In this case, "fucking" is acting as a participle, not a gerund. But in English, present participles and gerunds look the same. Like the wikipedia article says, participles are adjectives and are often used in front of nouns.
In this case, the entire phrase "Jesus fucking God" is an interjection. Depending on how you look at it, either Jesus is being used as an adjective to describe God (in which case it should have been followed by a comma), or more likely the entire thing is being treated as a three word proper noun (in which case "fucking" should have been capitalized), similar to the oft-heard "Jesus H. Christ!".
the word "fucking" should only be used as a verb or adverb and not an adjective.
Say what?
"fucking" is a gerund. Like all gerunds, that means it can be a noun (when referring to the act itself), or an adjective ("which one?" "The fucking one!"), among other things.
This buyback is confverting an asset with actual value (cash) into an asset with no intrinsic value(stock).
Minor nit: One share of stock does have an intrinsic value: the sum of the valuation of the assets of the company, minus its debts, divided by the number of shares outstanding. That is, if the company were liquidated, it's the amount each share would be paid from the pile of money left over. Typically, of course, the share price is many times higher than that, because a company is generally worth far more as a profit-generating enterprise than as a mere sum of its parts.
Actually, since 9/11, American's are now less safe than before.
How can that be?
Because the cost of airline travel in both time, money, and convenience has gone up. That has made more Americans look to alternatives, like driving, which are much, much less safe (per passenger-mile).
We'd probably be more safe had we responded to 9/11 by literally doing nothing at all.
Where do you think the money for all those mandated solar panels actually comes from?
Raise the cost of the office building and you raise the cost of the office space. Raise the cost of the office space and the owners of the business will have to charge more for their services. And so on. You might as well simply tax everyone and buy the panels that way.
It certainly had nothing to do with the Smirnoff bottles seen throughout the film.
I haven't read the original books, but there are innumerable references in the history of the Bond character to the fact that his drink was changed for Dr. No to accomodate the deal. Perhaps what you read was a revised edition.
It's not even particularly modern. Why do you think James Bond's signature drink is a vodka martini? Because the movie producers made a deal with Smirnoff. In 1962.
But you can't be punished here simply for refusing to hand over the key
That is incorrect. You can be found in contempt of court if you are ordered to turn over the key by a judge and you refuse.
The only argument here is who is allowed to compel you to produce the keys. The UK has simply lowered the bar quite a bit by allowing the police, rather than a judge, to compel performance.
In what way is an HTTP server serving files to the public not a "written offer?"
It's certainly an offer. The directory listing is certainly written. Not written on paper, but it consists of text. Text is "writing" and anything presented in text is "written." QED.
I believe that's also the case in the U.S. as well, though I believe they need to get a court order to compel disclosure.
Crypto systems with perfect forward secrecy can help a great deal, especially those that routinely use ephemeral private key material. In the case of SSH, there is an ephemeral public key pair that is discarded by the server every so often. Unless you hack the machine and record those ephemeral keys, rubber-hose cryptanalysis won't help decrypt session recordings.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
So it would seem the major sticking point is the '3 years' thing. After all, if the place you get the binaries you're distributing has the source right along side, that would seem to comply with every other tenant of section b, no? An anonymous FTP server or an HTTP server with a zip file certainly qualifies as an offer in writing for no cost.
As for the '3 years' thing, maybe it's a case where the spirit and letter of the license clash a bit.
That's correct. But if your "distribution" consists of a little bit of customized stuff (which you provide the source for), and a pile of binary packages you fetched from somewhere else, AND if you're giving it away...
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
[...]
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
That is, if you're giving the stuff away, it's good enough to simply point them back to the original source you used to fetch the code - which means it's probably good enough to include a README with a URL to the project's home page.
Slashdot Mirror
then I am a self described socialist.
You repeated yourself. :)
In this case, "fucking" is acting as a participle, not a gerund. But in English, present participles and gerunds look the same. Like the wikipedia article says, participles are adjectives and are often used in front of nouns.
In this case, the entire phrase "Jesus fucking God" is an interjection. Depending on how you look at it, either Jesus is being used as an adjective to describe God (in which case it should have been followed by a comma), or more likely the entire thing is being treated as a three word proper noun (in which case "fucking" should have been capitalized), similar to the oft-heard "Jesus H. Christ!".
Say what?
"fucking" is a gerund. Like all gerunds, that means it can be a noun (when referring to the act itself), or an adjective ("which one?" "The fucking one!"), among other things.
Milksnort. Thanks.
Macs don't have reset buttons. 'nuff said.
All of that is true. I was only speaking in the abstract about the dictionary definition of "intrinsic value."
Minor nit: One share of stock does have an intrinsic value: the sum of the valuation of the assets of the company, minus its debts, divided by the number of shares outstanding. That is, if the company were liquidated, it's the amount each share would be paid from the pile of money left over. Typically, of course, the share price is many times higher than that, because a company is generally worth far more as a profit-generating enterprise than as a mere sum of its parts.
[...]
Working on any car made in the last 20 years will require standard and metric tools.
You are officially not part of the solution. :)
Actually, since 9/11, American's are now less safe than before.
How can that be?
Because the cost of airline travel in both time, money, and convenience has gone up. That has made more Americans look to alternatives, like driving, which are much, much less safe (per passenger-mile).
We'd probably be more safe had we responded to 9/11 by literally doing nothing at all.
Where do you think the money for all those mandated solar panels actually comes from?
Raise the cost of the office building and you raise the cost of the office space. Raise the cost of the office space and the owners of the business will have to charge more for their services. And so on. You might as well simply tax everyone and buy the panels that way.
"Look! There's footprints in the snow ahead!"
Reference hint: A. A. Milne.
Have you noticed that you never see Monseur Creosote and Ballmer in the same place at the same time?
Coincidence? I THINK NOT!
Pens? How quaint.
It certainly had nothing to do with the Smirnoff bottles seen throughout the film.
I haven't read the original books, but there are innumerable references in the history of the Bond character to the fact that his drink was changed for Dr. No to accomodate the deal. Perhaps what you read was a revised edition.
It's not even particularly modern. Why do you think James Bond's signature drink is a vodka martini? Because the movie producers made a deal with Smirnoff. In 1962.
Obviously not the Republic of China. Must be that other one.
That is incorrect. You can be found in contempt of court if you are ordered to turn over the key by a judge and you refuse.
The only argument here is who is allowed to compel you to produce the keys. The UK has simply lowered the bar quite a bit by allowing the police, rather than a judge, to compel performance.
To be fair, he did spell it correctly. It's the wrong word, of course, but if you're going to split hairs, they should be the correct ones.
It's certainly an offer. The directory listing is certainly written. Not written on paper, but it consists of text. Text is "writing" and anything presented in text is "written." QED.
Crypto systems with perfect forward secrecy can help a great deal, especially those that routinely use ephemeral private key material. In the case of SSH, there is an ephemeral public key pair that is discarded by the server every so often. Unless you hack the machine and record those ephemeral keys, rubber-hose cryptanalysis won't help decrypt session recordings.
As for the '3 years' thing, maybe it's a case where the spirit and letter of the license clash a bit.
That's correct. But if your "distribution" consists of a little bit of customized stuff (which you provide the source for), and a pile of binary packages you fetched from somewhere else, AND if you're giving it away...