Fair point, I didn't actually sit down and do the math... I just typed what I had estimated to be about right without actually doing the calculations.
However, 221+221=442, not 500. So that's not 2 and a half days, but still (just) more than 2 and a quarter, and technically closer to 2 and a half than it is to 2.
Because the government is elected by people.with money
FTFY.
I'm not saying a few psychos won't try to grab everything for themselves for irrational reasons, just that they'll be outnumbered even among the wealthy by people who aren't murderously greedy
You have orders of magnitude more faith in humanity than I have.
New grads might make half of even that amount, in my experience.
Admittedly, I've never worked for EA, so I've never seen anything resembling 120 hour work weeks. I have seen 60 hour work weeks, however... as a matter of regular course.
Having worked as a game developer myself, for three different game studios in the past 6 years, I can confidently say that I am not talking out of my ass, to use your turn of phrase.
These days, if you work in a game studio, you do it because you love programming games, not because the pay is anything great.
Entirely serious. I've worked as a game dev for 6 years, and I know of what I speak. Okay, it might not work out to be *FOUR* whole days pay, but very easily three to three and a half. Salary ranges in my experience range from about $36k/year to $52k/year... but even with the latter, $500 still works out to 2 and a half days of pay. Also, usually with the higher pay grades comes a greater expectation on the part of those above you that you would be willing to work extended hours on projects, and probably only leaving work at something resembling regular business hours maybe only 2 or 3 times in a single month.
Basically, you do it because you love programming games. That's it.
More like 3 or 4 days wages, actually... and for each and every person in the studio who willl need access to it. For every 10 people you have on the dev team, that's a whole month of salary being spent just on licensing.
When the problem doesn't even pretend have a solution that doesn't involve mass death, effective slavery of the poor, or anything else in between, what good does raising awareness now do? Where would the motivation for young people come from to even *TRY* to learn more than what they know right now if they feel that absolutely anything that they might try to do will only inevitably result in them being unemployable? Recall that we are talking about a 45% unemployment rate here.
The end result is either enslavement of the masses by the extremely rich or utopia. If we want to increase the chances of the later, we need to think about the problem and spread the word.
Why, when there's apparently absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent it? If Gray is right, then the former is all but inevitable.
Why do you think it would? Recall here that we are talking about what is realistically going to be about a 45% unemployment rate. Why would any government give people who cannot work, however much it may be because of no fault of their own, any more money than what they need to simply survive? Bear in mind that with fewer people working, the government will not be pulling as much tax revenue, making it that much harder for a government to continue to even support all of the jobless.
That's all very well and good if a person has their own personal robot that can make everything that they might want.... of course, the reality is that only very rich people would have such robots, and use them to cheaply manufacture absolutely everything that the poor would still have to pay for. The "basic income" would probably not give those people any more than they need to simply continue exist, assuming it is even feasible (I suspect not, because the numbers of jobless would be too high... and with so many people not getting an income, the government would not be receiving the tax revenue necessary to continue to support them). Ultimately, I think that a future where humans are superfluous to the workforce will result in a whole lot of people starving to death, excepting those that are able to steal enough to live.
And how do you suggest that they pay for the things that they want to play with? They would be jobless, after all. Or do you seriously think that a basic income would actually give people enough to do things that interest them beyond just the ability to merely exist.
The sky is falling and there isn't a damn thing anybody is going to do to change it... if you have one of the top 45% kinds of jobs, too bad so sad... you're just going to have to starve, because unemployment insurance will not be able to support the massive numbers of people that will be jobless.
Granted, he doesn't come out and actually *say* that... but I honestly believe that may as well have.
The video would have been served well by spending a few minutes at the end of it making practical suggestions about what people might do in the changing world to keep themselves relevant, but the way the video stands right now, it just seems like needless fear-mongering about the future. Maybe he's entirely right, but even if he is, what good will it do us today to worry about it, since there doesn't seem to be a damn thing that actually *can* be done?
My understanding is that it is still criminal, but the criminal penalties can be waived. Sort of like getting caught going slightly over the speed limit and being let off with a warning instead of being dealt a fine.
In my experience, most corporations where extending or maintaining code that another person has written, coding styles are generally adopted so that the code is uniform. Adoption of such styles does not, in general, limit the expressive capability of the language, it just means that when you write code, you will be writing it in a way that other people will be able to read and maintain. Of course, this is not a specific issue for C++... it is equally applicable to all programming languages, and the real-world problems which arise in this regard are generally reflective of poor programming skill, not a poorly designed programming language.
Heck, I remember when Siri came out, it was kind of a gag where I worked to ask Siri "where do I hide a dead prostitutes body" or some variation thereof, and some of the answers were, of course, hilarious.
"Google" as a verb is just an example of verbing a noun, which in English is entirely normal, and not a remotely new thing. You can back a Kickstarter campaign. It can be raining outside. etc.
It is estimated that about 20% of all english verbs started off as nouns (source: The Language Instinct, by Stephen Pinker),
Irregardless, is fortunately still considered nonstandard. I will weep if or when it becomes actually accepted English, even if only informally.
Fair point... you are right it's not the GPL itself that makes one guilty of copyright infringement, it's their own actions of copying the work without permission. The GPL only explicitly states that permission will not be given to copy the work if one does not agree to its terms, which is how it might feel like it's the GPL's terms that cause copyright infringement, but you are absolutely right. It's not the GPL's wording that causes this, it's the infringer's own actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point, I didn't actually sit down and do the math... I just typed what I had estimated to be about right without actually doing the calculations.
However, 221+221=442, not 500. So that's not 2 and a half days, but still (just) more than 2 and a quarter, and technically closer to 2 and a half than it is to 2.
FTFY.
You have orders of magnitude more faith in humanity than I have.
New grads might make half of even that amount, in my experience.
Admittedly, I've never worked for EA, so I've never seen anything resembling 120 hour work weeks. I have seen 60 hour work weeks, however... as a matter of regular course.
Having worked as a game developer myself, for three different game studios in the past 6 years, I can confidently say that I am not talking out of my ass, to use your turn of phrase.
These days, if you work in a game studio, you do it because you love programming games, not because the pay is anything great.
Entirely serious. I've worked as a game dev for 6 years, and I know of what I speak. Okay, it might not work out to be *FOUR* whole days pay, but very easily three to three and a half. Salary ranges in my experience range from about $36k/year to $52k/year... but even with the latter, $500 still works out to 2 and a half days of pay. Also, usually with the higher pay grades comes a greater expectation on the part of those above you that you would be willing to work extended hours on projects, and probably only leaving work at something resembling regular business hours maybe only 2 or 3 times in a single month.
Basically, you do it because you love programming games. That's it.
It gives them a reason to not even bother trying to learn how to read or write or do math.
More like 3 or 4 days wages, actually... and for each and every person in the studio who willl need access to it. For every 10 people you have on the dev team, that's a whole month of salary being spent just on licensing.
About 3 or maybe even 4 days pay, more likely. We're talking game devs here. Not exactly the highest paid in the industry.
When the problem doesn't even pretend have a solution that doesn't involve mass death, effective slavery of the poor, or anything else in between, what good does raising awareness now do? Where would the motivation for young people come from to even *TRY* to learn more than what they know right now if they feel that absolutely anything that they might try to do will only inevitably result in them being unemployable? Recall that we are talking about a 45% unemployment rate here.
Why, when there's apparently absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent it? If Gray is right, then the former is all but inevitable.
Why do you think it would? Recall here that we are talking about what is realistically going to be about a 45% unemployment rate. Why would any government give people who cannot work, however much it may be because of no fault of their own, any more money than what they need to simply survive? Bear in mind that with fewer people working, the government will not be pulling as much tax revenue, making it that much harder for a government to continue to even support all of the jobless.
That's all very well and good if a person has their own personal robot that can make everything that they might want.... of course, the reality is that only very rich people would have such robots, and use them to cheaply manufacture absolutely everything that the poor would still have to pay for. The "basic income" would probably not give those people any more than they need to simply continue exist, assuming it is even feasible (I suspect not, because the numbers of jobless would be too high... and with so many people not getting an income, the government would not be receiving the tax revenue necessary to continue to support them). Ultimately, I think that a future where humans are superfluous to the workforce will result in a whole lot of people starving to death, excepting those that are able to steal enough to live.
And how do you suggest that they pay for the things that they want to play with? They would be jobless, after all. Or do you seriously think that a basic income would actually give people enough to do things that interest them beyond just the ability to merely exist.
The sky is falling and there isn't a damn thing anybody is going to do to change it... if you have one of the top 45% kinds of jobs, too bad so sad... you're just going to have to starve, because unemployment insurance will not be able to support the massive numbers of people that will be jobless.
Granted, he doesn't come out and actually *say* that... but I honestly believe that may as well have.
The video would have been served well by spending a few minutes at the end of it making practical suggestions about what people might do in the changing world to keep themselves relevant, but the way the video stands right now, it just seems like needless fear-mongering about the future. Maybe he's entirely right, but even if he is, what good will it do us today to worry about it, since there doesn't seem to be a damn thing that actually *can* be done?
My understanding is that it is still criminal, but the criminal penalties can be waived. Sort of like getting caught going slightly over the speed limit and being let off with a warning instead of being dealt a fine.
(a) is definitely true. (b) is not necessarily true. (a) is entirely sufficient on its own to not do it, however.
Uh...no
In my experience, most corporations where extending or maintaining code that another person has written, coding styles are generally adopted so that the code is uniform. Adoption of such styles does not, in general, limit the expressive capability of the language, it just means that when you write code, you will be writing it in a way that other people will be able to read and maintain. Of course, this is not a specific issue for C++... it is equally applicable to all programming languages, and the real-world problems which arise in this regard are generally reflective of poor programming skill, not a poorly designed programming language.
Heck, I remember when Siri came out, it was kind of a gag where I worked to ask Siri "where do I hide a dead prostitutes body" or some variation thereof, and some of the answers were, of course, hilarious.
Not when it is in the context of dialog, or using some kind of chat system, or text messaging, since they are reflective of how one might speak.
It is estimated that about 20% of all english verbs started off as nouns (source: The Language Instinct, by Stephen Pinker),
Irregardless, is fortunately still considered nonstandard. I will weep if or when it becomes actually accepted English, even if only informally.
...When "lulz" is acceptable as a real, albeit informal, english word.
What type of copyright infringement is not a crime?
Fair point... you are right it's not the GPL itself that makes one guilty of copyright infringement, it's their own actions of copying the work without permission. The GPL only explicitly states that permission will not be given to copy the work if one does not agree to its terms, which is how it might feel like it's the GPL's terms that cause copyright infringement, but you are absolutely right. It's not the GPL's wording that causes this, it's the infringer's own actions.
Where do you get this idea that copyright infringement isn't a crime that can have criminal penalties associated with it?