This is clearly either Duden, or Berlitz. Because of the language-learning side, I'm leaning towards Berlitz, but it's not the first one that came to mind.
Duden belongs to the publishing group I meant (Langenscheidt).
LANGENSHEIDT... Now that I see the name, I'm totally reminded, and I'm like "duh".
However, that part about them being heavily concerned about gaming performance gauges concerns me... when people are gaming the measurements, you're not getting a true representation of the criteria that you really care about...
In many companies that IS important. I've worked a few places where it was far more important to appear successful than it is to actually be successful.
Perhaps you didn't get my point, which is totally fair. What I was attempting to say is that it was a bad feature of MANAGERS to guide themselves based on purely objective measures.
If you are making company decisions based solely on metrics, then you are doing things wrong.
Yes, there's a game, and yes, especially in call centers these metric games guide everything you do, but speaking as someone who worked sales at an inbound call center, when we pulled in metrics to enforce performance, the people who gamed the system (dropped non-sales calls as early as possible, and filed non-sales as transfers so they don't count against metrics, etc) got "better" even though they were the worst employees.
That's what I'm talking about... people who game the system reduce the total quality of work, rather than using the metrics as a backdrop. You cannot measure directly how much good work the employee is doing, you're measuring indirect values. But when those indirect values become the goal of work, people will target those indirect values, rather the actual value you want to target.
I've never related tanks directing every aspect of a fight to micromanaging before, but your post really brought out that sort of idea to me.
I've really only played DPS through the random queue, and as such, I knew that I was instantly replaceable. But then I practiced on Anarchy Online, that provided actual loss for a death, (originally especially.) Wipes seriously sucked, you lost experience, and your stats were diminished by some 75% for ten minutes. You learned your role, and you did it well, and if your team started to fail, you made sure that you protected yourself. And heaven help you, if you let your healer die, they likely were going to bail on the team (not like he could heal for ten minutes after the death anyway).
My reference and experience in the random group feature of WoW is mostly from my friend, who has an 80 of every single healing class in the game. She is a healer, and she knows healing. She knows that after a two or three wipes, that her team is not going to do well, and she needs to leave.
This isn't about being a prima dona, although when she gets a tank who starts trying to "micromanaging" her, she starts to expect things are going to suck. Just as you noted.
And I think I was trying to point out the "razor edge" in the random group feature... in some ways, it teaches you to succeed with diverse input. Namely, not only when everyone is super overpowered for the task, but when people are simply sufficient to the task.
But as you pointed out, people who demand overgeared to make everything easy become apparent, and we can I think all agree that these people have learned bad habits.
VP Sales & Marketing of Germany's largest publisher of dictionaries and language-learning materials
This is clearly either Duden, or Berlitz. Because of the language-learning side, I'm leaning towards Berlitz, but it's not the first one that came to mind.
I definitely agree. I learned a lot about social dynamics and the power of leadership through the various guilds and whatnot I have been involved with leading.
And World of Warcraft also now promotes working with essentially random groups of people. Recognize the weakest link, and ducking out before you've wasted too much time in a losing proposition.
However, that part about them being heavily concerned about gaming performance gauges concerns me... when people are gaming the measurements, you're not getting a true representation of the criteria that you really care about...
Perhaps though, this also means that people will be better able to recognize when someone is clearly overrated... Sure, your gearscore may be epic, but you're playing like a noob.
He was 18 at the time, and it was 7 years ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that he didn't keep good care of the contract, especially if it was only for the streetfax stuff.
You mean, "if he thought it were only for the streefax stuff".
The contract very plainly and clearly states that Facebook is involved. Thus, all references to the contract not referring to Facebook, must be at least in the subjunctive.
Further, (IANAL but) the contract looks like it was written by a lawyer. It doesn't look like some form contract that someone pasted into Word and changed the names. Who hires a lawyer to write a contract for a set of transactions totaling $2000?
IANAL either, but I'm a bit more read in the law than some. The contract looks exactly like it was lifted from some other contract not specifically for that purpose, and then edited up some by someone who was not a lawyer. (I've seen a few of these.)
Basically, it looks like a food shoved into a glove.
Note how they are not denying the existence of the agreement or the authenticity of the signatures on that agreement.
They aren't denying that Zuckerberg had a contract to work with Ceglia. What they are denying is that the contract included any mention of facebook. They believe that the actual contract was only for the StreetFax.com work, and not facebook.
I doubt that they would be making such a bold assertion, when the contract explicitly includes two parts, one for the StreetFax.com, and another for a different project, describing enough what Facebook was/is, with the "tentative title: 'The Face Book'"
So, if they're going to argue that, then Zuckerberg should have kept a copy of his contract so that his lawyers could actually see it, and they would be smacking him hard up the back of the head for suggesting that they should make such a claim.
I've read through the contract, it does have a bit of stuff that is odd, and inconsistent. (At first it calls the project "The Face Book", but later "The Page Book". However, technical/typographical errors aren't voidable in a contract so long as it is clear what was intended.
The US has a pretty strong policy of assuming a valid contract. Given that it clearly states that Ceglia gets 50% of all software, and business interests, and Zuckerberg gets $1000 for the project, it's pretty clear that an enforceable contract was constructed.
I think the problem is that because the US has such a right-wing slant in its general population, it's difficult to produce a proper left-wing parody so extreme that someone on the left would actually believe it. (Ok, so you might catch one or two, but seriously, who can really find them?)
So, again, while the "get your filthy government hands off my Medicare" is totally believable and actually held by a real individual, coming up with something totally bat-shit left wing starts becoming totally untenable... for instance: "no, I really do want the muslims to come here and turn the US into a theocracy."... it's just way too many standard deviations away from average, that the number of people actually holding the position is limited.
On the other hand, there are some bat-shit crazy left-wingers on Penn and Teller's Bullshit, in the range of what might be "parody or honesty?" might become a valid question.
Ok, the SUPREME COURT made a ruling that Miranda Rights had to be EXPLICITLY invoked, and thus staying silent itself was not sufficient reason to police to assume that someone is invoking their right to remain silent, and have an attorney present during questioning. (The reason this is a "good thing" in legal standards is note the above prior requirement... the police had to make an assumption that the individual invoked their rights.)
And even then, Obama had nothing to do with that decision, and has no way to do anything about it anyways. (He could sign an Executive Order requiring federal officers to assume the arrested individual has invoked their right to remain silent, and have an attorney present during questioning unless the individual explicitly waives their rights, but that would only apply to federal officers, not your local police.)
It's even easier than that. The Nazis did not solely target Jews in their efforts. Communists were the next biggest scapegoat. And heaven help the communist jews.
No one with any knowledge about the subject is disputing that climates change.
But there are people who dispute the climate change, and while they may not have any knowledge on the subject, they project their beliefs with sufficient confidence to inspire people to believe them. To wit, I take issue with this later in your message:
Slinging around words like "denialist" doesn't help a damn thing either. Have we forgotten Godwin's Law so quickly?
What else am I supposed to call the people who deny the existence of climate change itself. Sure, they're idiots like Glenn Beck, and a lot of other characters on Fox News... but they do exist, they push their belief as fact, and people believe them.
No pain? hell... why isn't its use standard and in preference to needles, then?
Because it draws only so much blood. Some blood tests require more blood to run their tests. I know off hand that clotting tests require the blood to be extracted into a vacuum.
The chart says "The Mexican peso is indicated with the dollar sign", which is actually backwards. The $ sign was first used in the Mexican Silver Peso, which was common currency in America for the first 50 or so years. When we finally got around standardizing on our own currency, we borrowed the peso sign and incorporated it into the dollar.
The '$' sign is widely known as the "dollar sign", and thus the reason why Unicode chose that name. There are a few other character names in unicode that do not match up to their actual historical record.
Looks like you're technically right from reading the OSI criteria (and I blew a couple of mod points to counter the 'troll' mods) but you're standing on a very small patch of ground.
Your theoretical licence would be super-easy to work around with trivial aggregation or trivial modification, as others have pointed out. It appears to be counter to the aims of OSI, but I'd guess that since it's such a feeble loophole it's not worth plugging.
I will agree with anything and everything you have said in this comment.
I will gladly admit that I'm only "technically correct" and that it's a shaky piece of ground. However, it is a tenable position...
As stated, I should have been marked -1, Rules Lawyering rather than Trolling.
There are two licences that OSI approved but FSF lists as non-free: NASA Open Source Agreement and the Reciprocal Public License. Both of these are “send-back-ware” where changes have to be sent back or made available to the upstream developer. Many debian developers agree such payments-in-kind are non-free (OSI’s OSDefinition is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines), but I think an early OSI advisor thought they were a good idea, so those approvals look like an OSI bug to me.
Section 4 has three parts. 1.) Distribution of modified source code may be restricted as long as patches may be distributed with the original source for application in build process. 2.) Distribution of software from modified source must be allowed. 3.) There can be the requirement that modified source must use a different name or version number.
Now, to cover each one.
Part one only qualifies for modified source code, not for unmodified source code, which was the subject of the original objection.
Part two only qualifies for modified source code, not for unmodified source code, which was the subject of the original objection.
Part three only qualifies for modified source code, not for unmodified source code, which was the subject of the original objection.
Slashdot Mirror
This is clearly either Duden, or Berlitz. Because of the language-learning side, I'm leaning towards Berlitz, but it's not the first one that came to mind.
Duden belongs to the publishing group I meant (Langenscheidt).
LANGENSHEIDT... Now that I see the name, I'm totally reminded, and I'm like "duh".
However, that part about them being heavily concerned about gaming performance gauges concerns me... when people are gaming the measurements, you're not getting a true representation of the criteria that you really care about...
In many companies that IS important. I've worked a few places where it was far more important to appear successful than it is to actually be successful.
Perhaps you didn't get my point, which is totally fair. What I was attempting to say is that it was a bad feature of MANAGERS to guide themselves based on purely objective measures.
If you are making company decisions based solely on metrics, then you are doing things wrong.
Yes, there's a game, and yes, especially in call centers these metric games guide everything you do, but speaking as someone who worked sales at an inbound call center, when we pulled in metrics to enforce performance, the people who gamed the system (dropped non-sales calls as early as possible, and filed non-sales as transfers so they don't count against metrics, etc) got "better" even though they were the worst employees.
That's what I'm talking about... people who game the system reduce the total quality of work, rather than using the metrics as a backdrop. You cannot measure directly how much good work the employee is doing, you're measuring indirect values. But when those indirect values become the goal of work, people will target those indirect values, rather the actual value you want to target.
I've never related tanks directing every aspect of a fight to micromanaging before, but your post really brought out that sort of idea to me.
I've really only played DPS through the random queue, and as such, I knew that I was instantly replaceable. But then I practiced on Anarchy Online, that provided actual loss for a death, (originally especially.) Wipes seriously sucked, you lost experience, and your stats were diminished by some 75% for ten minutes. You learned your role, and you did it well, and if your team started to fail, you made sure that you protected yourself. And heaven help you, if you let your healer die, they likely were going to bail on the team (not like he could heal for ten minutes after the death anyway).
My reference and experience in the random group feature of WoW is mostly from my friend, who has an 80 of every single healing class in the game. She is a healer, and she knows healing. She knows that after a two or three wipes, that her team is not going to do well, and she needs to leave.
This isn't about being a prima dona, although when she gets a tank who starts trying to "micromanaging" her, she starts to expect things are going to suck. Just as you noted.
And I think I was trying to point out the "razor edge" in the random group feature... in some ways, it teaches you to succeed with diverse input. Namely, not only when everyone is super overpowered for the task, but when people are simply sufficient to the task.
But as you pointed out, people who demand overgeared to make everything easy become apparent, and we can I think all agree that these people have learned bad habits.
VP Sales & Marketing of Germany's largest publisher of dictionaries and language-learning materials
This is clearly either Duden, or Berlitz. Because of the language-learning side, I'm leaning towards Berlitz, but it's not the first one that came to mind.
I definitely agree. I learned a lot about social dynamics and the power of leadership through the various guilds and whatnot I have been involved with leading.
And World of Warcraft also now promotes working with essentially random groups of people. Recognize the weakest link, and ducking out before you've wasted too much time in a losing proposition.
However, that part about them being heavily concerned about gaming performance gauges concerns me... when people are gaming the measurements, you're not getting a true representation of the criteria that you really care about...
Perhaps though, this also means that people will be better able to recognize when someone is clearly overrated... Sure, your gearscore may be epic, but you're playing like a noob.
He was 18 at the time, and it was 7 years ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that he didn't keep good care of the contract, especially if it was only for the streetfax stuff.
You mean, "if he thought it were only for the streefax stuff".
The contract very plainly and clearly states that Facebook is involved. Thus, all references to the contract not referring to Facebook, must be at least in the subjunctive.
Further, (IANAL but) the contract looks like it was written by a lawyer. It doesn't look like some form contract that someone pasted into Word and changed the names. Who hires a lawyer to write a contract for a set of transactions totaling $2000?
IANAL either, but I'm a bit more read in the law than some. The contract looks exactly like it was lifted from some other contract not specifically for that purpose, and then edited up some by someone who was not a lawyer. (I've seen a few of these.)
Basically, it looks like a food shoved into a glove.
Note how they are not denying the existence of the agreement or the authenticity of the signatures on that agreement.
They aren't denying that Zuckerberg had a contract to work with Ceglia. What they are denying is that the contract included any mention of facebook. They believe that the actual contract was only for the StreetFax.com work, and not facebook.
I doubt that they would be making such a bold assertion, when the contract explicitly includes two parts, one for the StreetFax.com, and another for a different project, describing enough what Facebook was/is, with the "tentative title: 'The Face Book'"
So, if they're going to argue that, then Zuckerberg should have kept a copy of his contract so that his lawyers could actually see it, and they would be smacking him hard up the back of the head for suggesting that they should make such a claim.
I've read through the contract, it does have a bit of stuff that is odd, and inconsistent. (At first it calls the project "The Face Book", but later "The Page Book". However, technical/typographical errors aren't voidable in a contract so long as it is clear what was intended.
The US has a pretty strong policy of assuming a valid contract. Given that it clearly states that Ceglia gets 50% of all software, and business interests, and Zuckerberg gets $1000 for the project, it's pretty clear that an enforceable contract was constructed.
I think the problem is that because the US has such a right-wing slant in its general population, it's difficult to produce a proper left-wing parody so extreme that someone on the left would actually believe it. (Ok, so you might catch one or two, but seriously, who can really find them?)
So, again, while the "get your filthy government hands off my Medicare" is totally believable and actually held by a real individual, coming up with something totally bat-shit left wing starts becoming totally untenable... for instance: "no, I really do want the muslims to come here and turn the US into a theocracy." ... it's just way too many standard deviations away from average, that the number of people actually holding the position is limited.
On the other hand, there are some bat-shit crazy left-wingers on Penn and Teller's Bullshit, in the range of what might be "parody or honesty?" might become a valid question.
NO LONGER HAVE MIRANDA RIGHTS?!
Are you fucking SERIOUS?!
Ok, the SUPREME COURT made a ruling that Miranda Rights had to be EXPLICITLY invoked, and thus staying silent itself was not sufficient reason to police to assume that someone is invoking their right to remain silent, and have an attorney present during questioning. (The reason this is a "good thing" in legal standards is note the above prior requirement... the police had to make an assumption that the individual invoked their rights.)
And even then, Obama had nothing to do with that decision, and has no way to do anything about it anyways. (He could sign an Executive Order requiring federal officers to assume the arrested individual has invoked their right to remain silent, and have an attorney present during questioning unless the individual explicitly waives their rights, but that would only apply to federal officers, not your local police.)
It's even easier than that. The Nazis did not solely target Jews in their efforts. Communists were the next biggest scapegoat. And heaven help the communist jews.
Pff... someone sounds too pedantic... would you like a free nerve staple? That will make you feel all better...
No? Well, ok, I'll give you a free one anyways, as a sample!
No one with any knowledge about the subject is disputing that climates change.
But there are people who dispute the climate change, and while they may not have any knowledge on the subject, they project their beliefs with sufficient confidence to inspire people to believe them. To wit, I take issue with this later in your message:
Slinging around words like "denialist" doesn't help a damn thing either. Have we forgotten Godwin's Law so quickly?
What else am I supposed to call the people who deny the existence of climate change itself. Sure, they're idiots like Glenn Beck, and a lot of other characters on Fox News... but they do exist, they push their belief as fact, and people believe them.
So, what pray tell, should I call them?
No pain? hell... why isn't its use standard and in preference to needles, then?
Because it draws only so much blood. Some blood tests require more blood to run their tests. I know off hand that clotting tests require the blood to be extracted into a vacuum.
BRAIN STAPLES for everyone!
Frankly - I am surprised they were approved as I'm not sure they actually meet the OSD requirements, but that's not my call to make.
As the author of the source material states, he sees them as "bugs" of the OSD.
But then, this whole argument all rests upon "technicality" anyways... :)
Yeah yeah yeah... "hälten"... As noted in my sig, I'm not perfect.
On a side note, YAY! no more "that's an esset not a capital B" bs...
Ah, but does Slashdot still hate German?
Die Straße entlang hält die Wörterbücher fest.
The chart says "The Mexican peso is indicated with the dollar sign", which is actually backwards. The $ sign was first used in the Mexican Silver Peso, which was common currency in America for the first 50 or so years. When we finally got around standardizing on our own currency, we borrowed the peso sign and incorporated it into the dollar.
The '$' sign is widely known as the "dollar sign", and thus the reason why Unicode chose that name. There are a few other character names in unicode that do not match up to their actual historical record.
I remember a quick patch [for the Euro symbol] pushed trough Windows update...
The Euro Sign was unveiled on the 12th of December, 1996.
Meanwhile, Windows Update was released with the launch of Windows 98.
In fact, I remember applying a patch for Windows 3.1 for Euro sign support. Which did not come through Windows update.
Looks like you're technically right from reading the OSI criteria (and I blew a couple of mod points to counter the 'troll' mods) but you're standing on a very small patch of ground.
Your theoretical licence would be super-easy to work around with trivial aggregation or trivial modification, as others have pointed out. It appears to be counter to the aims of OSI, but I'd guess that since it's such a feeble loophole it's not worth plugging.
I will agree with anything and everything you have said in this comment.
I will gladly admit that I'm only "technically correct" and that it's a shaky piece of ground. However, it is a tenable position...
As stated, I should have been marked -1, Rules Lawyering rather than Trolling.
I've covered this before. Section 2 is ambiguous as it does contains neither limited factors, nor expanding factors.
It is rather a procedural requirement.
Section 2 may be fully complied with, even when distribution of the original unmodified source code is restricted exclusively to aggregate works.
Section 1 requires an "aggregate software distribution", so simply adding a README is not sufficient to be in compliance.
There are two licences that OSI approved but FSF lists as non-free: NASA Open Source Agreement and the Reciprocal Public License. Both of these are “send-back-ware” where changes have to be sent back or made available to the upstream developer. Many debian developers agree such payments-in-kind are non-free (OSI’s OSDefinition is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines), but I think an early OSI advisor thought they were a good idea, so those approvals look like an OSI bug to me.
Source
So, differences do exist in practice.
Section 4 has three parts.
1.) Distribution of modified source code may be restricted as long as patches may be distributed with the original source for application in build process.
2.) Distribution of software from modified source must be allowed.
3.) There can be the requirement that modified source must use a different name or version number.
Now, to cover each one.
Part one only qualifies for modified source code, not for unmodified source code, which was the subject of the original objection.
Part two only qualifies for modified source code, not for unmodified source code, which was the subject of the original objection.
Part three only qualifies for modified source code, not for unmodified source code, which was the subject of the original objection.