You only have to comply with SOX if you incorporate yourself into a public company. I suppose that's possible, but you will have to retain 51% of your own stock to avoid violating the 13th amendment of US constitution.
I guess a lot of it depends on weather their interest is genuine. Which is a lot easier to believe when the store makes it known that the salespeople are not working on commission.
It only fools the small head. Been done for years with no need for conversation - just IMs or blog posts asking people to "watch my steaming XXX hot webcum".
How is just talking to people ball busting? You can actually make it kind of enjoyable by adding some diversions. Ask them how they are using their computers, than talk about their university, home business, family and so on. Along the way you can again recommend some extra products based on their lifestyle without being too pushy. And how many people are confident/financially secure enough to work on commission when they are in an entry level job to start with? You can be a technical genius and a people wizard, and still bring $0 rather than your $80 at the end of the day if you are working next to a dumb, cute girl. And then you will not always get prime weekday afternoon shifts. How much money will you make on Monday 2-6pm? How about on a rainy day or during a popular ballgame? I would think people earning $10/hour would value guaranteed income over a possible incentive bonus if average compensation is the same.
How much more scientific evidence do we need to convince people that watching adults having consensual, mutually enjoyable sex is better for teenagers than watching people killing each other?
As per the TFA, a mistake was made stitching together 19 separate photographs to produce image of a large area of the moon that the probe could not have captured in one shot. Since each picture is taken at slightly different angle and distance from the surface, some retouching is unavoidable. Otherwise some craters will look like a weird set of arcs with different radius rather than circles. Such stretching got to slightly move some depicted object from their exact position. In fact, it is not possible to produce a flat picture of a 3D object without distortions. Just compare the size and shape of Alaska on your globe as compared to your map.
I would assume that you can request the original mission data for serious research use instead of having to rely on newspaper clippings for science. If those images are also doctored, then we have a genuine controversy.
There are no laws involved in civil lawsuits, so you don't have the same legal protection. A judge can dismiss your lawsuits if he/she is convinced that you are not credible and are a repeated abuser of the court system. You can even end up in jail for the later part, so SCO execs should count their blessings.
We are all screwed if majority of people consider themselves not responsible for what they do at least 40 hours/week. SCO execs would not have money to launch all those lawsuits if tens of thousands of drones were not willing to ignore their moral compass and stick with coding, sales, custodial services in HQ... The job market is not so bad that you can not find another job to feed your family. You might have to take a salary cut or even work out of profession (most good engineers are smart enough to run a Subway franchise), but the options are there.
So next time you get yelled at by an angry customer, don't just say you have no authority or responsibility to address their complaint. As long as you choose to work for the company with sucky products or service, it is your responsibility as it is people's right to yell at you for getting them screwed. A huge employee turnover coupled with cost of training replacements will soon clue in the execs on need for improvement.
Sevens amendment only gives you absolute jury trial rights in criminal cases, where you are involuntarily dragged to court by the government and have your life or freedom at stake. On the other hand, in civil cases the rights of both parties are to be considered equally. A citizen or company has a right to be free of arbitrary, repeated harassment by the party that was shown to have abused the court system over and over again. SCO has certainly shown to be a corporate crackpot by repeatedly changing claims, extorting money from numerous businesses for software they did not own and ultimately failing to prove anything in a very lengthy and expensive case against IBM. Certainly we can not fault the judge for being more skeptical about their new allegations than he would about a company without a history of court abuse? If it looked like more of the same old crap, certainly it's not prudent to waste time and money of numerous Novell employees as well as involuntarily detained jurors on yet another crackpot case?
Which brings up a question - can I get around every GPL violation by patching the binary rather than the source? Let's say RIAA posted the binary and matching source of Ubuntu on their web site. They could then post an additional closed source program that converts the binary ISO to the "University Toolkit". That closed source patch program would not contain any GPLed code per se - only a small number of offsets into the ISO file that are to be patched. Such a minor dependancy (say less than 1KB in total size) would easily qualify as fair use. After all, CDDB never got into legal trouble. While significant technological challenges would need to be overcome, this is clearly not an impossible problem and developing the necessary technology would be easier than rewriting the functionality equivalent to Ubuntu from scratch or getting a license for Windows or, say, VxWorks, for every user of a successful commercial application. What say closet lawyers?
IBM obviously has no long term vision in giving up Apple platform and selling notebook division to Lenovo. They are giving up the whole PC thing that they themselves helped to start and making it difficult for themselves to come back later as a non-trivial player. Mac platform, with users tolerant of unusual instruction set and slight lack of raw performance in exchange for unique features, could have been a good opportunity for them to take on Intel.
Ok, I am off to post some GPL projects, minus copyright banners, as an MSDN samples and also contribute Microsoft shared source into Linux kernel. Let's watch the hilarity that ensues.
If you were correct, nobody would start a software business in United States. Just have a single GPL sympathizer hired into Microsoft and you can get the whole Windows Vista open sourced because of a single infringing printer driver! Conversely, Microsoft can beat this by having someone "contribute" their code into Linux kernel and claiming the whole thing to be their property!
Also remained unchanged despite a big growth in the number of cars on the road.
J2EE is J2EE and there is no reason people have to specifically learn Tomcat in order to create and deploy applications. Production websites generally do not run on Tomcat but rather on Oracle OC4J/IAS or one of other commercial application servers. Why would people become experts in something they would only use to debug some starter projects under netbeans?
I bet the number of Linux experts has significantly grown during the same time.
And yet courts have been known to impose no or minimal penalties for patent infringement (if accidental and quickly corrected), trademark infringement (ditto), theft (if getting essential food and medicine in a disaster zone) and assault (if the defendant had reasons to believe that the victim posed an immediate physical threat). Why are you so sure that an accidental, small in scope and promptly corrected copyright violation will not be handled in a similar manner?
Are you saying that Copyright somehow has more privileged status than patents or trademarks and courts forgive minor infractions for the later two but not the former?
Just consider some other cases covered by slashdot, such as:
1. Microsoft modifying Internet Explorer to work around Eolas patent rather than paying up 2. RIM modifying Blackberry to work around push e-mail patent 3. Linux community removing a small amount of code claimed by SCO as infringing and customers not being found liable for past violations 4. Apple renaming Rendevoiz to Bonjour to avoid a trademark violation 5. Ditto Apple Music Store -> iTunes Music store to avoid a clash with Apple Records 6. Ditto Lindows being renamed to Linsprire
Thanks, I always did want to make a buck from Cmdr Taco. The following code is implicitly copyrighted by me and I am not giving slashdot any permission to reproduce it:
Guess what? Courts usually allow companies to correct simple, honest mistakes without suffering disproportionate penalties that would ruin their business. A company may not be even in a position to release the source code as it may be owned by a third party. Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation.
Oh well, in this case I will just have to choose not to accept GPL and refrain from redistributing the work covered by that license. I am still entitled to fair use for the purpose of making products interoperable with the copyrighted work.
Slashdot Mirror
You only have to comply with SOX if you incorporate yourself into a public company. I suppose that's possible, but you will have to retain 51% of your own stock to avoid violating the 13th amendment of US constitution.
I guess a lot of it depends on weather their interest is genuine. Which is a lot easier to believe when the store makes it known that the salespeople are not working on commission.
It only fools the small head. Been done for years with no need for conversation - just IMs or blog posts asking people to "watch my steaming XXX hot webcum".
How is just talking to people ball busting? You can actually make it kind of enjoyable by adding some diversions. Ask them how they are using their computers, than talk about their university, home business, family and so on. Along the way you can again recommend some extra products based on their lifestyle without being too pushy. And how many people are confident/financially secure enough to work on commission when they are in an entry level job to start with? You can be a technical genius and a people wizard, and still bring $0 rather than your $80 at the end of the day if you are working next to a dumb, cute girl. And then you will not always get prime weekday afternoon shifts. How much money will you make on Monday 2-6pm? How about on a rainy day or during a popular ballgame? I would think people earning $10/hour would value guaranteed income over a possible incentive bonus if average compensation is the same.
The sad part would be that it blocks dvi files. Here goes the collaboration for publishing use.
How much more scientific evidence do we need to convince people that watching adults having consensual, mutually enjoyable sex is better for teenagers than watching people killing each other?
when stretched. At least now I am assured of a proper prothesis should it become damaged.
Well, adjacent features will certainly appear very far from each other in your projection.
As per the TFA, a mistake was made stitching together 19 separate photographs to produce image of a large area of the moon that the probe could not have captured in one shot. Since each picture is taken at slightly different angle and distance from the surface, some retouching is unavoidable. Otherwise some craters will look like a weird set of arcs with different radius rather than circles. Such stretching got to slightly move some depicted object from their exact position. In fact, it is not possible to produce a flat picture of a 3D object without distortions. Just compare the size and shape of Alaska on your globe as compared to your map.
I would assume that you can request the original mission data for serious research use instead of having to rely on newspaper clippings for science. If those images are also doctored, then we have a genuine controversy.
There are no laws involved in civil lawsuits, so you don't have the same legal protection. A judge can dismiss your lawsuits if he/she is convinced that you are not credible and are a repeated abuser of the court system. You can even end up in jail for the later part, so SCO execs should count their blessings.
We are all screwed if majority of people consider themselves not responsible for what they do at least 40 hours/week. SCO execs would not have money to launch all those lawsuits if tens of thousands of drones were not willing to ignore their moral compass and stick with coding, sales, custodial services in HQ... The job market is not so bad that you can not find another job to feed your family. You might have to take a salary cut or even work out of profession (most good engineers are smart enough to run a Subway franchise), but the options are there.
So next time you get yelled at by an angry customer, don't just say you have no authority or responsibility to address their complaint. As long as you choose to work for the company with sucky products or service, it is your responsibility as it is people's right to yell at you for getting them screwed. A huge employee turnover coupled with cost of training replacements will soon clue in the execs on need for improvement.
Sevens amendment only gives you absolute jury trial rights in criminal cases, where you are involuntarily dragged to court by the government and have your life or freedom at stake. On the other hand, in civil cases the rights of both parties are to be considered equally. A citizen or company has a right to be free of arbitrary, repeated harassment by the party that was shown to have abused the court system over and over again. SCO has certainly shown to be a corporate crackpot by repeatedly changing claims, extorting money from numerous businesses for software they did not own and ultimately failing to prove anything in a very lengthy and expensive case against IBM. Certainly we can not fault the judge for being more skeptical about their new allegations than he would about a company without a history of court abuse? If it looked like more of the same old crap, certainly it's not prudent to waste time and money of numerous Novell employees as well as involuntarily detained jurors on yet another crackpot case?
Which brings up a question - can I get around every GPL violation by patching the binary rather than the source? Let's say RIAA posted the binary and matching source of Ubuntu on their web site. They could then post an additional closed source program that converts the binary ISO to the "University Toolkit". That closed source patch program would not contain any GPLed code per se - only a small number of offsets into the ISO file that are to be patched. Such a minor dependancy (say less than 1KB in total size) would easily qualify as fair use. After all, CDDB never got into legal trouble. While significant technological challenges would need to be overcome, this is clearly not an impossible problem and developing the necessary technology would be easier than rewriting the functionality equivalent to Ubuntu from scratch or getting a license for Windows or, say, VxWorks, for every user of a successful commercial application. What say closet lawyers?
IBM obviously has no long term vision in giving up Apple platform and selling notebook division to Lenovo. They are giving up the whole PC thing that they themselves helped to start and making it difficult for themselves to come back later as a non-trivial player. Mac platform, with users tolerant of unusual instruction set and slight lack of raw performance in exchange for unique features, could have been a good opportunity for them to take on Intel.
On the rare occasions I drive at night, yes the thought keeps me awake pretty well.
Ok, I am off to post some GPL projects, minus copyright banners, as an MSDN samples and also contribute Microsoft shared source into Linux kernel. Let's watch the hilarity that ensues.
If you were correct, nobody would start a software business in United States. Just have a single GPL sympathizer hired into Microsoft and you can get the whole Windows Vista open sourced because of a single infringing printer driver! Conversely, Microsoft can beat this by having someone "contribute" their code into Linux kernel and claiming the whole thing to be their property!
Also remained unchanged despite a big growth in the number of cars on the road.
J2EE is J2EE and there is no reason people have to specifically learn Tomcat in order to create and deploy applications. Production websites generally do not run on Tomcat but rather on Oracle OC4J/IAS or one of other commercial application servers. Why would people become experts in something they would only use to debug some starter projects under netbeans?
I bet the number of Linux experts has significantly grown during the same time.
And yet courts have been known to impose no or minimal penalties for patent infringement (if accidental and quickly corrected), trademark infringement (ditto), theft (if getting essential food and medicine in a disaster zone) and assault (if the defendant had reasons to believe that the victim posed an immediate physical threat). Why are you so sure that an accidental, small in scope and promptly corrected copyright violation will not be handled in a similar manner?
Go ahead, demonstrate then. I wrote it from scratch and I can not help it if there are only 2 ways to authenticate users in Leopard.
Are you saying that Copyright somehow has more privileged status than patents or trademarks and courts forgive minor infractions for the later two but not the former?
Just consider some other cases covered by slashdot, such as:
1. Microsoft modifying Internet Explorer to work around Eolas patent rather than paying up
2. RIM modifying Blackberry to work around push e-mail patent
3. Linux community removing a small amount of code claimed by SCO as infringing and customers not being found liable for past violations
4. Apple renaming Rendevoiz to Bonjour to avoid a trademark violation
5. Ditto Apple Music Store -> iTunes Music store to avoid a clash with Apple Records
6. Ditto Lindows being renamed to Linsprire
Guess what? Courts usually allow companies to correct simple, honest mistakes without suffering disproportionate penalties that would ruin their business. A company may not be even in a position to release the source code as it may be owned by a third party. Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation.
Oh well, in this case I will just have to choose not to accept GPL and refrain from redistributing the work covered by that license. I am still entitled to fair use for the purpose of making products interoperable with the copyrighted work.