Not a troll. Read the post mine was responding to. Let me quote from it: "Banning what people do in the privacy of their own homes. It's wrong."
The underlying idea here is that privacy can legalize ANY action in a home. That's absurdly false. My post was merely pointing out that "privacy" is a flimsy foundation to base laws upon.
He can't even make you stay longer than 2 weeks...
Actually, he can't even make you stay that long. If you're comfortable enough burning your bridges and tattooing a black mark on your forehead, then give then a two minute notice if you wish. The two weeks is merely a traditional courtesy.
The notion that government has no business interfering in people's private lives is an idea fraught with error. Do we want the government out of the bedroom if the husband is busy murdering the wife? Is a man's home his castle if he's running a counterfeiting operation in his basement? No matter how good it sounds, privacy is a poor foundation for a law.
On the other hand, all my friends and relatives aren't nagging me for free automotive repairs just because I know how to change a timing belt. But assemble your own computer, and they expect you to provide free spyware removal for life!
Then please point me to the "facts", however off topic they may be. From one side I see MSM statements that she is in a "coma". From the other side I see quicktime videos of her smiling and looking at her mother. http://www.terrisfight.net/
Yes, it is amusing. But the Great Unwashed Masses do think that way. People are genuinely impressed that I assembled my own computer, even though it took minimal knowledge and skill to do.
What does the interstate commerce clause have to do with contractual employment? Were these out-of-state workers or something?
As for Schiavo, what makes this a "radical right" issue? I have never understood this, and no one has been able to adequately explain it to me. Not to be cynical or anything, but it's almost as if the left has been fighting "right to life" for the fetus for so long they now no longer believe in a right to life for anybody. To turn one of their own cheesy arguments against them, how come they will stand out in the rain to protest the execution of a serial killer, but could care less about the court ordered starvation of a disabled woman? What makes Terri less worthy of life in their eyes than a lab rat?
The only reason the issue has become associated with the religious right, is because it seems that only the religious rights gives a damn about this case. This is a woman who is NOT in a coma. She is NOT in a vegetative state. She is reactive. She smiles and recognizes her mother. She laughs and cries. She is brain damaged to be sure, but she is not terminally ill nor in excruciating pain nor a financial burden to her legal guardian. She left no living will or legal instructions that nutrition be denied her in these circumstances.
The left has dropped the ball on this one. They have made convenience more important than life, and I don't think I can ever gather up respect for them again.
From where does the state get this right? The state doesn't have any more rights than what the people have given it. If it's not enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't have it....when there is an imbalance of power between a person who needs to keep from starving to death
A good argument for the state to interfer in the Schiavo case. But it doesn't apply here, because none of the contractors in question are in any danger of starving to death.
You also need to know what laws and legal precedence might apply to the situation.
Sometimes laws are bad and legal precedence is flawed. Regardless of the IRS's 20 rules to distinguish employees from contractors, at the moral level there is still the question of whether the state has the right to interfer in private voluntary contracts.
If you have a problem with that, then don't hire yourself out as a contractor. Of course, that will make it harder for you to get temporary work, and you'll probably have to settle for semi-permanent employment instead, but that's how it works.
Many people WANT to be contractors, because it gives more more freedom than employment. To them the price of being their own HR department is well worth it. But other people (such as myself) don't, and consider employment to be a nice convenience.
One of the reasons why hiring contractors is becoming more popular is because during the dot.boom employees demands benefits up the wazoo, and it's now difficult to get rid of them. My company has, of all things, "adoption services" as a benefit.
In the US you don't have a right to a job, especially a particular job. Like happiness, only the pursuit is guaranteed by law.
But why would you want to? Seriously, my current desktop allows me to use icons in the sizes 16x16, 22x22, 32x32, 48x48, 64x64 and 128x128. Sure, the Amiga could use any arbitrary size, but why would I ever need a 21x21 or 66x66 icon? Those fixed sizes cover every case I need (desktop toolbar, taskbar, panel, zoom, etc). There's simply no pressing need for arbitrary icon sizes.
I have to second that opinion. I have rarely, if ever, encountered that level of excellence in technical documentation. The fact that it is well formatted HTML (PDF available if you want to print it out) is a bonus.
Of course, the documentation is matched with an equally good design and API. The same level of documentation wouldn't have nearly the effect if it were matched with Motif, for example.
You are inaccurately using the present tense to refer to something that does not exist yet.
Of course it doesn't exist! No one said it did! But be that as it may, from everything we can tell about the GPLv3, it sounds suspiciously like it will govern usage of the software.
You can't pick and choose definitions, especially when you're the one submitting them. The second definition you submitted didn't say anything about the Bible, only about "traditional doctrine." Many Roman Catholics, including the Pope, are very rigid and inflexible when it comes to traditional Roman Catholic doctrine.
One can be a fundamentalist in any denomination, religion, or philosophy (or even political affiliation). All one needs to do is to be rigid with regards to traditional doctrine.
The GPL doesn't regulate the use of any application. It does (or more accurately, "will" in v3), however, regulate the development of GPL'd web-based applications.
It has nothing to do with the development, because the GPL won't "kick in" until *after* development is complete and you begin to *use* the software on your server. It's the allowing third parties to use the software that the GPL wants to regulate. Develop the application on Monday and no one cares. Give a third party the ability to use it over a remote connection on Tuesday, and you've suddenly violated the GPLv3. With no additional development....but I think you'll find most of the industry is behind the same definition (ie, the enduser providing inputs and receiving outputs from a given application).
And how does this differ from a web application? The user sends in the input via CGI and receives the outputs via http. This is pure use. And the GPL v3 is going to be regulating it.
We don't need you to write drivers for us. It would be nice, and we will thank you profusely if you do. But we're not requiring it. All we care about is access to the complete hardware specifications. It's that simple.
Even if you have "proprietary" behavior you need to hide behind some proprietary software, just provide us an object file for that *tiny* portion of code, and we can manage the rest. We might grumble a little bit, but we'll still accept it.
What we don't want is for you to act as if you own the hardware. Don't lock us in to your driver. That's just rude.
Using a library is just an organizational technique that keeps an individual source file from becoming too large.
Unless of course you're using a shared library. In such a case the purpose is to provide common services to other software and merely be a code repository. If you don't want people using your GPL code, then make it a static a.out library and hide it away in libexec.
Here's the punchline for the humour-impaired (98.67% of Slashdot): There is no license named "GNU Public License". Really there is not. The "G" in "GPL" stands for "General".
Get used to it. The GPL v3 is going to start regulating the use web applications, and there's nothing in classic copyright law that allows them to do this. Either they claim the right to regulate usage through the DMCA, or they stop pretending the GPL isn't a EULA-style contract.
The beliefs or practises based on a rigid adherence to some traditional doctrine
And that doesn't apply to Pope John Paul? Has he relaxed the rules on condoms yet? When it comes to traditional Roman Catholic teachings, the Pope is quite rigid.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice troll.
Not a troll. Read the post mine was responding to. Let me quote from it: "Banning what people do in the privacy of their own homes. It's wrong."
The underlying idea here is that privacy can legalize ANY action in a home. That's absurdly false. My post was merely pointing out that "privacy" is a flimsy foundation to base laws upon.
He can't even make you stay longer than 2 weeks...
Actually, he can't even make you stay that long. If you're comfortable enough burning your bridges and tattooing a black mark on your forehead, then give then a two minute notice if you wish. The two weeks is merely a traditional courtesy.
The notion that government has no business interfering in people's private lives is an idea fraught with error. Do we want the government out of the bedroom if the husband is busy murdering the wife? Is a man's home his castle if he's running a counterfeiting operation in his basement? No matter how good it sounds, privacy is a poor foundation for a law.
On the other hand, all my friends and relatives aren't nagging me for free automotive repairs just because I know how to change a timing belt. But assemble your own computer, and they expect you to provide free spyware removal for life!
The "facts", as you state them, are incorrect.
Then please point me to the "facts", however off topic they may be. From one side I see MSM statements that she is in a "coma". From the other side I see quicktime videos of her smiling and looking at her mother. http://www.terrisfight.net/
Yes, it is amusing. But the Great Unwashed Masses do think that way. People are genuinely impressed that I assembled my own computer, even though it took minimal knowledge and skill to do.
What does the interstate commerce clause have to do with contractual employment? Were these out-of-state workers or something?
As for Schiavo, what makes this a "radical right" issue? I have never understood this, and no one has been able to adequately explain it to me. Not to be cynical or anything, but it's almost as if the left has been fighting "right to life" for the fetus for so long they now no longer believe in a right to life for anybody. To turn one of their own cheesy arguments against them, how come they will stand out in the rain to protest the execution of a serial killer, but could care less about the court ordered starvation of a disabled woman? What makes Terri less worthy of life in their eyes than a lab rat?
The only reason the issue has become associated with the religious right, is because it seems that only the religious rights gives a damn about this case. This is a woman who is NOT in a coma. She is NOT in a vegetative state. She is reactive. She smiles and recognizes her mother. She laughs and cries. She is brain damaged to be sure, but she is not terminally ill nor in excruciating pain nor a financial burden to her legal guardian. She left no living will or legal instructions that nutrition be denied her in these circumstances.
The left has dropped the ball on this one. They have made convenience more important than life, and I don't think I can ever gather up respect for them again.
the state CLEARLY has the right
...when there is an imbalance of power between a person who needs to keep from starving to death
From where does the state get this right? The state doesn't have any more rights than what the people have given it. If it's not enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't have it.
A good argument for the state to interfer in the Schiavo case. But it doesn't apply here, because none of the contractors in question are in any danger of starving to death.
You also need to know what laws and legal precedence might apply to the situation.
Sometimes laws are bad and legal precedence is flawed. Regardless of the IRS's 20 rules to distinguish employees from contractors, at the moral level there is still the question of whether the state has the right to interfer in private voluntary contracts.
If you have a problem with that, then don't hire yourself out as a contractor. Of course, that will make it harder for you to get temporary work, and you'll probably have to settle for semi-permanent employment instead, but that's how it works.
Many people WANT to be contractors, because it gives more more freedom than employment. To them the price of being their own HR department is well worth it. But other people (such as myself) don't, and consider employment to be a nice convenience.
One of the reasons why hiring contractors is becoming more popular is because during the dot.boom employees demands benefits up the wazoo, and it's now difficult to get rid of them. My company has, of all things, "adoption services" as a benefit.
In the US you don't have a right to a job, especially a particular job. Like happiness, only the pursuit is guaranteed by law.
It is legal, and ethical. But morally it's very suspect, which is why it's called "ambulance chasing".
You could make full-screen icons on Ami!
But why would you want to? Seriously, my current desktop allows me to use icons in the sizes 16x16, 22x22, 32x32, 48x48, 64x64 and 128x128. Sure, the Amiga could use any arbitrary size, but why would I ever need a 21x21 or 66x66 icon? Those fixed sizes cover every case I need (desktop toolbar, taskbar, panel, zoom, etc). There's simply no pressing need for arbitrary icon sizes.
Try the KDE Classic icons. No inappropriate (L)GPL crap, just a blanket permission to use them for any purpose commercial or noncommercial.
I have to second that opinion. I have rarely, if ever, encountered that level of excellence in technical documentation. The fact that it is well formatted HTML (PDF available if you want to print it out) is a bonus.
Of course, the documentation is matched with an equally good design and API. The same level of documentation wouldn't have nearly the effect if it were matched with Motif, for example.
You are inaccurately using the present tense to refer to something that does not exist yet.
Of course it doesn't exist! No one said it did! But be that as it may, from everything we can tell about the GPLv3, it sounds suspiciously like it will govern usage of the software.
...such as WYSIWYG HTML editors
Ummm, writing HTML is **NOT** programming. There's a reason it's called "HTML" instead of "HTPL". Sheesh.
"Fundamentalist" is an adjective that applies to denominations other than the SBC, and even religions other than Christianity.
You can't have it both ways.
True. But I would rather have a five pound weight shackled to my ankle than a fifty pound weight.
You can't pick and choose definitions, especially when you're the one submitting them. The second definition you submitted didn't say anything about the Bible, only about "traditional doctrine." Many Roman Catholics, including the Pope, are very rigid and inflexible when it comes to traditional Roman Catholic doctrine.
One can be a fundamentalist in any denomination, religion, or philosophy (or even political affiliation). All one needs to do is to be rigid with regards to traditional doctrine.
The GPL doesn't regulate the use of any application. It does (or more accurately, "will" in v3), however, regulate the development of GPL'd web-based applications.
...but I think you'll find most of the industry is behind the same definition (ie, the enduser providing inputs and receiving outputs from a given application).
It has nothing to do with the development, because the GPL won't "kick in" until *after* development is complete and you begin to *use* the software on your server. It's the allowing third parties to use the software that the GPL wants to regulate. Develop the application on Monday and no one cares. Give a third party the ability to use it over a remote connection on Tuesday, and you've suddenly violated the GPLv3. With no additional development.
And how does this differ from a web application? The user sends in the input via CGI and receives the outputs via http. This is pure use. And the GPL v3 is going to be regulating it.
We don't need you to write drivers for us. It would be nice, and we will thank you profusely if you do. But we're not requiring it. All we care about is access to the complete hardware specifications. It's that simple.
Even if you have "proprietary" behavior you need to hide behind some proprietary software, just provide us an object file for that *tiny* portion of code, and we can manage the rest. We might grumble a little bit, but we'll still accept it.
What we don't want is for you to act as if you own the hardware. Don't lock us in to your driver. That's just rude.
Using a library is just an organizational technique that keeps an individual source file from becoming too large.
Unless of course you're using a shared library. In such a case the purpose is to provide common services to other software and merely be a code repository. If you don't want people using your GPL code, then make it a static a.out library and hide it away in libexec.
It's a joke! Laugh!
Here's the punchline for the humour-impaired (98.67% of Slashdot): There is no license named "GNU Public License". Really there is not. The "G" in "GPL" stands for "General".
Get used to it. The GPL v3 is going to start regulating the use web applications, and there's nothing in classic copyright law that allows them to do this. Either they claim the right to regulate usage through the DMCA, or they stop pretending the GPL isn't a EULA-style contract.
The beliefs or practises based on a rigid adherence to some traditional doctrine
And that doesn't apply to Pope John Paul? Has he relaxed the rules on condoms yet? When it comes to traditional Roman Catholic teachings, the Pope is quite rigid.