Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Explicit language might modify what would otherwise be there only by an implicit doctrine.
In general, a licensor can modify their own terms. So, if you are using the GPL on software to which you hold the copyright, and you add some sort of exception, it applies. You can't do it to other people's software.
I am still having a little trouble with "we don't need our spies to spy". Maybe we do.
I am also having trouble believing that the kind of encryption we use on the Internet actually stops the U.S. Government from finding out whatever it wishes although IETF and sysadmins might be kidding themselves that it can. Government can get to the end systems. They can subborn your staff. Etc.
MS language is potentially worse than the default. And there is room for litigation to surprise us.
Yes. The last stuff I wrote that I couldn't compile today was in "Promal" or "Paradox". My C and C++ code from 1980 still builds and runs.
All of my web development is on Ruby on Rails. That environment has had a lot of development and I've had to port to new versions. So old code for RoR would not quite run out of the box, but it's close.
Popular computing languages do not in general have only one Open Source implementation, and do not get abandoned.
This clunky spacebot has no style. Everybody knows that the ultimate vehicle for reentry and soft landing is shaped exactly like a 1959 Corvette.
Just don't bring the green orb with you.
Wait, we can have bread AND butter?!
But I like toast and jam.
Was this a Fareed original, or yet another of his pieces of plagiarism?
Development with a proprietary language is ultimately harmful to your own interests, whether you make proprietary software for a profit or Free software.
The one thing every business needs is control. When you make it possible for another company to block your business, you lose control. Your options become limited. Solving business problems potentially becomes very costly, involving a complete rewrite.
The one thing that should be abundantly clear to everyone by now is that making your business dependent on Microsoft anything is ultimately a losing proposition. They have a long history of deprecating their own products after customers have built products upon them.
All Open Source licenses come with an implicit patent grant, it's an exhaustion doctrine in equitable law.
The problem is not patent holders who contribute to the code, you're protected from them. It's trolls who make no contribution and then sue.
Of course these same trolls sue regarding proprietary code as well.
Pretty sure it means 'return on investment' in this context, but as they don't supply the cost of the investment, the location these salaries are drawn from, the number of years after the degree, etc, etc, etc, it's just another bit of Dice-tastic link bait.
I was clearly in your second group a few years back...
Maybe you just were not sexy enough, hm?
I'm too sexy for my hat, what do you think about that?
The women can work as secretaries, receptionists, etc. until they get a new gig. The men? They won't even think of applying.
That's bollocks, because men will end up working manual labour in the same situation if money is tight. You won't get hired as a secretary or receptionist as a man, because... well let's be honest, most men aren't eyecandy and for secretary and receptionists jobs that is a job requirement. It is, don't deny it.
So, no I wouldn't apply for those positions, but I would apply for a bus driver or truck driver job. Men will chose the harder jobs over jobs that handle humans... which brings us to...
Just look at the ratio of male to female nurses as another example. A job where the extra strength of a man is an advantage, but they avoid it like the plague. Why? Fear. Fear of what other people will think.
I don't think it's fear. I wholly lack the empathy to care for people. I would be more than wrong on that place and I share this *mental* state with most other men. That's exactly what you've been saying: there is a mental difference and the nursing job simply doesn't match what men like to do. If I can avoid people and get machines instead, I will take that option every single time. Even if it's worse paid and more physicals. Humans are disgusting, humans are vile, interaction with them in undesirable.
I think you're too much of a victim to see these things clearly. Men, do not like jobs where you have to handle humans. Only in highly paid positions, they accept that burden. That's why a project manager is paid more than a good programmer, while doing much less for the project.
Or if a man says something to a woman at work and she takes it the wrong way, another lawsuit.
Perhaps that is a cultural problem. I have, in my career, never shunned perverted jokes, sexual innuendos, compliments ("sexy dress today, Jane"), etc. The worst I had was a little talk because on one I made a girl turn totally red and she complained to her superior (Blowjob joke, but damn, if you're kneeling in front of a coworker you're deserving that.). I merely, got a little stern talk about behaving a bit better -not around women- but around uptight PriceWaterHouseCooper consultants.
I have a cute dataminer sitting next to me at work, the rest of us are neckbeard developers and/or sysadmins. Male-jokes get made and she just laughs with us. It is not a problem. Now, it were different, if I'd be touching her inappropriately, but I'm not and I wouldn't want to.
Other example, my sister is a roadie/sound-engineer. That is pretty much a physical job and she is the only female. She handles well and her nickname is "pittbull". A women in these jobs just has to take up the culture, because it's just that: a culture and it's not against women, it's just in good fun. So, yes, she gets teased that she'll be sent in a pink dress to the client to make better sales, but she quips back hard and everything is in good fun.
Sueing? So North-American. Try "forgiving" and "adapting".