Failure to abide by the withdrawal terms of a non-treaty pact may be perfectly legal as a matter of domestic US law, but it violates the norms of international "law". And that would have consequences for us because we ourselves expect other nations to follow those norms. Not even we can get everything we want through force; we don't even want to.
And somehow I think no other nation would actually expect Trump to follow the terms, even exit terms, since they all thought Obama's administration was full of shit. They all are aware of how the USA handles Treaties and agreements, and they all would know that Obama signed it for his own political points only. They all realize that the USA didn't actually agree to it since the Senate never agreed to it.
Yes, nations are aware of how other nations work. They don't put much good faith in expectations until nations do their internal thing to fully ratify something; and Obama did his damnedest to not go to the Senate - other nations would have noticed that since it was not normal for the USA to do that.
So I'm sure that other nations do not expect the USA to necessarily honor what Obama signed. Anything Trump does in that respect is out of actual honor for the office of POTUS and the USA - honor that Obama very much lacked.
The UNFCCC was used as a basis for the Paris Accord, but it is not the same treaty, nor is the Paris Accord actually part of the UNFCCC.
The Paris Agreement was explicitly adopted as an "annex" to the UNFCCC. See the text of the agreement (from p. 2):
I. Adoption. 1. Decides to adopt the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") as contained in the annex...
The formal "annex" begins on p. 20 of the link. Let's see what else you have.
Doesn't matter - changes to a treaty - either by modification of language or addition (annex) to requires a new ratification. The fact that every other signing country did that also shows presents a challenge to anyone arguing before SCOTUS that the USA is actually bound by it. We're not until the Senate says we are, and they haven't.
In fact, we can see this in the USA's history with the change from the Articles of Confederation established in 1777 to those of the Articles of the Constitution presented in 1787 and formally adopted in 1788, changing the government from a Confederacy to a Constitutional Government.
And if you disagree, note that Obama actually taught constitutional law at college, and no one disagreed with the action at the time - no one in the legislature brought the issue or the supreme court, no group in the US sued the government and pushed it to the supreme court.
A fact you had better forget because while he did in fact teach Constitutional Law he was also written up by his students and colleagues for how far off-base he was with Constitutional Law. He sucked at it big time.
You're literally just repeating exactly what he said in different language. Since the Paris accord never passed through the Congress or Senate, it was an agreement made by the president alone under his existing authority and lacks any of the force of law.
I would agree with you wholeheartedly—except I won't. Because what you're saying is factually incorrect:
Executive orders have the full force of law, based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself.
So unless you have a valid constitutional, jurisdictional or legislative argument to make, you'll have to content yourself with being dead wrong. If the agreement is signed by the President under his authority and pursuant to his existing powers, it has the force of law.
Can Donald Trump reverse it? Yes, but he can't pretend it was never signed. The process for exiting the agreement can only be completed in 2020.
Executive Orders are not binding from administration to administration. The POTUS can overturn/repeal them at any time he chooses. Even Obama could have signed a new Executive Order repudiating the USA's involvement in the Paris Accord. Only Congress can bind the USA to any kind of law - internal or external.
Actually no.
It's pretty easy to understand that countries can't be trusted if the treaties made by one of the temporary wearer of the big hats won't be upheld by the next one, especially when they come as quickly as every 4 years, and in this country never lasts more than 8 under any circumstances.
Whether you like it or not, it's the duty of the POTUS to uphold our treaties and agreements, even if he personally doesn't like them. If he has the power to voluntarily dismiss them, he has to do it by the means allowed for in the agreement. If he doesn't like that, he can bite off his own dick for all that matters, assuming he can find it.
POTUS does not get to pass treaties for the USA; only Congress can do that. POTUS negotiates them but Congress authorizes them. The Paris Accord was never passed by Congress. It was only negotiated by the former POTUS administration. Therefore the USA is not actually a legal party to the Paris Accord and therefore can completely ignore it. That is, after all, how the Constitution defines the Treatise process for the USA.
'E-cigarrettes' are just a blatant drug delivery device (for nicotine, a highly addictive and poisonous substance), plain and simple, and that was blindingly obvious the first time I ever heard about them. I was surprised the FDA didn't ban them outright.
E-cigs are a good way to control the nicotine level in order to reduce it and get off smoking. They work and really well when you have that goal in mind.
A friend did this and he basically continues to vape using just water, potentially some flavor (blueberry, mint) but that's it. All-in-all, the study really needs to take into account the differences in how people use e-cigs and vape vs smoking a normal cigarette. They're worlds apart.
Transmeta became a Patent Licensing organization, and licensed their tech to AMD and other chip manufacturers during the conversion. So, no - they didn't fail as Intel claims.
Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.
You can spout off about globalist vs nationalist policies all you want, but even the hermit nation of North Korea understood this issue was important enough to show solidarity with the rest of the world on. When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.
Has nothing to do with that. Kim Jong-un signed it because North Korea would *receive* money, not pay it out. He'd be a fool to turn down free money.
Honestly, whether a nation signs or not has very little to do with recognition of the issue as being important and more to do with where money is going. IIRC, if the US had joined it then like with the UN the US would have been paying out more money than any other country - which makes zero sense for the benefit. UN at least had some controls that gave the US significant power in its operations (Security Council, etc). The Paris Accord does not do that - money comes from rich countries and goes to the corrupt, poor countries and dictators like Kim Jong-un - many of whom will probably turn around and use it for weapons instead of its real purpose, or at least siphon off a lot of it via bribes and do that even if they show a facade of implementing what the money was for - it'll cost a lot more as a result too.
No, this isn't about solidarity. It's about money.
It is impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good. All but two nations signed this agreement, with one rejecting it because it didn't go far enough (Nicaragua) and one not even being invited to the table because of its government's legitimacy problems (Syria). The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.
Well, look at it this way - if your country is struggling for money and the government official siphon off funds from anything into their own pockets, why not sign something to give yourself more money? And yes, even China, India, and Russia are extremely corrupt in those terms too - and more likely to receive money than pay it out. Only Europe is really dumb enough to decide to join something that will be net-negative for them, ignoring corruption, etc - but that's part of being a Socialist system - it's expected so you can't fault them there they do it to themselves enough with the EU.
Any country like the US would be a fool to sign the agreement which basically requires them to pay those corrupt officials to do something that won't get done due to corruption. The idea that taking money from rich countries to pay corrupt, poor countries to do something never works. it's only an economic theorist that ignores the realities of corruption that would advocate it - IOW, the liberal left and the Obama administration.
So yes, renegotiate it so that it actually does something and makes real sense for countries to be part of, or don't join at all. And that's exactly what the Trump is doing.
It's hardly good will. China sees the US retreating into populist stupidity, and sees its chance to reach for the brass ring of major power status. Russia, no matter how much Putin puffs his chest, is a power in a long decline, and now the US, under possibly the stupidest man to ever inhabit the White House, abandons leadership. China and the EU both now have a path to basically running the world.
Well...Obama abandoned US leadership 8 years ago. If that's your point, it's nothing new.
That said, the Paris Accord was a piece of crap, and does not contain any real reason for any first world nation - US, GB, etc - so sign it as it explicitly takes money from those nations to pay very corrupt nations to fix stuff. IOW, it's simply a tax on the rich to pay the corrupt and won't really change anything as a result.
Try to think of how what I said is true, before you try to tell me why it isn't.;)
You simply didn't understand. I was going to explain further, but looking at it again, I already explained the part you missed. It doesn't "carry over" but the money in your bank account does. Maybe that helps?
PTO doesn't get paid out - so there is no money in your bank account to carry over either - you get paid the same regardless of whether you work or take vacation, and if you leave you don't get a payout. HTH.
PTO doesn't create any problems for the international travel situation you discuss. It you get 2 weeks PTO per year and want to take a 4 week vacation every other year, that works fine. The only problem is if the employer has inflexible scheduling. The vacation pay and accrual system shouldn't affect that, it should only be changing the timing of payments.
Actually PTO can since PTO does *not* carry over from year-to-year. If you only get 2 weeks a year, then that's all you get; if you manage to schedule your PTO at the end/start of a year every-other-year (2 weeks in December, 2 weeks in January) then yeah you can double your time for 4 weeks, but that's it - and you're out of vacation for the rest of year nor can you use any before the end of the year - effectively defeating the supposed purpose of making people distribute their vacation throughout the year. So yes, it can create an issue - and I know people with family in India and China directly affected by that kind of issue.
When that happens, they can kiss my ass goodbye too. So where do you complain against this? Is there a forum that Mozilla reads at all?
Sadly, the AC in parallel to this is right - they're only response is "RESOLVED - WONTFIX" in their bugzilla DB, and mozilla forums. They seem to have entirely lost focus on who their customer is, who their end-user is, and that their purpose as a company is.
That was my initial reaction too, but this is doubtless going to be the decision that pushing them over to licensing/renting cartridges, rather than selling them. The decision itself says that if Lexmark wants to enforce these sorts of restrictions, it can't do so via patent law after the initial sale, but it can do so via contract law. Which is basically just a way of saying, "Lexmark, follow the software industry's lead if you want to screw customers".
Again, the decision was a good one, but I don't look forward to what comes next.
Problem here is enforceability. A one-sided contract - like a EULA - is a lot less enforceable than a two-sided contract in terms of forcing the party that can only sign to do what other party wants.
Software firms typically gets away with it for the AS-IS portion of the license; but if something more was needed then it'd be a problem for the software firms too. Software firms also accept a lot higher piracy than most, and more than LexMark would be able to do so in order to enforce this.
salaries are paid nearly immediately when the liability is incurred, so no, they are not a liability on a company's books.
Normally true. Start-ups, however, may do the opposite specially when short on funds - basically accruing the salary and occasionally paying out as investors or revenue provides funds to do so. I had one colleague years back whose employer was behind on funds and promised everyone 20% extra if they stayed around until they could pay them.
So yeah...salaries are technically a liability, just one that is usually very ephemeral and short-lived.
Nah, it is probably because paid time off is a liability on the financial books.
Current employer moved from ETO (earned time-off) to PTO (paid time-off) for that exact reason. ETO gets accrued to a cap, carries over year-over-year, and then gets paid out when you leave. PTO doesn't. Therefore ETO creates a financial liability on the books that can be easily wiped away by converting to PTO. In theory, everyone should then be using all their vacation each year.
However, in practice ETO enables people to take longer vacations at times - example, employees that have family overseas (e.g employee based in the US with family in India) where they will take a super long vacation to go spend 1 week of travel to get there, 1 week to get back, and 2+ weeks there, possibly with travel while there to go around and see folks as they may not be located in the same place. PTO makes that kind of thing a log harder to do.
Personally, I prefer ETO + auto-payout over cap, or being able to donate ETO to other employees that need it (f.e medical or other reasons). It gives the employee the flexibility to do the vacations they need to do, and doesn't make the company end the year with trying to figure out who is going to be around and who isn't because everyone has weeks of vacations to utilize.
Props to them for the commitment but systemd ( and all its warts) has won the day.
systemd has only won the day by fiat. There's a lot of people that are not happy about systemd. I've been looking forward to Devuan, and will probably start moving all my systems over to it. I caught the 1.0 release when updating my RPi3. My next laptop will probably be running it too - though I'll have to verify the external PPAs I use (Docker, KDE) work with it just fine too. But yeah...I don't need the trash heap that is systemd.
How does this affect anyone? Linux has 2% market share. That tiny percentage is dominated by Ubuntu and Red Hat. Why does anyone care about this distribution? Nobody will use it. It is inconsequential and isn't news at all.
Let's see...
Windows only holds a majority in the DESKTOP market.
In mobile, the vast majority of devices are Android, and iOS comes in second. All Android devices are Linux. They also don't use systemd.
In servers, Windows holds a minority market share. Guess who the leader is? Linux. Even on Microsoft's own cloud (Azure) a hugely significant portion of users are using Linux - the numbers keep going up for Linux - started out 1:5 use Linux when they first published about it, and it's something like 1:3 now.
Want a super computer? The market is pretty much dominated by Linux.
Want a main frame? Well, you're either looking at Linux or one of the older systems.
Oh, and embedded? Linux outpaces most everyone when a non-custom OS is possible; even many custom OS's are tending to be based on Linux.
So yeah...Linux has a huge world-wide, cross market, cross functional market share. All-in-all, we're probably talking somewhere in the 70-90% range of the computer industry is using Linux in some form.
I moved to T-Mobile a couple of years ago because they're much cheaper, and AT&T wouldn't release my old number. That was painful since I had had that previous number for over two decades. Then I found-out that T-Mobile doesn't have coverage over much of downtown Seattle so I had to switch yet again. Again, T-Mobile, like AT&T, wouldn't release my old number. I had to change numbers yet again. We need the FCC to enforce number portability. My sister is a lawyer for CenturyLink, and she's said that she has never heard of a phone company fined for their refusal to make their numbers portable. It's sad how after even eight years of Obama's rule, he didn't do a damn thing to fix this problem.
Switched to T-Mobile back in 2013; no issue with having AT&T relinquish the number to them. Had the same number since 2004.
Try again with Firefox 58 or later. Due out end of this year.
And no longer have (a) tab groups and (b) 90+% of the add-ons and extensions for Firefox out there. FF57 is where I believe their putting the guillotine to their own necks.
Make Firefox not suck.
I had a laundry list of issues with FF that culminated in my switching to Chrome, where everything "just works". I used FF for *years*, until I literally couldn't make myself keep fighting with the browser.
Agreed. I've been a long time Firefox user - from the 1.x days (even looking at when it was still Phoenix), and really really loved the Pandora/TabGroups functionality that was introduced in FF4. However, they've making changes that are about to toss out nearly all of the add-ons, and make it near impossible for some add-ons (which TabGroups is again) impossible to do going forward. It's made me actually start using Chrome for more than just Netflix.
Unfortunately, Chome doesn't really have a good solution to the Tab Groups funcitonality in Firefox, but at least their not tearing down the palace to try to save the King.
I thought they had an "eat your own dog food" policy, so I'm going to guess Team Foundation Server.
TFS is just a wrapper around other VCSes. It supports git, svn, cvs, vss, and a bunch of other tools. So yes, they've been using TFS but TFS itself doesn't do VCS.
Seems easier than trying to manage independent source repos for dependencies.
If that's the only reason, then that's pretty silly. A decent dependency-management system is the right solution.
Let's say package A depends on packages B and C. B makes an incompatible change that breaks A, so A has to know that only the previous version of B will work without a patch. Patch goes in to A, and now new version of A works fine with new version of B. Meanwhile, a new feature in A requires an update to C, so C is updated and A development continues. A build/runtime-dependency system should be able to sort all of this out easily. Package A needs to specify which versions of B and C it is known to work with, and every time B and C are checked out, it is only those versions that are used. When B or C are updated, the new changes have to be vetted by the A team before they are incorporated into the build. If multiple packages also use B and C as dependencies, the respective teams either a) coordinate their updates to B and C so as to not break each other, and/or b) open separate branches of B and C and merge them at some later date, verifying that all of their unit tests are successful in the process. As a bonus, it should be relatively easy to rewind history a bit and build a prior version of A against older versions of B and C as well if you want to do some sort of differential code analysis. Everything is in the respective change histories, and all of the diffs are saved, so software should be able to do all of this.
And that is why you have tools like SVN Externals and Git Submodule. You version A, B, C, and their shared headers all separately. Each makes releases.
So A depends on B and C. All three depend on D - the shared headers. If the interface for B or C changes, then D makes a new release with the change and then B or C get updated to match the new interface and released at the same time. Once B and C are released, then A gets the updated and makes it's release.
Now if B or C get a fix but the interface doesn't change - then A can update its reference to B or C and just keep moving without having to also change the reference to D.
Yep...been there done that, and been able to move projects very quickly as a team and on my own in a very stable fashion and without having bug fixes regress (which Microsoft is also well known for).
That's what project management is suppose to help accomplish.
So Windows is so much more complex than Linux, that it cannot be handled by vanilla Git like the other OS? I was thinking the opposite, unlike Windows Linux includes code for almost all the existing hardware platforms out there, and all the hardware drivers already in the kernel, just to name something.
Total misunderstanding what Microsoft is doing. They have a repository of 300 GB. You know what happens if you have a 300 GB repository and type in "git clone"? A 300 GB download starts. It doesn't matter what operating system, a 300 GB download takes time.
While git can handle this all without problems, it takes time. What Microsoft has done is added a virtual file system on top. When you clone the repository with that virtual file system, all that gets copied is the directory structure and the hashes (at the time you cloned). When you open a file, that's when it gets copied.
This will be useful for anyone with truly large repositories. Say starting with a few Gigabyte. Especially those with repositories with 20 years history, that nobody cares about much, but that you really don't want to destroy.
All true - the problem is they mismanage their code. There's no reason it should be one big massive git repository. It should be about 30,0000 repositories. Each library, executable, driver, etc should be its own repository. Even common headers should be in their own repository. Then version everything and make every project depend on the versions they need - upgrading appropriately and in timely manners. Works very well and fewer people needed to handle larger amounts of code as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
Failure to abide by the withdrawal terms of a non-treaty pact may be perfectly legal as a matter of domestic US law, but it violates the norms of international "law". And that would have consequences for us because we ourselves expect other nations to follow those norms. Not even we can get everything we want through force; we don't even want to.
And somehow I think no other nation would actually expect Trump to follow the terms, even exit terms, since they all thought Obama's administration was full of shit. They all are aware of how the USA handles Treaties and agreements, and they all would know that Obama signed it for his own political points only. They all realize that the USA didn't actually agree to it since the Senate never agreed to it.
Yes, nations are aware of how other nations work. They don't put much good faith in expectations until nations do their internal thing to fully ratify something; and Obama did his damnedest to not go to the Senate - other nations would have noticed that since it was not normal for the USA to do that.
So I'm sure that other nations do not expect the USA to necessarily honor what Obama signed. Anything Trump does in that respect is out of actual honor for the office of POTUS and the USA - honor that Obama very much lacked.
The UNFCCC was used as a basis for the Paris Accord, but it is not the same treaty, nor is the Paris Accord actually part of the UNFCCC.
The Paris Agreement was explicitly adopted as an "annex" to the UNFCCC. See the text of the agreement (from p. 2):
I. Adoption. 1. Decides to adopt the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") as contained in the annex...
The formal "annex" begins on p. 20 of the link. Let's see what else you have.
Doesn't matter - changes to a treaty - either by modification of language or addition (annex) to requires a new ratification. The fact that every other signing country did that also shows presents a challenge to anyone arguing before SCOTUS that the USA is actually bound by it. We're not until the Senate says we are, and they haven't.
In fact, we can see this in the USA's history with the change from the Articles of Confederation established in 1777 to those of the Articles of the Constitution presented in 1787 and formally adopted in 1788, changing the government from a Confederacy to a Constitutional Government.
And if you disagree, note that Obama actually taught constitutional law at college, and no one disagreed with the action at the time - no one in the legislature brought the issue or the supreme court, no group in the US sued the government and pushed it to the supreme court.
A fact you had better forget because while he did in fact teach Constitutional Law he was also written up by his students and colleagues for how far off-base he was with Constitutional Law. He sucked at it big time.
You're literally just repeating exactly what he said in different language. Since the Paris accord never passed through the Congress or Senate, it was an agreement made by the president alone under his existing authority and lacks any of the force of law.
I would agree with you wholeheartedly—except I won't. Because what you're saying is factually incorrect:
So unless you have a valid constitutional, jurisdictional or legislative argument to make, you'll have to content yourself with being dead wrong. If the agreement is signed by the President under his authority and pursuant to his existing powers, it has the force of law.
Can Donald Trump reverse it? Yes, but he can't pretend it was never signed. The process for exiting the agreement can only be completed in 2020.
Executive Orders are not binding from administration to administration. The POTUS can overturn/repeal them at any time he chooses. Even Obama could have signed a new Executive Order repudiating the USA's involvement in the Paris Accord. Only Congress can bind the USA to any kind of law - internal or external.
Actually no. It's pretty easy to understand that countries can't be trusted if the treaties made by one of the temporary wearer of the big hats won't be upheld by the next one, especially when they come as quickly as every 4 years, and in this country never lasts more than 8 under any circumstances. Whether you like it or not, it's the duty of the POTUS to uphold our treaties and agreements, even if he personally doesn't like them. If he has the power to voluntarily dismiss them, he has to do it by the means allowed for in the agreement. If he doesn't like that, he can bite off his own dick for all that matters, assuming he can find it.
POTUS does not get to pass treaties for the USA; only Congress can do that. POTUS negotiates them but Congress authorizes them. The Paris Accord was never passed by Congress. It was only negotiated by the former POTUS administration. Therefore the USA is not actually a legal party to the Paris Accord and therefore can completely ignore it. That is, after all, how the Constitution defines the Treatise process for the USA.
'E-cigarrettes' are just a blatant drug delivery device (for nicotine, a highly addictive and poisonous substance), plain and simple, and that was blindingly obvious the first time I ever heard about them. I was surprised the FDA didn't ban them outright.
E-cigs are a good way to control the nicotine level in order to reduce it and get off smoking. They work and really well when you have that goal in mind.
A friend did this and he basically continues to vape using just water, potentially some flavor (blueberry, mint) but that's it. All-in-all, the study really needs to take into account the differences in how people use e-cigs and vape vs smoking a normal cigarette. They're worlds apart.
I got two systems in my collection / office ;-) Each time I read Intel press like this I power them up just for the warm feeling :-)
https://www.t2-project.org/har...
https://www.t2-project.org/har...
They are also visible on my desk in some of my recent videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/r...
Transmeta became a Patent Licensing organization, and licensed their tech to AMD and other chip manufacturers during the conversion. So, no - they didn't fail as Intel claims.
Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.
You can spout off about globalist vs nationalist policies all you want, but even the hermit nation of North Korea understood this issue was important enough to show solidarity with the rest of the world on. When Kim Jong-un can work with other nations better than your President, that is a problem.
Has nothing to do with that. Kim Jong-un signed it because North Korea would *receive* money, not pay it out. He'd be a fool to turn down free money.
Honestly, whether a nation signs or not has very little to do with recognition of the issue as being important and more to do with where money is going. IIRC, if the US had joined it then like with the UN the US would have been paying out more money than any other country - which makes zero sense for the benefit. UN at least had some controls that gave the US significant power in its operations (Security Council, etc). The Paris Accord does not do that - money comes from rich countries and goes to the corrupt, poor countries and dictators like Kim Jong-un - many of whom will probably turn around and use it for weapons instead of its real purpose, or at least siphon off a lot of it via bribes and do that even if they show a facade of implementing what the money was for - it'll cost a lot more as a result too.
No, this isn't about solidarity. It's about money.
It is impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good. All but two nations signed this agreement, with one rejecting it because it didn't go far enough (Nicaragua) and one not even being invited to the table because of its government's legitimacy problems (Syria). The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.
Well, look at it this way - if your country is struggling for money and the government official siphon off funds from anything into their own pockets, why not sign something to give yourself more money? And yes, even China, India, and Russia are extremely corrupt in those terms too - and more likely to receive money than pay it out. Only Europe is really dumb enough to decide to join something that will be net-negative for them, ignoring corruption, etc - but that's part of being a Socialist system - it's expected so you can't fault them there they do it to themselves enough with the EU.
Any country like the US would be a fool to sign the agreement which basically requires them to pay those corrupt officials to do something that won't get done due to corruption. The idea that taking money from rich countries to pay corrupt, poor countries to do something never works. it's only an economic theorist that ignores the realities of corruption that would advocate it - IOW, the liberal left and the Obama administration.
So yes, renegotiate it so that it actually does something and makes real sense for countries to be part of, or don't join at all. And that's exactly what the Trump is doing.
It's hardly good will. China sees the US retreating into populist stupidity, and sees its chance to reach for the brass ring of major power status. Russia, no matter how much Putin puffs his chest, is a power in a long decline, and now the US, under possibly the stupidest man to ever inhabit the White House, abandons leadership. China and the EU both now have a path to basically running the world.
Well...Obama abandoned US leadership 8 years ago. If that's your point, it's nothing new. That said, the Paris Accord was a piece of crap, and does not contain any real reason for any first world nation - US, GB, etc - so sign it as it explicitly takes money from those nations to pay very corrupt nations to fix stuff. IOW, it's simply a tax on the rich to pay the corrupt and won't really change anything as a result.
Try to think of how what I said is true, before you try to tell me why it isn't. ;)
You simply didn't understand. I was going to explain further, but looking at it again, I already explained the part you missed. It doesn't "carry over" but the money in your bank account does. Maybe that helps?
PTO doesn't get paid out - so there is no money in your bank account to carry over either - you get paid the same regardless of whether you work or take vacation, and if you leave you don't get a payout. HTH.
PTO doesn't create any problems for the international travel situation you discuss. It you get 2 weeks PTO per year and want to take a 4 week vacation every other year, that works fine. The only problem is if the employer has inflexible scheduling. The vacation pay and accrual system shouldn't affect that, it should only be changing the timing of payments.
Actually PTO can since PTO does *not* carry over from year-to-year. If you only get 2 weeks a year, then that's all you get; if you manage to schedule your PTO at the end/start of a year every-other-year (2 weeks in December, 2 weeks in January) then yeah you can double your time for 4 weeks, but that's it - and you're out of vacation for the rest of year nor can you use any before the end of the year - effectively defeating the supposed purpose of making people distribute their vacation throughout the year. So yes, it can create an issue - and I know people with family in India and China directly affected by that kind of issue.
When that happens, they can kiss my ass goodbye too. So where do you complain against this? Is there a forum that Mozilla reads at all?
Sadly, the AC in parallel to this is right - they're only response is "RESOLVED - WONTFIX" in their bugzilla DB, and mozilla forums. They seem to have entirely lost focus on who their customer is, who their end-user is, and that their purpose as a company is.
That was my initial reaction too, but this is doubtless going to be the decision that pushing them over to licensing/renting cartridges, rather than selling them. The decision itself says that if Lexmark wants to enforce these sorts of restrictions, it can't do so via patent law after the initial sale, but it can do so via contract law. Which is basically just a way of saying, "Lexmark, follow the software industry's lead if you want to screw customers".
Again, the decision was a good one, but I don't look forward to what comes next.
Problem here is enforceability. A one-sided contract - like a EULA - is a lot less enforceable than a two-sided contract in terms of forcing the party that can only sign to do what other party wants.
Software firms typically gets away with it for the AS-IS portion of the license; but if something more was needed then it'd be a problem for the software firms too. Software firms also accept a lot higher piracy than most, and more than LexMark would be able to do so in order to enforce this.
salaries are paid nearly immediately when the liability is incurred, so no, they are not a liability on a company's books.
Normally true. Start-ups, however, may do the opposite specially when short on funds - basically accruing the salary and occasionally paying out as investors or revenue provides funds to do so. I had one colleague years back whose employer was behind on funds and promised everyone 20% extra if they stayed around until they could pay them.
So yeah...salaries are technically a liability, just one that is usually very ephemeral and short-lived.
Nah, it is probably because paid time off is a liability on the financial books.
Current employer moved from ETO (earned time-off) to PTO (paid time-off) for that exact reason. ETO gets accrued to a cap, carries over year-over-year, and then gets paid out when you leave. PTO doesn't. Therefore ETO creates a financial liability on the books that can be easily wiped away by converting to PTO. In theory, everyone should then be using all their vacation each year.
However, in practice ETO enables people to take longer vacations at times - example, employees that have family overseas (e.g employee based in the US with family in India) where they will take a super long vacation to go spend 1 week of travel to get there, 1 week to get back, and 2+ weeks there, possibly with travel while there to go around and see folks as they may not be located in the same place. PTO makes that kind of thing a log harder to do.
Personally, I prefer ETO + auto-payout over cap, or being able to donate ETO to other employees that need it (f.e medical or other reasons). It gives the employee the flexibility to do the vacations they need to do, and doesn't make the company end the year with trying to figure out who is going to be around and who isn't because everyone has weeks of vacations to utilize.
Props to them for the commitment but systemd ( and all its warts) has won the day.
systemd has only won the day by fiat. There's a lot of people that are not happy about systemd. I've been looking forward to Devuan, and will probably start moving all my systems over to it. I caught the 1.0 release when updating my RPi3. My next laptop will probably be running it too - though I'll have to verify the external PPAs I use (Docker, KDE) work with it just fine too. But yeah...I don't need the trash heap that is systemd.
How does this affect anyone? Linux has 2% market share. That tiny percentage is dominated by Ubuntu and Red Hat. Why does anyone care about this distribution? Nobody will use it. It is inconsequential and isn't news at all.
Let's see... Windows only holds a majority in the DESKTOP market.
In mobile, the vast majority of devices are Android, and iOS comes in second. All Android devices are Linux. They also don't use systemd.
In servers, Windows holds a minority market share. Guess who the leader is? Linux. Even on Microsoft's own cloud (Azure) a hugely significant portion of users are using Linux - the numbers keep going up for Linux - started out 1:5 use Linux when they first published about it, and it's something like 1:3 now.
Want a super computer? The market is pretty much dominated by Linux.
Want a main frame? Well, you're either looking at Linux or one of the older systems.
Oh, and embedded? Linux outpaces most everyone when a non-custom OS is possible; even many custom OS's are tending to be based on Linux.
So yeah...Linux has a huge world-wide, cross market, cross functional market share. All-in-all, we're probably talking somewhere in the 70-90% range of the computer industry is using Linux in some form.
I moved to T-Mobile a couple of years ago because they're much cheaper, and AT&T wouldn't release my old number. That was painful since I had had that previous number for over two decades. Then I found-out that T-Mobile doesn't have coverage over much of downtown Seattle so I had to switch yet again. Again, T-Mobile, like AT&T, wouldn't release my old number. I had to change numbers yet again. We need the FCC to enforce number portability. My sister is a lawyer for CenturyLink, and she's said that she has never heard of a phone company fined for their refusal to make their numbers portable. It's sad how after even eight years of Obama's rule, he didn't do a damn thing to fix this problem.
Switched to T-Mobile back in 2013; no issue with having AT&T relinquish the number to them. Had the same number since 2004.
Try again with Firefox 58 or later. Due out end of this year.
And no longer have (a) tab groups and (b) 90+% of the add-ons and extensions for Firefox out there. FF57 is where I believe their putting the guillotine to their own necks.
Make Firefox not suck. I had a laundry list of issues with FF that culminated in my switching to Chrome, where everything "just works". I used FF for *years*, until I literally couldn't make myself keep fighting with the browser.
Agreed. I've been a long time Firefox user - from the 1.x days (even looking at when it was still Phoenix), and really really loved the Pandora/TabGroups functionality that was introduced in FF4. However, they've making changes that are about to toss out nearly all of the add-ons, and make it near impossible for some add-ons (which TabGroups is again) impossible to do going forward. It's made me actually start using Chrome for more than just Netflix.
Unfortunately, Chome doesn't really have a good solution to the Tab Groups funcitonality in Firefox, but at least their not tearing down the palace to try to save the King.
I thought they had an "eat your own dog food" policy, so I'm going to guess Team Foundation Server.
TFS is just a wrapper around other VCSes. It supports git, svn, cvs, vss, and a bunch of other tools. So yes, they've been using TFS but TFS itself doesn't do VCS.
Visual Source Safe.
Microsoft has famously never used VSS itself. ;)
Seems easier than trying to manage independent source repos for dependencies.
If that's the only reason, then that's pretty silly. A decent dependency-management system is the right solution.
Let's say package A depends on packages B and C. B makes an incompatible change that breaks A, so A has to know that only the previous version of B will work without a patch. Patch goes in to A, and now new version of A works fine with new version of B. Meanwhile, a new feature in A requires an update to C, so C is updated and A development continues. A build/runtime-dependency system should be able to sort all of this out easily. Package A needs to specify which versions of B and C it is known to work with, and every time B and C are checked out, it is only those versions that are used. When B or C are updated, the new changes have to be vetted by the A team before they are incorporated into the build. If multiple packages also use B and C as dependencies, the respective teams either a) coordinate their updates to B and C so as to not break each other, and/or b) open separate branches of B and C and merge them at some later date, verifying that all of their unit tests are successful in the process. As a bonus, it should be relatively easy to rewind history a bit and build a prior version of A against older versions of B and C as well if you want to do some sort of differential code analysis. Everything is in the respective change histories, and all of the diffs are saved, so software should be able to do all of this.
And that is why you have tools like SVN Externals and Git Submodule. You version A, B, C, and their shared headers all separately. Each makes releases.
So A depends on B and C. All three depend on D - the shared headers. If the interface for B or C changes, then D makes a new release with the change and then B or C get updated to match the new interface and released at the same time. Once B and C are released, then A gets the updated and makes it's release.
Now if B or C get a fix but the interface doesn't change - then A can update its reference to B or C and just keep moving without having to also change the reference to D.
Yep...been there done that, and been able to move projects very quickly as a team and on my own in a very stable fashion and without having bug fixes regress (which Microsoft is also well known for).
That's what project management is suppose to help accomplish.
So Windows is so much more complex than Linux, that it cannot be handled by vanilla Git like the other OS? I was thinking the opposite, unlike Windows Linux includes code for almost all the existing hardware platforms out there, and all the hardware drivers already in the kernel, just to name something.
Total misunderstanding what Microsoft is doing. They have a repository of 300 GB. You know what happens if you have a 300 GB repository and type in "git clone"? A 300 GB download starts. It doesn't matter what operating system, a 300 GB download takes time. While git can handle this all without problems, it takes time. What Microsoft has done is added a virtual file system on top. When you clone the repository with that virtual file system, all that gets copied is the directory structure and the hashes (at the time you cloned). When you open a file, that's when it gets copied. This will be useful for anyone with truly large repositories. Say starting with a few Gigabyte. Especially those with repositories with 20 years history, that nobody cares about much, but that you really don't want to destroy.
All true - the problem is they mismanage their code. There's no reason it should be one big massive git repository. It should be about 30,0000 repositories. Each library, executable, driver, etc should be its own repository. Even common headers should be in their own repository. Then version everything and make every project depend on the versions they need - upgrading appropriately and in timely manners. Works very well and fewer people needed to handle larger amounts of code as a result.