Let me guess, your solution to reducing health care costs is to get rid of doctors, right? Do you have zero knowledge of history, or are you just stoned?
In the past few years, patent trolls have figured out the right loopholes and strategies to be able to work an abusive "business model".
A couple of fairly minor tweaks would fix that. Then at we'd be back to enjoying the benefits of the system that worked rather well for hundreds of years.

As the FTC noted, patent trolls have become a serious problem IN RECENT YEARS. The patent system worked rather well for a few hundred years. Just recently there have been problems big enough, often enough, to offset the benefits.

What that tells me is that some things need to be fixed.
Throwing out a system that worked so well for so long would be dumb. That would be like trying to reduce the cost of medical care by getting rid of doctors.

We don't know that drivers won't compile for FreeBSD or Mac when we can only see the binary.
We also don't know if they are based on the GPL driver, or if they are based on the Windows driver.
I suspect that in most cases, the proprietary drivers as based on the existing Windows drivers. In that case, they would probably be unaffected by the GPL in terms of derivation . Drivers are alittle special, though, in that they are loaded into the kernel, becoming part of the GPL kernel. That should of course be weighed with any other factors known.

Precisely because the status (and safety) can't be determined without seeing or knowing something about the source, some companies release a thin GPL wrapper that is the only part loaded into the kernel. It then calls a userspace binary that does the proprietary stuff.

"perhaps some some expanding"
Is that what you call "more than doubled"?

Bush sucked. He outspent. Obama more than doubled the deficit.
Bush supported questionable intelligence gathering. Obama more than doubled it, actually recording more cometh medications between US citizens than foreign communications.

By any objective measure, Bush sucked, then Obama sucked twice as much.

The HUGE difference there is that Apache doesn't have code copy-pasted from the kernel.
Themes generally have a lot of code, in some cases most of their code , copied directly from the default theme. That means the theme, the entire theme, is under the GPL.

In a more borderline case, say a small extension that doesn't use any code copied directly from the original project, there is a simple test for "derivative work". You said "Linux build" of Apache. The same source will build and run on FreeBSD or Mac OSX. That strongly suggests it's an independent work from the Linux kernel. On the other hand, a WordPress plugin can only run as part of WordPress. You can't consume compile a WordPress plugin for VBulletin instead. Therefore it's not separate and indrpendent from WordPress.

So long and thanks for all the fish, Altavista.
I first learned search engine optimization by studying Alatavista, then moved on to Hotbot (Inktomi).
That was the beginning of a great business, and my first good paying job.

Absolutely. I used to do security for adult sites and even I had informants in the "haxor" community, and a few message board nicks on cracker forums. Funny, after being on some of those boards for fifteen years I was pretty well trusted. If the true professionals at the FBI, CIA, and NSA didn't have informants they'd. Z be completely incompetent .

> Please, if you can't use SSL+TCP for text chat and keep it real time

They could have, but QUIC is "better" for their use cases. In many ways, it's like an improved version of TCP. It runs on top of UDP simply
because routers, firewalls, etc. often only speak TCP and UDP. From the FAQ:

> it is unlikely to see significant adoption of client-side TCP changes in less than 5-15 years. QUIC allows us to test and experiment with new ideas,
> and to get results sooner. We are hopeful that QUIC features will migrate into TCP and TLS if they prove effective.

> You can outright lose data. Your packets can arrive out of order. It's okay with video data where a hiccup only makes a few missing pixels,
> but with text, that's a terrible idea.

Unless of course the protocol you're running over UDP handles that stuff, just like TCP handles that stuff.
Normally, it's a bad idea to use UDP to run a protocol that has in-order packets, guaranteed delivery, etc. because TCP already gives you that.
Why re-invent TCP? Unless you're going to spend a few million dollars on R&D to make your UDP-based protocol actually be better than TCP,
you should just use TCP.

That "unless you're going to spend a few million dollars on R&D" is the key here. Google DID make the investment, so the protocol actually does
work better for the particular use than TCP does.

Slippery slope is a fallacy only when there is no evidence that the slope exists.

It's well produce proven that government will in fact stretch any powers they are given to the limit. As example, the US federal government was given the power to regulate commerce between the states. Based on that power, they made it illegal to grow vegetables in your home garden, for you to eat. There's nothing interstate about that, and no commerce, but nevertheless govt did that under the interstate commerce clause.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

My friend built a better programmed social network before anyone had heard of Facebook. It had more features, done better. That friend got around 5-20 people to sign up. Guess who won, my friend, or Zuckerberg? A social network is an extreme example of what's generally true - good technicians are one of the least important things for building a huge business. Zuck is a great business person and leader. (I don't personally use Facebook, FYI).

Has McDonald's sold a hundred billion burgers because Ray Kroc was an amazing cook? He was an amazing entrepreneur. McDonald's isn't even in the food business. It's in the _real_estate_ business. They make most of their money leasing buildings to their franchisees. Similarly, Facebook isn't in the programming business.

The point of the resume is to show how you are qualified for the job you are applying for. If you apply for several similar jobs, you might submit similar versions of the resume, of course.
Therefore, how you should present X on your resume depends entirely on what job you're seeking. Since you gave no clue what job you're trying to qualify yourself for, there's no way to answer.

For example, if you were applying for a job where they are looking for someone who is obsessive about getting every detail exactly precise 100% of the time, such as "nuclear powerplant _____", your resume would indicate that you operated a $30 million plane precisely, delivering your payload with pinpoint precision, where the consequences of error were literally life and death. You'd point to similar aspects of your engineering work - blah blah 6 nanometers blah.

If you're going for a position where the big deal is leadership and chain of command, tat would be a completely different presentation of your experience.

Compare .NET code to the compiled machine code.
Which is easier to understand and work on? The .net runtime is nothing but a set of functions in a separate file. using simple functions means main()can be an outline of the program, for example .

By any measure, Linus Torvalds is an incredibly successful programmer. His guideline is 6-8 lines per function or so.

Consider these two example programs:
Stand
Turn left
Walk four steps
Turn right
Walk two steps
Turn right ... 1000 more lines

Vs:
heatlunch()
readslashdot()

Even if the function heatlunch() is used nowhere else, using it makes the program far more understandable than inlining the walking code to get to the microwave.

That's what the nanny state is for, to coddle those who'd rather eat Cheetos and watch honey boo boo than do something productive.

> a distributor can distribute something that is "the work" alongside (and potentially intermingled with) something that isn't "the work" without causing the two to become mixed

I'm not sure how you can have it "intermingled with" but not "mixed", but les pretend that sentence somehow makes sense.
You pointed to the aggregation clause. You looked at the second half of the sentence, how about the first half of the sentence you point to:

        A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
        and which are not combined with it ..

So that applies to "separate and independent works" which are NOT extensions of the original work.
So would that apply to the stuff on http://extensions.joomla.org/ ? Interesting URL, isn't that? Your argument can make sense only if you claim that Joomla extensions aren't extensions of Joomla.

"Mere aggregation" is when two SEPARATE works such as Apache and Firefox are burned to the same disk.

I imagine they'll do the same thing as all the scribes, elevator operators, and weavers who have been replaced by machines.
Some of them will be like my buddy and get paid better money to maintain and operate the new machines, he is an engineer taking care of weaving machines.
The rest will become datacenter techs, web designers, whatever new jobs are required.

As I typed this post my phone auto corrected "elevator operator" to "website operator".
My phone knows elevator operators are replaced by website operators. It is seemingly smarter than the person I'm replying to.