Personally, I won't use it either way - thus I'm not in that "potential user" category...but you shouldn't make that assumption - it's a really bad one.
We have dedicated courts specifically for Bankruptcy and Immigration. We need a dedicated court for both Patent and Malpractice issues.
We have dedicated courts for Patents, that's a good bit of the problem. Congress created it to take the load off SCOTUS (who use to be the sole arbiter of patents cases); since then NPE's have arisen and it's become a nightmare for everyone.
They don't have to "Sign it away to heirs". Copyrights automatically become property of their estate, Unless they put in a legal structure to explicitly donate that asset, and their heirs will ultimately direct the disposition.
And the Executor of the Estate has to usually be convinced of to do what is being asked, they often have not understanding of the field, etc - so it's usually a very long, hard road; usually code gets rewritten in those cases.
The standard GPL license has a clause allowing the code to be distributed under the current license *or any future version* of the GPL license.
That's not part of the GPL AFAIK, rather it's the language some developers (not all) put into the code files that they are licensing. Personally, I don't do that and any version of the GPL that does auto-include such language is something I'd avoid. Sure, I trust the license that I am using now but I don't necessarily trust a newer version to do something I don't approve of.
It's easy to do your own programming on your own computer. It's only through the trap of sloppiness one would use their employer's equipment. That's one reason it's nice the California law focuses on that: make some minimal effort to partition your life, and in return get some (unfortunately minimal) protection. Likewise, "free time" for someone on salary is meaningless. The problem is entirely "existing or prospective," which this policy doesn't seem to change from the California baseline. It's onerous because:
- you are likely to be interested in similar things to your work, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the job.
- for large companies the category is incredibly broad. For example, at Google it would cover basically anything, so the pattern of discretion that their judgement committee exercises determines how onerous this rule is, not the law, and not the policy.
Well, this may be something that is more unique to GitHub (and similar companies - GitLab, BitBucket, etc) where the companies product is something it's employees would like to use on their own for their own projects. Essentially, if they were an employee of GitHub under most normal policies they wouldn't be able to use GitHub for their personal work or contributing to projects hosted by GitHub as that would be using "company resources". So the change is slight in that it is really just allowing their employees to use their product - which has become a standard in the industry - for the employee's personal works without GitHub being able to claim ownership of random things.
And in all honesty, when I talk to employers about jobs I make sure to have something similar - I have my own projects that I am working on, and while I avoid using company resources for those projects, I still want clarity that it's mine and the company can't take it or I don't sign.
It's a nice snarky response, but not appropriate for lab technologies. Lab prototypes are not exactly like commercial cells; they tend to be heavy and/or require a lot of supporting hardware and/or are sensitive to their operating conditions and/or other issues. The potential of a technology that's been researched in the lab requires analysis; turning it into finished commercial products takes money. You can't just say "send me a working battery" as if things pop straight from lab tech to some sealed product that blows refined commercial products off the market.
Thankfully, at least from reading the paper, the tech being utilized here doesn't sound particularly complicated to build. Hopefully there will be some outside attempts to reproduce it soon. If outside attempts confirm the results, then it can start to come time to think about making it into actual battery products. Although they're going to need to have a firm understanding of exactly what's going on in order to be able to optimize it. If outside attempts can't reproduce it? Then there's a good chance it'll go down the cold fusion route.
To which they could just invite him to the lab. The snarky response is mostly to keep away people that are just tossing out theories with no proof. Musk would probably be glad to stop by and see a working prototype, get the explanation, and then participate in the validation phases. But it keeps away the people asking for research money saying "I can do X if you give me $YYYYYYYYY" - he's not interested in funding that.
Mozilla is largely use to be used by tech-savvy people. I use it because I can mod the living daylights out of it, from about:config, to the way it acts, looks, performs using on-baord tweaks or add-ons. No other browser allows this level of customisation. Mozilla are losing users because they cannot leave well enough alone.
FTFY. With changes Mozilla is making, they are quickly killing their long time user-base. By FF57 they will have probably 50% of their current users.
I've been a long fan of Firefox due to the TabGroups (Panorama) functionality. FF57 will see an end to that as the new API that the add-ons must use can't support it. Add on to that the massive memory/cpu bloating that has gone on lately, and Firefox is being replaced more and more with Chrome.
I've come to the conclusion that there's only about 500 Linux desktop users in the WORLD who have PulseAudio problems. They're all the same people posting on forums about it.
Every other Linux desktop user uses the distro default which is usually PulseAudio, and it works.
KDE-based distros do not. They use GStreamer instead because of the hell that is PulseAudio.
While I quite like PulseAudio, does it even run on anything but ALSA? And would therefore maintaining the old ALSA-only codepath in parallel not be much of an imposition?
Qt and KDE replaced dependency on PulseAudio and GStreamer with Phonon (developed by KDE, and for a while part of Qt) because supporting multiple backends was a PITA and PulseAudio made it even worse.
Anyone in their right mind would not use PulseAudio - another bastard child of Poettering that he developed before systemd.
What benefit do Firefox users get?
Future compatibility for when systemd wraps pulseaudio into itself. You know it's coming.
GIven PulseAudio was also written by Poettering I'm surprised it hasn't been already.
That said, PulseAudio is another bastard that needs to die a horrible death. KDE/Qt riped it out long ago because of the issues in favor of GStreamer.
Don't confuse a TV with "TV" the service.
A TV is just a display device, and IMHO though I don't subscribe to any cable or satellite services, I still find kicking back on my couch a LOT more comfortable than trying to hold up my smartphone in front of my face (much less 12" away - the eye strain from that would be horrible).
Probably 90% of the video I watch these days is Youtube (with the reamining 10% Netflix) but I still do so on a Roku stick on my TV downstairs.
If I can, I watch it on the computer, but I'll put the phone/tablet down some where - on an arm of a chair, on the back of the couch (while standing to fold laundry), propped up on the counter (while washing dishes), etc...I don't hold it 12" from my face, but it's highly portable so I can keep watching as I move around.
I am totally unsurprised by this.
People don't chuck out all their TVs and buy a whole new lot. When they bought nice, cheap full HD LCD screens, the old CRTs still worked, so they kept them - probably in the kids' bedroom. As soon as they could, while still respecting their parents, the kids chucked the old fashioned junk in the skip, and watched what they want on their big screen phones.
Some people, like us were conned into/bought "HD Ready" (720p) junk - which went the way of the CRTs, producing a third TV in the mix.
I don't know any families that had kids and did not follow this pattern, even if the kids are in primary school. The ones without kids gave their CRTs to relatives, who promptly put them in the skip and went back to their Ipads.
In the long run, the 720p kit will be binned too, and most families will have between 1 and 2 HD screens, probably a big one and a smaller one.
Having a TV does not mean using it with the tuner much of the time. We have a "smart" TV (Dumb as shit in reality) and often use it to share what is on our phone or tablet's screen with the assembled friends and relatives - even if it is a TED talk.
(Mapouka on Youtube is worth a search or too) NSFW.
There is a difference between a TV (viewer+tuner) and a monitor (viewer only). With CRTs being dropped, prices have gone up, so fewer people have replaced the CRTs that died. Cord cutting has become a big thing - and that typically means moving to online stuff using computers/phones/tablets and not having a TV (with tuner) or necessarily a big monitor used like a TV with an external tuner (Roku, etc).
Personally, my kids won't have a TV in their rooms period. We don't have cable, don't watch OTA, etc. They do have tablets and those go around the house and are controlled more - they can have them in their rooms at times, but *we* keep them in general. That's becoming a more norm than what you listed.
Precisely. The headline makes it sound like having fewer TVs is a bad thing!
For broadcasters (OTA) and Cable Companies it is. For everyone else, it's not.
Disposable income may well be down but the price of a TV is down by a *LOT* more both in real terms and absolute price.
Cost of a TV is *down*? That's news to me.
We purchased our last TV for mid-range $150 - a 24" CRT back in 2006; it died in 2011ish. A mid-range today is considered 40" and is around $400-500. I would be surprised if the average TV price was below $500 as most sales are listing over 500.
Yeah, the tech has changed but the cost is definitely higher.
Now, if you're comparing a 40" TV in 2006 to a 40" TV today, then yes the cost is down. But that's different from the average cost of TVs sold.
Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada