Ambiguous terms are reasonably interpreted against the drafter, not necessarily in the way that the non-drafter prefers (although generally he will argue in court that his way is reasonable, and it will normally be an interpretation against the drafter).
Yeah, especially since a comment about getting a lawyer that was posted a minute after mine got modded up to +5. Go figure.
A lawyer should be able to put something together for you for a couple hundred dollars. That's far cheaper than losing your IP rights, and if you really care about them it's a worthy investment in yourself.
If neither one of you knows how to write contracts, hire someone who does. It will be worth the price later on when the shit hits the fan. And it will, don't fool yourself.
What you are failing to do is not learn how to program, or learn a language. What you are failing to do is understand how to think logically and then turn your thoughts into code. Every language is the same - pick one and learn how to write algorithms instead of just lines of code.
I don't know about the truth of that, but I know this - it's a heck of a lot easier to hit the ground going down than to hit a small orbital target going up.
I could get in my pickup and drive 1,000 miles today and not have any trouble. However, if I drove 100,000 miles, the engine would sieze up and the tires would blow out.
Don't listen to cop friends about the law - cops know how to police, not how to answer legal questions. That said, this one got it right. And it's not just due to injuring yourself, but because it is indiscriminate in who it shoots. The law tends to refer to "spring guns" as they were usually set up using a string, a spring, and a gun pointed at a window or a gate. What happened too often were situations where you set it up to catch a burglar, but some kid loses his baseball in your yard and gets his leg blown off.
Somewhere in this thread, someone asked about a "Trespassers Will Be Shot" sign. While such a sign is a nice warning, you still have to do the shooting, yourself. An indiscriminate shooting machine is not acceptable, because not all entries of your property that you didn't personally authorize are truly trespassing - the kid with the baseball is questionable as to necessity to retrieve his property, but it could be grandma, the police, a lost Jesuit, or your wife.
There has to be a human conscience that decides whether or not to pull the trigger. Now, if you added face-recognition software, you could make the argument that it is not indiscriminate in what it shoots at, but I think that the law would be very reluctant to agree with you and you'd mostly be making that argument to Bubba to try to confuse him enough that he loses his erection.
Apparently "troll" is now defined so as to include people who are informative of similarities and curious of differences between two languages. I'll update my lexicon. Thanks.
I asked which of the new features do not already exist in Common Lisp. Your list is not a new thing or an innovation - choosing the correct features is common sense and very subjective to determine, implementing them in a simple and elegant way is common sense and something CL has done for a long time, "decent practical syntax" is what people afraid of parentheses say about Lisp before using it extensively (e.g., me 5 years ago). None of those are new in C#, anyhow.
Re-read the G^nPP and let me know which of those things are not available in Common Lisp. As to your original list, it proves to me that you haven't used CL enough to criticize it fairly. Good IDEs, such as the one included with Allegro Common Lisp, are available.
Not liking the language is fine, being afraid of it is even acceptable and normal. But don't knock it 'til you try it.
What you forget is that the government agency in question is far more qualified to decide who is a capable astronaut than is the general populace. Also, the US is not a democracy. I'm not sure if the UK is, but I doubt it, as well.
Some things are handled best with a public vote. This is not one of them.
Yeah - it was like a damn conspiracy. Every chick I hit on blew me off, mumbling something about Mono. Now I know that it was an evil Microsoft plan, all along.
That's right, folks. It's Microsoft's fault that you're not getting laid. Or at least it's their fault that I'm not.
The 386 was the first chip with a math co-procesor built in IIRC
That's a big "if." From Wikipedia: "Late in the 80386's production run, Intel introduced the 80386SX, which was meant to be a low cost version of the i386.... The original 80386 was subsequently renamed the 80386DX to avoid confusion. Neither CPU included a math coprocessor[.]"
It was the 486DX that first had a (working) FPU. 486SXs varied from being DXs with defective FPUs to just being DXs with a disabled FPU, eventually to a different die that left out the FPU to save space and cost. Interestingly, the 487 was just a 486DX with a different pinout so it would work as an external FPU. See Wikipedia for more.
While I am one to appreciate good grammer and spelling, I hardly think that people English will become more difficult for native speakers to understand or use. As long as everyone screws it up in a consensual manner, we'll know what others mean.
Thank you. I thought I was being optimistic about the economy recovering and regaining faith in frivolous technology after these 6 long years, but evidently the moderators today don't know what all those mod points starting with the letter I are for.
Slashdot Mirror
Ambiguous terms are reasonably interpreted against the drafter, not necessarily in the way that the non-drafter prefers (although generally he will argue in court that his way is reasonable, and it will normally be an interpretation against the drafter).
Yeah, especially since a comment about getting a lawyer that was posted a minute after mine got modded up to +5. Go figure.
A lawyer should be able to put something together for you for a couple hundred dollars. That's far cheaper than losing your IP rights, and if you really care about them it's a worthy investment in yourself.
If neither one of you knows how to write contracts, hire someone who does. It will be worth the price later on when the shit hits the fan. And it will, don't fool yourself.
What you are failing to do is not learn how to program, or learn a language. What you are failing to do is understand how to think logically and then turn your thoughts into code. Every language is the same - pick one and learn how to write algorithms instead of just lines of code.
I don't know about the truth of that, but I know this - it's a heck of a lot easier to hit the ground going down than to hit a small orbital target going up.
I could get in my pickup and drive 1,000 miles today and not have any trouble. However, if I drove 100,000 miles, the engine would sieze up and the tires would blow out.
Don't listen to cop friends about the law - cops know how to police, not how to answer legal questions. That said, this one got it right. And it's not just due to injuring yourself, but because it is indiscriminate in who it shoots. The law tends to refer to "spring guns" as they were usually set up using a string, a spring, and a gun pointed at a window or a gate. What happened too often were situations where you set it up to catch a burglar, but some kid loses his baseball in your yard and gets his leg blown off.
Somewhere in this thread, someone asked about a "Trespassers Will Be Shot" sign. While such a sign is a nice warning, you still have to do the shooting, yourself. An indiscriminate shooting machine is not acceptable, because not all entries of your property that you didn't personally authorize are truly trespassing - the kid with the baseball is questionable as to necessity to retrieve his property, but it could be grandma, the police, a lost Jesuit, or your wife.
There has to be a human conscience that decides whether or not to pull the trigger. Now, if you added face-recognition software, you could make the argument that it is not indiscriminate in what it shoots at, but I think that the law would be very reluctant to agree with you and you'd mostly be making that argument to Bubba to try to confuse him enough that he loses his erection.
Apparently "troll" is now defined so as to include people who are informative of similarities and curious of differences between two languages. I'll update my lexicon. Thanks.
So, nothing at all, other than that the features are hidden with syntactic sugar.
I asked which of the new features do not already exist in Common Lisp. Your list is not a new thing or an innovation - choosing the correct features is common sense and very subjective to determine, implementing them in a simple and elegant way is common sense and something CL has done for a long time, "decent practical syntax" is what people afraid of parentheses say about Lisp before using it extensively (e.g., me 5 years ago). None of those are new in C#, anyhow.
Re-read the G^nPP and let me know which of those things are not available in Common Lisp. As to your original list, it proves to me that you haven't used CL enough to criticize it fairly. Good IDEs, such as the one included with Allegro Common Lisp, are available.
Not liking the language is fine, being afraid of it is even acceptable and normal. But don't knock it 'til you try it.
What you forget is that the government agency in question is far more qualified to decide who is a capable astronaut than is the general populace. Also, the US is not a democracy. I'm not sure if the UK is, but I doubt it, as well.
Some things are handled best with a public vote. This is not one of them.
Can you explain to me what C# now has that Common Lisp doesn't? This is not a troll or flame, I am curious.
How so? Common Lisp is very well-specified.
Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
These changes to C# bring it closer to Common Lisp, and therefore make it easier to include those ad hoc implementations of it.
Yeah - it was like a damn conspiracy. Every chick I hit on blew me off, mumbling something about Mono. Now I know that it was an evil Microsoft plan, all along.
That's right, folks. It's Microsoft's fault that you're not getting laid. Or at least it's their fault that I'm not.
The 386 was the first chip with a math co-procesor built in IIRC
... The original 80386 was subsequently renamed the 80386DX to avoid confusion. Neither CPU included a math coprocessor[.]"
That's a big "if." From Wikipedia: "Late in the 80386's production run, Intel introduced the 80386SX, which was meant to be a low cost version of the i386.
It was the 486DX that first had a (working) FPU. 486SXs varied from being DXs with defective FPUs to just being DXs with a disabled FPU, eventually to a different die that left out the FPU to save space and cost. Interestingly, the 487 was just a 486DX with a different pinout so it would work as an external FPU. See Wikipedia for more.
Warning: Parent and grandparent comments suffer from cranial-rectal inversion.
What was the point of linking to a 77-page article?
To slashdot the government, man.
While I am one to appreciate good grammer and spelling, I hardly think that people English will become more difficult for native speakers to understand or use. As long as everyone screws it up in a consensual manner, we'll know what others mean.
Q.E.D.
Where did you come up with that formula?
All those different forms and the nearly syntax-free sentence structure are precisely why it is easier to parse Latin than English.
The best way to write a useful grammar checker is to write it for a language with a rational syntax.
Thank you. I thought I was being optimistic about the economy recovering and regaining faith in frivolous technology after these 6 long years, but evidently the moderators today don't know what all those mod points starting with the letter I are for.
Is this a sign that the economy has recovered to the point people are being visible about which toilets they're flushing their cash surplus down?
Don't karma whores usually get modded up past 2? ;-D