If its their manor, I guess they would. If its your manor -- well, you're the baron, and would get to decide.

(I know you meant manner -- but it's funny your way)

Indeed.

I know how to install a Linux server in an AD domain, but proper Linux clients these days?

Confuses me.

Windows doesn't do the "Unixy" stuff, so we maintain a separate sub-net with NIS, NFS and the other Unixy stuff. But I have no idea how to "log in" to the Windows AD domain. Some magic, obviously. And, after that login, SMB file shares should somehow be mapped -- if the pushed AD information can be made available, it could be parsed for the mount details.

This would certainly make my life much easier. Right now, I email documents and files to myself, then log in to a Windows client, launch IE, go to our OWA site and fetch the documents to plant into the file system for my Windows-only coworkers.

I also need the Windows box to change my Windows password (enforced every --- days here). OWA doesn't let me change the password, and neither does Evolution.

Kind of a wooden table approach. There must be a better way.

"the very way you word your sentence could fall under copyright"

Actually, that would be the definition of Copyright.

A couple of points.

- SAMBA is vital for Microsoft. It allows the Microsoft remote file protocol to be used with servers (IBM P series, etc.). Without SAMBA, all file servers would have to be x86, and this would not go over well in datacenters.

- Linux will never "clean" Windows machines. Sorry, just won't happen.

- Games are not really relevant in the area most of us care about. I just say, "Get a console", or "get Windows".

- Can Windows pair with and use PS3 Controller, Wiimote, and 360 Controllers?
(I am very curious about this).

So, I had an application fail. Abrt started, and collected a backtrace. It then submitted a bug report, which matched a resolution. Abrt then told me what to do to get the testing version that cleared the issue.

Yeah, I guess that really sucks.

If Abrt doesn't find the resolution, it creates a new defect report, or adds me to the mailing for an existing defect. I get notification when action is taken.

Yeah, that sucks too.

If I don't want to do the bug analysis locally (because I don't want to gather the module debug information), Abrt supports uploading to the "cloud" to have Fedora servers do the analysis.

Again, major suckage.

That was just Abrt. A minor subsystem in Fedora. Microsoft must have far better tools.

YUM. Repositories. Binary and Source. One click or command away. Supported by Adobe, Google, Oracle, and others. Single point of update. Cryptographically signed. Manual or automatic. Over 20,000 packages in Fedora.

That really sucks.

Again, Microsoft must have implemented something better. I am sure of it.

Revisor. Create your own spin on the OS. Make customized versions just like the official releases. Self-booting and runing CDs.

I could go on -- but why bother? The point is that Fedora is so far ahead of Microsoft Windows that it is actually funny. No, I don't know where Ubuntu is, or SuSe -- those are not Operating Systems I use on a regular basis (Solaris, Redhat, Fedora guy here).

But, just for lulz, add kernel crash analysis. Lightweight containers. POSIX, BSD, SysV compatibility. Complete driver detection on my Acer D257 (no downloaded drivers needed). Which includes camera, multitouch, and wireless b/g/n. Ability to choose user environment (I use XFCE). ZFS. Systemtap.

Wait, I said Fedora was more advanced -- by now, Windows 8 is a laughing stock.

I even run some "closed source" applications - Dropbox, Skype and Adobe Reader.

Now, Windows probably does run Windows applications better (I would have to use Wine). But Windows users have a hell of a time in exactly the defect reporting, package updating, OS crash and inspection, drivers, and system generation areas -- you know, the details that an OS should be good at.

Um...

I call troll.

Or incompetent.

Got it, a combination of the two - subtract off highest powers of ten, but in bcd binary digits to fill in the lower bits of each display digit.

Good solution.

I dunno... I am just a programming hack.

But... given the underpowered nature of microcontrollers (and logic), I would either use a table of powers of ten, subtracting and counting, or a bcd table of powers of two, along with bcd add and adjust.

I would probably go for the bcd approach; guarantees that the job is done in 16 "cycles".

Is that what you were thinking?

In such a negotiation, you never want to give your salary requirement first.

Possible answers are

"This is not the same position as my last job, so I don't think my last salary is really relevent"
"Let us discuss requirements and expectations first before discussing salary"
"I am very interested in the position, and I am sure you will pay in line with the market -- a fair and reasonable amount"
"I am sure you know what this position is worth to your company and that's important for me to know. I am sure that you will pay a fair and reasonable amount"

If you do answer, you may well low-ball YOURSELF. Leaving 10, 20, 30 thousand on the table is a bad idea. The company will simply say "Yes".
If you go too high, you may price yourself out of the job.
The company knows (100%) how much they WILL pay for the position. If they really want YOU in specific, they may think that you can get that salary elsewhere. And feel they have to offer you more.

Remember, it is NOT what you think you are worth to the company. You want the company to open with a figure.

Your gasoline powered engine has a maximum efficiency of 37%. Typical efficiency is 20% or less.

Given that, the energy that is convertible to motion is only 9 MJ/kg for the ICE (internal combustion engine) car.

A BLDC (brushless DC) motor is up to 90% efficient -- and that is also typical.

It is easier to use LO in scripts. It can be run "headless".

Indeed, LO is often used in scripts (as unoconv) to convert document formats.

I can't really speak to your other points, except to note that they are all related to the MS software universe.

Yes, I wouldn't mind cherry-picked features. Try to stay away from pure UI, though -- workflow, editing, formatting, compatibility are in scope, as are philosophy, design and stability.

I would argue that, since table creation allows selection of rows/colums, there is a natural separation between table format and data.

I am not sure what MS Word does in this case, but there is a detail in LO. Table format changes could be made easier.

As to hidden text -- Format/Character.../Font Effects and select "Hidden". Of course this interacts badly with "WYSIWYG". The text disappears.

Neither View/Nonprinting Characters not View/Hidden Paragraphs restores them to view. Arguably View/Nonprinting Characters should, but it seems the definition of "Nonprinting Character" doesn't include characters formatted as Hidden.

But the whole point of Hidden seems strange. It is either a comment (so use that feature), or conditional text. Hidden means you typed it, and never want it.

The Help for LO uses the conditional method -- and, since there is a possibility for viewing the text, View/Hidden Paragraphs now works (as does double-clicking). Since character properties are meant to be consistent with each other (that is italic/bold/underline etc. consistent with hidden), this is arguably correct. What I don't understand is why Hidden is there at all. (I suspect for MS Word compatibility, mostly).

Anyway, Hidden attribute text works like the rest -- Find will find it, for example (although you still don't SEE it).

So -- the misfeature here is that Hidden can be treated as a character attribute (and it can, it's just... weird).

I thought I had covered that.

A particular expression of a grammar may be copyright. It may not -- remember FACTS cannot be copyrighted, only expressions of facts. So, that would be a call...

A description of a computer language is a description of something used to describe things. If realized into a compiler, the compiler can be copyrighted. The description (specification) can be copyrighted. That which it is describing? Either it IS, making it a fact. Describing the syntax of an existing program (that ITSELF is copyrighted, making this more confusing).

In this case, it is permitted for someone else to independently describe that fact. For example, you can describe my example program, written in Gambit-C, mention that it IS written in Gambit-C, mention how SIX looks an awful lot like C, etc. What you may NOT do is copy my example verbatim (actually, I give you permission to do exactly that, but this is for argument). You may describe infix notation, and precedence rules. And so on.

If you have described THAT for a program, do you mean to extend that description of an idea into a copyright violation of the original specification?

In other words, critical commentary would not be possible at any level.

Now, let's reason about the other case. A description of a programming language is written, about a programming language that doesn't exist. Now, programs written in this language, and the language itself are simply ideas. And ideas CANNOT be copyrighted. The expression of an idea (the specification) can be copyrighted, but the idea itself cannot. For example LISP and APL were simply notations (that happened to be implemented after they were developed).

What happens if someone manages to make a programming language out of English? (may have happened - wrt IBM and Dr. Watson). Does algorithm description in English become somehow tainted with Copyright?

Note however, that an idea CAN be patented. This used to require a practical expression of the idea, but, alas, appears to need this no longer.

This has been argued before - attempt to copyright letterforms in fonts.

Which would have made all material expressed in those fonts derived works.

And lost. There is no copyright in letterforms. (digital representation and font names, but not letterforms). The answer to "is there a derived copyright on object code from simply compiling source code" must be NO. If held true, I am sorry to say, that ALL software would be copyrighted by a very small group of people. (like font designers having a derived copyright in all books printed with that font).

On to the question if a computer language (and not the output of a language processor) can be copyrighted:

The syntax of a computer language cannot be copyrighted. The precise layout of a particular program can now be copyrighted. It is possible that a PARTICULAR expression of a grammar can be copyrighted.

And *if* a syntax can be copyrighted? It can be IMPOSSIBLE to determine what
the syntax actually is.

For example:

...elide... (will be important later)
/* sum 1 to 9 and return */
int sum() {
int i;
int t = 0;
for (i = 1; i < 10; ++i) {
t = t + i;
}
return t;
}

Without ...elide... it is not possible to determine exactly WHAT the language is. Guess now...

This is not C, or C++, even though this source is usable in both of those languages.

This is really a LISP example. Gambit-C, SIX syntax. The elided part is

(define-macro(six.return . retval)
`(if ,retval ,@retval));
\

(normally SIX doesn't have "return", and return doesn't "mean" anything here so it's simply, um, removed).

Here is the whole session:
[fred@arial ~]$ gsi
Gambit v4.6.5

> (define-macro (six.return . retval)
`(if ,retval ,@retval));
> \ /* sum 1 to 9 and return */
int sum() {
int i;
int t = 0;
for (i = 1; i < 10; ++i) {
t = t + i;
}
return t;
}
> (sum)
45
> ,q

So can we define what a copyrightable computer language is? We could copyright a processor for the language, because that would be a tangible expression. Or, is it all possible source programs that can be translated (a grammar?) Is that limited to programs which have semantic meaning? Which meaning? (important for scheme/lisp/c++). If a section is elided from another program, can it now fall under someone else's copyright (as a derived work?). Just look at my example:

- a derived work of Gambit-C Scheme...
- but not SIX, because it handles additional semantics that are NOT defined in SIX.
- until 3 lines are removed, and then it becomes a derived work of C++/C (but we can't really tell)

I shudder to think about it.

(and, if I really wanted to, I could add Java-ish modifications to Gambit-C; the actual language implementation is in Scheme, and could, eg, be further modified to add Java classes. Now, as a mostly-sane individual, I won't do that. But it certainly has bearing on this topic).

A particular language processor can be copyrighted. It is, after all a program like any other.

"lose control over the dissemination of their copyrighted programming,"

That's the funny bit. Remember the original signal is being broadcast. How much control was there anyway?

And, what is with this --no renting of antenna and decoder-- idea. Is the --with the internet-- meme going completely insane?