People also need to understand that exposing something (aka meat) to radiation does not make it radioactive or dangerous in any way
It's like I keep telling people -- expecting irradiated food to be radioactive is like shining a flashlight on it and then expecting it to glow on its own.
how did they decide that these young people DON'T have criminal intent
I have no idea. I think it's quite clear from the comments that have been posted here that there was very malicious criminal intent and that nobody could possibly have been wrongly accused. If so many people come to the same conclusion, why does it matter how much they know about the situation?
How do you ensure that someone is a citizen and is allowed to vote? By having them log in, of course. Once they're logged in, what's to prevent their vote from being associated with their identity? Nothing, of course.
All kids should, by the end of high school, learn BASIC or some substitute language that is widely available and easy to program (AppleScript, JavaScript, what have you), and enough XHTML to do a simple web page.
It's easy to say, "ignore the people who say, '____,'" until you're trying to get them to hire you.
But if you know someone (a manager, a company, whatever) who will take a gaming degree seriously, go ahead.
"Game programmers are to surgeons what normal programmers are to physicians. Surgeons can do everything the physicians can, and surgery on top of that."
I don't think this carries over so well. Surgery is something you learn on top of everything that you learn to be a physician. Game programming, AFAICT, is much more detailed in some areas (especially math), and more or less doesn't include others.
And for anybody who says that few women are interested in technical fields, my engineering classes are >50% female, just like the entire rest of the school (roughly upper 50%s female/ lower 40%s male.)
Those who say that are generally looking at larger and more varied samples than you are.
I suspect either misinterpretation of what is meant or quote mining, either by you or by the defendants' lawyers. The referenced case says, "A copyright owner who grants a nonexclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement." By your interpretation, I cannot be sued for copyright infringement if I start handing out disks with copies of [insert proprietary app here] on them because I was granted a nonexclusive license to use that app; the copyright holder would have waived his right to sue me by granting such a license.
It turns out that the quote in question references a 1997 case, which says that the licensor waives the right to sue for copyright infringement, not in all situations, but only those which are allowed by the license.
In so saying, we do not suggest that Albion and JMI waived their rights to be compensated by the Miracle in accordance with their oral understanding. What they waived was any right to sue for breach of copyright on account of the playing of the song while the license was in effect.
(emphasis mine)
Further discussion in JMI v Veeck declares that the offense alleged by JMI would be breach of contract, not copyright infringement, because of the defendant's failure to provide consideration as specified in the oral agreement. This definition of "breach of contract" seems inapplicable to the Artistic License (it's more similar to the BSD license than it is to the GPL) since all it seems to do is (explicitly) waive the right to sue in certain situations; perhaps the limitations placed on redistribution could be considered consideration.
but the argument seems to be that the right to recognition is not protected by copyright and as the license waives all the rights copyright does confer without expectation of compensation there has been no infringement.
I don't see any part of the Artistic License that "waives all the rights" conferred by copyright. There are parts that allow certain things which would be a violation of the licensor's copyright, but I can name some copyright violations not allowed by the license.
The "right to recognition" isn't in there exactly as you say it, but if the copyright notice is removed, the package has been changed and cannot be redistributed without either including the "standard version" of the package, which would include the copyright notice, or including a description of the changes made ("removed John Doe's copyright notice and replaced with my own").
No, there is no requirement that changed/redistributed versions must point out the copyright owner, but if copyright notices are in the standard version of the package, then there is no way to redistribute versions of the package without them.
The "unjust enrichment" claim relates to the defendants' use of the package as a tax write-off.
I don't find any 1998 precidents in TFA, although, I have only read the first link (and the documents to which it links) of the four in the summary. All I ran across was a 1999 precedent that licensors cannot sue licensees for actions permitted by the license.
Since you appear to have found something different, would you mind posting a link to it? I don't want to spend all night duplicating your research.
If you make it hard for 'bad guys', you make it hard for your customers/friends too.
Keep in mind that the bad guys generally don't do the work by hand, and ewmail harvesting bots are much easier to defeat than humans. But yes, the mailto link is out.
Well, I would say it's their loss, not yours. They lose someone who gives them good advice, you get rid of a stupid Management.
They lost something that they weren't using anyway -- it's a loss they won't notice.
The GP lost his main source of income, which he was probably relying on.
As was pointed out earlier...
As a licensee, there is nothing you can do with GPL'd code that you cannot do with BSD-licensed code. There are, however, things you can do with BSD-licensed code that you cannot do with GPL'd code.
We were trying to hire a couple of senior software engineers, so we put out the word to several area recruiting companies and got a deluge of resumes... and the candidates we got were largely downright laughable, at least for a senior level position.
Sounds like the headline needs fixing: Senior IT Worker Shortages Everywhere
And why is anyone surprised by this? Everyone wants senior IT workers, but since its a relatively new field, there aren't nearly enough to fill all the openings.
Is it really that unbelievable that there are actually people out here who don't vote the same way that you do? Is it really that unbelievable to you that roughly 50% of the American electorate feels differently about the issues than you do?
What is unbelievable to me is the idea that Mayor Daley and his operatives could swing a national election (fraud in Chicago is a favorite of the "you cheat too" platform, not that you yourself have posted such things). All he affects is Illinois, and even without him, Chicago is populous enough that it completely overpowers downstate's voting. The only races Daley could influence outside of city/county elections is the upcoming gubernatorial election.
If Republicans take Chicago or Illinois, you know there's some massive fraud involved.
And you're a real paragon of bravery for posting material that defames Republicans in a forum where there is a clear pro-Democrat bias.
He had two choices: fail to show bravery (by supporting a popular position), or show stupidity (by attacking his own side). He went with the one that wasn't stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
*shrug* I was somehow classified as "management" this past summer... I was only an intern.
It works fine on my G4.
Ever see a web app written in C++?
Where do you think the jobs are these days? Operating systems or web apps?
It's easy to say, "ignore the people who say, '____,'" until you're trying to get them to hire you.
But if you know someone (a manager, a company, whatever) who will take a gaming degree seriously, go ahead.
It turns out that the quote in question references a 1997 case, which says that the licensor waives the right to sue for copyright infringement, not in all situations, but only those which are allowed by the license.
(emphasis mine)
Further discussion in JMI v Veeck declares that the offense alleged by JMI would be breach of contract, not copyright infringement, because of the defendant's failure to provide consideration as specified in the oral agreement. This definition of "breach of contract" seems inapplicable to the Artistic License (it's more similar to the BSD license than it is to the GPL) since all it seems to do is (explicitly) waive the right to sue in certain situations; perhaps the limitations placed on redistribution could be considered consideration.
The "right to recognition" isn't in there exactly as you say it, but if the copyright notice is removed, the package has been changed and cannot be redistributed without either including the "standard version" of the package, which would include the copyright notice, or including a description of the changes made ("removed John Doe's copyright notice and replaced with my own").
No, there is no requirement that changed/redistributed versions must point out the copyright owner, but if copyright notices are in the standard version of the package, then there is no way to redistribute versions of the package without them.
The "unjust enrichment" claim relates to the defendants' use of the package as a tax write-off.
I don't find any 1998 precidents in TFA, although, I have only read the first link (and the documents to which it links) of the four in the summary. All I ran across was a 1999 precedent that licensors cannot sue licensees for actions permitted by the license.
Since you appear to have found something different, would you mind posting a link to it? I don't want to spend all night duplicating your research.
And then they argue that they can pick and choose which parts of the contract to honor.
Sea Monkey?
Ok, ok, here you go.
Bacon! Soylent Green is made of bacon!
The GP lost his main source of income, which he was probably relying on.
As a licensee, there is nothing you can do with GPL'd code that you cannot do with BSD-licensed code. There are, however, things you can do with BSD-licensed code that you cannot do with GPL'd code.
How often does it update?
It says I'm at Michigan College of Mines. I'm leaning towards "not often enough."
Sounds like the headline needs fixing:
Senior IT Worker Shortages Everywhere
And why is anyone surprised by this? Everyone wants senior IT workers, but since its a relatively new field, there aren't nearly enough to fill all the openings.
If Republicans take Chicago or Illinois, you know there's some massive fraud involved.
He had two choices: fail to show bravery (by supporting a popular position), or show stupidity (by attacking his own side). He went with the one that wasn't stupid.