Tcl can be useful for VERY simple applications, but it is very difficult to read for anything else. Scoping, evaulation, and parameter passing are a mess.
---
I am sigless.
Re:And what's good, too, is that...
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 1
If you wanted to build a business selling diamonds as jewels, a high priced strategy would be appropriate. However, Appollo Diamond is focussed on the semiconductor business, which could be much bigger than selling trinkets to gullible grooms.
As to the assertion that there are lots of elements to explore, this is false. There is a relatively small area of the periodic table that is interesting for elemental semiconductors. Of course, there are MANY interesting compounds.
The company doesn't sell all its stock during an IPO. That would be stupid. Instead some of it remains with the company. They can do a split, sell stock, give it out as options. It is bargaining power and companies like bargaining power.
This statement is hopelessly naive and needs to be corrected.
When a company is formed, a maximum number of shares is authorized. This number is usually quite large (many times what the company will issue for some time). Even then, this maximum can be changed at a later date. The number of authorized shares is pretty much meaningless. The idea that a company "holds back" shares or "doesn't issue all the shares" in an IPO is meaningless.
What is important, is the number of shares outstanding. That is the number of shares issued - shares bought back by the company (shares bought back are called Treasury Stock). Of course, if the company sells or gives away treasury stock, those shares are once again considered outstanding. The number of shares you own, divided by the number of shares outstanding is the percentage of the company you own.
The stock sold in an IPO is newly issued stock (in all but a incredibly small number of cases). Nobody has ever owned this stock before. The proceeds of this sale go directly into the coffers of the company (less the commission to the investment bank). One of the thing that the red herring & final prospectus describe how this money will be used.
The people and institutions that owned stock prior to the IPO still own the same amount of stock they did before. However, their shares are now diluted which means that they represent a smaller percentage of the company than they did before. Their shares are also Restricted Stock and cannot be traded on the open market. Their is a pain-in-the-ass process by which it can be converted in limited quantities, which is how insiders get to sell their stock eventually.
At a later point, the company may issue new shares to raise more capital. This is called a secondary offering. Once again, these are NEW, never before issued shares.
When a company goes through a stock split, no new shares are issued. It doesn't "use up" shares that are sitting around. The only thing that happens is that the old shares are replaced by a larger number (or in the case of a reverse split, smaller) of new shares.
The real limit on issuing new stock? Dilution lowers the price of the stock. The exchanges set minimum price levels and will boot a stock off the exchange if it trades below that price.
This is pretty old news. My firm has had an AIM proxy in place for over a year.
Client side logging isn't good enough. The data has to be archived to an approved, durable, tamper resistant medium (paper or optical disc are the only approved media).
The firms not only have to log all Instant Messaging, they have to monitor it. For the most part, this consists of a combination of keyword searches and spot checks. This breaks down if for client based logs.
Brokerages are NOT legally required to record phone conversations, but they are required to conduct some sort of review of the recordings if they record. Spot checks
Yes, they meant what they meant. I don't think anybody misunderstands what the INTENT of the GPL vs. the LGPL is. The issue is whether or not the law actually lets the GPL do what is intended.
The meaning of derivative is crucial. If the work is deemed *not* to be derivative, then the copywright holder of the library has to demonstrate that the entity distributing the program that uses the library either accepted the terms of license or violated the copywright. Proving acceptance is diffcult, because there is no evidence of a contract.
In general, the GPL relies on the threat of enforcing the copyright to force acceptance of the license. To enforce the GPL, the copyright holder must first demonstrate that the copyright was violated. Otherwise the distributing entity can say, "What GPL, I didn't sign no GPL". In the case of statically linked libraries, proving copyright violation is easy. In the case of dynamically linked libraries (particuarly ones with multiple implementations) it is much harder to prove.
Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to release proprietary software that dynamically linked in GPL'd libraries. I might get sued, but the chances that I would have to pay any significant damages are very small.
We all know that RMS intends the GPL to prohibit the distribution of proprietary software that links with a GPL'd library. What is less clear is whether or not the GPL can actually accomplish that. Mr. Rosen's article merely discusses the legal issues.
The GPL is only relevant when you distribute GPL'd code or a derivative work. (See paragraph 5 of the GPL: You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.) For the sake of simplifying this conversation, let's avoid distributing the GPL'd code by using dynamically linked libraries. Then we can focus on whether or not a program that dynamically links in a library is "derivative".
Mr. Rosen maintains that it is not, which is clearly at odds with RMS' position. I personally agree with Mr. Rosen. I also feel that RMS' view is hypocritical. Code which makes use a a library is only dependent on that library to the extent that it supports an interface. It is not dependent on the specific implementation of that interface. Remember, the idea is not copyrighted, only the specific expression of the idea. It is this freedom to re-implement that allowed the FSF to reimplement many of the UNIX and libraries while preserving the interface. The first version of many GPL'd software packages were almost certainly originally linked with proprietary libraries. Does this mean that they are derivative works? Is the whole FSF code base tainted by that first linking? Does my code stop or start being derivative because one user dynamically links it with a GPL'd library and another does not?
Slashdot Mirror
Tcl can be useful for VERY simple applications, but it is very difficult to read for anything else. Scoping, evaulation, and parameter passing are a mess. --- I am sigless.
If you wanted to build a business selling diamonds as jewels, a high priced strategy would be appropriate. However, Appollo Diamond is focussed on the semiconductor business, which could be much bigger than selling trinkets to gullible grooms. As to the assertion that there are lots of elements to explore, this is false. There is a relatively small area of the periodic table that is interesting for elemental semiconductors. Of course, there are MANY interesting compounds.
When a company is formed, a maximum number of shares is authorized. This number is usually quite large (many times what the company will issue for some time). Even then, this maximum can be changed at a later date. The number of authorized shares is pretty much meaningless. The idea that a company "holds back" shares or "doesn't issue all the shares" in an IPO is meaningless.
What is important, is the number of shares outstanding. That is the number of shares issued - shares bought back by the company (shares bought back are called Treasury Stock). Of course, if the company sells or gives away treasury stock, those shares are once again considered outstanding. The number of shares you own, divided by the number of shares outstanding is the percentage of the company you own.
The stock sold in an IPO is newly issued stock (in all but a incredibly small number of cases). Nobody has ever owned this stock before. The proceeds of this sale go directly into the coffers of the company (less the commission to the investment bank). One of the thing that the red herring & final prospectus describe how this money will be used.
The people and institutions that owned stock prior to the IPO still own the same amount of stock they did before. However, their shares are now diluted which means that they represent a smaller percentage of the company than they did before. Their shares are also Restricted Stock and cannot be traded on the open market. Their is a pain-in-the-ass process by which it can be converted in limited quantities, which is how insiders get to sell their stock eventually.
At a later point, the company may issue new shares to raise more capital. This is called a secondary offering. Once again, these are NEW, never before issued shares.
When a company goes through a stock split, no new shares are issued. It doesn't "use up" shares that are sitting around. The only thing that happens is that the old shares are replaced by a larger number (or in the case of a reverse split, smaller) of new shares.
The real limit on issuing new stock? Dilution lowers the price of the stock. The exchanges set minimum price levels and will boot a stock off the exchange if it trades below that price.
It would be illegal to do this without the appropriate filings (which would be public). Quiet acquisition is a myth.
This is pretty old news. My firm has had an AIM proxy in place for over a year. Client side logging isn't good enough. The data has to be archived to an approved, durable, tamper resistant medium (paper or optical disc are the only approved media). The firms not only have to log all Instant Messaging, they have to monitor it. For the most part, this consists of a combination of keyword searches and spot checks. This breaks down if for client based logs. Brokerages are NOT legally required to record phone conversations, but they are required to conduct some sort of review of the recordings if they record. Spot checks
This game is boring and buggy. The presentation of the story is crude. I bought it with no expectations of novel gameplay and was still disappointed.
Save your money. My copy has already been sold back to EBX.
The meaning of derivative is crucial. If the work is deemed *not* to be derivative, then the copywright holder of the library has to demonstrate that the entity distributing the program that uses the library either accepted the terms of license or violated the copywright. Proving acceptance is diffcult, because there is no evidence of a contract.
In general, the GPL relies on the threat of enforcing the copyright to force acceptance of the license. To enforce the GPL, the copyright holder must first demonstrate that the copyright was violated. Otherwise the distributing entity can say, "What GPL, I didn't sign no GPL". In the case of statically linked libraries, proving copyright violation is easy. In the case of dynamically linked libraries (particuarly ones with multiple implementations) it is much harder to prove.
Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to release proprietary software that dynamically linked in GPL'd libraries. I might get sued, but the chances that I would have to pay any significant damages are very small.
We all know that RMS intends the GPL to prohibit the distribution of proprietary software that links with a GPL'd library. What is less clear is whether or not the GPL can actually accomplish that. Mr. Rosen's article merely discusses the legal issues.
The GPL is only relevant when you distribute GPL'd code or a derivative work. (See paragraph 5 of the GPL: You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.) For the sake of simplifying this conversation, let's avoid distributing the GPL'd code by using dynamically linked libraries. Then we can focus on whether or not a program that dynamically links in a library is "derivative".
Mr. Rosen maintains that it is not, which is clearly at odds with RMS' position. I personally agree with Mr. Rosen. I also feel that RMS' view is hypocritical. Code which makes use a a library is only dependent on that library to the extent that it supports an interface. It is not dependent on the specific implementation of that interface. Remember, the idea is not copyrighted, only the specific expression of the idea. It is this freedom to re-implement that allowed the FSF to reimplement many of the UNIX and libraries while preserving the interface. The first version of many GPL'd software packages were almost certainly originally linked with proprietary libraries. Does this mean that they are derivative works? Is the whole FSF code base tainted by that first linking? Does my code stop or start being derivative because one user dynamically links it with a GPL'd library and another does not?