. By the time you start talking about the capital investment to build a factory to do that, and scale up. By the time you sold everybody light bulbs, you'd only be able to see them to new contruction, and the rare burn out. So now you have a huge amount of capital tied up in a business you can't make any money at.
If you go to a light specialty store they'll sell you 130 volt light bulbs that are a lot more durable. Extra cost, ~$0.06 a light bulb. They are used in places where it's a real pain to change a light bulb. They generally last longer in any light socket. The power at my apartment is so bad I've switched to the floresent bulbs to avoid precisely this problem, I was blowing bulbs every 2 months in the 3 fixtures I have.
Next you'll tell me there isn't a conspiracy among printer makers to artificially inflate the price of ink/toner? Which is pretty much a well documented fact.
No razor blade maker has ever jiggered the prices on the blades and the handle so that they made a ton extra on the blades. Far more then supply and demand account for.
You'll tell me the fact that RIAA prices CD precisely according to supply and demand, and that they never had a cartel that price fixed.
Oh, and Microsoft isn't a monopoly, it's just that nobody can compete with them, because Microsoft comes up with all the good ideas in computing. They've never just used OEM deals to build up market share, and then just bought up everybody would had any potential to challenge them in any market they are in.
The really funny part is that in general, in the case of batteries, it is most cost effective to buy the most generic brand batteries you can find. Generally, they last about 80-90% as long, and only cost 25-50% as much.
Other then in specialized electronics that have a very low power draw, it's much smarter to just buy generic ones.
Thanks for some of the clarification. While I think pilots make a lot of money, I'm not sure about being overpaid.
I did think it might be a lesser known fact that the engineering of a plane is becoming incredible reliable to the point that the human is becoming the least reliable piece of the puzzle. Now in commercial airline flights.
I think that emergency overrides, and human congnition are critical to safty of passengers in airplanes in a specific set of situations. I wouldn't go up in the air with a computer program only running the thing. Even so, it'd probably be safer if pilots we're removed from the situation. Sure some of the things you mentioned would be catostrophic, however, how many other pilot mistakes would have been avoided.
Statistically speaking, once the program was run with pilots standing by for emergency override for long enough, I wouldn't be surprised to find out, that having a computer run the whole thing is an order of magnitude safer. Even knowing that, it would creep me out to be on a plane that didn't have a human expert on board to handle emergencies.
I'd rather die because of human mistake of a man with lots of training who was in the plane with me, rather then the mistake a of a slacker programmer on the ground (Note: I am a professional programmer, and stopped working in at a medical company when I realized my mistakes could cost people their lives).
It's my understanding that pilot error is now the single most dangerous thing about flying. You are more likely to die of the pilot doing something stupid, then you are of just about anything else going wrong with the plane. (Maybe not a on commercial air liner, but on planes in general).
A friend of mine's Dad is a flight instructor, and tells about how there are a lot of things a pilot had to do to get a license that they don't now. They figured out, that by forcing unexperienced pilots to go into spins kills more people, then the number of people who are on a plane that go into spins.
A modern airplane can be built so it's nearly impossible to stall. So it doesn't have nearly so many of the problems it used to have, and thus pilots really to know as much or be as technically skilled as they used to due to modern Engineering.
All that said, I'm still aware of several scenerios where a pilot saved people by doing something deemed "impossible", by everyone I know who knows anything about planes. I think the FAA has new training due to a plane crash that happened near Siox City, Iowa. A guy was steering a plane using the flaps in a way that wasn't supposed to work. It was supposed to tear the plane apart. However, that was the only control left on the plane that worked. I think 90 people lived (of the 170). I saw film of it, it was terrifing.
Finally, pilots don't get enough time off. They should get paid that much for how much time they spend away from their families, and the hours they put in.
In the end, at my company, we will run RHAS either the AS or the ES edition. We do this soley because we run Linux, and we run Oracle. If you do those two things, your options are relatively limited.
If something goes wrong, I have to be able to Oracle Support for help. I'm sure not going to solve most of my problems without their help. I'm probably going to end up building my own RHAS-like distribution, using all of their free packages and dumping them onto a Fedora Core installer for all of my internal machines that I don't need Oracle Support for. Thus all my machines, will be for the most part similar, and I should be on the right side of the licensing and support agreements.
Oh, and no PostGres won't work, that's what we used to use. MySQL won't work, we used that before PostGres. Haven't looked into running SAP.
In my experience, most DHCP servers keep giving the same MAC addr until that mac addr can't get the old IP it used to have. So you have to go offline, wait until the time expires, hope someone else got your IP, log back on. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It's why it's as long as I don't turn my servers off for more then the DHCP least time, I always have the same IP address.
I've seen mozilla want more then 32MB of resident RAM at once (sure I had several tabs open). While, yes you can techincally run it, it'd be pretty darn slow. Firebird (or whatever the current name of the Browser only version of Mozilla is), might run better. I've run Mozilla in a 128MB machine for over two years with daily use at work. I'm sure I can run it, however, you'd need a lot of swap space, and a bundle of patience to run it.
Not sure what the memory requirements for running X are with twm, but between X (while Running KDE), Mozilla, and Evolution, I know I've seen it use in excess of 85-100MB of resident memory. It's why I use mutt now, and try and close out of Mozilla tabs and windows when I'm not actively web browsing. Makes my machine much more responsive.
Part of my problem is that I compile on my machine, if you compile while running short on memory, you'll grow old waiting for you compiles to finish. If it was a straight up web browsing machine, 32-64MB might be enough.
Uhhh, read the article a little bit closer. You might want to check the gcc binary, not the gcc source (sorry if I misunderstood, when you say gcc code, I think source). The evil part about the "Thompson's Compiler Compiler Hack", is that the source for the hack is gone. The source for the hack, is in the binary compiler, and keeps re-inserting itself back into the binary, without being present in the source.
To build a truely trustworthy compiler is impossible by only checking the source and the binaries. At some point, you have to trust CPU and all the storage to do as it's told. Trusting the hardware is nearly impossible, as there is no way to "checksum the traces" on the CPU. Bummer. In the end, some naferious super genious at Intel, or Western Digital could generate an evil piece of hardware specifically designed to subvert gcc and linux at the hardware level. Granted it be nearly impossible to pull off, but that's why he's the evil super genious....:-)
Does that mean you don't have external connections to the outside world? Depending on the meaning of "nearly impossible" is. Short of not having any external connections, it's merely a matter of time and effort on behalf of a dilgent, and highly skilled hacker if they decide they want to own you.
If you allow incoming connections for any reasonable number of services to communicate with the public: DNS, mail, Web. If you allow VPN access. If you make external connections that do nearly anything you can be had.
Probably not more then six months until somebody breaks in if they decide they want to break into your network.
If your really, really secure with your services, they'll just have to break into someplace you contact on a regular basis and tunnel the attack back to you when you connect to that third party. If there security is very, very, good, they'll just build a longer, and longer chain until they can finally find a flaw, and worm their back thru the series of trust relationships until they are on your network.
How far they can get once on your network depends on your level of paranoia, and how good your internal audits for security break ins are. The trick isn't keeping them out, you cannot do that. The trick is identifing they are in, and figuring out how to close the hole they exploited, and ensuring they are now off your network permanently.
Your best defense is probably that you aren't a financial institution, and you don't have enough money to blackmail more then likely. Note being worthy of the attention of a skilled hacker is the best defense, because then you are merely fending off script kiddies, and people who are joy riding on your computers. Script kiddies and other hackers break into easy things, and do them in volume because they enjoy it. Just because they don't break into you doesn't mean you are secure. It just means you aren't easy meat. Anyone who seriously wanted to own you can and will do so. It's just that the gratification to spending six months to prove you aren't secure isn't that interesting. There better be millions of dollars at the end of that much risky work.
Don't forget the hanging installer that silently fails to tell you you are out of RAM. I've had lots of RedHat installs lock up the VM (I think) on the machine. Specifically during the OpenOffice install. Install on a machine with 128 MB of RAM with a pretty small swap space (~128MB of RAM). The installer will hang installing Open Office. I guess it isn't so bad, because OpenOffice will run like a dog with that little RAM. When you do an install of OpenOffice you need plenty of VM (either real, or swap), above and beyond what they say you need.
Now, to explain why you need that much, is that the entire installer is loaded into RAM on a RAM disk. It makes testing easier, and it speeds up in the install a lot. If the installer is on disk, and memory is tight, you end up disk seeking a lot to read the program you want to execute, along with the fact, that you probably lose the disk space the installer was on, and a partition (any other way has a chicken and the egg problem). If the installer mounted loop back on the CD, it takes more room on the CD (because loopback can't be compressed that I know of), and then you'll have to seek around the disk.
You need that much RAM for the filesystem, which eats into how much RAM you can have use for the running programs. They could probably build a different installer that took a lot less read (16-32) RAM, but it would be much harder test both methods (RAM disk, loop off the CD, and network basd installs would be fundamentally different, where as right now most installs are nearly identical), so they opted for the one that has the most flexibility. If you need a very small install, do the install on a big machine and use cpio or tar to copy the files over to the dinky install machine.
You can get a RedHat machine to run on a 32-64MB machine if you run the right software. You can't run Mozilla. You can't run a full GNOME or KDE desktop. However, if you are willing to crack out fvwm or twm, it's not a that hard to get a GUI desktop. You'll need to slim down your Linux kernel, and remove stuff you don't need. You might need to rebuild your glibc to take up less space.
You'll need plenty of patience, and plenty of swap to do it on, but heck, I ran X on a 4MB RAM, 20MB of swap on a 386 25Mhz. I used fvwm2 and I couldn't run anything except lynx to browse the web. I read my e-mail in elm, and ran elvis as my text editor. Last time I checked, most of that stuff or something nearly equivilent is still on the RedHat CD (minimal vim, and links).
Look at how much more your current machine can do. I run Linux (Leaf based distro) off a 64MB flash disk in a dinkly little router configuration. (It has 512MB of RAM, but that's because that was the only stick of memory I had to spare when I built the thing, it'd work with no more then 16-32MB of RAM easily, probably 8 if I worked hard at it). It's about what I used to do with my linux installs. It's not like the resource conservative installs made great desktop machines. Sure they we're great if all you wanted to do was run a bunch of xterms, and maybe have a cute background. All the features that are on RedHat cost memory. OpenOffice has the ability to read Office Documents, and the ability to do all that WYSIWYG formatting. 6-7 years ago, you did that via a text editor an latex, easily done in 16MB of RAM. That will still work today on RedHat. You can browse the Web using Mozilla, that takes a lot more memory then Netscape 3.0 did when rendering stuff. You can't use KDE with all it's eye candy and slick integration, you used to do that with fvwm or twm (or God forbid, by switching virtual terminals, and screen). Six years ago you could run X in a lot less memory, and I'll bet you still can if you dumped all of the advanced rendering extensions used for 3D/DRM and other recent feature advancements. If you want smaller memory foot print, recompile all your apps to take out PAM support, to take out LDAP integration, to take out the X app support. Go back to running straight up inetd,
Hmmm, I'll point out, that if you own the copyright, you can change the license. So uhh, yeah, it might be that evolution ends up "closed source" in not that long.
Looks like somebody hasn't read up on copyright law.
I don't think that will be the case. If it is, somebody will take the last Evolution, call it OpenEvolution and distribute it.
Intermezzo sounds like it wants to be the end all be all of every feature you could ever want in a filesystem. Hence I think it won't work.
GFS is by Sistina (the people behind LVM and Device Mapper in Linux, but not ELVM) and uses SCSI3 locks as it's locking mechanism (the locking mechanism defined at the bottom of the SCSI layer, in version 3 of the standard).
Sistina did it GPL'ed thru the beta, and then took it propriatary after the beta. Thus OpenGFS was spawned. I haven't seen much out of that. Never used it really.
I suppose most of that is relatively true. It's not true if you actually buy the boxed set, or if you purchase the Advanced Server editions, they come with non-GPL software. I believe you are also wrong, in that you missed the redhat-logo package. Those aren't GPL'ed. The are "copyrighted, with all rights reserved". rpm -q -i redhat-logo says so. I can't find a handy copy to read the distribution restrictions, but clearly not GPL'ed, or any other free software type license. They can't distribute them under such a license, if they did, they would have trouble defending their trademark, and thus their brand name.
I've recently quoted the COPYING file from Linux as a matter of fact, I'm well aware of what you are talking about. However, read the section I asked about. "A part of the whole", can be invoked even on portions of the software which aren't considered derived works, also their are straight GPL, as opposed to "Linux GPL" on the RedHat CD. So even though Linus says that using the kernel thru the normal system calls are not a derived work. That doesn't get you off the hook for the clause that says:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
I want an explaination of what that means, and more specifically an example of:
A derived work
Something which is not a derived work, but does invoke the clause about "as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program"
Something which is merely aggregation.
You'd be my hero if you could explain that to me. Maybe I'm mis-reading it. Maybe they mean if you do binary plug-ins and distribute the plug-ins with the software all in one. Then even though the plug-ins are separate, because they are distributed "as part of the whole", then they should be GPL'ed to be compliant.
You've never tried to get your money back when you return software have you?:-)
You can't compel anyone to give up their copyrighted code as a third party. Depending on the contract/license, you probably can't even get your money back. As the end user, you have a license to use the iTerm software (It's GPL'ed, just don't distribute the software, and it's all good). You've done nothing wrong, and until you transfer or distribute the software, you have a license for the GPL binaries. Thus you have a legal copy of software. The GPL is quite clear on the point that if an intermediary loses their rights, the people who got the copy of the software from you don't lose their rights unless they aren't in compliance.
At this point, the only entity that has been wronged, would the the author of the GPL'ed software. The infringer would be liable for copyright infringement. That'd be punishable of up to $250K per infringement. So I suppose if you can sell your add on software for more then $250K a piece, you can violate the GPL license as long as the fine is part of your business model...:-)
The iTerm people now can sue for copyright infringement and attempt to get money from CocoaTech. Whoopie! You still can't do squat.
This is wrong! If they distribute the binary to me, I can ask for the source code, as stated by the GPL, if they are linking the GPL to their code, that is
Yes, you can ask. However, if they say "No", you have no legal force to back you up. None! Zero! Zip! Nada! How do I know this? Because the FSF says so. It's why they require you to transfer your copyrights to them. Only the copyright holder has any legal standing to challenge the copyright violation. The GPL isn't a contract, they didn't agree to anything, especially not with you. Distributing your code with GPL'ed code, is a copyright violation. No third parties can defend a copyright violation under current US copyright law. (Not sure what the case is internationally).
Because you'll try and argue, here's the link:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
You getting to ask for the source and receiving it, is merely a condition of compliance with the GPL.
Now for this:
Where did you get this from? If you distribute to programs together, one of the GPL, the other need not be distributed under de GPL or a compatible license, read this FAQ.
From the GPL, in the section I referenced:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Now, clearly there is come concept "part of a whole", and that the GPL would need to apply to all the parts.
I readily admit, I'm not sure when you cross the line from mere aggregation to "part of a whole". So it could be that iTerm crosses the line to being "part of a whole", I'm not sure. I merely pointed it out as it is a condition of the GPL which might apply in this case.
About the stuff on plugin's:
You aren't dymanic linking if you do fork and exec. You are executing a different program in a different address space. Sure the fork/exec call might have to be GPL'ed, but it's boilerplate code. Their border line case, is just as silly. My description is much easier, and is probably more accurate. If you share address space, it's a copyright violation to not GPL it. fork/exec means a new address space. Just calling a function and waiting on a return is border line, if it becomes an issue, just fork and exec and you are in the clear (if you can't for some technical reason, it's a sure sign of a GPL violation). The final problem with plugin's is who does the distribution?
If I don't distribute the original, and I don't have any code from the original, there is no copyright holder to enforce his rights on me. I am merely giving you a blob of binary bits, you do the linking. You can link GPL software with the most NDA/EULA laden libraries you can find, until you actually distributed them, there is not a problem. So I have a hard time seeing the copyright holder coming after me. It's when I link the two parts, and distribute them that I would get myself in trouble under the GPL. I would have followed the letter of the GPL, but not the spirit. I think their explaination is cute and all, however, I think as a legal position they don't have a lot to stand on.
Sun did something similar with a driver compilation for their Solaris x86, you could compile Linux drivers using a tool they distributed, because they distributed a compiler and not the Linux source, it was all in the clear legally. I'd see plugins being similar. The FSF recommendations look like what they expect you to do, not what I think a court would force you to do.
Okay, boys. The trick to the GPL is figuring out three things:
Assume A and B are two sets of source code. B is licensed to the author of A via the GPL.
Is A a derivative work of B? Then A is in violation of copyright law if A is not GPL'ed (section 2).
Are A and B being distributed together as part of a larger work? If A and B are part of a larger work and are being distributed together then when A is distributed as part of the whole, it must be GPL'ed, otherwise the author of A is in violation of copyright law. (Section 2, the paragraph after the bullet points).
Are A and B being distributed together in aggregate, as opposed to being combined into a larger work. (This is in the gnu.org FAQ on the GPL.
Now, I'm not a Mac person, I've never used any of these applications. However, there are several things to remember. First, in this case, the author of iTerm is the only person who can demand the source be released. You cannont enforce someone elses copyrights. So the copyright holders of iTerm are the only people with a leg to stand on in actually getting the source coughed up.
Next, the commonly acknowledged meaning of a derivative work is generally that the two binaries share the same address space while running (that is, they are linked either statically or dynamically together at some point).
The second portion sounds to me, like it is tricky. The working their to my IANAL mind is hard to differentiate from a work in aggregate. When RedHat ships GPL'ed software and non-GPL'ed software together is "RedHat Linux" a larger work, and as the kernel is GPL'ed then all other software must be? No I wouldn't think so. However, I can't see how to draw a line so that it makes sense to me. To my mind, either "RedHat Linux" is the larger whole, thus it all must GPL'ed, or that paragraph doesn't mean anything, and thus shouldn't be there. I'm not sure I understand it precisely. The only thing I can think if of is something like Emacs where if I distribute GNU Emacs with some extra runtime support in lisp, then that extra runtime while it might be an independent work, it must still be GPL'ed. Meanwhile, if I distributed Emacs and pico, I don't have to GPL them both. I've never seen a clear explaintion of the difference between "parts of a whole" versus works in aggregate.
So the trick is to figure out if iTerm code is linked to the larger application, or if iTerm is merely a spawned program which communicate at arms length. In general if it is an external spawned program. If the source code bases are never linked, they are in the clear. If they are linked together, then CocoaTech has some explaining to do. Generally speaking, an strace, ldd, and a ps listing will show you precisely what is going on when they admit they are using the source code.
I'm not sure where you are based at, or what the employees make. Remember, save some of the money for a rainy day. Just by the by, for run of the mill employees, follow the rules about gift giving. It definitely shouldn't exceed 2x there monthly salary (I believe that is after taxes). Should probably be somewhere near what they make in a week or two. So that's between 0.25-2 * after taxes monthly salary.
$500 is nearly my entire rent payment (in my 1 bedroom apartment). However, in NY City, $500 won't go that far. Which is why it is easier to state it as a percentage of their salary, because there salary probably reflects the cost of living.
The thing to remember is they are going to get screwed on the taxes. Either you have to withhold a bunch of it (which will anger them), or you are creating a rather large tax burden for them (depending on the tax braket they are in). You might want to announce this in advance and discuss what they want the with-holdings on it to be. If you want to be really nice, figure the net withholdings, if you had spread that payment out to them over the year. Withhold that. (I'm not sure that's legal by the way, but it'd be the nice thing to do).
At the company I currently work at, they treated bonus money as a second source of income, and did the withholding as such (which basically meant that all of it was taxed in the lowest tax bracket available, meanwhile, I had to claim it as income for the highest tax bracket I was in). So that wonderful bonus I got royally screwed up my tax withholdings. I planned the year to ensure I had no tax liability at the end of the year, so I could invest the money right away. I didn't figure this out until the end of the year, and I had to scrimp and save to avoid the penalties of taking it out of my investments to pay Uncle Sam.
I'm thrilled about my bonus, I just wish somebody had told me how oddly they were doing the withholdings. That and the liability it was creating for me.
You know I've seen people claim that works in the town I work in. Surprisingly enough, I've tried it a several lights on the way home. Sure enough seems like it works. Okay, drive up to an empty traffic light at night. It turns green anyways, lights or no.
Normally there is a weight sensor pretty far back from all lights to see if there is congenstion (to lenghten the green light in that direction if there isn't congenstion in the other direction. If a car hasn't been seen in a long time in the direction that is currently green, when you hit that sensor the light goes yellow, and you get the green by the time you get there. I've seen it happen at all kinds of lights between 10:00 and 5:00AM in Omaha Nebraska here in the US. Normally they are only used at intersections where that have a 4 lane road, otherwise they just use flahsing yellow and flashing red.
I'm sure there is a philisophical school of thought that agrees with you that a right is a entity onto itself, and that you get rights unless it is abridged.
You state is as a RGB is the only way to construct the color red. I say I can create red using CMYK color scheme.
There is another formulation of rights, which is just as powerful but constructed the opposite way:
The only rights I have are the rights given to me. The people who give me the freedom of speech, are the American people. I guess I liked the Lockean ideas too much in school. I get the freedom of speech, not because nature deems is appropriate that I have it. According to you, I have the "Right" to kill you, it's merely the abridgement of my rights that makes it illegal. In my opinion I have no such generic right to kill you. I have the right, because the people who give the government the power (the American people), say I have the right to do so. They will bend anybody who abridges my rights until they give way and I get my chance at free speech.
The responsibility inherent in rights is not to interfere with the rights of others
This statement is the concept that all men are equal, any time I can do something you can't, or stopped you from doing something I can, I have overstepped my rights. However, I don't know that there is anything "natural" about that, it's merely game theory optimal. However, in my formulation of the rights: "It is not my responsibility to not interfere with your rights, it's my responsibility to ensure no one interferes with you using your rights".
That is the generalization of this:
"I disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
The will of the people is what gives me my rights. It is what limits the powers of the government. The tyranny of the British King was ended, because he no longer had the will of the goverened, not because the Founding Fathers realized they had unknown natural rights and cast off the chains. You have the rights you have by the will of the people, and only by the will of the people. The people are the power, and have the power if they choose to enforce their will.
I'll only lose my rights because it's the will of the people, or because the people fail to live up to there responsibility to ensure my rights are afforded me. This is now semantic mental masterbation. You assume that everyone has rights to do anything, and they are taken from you by the will of the people saying it's wrong for you to do certain things (like kill people). I assume you have rights to do nothing, except those the will of the people enforce that you have (the people enforce my right to speech). They are one and the same the end. It makes no difference which ones you choose the set of things you are allowed to do is the same.
Depends on the test. I'd agree at 12 a lot quicker then 8. I think an 8 year old might have more issues with a fit of anger and shooting someone then at 12 (At the age of 12-14 I understood the repercussions of shooting someone was really bad, I'm not sure at 8 I did). The test would have to be pretty difficult. Possibly they would have to be re-tested, and have them actually fire the weapon in front of certified professionals.
No, children who were childish 150 years ago died, they got beaten, or didn't eat because there wasn't any food. Children, 150 years ago had to do a lot more manual labor. Not that's a bad thing. Children of that day and age had to be, survival was a harder task then it is now. You spent plenty of time focused on it. People who didn't died.
Also children of 100 years ago didn't grow up in a Nuclear family environment, which I think has a lot to do with the current family values problem. When you had 3 generations around, and lots of adults who took turns watching small children, and beating your children when they frustrated you made raising good children lots easier.
We do a lot not to keep the motality rate of children well under what it used to be. They died of hunger or neglect, or illness that just couldn't be treated. Sure, men were men 100 years ago. I'll promptly disagree with the fact that "100 years ago the average child of 10 was more intelligent then the average adult of today". Moral and responsible, you might have me on. Morality isn't precisely what the Wild West was known for (granted the Wild West was mostly done by 1903, but it wasn't during a lot of the Civil War, take a good long look at the morality of slavery and what American's did to Native American Indian, and what the British we're doing to there colonies at the time, moral isn't the word I'd use for it).
Clearly not the case in my family that we are less intelligent in terms of school work. As I believe in my on Grandmother and Great Grandmother's generation on my Mom's side, most of the boys couldn't read or write because they were needed on the farm to do labor. Even my mom's older sisters got pulled out of school to work on the farm. My mom never finished high school, and can't do anything but basic arithmetic in terms of math skills. I'm not an average adult, but most people I know, know lots of stuff that flat out wasn't known by the greatest scholars of the day, let alone by the average 10 year old child from the Civil war era. I know a lot about mathematics, physics, chemistry, Engineering, and computers then the average person in the civil war era, let alone the average 10 year old from the civil war era couldn't have known. It was discovered after that. Don't confuse being articulate with the language in writing, and being knowledgeable on retorhic as the sole indicator of intelligence.
Remember, normally only what we are most proud of is saved from our past, so I'm betting all the crappy examples of writting from the Civil War got pitched 50 years ago. I remember hearing my Uncle's talk about how kids don't have any respect any more and how kids just aren't as good as they used to be. Then in the next sentence talk about how they broke the laws as adults, broke the laws as children, how they defied their fathers will, all the things they did for fun they were not supposed to be doing. Stuff most of the people I know now would never dream of doing. Things as far as I can tell from anecdotal evidence are always getting worse for the last 200 years. The past was always better.
It is the inherint duty of every member of society to live within the societies rule. I understand that children that have good parents (like you sound like), have an easier time. However, it is ultimately the obligation of the citizen of America and the member of society to learn what is and isn't acceptable.
I had a pretty darn good set of parents, they had faults, but overall, I got that committing murder was bad. That following the law was a good idea. That property rights are to be respected, and you owe restitution to people who you wrong. I learned to respect my elders, and to value my education. I'm lucky in some respects how much my parents did teach me. I've know some people with awful parents who turned out just fine. I've known some kids with great parents who turned out horrible. I still hold the individual responsible for their actions upon coming of a majority age. I hold them responsible for the type of person they have become. I always have, and I always will. The individual is ultimately responsible for whom they become. While I can mitigate that the parents did a horrible job of teaching the child the things he needed to know, that isn't an excuse for shirking your obligations.
I'll deem the parent a dispicable person for failing their obligations and duties to their children, I'll still hold those children to the same level of expectations as anyone else. You are a product of your gene pool, your parents, and your actions. You can control your actions. As a child comes of age, they have the mental faculties and the ability to see what they are doing isn't right, legal, or ethical. At that point, they have ample time and opportunity to figure out what it is they didn't get from their parents. They can, from their peers, from their teachers, from other adults in their life. I can and do hold people responsible for who they become. The US judicial system agrees with me.
I am a product of two people, and I've actively worked hard at undoing some of the things my parents taught me in terms of money management, acceptable behaviour with respect to alcohol and drugs, and the proper respect owed to people of the other gender or other races. I saw the things I saw in others, and I figured that out. I am not merely the computing automoton my parents set in motion in 1977 (to use your metaphore about computers). I have the will to do better then what my parents taught me, or gave me the genetic predisposition to be, to see the failures in their teaching, and overcome it. It's not quite the same, however, it's clearly a sign that children can come to independent conclusions from the "programming" they received from their parents.
I'm speaking for the position of legal precedent. The Supreme Court disagrees, in legal standing, children are not adults, and are not afforded all of the constitutional or other legal rights granted an adult. You argue the point, and then end up agreeing with me. I'm not sure how to respond. He made an absolute statement which was flatly wrong. Children do not have every right an adult has. It's a blantantly wrong statement. For that matter, even adults don't have a Constitutional right to privacy in public (there might be precendence in law, but I'm unaware of it).
Children have the right to free speech, however, it's more limited to then an adults would be. Children have a right to not be unlawfully searched and seizure, however, again it's more limited then an adults would be. Children have very little in the way of second amendment rights. Yes, children have lots of rights in a court of law. They are recognized as a separate legal entity who has interests that might diverge from that of the parent. Those interests must be represented in a court of law when a judge orders that to be the case. I had this come up during an inherintance proceeding, some minors in my family had to have legal representation independent of their parents during probate because a trust setup by their grandfather would end up being theirs when they came of age depending on if the trust was released before or after their parents died. It was weird, don't ask.
No, children are irresponsible, in the sense that they don't know how to react to a grease fire, because they don't know how to react to one at the age of 5 or 6. At the age of 3 they don't understand that fire is dangerous. They are irresponsible, because they are ignorant for the most part. I completely agree with you, and have experience with the positive results of having high expectations. They fail to comprehend that just because something didn't hurt you when you watched Dad do it, doesn't meant that if you try it won't hurt you. They are children with no experience.
They don't understand the meaning of the word "addiction". They are irresponsible, because they fail to realize the consequence of the actions. They have no experience with that. Children are irresponsible, because when given a set of choices, they lack the experience to realize what is good and what is bad. They lack knowledge of the possible outcomes, and they make the choices which sound the most interesting to them at that stage in life. By the age of 12-15, yes, children should understand most of what they should, and for mature kids, 15 would be a fine age to grant them all the rights one normally gets at the age of 18. However, some kids aren't responsible enough for it, so that is tempered with the right of society as a whole to safty.
No, the reality is the law of the land. The Constition is an intentionally vague document of incredible value, that doesn't specify details specifically so it can be conformed while the details of society changed.
I'd agree that attempts to take away inalienable rights in the name of safty is futile. However, I'd argue that if an 8 year old demanded and won the right to own a gun for all children under the age of 8, I'm moving to Canada. Society is meant to provide general protection to the people. It's that part about "life", in the "life, liberty, and persuit of happiness". It is the issue of the government to provide safty to the public in general. The Bill of Rights limits what the gov't is allowed to do in ensuring your safty.
Actually, if you read the Bill of Rights they specifically refer to "people" plural in all cases. I didn't see the word "he" in there any where (I haven't gone looking at the Constitution for references to He or People). You can give the authors of the Constition all the credit you want (I think they were great men of incredible vision), however, I measure their actions and temper my respect in the fact that it took an Amendment of the Constition to get woman the right to vote, and it took 3 Amendments to end slavery. As far as they went, they ensured the freedoms to themselves they wanted. They failed to share them on the basis of race and gender. Which was a great in justice. Fortunately, in the system they set forth, woman and slaves eventually won their rights, by war and by the will of the people expressed as a vote. That is where the greatness of the Founding Fathers lies. In the fact that where they were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG can be corrected by the great men and women who followed them, with the exception of the Civil War, it's been pretty peaceful during the whole process.
They kept slaves, and they treated women unequally. You can say they were great men, and I'll agree. However, postulating that the Bill of Rights, and other rights in the enumerated in the Constitution are conferred onto children by the Founding Fathers is outright laughable. They didn't even confer them on their wives, or free men from Africa for goodness sake. You are being intellectually dishonest in saying that just because the Bill of Rights doesn't say "only people over the age of 8 can own guns", that means that kids under 8 have a constitutional right to won guns.
Your being intellectually dishonest, and using a legalistic reading that would be appropriate for a loophole in tax law to get out of the IRS freezing all your assests, and applying it to the single vaguest legal document in our country. Don't put words in the mouth of the Founding Father's. They said enough good on their own. You surely don't need to help them out by saying they meant something terrible foolish.
Read up on Supreme Court rulings. Children's rights, specifically in reguard to searches, and free speech are not the same as an adults.
Also take a good long hard look at the constitution, you'll find that woman didn't have the same rights, and that slaves are only 2/5th's of a man, and thus don't have the same rights as other men. So, I'd say pretty much ever last right in the Bill of Rights when taken in full view of the context within which it was written, specifically doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a male of European descent. Thanks for playing. Being considered a man probably had a different context then (it might have been 16 or some other standard).
As a particular example, the Second Amendment is either being broken or the current interpretation about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", clearly shows that in this case "people", specifically means people of majority age. At the time it was written, I'm pretty sure that meant White males of age. People is the clear designation used in all of the bill of rights, and as such, is open to equal interpretation by the Supreme Court. So I'd say that any and all of them could be seen as such. Clearly they aren't as universal as you are implying.
You earn several of those rights, specifically by not commiting felonies. With the exception of drinking, you can be legally denied those right for the rest of your life. You earned them by not doing anything terrible stupid and getting caught. Try doing something dumb perodically, you'll be shocked at just how many rights you lose. Know a guy who lost the right to be a doctor for the rest of his life in most states for getting caught drunk driving at the age of 18.
Break enough contracts and nobody will let you sign one with them.
Finally, this RFID system is used with a proximity tester within 20 inches of you. It can't tell where you are unless you are near a sensor. The sensor is more then likely a reasonable large metal object that is easily identifiable even to a child of the age of 7 or 8 years old. The princepal Skinner can't just "check the system" to find out where Bart Simpson is and tell you the path he has traveled the entire day. All he can tell you is that at 8,9,10,11, and 2 Bart had his card within 20 inches of a sensor. Yes, it's a slippery slope. When they start installing them at places other then the doors into and out of the building, and they aren't wands the instructor waves over them you have an argument. I specifically said that I would have serious issues with that kind of arrangement.
Slashdot Mirror
If you go to a light specialty store they'll sell you 130 volt light bulbs that are a lot more durable. Extra cost, ~$0.06 a light bulb. They are used in places where it's a real pain to change a light bulb. They generally last longer in any light socket. The power at my apartment is so bad I've switched to the floresent bulbs to avoid precisely this problem, I was blowing bulbs every 2 months in the 3 fixtures I have.
Next you'll tell me there isn't a conspiracy among printer makers to artificially inflate the price of ink/toner? Which is pretty much a well documented fact.
No razor blade maker has ever jiggered the prices on the blades and the handle so that they made a ton extra on the blades. Far more then supply and demand account for.
You'll tell me the fact that RIAA prices CD precisely according to supply and demand, and that they never had a cartel that price fixed.
Oh, and Microsoft isn't a monopoly, it's just that nobody can compete with them, because Microsoft comes up with all the good ideas in computing. They've never just used OEM deals to build up market share, and then just bought up everybody would had any potential to challenge them in any market they are in.
The really funny part is that in general, in the case of batteries, it is most cost effective to buy the most generic brand batteries you can find. Generally, they last about 80-90% as long, and only cost 25-50% as much.
Other then in specialized electronics that have a very low power draw, it's much smarter to just buy generic ones.
Kirby
I did think it might be a lesser known fact that the engineering of a plane is becoming incredible reliable to the point that the human is becoming the least reliable piece of the puzzle. Now in commercial airline flights.
I think that emergency overrides, and human congnition are critical to safty of passengers in airplanes in a specific set of situations. I wouldn't go up in the air with a computer program only running the thing. Even so, it'd probably be safer if pilots we're removed from the situation. Sure some of the things you mentioned would be catostrophic, however, how many other pilot mistakes would have been avoided.
Statistically speaking, once the program was run with pilots standing by for emergency override for long enough, I wouldn't be surprised to find out, that having a computer run the whole thing is an order of magnitude safer. Even knowing that, it would creep me out to be on a plane that didn't have a human expert on board to handle emergencies.
I'd rather die because of human mistake of a man with lots of training who was in the plane with me, rather then the mistake a of a slacker programmer on the ground (Note: I am a professional programmer, and stopped working in at a medical company when I realized my mistakes could cost people their lives).
Kirby
A friend of mine's Dad is a flight instructor, and tells about how there are a lot of things a pilot had to do to get a license that they don't now. They figured out, that by forcing unexperienced pilots to go into spins kills more people, then the number of people who are on a plane that go into spins.
A modern airplane can be built so it's nearly impossible to stall. So it doesn't have nearly so many of the problems it used to have, and thus pilots really to know as much or be as technically skilled as they used to due to modern Engineering.
All that said, I'm still aware of several scenerios where a pilot saved people by doing something deemed "impossible", by everyone I know who knows anything about planes. I think the FAA has new training due to a plane crash that happened near Siox City, Iowa. A guy was steering a plane using the flaps in a way that wasn't supposed to work. It was supposed to tear the plane apart. However, that was the only control left on the plane that worked. I think 90 people lived (of the 170). I saw film of it, it was terrifing.
Finally, pilots don't get enough time off. They should get paid that much for how much time they spend away from their families, and the hours they put in.
Kirby
If something goes wrong, I have to be able to Oracle Support for help. I'm sure not going to solve most of my problems without their help. I'm probably going to end up building my own RHAS-like distribution, using all of their free packages and dumping them onto a Fedora Core installer for all of my internal machines that I don't need Oracle Support for. Thus all my machines, will be for the most part similar, and I should be on the right side of the licensing and support agreements.
Oh, and no PostGres won't work, that's what we used to use. MySQL won't work, we used that before PostGres. Haven't looked into running SAP.
Kirby
It's why it's as long as I don't turn my servers off for more then the DHCP least time, I always have the same IP address.
Kirby
Not sure what the memory requirements for running X are with twm, but between X (while Running KDE), Mozilla, and Evolution, I know I've seen it use in excess of 85-100MB of resident memory. It's why I use mutt now, and try and close out of Mozilla tabs and windows when I'm not actively web browsing. Makes my machine much more responsive.
Part of my problem is that I compile on my machine, if you compile while running short on memory, you'll grow old waiting for you compiles to finish. If it was a straight up web browsing machine, 32-64MB might be enough.
Kirby
To build a truely trustworthy compiler is impossible by only checking the source and the binaries. At some point, you have to trust CPU and all the storage to do as it's told. Trusting the hardware is nearly impossible, as there is no way to "checksum the traces" on the CPU. Bummer. In the end, some naferious super genious at Intel, or Western Digital could generate an evil piece of hardware specifically designed to subvert gcc and linux at the hardware level. Granted it be nearly impossible to pull off, but that's why he's the evil super genious.... :-)
Kirby
If you allow incoming connections for any reasonable number of services to communicate with the public: DNS, mail, Web. If you allow VPN access. If you make external connections that do nearly anything you can be had.
Probably not more then six months until somebody breaks in if they decide they want to break into your network.
If your really, really secure with your services, they'll just have to break into someplace you contact on a regular basis and tunnel the attack back to you when you connect to that third party. If there security is very, very, good, they'll just build a longer, and longer chain until they can finally find a flaw, and worm their back thru the series of trust relationships until they are on your network.
How far they can get once on your network depends on your level of paranoia, and how good your internal audits for security break ins are. The trick isn't keeping them out, you cannot do that. The trick is identifing they are in, and figuring out how to close the hole they exploited, and ensuring they are now off your network permanently.
Your best defense is probably that you aren't a financial institution, and you don't have enough money to blackmail more then likely. Note being worthy of the attention of a skilled hacker is the best defense, because then you are merely fending off script kiddies, and people who are joy riding on your computers. Script kiddies and other hackers break into easy things, and do them in volume because they enjoy it. Just because they don't break into you doesn't mean you are secure. It just means you aren't easy meat. Anyone who seriously wanted to own you can and will do so. It's just that the gratification to spending six months to prove you aren't secure isn't that interesting. There better be millions of dollars at the end of that much risky work.
Kirby
Now, to explain why you need that much, is that the entire installer is loaded into RAM on a RAM disk. It makes testing easier, and it speeds up in the install a lot. If the installer is on disk, and memory is tight, you end up disk seeking a lot to read the program you want to execute, along with the fact, that you probably lose the disk space the installer was on, and a partition (any other way has a chicken and the egg problem). If the installer mounted loop back on the CD, it takes more room on the CD (because loopback can't be compressed that I know of), and then you'll have to seek around the disk.
You need that much RAM for the filesystem, which eats into how much RAM you can have use for the running programs. They could probably build a different installer that took a lot less read (16-32) RAM, but it would be much harder test both methods (RAM disk, loop off the CD, and network basd installs would be fundamentally different, where as right now most installs are nearly identical), so they opted for the one that has the most flexibility. If you need a very small install, do the install on a big machine and use cpio or tar to copy the files over to the dinky install machine.
You can get a RedHat machine to run on a 32-64MB machine if you run the right software. You can't run Mozilla. You can't run a full GNOME or KDE desktop. However, if you are willing to crack out fvwm or twm, it's not a that hard to get a GUI desktop. You'll need to slim down your Linux kernel, and remove stuff you don't need. You might need to rebuild your glibc to take up less space.
You'll need plenty of patience, and plenty of swap to do it on, but heck, I ran X on a 4MB RAM, 20MB of swap on a 386 25Mhz. I used fvwm2 and I couldn't run anything except lynx to browse the web. I read my e-mail in elm, and ran elvis as my text editor. Last time I checked, most of that stuff or something nearly equivilent is still on the RedHat CD (minimal vim, and links).
Look at how much more your current machine can do. I run Linux (Leaf based distro) off a 64MB flash disk in a dinkly little router configuration. (It has 512MB of RAM, but that's because that was the only stick of memory I had to spare when I built the thing, it'd work with no more then 16-32MB of RAM easily, probably 8 if I worked hard at it). It's about what I used to do with my linux installs. It's not like the resource conservative installs made great desktop machines. Sure they we're great if all you wanted to do was run a bunch of xterms, and maybe have a cute background. All the features that are on RedHat cost memory. OpenOffice has the ability to read Office Documents, and the ability to do all that WYSIWYG formatting. 6-7 years ago, you did that via a text editor an latex, easily done in 16MB of RAM. That will still work today on RedHat. You can browse the Web using Mozilla, that takes a lot more memory then Netscape 3.0 did when rendering stuff. You can't use KDE with all it's eye candy and slick integration, you used to do that with fvwm or twm (or God forbid, by switching virtual terminals, and screen). Six years ago you could run X in a lot less memory, and I'll bet you still can if you dumped all of the advanced rendering extensions used for 3D/DRM and other recent feature advancements. If you want smaller memory foot print, recompile all your apps to take out PAM support, to take out LDAP integration, to take out the X app support. Go back to running straight up inetd,
Looks like somebody hasn't read up on copyright law.
I don't think that will be the case. If it is, somebody will take the last Evolution, call it OpenEvolution and distribute it.
Kirby
Intermezzo sounds like it wants to be the end all be all of every feature you could ever want in a filesystem. Hence I think it won't work.
GFS is by Sistina (the people behind LVM and Device Mapper in Linux, but not ELVM) and uses SCSI3 locks as it's locking mechanism (the locking mechanism defined at the bottom of the SCSI layer, in version 3 of the standard).
Sistina did it GPL'ed thru the beta, and then took it propriatary after the beta. Thus OpenGFS was spawned. I haven't seen much out of that. Never used it really.
Kirby
I've recently quoted the COPYING file from Linux as a matter of fact, I'm well aware of what you are talking about. However, read the section I asked about. "A part of the whole", can be invoked even on portions of the software which aren't considered derived works, also their are straight GPL, as opposed to "Linux GPL" on the RedHat CD. So even though Linus says that using the kernel thru the normal system calls are not a derived work. That doesn't get you off the hook for the clause that says:
I want an explaination of what that means, and more specifically an example of:
You'd be my hero if you could explain that to me. Maybe I'm mis-reading it. Maybe they mean if you do binary plug-ins and distribute the plug-ins with the software all in one. Then even though the plug-ins are separate, because they are distributed "as part of the whole", then they should be GPL'ed to be compliant.
Kirby
You can't compel anyone to give up their copyrighted code as a third party. Depending on the contract/license, you probably can't even get your money back. As the end user, you have a license to use the iTerm software (It's GPL'ed, just don't distribute the software, and it's all good). You've done nothing wrong, and until you transfer or distribute the software, you have a license for the GPL binaries. Thus you have a legal copy of software. The GPL is quite clear on the point that if an intermediary loses their rights, the people who got the copy of the software from you don't lose their rights unless they aren't in compliance.
At this point, the only entity that has been wronged, would the the author of the GPL'ed software. The infringer would be liable for copyright infringement. That'd be punishable of up to $250K per infringement. So I suppose if you can sell your add on software for more then $250K a piece, you can violate the GPL license as long as the fine is part of your business model... :-)
The iTerm people now can sue for copyright infringement and attempt to get money from CocoaTech. Whoopie! You still can't do squat.
Kirby
Yes, you can ask. However, if they say "No", you have no legal force to back you up. None! Zero! Zip! Nada! How do I know this? Because the FSF says so. It's why they require you to transfer your copyrights to them. Only the copyright holder has any legal standing to challenge the copyright violation. The GPL isn't a contract, they didn't agree to anything, especially not with you. Distributing your code with GPL'ed code, is a copyright violation. No third parties can defend a copyright violation under current US copyright law. (Not sure what the case is internationally).
Because you'll try and argue, here's the link:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
You getting to ask for the source and receiving it, is merely a condition of compliance with the GPL.
Now for this:
From the GPL, in the section I referenced:
Now, clearly there is come concept "part of a whole", and that the GPL would need to apply to all the parts.
That should be balanced with this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation
(That's the first FAQ you linked to).
I readily admit, I'm not sure when you cross the line from mere aggregation to "part of a whole". So it could be that iTerm crosses the line to being "part of a whole", I'm not sure. I merely pointed it out as it is a condition of the GPL which might apply in this case.
About the stuff on plugin's:
You aren't dymanic linking if you do fork and exec. You are executing a different program in a different address space. Sure the fork/exec call might have to be GPL'ed, but it's boilerplate code. Their border line case, is just as silly. My description is much easier, and is probably more accurate. If you share address space, it's a copyright violation to not GPL it. fork/exec means a new address space. Just calling a function and waiting on a return is border line, if it becomes an issue, just fork and exec and you are in the clear (if you can't for some technical reason, it's a sure sign of a GPL violation). The final problem with plugin's is who does the distribution?
If I don't distribute the original, and I don't have any code from the original, there is no copyright holder to enforce his rights on me. I am merely giving you a blob of binary bits, you do the linking. You can link GPL software with the most NDA/EULA laden libraries you can find, until you actually distributed them, there is not a problem. So I have a hard time seeing the copyright holder coming after me. It's when I link the two parts, and distribute them that I would get myself in trouble under the GPL. I would have followed the letter of the GPL, but not the spirit. I think their explaination is cute and all, however, I think as a legal position they don't have a lot to stand on.
Sun did something similar with a driver compilation for their Solaris x86, you could compile Linux drivers using a tool they distributed, because they distributed a compiler and not the Linux source, it was all in the clear legally. I'd see plugins being similar. The FSF recommendations look like what they expect you to do, not what I think a court would force you to do.
Anything else you think I got wrong?
Kirby
Assume A and B are two sets of source code. B is licensed to the author of A via the GPL.
Is A a derivative work of B? Then A is in violation of copyright law if A is not GPL'ed (section 2).
Are A and B being distributed together as part of a larger work? If A and B are part of a larger work and are being distributed together then when A is distributed as part of the whole, it must be GPL'ed, otherwise the author of A is in violation of copyright law. (Section 2, the paragraph after the bullet points).
Are A and B being distributed together in aggregate, as opposed to being combined into a larger work. (This is in the gnu.org FAQ on the GPL.
Now, I'm not a Mac person, I've never used any of these applications. However, there are several things to remember. First, in this case, the author of iTerm is the only person who can demand the source be released. You cannont enforce someone elses copyrights. So the copyright holders of iTerm are the only people with a leg to stand on in actually getting the source coughed up.
Next, the commonly acknowledged meaning of a derivative work is generally that the two binaries share the same address space while running (that is, they are linked either statically or dynamically together at some point).
The second portion sounds to me, like it is tricky. The working their to my IANAL mind is hard to differentiate from a work in aggregate. When RedHat ships GPL'ed software and non-GPL'ed software together is "RedHat Linux" a larger work, and as the kernel is GPL'ed then all other software must be? No I wouldn't think so. However, I can't see how to draw a line so that it makes sense to me. To my mind, either "RedHat Linux" is the larger whole, thus it all must GPL'ed, or that paragraph doesn't mean anything, and thus shouldn't be there. I'm not sure I understand it precisely. The only thing I can think if of is something like Emacs where if I distribute GNU Emacs with some extra runtime support in lisp, then that extra runtime while it might be an independent work, it must still be GPL'ed. Meanwhile, if I distributed Emacs and pico, I don't have to GPL them both. I've never seen a clear explaintion of the difference between "parts of a whole" versus works in aggregate.
So the trick is to figure out if iTerm code is linked to the larger application, or if iTerm is merely a spawned program which communicate at arms length. In general if it is an external spawned program. If the source code bases are never linked, they are in the clear. If they are linked together, then CocoaTech has some explaining to do. Generally speaking, an strace, ldd, and a ps listing will show you precisely what is going on when they admit they are using the source code.
Kirby
$500 is nearly my entire rent payment (in my 1 bedroom apartment). However, in NY City, $500 won't go that far. Which is why it is easier to state it as a percentage of their salary, because there salary probably reflects the cost of living.
The thing to remember is they are going to get screwed on the taxes. Either you have to withhold a bunch of it (which will anger them), or you are creating a rather large tax burden for them (depending on the tax braket they are in). You might want to announce this in advance and discuss what they want the with-holdings on it to be. If you want to be really nice, figure the net withholdings, if you had spread that payment out to them over the year. Withhold that. (I'm not sure that's legal by the way, but it'd be the nice thing to do).
At the company I currently work at, they treated bonus money as a second source of income, and did the withholding as such (which basically meant that all of it was taxed in the lowest tax bracket available, meanwhile, I had to claim it as income for the highest tax bracket I was in). So that wonderful bonus I got royally screwed up my tax withholdings. I planned the year to ensure I had no tax liability at the end of the year, so I could invest the money right away. I didn't figure this out until the end of the year, and I had to scrimp and save to avoid the penalties of taking it out of my investments to pay Uncle Sam.
I'm thrilled about my bonus, I just wish somebody had told me how oddly they were doing the withholdings. That and the liability it was creating for me.
Kirby
Normally there is a weight sensor pretty far back from all lights to see if there is congenstion (to lenghten the green light in that direction if there isn't congenstion in the other direction. If a car hasn't been seen in a long time in the direction that is currently green, when you hit that sensor the light goes yellow, and you get the green by the time you get there. I've seen it happen at all kinds of lights between 10:00 and 5:00AM in Omaha Nebraska here in the US. Normally they are only used at intersections where that have a 4 lane road, otherwise they just use flahsing yellow and flashing red.
Kirby
You state is as a RGB is the only way to construct the color red. I say I can create red using CMYK color scheme.
There is another formulation of rights, which is just as powerful but constructed the opposite way:
The only rights I have are the rights given to me. The people who give me the freedom of speech, are the American people. I guess I liked the Lockean ideas too much in school. I get the freedom of speech, not because nature deems is appropriate that I have it. According to you, I have the "Right" to kill you, it's merely the abridgement of my rights that makes it illegal. In my opinion I have no such generic right to kill you. I have the right, because the people who give the government the power (the American people), say I have the right to do so. They will bend anybody who abridges my rights until they give way and I get my chance at free speech.
The responsibility inherent in rights is not to interfere with the rights of others
This statement is the concept that all men are equal, any time I can do something you can't, or stopped you from doing something I can, I have overstepped my rights. However, I don't know that there is anything "natural" about that, it's merely game theory optimal. However, in my formulation of the rights: "It is not my responsibility to not interfere with your rights, it's my responsibility to ensure no one interferes with you using your rights".
That is the generalization of this: "I disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
The will of the people is what gives me my rights. It is what limits the powers of the government. The tyranny of the British King was ended, because he no longer had the will of the goverened, not because the Founding Fathers realized they had unknown natural rights and cast off the chains. You have the rights you have by the will of the people, and only by the will of the people. The people are the power, and have the power if they choose to enforce their will.
I'll only lose my rights because it's the will of the people, or because the people fail to live up to there responsibility to ensure my rights are afforded me. This is now semantic mental masterbation. You assume that everyone has rights to do anything, and they are taken from you by the will of the people saying it's wrong for you to do certain things (like kill people). I assume you have rights to do nothing, except those the will of the people enforce that you have (the people enforce my right to speech). They are one and the same the end. It makes no difference which ones you choose the set of things you are allowed to do is the same.
Kirby
Kirby
Also children of 100 years ago didn't grow up in a Nuclear family environment, which I think has a lot to do with the current family values problem. When you had 3 generations around, and lots of adults who took turns watching small children, and beating your children when they frustrated you made raising good children lots easier.
We do a lot not to keep the motality rate of children well under what it used to be. They died of hunger or neglect, or illness that just couldn't be treated. Sure, men were men 100 years ago. I'll promptly disagree with the fact that "100 years ago the average child of 10 was more intelligent then the average adult of today". Moral and responsible, you might have me on. Morality isn't precisely what the Wild West was known for (granted the Wild West was mostly done by 1903, but it wasn't during a lot of the Civil War, take a good long look at the morality of slavery and what American's did to Native American Indian, and what the British we're doing to there colonies at the time, moral isn't the word I'd use for it).
Clearly not the case in my family that we are less intelligent in terms of school work. As I believe in my on Grandmother and Great Grandmother's generation on my Mom's side, most of the boys couldn't read or write because they were needed on the farm to do labor. Even my mom's older sisters got pulled out of school to work on the farm. My mom never finished high school, and can't do anything but basic arithmetic in terms of math skills. I'm not an average adult, but most people I know, know lots of stuff that flat out wasn't known by the greatest scholars of the day, let alone by the average 10 year old child from the Civil war era. I know a lot about mathematics, physics, chemistry, Engineering, and computers then the average person in the civil war era, let alone the average 10 year old from the civil war era couldn't have known. It was discovered after that. Don't confuse being articulate with the language in writing, and being knowledgeable on retorhic as the sole indicator of intelligence.
Remember, normally only what we are most proud of is saved from our past, so I'm betting all the crappy examples of writting from the Civil War got pitched 50 years ago. I remember hearing my Uncle's talk about how kids don't have any respect any more and how kids just aren't as good as they used to be. Then in the next sentence talk about how they broke the laws as adults, broke the laws as children, how they defied their fathers will, all the things they did for fun they were not supposed to be doing. Stuff most of the people I know now would never dream of doing. Things as far as I can tell from anecdotal evidence are always getting worse for the last 200 years. The past was always better.
Kirby
I had a pretty darn good set of parents, they had faults, but overall, I got that committing murder was bad. That following the law was a good idea. That property rights are to be respected, and you owe restitution to people who you wrong. I learned to respect my elders, and to value my education. I'm lucky in some respects how much my parents did teach me. I've know some people with awful parents who turned out just fine. I've known some kids with great parents who turned out horrible. I still hold the individual responsible for their actions upon coming of a majority age. I hold them responsible for the type of person they have become. I always have, and I always will. The individual is ultimately responsible for whom they become. While I can mitigate that the parents did a horrible job of teaching the child the things he needed to know, that isn't an excuse for shirking your obligations.
I'll deem the parent a dispicable person for failing their obligations and duties to their children, I'll still hold those children to the same level of expectations as anyone else. You are a product of your gene pool, your parents, and your actions. You can control your actions. As a child comes of age, they have the mental faculties and the ability to see what they are doing isn't right, legal, or ethical. At that point, they have ample time and opportunity to figure out what it is they didn't get from their parents. They can, from their peers, from their teachers, from other adults in their life. I can and do hold people responsible for who they become. The US judicial system agrees with me.
I am a product of two people, and I've actively worked hard at undoing some of the things my parents taught me in terms of money management, acceptable behaviour with respect to alcohol and drugs, and the proper respect owed to people of the other gender or other races. I saw the things I saw in others, and I figured that out. I am not merely the computing automoton my parents set in motion in 1977 (to use your metaphore about computers). I have the will to do better then what my parents taught me, or gave me the genetic predisposition to be, to see the failures in their teaching, and overcome it. It's not quite the same, however, it's clearly a sign that children can come to independent conclusions from the "programming" they received from their parents.
I'm speaking for the position of legal precedent. The Supreme Court disagrees, in legal standing, children are not adults, and are not afforded all of the constitutional or other legal rights granted an adult. You argue the point, and then end up agreeing with me. I'm not sure how to respond. He made an absolute statement which was flatly wrong. Children do not have every right an adult has. It's a blantantly wrong statement. For that matter, even adults don't have a Constitutional right to privacy in public (there might be precendence in law, but I'm unaware of it).
Children have the right to free speech, however, it's more limited to then an adults would be. Children have a right to not be unlawfully searched and seizure, however, again it's more limited then an adults would be. Children have very little in the way of second amendment rights. Yes, children have lots of rights in a court of law. They are recognized as a separate legal entity who has interests that might diverge from that of the parent. Those interests must be represented in a court of law when a judge orders that to be the case. I had this come up during an inherintance proceeding, some minors in my family had to have legal representation independent of their parents during probate because a trust setup by their grandfather would end up being theirs when they came of age depending on if the trust was released before or after their parents died. It was weird, don't ask.
Kirby
They don't understand the meaning of the word "addiction". They are irresponsible, because they fail to realize the consequence of the actions. They have no experience with that. Children are irresponsible, because when given a set of choices, they lack the experience to realize what is good and what is bad. They lack knowledge of the possible outcomes, and they make the choices which sound the most interesting to them at that stage in life. By the age of 12-15, yes, children should understand most of what they should, and for mature kids, 15 would be a fine age to grant them all the rights one normally gets at the age of 18. However, some kids aren't responsible enough for it, so that is tempered with the right of society as a whole to safty.
Kirby
I'd agree that attempts to take away inalienable rights in the name of safty is futile. However, I'd argue that if an 8 year old demanded and won the right to own a gun for all children under the age of 8, I'm moving to Canada. Society is meant to provide general protection to the people. It's that part about "life", in the "life, liberty, and persuit of happiness". It is the issue of the government to provide safty to the public in general. The Bill of Rights limits what the gov't is allowed to do in ensuring your safty.
Actually, if you read the Bill of Rights they specifically refer to "people" plural in all cases. I didn't see the word "he" in there any where (I haven't gone looking at the Constitution for references to He or People). You can give the authors of the Constition all the credit you want (I think they were great men of incredible vision), however, I measure their actions and temper my respect in the fact that it took an Amendment of the Constition to get woman the right to vote, and it took 3 Amendments to end slavery. As far as they went, they ensured the freedoms to themselves they wanted. They failed to share them on the basis of race and gender. Which was a great in justice. Fortunately, in the system they set forth, woman and slaves eventually won their rights, by war and by the will of the people expressed as a vote. That is where the greatness of the Founding Fathers lies. In the fact that where they were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG can be corrected by the great men and women who followed them, with the exception of the Civil War, it's been pretty peaceful during the whole process.
They kept slaves, and they treated women unequally. You can say they were great men, and I'll agree. However, postulating that the Bill of Rights, and other rights in the enumerated in the Constitution are conferred onto children by the Founding Fathers is outright laughable. They didn't even confer them on their wives, or free men from Africa for goodness sake. You are being intellectually dishonest in saying that just because the Bill of Rights doesn't say "only people over the age of 8 can own guns", that means that kids under 8 have a constitutional right to won guns.
Your being intellectually dishonest, and using a legalistic reading that would be appropriate for a loophole in tax law to get out of the IRS freezing all your assests, and applying it to the single vaguest legal document in our country. Don't put words in the mouth of the Founding Father's. They said enough good on their own. You surely don't need to help them out by saying they meant something terrible foolish.
Kirby
Also take a good long hard look at the constitution, you'll find that woman didn't have the same rights, and that slaves are only 2/5th's of a man, and thus don't have the same rights as other men. So, I'd say pretty much ever last right in the Bill of Rights when taken in full view of the context within which it was written, specifically doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a male of European descent. Thanks for playing. Being considered a man probably had a different context then (it might have been 16 or some other standard).
As a particular example, the Second Amendment is either being broken or the current interpretation about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", clearly shows that in this case "people", specifically means people of majority age. At the time it was written, I'm pretty sure that meant White males of age. People is the clear designation used in all of the bill of rights, and as such, is open to equal interpretation by the Supreme Court. So I'd say that any and all of them could be seen as such. Clearly they aren't as universal as you are implying.
Kirby
Break enough contracts and nobody will let you sign one with them.
Finally, this RFID system is used with a proximity tester within 20 inches of you. It can't tell where you are unless you are near a sensor. The sensor is more then likely a reasonable large metal object that is easily identifiable even to a child of the age of 7 or 8 years old. The princepal Skinner can't just "check the system" to find out where Bart Simpson is and tell you the path he has traveled the entire day. All he can tell you is that at 8,9,10,11, and 2 Bart had his card within 20 inches of a sensor. Yes, it's a slippery slope. When they start installing them at places other then the doors into and out of the building, and they aren't wands the instructor waves over them you have an argument. I specifically said that I would have serious issues with that kind of arrangement.
Kirby