Or alternatively, they could either not license it at all or license out the male (connector) but but not the female (port), making headphones for Apple products only work with Apple products.
In fact it was claimed by my employer for my first development job. I appealed to Revenue Canada and won, since I would otherwise have to pay my own SS and unemployment taxes. (The employer, thankfully, is still on speaking terms with me; it was fairly obvious to all parties that I was an employee since I did random, day-to-day development work for them for a year or two. I don't like burning bridges unnecessarily.)
What? In anything I've ever heard about recording contracts, they've required an absolute assignment of copyright (including copyright for a predetermined number of future works) to the benefit of the company and the detriment of the musician. I am also 99% sure that the words "work for hire" are explicitly mentioned in the contract. They are written by highly paid lawyers, after all.
If they agree to it in a well-written contract, it's absolutely legal. This is a civil suit we're talking about, after all, and the contract doesn't involve anything illegal AFAIK. (IANAL)
FB Purity uses your browser to implement a whitelist of applications that get to your feed, so even as new games are "released" (usually in the case of Zynga, poorly reimplemented or bought) you won't see their spam unless you specifically allow them.
You almost certainly could not. I'm pretty sure judges can't just make up injunctions on the spot like that; they have to be based in law or precedent.
I guarantee that legally speaking, they'll claim they were independent contractors, which allows a "work for hire" without all the messiness of an employer-employee relationship. It has the added bonus of making the musician responsible for all taxes.
I'm saying that is not how it will work, primarily because it would be easy to fake (yes, yes, encryption, but that only works as long as someone doesn't grab the key from the hardware; once that happens, the cat is out of the bag for everyone).
Either the car will be tracked 24/7 (probably with periodic uploads), or those in charge of their IT have not fully thought through the system.
I had Earthbound on my Wii a while ago, played through the entire game. Oh, you meant a Nintendo-approved VC game.
Softmodders can inject a SNES ROM into another VC image (I think it has to be the same memory size) and it generally works fine, albeit with the old game's picture in the channel.
There is truth in large numbers and concensus. If you don't have concensus, then you don't have truth. So whatever you are writing if it isn't agreed with by the majority (or even the minority of powerful people in the Wiki world), you are wasting your time and theirs.
That's possibly the most 1984esque comment I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've been here a while.
Then >70% of your edits should have led to talk page discussions [wikipedia.org].
Should have, but didn't. And I guarantee the GP's story is not even close to unique. My guess, and I freely admit it is only a guess, is that many of those reversions were made by an admin. If so, the problem is that questionable actions like that are often left unquestioned because they were done by an admin, as people fear blocking or other retribution.
States can't make laws that violate the Constitution; Amendment 10 doesn't give them free reign to ignore it. I believe the point is moot though in that no criminal charges are laid here and thus the conduct is not actually prohibited, just made clear to teachers that if they do violate the conduct set out they will be fired.
I don't think it should rise to the level of criminality in and of itself though, and criminalizing the act itself is of questionable legality.
It's incredibly questionable. Freedom of association, anyone?
I don't think it actually creates a criminal offense though. Bill text, relevant section:
SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites. Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.
By January 1, 2012, each school district must include in its teacher and employee training a component that provides information on identifying signs of sexual abuse in children and of potentially abusive relationships between children and adults, with an emphasis on mandatory reporting. Training must also include an emphasis on the obligation of mandated reporters to report suspected abuse by other mandatory reporters.
If it was creating a criminal charge, one assumes it would have mentioned the class and punishment.
Also, for some people, like myself, it is necessary for us to be together, what with the immigration and all. (In this circumstance I'm talking about myself immigrating to the US. Yes, technically it is legal to go the other way [immigrate to Canada] without being married, but it's a little harder.)
Did you do work on the project while on the job or on your employer's premises? Then likely you ceded copyright to them automatically. Anything you do while on work time is a work for hire (and this is generally explicitly spelled out in employment contracts). This means the employer owns it, to their benefit and your detriment. If they own the copyright, they are free to relicense code as they see fit. If you have an old copy of the code licensed under MIT, GPL, or another free distribution license, you can redistribute that code on your own website and they can't do a damn thing about that version, but absolutely nothing is forcing them to continue hosting the open source version, and nothing is preventing them from relicensing the open source version to proprietary as they own the copyright and thus have the right to do so.
Now, if you didn't use your employer's resources to work on the project at all, you might have a case. That's not what your blog post would lead me to believe, though. Your best bet would be to fork the last available open source version and continue working on that. They still own the copyright but they can't do anything about continued redistribution of a fork, assuming it was ever authorized to be licensed as open source at all.
This is where the law has become completely goddamn stupid. A protest is a protest. If it becomes violent, and that means PHYSICALLY VIOLENT, then it's a problem. Shy of that, it's just a protest and protected under the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.
No. I absolutely disagree with this logic. If a protest stopped people from entering a store, you'd better goddamn well believe that the police would get involved. This is no different. Peaceful protest means you aren't actively interfering with their business.
Slashdot Mirror
Or alternatively, they could either not license it at all or license out the male (connector) but but not the female (port), making headphones for Apple products only work with Apple products.
They get to collect license payments for anyone who uses this jack. Open standards? What's that?
We don't need to follow the Americans in everything! Isn't it bad enough that we elected Harper again?
In fact it was claimed by my employer for my first development job. I appealed to Revenue Canada and won, since I would otherwise have to pay my own SS and unemployment taxes. (The employer, thankfully, is still on speaking terms with me; it was fairly obvious to all parties that I was an employee since I did random, day-to-day development work for them for a year or two. I don't like burning bridges unnecessarily.)
Yes. Your lawyer is correct. I'm saying the assignment of rights is in their recording contract.
What? In anything I've ever heard about recording contracts, they've required an absolute assignment of copyright (including copyright for a predetermined number of future works) to the benefit of the company and the detriment of the musician. I am also 99% sure that the words "work for hire" are explicitly mentioned in the contract. They are written by highly paid lawyers, after all.
If they agree to it in a well-written contract, it's absolutely legal. This is a civil suit we're talking about, after all, and the contract doesn't involve anything illegal AFAIK. (IANAL)
FB Purity uses your browser to implement a whitelist of applications that get to your feed, so even as new games are "released" (usually in the case of Zynga, poorly reimplemented or bought) you won't see their spam unless you specifically allow them.
Mod parent up. AES / SHA, anyone?
You almost certainly could not. I'm pretty sure judges can't just make up injunctions on the spot like that; they have to be based in law or precedent.
I guarantee that legally speaking, they'll claim they were independent contractors, which allows a "work for hire" without all the messiness of an employer-employee relationship. It has the added bonus of making the musician responsible for all taxes.
I'm saying that is not how it will work, primarily because it would be easy to fake (yes, yes, encryption, but that only works as long as someone doesn't grab the key from the hardware; once that happens, the cat is out of the bag for everyone).
Either the car will be tracked 24/7 (probably with periodic uploads), or those in charge of their IT have not fully thought through the system.
It's valid PHP but only if it's inside PHP tags (or being executed directly by the CLI parser). SEMANTICS AHOY!
Politics?
I had Earthbound on my Wii a while ago, played through the entire game. Oh, you meant a Nintendo-approved VC game.
Softmodders can inject a SNES ROM into another VC image (I think it has to be the same memory size) and it generally works fine, albeit with the old game's picture in the channel.
That's possibly the most 1984esque comment I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've been here a while.
Should have, but didn't. And I guarantee the GP's story is not even close to unique. My guess, and I freely admit it is only a guess, is that many of those reversions were made by an admin. If so, the problem is that questionable actions like that are often left unquestioned because they were done by an admin, as people fear blocking or other retribution.
Mod parent up, I didn't realize it was alternate universe until this comment.
States can't make laws that violate the Constitution; Amendment 10 doesn't give them free reign to ignore it. I believe the point is moot though in that no criminal charges are laid here and thus the conduct is not actually prohibited, just made clear to teachers that if they do violate the conduct set out they will be fired.
It's incredibly questionable. Freedom of association, anyone?
I don't think it actually creates a criminal offense though. Bill text, relevant section:
SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites. Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.
By January 1, 2012, each school district must include in its teacher and employee training a component that provides information on identifying signs of sexual abuse in children and of potentially abusive relationships between children and adults, with an emphasis on mandatory reporting. Training must also include an emphasis on the obligation of mandated reporters to report suspected abuse by other mandatory reporters.
If it was creating a criminal charge, one assumes it would have mentioned the class and punishment.
Also, for some people, like myself, it is necessary for us to be together, what with the immigration and all. (In this circumstance I'm talking about myself immigrating to the US. Yes, technically it is legal to go the other way [immigrate to Canada] without being married, but it's a little harder.)
Did you do work on the project while on the job or on your employer's premises? Then likely you ceded copyright to them automatically. Anything you do while on work time is a work for hire (and this is generally explicitly spelled out in employment contracts). This means the employer owns it, to their benefit and your detriment. If they own the copyright, they are free to relicense code as they see fit. If you have an old copy of the code licensed under MIT, GPL, or another free distribution license, you can redistribute that code on your own website and they can't do a damn thing about that version, but absolutely nothing is forcing them to continue hosting the open source version, and nothing is preventing them from relicensing the open source version to proprietary as they own the copyright and thus have the right to do so.
Now, if you didn't use your employer's resources to work on the project at all, you might have a case. That's not what your blog post would lead me to believe, though. Your best bet would be to fork the last available open source version and continue working on that. They still own the copyright but they can't do anything about continued redistribution of a fork, assuming it was ever authorized to be licensed as open source at all.
No. I absolutely disagree with this logic. If a protest stopped people from entering a store, you'd better goddamn well believe that the police would get involved. This is no different. Peaceful protest means you aren't actively interfering with their business.
In Soviet Russia, the cops would stop YOU every time there was a misread. No wait, I meant here. It'll be considered reasonable suspicion, just wait.
Anyone notice he posted the file listing as root?
Also, cleartext passwords in the database, all using the same format. For shame.