This might depend on which local Comcast is involved (they bought up hundreds of local ISPs, each with their own billing and procedures). With the main Comcast at least they are not supposed to do that. There was even a big push to try to find more solutions that did not involve a truck roll since the cost of sending someone out was very close to the average customer bill so it was viewed as a direction cancelation of any profit they would have made off that customer for the month.
Just the other day I was looking at a kickstarter where the guy took his failed Shark Tank pitch video and reused it.
Apparently even though he was promising the impossible (including something crazy like 3000% back on your contribution) yet KS did not take down the project.
That is what bothers me here, they allow all sorts of projects run that have no prototype or work done on them, but they kick a few randomly for no apparent reason.
That is kinda the problem. There will always be poorly maintained and half-ass managed facilities, it is simply the nature of humans. If a solution can not cope with this class of problem then it is not a good solution, human nature is one of the variables you have to take into account.
I have to agree, actual coal burning trucks would be rather impressive in and of itself and be worthy of bragging about.
But yeah, people who build their identity around something which has as its core appeal that it upsets people, pretty douchy. Esp since many of the most popular videos involve blowing fumes on 'wrong' people like prius drivers or women who dare to not be impressed with catcalls.
That also goes both ways. People tend to laud people they agree with, dismiss those with whom they do not, and then use selection bias to claim that only the other side is doing it.
When they are the opinions of a small subset of delegates, delegates who made up a diverse group with competing priorities and philosophies, no, they can not be used to determine the 'real' meaning of the final document. A better source is reading over some of the debates that the delegates went through both during the original convention and the horse trading that went into the bill of rights. They had a pretty diverse set of ideas regarding what things 'really meant' with all sorts of 'but of course we do not really mean xyz' thoughts. For instance many delegates believed religious freedom should only apply to christians and thus exclude jews, muslims, catholics, and the natives.
Within this discussion we do not need to find examples within the Tea Party. Since the omission was 'ties', all one would have to do is find social connections between tea party members and any number of violent groups like sovereign citizens, white separatists, etc. So by these standards anyone who has done activism within the Tea Party would be ineligible for federal work.
Sadly this standard is never applied to politicians and we have quite a few with significant ties to terrorism.
Taken literally, she did not. She belonged to an activist group that had 'ties' to a violent group. 'ties' tends to be a bit of a weasel word that can be applied in a very subjective manner.
Though I would not be surprised if companies are often willing to consider people who are experts in the field or in another language and know the basics of COBOL too. Still not an opportunity for someone fresh out of school, but I have found that often those '20 years experience' jobs care less about which specific languages you have worked in and more what types of problems you have been working on.
Often languages are chosen because of who they have on hand rather then what is ideal, so if you have a bunch of COBOL programmers from another project you use COBOL, if you have a bunch of Java programmers you use Java. Sense is usually irrelevant.
That is the trouble with trying to talk about 'popular' languages, one has to specify 'within what domain?'. If one does not care what they are working on as long as it is 'programming' then pure numbers are all that matter, but anything more targeted and you have to look at what languages are in demand there.
It could be argued that such things are simply not the responsibility of the init system. I think that is where much of the complaints about systemd come from, the perception that it is taking the roles of other things and folding them into itself. Given how it has been expanding to include more and more services and has increased coupling, they kinda have a point. Many see systemd as solving problems that are philosophical in the first place as opposed to practical.
Within FOSS there are still pragmatic realities and politics involved. The major distributions are not democracies, they have core groups who make the decisions regarding what goes in or stays out. Applications developers who want their stuff to work on major distros have to follow the direction and standards of the distro maintainers otherwise their projects lose ease and compatibility. Thus one's options can rapidly diminish, it is a bit of a cascade effect. While in theory since it is FOSS one can do whatever they want with it, but in practice unless one is going to devote all their time and resources to altering things one is going to have to use what other people are working with.
Which gets to the second part of the problem, those core groups inside the major distributions tend to represent certain subsets of users and historically have not been all that open to listening about the needs of users outside their professional and social circles (a good example would be the friction between the server/desktop/web centric maintainers and embedded developers, which caused a lot of displeasure regarding GPLv3), so who's problem it solves is not nessearily a good metric.
Eh, a certain profit-driven group within the moding community has really been whipping up anti-mojang rhetoric lately. This whole series of events might end up giving other companies pause when they consider how openly to treat their moding base.
I would not be too worried about that. Companies that have already done things like this or people who work on GPL stuff that interacts with commercial entities do not really see an issue here. The company I used to work for dealt with people like this guy now and then claiming we had to open up our entire project because of XYZ violation, they were a nuecance that is easy to deal with.
This case is just a high profile example of a pretty common occurance, and is not as game changing as it initially sounds.
You hit on one of the key words, "cleanroom". No code was contributed to Bukkit by people within Mojang with access to their internal repo. So the decompiled version is GPL while the internal version is not, thus no violation.
Wolvereness is claiming that because Bukkit is GPL, the decompiled Minecraft code in it is also GPL and thus Mojang`s internal version is also GPL. He then claims that if this is not the case then his code was added to Bukkit under false pretenses (contracts are invalid if you are tricked into them) and thus the inclusion of his code in Bukkit is non-concentual and he is enforcing his own copyright.
Mojang is claiming that no original Minecraft code appears in the Bukkit repo thus they are not obligated to supply their source under GPL.
It was also, by comparison, a fairly simple project. Innovation tends to come in bursts, something new and critical comes into scope (steam, transistors, atomic physics) and then society takes time figuring out all the new ways that discovery can be used. Over time though the lower fruit gets plucked and we are left with more and more difficult tasks with more and more incremental rewards. That is kinda the phase we are in right now, research is focusing on increasingly more difficult problems and discoveries are producing increasingly incremental improvements. Stuff that is risky, cheap, and has big payoffs has already been done for the most part.
And that gets to the root of much of this, Uber supporters WANT it to be unfair out of some feeling that the incumbents must be keeping competition out through unfair means (not to say they are not in some areas), thus they are applying the anti-golden rule (do unto others as you suspect they are doing unto you)... or at minimal 'people with new gold should rule'
Keep in mind they would not be facing these injunctions if they were playing by the same rules as the competition. It is kinda like a street vender skipping on sales tax, of course they can offer lower prices if they do not have to pay taxes, but that is pretty unfair to the stores that are collecting it. Thus unfair trade practices.
Slashdot Mirror
This might depend on which local Comcast is involved (they bought up hundreds of local ISPs, each with their own billing and procedures). With the main Comcast at least they are not supposed to do that. There was even a big push to try to find more solutions that did not involve a truck roll since the cost of sending someone out was very close to the average customer bill so it was viewed as a direction cancelation of any profit they would have made off that customer for the month.
Just the other day I was looking at a kickstarter where the guy took his failed Shark Tank pitch video and reused it.
Apparently even though he was promising the impossible (including something crazy like 3000% back on your contribution) yet KS did not take down the project.
That is what bothers me here, they allow all sorts of projects run that have no prototype or work done on them, but they kick a few randomly for no apparent reason.
That is kinda the problem. There will always be poorly maintained and half-ass managed facilities, it is simply the nature of humans. If a solution can not cope with this class of problem then it is not a good solution, human nature is one of the variables you have to take into account.
I have to agree, actual coal burning trucks would be rather impressive in and of itself and be worthy of bragging about.
But yeah, people who build their identity around something which has as its core appeal that it upsets people, pretty douchy. Esp since many of the most popular videos involve blowing fumes on 'wrong' people like prius drivers or women who dare to not be impressed with catcalls.
That also goes both ways. People tend to laud people they agree with, dismiss those with whom they do not, and then use selection bias to claim that only the other side is doing it.
When they are the opinions of a small subset of delegates, delegates who made up a diverse group with competing priorities and philosophies, no, they can not be used to determine the 'real' meaning of the final document. A better source is reading over some of the debates that the delegates went through both during the original convention and the horse trading that went into the bill of rights. They had a pretty diverse set of ideas regarding what things 'really meant' with all sorts of 'but of course we do not really mean xyz' thoughts. For instance many delegates believed religious freedom should only apply to christians and thus exclude jews, muslims, catholics, and the natives.
The Federalist Papers were opinion pieces written by individual delegates, not canon to the constitution itself.
Within this discussion we do not need to find examples within the Tea Party. Since the omission was 'ties', all one would have to do is find social connections between tea party members and any number of violent groups like sovereign citizens, white separatists, etc. So by these standards anyone who has done activism within the Tea Party would be ineligible for federal work.
Sadly this standard is never applied to politicians and we have quite a few with significant ties to terrorism.
Taken literally, she did not. She belonged to an activist group that had 'ties' to a violent group. 'ties' tends to be a bit of a weasel word that can be applied in a very subjective manner.
Though I would not be surprised if companies are often willing to consider people who are experts in the field or in another language and know the basics of COBOL too. Still not an opportunity for someone fresh out of school, but I have found that often those '20 years experience' jobs care less about which specific languages you have worked in and more what types of problems you have been working on.
Often languages are chosen because of who they have on hand rather then what is ideal, so if you have a bunch of COBOL programmers from another project you use COBOL, if you have a bunch of Java programmers you use Java. Sense is usually irrelevant.
That is the trouble with trying to talk about 'popular' languages, one has to specify 'within what domain?'. If one does not care what they are working on as long as it is 'programming' then pure numbers are all that matter, but anything more targeted and you have to look at what languages are in demand there.
In this case the laws turn a profit, so defunding them would not do much.
It could be argued that such things are simply not the responsibility of the init system. I think that is where much of the complaints about systemd come from, the perception that it is taking the roles of other things and folding them into itself. Given how it has been expanding to include more and more services and has increased coupling, they kinda have a point. Many see systemd as solving problems that are philosophical in the first place as opposed to practical.
Within FOSS there are still pragmatic realities and politics involved. The major distributions are not democracies, they have core groups who make the decisions regarding what goes in or stays out. Applications developers who want their stuff to work on major distros have to follow the direction and standards of the distro maintainers otherwise their projects lose ease and compatibility. Thus one's options can rapidly diminish, it is a bit of a cascade effect. While in theory since it is FOSS one can do whatever they want with it, but in practice unless one is going to devote all their time and resources to altering things one is going to have to use what other people are working with.
Which gets to the second part of the problem, those core groups inside the major distributions tend to represent certain subsets of users and historically have not been all that open to listening about the needs of users outside their professional and social circles (a good example would be the friction between the server/desktop/web centric maintainers and embedded developers, which caused a lot of displeasure regarding GPLv3), so who's problem it solves is not nessearily a good metric.
Eh, a certain profit-driven group within the moding community has really been whipping up anti-mojang rhetoric lately. This whole series of events might end up giving other companies pause when they consider how openly to treat their moding base.
I would not be too worried about that. Companies that have already done things like this or people who work on GPL stuff that interacts with commercial entities do not really see an issue here. The company I used to work for dealt with people like this guy now and then claiming we had to open up our entire project because of XYZ violation, they were a nuecance that is easy to deal with.
This case is just a high profile example of a pretty common occurance, and is not as game changing as it initially sounds.
You hit on one of the key words, "cleanroom". No code was contributed to Bukkit by people within Mojang with access to their internal repo. So the decompiled version is GPL while the internal version is not, thus no violation.
Ah, but Mojang has authorized the decompliation and distribution of the decompiled code, thus there is no GPL violation in the first place.
Wolvereness is claiming that because Bukkit is GPL, the decompiled Minecraft code in it is also GPL and thus Mojang`s internal version is also GPL. He then claims that if this is not the case then his code was added to Bukkit under false pretenses (contracts are invalid if you are tricked into them) and thus the inclusion of his code in Bukkit is non-concentual and he is enforcing his own copyright.
Mojang is claiming that no original Minecraft code appears in the Bukkit repo thus they are not obligated to supply their source under GPL.
It was also, by comparison, a fairly simple project. Innovation tends to come in bursts, something new and critical comes into scope (steam, transistors, atomic physics) and then society takes time figuring out all the new ways that discovery can be used. Over time though the lower fruit gets plucked and we are left with more and more difficult tasks with more and more incremental rewards. That is kinda the phase we are in right now, research is focusing on increasingly more difficult problems and discoveries are producing increasingly incremental improvements. Stuff that is risky, cheap, and has big payoffs has already been done for the most part.
Well, there are anti-libel and slander laws which could legitimately be brought to bare on one company speaking negatively about another.
And that gets to the root of much of this, Uber supporters WANT it to be unfair out of some feeling that the incumbents must be keeping competition out through unfair means (not to say they are not in some areas), thus they are applying the anti-golden rule (do unto others as you suspect they are doing unto you)... or at minimal 'people with new gold should rule'
but... but.. America! Hell Yeah!
Keep in mind they would not be facing these injunctions if they were playing by the same rules as the competition. It is kinda like a street vender skipping on sales tax, of course they can offer lower prices if they do not have to pay taxes, but that is pretty unfair to the stores that are collecting it. Thus unfair trade practices.