You're assuming that to have the effect, you have to shift companies up or down in the middle of the analysis.
What if I told you that when you get into the weeds, even if you leave the companies in the same category they start in for the whole analysis, the small companies are still creating more jobs?
There are actually deep reasons for it, and it is a huge difference, not the sort of marginal difference that would be created by the effect you imagine. Small businesses that add up to the same amount of production as a larger business will create many more jobs, and will create more trade in the community per job. There are real and well known reasons for that. It is a really basic part of this topic, actually.
Small companies have lower average pay, when everything else is equal. They also require more workers. Ever hear the term "economies of scale?" Ever hear about a merger leading to "increased efficiency" or "reduced redundancy"? Notice that layoffs are mentioned at the same time. There is a reason for that.;)
Like my dad said a few years back, "inefficiency is another word for jobs." (the context was robots and automation)
A neolithic hunter already has a job. And he can trade for other goods, because there is existing latent demand for what he can supply.
And if there is no demand, because he already sold enough buffalo steaks for everybody to eat, and nobody has freezers, he can go out and get additional supply and it does him no good. His supply can't create any demand; all it can do is satisfy existing demand in a way that benefits him.
People get all crazy thinking that money is some sort of magical force, but it just a medium of exchange that doesn't spoil and has predetermined value. The benefits of a system that encourages capital to move exist, but they're not the benefits you're claiming. The jobs are created by the demand existing, and then being serviced with supply. Encouraging capital movement would only create jobs where otherwise there was an impediment to capital movement. If a natural balance already existed, then injecting capital on the supply side just shifts around who gets the business, it doesn't change how much trade is happening. Whereas injecting capital on the demand side will increase the amount of trade that happens, because people will consume more. But people don't consume MORE because the store they're shopping at has extra money in the bank. That is insanity.
Facebook satisfied latent demand to be able to contact people from past schools who were otherwise out of contact. Like a never-ending school reunion.
It doesn't matter if a person spends the time on a "better" mousetrap where there is no demand for one. That is not the limitation. The problem is, if there is not demand for it, how is it even "better?" You can build it, and even if it is better, if there is no demand then nobody will notice it is "better," or agree. I see lots of products offered that are "better," and then the next year they're no longer for sale. Why? Because there wasn't demand for a "better" what-the-what. The only way to sell the better what-the-what is to convince customers it is also a better thingamajig. But if you do that, you haven't changed the demand for thingamajigs or what-the-whats, you've only shifted the demand from one to the other. No new trade value is created, because no new demand was created.
Even people who agree that live traps are morally superior still usually buy traditional mouse traps, for example.
Even the Government requires customers (citizens) to govern. If nobody follows you, you're not viable.
It goes back to feudal city-states, or lordships, and beyond. True, the Lord has nearly absolute power over his serfs; but also, the serfs came willingly, the Lord became a Lord by attracting people to his protection. Just like a Clan Chief.
Demand almost always precedes supply, because for one thing almost no need is actually new. So even a new product is targeting an existing demand. If you have demand and no supply, it is like a vacuum, there is pressure to create supply. If there is supply and no demand, there is no pressure to create demand.
It is like the chicken and the egg. Until you have knowledge of how the details work (DNA) it seems impossible to tell which comes first. But once you have some understanding of the details, it becomes obvious that the chicken egg was laid by the proto-chicken. The chicken egg came before the chicken, just as the proto-chicken egg came before the proto-chicken.
It is very rare for a business owner to create a job. Almost all the jobs "created" are going to displace others doing the same work. Which is all good. Only in the rare case where the is pent-up demand and a lack of supply, where by creating a new supply nobody else can create, you satisfy demand that would otherwise not be satisfied. Not only is that rare, but it is also short-term; in the future everybody knows how to satisfy that demand, there will be balanced supply and demand, and creating additional supply will not create additional demand just change who supplies it.
When they say it is a "good idea in principle," that means they disagree with you on it, but they don't want to hurt your feelings. Had you understood their intent, it would have succeeded, but you took it literally, tried to get them to actually sign up, and were surprised and hurt when they didn't. And even invented reasons ("chicken") why.
People are usually a lot more afraid of losing pay to union dues than to retaliation for forming one. The idea that people who disagree about unions are just afraid is probably insulting to the people voting no, and isn't going to help persuade them. In software it isn't apparent there is any benefit. A union can go on strike, but they can't prevent layoffs. They can threaten to strike to try to get a better contract, but they can't prevent replacement workers during the strike. Professional workers who already have individual bargaining power aren't automatically going to see the value in paying somebody to organize strikes.
"Consideration" means pay. It sounds like you got bullied by a lawyer. If it is without consideration, that means it isn't an enforceable part of the contract.
Could you have fought it and won? Only if what you're representing here is really what happened. But if so, then it wouldn't be "maybe" it would be "easily."
The company reasoned it as, "he believes whatever we tell him the lawyer said, and will agree to crazy stuff if we say so, so lets have him sign it, and then use it to totally screw him. He can't figure it out himself, and we'll be putting him under resource pressure so there is no way he's going to hire a lawyer when we already told him what the lawyer will say."
Sometimes I have employees that are Special, and I admit I do set different rules for them. I don't think they have any clue what the "normal" rules are, so it is really the only way to make use of Special labor.
They're not writing software, though, that is for sure.
That you want a 71%-er to be some sort of special snowflake says a lot about you, probably more than you intend. You might have actually said that a 31%-er is peculiarly good, it isn't clear, but I'll just assume you meant 71% is peculiarly good.
Whatever skill or ability they have is what they are being paid for as a professional. Manual labor, of course, is not being paid for unless part of the job description.
Even if they're a 99.99999%-er, they're no more peculiarly good that they were hired to be. That is the nature of being a professional.
None of your abilities or talents are "special." They just are whatever they are, and if you get hired as a professional, they'll be what you bring to the job. Even if you fancy yourself an elite member of the top 29%.
Software developers are considered "professionals" even when paid hourly, and so they get stuck in the same rules as a salaried professional, and the actual time the work was done or if they're on the clock doesn't matter.
You can't just apply common sense and logic, you'll come up with a wide variety of plausible-sounding but incorrect answers. The law will have an existing, specific answer. No thinking is required, just knowing what you did or didn't already research, and what the precedent says about it.
Or to use a computer metaphor, in law the APIs are already provided and nobody wants to try out a new wheel. NIH is reserved for the SCOTUS.
A contractor works for a different company, that is the whole point. A contractor is on site not because they're an employee, but because their employer has a business relationship with the client.
Who the legal employer is is very important to these other legal things that touch it.
If he was a hourly laborer, doing the work after hours would be enough, but for professional work that just doesn't help. It would have to be both after hours, and also unrelated to his work. He can write linux device drivers or something, but replicating the stuff at work... they own that too.
as a past employer, I never let any consultant keep the IP rights. but I bet their are suckers
They (and you) probably just don't realize they own it all, so it will never come up.;) Unless you had a separate assignment document, and you actually paid them extra for the copyright, they still have it.
The most common mistake is trying to include the assignment in the main contract. Not valid. The next one, and this gets almost everybody, is that without some consideration (money) given in exchange for the assignment, it isn't a valid contract. If all the money that changes hands is based on the work, then there is consideration for the part that gives you an implicit license, but no consideration for the copyright.
A lot of people just assume that because they handed a lawyer money and signed paperwork, that everything is legal and enforceable. But lawyers are often not as good as that. And, with something like this just having the lawyer keep explaining it all to the client long enough for the client to understand it would triple the cost. In order to be competitive, they don't drag you through the whole process; just the parts they think you'll need. The contractor isn't likely to mess with you over this because for various reasons, so they don't dot the i's or cross the t's.
Everything you do on their premises belongs to them. Period.
And when you're a professional such as a software developer of some sort, they also own what you do off of their premises if it is related to your job. As, for example, if you were creating your own apps for their proprietary framework. This would be true even if you worked on some other part of the framework, but where it is plugins and you write plugins at work, it is an easy analysis.
If you want to own code you write away from work, it has to be completely 100% unrelated to the job. 100%
It isn't vague at all, cerberusti is exactly correct and the AC is a maroon.
"Work for hire" means employee. It doesn't matter what you want it to mean; look up the legal precedents. Contractors are exactly what is _not_ "work for hire," it is business to business contracted work. Basically, the opposite of "work for hire."
There is no ambiguity; you have to have an express assignment of copyright for it to transfer. The contractor owns all their own IP. What the client gets is an implied unrestricted license. That gives them certain rights; you can't stop them from using what you made, because they paid you to make it, but that isn't the same as granting copyright. And a copyright assignment that is buried in the contract is actually not enforceable. You have to have a separate document that is only the copyright transfer. You have to have a signature that is just for the copyright, or else it is not expressly agreed to, it is just an unenforceable extra condition. The copyright assignment can require another document to have been signed in order to take effect, though. So that is how it is done, and that is why there is more than one thing to sign when you have a lawyer do this stuff for you.
The funny part, yeah, consulting contracts often do claim to state the ownership, but that isn't a valid place for it, and the contractor actually still owns that code. It doesn't come up very often, though, because if you try to use that to screw somebody over, you'll be engaging in an unfair business practice and that will preclude you from bringing an otherwise-valid lawsuit regarding the matter.
The easy way to remember it if you don't want to learn the details, the copyright designation is based on who the legal employer is, not who paid for the work. Paying for the work just means you have to be allowed to use the thing that was made for you. If you want to also own the copyright, you're buying that separately the same as if it was made for somebody else.
Just wiki "work for hire" before trying to get pedantic and "stepping in it."
But in the article, as an employee there is no way for him to end up with copyright. Even if it was done at home, since it is clearly related to his work, they own it.
My advice for him, if you're not ready to be a contractor, and you're not ready to start your own company, just write these ideas down in a notebook. You're not in the right situation to be writing speculative for-profit apps that take advantage of your employer's platform, because you're also writing those for your employer. If your company actually wants you to do this, they'll give you the documentation you need, but make sure you're really well trusted by management. If you're just a regular Jr developer, don't even ask. Just write your ideas down so that you can think about them more later, and learn about which still look good later.
Get a signed contract, written by a lawyer. Don't expect anything else to hold up in court.
While partly true, many States have extensive law about how these things work, and without a contract you're automatically using that default system. Depending on your State, those default rules may leave you better positioned than any of the contracts a company's lawyers might agree to. In States with good protections on both sides, it can actually be the most protective situation for the developer!
And if you're in one of these States, don't expect that signed contract to stand up in court; much of it might be superseded by the law. In my State for example, a typical 5 page employment contract probably only has 1 or 2 paragraphs that are enforceable and the rest is gobblygook that is included because the lawyer uses the same contract regardless of State.
Do you think you even said anything? When you say it doesn't "pan out," you mean that my APU systems actually access their memory? Or, you did you just mean, the feature is just an implementation detail and it doesn't include any unicorns farting rainbows into your applications?
Or is it just pure, "not my favorite team" type of fan-commenting?
Is there a specific claim that they make that the chip can't achieve? That is what it would mean if what they did actually "didn't pan out." But that isn't the case, it did pan out; it does do the things they say it does. If you just mean, you haven't personally seen whatever it is people are doing or not doing, well gee, that isn't notable.
What you maroons[] are missing is that there was a study on the flatness of states that was on the nerd news sites recently, and Kansas was not even close to winning. States like Florida are much, much flatter. Kansas is actually rolling hills, even in the part of the State people like to claim as being flat. Just find a topo map.
https://www.google.com/maps/pl... Anywhere you zoom in, rolling hills. Flat areas are just small patches between hills. The hills are mostly the same height, so it looks pretty flat when you look out across the land and are only looking at the tops.
Really? You're going to link to a personal website of a.edu employee to refute the standard dictionary definition of "scientific theory?"
How could you possibly do that? If your link says monkeys can fly, that won't change what the standard definition of a scientific theory is, or where the thing called a "theory" fits into the scientific method?
If you check another of that person's pages: http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb... You see them recite the actual consensus Scientific Method, and then declare it a myth. Nice, but that is not science, that is quackary.
It points out that the Scientific Method is new, post 1800. True enough. And that Newton wasn't a scientist because "science" hadn't been invented yet. True that, he was a Natural Philosopher. Now, I may love Natural Philosophy even more than science, but that can't and won't change the meaning of "Scientific Method" or what "theory" means in the context of modern science. Indeed, we don't need whatever the consensus was in Newton's time for that, we need the modern consensus.
The strange stuff you linked even claims that Einstein's Thoery of Relativity was "discovered in a dream." What a load of hogwash. The theory comes later, even if the initial idea was in fact from a dream. There is a step near the start of the scientific process where you do indeed engage in wild thinking. But that is not the step that involves "theories." It is even pre-hypothesis.
If you can't even read a mainstream definition of what "scientific method" means, if you're so allergic to wikipedia that you can't read it, even where it acts as a dictionary, then no weird niche personal website by a little known professor will make you science-y, or change what the definition of "science" is when you get a "formal education."
The claim is that SysV initscripts get all sorts of functions from the SysV initscripts installation. They don't do just one thing, and they don't do anything on their own without a monolithic install.
The idea that because the most common function file only pulls in a couple methods, that that somehow means it isn't monolithic, and defends a mindless attack on systemd, even though systemd start/stop programs can be standalone static binaries (_or_ scripts).
If you understand bash scripts, just look for yourself. Half of them pull in other scripts too. Just because bash is portable, doesn't mean these scripts are. They have no meaning without the monolithic SysV install. If a person is complaining about systemd startup programs requiring systemd to be installed (not an unreasonable expectation IMO) then they should hate SysV for the exact same reason.
If the haters actually held the values they claim to, then they'd like systemd better on the specific trait being attacked. But since they just hate because they're assholes and were already told that systemd isn't accepted by their clique, they attack it wildly, blindly. And if their repeated propaganda turns out to be wrong... they'll never know, because they didn't actually have those values to start with.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming that to have the effect, you have to shift companies up or down in the middle of the analysis.
What if I told you that when you get into the weeds, even if you leave the companies in the same category they start in for the whole analysis, the small companies are still creating more jobs?
There are actually deep reasons for it, and it is a huge difference, not the sort of marginal difference that would be created by the effect you imagine. Small businesses that add up to the same amount of production as a larger business will create many more jobs, and will create more trade in the community per job. There are real and well known reasons for that. It is a really basic part of this topic, actually.
Small companies have lower average pay, when everything else is equal. They also require more workers. Ever hear the term "economies of scale?" Ever hear about a merger leading to "increased efficiency" or "reduced redundancy"? Notice that layoffs are mentioned at the same time. There is a reason for that. ;)
Like my dad said a few years back, "inefficiency is another word for jobs." (the context was robots and automation)
Jobs predate "money."
A neolithic hunter already has a job. And he can trade for other goods, because there is existing latent demand for what he can supply.
And if there is no demand, because he already sold enough buffalo steaks for everybody to eat, and nobody has freezers, he can go out and get additional supply and it does him no good. His supply can't create any demand; all it can do is satisfy existing demand in a way that benefits him.
People get all crazy thinking that money is some sort of magical force, but it just a medium of exchange that doesn't spoil and has predetermined value. The benefits of a system that encourages capital to move exist, but they're not the benefits you're claiming. The jobs are created by the demand existing, and then being serviced with supply. Encouraging capital movement would only create jobs where otherwise there was an impediment to capital movement. If a natural balance already existed, then injecting capital on the supply side just shifts around who gets the business, it doesn't change how much trade is happening. Whereas injecting capital on the demand side will increase the amount of trade that happens, because people will consume more. But people don't consume MORE because the store they're shopping at has extra money in the bank. That is insanity.
In a speculative activity, those willing to speculate are providing the demand, and whoever they give the money to then creates the supply.
If after the supply is created there is additional demand for that supply, then the speculators might get a return. If not, not.
Supply and demand are not titles that the people have, they are the forces involved in the formulas.
So yourself a favor and read The Wealth of Nations cover-to-cover.
Right, before corporations there was no supply and demand, everybody just meditated when they were hungry and were nourished by falling manna.
Facebook satisfied latent demand to be able to contact people from past schools who were otherwise out of contact. Like a never-ending school reunion.
It doesn't matter if a person spends the time on a "better" mousetrap where there is no demand for one. That is not the limitation. The problem is, if there is not demand for it, how is it even "better?" You can build it, and even if it is better, if there is no demand then nobody will notice it is "better," or agree. I see lots of products offered that are "better," and then the next year they're no longer for sale. Why? Because there wasn't demand for a "better" what-the-what. The only way to sell the better what-the-what is to convince customers it is also a better thingamajig. But if you do that, you haven't changed the demand for thingamajigs or what-the-whats, you've only shifted the demand from one to the other. No new trade value is created, because no new demand was created.
Even people who agree that live traps are morally superior still usually buy traditional mouse traps, for example.
Even the Government requires customers (citizens) to govern. If nobody follows you, you're not viable.
It goes back to feudal city-states, or lordships, and beyond. True, the Lord has nearly absolute power over his serfs; but also, the serfs came willingly, the Lord became a Lord by attracting people to his protection. Just like a Clan Chief.
Demand almost always precedes supply, because for one thing almost no need is actually new. So even a new product is targeting an existing demand. If you have demand and no supply, it is like a vacuum, there is pressure to create supply. If there is supply and no demand, there is no pressure to create demand.
It is like the chicken and the egg. Until you have knowledge of how the details work (DNA) it seems impossible to tell which comes first. But once you have some understanding of the details, it becomes obvious that the chicken egg was laid by the proto-chicken. The chicken egg came before the chicken, just as the proto-chicken egg came before the proto-chicken.
It is very rare for a business owner to create a job. Almost all the jobs "created" are going to displace others doing the same work. Which is all good. Only in the rare case where the is pent-up demand and a lack of supply, where by creating a new supply nobody else can create, you satisfy demand that would otherwise not be satisfied. Not only is that rare, but it is also short-term; in the future everybody knows how to satisfy that demand, there will be balanced supply and demand, and creating additional supply will not create additional demand just change who supplies it.
When they say it is a "good idea in principle," that means they disagree with you on it, but they don't want to hurt your feelings. Had you understood their intent, it would have succeeded, but you took it literally, tried to get them to actually sign up, and were surprised and hurt when they didn't. And even invented reasons ("chicken") why.
People are usually a lot more afraid of losing pay to union dues than to retaliation for forming one. The idea that people who disagree about unions are just afraid is probably insulting to the people voting no, and isn't going to help persuade them. In software it isn't apparent there is any benefit. A union can go on strike, but they can't prevent layoffs. They can threaten to strike to try to get a better contract, but they can't prevent replacement workers during the strike. Professional workers who already have individual bargaining power aren't automatically going to see the value in paying somebody to organize strikes.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=4...
This explains it all, with pictures. Rehabilitation is a thing, but it is mostly a TV thing.
I'm just grateful that they came along and made us Gen-X "slackers" stand out for our solid work ethic.
"Consideration" means pay. It sounds like you got bullied by a lawyer. If it is without consideration, that means it isn't an enforceable part of the contract.
http://dictionary.law.com/Defa...
Could you have fought it and won? Only if what you're representing here is really what happened. But if so, then it wouldn't be "maybe" it would be "easily."
The company reasoned it as, "he believes whatever we tell him the lawyer said, and will agree to crazy stuff if we say so, so lets have him sign it, and then use it to totally screw him. He can't figure it out himself, and we'll be putting him under resource pressure so there is no way he's going to hire a lawyer when we already told him what the lawyer will say."
Sometimes I have employees that are Special, and I admit I do set different rules for them. I don't think they have any clue what the "normal" rules are, so it is really the only way to make use of Special labor.
They're not writing software, though, that is for sure.
That you want a 71%-er to be some sort of special snowflake says a lot about you, probably more than you intend. You might have actually said that a 31%-er is peculiarly good, it isn't clear, but I'll just assume you meant 71% is peculiarly good.
Whatever skill or ability they have is what they are being paid for as a professional. Manual labor, of course, is not being paid for unless part of the job description.
Even if they're a 99.99999%-er, they're no more peculiarly good that they were hired to be. That is the nature of being a professional.
None of your abilities or talents are "special." They just are whatever they are, and if you get hired as a professional, they'll be what you bring to the job. Even if you fancy yourself an elite member of the top 29%.
Software developers are considered "professionals" even when paid hourly, and so they get stuck in the same rules as a salaried professional, and the actual time the work was done or if they're on the clock doesn't matter.
You can't just apply common sense and logic, you'll come up with a wide variety of plausible-sounding but incorrect answers. The law will have an existing, specific answer. No thinking is required, just knowing what you did or didn't already research, and what the precedent says about it.
Or to use a computer metaphor, in law the APIs are already provided and nobody wants to try out a new wheel. NIH is reserved for the SCOTUS.
And that entitles them to every firing of his neurons during that time?
No. Only neurons that spit out ideas related to his work. ;)
A contractor works for a different company, that is the whole point. A contractor is on site not because they're an employee, but because their employer has a business relationship with the client.
Who the legal employer is is very important to these other legal things that touch it.
If he was a hourly laborer, doing the work after hours would be enough, but for professional work that just doesn't help. It would have to be both after hours, and also unrelated to his work. He can write linux device drivers or something, but replicating the stuff at work... they own that too.
as a past employer, I never let any consultant keep
the IP rights. but I bet their are suckers
They (and you) probably just don't realize they own it all, so it will never come up. ;) Unless you had a separate assignment document, and you actually paid them extra for the copyright, they still have it.
The most common mistake is trying to include the assignment in the main contract. Not valid. The next one, and this gets almost everybody, is that without some consideration (money) given in exchange for the assignment, it isn't a valid contract. If all the money that changes hands is based on the work, then there is consideration for the part that gives you an implicit license, but no consideration for the copyright.
A lot of people just assume that because they handed a lawyer money and signed paperwork, that everything is legal and enforceable. But lawyers are often not as good as that. And, with something like this just having the lawyer keep explaining it all to the client long enough for the client to understand it would triple the cost. In order to be competitive, they don't drag you through the whole process; just the parts they think you'll need. The contractor isn't likely to mess with you over this because for various reasons, so they don't dot the i's or cross the t's.
Everything you do on their premises belongs to them. Period.
And when you're a professional such as a software developer of some sort, they also own what you do off of their premises if it is related to your job. As, for example, if you were creating your own apps for their proprietary framework. This would be true even if you worked on some other part of the framework, but where it is plugins and you write plugins at work, it is an easy analysis.
If you want to own code you write away from work, it has to be completely 100% unrelated to the job. 100%
It isn't vague at all, cerberusti is exactly correct and the AC is a maroon.
"Work for hire" means employee. It doesn't matter what you want it to mean; look up the legal precedents. Contractors are exactly what is _not_ "work for hire," it is business to business contracted work. Basically, the opposite of "work for hire."
There is no ambiguity; you have to have an express assignment of copyright for it to transfer. The contractor owns all their own IP. What the client gets is an implied unrestricted license. That gives them certain rights; you can't stop them from using what you made, because they paid you to make it, but that isn't the same as granting copyright. And a copyright assignment that is buried in the contract is actually not enforceable. You have to have a separate document that is only the copyright transfer. You have to have a signature that is just for the copyright, or else it is not expressly agreed to, it is just an unenforceable extra condition. The copyright assignment can require another document to have been signed in order to take effect, though. So that is how it is done, and that is why there is more than one thing to sign when you have a lawyer do this stuff for you.
The funny part, yeah, consulting contracts often do claim to state the ownership, but that isn't a valid place for it, and the contractor actually still owns that code. It doesn't come up very often, though, because if you try to use that to screw somebody over, you'll be engaging in an unfair business practice and that will preclude you from bringing an otherwise-valid lawsuit regarding the matter.
The easy way to remember it if you don't want to learn the details, the copyright designation is based on who the legal employer is, not who paid for the work. Paying for the work just means you have to be allowed to use the thing that was made for you. If you want to also own the copyright, you're buying that separately the same as if it was made for somebody else.
Just wiki "work for hire" before trying to get pedantic and "stepping in it."
But in the article, as an employee there is no way for him to end up with copyright. Even if it was done at home, since it is clearly related to his work, they own it.
My advice for him, if you're not ready to be a contractor, and you're not ready to start your own company, just write these ideas down in a notebook. You're not in the right situation to be writing speculative for-profit apps that take advantage of your employer's platform, because you're also writing those for your employer. If your company actually wants you to do this, they'll give you the documentation you need, but make sure you're really well trusted by management. If you're just a regular Jr developer, don't even ask. Just write your ideas down so that you can think about them more later, and learn about which still look good later.
Get a signed contract, written by a lawyer. Don't expect anything else to hold up in court.
While partly true, many States have extensive law about how these things work, and without a contract you're automatically using that default system. Depending on your State, those default rules may leave you better positioned than any of the contracts a company's lawyers might agree to. In States with good protections on both sides, it can actually be the most protective situation for the developer!
And if you're in one of these States, don't expect that signed contract to stand up in court; much of it might be superseded by the law. In my State for example, a typical 5 page employment contract probably only has 1 or 2 paragraphs that are enforceable and the rest is gobblygook that is included because the lawyer uses the same contract regardless of State.
Do you think you even said anything? When you say it doesn't "pan out," you mean that my APU systems actually access their memory? Or, you did you just mean, the feature is just an implementation detail and it doesn't include any unicorns farting rainbows into your applications?
Or is it just pure, "not my favorite team" type of fan-commenting?
Is there a specific claim that they make that the chip can't achieve? That is what it would mean if what they did actually "didn't pan out." But that isn't the case, it did pan out; it does do the things they say it does. If you just mean, you haven't personally seen whatever it is people are doing or not doing, well gee, that isn't notable.
Just figure out the source of the shadows, right?
What you maroons[] are missing is that there was a study on the flatness of states that was on the nerd news sites recently, and Kansas was not even close to winning. States like Florida are much, much flatter. Kansas is actually rolling hills, even in the part of the State people like to claim as being flat. Just find a topo map.
https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
Anywhere you zoom in, rolling hills. Flat areas are just small patches between hills. The hills are mostly the same height, so it looks pretty flat when you look out across the land and are only looking at the tops.
http://news.nationalgeographic...
Not even in the top 5. My explanation is that perhaps your State has the worst vision?
Really? You're going to link to a personal website of a .edu employee to refute the standard dictionary definition of "scientific theory?"
How could you possibly do that? If your link says monkeys can fly, that won't change what the standard definition of a scientific theory is, or where the thing called a "theory" fits into the scientific method?
If you check another of that person's pages: http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb...
You see them recite the actual consensus Scientific Method, and then declare it a myth. Nice, but that is not science, that is quackary.
It points out that the Scientific Method is new, post 1800. True enough. And that Newton wasn't a scientist because "science" hadn't been invented yet. True that, he was a Natural Philosopher. Now, I may love Natural Philosophy even more than science, but that can't and won't change the meaning of "Scientific Method" or what "theory" means in the context of modern science. Indeed, we don't need whatever the consensus was in Newton's time for that, we need the modern consensus.
The strange stuff you linked even claims that Einstein's Thoery of Relativity was "discovered in a dream." What a load of hogwash. The theory comes later, even if the initial idea was in fact from a dream. There is a step near the start of the scientific process where you do indeed engage in wild thinking. But that is not the step that involves "theories." It is even pre-hypothesis.
If you can't even read a mainstream definition of what "scientific method" means, if you're so allergic to wikipedia that you can't read it, even where it acts as a dictionary, then no weird niche personal website by a little known professor will make you science-y, or change what the definition of "science" is when you get a "formal education."
The claim is that SysV initscripts get all sorts of functions from the SysV initscripts installation. They don't do just one thing, and they don't do anything on their own without a monolithic install.
The idea that because the most common function file only pulls in a couple methods, that that somehow means it isn't monolithic, and defends a mindless attack on systemd, even though systemd start/stop programs can be standalone static binaries (_or_ scripts).
If you understand bash scripts, just look for yourself. Half of them pull in other scripts too. Just because bash is portable, doesn't mean these scripts are. They have no meaning without the monolithic SysV install. If a person is complaining about systemd startup programs requiring systemd to be installed (not an unreasonable expectation IMO) then they should hate SysV for the exact same reason.
If the haters actually held the values they claim to, then they'd like systemd better on the specific trait being attacked. But since they just hate because they're assholes and were already told that systemd isn't accepted by their clique, they attack it wildly, blindly. And if their repeated propaganda turns out to be wrong... they'll never know, because they didn't actually have those values to start with.