Agreed. Most of the time companies will allow the release of OSS changes as long as not core intellectual property is released. As long as you don't post the fix without consent (GET IT IN WRITING!!) you're fine. If they don't allow the release, well, you have to remember, you were paid for the work, so it's their choice..
If your environment allows for it, i.e. OpenSource or you have the money for the license, why not Qt. It adds a degree of portability to the application and is a fairly easy api to code to. Just another idea at any rate.
The problem with that statement is that it is possible to require devices to be installed in vehicles, at least in California. This is because it is a PRIVILAGE to drive NOT a right. If one wants to maintain their privilage to drive on California roadways, they must comply with the requirements.
However, one has the right to be secure in there person and property, so devices like this cannot be required to be installed in ones' home without a court order.
I have noticed that on several myths, you have made an attempt at following the scientific method for busting/confirming the myth, but not on others, why is this? Why not hold to the same degree of validity on all myths?
And I know that is technically two questions, but they are basically the same....:)
At any rate, the show is still cool...
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Most of the time companies will allow the release of OSS changes as long as not core intellectual property is released. As long as you don't post the fix without consent (GET IT IN WRITING!!) you're fine. If they don't allow the release, well, you have to remember, you were paid for the work, so it's their choice..
If your environment allows for it, i.e. OpenSource or you have the money for the license, why not Qt. It adds a degree of portability to the application and is a fairly easy api to code to. Just another idea at any rate.
The problem with that statement is that it is possible to require devices to be installed in vehicles, at least in California. This is because it is a PRIVILAGE to drive NOT a right. If one wants to maintain their privilage to drive on California roadways, they must comply with the requirements.
However, one has the right to be secure in there person and property, so devices like this cannot be required to be installed in ones' home without a court order.
I have noticed that on several myths, you have made an attempt at following the scientific method for busting/confirming the myth, but not on others, why is this? Why not hold to the same degree of validity on all myths? And I know that is technically two questions, but they are basically the same.... :)
At any rate, the show is still cool...
Now it is about 6-9 questions and you have 5 hours to solve them. Code is submitted using the PC^2 system.