I reacted differently to being a bit beyond what my age said I was supposed to be capable of: I never gave up my love of learning, just my love of schooling. Once you discover that those are 2 different things, there's much less limit to what you can accomplish or think about.
For instance, I've never taken a philosophy course, but I can still enjoy mulling over Plato.
The whole viral effect stems from the linking stage, which FSF claims will include the GPLed code into the non-GPL program, which the license doesn't allow.
That's why nearly anything you'd want to link to is LGPL - that way, you can link to the library in question without being a derivative work under GPL definitions. For instance, you can write anything you want on top of glibc, and it won't have to be GPL'd.
The whole "viral effect" of the GPL is to prevent somebody from taking a useful GPL'd application, adding a few bells and whistles to it, and then pawning the whole thing off as their own. Linking to an LGPL library does not do that. If you want the functionality of GPL'd code in your code, but don't want to make your stuff GPL, then you have to write that functionality yourself or license it some other way.
I guess you'd be OK with say your 5 or 8 or 10 year-old child looking at porn, then?
Sure, I'm OK with that.
1. S/he is going to be acting more out of curiousity than sexual interest (kids that age have sexual interest, but nowhere near as much as s/he will when their 13). When young kids see something sexual, the tendency is to get bored with it really quickly. 2. By taking the mystery away, I'm reducing the chance that s/he'll experiment unsafely when their 12 or 13. 3. It can be a "teachable moment" where I can explain the difference between the fantasy of banging Megan Fox and the reality of an actual relationship with Megan next door. 4. The average child in the world sees a boob within the first hour of their existence. Children generally will see people of the opposite sex nude at least a few times before entering first grade. And they will likely know the basics of what body part goes where by the time they're about 10. 5. Historically, most kids were conceived in 1-room homes that the parents shared with the new kid's elder siblings. Plus most kids were raised on farms, so they would have seen animals going at it quite a few times as well. 6. Sex is hereditary. If your parents never had it, chances are you won't either. (In other words, every single generation has figured it out, there's no reason to think the next one won't.)
About the only areas of most porn that are really going to cause problems long-term are that porn doesn't typically demonstrate the use of birth control.
The separation of church and state is thoroughly implied by those phrases: 1. "respecting an establishment of religion" means that no religious viewpoint or organization can claim a privileged place in government. In other words, church stays out of state. 2. "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that government can't decide what religious viewpoints are acceptable. In other words, state stays out of church.
Many American Christians want their religious viewpoints to be established at least semi-officially, and the more extreme want to ban other religions (basically things that aren't Christianity or Judaism) from the United States.
Note that this is not the same concern as voting as one's religion dictates: If a Catholic wants to vote against those who supported government paying for contraception, no legal problem with that. But that's different from saying "Everyone's going to stand respectfully while Father Michaels recites the Lord's Prayer" at a public school graduation.
What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan. They have negligible amounts of oil, we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas.
The key natural resource for the last 20 years in Afghanistan has been the prospect of oil and natural gas pipelines running from Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean. And waddaya know, as soon as the Karzai government backed by the US was in power, there were new agreements signed regarding oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan.
And Iraq is probably also about oil, as well, since the Project for a New American Century (membership including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz) explicitly advocated the US taking control of all the major oil supplies in the world as a way of controlling everything else that was going on in the world.
I'm not panicking at all, for 2 reasons: 1. By then, I'll be long dead. At worst, some sort of crazy intergalactic radiation will have me back as some sort of zombie. 2. By then, it's quite possible the sun will be a red giant, which means that whatever we've evolved to over 4 billion years is either dead or capable of moving very very far away.
As someone who's written what's sometimes called "Classical" music, here's the complexity of it: 1. As sibling posters have pointed out, it strictly speaking means basically music produced in and around the 1700's. 2. Another definition would be more cultural: Classical music is the stuff where if performed live by professionals, they'll be wearing tuxes or elegant dresses and using primarily acoustic instruments, possibly with a guy in front waving his arms around but not performing. There's a strong tendency towards unnecessary poshness. 3. A third definition: Classical music features each performer having a carefully written part in advance which they learn and execute to the letter. This is in contrast to jazz (improvization is typical), folk (often no written part, and often not followed if there is one), or pop songs (again, not written down by the performer)
There will come a day, however, when you'll be able to transfer funds just by holding your cellphone next to someone else's and hitting a few keys
Don't you mean: "There will come a day, however, when passers-by will be able to transfer funds from you to them just by getting kinda near your cellphone and hitting a few keys."
I noticed the same sort of trend with people that are driving cars that barely run, yet have the latest and greatest smart phone from one of the big carriers.
Thanks to cell phone contracts, the upfront cost of a smart phone can be way lower than the cost of a decent car. Poorer people typically make their financial decisions based on what it will cost them this month or this pay period, not what it will cost them over the course of the next year or next 5 years, because they don't have the savings (and in some cases the math skills) to make those kinds of longer-term decisions useful or viable. That's one reason why mortgage brokers trying to sucker people into really lousy adjustable rate mortgages focus on "low monthly payment!" rather than "low interest rate!"
Should people who work in Washington County but do not reside there (e.g. somebody who works at Ben and Jerry's but lives near Burlington) get an online vote to determine how you vote? What about seasonal residents and workers?
It's actually self-interest to develop each member of my team: 1. If they piss off somebody important, that's going to land on me. Likewise, if they do a great job for somebody important, that's also going to land on me. So it's worth teaching them the people skills. 2. The more my subordinates can handle without me, the less I need to do and the more I can focus on longer-term and bigger-picture issues, and the more I can focus on managing upwards rather than downwards. Also, it means I can take vacations. 3. If I'm trying to be promoted, I need to have somebody ready to take on the work that I'm currently doing (unless I want to go insane doing 2 jobs). Grooming a subordinate (who's going to have a certain amount of loyalty to me for making that effort) to take on my job is the safest way to do that. 4. If my subordinates leave the company, they'll be more likely have good things to say about me, which makes it easier to find good employees.
5. Many employers refuse to hire any employee immediately out of college, because studies have shown that technical staff make their big mistakes in their first 2 years on the job. That leads directly to the "can't get experience without a job, can't get a job without experience" problem. 6. There has continued to be an attitude that a good system administrator, network administrator, help desk guy, or programmer should have a degree in Computer Science or something similar. Many do, but many also have degrees in mathematics, engineering, or physics, and some have no degree at all.
Look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn non-techies so the techies don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
I hire and supervise technical staff for a living (although it's a small enough team that I'm chipping in on the tech work as well).
I can manage somebody with fantastic technical skills but without people skills if (a) I can put him in a proverbial cave where I can keep the non-techies away from him and him away from non-techies, and (b) other techies can work with him. I would rather have somebody with great personal skills too, but if it comes down to technical skill versus people skill, I'll take the technical skill.
You can train people skills too: you sit your problem employee down and tell him exactly what your expectations for personal behavior are, and what you need him to do differently. You be specific about what behavior is inappropriate or problematic, and tell him what you need him to do differently. If you start seeing changes in the right direction, you encourage it by telling him what he did right.
Another way of explaining is that it affects whether the cost of fixing a problem is higher or lower than the cost of the lawsuits and/or criminal penalties in response for failing to fix the problem. That's the equation that a corporation will be attempting to solve when they decide whether or not to fix a problem.
As opposed to the infinite "Legal Wisdom" of mbone, I'll take Scalia any day of the week.
We're talking about the same guy who has extensive ex parte communications with Dick Cheney and then goes on to rule on a case involving Dick Cheney (rather than recusing himself, as any non-corrupt jurist would do), right? He's not the only one, of course: Clarence Thomas has issued rulings on cases where his wife had a financial stake in one of the parties.
Regarding this kind of clause, the legal concept in question is an argument of unconscionability, where somebody claims that the contract terms are so unfair that they should not be enforced. Courts, including SCOTUS, have ruled both ways on whether clauses that bar access to legal redress are unconscionable. It's been part of contract law for decades at least.
Roughly 30% of Americans had no Internet access as of 2011, including over 40% of poor and not-white people. So no, not everybody has the Internet now.
Slashdot Mirror
Glad I'm not the first to bring up PostgreSQL, which gives you serious amounts of awesomeness at 0% of the cost of Oracle.
I reacted differently to being a bit beyond what my age said I was supposed to be capable of: I never gave up my love of learning, just my love of schooling. Once you discover that those are 2 different things, there's much less limit to what you can accomplish or think about.
For instance, I've never taken a philosophy course, but I can still enjoy mulling over Plato.
Flooding in Thailand? That's just the rumblings of Cthulhu in his city of Rl'yeh.
Also, as far as what hit Earth in 775, that was plainly a time-travelling Chuck Norris.
The whole viral effect stems from the linking stage, which FSF claims will include the GPLed code into the non-GPL program, which the license doesn't allow.
That's why nearly anything you'd want to link to is LGPL - that way, you can link to the library in question without being a derivative work under GPL definitions. For instance, you can write anything you want on top of glibc, and it won't have to be GPL'd.
The whole "viral effect" of the GPL is to prevent somebody from taking a useful GPL'd application, adding a few bells and whistles to it, and then pawning the whole thing off as their own. Linking to an LGPL library does not do that. If you want the functionality of GPL'd code in your code, but don't want to make your stuff GPL, then you have to write that functionality yourself or license it some other way.
They should have applied for .lulz
I guess you'd be OK with say your 5 or 8 or 10 year-old child looking at porn, then?
Sure, I'm OK with that.
1. S/he is going to be acting more out of curiousity than sexual interest (kids that age have sexual interest, but nowhere near as much as s/he will when their 13). When young kids see something sexual, the tendency is to get bored with it really quickly.
2. By taking the mystery away, I'm reducing the chance that s/he'll experiment unsafely when their 12 or 13.
3. It can be a "teachable moment" where I can explain the difference between the fantasy of banging Megan Fox and the reality of an actual relationship with Megan next door.
4. The average child in the world sees a boob within the first hour of their existence. Children generally will see people of the opposite sex nude at least a few times before entering first grade. And they will likely know the basics of what body part goes where by the time they're about 10.
5. Historically, most kids were conceived in 1-room homes that the parents shared with the new kid's elder siblings. Plus most kids were raised on farms, so they would have seen animals going at it quite a few times as well.
6. Sex is hereditary. If your parents never had it, chances are you won't either. (In other words, every single generation has figured it out, there's no reason to think the next one won't.)
About the only areas of most porn that are really going to cause problems long-term are that porn doesn't typically demonstrate the use of birth control.
The separation of church and state is thoroughly implied by those phrases:
1. "respecting an establishment of religion" means that no religious viewpoint or organization can claim a privileged place in government. In other words, church stays out of state.
2. "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that government can't decide what religious viewpoints are acceptable. In other words, state stays out of church.
Many American Christians want their religious viewpoints to be established at least semi-officially, and the more extreme want to ban other religions (basically things that aren't Christianity or Judaism) from the United States.
Note that this is not the same concern as voting as one's religion dictates: If a Catholic wants to vote against those who supported government paying for contraception, no legal problem with that. But that's different from saying "Everyone's going to stand respectfully while Father Michaels recites the Lord's Prayer" at a public school graduation.
What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan. They have negligible amounts of oil, we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas.
The key natural resource for the last 20 years in Afghanistan has been the prospect of oil and natural gas pipelines running from Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean. And waddaya know, as soon as the Karzai government backed by the US was in power, there were new agreements signed regarding oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan.
And Iraq is probably also about oil, as well, since the Project for a New American Century (membership including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz) explicitly advocated the US taking control of all the major oil supplies in the world as a way of controlling everything else that was going on in the world.
No, you don't understand the rules: It's not an act of war when we do it to them, only when they do it to us.
I'm not panicking at all, for 2 reasons:
1. By then, I'll be long dead. At worst, some sort of crazy intergalactic radiation will have me back as some sort of zombie.
2. By then, it's quite possible the sun will be a red giant, which means that whatever we've evolved to over 4 billion years is either dead or capable of moving very very far away.
As someone who's written what's sometimes called "Classical" music, here's the complexity of it:
1. As sibling posters have pointed out, it strictly speaking means basically music produced in and around the 1700's.
2. Another definition would be more cultural: Classical music is the stuff where if performed live by professionals, they'll be wearing tuxes or elegant dresses and using primarily acoustic instruments, possibly with a guy in front waving his arms around but not performing. There's a strong tendency towards unnecessary poshness.
3. A third definition: Classical music features each performer having a carefully written part in advance which they learn and execute to the letter. This is in contrast to jazz (improvization is typical), folk (often no written part, and often not followed if there is one), or pop songs (again, not written down by the performer)
I can think of about 1.8 million reasons why the US Justice Department might be inclined to look the other way.
Starring Bruce Lee?
There will come a day, however, when you'll be able to transfer funds just by holding your cellphone next to someone else's and hitting a few keys
Don't you mean:
"There will come a day, however, when passers-by will be able to transfer funds from you to them just by getting kinda near your cellphone and hitting a few keys."
Don't forget the even greater horror of learning the entire contents of form 27B-6.
If you're going to steal something from the United States, I'd think it would be much better to steal something that works well!
I noticed the same sort of trend with people that are driving cars that barely run, yet have the latest and greatest smart phone from one of the big carriers.
Thanks to cell phone contracts, the upfront cost of a smart phone can be way lower than the cost of a decent car. Poorer people typically make their financial decisions based on what it will cost them this month or this pay period, not what it will cost them over the course of the next year or next 5 years, because they don't have the savings (and in some cases the math skills) to make those kinds of longer-term decisions useful or viable. That's one reason why mortgage brokers trying to sucker people into really lousy adjustable rate mortgages focus on "low monthly payment!" rather than "low interest rate!"
Should people who work in Washington County but do not reside there (e.g. somebody who works at Ben and Jerry's but lives near Burlington) get an online vote to determine how you vote? What about seasonal residents and workers?
It's actually self-interest to develop each member of my team:
1. If they piss off somebody important, that's going to land on me. Likewise, if they do a great job for somebody important, that's also going to land on me. So it's worth teaching them the people skills.
2. The more my subordinates can handle without me, the less I need to do and the more I can focus on longer-term and bigger-picture issues, and the more I can focus on managing upwards rather than downwards. Also, it means I can take vacations.
3. If I'm trying to be promoted, I need to have somebody ready to take on the work that I'm currently doing (unless I want to go insane doing 2 jobs). Grooming a subordinate (who's going to have a certain amount of loyalty to me for making that effort) to take on my job is the safest way to do that.
4. If my subordinates leave the company, they'll be more likely have good things to say about me, which makes it easier to find good employees.
5. Many employers refuse to hire any employee immediately out of college, because studies have shown that technical staff make their big mistakes in their first 2 years on the job. That leads directly to the "can't get experience without a job, can't get a job without experience" problem.
6. There has continued to be an attitude that a good system administrator, network administrator, help desk guy, or programmer should have a degree in Computer Science or something similar. Many do, but many also have degrees in mathematics, engineering, or physics, and some have no degree at all.
Look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn non-techies so the techies don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
I hire and supervise technical staff for a living (although it's a small enough team that I'm chipping in on the tech work as well).
I can manage somebody with fantastic technical skills but without people skills if (a) I can put him in a proverbial cave where I can keep the non-techies away from him and him away from non-techies, and (b) other techies can work with him. I would rather have somebody with great personal skills too, but if it comes down to technical skill versus people skill, I'll take the technical skill.
You can train people skills too: you sit your problem employee down and tell him exactly what your expectations for personal behavior are, and what you need him to do differently. You be specific about what behavior is inappropriate or problematic, and tell him what you need him to do differently. If you start seeing changes in the right direction, you encourage it by telling him what he did right.
Another way of explaining is that it affects whether the cost of fixing a problem is higher or lower than the cost of the lawsuits and/or criminal penalties in response for failing to fix the problem. That's the equation that a corporation will be attempting to solve when they decide whether or not to fix a problem.
As opposed to the infinite "Legal Wisdom" of mbone, I'll take Scalia any day of the week.
We're talking about the same guy who has extensive ex parte communications with Dick Cheney and then goes on to rule on a case involving Dick Cheney (rather than recusing himself, as any non-corrupt jurist would do), right? He's not the only one, of course: Clarence Thomas has issued rulings on cases where his wife had a financial stake in one of the parties.
Regarding this kind of clause, the legal concept in question is an argument of unconscionability, where somebody claims that the contract terms are so unfair that they should not be enforced. Courts, including SCOTUS, have ruled both ways on whether clauses that bar access to legal redress are unconscionable. It's been part of contract law for decades at least.
Everyone has the Internet now
Roughly 30% of Americans had no Internet access as of 2011, including over 40% of poor and not-white people. So no, not everybody has the Internet now.