|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
Taobi should be TIOBE.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
The witness changes his name just before the cross
examination, which has to be the height of misdirection.
William lee / Bob lee. Not sure which is right.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Fixed - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 06:18 PM EDT
- Fixed - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Witness name - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 04:50 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
| PJ, your description of the term contract from a programemr's
POV is correct.
We sometimes use the term "design by
contract". And wouldn't you know it,
someone trademarked that
term!
Details:
Design_by_contract
Wikipedia article [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jsoulejr on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: red floyd on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
This is a civil case, not criminal. There is no prosecution, only the plaintiff
and defendant.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 11:58 PM EDT |
"Judge: Do you have a truce to not talk about how much expert
witnesses are paid?"
Interesting that it was asked, and that
Google never followed up. Maybe
Judge Alsup remembers a previous case ("Re
Oracle Corp. Derivative Litigation
(824 A.2d 917 (2003))"), as summarized on Larry
Ellison's wikipedia page:
"Ellison's charitable donations
to Stanford University were an
issue in that case with respect to the
independence of two Stanford professors
who evaluated the merits of the case
for Oracle"
Ouch!
Anyone have a better URL for that case?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 03:38 AM EDT |
This is quite wrong as a characterization of the GPL. The point is "so
lang as the modifications are _handed_ _on_", in source form, and under the
same terms and conditions.
The restrictions of the GPL concern _redistribution_, namely the form that
further _recipients_ of the software are entitled to receive. There is _no_
interaction with the _source_ required, so it is nonsensical to say "are
given back".
The point of a _public_ license is that the special position of the copyright
holder is exhausted in his right to enforce the license (spelled out by
copyright law rather than the license itself), but he does not get any more
access or rights to derived versions of the software than anybody else. In
particular no right to get anything "given back". There are no
strings attached in the backward direction. Only forward.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: erem on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 05:34 AM EDT |
"I don't want to have to take time over soething that's
invalid as a matter of law."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 08:27 AM EDT |
>About the "Dudley" packages
They are talking about the java.util.concurrent package
written by Doug Lea:
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/conc
urrent/intro.html
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
Refers to this:
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Nemesis on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
The relevant fragment quoted below:(... used to indicate part not
quoted.)
... It seems invalid. Boies: I'm not
sure...
Should have been as quoted
below:
...It seems invalid. Boies: I'm not sure
...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
