in most areas means significant, UNCORRECTIBLE vision problems that are severe enough to be somewhat disabling.
If someone who is 'legally blind' is driving, then one of two things is the case. Either he's not truly deserving of the status, OR he shouldn't be on the road. Probably the latter. Someone who's 'legally blind' should not be able to pass the vision exam to drive, even with corrective lenses, but unfortunately cheating the vision exam in most US states at least is quite easy -- one can just memorise the chart, since the same one is always in use.
Someone who's legally blind may be able to read, but they will not be able to read the normal type size in a newspaper or book without a strong magnifying glass.
from reading the court's opinions, that showing the court that one can walk into any porn store in Dallas -- and a bunch of liquor stores -- and find worse -- isn't a defence. Even though in the real world it proves that the community sanctions it, since those places are still open, the judges on the appeal court are of the opinion that, to paraphrase, showing that others break the law too isn't a defence.
a) I made no mention of the constitution. Though I do fear for its protection, with the current white house / justice dept. They never heard of a search or seizure they didn't like nor thought reasonable.
b) That life sucked worse in the past doesn't excuse any way that it sucks now. And yes, I realise just how sucky things were back in the day, before labor laws.
Sometimes all of us end up working for a jerk. When times are tight; working for a jerk is better than not working, after all. I'm just not keen on expansion of the ways in which jerks can screw with people.
The other problem is when something becomes 'standard business practice' and even the non-jerky employers start doing it. For example, compensation for being called after hours. As a professional sysadmin having worked in the business for almost ten years, I have never, ever had a job in which I get paid extra for getting calls. It would be safe to say that 'standard business practice' is that employees in my position don't get that. It would be a rare employer indeed who'd give out that compensation.
Not that much of the year, obviously, and the total annual rainfall is low (that's why it's called a desert, of course!) but when it does, it really rains. You didn't think the all the drainage ditches and culverts and things under the 15 freeway were there for fun, did you? Think flash floods. Think your car being carried off in a torrent. It happens.
Of course, what value is coerced consent? The two groups of people this is clearly intended to be used on -- children and employees -- will not be 'consenting' in any kind of free manner.
'Consent because I'm your legal guardian and can consent on your behalf' and 'Consent or lose your job' don't really count as consent in my book.
The cellphone is becoming a tool for employers to squeeze away the last vestiges of a personal life for their employees. First is the expecation of being contactable at all hours, day or night, instantaneously (and thus the expectation that people will never be doing anything they can't be called away from). Now, they can't just contact you, they can find out where you are, at any moment, and without your knowledge.
And as for those of us living in the United States, you really think the Justice Dept. isn't going to press for access to this kind of thing -- with as little judicial safeguards as they can get away with?
However, IF the linux you are running is found in a court of law to be infringing on SCO's copyrighted works, THEN they can ask you to cease using it and destroy any infringing copies. As an innocent recipient of infringing material you do not have to pay them a cent.
Trying to hit up end users for license fees in significant advance of any legal judgment is quite a slimy tactic, and IMO shows their lack of faith in winning, or at least their need for short-term cash flow.
One day, it's all about SMP, RCU, etc. The next it's not. The next it is.
One day, it's all about IBM breaching contracts with SCO. The next day, it's SCO wanting to start the BSD vs USL case all over again, wanting to claim that anything built on UNIX is a derivative work. In fact it seems to go beyond that; SCO's insinuated that their true aim is a look-and-feel case that will kill UNIX-a-likes dead. Witness their statements along the lines of 'They think that if they know where the infringing code is, they can remove it and everything's fine. But it's stuff they can't remove'.
Read the article. They're demanding $32 a copy from the OEM; in this case, the TiVo company themselves. Individual users are NOT liable for this, they cannot demand this and they won't get it. If TiVo ships code it shouldn't have, then they are liable, not their customers.
A company truly serious about a genuine claim would't be behaving this way, IMO. SCO wouldn't be trying to shake down users in advance of a judgment; rather, they'd get a judgment, and then, armed with that, their shakedown would have MUCH more teeth.
and not before. You do NOT have to pay a cent until it's proven, and as an end user you have ZERO liability up to that point. Yes, if SCO wins in court they MAY be able to claim rights to some things currently in the Linux kernel. AT THAT POINT (and not before), you should cease running code you now KNOW is stolen. If you do that, you have absolutely no liability whatsoever.
SCO's issue seems to be with code that IBM completely and honestly believe they own, wrote and have the rights to. IBM would probably have signed such a disclosure form.
The FSF's disclosure/assignment policy protects them against individuals whose employers might sue. Not corporations giving source code.
where the problem is rather different -- there, there are only so many product names, for example, so trying to recognise typos for those product names might be a good thing.
One of the biggest usability lessons is always that it's not what users SAY they like that matters; it's what actually works.
Ask almost anyone and they'll say they prefer the pretty site -- but watch them, and you'll find they actually have a more successful experience with the boring-but-usable one, and the prettiness won't be what brings people to come back or to recommend it to their friends.
Also, pretty is easy; good functional design is hard. Be good at the hard stuff; everyone else will manage the pretty just as well as you can.
Java no more has the web and network as a core functionality of the language than perl does. They're both a function of a) the environment in which the code runs, and b) standard libraries.
Java is just a somewhat OO C-family language, otherwise. It's the libraries that give it network and web functionality, just like perl.
Now, it might be arguable that the java libraries and integration of the java environment into web servers is better than the perl libraries and perl integration into web servers. So make that argument!
The fee shouldn't even have to be that large at all -- it's just there to prove that someone actually cares enough about the work to keep up the copyright.
The constant extension of automatic copyright is becoming a serious problem. There are just too many works that are close to unavailable, the demand for a limited reprint etc. is there, but either the copyright holder will not either reprint themselves or license the copyright to someone else, or it's impossible to find the original copyright holder.
Bear in mind that copyright extends to pretty much all written and visual works, not just those things you might think of as 'art' or 'literature'. Manuals, for example. All kinds of documentation on things.
I'd have thought that declaring your work to be in the public domain would, even if you cannot actually disclaim your copyright technically, would still be a statement that your work may be used AS IF it's in the public domain, i.e. there are no restrictions on its use.
must be read or played between four minutes before the hour, and four minutes after, every hour. You can do it at other times too if you like, but it MUST by FCC regs be done then.
Station IDs MUST contain the station's callsign and the city they broadcast from. Optionally they can contain the frequency and the words 'FM' or 'AM'. No other words can be put in between the callsign and the city.
they know how to market to older people, while they think that marketing to younger people is harder. So they're willing to pay more for exposure to younger audiences.
that Carmack can't HIRE the talent he needs for this, even if he doesn't have it himself (and you seem to be having trouble getting that game physics aren't real physics not because game programmers are dumb but because real physics can be too much CPU work...)
that it's not intended so much by saving money through the paycut, as to persuade people to quit. A company that wanted you to stay would sugar-coat it.
Slashdot Mirror
in most areas means significant, UNCORRECTIBLE vision problems that are severe enough to be somewhat disabling.
If someone who is 'legally blind' is driving, then one of two things is the case. Either he's not truly deserving of the status, OR he shouldn't be on the road. Probably the latter. Someone who's 'legally blind' should not be able to pass the vision exam to drive, even with corrective lenses, but unfortunately cheating the vision exam in most US states at least is quite easy -- one can just memorise the chart, since the same one is always in use.
Someone who's legally blind may be able to read, but they will not be able to read the normal type size in a newspaper or book without a strong magnifying glass.
I wasn't speaking of the manufacturers of the cells themselves, but I'd swear I'd seen similar things in the docs for nicad-powered devices. Scams?
This teaches me something I didn't know; thank you.
If so, why does documentation from the manufacturers themselves often warn of this? Did they fall for the UL too?
from reading the court's opinions, that showing the court that one can walk into any porn store in Dallas -- and a bunch of liquor stores -- and find worse -- isn't a defence. Even though in the real world it proves that the community sanctions it, since those places are still open, the judges on the appeal court are of the opinion that, to paraphrase, showing that others break the law too isn't a defence.
a) I made no mention of the constitution. Though I do fear for its protection, with the current white house / justice dept. They never heard of a search or seizure they didn't like nor thought reasonable.
b) That life sucked worse in the past doesn't excuse any way that it sucks now. And yes, I realise just how sucky things were back in the day, before labor laws.
BUT calling that consent is a bit weaselly with the words.
Sometimes all of us end up working for a jerk. When times are tight; working for a jerk is better than not working, after all. I'm just not keen on expansion of the ways in which jerks can screw with people.
The other problem is when something becomes 'standard business practice' and even the non-jerky employers start doing it. For example, compensation for being called after hours. As a professional sysadmin having worked in the business for almost ten years, I have never, ever had a job in which I get paid extra for getting calls. It would be safe to say that 'standard business practice' is that employees in my position don't get that. It would be a rare employer indeed who'd give out that compensation.
Not that much of the year, obviously, and the total annual rainfall is low (that's why it's called a desert, of course!) but when it does, it really rains. You didn't think the all the drainage ditches and culverts and things under the 15 freeway were there for fun, did you? Think flash floods. Think your car being carried off in a torrent. It happens.
Of course, what value is coerced consent? The two groups of people this is clearly intended to be used on -- children and employees -- will not be 'consenting' in any kind of free manner.
'Consent because I'm your legal guardian and can consent on your behalf' and 'Consent or lose your job' don't really count as consent in my book.
The cellphone is becoming a tool for employers to squeeze away the last vestiges of a personal life for their employees. First is the expecation of being contactable at all hours, day or night, instantaneously (and thus the expectation that people will never be doing anything they can't be called away from). Now, they can't just contact you, they can find out where you are, at any moment, and without your knowledge.
And as for those of us living in the United States, you really think the Justice Dept. isn't going to press for access to this kind of thing -- with as little judicial safeguards as they can get away with?
Ugh.
However, IF the linux you are running is found in a court of law to be infringing on SCO's copyrighted works, THEN they can ask you to cease using it and destroy any infringing copies. As an innocent recipient of infringing material you do not have to pay them a cent.
Trying to hit up end users for license fees in significant advance of any legal judgment is quite a slimy tactic, and IMO shows their lack of faith in winning, or at least their need for short-term cash flow.
One day, it's all about SMP, RCU, etc. The next it's not. The next it is.
One day, it's all about IBM breaching contracts with SCO. The next day, it's SCO wanting to start the BSD vs USL case all over again, wanting to claim that anything built on UNIX is a derivative work. In fact it seems to go beyond that; SCO's insinuated that their true aim is a look-and-feel case that will kill UNIX-a-likes dead. Witness their statements along the lines of 'They think that if they know where the infringing code is, they can remove it and everything's fine. But it's stuff they can't remove'.
They've got big mouths, but the only lawsuit from SCO actually on the table is them suing IBM for breach of contract.
Read the article. They're demanding $32 a copy from the OEM; in this case, the TiVo company themselves. Individual users are NOT liable for this, they cannot demand this and they won't get it. If TiVo ships code it shouldn't have, then they are liable, not their customers.
A company truly serious about a genuine claim would't be behaving this way, IMO. SCO wouldn't be trying to shake down users in advance of a judgment; rather, they'd get a judgment, and then, armed with that, their shakedown would have MUCH more teeth.
and not before. You do NOT have to pay a cent until it's proven, and as an end user you have ZERO liability up to that point. Yes, if SCO wins in court they MAY be able to claim rights to some things currently in the Linux kernel. AT THAT POINT (and not before), you should cease running code you now KNOW is stolen. If you do that, you have absolutely no liability whatsoever.
SCO's issue seems to be with code that IBM completely and honestly believe they own, wrote and have the rights to. IBM would probably have signed such a disclosure form.
The FSF's disclosure/assignment policy protects them against individuals whose employers might sue. Not corporations giving source code.
where the problem is rather different -- there, there are only so many product names, for example, so trying to recognise typos for those product names might be a good thing.
One of the biggest usability lessons is always that it's not what users SAY they like that matters; it's what actually works.
Ask almost anyone and they'll say they prefer the pretty site -- but watch them, and you'll find they actually have a more successful experience with the boring-but-usable one, and the prettiness won't be what brings people to come back or to recommend it to their friends.
Also, pretty is easy; good functional design is hard. Be good at the hard stuff; everyone else will manage the pretty just as well as you can.
Java no more has the web and network as a core functionality of the language than perl does. They're both a function of a) the environment in which the code runs, and b) standard libraries.
Java is just a somewhat OO C-family language, otherwise. It's the libraries that give it network and web functionality, just like perl.
Now, it might be arguable that the java libraries and integration of the java environment into web servers is better than the perl libraries and perl integration into web servers. So make that argument!
The fee shouldn't even have to be that large at all -- it's just there to prove that someone actually cares enough about the work to keep up the copyright.
The constant extension of automatic copyright is becoming a serious problem. There are just too many works that are close to unavailable, the demand for a limited reprint etc. is there, but either the copyright holder will not either reprint themselves or license the copyright to someone else, or it's impossible to find the original copyright holder.
Bear in mind that copyright extends to pretty much all written and visual works, not just those things you might think of as 'art' or 'literature'. Manuals, for example. All kinds of documentation on things.
I'd have thought that declaring your work to be in the public domain would, even if you cannot actually disclaim your copyright technically, would still be a statement that your work may be used AS IF it's in the public domain, i.e. there are no restrictions on its use.
you're on crack. The support is the REASON to have Sun. If you don't have it ... run Linux.
must be read or played between four minutes before the hour, and four minutes after, every hour. You can do it at other times too if you like, but it MUST by FCC regs be done then.
Station IDs MUST contain the station's callsign and the city they broadcast from. Optionally they can contain the frequency and the words 'FM' or 'AM'. No other words can be put in between the callsign and the city.
Buncha bullshit, but that's the FCC for you.
they know how to market to older people, while they think that marketing to younger people is harder. So they're willing to pay more for exposure to younger audiences.
that Carmack can't HIRE the talent he needs for this, even if he doesn't have it himself (and you seem to be having trouble getting that game physics aren't real physics not because game programmers are dumb but because real physics can be too much CPU work ...)
that it's not intended so much by saving money through the paycut, as to persuade people to quit. A company that wanted you to stay would sugar-coat it.