You do realize, don't you, that Ubuntu isn't an operating system? In case you didn't, it's a distribution of the linux Operating System, although it does have the feature you mentioned.
In a civil case like this, the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it would be in a criminal case. That means that if the RIAA's pit bulls can make the jury believe that you probably pirated the file, they win, even if they can't prove it. Thus, if they can show that you've been doing file sharing, and that you have files on your hard drive that you could have pirated, they win unless you can show the jury that it's more likely that you obtained them legally. (Having a copy of the CD in question would probably be sufficient.)
Actually, Ubuntu (the distro most likely to be used by a Windows refugee) includes wine, right out of the box. And, if you try to run a Windows program on Ubuntu, it will automatically use wine to rune it, so neither Joe Sixpack or Aunt Minnie is likely to notice any difference. Of course, there are programs that don't "play nice' with wine, but then, in that case it doesn't matter if wine was pre-installed or not, does it?
And a contract that specifies you can't work in the field you are most qualified in is not much different.
That's part of the point I was trying to make. I'd find a non-compete like that too restrictive, but one that allows you to work in a different part of your field just fine.
Maybe try not treating them like shit and then you won't lose them.
What does this have to do with what I wrote? It has nothing to do with why the employee left. Maybe he wanted to move to a different city, maybe his project ended and he wasn't needed any more, maybe, especially with the economy so bad he was downsized. For that matter, maybe he wanted to try something new.
Nope. A person should be able to work for whom they please and not be tied to a company while not getting paid.
Just because you can't work for a competing company for six months to a year, doesn't mean you can't work. There are few professions where you can't find work that doesn't conflict with a no-compete clause if you want to badly enough. The only people who are really harmed by them are people who say, "That's all I can do," and won't look for anything else. A graphic artist can look at other types of graphics work, a database programmer can find work with a different type of database, a UI programmer can work on the UI for a different type of program and so on.
That's an interesting question. If you haven't any samples that don't reveal any secrets, and Apple doesn't agree to letting you take them, then I'd have to say no to that.
To some extent, both positions are right. To me, the problem is in how broadly do you define competitor. As an example, let's say I was doing graphics work for an MMORG. Clearly, working for a different MMORG would be working for a competitor. Working on CGI for an animated feature wouldn't be, at least to me. Would working for a different company bringing out a first person shooter, or turn based strategy game be working for a competitor? Personally, I wouldn't think so, but again, that could be argued either way.
Have you ever gone to any Linux forum and seen a beginners question answered anything less snarky than "RTFM"??
I use Fedora, and am a regular reader and poster on FedoraForum.org. In the several years I've been following it, I've never seen a question answered with RTFM. I have, however, seen newcomers told that their question has been asked and answered a number of times, and that a simple search of the forum would have found the answer, sometimes with a link to an example. I've also seen links posted to the appropriate faq, with the implied offer to explain anything that still isn't clear. I've also had occasion to surf both the Ubuntu and Puppy Linux forums and never seen anything like that in either of those.
Here's a hint for you: redundant doesn't only mean that somebody else already said it. It can also mean that it didn't need to be said in the first place.
As an example, a post that says nothing but, "Hey, guys, a list of the top ten viruses!" would be redundant, even if nobody else posted anything like it.
For those whose training overlapped in physics and computer science the "implicit none" expression is a common sight at the top of every Fortran routine.
Interesting you should say that. My friend's degree was in Mathematical Astronomy and he kind of wandered into programming back in the '60s.
They used to say that real men programmed in Fortran (or should I say FORTRAN).
Years ago I programmed with a true genius. His language of choice was PL/1, but sometimes he had to use FORTRAN to fit in with what other people were doing. Any fool could write FORTRAN code in any language they wanted, but he was the only man I ever saw write PL/1 in FORTRAN.
I think the most likely outcome for Iraq is in a year's time, we have succeeded enough that we can leave and let the Iraqis take it from there.
Same here. And, I agree that I have little hope for Iraq's future, but for a different reason than you. AIUI, Iraq is a hodgepodge of different tribes, cultures and religious sects slapped together by Britain after WWI out of the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire. About the only thing keeping it hanging together is the fact that most of them know that if it falls apart, the pieces will be snapped up by their neighbors, and they don't want that. It's rather like the parochial sectionalism in the US before the Civil War when people identified themselves more by their home state than by their country, but without whatever glue kept the country together in those days. Still, if it does hang together for a few years after we're gone, we won't be blamed (too much) for the breakup, and that's about the best we can hope for.
I'm not going to say that going into Iraq in the first place was the best idea, although I'm glad Saddam is gone, but leaving now is (IMO) the same as going to somebody's home, making a mess and then leaving without helping clean up after yourself. Much of the mess in Iraq can be laid at our doorstep, and I think we have a moral obligation to help Iraq put itself back together again.
I think the basic issue goes even deeper: President Bush and the neo-cons never came up with an exit strategy or asked themselves what they thought "victory in Iraq" would mean. I do think, however, that we're now moving toward an Iraq with a reasonably-honest government that the majority can live with even if they don't completely approve of it, and that's probably about the best we can expect.
How is coming to the realization that we lost the same thing as wanting to lose?
Well, not everybody thinks we've lost. Some of us understand that insurgencies take about seven to ten years to resolve themselves and look at more than casualty figures to decide what's going on. Please note that Liberal Pundits were predicting that we were about to run into a quagmire as the Iraqi army counterattacked just before that army collapsed and the same pundits are telling us we've lost right now. I won't say that they wanted us to lose, but if they did, they'd have acted (and be acting) in exactly the same way.
No Democrat of any significance actually made any statement calling for the war to be lost.
Not in so many words, no. Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost. In the end, it's all how you look at it. To the Democrats, as long as they don't come right out and say that they want us to lose the war, it's OK; to many non-Democrats, they're acting exactly like they would if they did want us to lose. Me? I don't think they've either looked at their stand closely enough to realize what it sounds like to the other side, or would care if they did.
I was a tad busy at the time, watching 6" shells land off my ship's fantail in Tonkin Gulf. Somehow, by the time I got back, it just didn't seem that important, a judgment I've never regretted because in the time I was in college, I learned how to learn whatever I needed.
That's not how TFS put it. Even so, the judge was wrong to dismiss the case because that's a question for the jury to decide. I was once a juror in a civil suit that had a multi-part verdict because it had to do (among other things) with the provisions of a verbal contract. The first thing we had to do during deliberation was to decide if a verbal contract between the two parties existed. If we decided that it did, we had to decide if the plaintiff's claims about its provisions were accurate. The same thing should have been done here. First, the jury should have been asked to decide if the CHP had an obligation to protect the girls (and/or her family's) privacy. If they decided not, they were done because the other questions became moot. Of course, IANAL, and it may in fact be the judge's duty to decide that, but it sure doesn't look like it from where I sit.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize, don't you, that Ubuntu isn't an operating system? In case you didn't, it's a distribution of the linux Operating System, although it does have the feature you mentioned.
In a civil case like this, the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it would be in a criminal case. That means that if the RIAA's pit bulls can make the jury believe that you probably pirated the file, they win, even if they can't prove it. Thus, if they can show that you've been doing file sharing, and that you have files on your hard drive that you could have pirated, they win unless you can show the jury that it's more likely that you obtained them legally. (Having a copy of the CD in question would probably be sufficient.)
Actually, Ubuntu (the distro most likely to be used by a Windows refugee) includes wine, right out of the box. And, if you try to run a Windows program on Ubuntu, it will automatically use wine to rune it, so neither Joe Sixpack or Aunt Minnie is likely to notice any difference. Of course, there are programs that don't "play nice' with wine, but then, in that case it doesn't matter if wine was pre-installed or not, does it?
That's part of the point I was trying to make. I'd find a non-compete like that too restrictive, but one that allows you to work in a different part of your field just fine.
What does this have to do with what I wrote? It has nothing to do with why the employee left. Maybe he wanted to move to a different city, maybe his project ended and he wasn't needed any more, maybe, especially with the economy so bad he was downsized. For that matter, maybe he wanted to try something new.
Just because you can't work for a competing company for six months to a year, doesn't mean you can't work. There are few professions where you can't find work that doesn't conflict with a no-compete clause if you want to badly enough. The only people who are really harmed by them are people who say, "That's all I can do," and won't look for anything else. A graphic artist can look at other types of graphics work, a database programmer can find work with a different type of database, a UI programmer can work on the UI for a different type of program and so on.
That's an interesting question. If you haven't any samples that don't reveal any secrets, and Apple doesn't agree to letting you take them, then I'd have to say no to that.
I'm talking in the general sense. Obviously there are exceptions, but I don't think that contradicts the general argument.
To some extent, both positions are right. To me, the problem is in how broadly do you define competitor. As an example, let's say I was doing graphics work for an MMORG. Clearly, working for a different MMORG would be working for a competitor. Working on CGI for an animated feature wouldn't be, at least to me. Would working for a different company bringing out a first person shooter, or turn based strategy game be working for a competitor? Personally, I wouldn't think so, but again, that could be argued either way.
I use Fedora, and am a regular reader and poster on FedoraForum.org. In the several years I've been following it, I've never seen a question answered with RTFM. I have, however, seen newcomers told that their question has been asked and answered a number of times, and that a simple search of the forum would have found the answer, sometimes with a link to an example. I've also seen links posted to the appropriate faq, with the implied offer to explain anything that still isn't clear. I've also had occasion to surf both the Ubuntu and Puppy Linux forums and never seen anything like that in either of those.
More accurate is, "No Child Gets Ahead."
As an example, a post that says nothing but, "Hey, guys, a list of the top ten viruses!" would be redundant, even if nobody else posted anything like it.
My Mom's house doesn't have a basement, you inconsiderate clod! I live in her den!
Even more to the point, the fact that the operation is covert doesn't give you permission to break the law.
Interesting you should say that. My friend's degree was in Mathematical Astronomy and he kind of wandered into programming back in the '60s.
Agreed. But it takes True Genius to write other languages in FORTRAN.
Yes, and the reason for that was that I and N were the first two characters of the word integer.
Years ago I programmed with a true genius. His language of choice was PL/1, but sometimes he had to use FORTRAN to fit in with what other people were doing. Any fool could write FORTRAN code in any language they wanted, but he was the only man I ever saw write PL/1 in FORTRAN.
Same here. And, I agree that I have little hope for Iraq's future, but for a different reason than you. AIUI, Iraq is a hodgepodge of different tribes, cultures and religious sects slapped together by Britain after WWI out of the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire. About the only thing keeping it hanging together is the fact that most of them know that if it falls apart, the pieces will be snapped up by their neighbors, and they don't want that. It's rather like the parochial sectionalism in the US before the Civil War when people identified themselves more by their home state than by their country, but without whatever glue kept the country together in those days. Still, if it does hang together for a few years after we're gone, we won't be blamed (too much) for the breakup, and that's about the best we can hope for.
I'm not going to say that going into Iraq in the first place was the best idea, although I'm glad Saddam is gone, but leaving now is (IMO) the same as going to somebody's home, making a mess and then leaving without helping clean up after yourself. Much of the mess in Iraq can be laid at our doorstep, and I think we have a moral obligation to help Iraq put itself back together again.
I think the basic issue goes even deeper: President Bush and the neo-cons never came up with an exit strategy or asked themselves what they thought "victory in Iraq" would mean. I do think, however, that we're now moving toward an Iraq with a reasonably-honest government that the majority can live with even if they don't completely approve of it, and that's probably about the best we can expect.
Well, not everybody thinks we've lost. Some of us understand that insurgencies take about seven to ten years to resolve themselves and look at more than casualty figures to decide what's going on. Please note that Liberal Pundits were predicting that we were about to run into a quagmire as the Iraqi army counterattacked just before that army collapsed and the same pundits are telling us we've lost right now. I won't say that they wanted us to lose, but if they did, they'd have acted (and be acting) in exactly the same way.
Not in so many words, no. Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost. In the end, it's all how you look at it. To the Democrats, as long as they don't come right out and say that they want us to lose the war, it's OK; to many non-Democrats, they're acting exactly like they would if they did want us to lose. Me? I don't think they've either looked at their stand closely enough to realize what it sounds like to the other side, or would care if they did.
I was a tad busy at the time, watching 6" shells land off my ship's fantail in Tonkin Gulf. Somehow, by the time I got back, it just didn't seem that important, a judgment I've never regretted because in the time I was in college, I learned how to learn whatever I needed.
That's not how TFS put it. Even so, the judge was wrong to dismiss the case because that's a question for the jury to decide. I was once a juror in a civil suit that had a multi-part verdict because it had to do (among other things) with the provisions of a verbal contract. The first thing we had to do during deliberation was to decide if a verbal contract between the two parties existed. If we decided that it did, we had to decide if the plaintiff's claims about its provisions were accurate. The same thing should have been done here. First, the jury should have been asked to decide if the CHP had an obligation to protect the girls (and/or her family's) privacy. If they decided not, they were done because the other questions became moot. Of course, IANAL, and it may in fact be the judge's duty to decide that, but it sure doesn't look like it from where I sit.