Flammable, Inflammable
... what's the big diff?
Though I do agree, "I could care less" means you DO care at least a tiny bit.
Wait a few years
... there used to be a slogan (before your time) - "Don't trust anyone over 30." Today, it's "Don't hire anyone over 30 to write code - we can get someone younger, cheaper, and willing to work the extra hours for free, and they will have even worse spelling and math skills than we do. Hiring one of those old farts will just make us look bad by comparison."
The original poster might as well slit their wrists now if they really believe that they can go back to coding after so many years out of it. The first tthree questions would be
Q1 "Why did you get out of it in the first place?
Q2 "So why do you want to get back in now?"
Q3: "Why should we even look at you when you've got no recent experience?"
BTW - the job market is NOT "strong for programmers" unless your definition of "strong" == "willing to work even longer hours for a lot less than the person we used to have before we burned them out." Especially programmers > 50.
In this particular case, the wording is such that as long as you earn income derived from "the performance of the copyright work" - so it can be royalties, or it can be ad revenue, it can be licensing the right to perform it to a 3rd party, or whatever - as long as you can show that it was "income earned from the performance" of the copyright work" - the software. So the only question is, does someone loading a web application constitute a "performance" of a copyright work?
The easy answer is to look at the opposite - what is NON-performance? If, for example, it fails to load, or it doesn't PERFORM the functions it was supposed to. And it gets better - since access is over the InnerT00bs, it's definitely a public performance (though the law doesn't require that any performance be public to get the tax breaks, just that it be income earned from the performance of a copyright work).
I already have the software running on a server, and the few people I've invited to take a look at it think it has potential. I expect to be able to do a limited demo within the week, and take it from there.
Now on your question - if you purchase a license to perform a musical, and you don't, it's the same scenario as if you purchased a license for your car and just left it in the garage, or a copy of software and never opened the box or installed it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with GOTO, and it doesn't necessarily lead to spaghetti code, just like not using GOTO doesn't guarantee that your code won't be an ungodly mess. It's all up to the programmer.
In cases of languages such as javascript that don't have a goto, you can get most of the same flexibility by implementing a global STACK array, a global THIS, and a separate global FUNCS array, and pushing and popping objects (esp. your local equivalent of THIS) off the STACK and functions off FUNCS, and making the default operand always be the global THIS array. So, while you may not be able to GOTO, you can achieve the same convenience (and make your code a lot more generic in the process).
You forgot two common home uses - inside the fridge, and inside the stove. Neither compact florescent nor LED bulbs can stand those environments.
CF bulbs fail in both, and LEDs fail in the oven.
Call me back when you can get an LED that works in the oven.
Where's the tidal wave and SIX nuclear power plants in Japan about to do the China Syndrome stories? Or is it because Godzilla didn't put in an appearance? I mean, really, this is a tech failure that literally put hundreds of millions of people at risk, forced several countries to change their energy plans to depend more on greenhouse-gas-emitting power, and it's not even half a sentence?
So simply tell the company to p*** up a rope - it's your property, and if they have a beef let THEM make the first move. 99% of the time, that's the end of it.
The other 1%, it depends on what the judge had for breakfast.
I can't tell if you are stupid or a liar. I have to assume a liar, as if you were as stupid as necessary for that analogy to make sense to you, you'd be unable to operate a computer. It's theft because you have lost something. You had $5000 in your account. It's gone now.
And you call ME stupid? I wrote that the bank doesn't keep the physical money in your account - it's just bits in a database. If you REALLY believe that they actually keep your money in some physical account, you have NO clue as to how banks work.
NOTHING physical is stolen when your account is emptied by a thief - it's just some bits that are flipped. So again, given that there is NOTHING physical, how is it any more theft than stealing software is theft? In both ways, neither you nor the bank were deprived of "bits" - but you were both certainly robbed of "something" - and that's why we call it theft in both cases.
and prosecutors have gone as far as to charge people with jury tampering for trying to spread the word
You've been watching too much "Harry's Law." While there was ONE prosecutor who actually tried to do that, no convictions.
He'd be shocking animals to death with the new lightbulbs, suing Westinghouse and Tesla and everyone else, and in general acting like any other a$$hole - because that's what he was, and that's what he did, as well as cheating Tesla out of $$$ - all putting the "Con" in "Con Edison."
"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira