It may not be "debugging code" but it should only be run in your debug build.
In your release build, it should either do something else (like say, phone home), or do nothing at all.
Why are you following the guy in front of you that close? It seems like if you are that close to him, you might rear end him for another reason, like he brakes for a squirrel. So blame the driver for tailgating, not the red light, or camera.
The real question is: Do red light cameras discourage running reds?
No, the real question is, do red light cameras make intersections safer.
While not running a red light should make an intersection safer, running a red light doesn't necessarily mean the intersection is more dangerous.
Of course, what is interesting, according to the article seems to imply that there haven't been many accidents with the cameras in place. But doesn't say anything about what the intersections were like before the cameras were in place
Why do you need "extraordinary" evidence? Number of wrecks before the installation, and number after (plus percentages) should be enough.
Do you think the Major is giving up 10 million dollars, voluntarily, if there wasn't some hard evidence?
I remember when we called this sort of thing "cowboy coding."
I remember when we called cowboy coding cowboy coding, and "brogramming" just a bunch of idiots trying to write code. Oh wait we still do, because they aren't the same thing.
The law doesn't have to be reversed by congress (and of course it won't be, Mickey would throw a fit if Copyright law was overturned)
What needs to happen, is convince people that we own the software in the phone, even if it is under contract.
Whether you "omitted" the license or not, it was released with a copyright and all rights reserved. There is not interpretation involved. And even worse, when people ASKed you gave them PERMISSION... How is that a protest against the permission culture?
Why not release it under Public Domain? Then there is no permission needed, nor even a reason to ask for it.
Are you trying to say that a change has to be made available the SECOND it is added to the code? I can't even generate a copy of it for the testers to test the code? Copying internally to the company is not distributing the code. The company has to be able to test the code and make changes to it before it is released. That requires copying it among themselves. I would suspect people outside the company, working on FOSS, distribute features changes and bug fixes, without actually releasing the code.
While GitHub COULD close uploads in the future, all past uploads still remain under copyright, which isn't owned by Github. Git COULD also change the TOS to say "we own everything that is uploaded." And if you agree to it, then everything you upload AFTER the change is owned by git. Everything before is still owned by the people who created it.
Well... you know, if it is on github, it has a published date. Whether you've slapped a license on it is irrelevant. You'd be hard pressed to prove that you wrote, and they copied it from you.
And "abandonware" doesn't mean anything in legal circles.
Public domain may not be the default status of a published work, at least in the USA. This means that code is essentially untouchable in its whole form. Without a declaration, the originator owns it, IMHO.
Copyright is the default status, as per the Berne Convention. Which is signed by something like 90% of the countries of the world.
So what is stopping someone from adding this "do whatever the hell you want, stop asking me if you can use it, I don't care." to their license?
Ohhh.. nothing
What is to stop someone from using your code? One word: Copyright.
Unless you've specifically stated the code is in public domain, then it is under copyright. If you've "just committed github" your code is still copyrighted by you.
Unless the code is licensed, a company can't (and shouldn't) use it.
You could say the "need" for a computer on the desktop is and always has been grossly overblown.
If you are going to have a computer on a workspace desktop, chances are pretty good you'll need an email program (sorry but trying to browse to a list of emails on the web just doesn't quite cut it, although it can in a pinch) you'll also need some way to edit documents. Do you need a spreadsheet program? Probably not, but I find it one of the most useful tools I have for a variety of reasons.
Beyond that, you'll probably need some workplace specific tools. And a way to access some reports and form (a browser here might be sufficient)
Sue you could do away with all that, and use a thinclient, and access everything on the mainframe (err cloud, whatever) But why do that when you can have a pretty powerful desktop sitting on your desk.
Saying you don't need msoffice (or any other office suite) is kind of like saying you don't need a typewriter on your desk.
No wonder it is hard to invalidate a patent in East Texas.
At district court, the judge hadn't even let those invalidity arguments go to the jury, stating there wasn't "sufficient testimony" on obviousness, and that it would be "very confusing" to them.
This sounds like the judge saying 'Oh lets not let facts get in the way, that can be very confusing."
I suspect that one of the reasons Newegg stood their ground is that -- unlike most of the other companies mentioned in the article -- they are exclusively an online operation, and therefore had more at stake.
Yeah, Amazon has its line of Brick and Mortar stores...
Newegg stood its ground, because they are badasses
So, if you come up with a cool novel product. Design it, prototype it, then license it to someone else (someone with the money to actually produce it)... you should lose your patent?
How people can honestly believe that cash is faster (especially when, let's be honest, people screw things up with cash).
No belief is required. Cash isn't faster in every circumstance. And CC is easier, and the CC cards are making it easier. But cash is still generally faster. Sure it has to be counted. But it rarely fails, and it doesn't need to make a phone call for acceptance.
Cash isn't always faster, some people count slow. But for a small transaction, I'd take the cash side over CC anytime. Shoot for a large transaction it can be even easier to count out the dough.
It is difficult to say which is faster. I've rarely had issues getting change (sometimes they don't have the bills and need to go to a register.) But I've seen plenty of times where the cards are declined, won't be read, or you have to wait a while to "call home." I pay cash for small purchases, and on more than once occasion was behind someone in line who is paying with a CC. They swiped the card, then rung me up, paid, I left, before the CC was accepted. I've never had a case where I started a cash transaction, and someone stepped in and finished a CC transaction before my cash transaction was complete.
The only real issue with cash, is you have to get the cash.
Right because they can't download the source code from github or codeplex or elsewhere? You know, the place where the source is hosted, BEFORE the binaries are released.
Theres nobody to blame but Swartz. He is the one that pulled the stunt. He is the one that was very sick. Blaming the prosecutors, JSTOR, or MIT for Swartz's death is simply revolting.
Lets say the teenager who lives next door, keeps entering your yard and swimming in your pool. You've done everything to prevent it, and finally give up and call the cops.After calling the cops, you talk to the father of the teenager. The father convinces you he will punish the kid, and it will stop. So you tell the cops, nevermind, you don't want to press charges.
But the DA decides to make an example of this teenager and attempts to sentence him to 20 years from multiple counts of trespassing. The DA continues with this, despite both you and the father saying the matter is taken care of, and there is no further need for punishment.
Is the teenager the only one to blame?
In this particular case the prosecutors deserve some blame for their treatment. Once the victims claim "no harm, no foul' why should the prosecutors keep pushing, and pushing for maximum sentences? How would civilization been better off by them doing this? The prosecutors are at least to blame for wasting tax payer money. And yes, Swartz might not have committed suicide if he didn't pull this stunt. But he probably wouldn't have committed suicide if the prosecutors hand't insisted on throwing the book, as well as every other book, at him.
Slashdot Mirror
It may not be "debugging code" but it should only be run in your debug build.
In your release build, it should either do something else (like say, phone home), or do nothing at all.
Why are you following the guy in front of you that close? It seems like if you are that close to him, you might rear end him for another reason, like he brakes for a squirrel. So blame the driver for tailgating, not the red light, or camera.
The real question is: Do red light cameras discourage running reds?
No, the real question is, do red light cameras make intersections safer.
While not running a red light should make an intersection safer, running a red light doesn't necessarily mean the intersection is more dangerous.
Of course, what is interesting, according to the article seems to imply that there haven't been many accidents with the cameras in place. But doesn't say anything about what the intersections were like before the cameras were in place
Why do you need "extraordinary" evidence? Number of wrecks before the installation, and number after (plus percentages) should be enough.
Do you think the Major is giving up 10 million dollars, voluntarily, if there wasn't some hard evidence?
"brogramming" will kill programming, the same way DUI's will kill Nascar.
I remember when we called this sort of thing "cowboy coding."
I remember when we called cowboy coding cowboy coding, and "brogramming" just a bunch of idiots trying to write code. Oh wait we still do, because they aren't the same thing.
The law doesn't have to be reversed by congress (and of course it won't be, Mickey would throw a fit if Copyright law was overturned)
What needs to happen, is convince people that we own the software in the phone, even if it is under contract.
Whether you "omitted" the license or not, it was released with a copyright and all rights reserved. There is not interpretation involved. And even worse, when people ASKed you gave them PERMISSION... How is that a protest against the permission culture?
Why not release it under Public Domain? Then there is no permission needed, nor even a reason to ask for it.
Are you trying to say that a change has to be made available the SECOND it is added to the code? I can't even generate a copy of it for the testers to test the code? Copying internally to the company is not distributing the code. The company has to be able to test the code and make changes to it before it is released. That requires copying it among themselves. I would suspect people outside the company, working on FOSS, distribute features changes and bug fixes, without actually releasing the code.
While GitHub COULD close uploads in the future, all past uploads still remain under copyright, which isn't owned by Github. Git COULD also change the TOS to say "we own everything that is uploaded." And if you agree to it, then everything you upload AFTER the change is owned by git. Everything before is still owned by the people who created it.
Well... you know, if it is on github, it has a published date. Whether you've slapped a license on it is irrelevant. You'd be hard pressed to prove that you wrote, and they copied it from you.
And "abandonware" doesn't mean anything in legal circles.
Public domain may not be the default status of a published work, at least in the USA. This means that code is essentially untouchable in its whole form. Without a declaration, the originator owns it, IMHO.
Copyright is the default status, as per the Berne Convention. Which is signed by something like 90% of the countries of the world.
So what is stopping someone from adding this "do whatever the hell you want, stop asking me if you can use it, I don't care." to their license? Ohhh.. nothing
What is to stop someone from using your code? One word: Copyright.
Unless you've specifically stated the code is in public domain, then it is under copyright. If you've "just committed github" your code is still copyrighted by you.
Unless the code is licensed, a company can't (and shouldn't) use it.
You could say the "need" for a computer on the desktop is and always has been grossly overblown.
If you are going to have a computer on a workspace desktop, chances are pretty good you'll need an email program (sorry but trying to browse to a list of emails on the web just doesn't quite cut it, although it can in a pinch) you'll also need some way to edit documents. Do you need a spreadsheet program? Probably not, but I find it one of the most useful tools I have for a variety of reasons.
Beyond that, you'll probably need some workplace specific tools. And a way to access some reports and form (a browser here might be sufficient)
Sue you could do away with all that, and use a thinclient, and access everything on the mainframe (err cloud, whatever) But why do that when you can have a pretty powerful desktop sitting on your desk.
Saying you don't need msoffice (or any other office suite) is kind of like saying you don't need a typewriter on your desk.
At district court, the judge hadn't even let those invalidity arguments go to the jury, stating there wasn't "sufficient testimony" on obviousness, and that it would be "very confusing" to them.
This sounds like the judge saying 'Oh lets not let facts get in the way, that can be very confusing."
"We basically took a look at this situation and said, 'This is bullshit,'" said Cheng in an interview with Ars.
Just saying "do it on the Internet" isn't a novel invention, the appeals court ruled
We've been saying that for ages. Great to see it in print.
I suspect that one of the reasons Newegg stood their ground is that -- unlike most of the other companies mentioned in the article -- they are exclusively an online operation, and therefore had more at stake.
Yeah, Amazon has its line of Brick and Mortar stores...
Newegg stood its ground, because they are badasses
So, if you come up with a cool novel product. Design it, prototype it, then license it to someone else (someone with the money to actually produce it)... you should lose your patent?
How people can honestly believe that cash is faster (especially when, let's be honest, people screw things up with cash).
No belief is required. Cash isn't faster in every circumstance. And CC is easier, and the CC cards are making it easier. But cash is still generally faster. Sure it has to be counted. But it rarely fails, and it doesn't need to make a phone call for acceptance.
Cash isn't always faster, some people count slow. But for a small transaction, I'd take the cash side over CC anytime. Shoot for a large transaction it can be even easier to count out the dough.
It is difficult to say which is faster. I've rarely had issues getting change (sometimes they don't have the bills and need to go to a register.) But I've seen plenty of times where the cards are declined, won't be read, or you have to wait a while to "call home." I pay cash for small purchases, and on more than once occasion was behind someone in line who is paying with a CC. They swiped the card, then rung me up, paid, I left, before the CC was accepted. I've never had a case where I started a cash transaction, and someone stepped in and finished a CC transaction before my cash transaction was complete.
The only real issue with cash, is you have to get the cash.
It depends. There are different levels, and the merchant chooses what level they want.
Right because they can't download the source code from github or codeplex or elsewhere? You know, the place where the source is hosted, BEFORE the binaries are released.
Theres nobody to blame but Swartz. He is the one that pulled the stunt. He is the one that was very sick. Blaming the prosecutors, JSTOR, or MIT for Swartz's death is simply revolting.
Lets say the teenager who lives next door, keeps entering your yard and swimming in your pool. You've done everything to prevent it, and finally give up and call the cops.After calling the cops, you talk to the father of the teenager. The father convinces you he will punish the kid, and it will stop. So you tell the cops, nevermind, you don't want to press charges.
But the DA decides to make an example of this teenager and attempts to sentence him to 20 years from multiple counts of trespassing. The DA continues with this, despite both you and the father saying the matter is taken care of, and there is no further need for punishment.
Is the teenager the only one to blame?
In this particular case the prosecutors deserve some blame for their treatment. Once the victims claim "no harm, no foul' why should the prosecutors keep pushing, and pushing for maximum sentences? How would civilization been better off by them doing this? The prosecutors are at least to blame for wasting tax payer money. And yes, Swartz might not have committed suicide if he didn't pull this stunt. But he probably wouldn't have committed suicide if the prosecutors hand't insisted on throwing the book, as well as every other book, at him.