Obviously D, E, B, followed by the calling the cops and reporting that a suspicious hippie was seen in the neighborhood last week and is probably responsible, followed by A. C is for librals.
I dunno, I'm using xfce and my mouse works exactly the same as it did in the 1990s. Wheel and all.
The only difference is that in the 1990s we had to do some extra tricks just so the browser could see the mouse wheel! But then it worked consistently.
Different apps behave differently because you have choices. If you care about the GUI bits you can just use all the apps from the same desktop system, and they'll all act the same. If you want to make a different specific choice for each type of app, there will be small differences. That is expected as part of having more choices. Not everybody responds in a positive psychological way to choice. If choices are stifling you, maybe try an apple computer? You get *nix under the hood, but there is always a crowd to safely follow!
Grandpa, about 10 years ago or so there were some stories about how the software vendor in question negotiated with all the major hardware vendors to standardize this interface.
So the whole, "oh that's between you and your vendor" this is a load of horseshit. No, it is not between you and any different party. All the decisions related to this were taken as a group, and they're all involved and all responsible. And yes, the BIOS might have known failure states that suck rocks. On purpose, because of other cases where the feature helped. If you want to use those features, or avoid them, either way, the details matter.
Courts have already looked at that and didn't blink. It is hypothesizing of a very silly sort, because the answer is obvious and already known.
When you license code to the world in return for conditions in a license, those conditions are the consideration you received. Done. This is not a mystery.
If some business comes to me and asks for me to write some code for them, and I tell them that I'll do it for $100, and they agree, then I received $100 of consideration. If instead I tell them, you don't have to pay me, but you have to license back to me whatever derivative code you create, then that potential to receive code back itself has value. The courts view that like a speculative purchase, where you might make a lot of money or lose money. Even if in the end you lose money, the possibility was itself a valid consideration that a reasonable person might want to negotiate for. Same with open source; even with BSD, you're getting back an agreement that all the programmers or engineers who work with your code will see your name at the top of the source file! You will receive whatever fame and recognition from your peers results from that promotion. You might become famous, and have your pay go way up, because of that copyright notice; it has value! But a minor change in the license terms that still requires your copyright notice to remain intact wouldn't harm you, if that was the only consideration you received. So there is clearly consideration; harm from license changes is the hard thing to show here, not the consideration.
There are additional problems that they would face in bringing a complaint; they would have to show actual harm just to get in the door. When you give away open source software, you're giving up much of your ability to profit based on exclusive control. So you're also giving up most of the harm that could be done to you by the others who also have an ownership stake.
The reason that a copyright holder can sue even when they're not actively benefiting from some work, (maybe it is out of print or something) is that they still could benefit later; their rights have inherent cash value. They might be leaving it out of print now so that if interest is generated later, they can re-issue it to new excitement. So there are lots of copyright cases like that, that created precedent for strong copyright.
But that doesn't mean that anybody with any copyright interest would be harmed by a case of not being able to control the work; in the case of open source where you've already granted a non-revocable free license to the whole world, losing control leaves you where you already were; without the ability to profit financially from the work. Surely you still have some interest that you can exercise by your prerogatives, but suing over it starts to get really hard. If the lawsuit is about somebody violating the license, then you can still sue over that because what those terms give you back (access to changes, or just retention of copyright notice and resulting fame) is the consideration that you got in return for the license. But when the dispute is with other copyright holders, who also have the same (weakened) interest in the code, now you have a hard time showing that you are harmed by their changes. Especially when the copyright is divided between a bunch of people, and the majority of them agree to the changes.
Courts like to reduce everything to its cash equivalent, and then compare those. Following that principle here, it is easy to see what sort of result will be achieved.
It isn't enforceable if you have a significant interest in the software, but if you only have insignificant contributions then it probably is good enough.
The court would have to balance each of those situations individually by its own merits, there isn't a general rule to smack it with. So some of the people who got that email, that is all they really need to get. Others, it is not enforceable because they have a significant interest in the code and would have to give express consent to any license changes.
Courts don't get flustered by the lack of a bright-line rule, in fact they usually insist on individual analysis in context.
This might be based on the fact there's no study with 500 or 1000 persons (even if half is the control group) where people were smoking two or three joints a day (or more, whatever) over two or three decades (whatever).
Ignorance of the results of such studies does not imply that they do not exist. Go ye out on a journey to the interwebs and seek for studies!
Oranges have hardcore chemicals in the peel for microbial chemical warfare, so of course their smoke is very toxic. Using examples like this to establish a claimed universal fact is really lame.
One thing that medicine does know; smoke inhalation is unhealthy.
Another thing that medicine does know: different types of smoke have different effects. They're not all the same.
The stuff about tar is just moronic tobacco addicts trying to justify.
In the 1970s and `80s, they advertised lots of "light" cigarettes that had lower tar. They really did have lower tar. They had slightly higher nicotine in most cases. Cancer didn't go down for people who smoked the "light" cigarettes, it went up. Why? Because nicotine is a carcinogen at any dose, and the tar isn't.
People who abuse nicotine patches have increased skin cancer at the site of the patch. There is no tar in the patch. Why? Because nicotine is a carcinogen.
People who chew nicotine gum get increased gum, tongue, and throat cancer, even though the gum has no tar. Why? Nicotine is a carcinogen.
Notice a pattern?
Heavy pot smokers who do not use nicotine do not appear to have increased rates of cancer. People who use both have increased rates. This isn't really that hard to understand.
If everybody would just cry hard enough, they'd have a new moat. Think of the poor unemployed cartoon princesses if they fail! Why isn't the water rising?
The terms of support agreements have to do with how fast of a response you get, and when you have to pay extra, and when you get refunds because something took too long to fix.
What you don't get is magic, or a satisfaction guarantee on bugfixes or workarounds.
Even if they agree to write a custom version of their OS for you, it doesn't mean you'll be happy. It might be an awful idea that means now you get security patches for zero-day exploits a couple months after everybody else. It might mean you hit EOL before others, or at a different time than you expected. Or at a different time in reality than what it says on paper, because of external influences.
What you're not considering is that the ability to negotiate in that situation is fine, but users of open software get that same ability by default, and they not only "can" negotiate, they get to entirely dictate all the terms. You want a custom version of the whole OS? Yes, you can have it! No, you don't pay any more! Yay! You get everything you want at cost with no pushback, gotchas, or fine print.
If you want me to suspend my comprehension of the English language in order to leave more room for nonsense, I'm not going to do it.
And if you said the word "nazi" in your comment, when we're not even talking about anything relating to WWII, I'd know you're a troll with no interest in communication. So that explains why you're engaging in moralizing even in response to discussion of what words mean. Because you're not attempting communication, so the words don't matter to you. Noted.
...nobody, including yourself, has any idea what you mean when you use the term.
Nonsense, I understood him perfectly. He said "refactor" and he meant "code thrash."
And he's partially right; if you're engaging in code thrash, and think it is called refactoring, then you'll benefit from a language with more hand-holding.
Yeah, but he would only manage a few staples per hour. He surely must have a whole army of oompa-loompas pulling staples in the background, and driving around on Name Brand(TM) personal mobility devices.
That's what the Supreme Court kept saying during the argument, "Why can't you just use contract law against the buyer to do this? Why is this a patent law issue?"
It seems most likely SCOTUS will push that back to where it always was. They have to go after their customer, not the repair shop.
The only thing moving out of hangouts is the carrier SMS. If you use phone company SMS, then that moves out of Hangouts because google never tamed the carriers and their insane requirements.
Everything else is still moving into hangouts. If you're using google voice SMS then it still stays in Hangouts.
If you want Hangouts stuff to move somewhere else, you'll have to give them another year or two to enhance the thrash plan.
They're using arcgis, same as every other government mapping website. During peak hours it is sometimes a little slow, but mostly it works fine. It isn't a different speed than other things, though.
When I was panning the map around, it all loaded very quickly; certainly more quickly than that other mapping company with all the letters.
HR's job is to protect the company from the employee. If that makes HR the friend of the employee depends somewhat on the amount of loyalty the employee has. If the employee and the employer are friends, and even teammates, then HR surely is the employees friend and teammate.
Not that that describes most of the workplaces I've seen, but there is no law of physics preventing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously D, E, B, followed by the calling the cops and reporting that a suspicious hippie was seen in the neighborhood last week and is probably responsible, followed by A. C is for librals.
Just open the file in LibreOffice, save, and open it again in MS Office. ;)
Sure, sure, when both sides are MS, you still have compatibility problems. But when one side is something else, problems should be rare and solvable.
I dunno, I'm using xfce and my mouse works exactly the same as it did in the 1990s. Wheel and all.
The only difference is that in the 1990s we had to do some extra tricks just so the browser could see the mouse wheel! But then it worked consistently.
Different apps behave differently because you have choices. If you care about the GUI bits you can just use all the apps from the same desktop system, and they'll all act the same. If you want to make a different specific choice for each type of app, there will be small differences. That is expected as part of having more choices. Not everybody responds in a positive psychological way to choice. If choices are stifling you, maybe try an apple computer? You get *nix under the hood, but there is always a crowd to safely follow!
Grandpa, about 10 years ago or so there were some stories about how the software vendor in question negotiated with all the major hardware vendors to standardize this interface.
So the whole, "oh that's between you and your vendor" this is a load of horseshit. No, it is not between you and any different party. All the decisions related to this were taken as a group, and they're all involved and all responsible. And yes, the BIOS might have known failure states that suck rocks. On purpose, because of other cases where the feature helped. If you want to use those features, or avoid them, either way, the details matter.
Courts have already looked at that and didn't blink. It is hypothesizing of a very silly sort, because the answer is obvious and already known.
When you license code to the world in return for conditions in a license, those conditions are the consideration you received. Done. This is not a mystery.
If some business comes to me and asks for me to write some code for them, and I tell them that I'll do it for $100, and they agree, then I received $100 of consideration. If instead I tell them, you don't have to pay me, but you have to license back to me whatever derivative code you create, then that potential to receive code back itself has value. The courts view that like a speculative purchase, where you might make a lot of money or lose money. Even if in the end you lose money, the possibility was itself a valid consideration that a reasonable person might want to negotiate for. Same with open source; even with BSD, you're getting back an agreement that all the programmers or engineers who work with your code will see your name at the top of the source file! You will receive whatever fame and recognition from your peers results from that promotion. You might become famous, and have your pay go way up, because of that copyright notice; it has value! But a minor change in the license terms that still requires your copyright notice to remain intact wouldn't harm you, if that was the only consideration you received. So there is clearly consideration; harm from license changes is the hard thing to show here, not the consideration.
There are additional problems that they would face in bringing a complaint; they would have to show actual harm just to get in the door. When you give away open source software, you're giving up much of your ability to profit based on exclusive control. So you're also giving up most of the harm that could be done to you by the others who also have an ownership stake.
The reason that a copyright holder can sue even when they're not actively benefiting from some work, (maybe it is out of print or something) is that they still could benefit later; their rights have inherent cash value. They might be leaving it out of print now so that if interest is generated later, they can re-issue it to new excitement. So there are lots of copyright cases like that, that created precedent for strong copyright.
But that doesn't mean that anybody with any copyright interest would be harmed by a case of not being able to control the work; in the case of open source where you've already granted a non-revocable free license to the whole world, losing control leaves you where you already were; without the ability to profit financially from the work. Surely you still have some interest that you can exercise by your prerogatives, but suing over it starts to get really hard. If the lawsuit is about somebody violating the license, then you can still sue over that because what those terms give you back (access to changes, or just retention of copyright notice and resulting fame) is the consideration that you got in return for the license. But when the dispute is with other copyright holders, who also have the same (weakened) interest in the code, now you have a hard time showing that you are harmed by their changes. Especially when the copyright is divided between a bunch of people, and the majority of them agree to the changes.
Courts like to reduce everything to its cash equivalent, and then compare those. Following that principle here, it is easy to see what sort of result will be achieved.
It isn't enforceable if you have a significant interest in the software, but if you only have insignificant contributions then it probably is good enough.
The court would have to balance each of those situations individually by its own merits, there isn't a general rule to smack it with. So some of the people who got that email, that is all they really need to get. Others, it is not enforceable because they have a significant interest in the code and would have to give express consent to any license changes.
Courts don't get flustered by the lack of a bright-line rule, in fact they usually insist on individual analysis in context.
This might be based on the fact there's no study with 500 or 1000 persons (even if half is the control group) where people were smoking two or three joints a day (or more, whatever) over two or three decades (whatever).
Ignorance of the results of such studies does not imply that they do not exist. Go ye out on a journey to the interwebs and seek for studies!
Oranges have hardcore chemicals in the peel for microbial chemical warfare, so of course their smoke is very toxic. Using examples like this to establish a claimed universal fact is really lame.
One thing that medicine does know; smoke inhalation is unhealthy.
Another thing that medicine does know: different types of smoke have different effects. They're not all the same.
The stuff about tar is just moronic tobacco addicts trying to justify.
In the 1970s and `80s, they advertised lots of "light" cigarettes that had lower tar. They really did have lower tar. They had slightly higher nicotine in most cases. Cancer didn't go down for people who smoked the "light" cigarettes, it went up. Why? Because nicotine is a carcinogen at any dose, and the tar isn't.
People who abuse nicotine patches have increased skin cancer at the site of the patch. There is no tar in the patch. Why? Because nicotine is a carcinogen.
People who chew nicotine gum get increased gum, tongue, and throat cancer, even though the gum has no tar. Why? Nicotine is a carcinogen.
Notice a pattern?
Heavy pot smokers who do not use nicotine do not appear to have increased rates of cancer. People who use both have increased rates. This isn't really that hard to understand.
and what do the studios do? Whine.
If everybody would just cry hard enough, they'd have a new moat. Think of the poor unemployed cartoon princesses if they fail! Why isn't the water rising?
Tools is as tools does
This is probably true, but I'm not really sure.
The reason I'm not sure is that it has been over a decade since I had document compatibility problems. Is one better than the other? How would I know?
I had to work with MS Office in the field last year, and things were in different places but that might have just been the difference in OS.
The terms of support agreements have to do with how fast of a response you get, and when you have to pay extra, and when you get refunds because something took too long to fix.
What you don't get is magic, or a satisfaction guarantee on bugfixes or workarounds.
Even if they agree to write a custom version of their OS for you, it doesn't mean you'll be happy. It might be an awful idea that means now you get security patches for zero-day exploits a couple months after everybody else. It might mean you hit EOL before others, or at a different time than you expected. Or at a different time in reality than what it says on paper, because of external influences.
What you're not considering is that the ability to negotiate in that situation is fine, but users of open software get that same ability by default, and they not only "can" negotiate, they get to entirely dictate all the terms. You want a custom version of the whole OS? Yes, you can have it! No, you don't pay any more! Yay! You get everything you want at cost with no pushback, gotchas, or fine print.
If you want me to suspend my comprehension of the English language in order to leave more room for nonsense, I'm not going to do it.
And if you said the word "nazi" in your comment, when we're not even talking about anything relating to WWII, I'd know you're a troll with no interest in communication. So that explains why you're engaging in moralizing even in response to discussion of what words mean. Because you're not attempting communication, so the words don't matter to you. Noted.
...nobody, including yourself, has any idea what you mean when you use the term.
Nonsense, I understood him perfectly. He said "refactor" and he meant "code thrash."
And he's partially right; if you're engaging in code thrash, and think it is called refactoring, then you'll benefit from a language with more hand-holding.
Physical storage costs money too. Less money.
Yeah, but he would only manage a few staples per hour. He surely must have a whole army of oompa-loompas pulling staples in the background, and driving around on Name Brand(TM) personal mobility devices.
That's what the Supreme Court kept saying during the argument, "Why can't you just use contract law against the buyer to do this? Why is this a patent law issue?"
It seems most likely SCOTUS will push that back to where it always was. They have to go after their customer, not the repair shop.
The only thing moving out of hangouts is the carrier SMS. If you use phone company SMS, then that moves out of Hangouts because google never tamed the carriers and their insane requirements.
Everything else is still moving into hangouts. If you're using google voice SMS then it still stays in Hangouts.
If you want Hangouts stuff to move somewhere else, you'll have to give them another year or two to enhance the thrash plan.
You have to really deep before you find people who can talk about design principles, design by contract, etc.
OMG, I agree so strongly with what you actually said! I probably don't agree with much of what you meant to say, but what you did say I agree with.
They're using arcgis, same as every other government mapping website. During peak hours it is sometimes a little slow, but mostly it works fine. It isn't a different speed than other things, though.
When I was panning the map around, it all loaded very quickly; certainly more quickly than that other mapping company with all the letters.
True, that; once you've landed in a discrimination scandal, there is no way to bail yourself out.
Never discrimination scandal. Never.
HR's job is to protect the company from the employee. If that makes HR the friend of the employee depends somewhat on the amount of loyalty the employee has. If the employee and the employer are friends, and even teammates, then HR surely is the employees friend and teammate.
Not that that describes most of the workplaces I've seen, but there is no law of physics preventing it.
That's only true because barbering is men's work according to those types.