Re: Fool
"I was pointing that out because it's not immediately obvious."
IOW it's something you're reading into the post so you can disagree with it.
42649 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Corporations should never be allowed to use someone's work without payment."
Could you quote any of the open source licences which say this? Because unless the licence makes that stipulation they are allowed to do so. They're allowed by the developers who release the code that way. It might personally offend you your opinion only counts if you're one of the developers and somehow I don't think they care about taking advice from you.
Do you even know why the GPL came about? It was because RMS got pissed off with his work being taken closed by a corporation for no payment. He devised the GPL so that no corporation could do that again - not the "without payment" bit, but the taking it closed. That's what matters in the open source world.
How many times do we have to say this? By far the greatest part of the Linux kernel comes from the contributions of these companies. Intel, Red Hat/IBM, Google etc.
The practicalities are not tricky. For Intel, for instance, they're helping to create a market for cores. For others they're able to help create something better then they could if they worked independently. It's collaborative development that benefits everyone. They can see the benefits even if you can't. If it didn't work like that it wouldn't exist.
"projects that are exterior to Google"
Given that they're contributors to Linux this doesn't really make sense. It's like saying Linux is exterior to Intel, Red Hat and all the others. There seems to be a mind-set that doesn't grasp that the Linux kernel is to a large extent a shared project between a number of large corporations who compete at one level and yet gain by collaborative development.
It may help that the gatekeepers such a Linus and Greg K-H aren't employees of any of them and can thus be even-handed about what goes in.
"Detailed diagnosis of tech industry delusion falls short of prescribing a cure"
Not necessarily to be held against it. Zeroth law of problem solving: in order to solve a problem you've got to know there is one. 1st law of problem solving: In order to solve a problem you've got to know what it is.
It still makes no sense. The shareholders are the company - it's a company of shareholders. Unless there are different classes of shares the value they say was being directed to the shares of large shareholders was also directed to the shares of smaller shareholders. The crash in share values that affected them also affected the large shareholders.
A successful suit involves shareholders' funds being paid to shareholders to compensate them for loss of value plus lawyer's costs. Without the expenses it's shareholders shifting the remaining money from one pocket to another. With the costs..... Can anyone spot who actually makes money out of this?
That's one that's always struck me as trying to duck the issue, pretending to ignore what it doesn't want to say but not really doing so.
In fact Dionysius seems to have been somewhat arbitrary in his designation. It's also a pity he was using Roman numerals, one reason why he couldn't incorporate a year zero which is apt to introduce either off-by one errors or make the results look odd when expressing C14 dates in both years BP [before Present] and BC. C14 dating, BTW, takes 1950 as its reference year.
For a start the one in Firefox wouldn't be much use when I'm using Palemoon (which is, BTW, set up to forget all its history when closed) and the one in Palemoon wouldn't be much use when I'm using Seamonkey and none of them on this laptop would be much use when I'm using one of the others. The separate keepassxc database can be synced as and when needed between systems.
My experience was somewhat the converse of that. Also in a telecoms company in Leeds. There was another building with some consultants working on something or other that, AFAIK, never happened but they were using Notes. According to those in our building who had dealings with them the emails coming from the Notes users were regularly infected.
This is all very well providing it doesn't conflict with a task that is more important and/or urgent, especially if the latter is something properly in your remit and the former isn't. The underlying problem usually arises from someone unable to distinguish from the importance of your proper work and their own self-importance.
It probably helps with having a professional reputation established before a change of marital status. My daughter's publications were in her married name which she kept on divorce whereas my cousin's daughter has reverted to her maiden name.
At least my daughter hasn't, at least as yet, remarried. Years ago one archaeologist, having become established in her married name (to another archaeologist) kept using it on remarriage. A journalist for the Irish Times who didn't see eye-to-eye with her on some matters referred to her in print on at least one occasion as "Mrs $CurrentMarriedName writing as $FormerMarriedName".
Compare this with the NHS system for recording a negative lateral flow test which doesn't actually require that the test was negative nor, indeed, taken. All that's required is the serial number of a test strip.
As regards personal ID I read in another place that the much vaunted Estonian electronic ID system has been reamed out to the extend of about quarter of a million ID photos.