Excluding the trait that your comparing for. The skin colour does not strongly correlate with enough other genetic traits to be able to identify a population.
No, the GPL does absolutely nothing to prevent this problem. Well, unless the problem is having contributors to your project.
If people are building something for distribution, they will often avoid the GPL'd project entirely. If they're building something for internal use, then they will either avoid the GPL'd project, or they will keep their changes private in exactly the same way (and often for longer because they're worried that if they upstream stuff then they'll be asked for a legal audit of everything or, often, they're linking against something proprietary with a EULA that prohibits linking with GPL'd code and don't want their supplier to know that they're in violation of this license).
It's far harder to start off not participating in the community and then join later if you use GPL'd code than BSDL'd code, and that's a route that I've seen a lot of companies following. Their choices aren't BSDL or GPL, they're BSDL or proprietary. If they go with a proprietary solution, then their only option if they want to become involved with an open source ecosystem is to buy their supplier. If they go with a BSDL project, then they can join in the community later.
If they're not the first to get their changes in, then they end up with a lot of pain on their next merge, which generally encourages them to become a bit better at upstreaming stuff early.
It depends a lot on the group at Google. I turned down a job at Google where most of my interviewers were at least late '30s and a couple late '40s, but I now collaborate with a couple of teams with similar demographics. Occasionally I go and visit and walk past groups that have no one over 30. Partly it's down to the kinds of project that appeal to different age groups - there's a lot that Google does that becomes a lot less interesting as you get older.
the old guys knew how to roll with the changes and adapt
Some old guys do. Some get fixated on how things used to work a decade or more ago and insist that everything new is rubbish. The trick is to only hire the former...
Because people change over time. I've met a lot of people where I'd make very different decisions about whether to hire them over a period of 7 years. Even ignoring the maturity aspect, both the skills of the person and the skills needed by the company change a lot over that time. Google had a tiny LLVM team 7 years ago, but now is one of the largest employers of LLVM developers. They've gone on various other hiring sprees for different skills too.
Yes, four times she passed the tests that basically everyone vaguely competent passed and four times she failed the tests that most people fail. The only thing that makes her exceptional is that she seemed to think that it was worth reapplying. Oh, and the fact that she's managed to get to her current age without finding somewhere better to work than Google.
Xinuos, which bought the SCO IP, now sells OpenServer X, which is based on FreeBSD and includes a port of one of the SCO UNIX versions (I think OpenServer, but it might be UNIXWare) to run on bhyve. This lets people with old SCO UNIX software run it, but with things like zfs for the underlying storage. There are a surprising number of SCO users still. McDonalds uses it for all of their POS stuff (somewhat appropriately), for example.
It depends a bit on whether you count QDOS as an earlier version of MS-DOS. QDOS was originally 8-bit and was then ported to the 8086 and became 16-bit (sold as 86-DOS). Microsoft bought the rights to 86-DOS and MS-DOS 1.0 (sold as PC-DOS on IBM PCs) was a derivative. FAT-12 support was the only significant difference between MS-DOS and 86-DOS. So, you're right that Microsoft never had a DOS that was 8-bit, but the grandparent is also write that the MS-DOS code is a linear descendant of an 8-bit OS.
The 'race doesn't exist' argument means that if you pick a random black person and a random white person then they're likely to have as much (if not more) genetic material in common than if you pick two black people or two white people. i.e. trying to infer anything beyond skin colour from skin colour is basically meaningless. It doesn't mean that the genes for skin colour (or hair colour or eye colour) are not identifiable.
It's a shame that it's nonsense. Google was able to make huge changes to Linux for their server infrastructure and not compelled to share anything. Eventually they started upstreaming things because maintaining a fork is expensive. The GPL is often counterproductive. I've seen two fairly common paths from companies with regard to GPL'd libraries. The first is simply to say 'it's GPL'd, avoid it', and end up writing a proprietary version - causing more proprietary software to be written is hardly a win for free software. The second is to take it and never admit publicly to using it, which generally means keeping a private fork and not upstreaming patches, for fear of legal complications (is the GPL compatible with all of the other third-party code you're using in your in-house software? As long as you're not distributing it, probably, but no one wants to spend lawyer time on it). For BSDL software, the common pattern is to adopt it, maintain a proprietary fork, realise that this is an expensive waste of resources, and upstream everything that isn't a core competitive advantage (which, in a lot of cases, means all of it - or, at least, all of the bits that are actually useful to other people).
Most expenses are not as much as your rent/mortgage. If you ignore those expenses, even though there are many of them, you'll go bankrupt in short order.
No you won't, unless you're living very very close to your means. Save the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves is probably the worst financial advice ever given.
As to the next nine countries:
percentage GDP is what is relevant actually... and by those figures you can see the US isn't exceptional.
Okay, let's do that. The US is at 3.3%. Let's look at the rest. Here are the ones from the top 10 that are spending more as a percentage of the GDP than the USA:
3: Saudi Arabia 10.7%
4: Russia 3.7%
Now let's look at the ones that are spending less than half as much as the USA:
2 China 1.2%
6 France 1.8%
7 Japan 1.0%
9 Germany 1.1%
Notice how this list is longer than the first one? Okay, how about ones are spending 2/3 of what the US is spending per capita?
5 United Kingdom 2.1%
8 India 2.2%
That just leaves one that's spending less than the USA but more than 2/3:
10 South Korea 2.4%
Oh, and the UK is only at 2.1% because of strong pressure from the USA to commit to spending 2% of GDP on defence. The only countries that come close to spending the same percentage of the GDP on defence as the USA are Russia (with an economy in the toilet making it seem more) and Saudi Arabia (rich country in the middle of an unstable region, surrounded by countries that universally hate them). Russia has shrunk its spending (in inflation-adjusted US dollars) from $90.6Bn (2012) through $84.8bn (2013) to $70Bn (2014) as their economy contracted.
Or around 1905 they had spending around 3.5 percent of GDP going to "defense".
You mean in the period of military overspend by most European countries that was one of the major causes of the first world war? Great period to pick for comparison!
In particular, the number of corners that you can cut varies a lot depending on how the game is using the GPU. Dropping all geometry calculations back to 16-bit floating point is completely fine in some cases but would cause horrible artefacts in others. Newer nVidia GPUs will correctly handle subnormal floating point values, but in most games the slowdown if you encounter one will be noticeable, but the visual effects of just rounding them to zero will not be.
It's treated in the same way as gift cards. You don't pay VAT on them, because they're not a good in their own right, they're just a placeholder for money. When people then redeem them for goods or services, then you pay VAT at the prevailing rate on the value of the goods in whatever the currency of the local tax authority is.
The biggest showstopper was the lack of NAT-piercing Voice/Video/Filetransfers
XMPP has had that for years. The problem was fragmentation. There are at least a dozen file transfer XEPs and people were allowed to publish XEPs without a reference implementation. The foundation should have made sure that there was a reference server implementation and a BSD-licensed reference client library and that standards track XEPs had all of the core functionality that people actually wanted. Instead, they allowed loads of incompatible XEPs for basic things to be published and never selected one winner to push, so finding two clients that can interoperate beyond basic messaging was pretty hard.
Facebook never supported Federated XMPP, which is what makes it actually useful. Using SMTP and IMAP for mail isn't that useful if your mail server won't exchange mail with anyone else's. Google Talk supported federated XMPP, I could easily add Google Talk users to my XMPP roster on my own server and chat to them, but now Google is trying to use hangouts to replace Google Talk.
AOL started to die long before it became an ISP. It was an OSP (Online Service Provider) back when those things existed, along with CompuServe and a number of other players. They had their own walled garden and, eventually, also allowed web browsing via a gateway (they used a non-IP network protocol for their dial-up users and so you couldn't initially just run a web browser, you had to use the one embedded in their client). Most of their value came from the stuff that was exclusive to AOL. You may remember that even in the early 2000s, a load of movie posters had a URL and also an 'AOL Keyword' that you could use to find out more. Then most content moved to the web, and people who were using AOL gradually became able to access everything that they wanted outside of the walled garden and eventually most people moved away to other ISPs that were cheaper because all that they were offering was access, not content.
The libertarian belief that property rights are the most important is very dangerous. Taken to extremes, it lets you argue that your right to own slaves (a property right) is more important than other people's rights to be free. Property rights are restricted by the government all of the time (if you're a landlord, then the government is restricting your right to do whatever you want with your property by forcing you to adhere to certain health and safety rules, for example). Even without that, if you're running an ISP, then you're dependent on cables that are on common ground and so it's perfectly acceptable to require that, in exchange for the use of common land, you're going to respect free speech rights of people sending traffic across your network. It's less clear cut for hosting companies, but generally people operating commercial enterprises are held to a higher level of account than individuals: it's fine for you to not allow black people into your house as a private individual, but if you don't allow black people into your restaurant then you're likely to be in trouble.
Okay, so in a world where pretty much everything is private property, where do you think that free speech lives? Or are you the kind of libertarian who thinks that freedom is what you get when you privatise oppression?
Okay, so no free speech on the Internet. And, obviously, no free speech on broadcast TV and radio, because they're all privately owned (or, at least, leased). I guess you can have free speech on CB radio and in your living room, and maybe if you stand on a public street (as long as it really is a publicly owned street).
Where do you draw the line? You can't post anything on the Web without using someone else's infrastructure - even if you host your own server, you still need to get it connected to a commercial ISP. Is it okay for them to refuse the connection because it would be giving you a platform to say something that you don't want to say? Free speech is pretty meaningless if you can only exercise it in your own home - you shouldn't be able to force everyone to listen, but you should be able to give everyone the opportunity to listen if they choose to, and that's pretty hard without someone giving you a platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Excluding the trait that your comparing for. The skin colour does not strongly correlate with enough other genetic traits to be able to identify a population.
If people are building something for distribution, they will often avoid the GPL'd project entirely. If they're building something for internal use, then they will either avoid the GPL'd project, or they will keep their changes private in exactly the same way (and often for longer because they're worried that if they upstream stuff then they'll be asked for a legal audit of everything or, often, they're linking against something proprietary with a EULA that prohibits linking with GPL'd code and don't want their supplier to know that they're in violation of this license).
It's far harder to start off not participating in the community and then join later if you use GPL'd code than BSDL'd code, and that's a route that I've seen a lot of companies following. Their choices aren't BSDL or GPL, they're BSDL or proprietary. If they go with a proprietary solution, then their only option if they want to become involved with an open source ecosystem is to buy their supplier. If they go with a BSDL project, then they can join in the community later.
If they're not the first to get their changes in, then they end up with a lot of pain on their next merge, which generally encourages them to become a bit better at upstreaming stuff early.
It depends a lot on the group at Google. I turned down a job at Google where most of my interviewers were at least late '30s and a couple late '40s, but I now collaborate with a couple of teams with similar demographics. Occasionally I go and visit and walk past groups that have no one over 30. Partly it's down to the kinds of project that appeal to different age groups - there's a lot that Google does that becomes a lot less interesting as you get older.
the old guys knew how to roll with the changes and adapt
Some old guys do. Some get fixated on how things used to work a decade or more ago and insist that everything new is rubbish. The trick is to only hire the former...
Because people change over time. I've met a lot of people where I'd make very different decisions about whether to hire them over a period of 7 years. Even ignoring the maturity aspect, both the skills of the person and the skills needed by the company change a lot over that time. Google had a tiny LLVM team 7 years ago, but now is one of the largest employers of LLVM developers. They've gone on various other hiring sprees for different skills too.
Nah, most people have grown out of that long before they reach her age.
Yes, four times she passed the tests that basically everyone vaguely competent passed and four times she failed the tests that most people fail. The only thing that makes her exceptional is that she seemed to think that it was worth reapplying. Oh, and the fact that she's managed to get to her current age without finding somewhere better to work than Google.
Xinuos, which bought the SCO IP, now sells OpenServer X, which is based on FreeBSD and includes a port of one of the SCO UNIX versions (I think OpenServer, but it might be UNIXWare) to run on bhyve. This lets people with old SCO UNIX software run it, but with things like zfs for the underlying storage. There are a surprising number of SCO users still. McDonalds uses it for all of their POS stuff (somewhat appropriately), for example.
It depends a bit on whether you count QDOS as an earlier version of MS-DOS. QDOS was originally 8-bit and was then ported to the 8086 and became 16-bit (sold as 86-DOS). Microsoft bought the rights to 86-DOS and MS-DOS 1.0 (sold as PC-DOS on IBM PCs) was a derivative. FAT-12 support was the only significant difference between MS-DOS and 86-DOS. So, you're right that Microsoft never had a DOS that was 8-bit, but the grandparent is also write that the MS-DOS code is a linear descendant of an 8-bit OS.
The 'race doesn't exist' argument means that if you pick a random black person and a random white person then they're likely to have as much (if not more) genetic material in common than if you pick two black people or two white people. i.e. trying to infer anything beyond skin colour from skin colour is basically meaningless. It doesn't mean that the genes for skin colour (or hair colour or eye colour) are not identifiable.
It's a shame that it's nonsense. Google was able to make huge changes to Linux for their server infrastructure and not compelled to share anything. Eventually they started upstreaming things because maintaining a fork is expensive. The GPL is often counterproductive. I've seen two fairly common paths from companies with regard to GPL'd libraries. The first is simply to say 'it's GPL'd, avoid it', and end up writing a proprietary version - causing more proprietary software to be written is hardly a win for free software. The second is to take it and never admit publicly to using it, which generally means keeping a private fork and not upstreaming patches, for fear of legal complications (is the GPL compatible with all of the other third-party code you're using in your in-house software? As long as you're not distributing it, probably, but no one wants to spend lawyer time on it). For BSDL software, the common pattern is to adopt it, maintain a proprietary fork, realise that this is an expensive waste of resources, and upstream everything that isn't a core competitive advantage (which, in a lot of cases, means all of it - or, at least, all of the bits that are actually useful to other people).
Most expenses are not as much as your rent/mortgage. If you ignore those expenses, even though there are many of them, you'll go bankrupt in short order.
No you won't, unless you're living very very close to your means. Save the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves is probably the worst financial advice ever given.
As to the next nine countries: percentage GDP is what is relevant actually... and by those figures you can see the US isn't exceptional.
Okay, let's do that. The US is at 3.3%. Let's look at the rest. Here are the ones from the top 10 that are spending more as a percentage of the GDP than the USA:
Now let's look at the ones that are spending less than half as much as the USA:
Notice how this list is longer than the first one? Okay, how about ones are spending 2/3 of what the US is spending per capita?
That just leaves one that's spending less than the USA but more than 2/3:
Oh, and the UK is only at 2.1% because of strong pressure from the USA to commit to spending 2% of GDP on defence. The only countries that come close to spending the same percentage of the GDP on defence as the USA are Russia (with an economy in the toilet making it seem more) and Saudi Arabia (rich country in the middle of an unstable region, surrounded by countries that universally hate them). Russia has shrunk its spending (in inflation-adjusted US dollars) from $90.6Bn (2012) through $84.8bn (2013) to $70Bn (2014) as their economy contracted.
Or around 1905 they had spending around 3.5 percent of GDP going to "defense".
You mean in the period of military overspend by most European countries that was one of the major causes of the first world war? Great period to pick for comparison!
In particular, the number of corners that you can cut varies a lot depending on how the game is using the GPU. Dropping all geometry calculations back to 16-bit floating point is completely fine in some cases but would cause horrible artefacts in others. Newer nVidia GPUs will correctly handle subnormal floating point values, but in most games the slowdown if you encounter one will be noticeable, but the visual effects of just rounding them to zero will not be.
Next time a recruiter contacts you, tell him you're looking for $200k (push up all our salaries).
Do jobs that pay less than that even get calls from recruiters?
Sure he can ignore it. He doesn't watch TV, uses an ad blocker in his browser, and never goes outside.
I try to do this as well. Unfortunately, in a lot of areas there are no options where I haven't seen ads.
It's treated in the same way as gift cards. You don't pay VAT on them, because they're not a good in their own right, they're just a placeholder for money. When people then redeem them for goods or services, then you pay VAT at the prevailing rate on the value of the goods in whatever the currency of the local tax authority is.
The biggest showstopper was the lack of NAT-piercing Voice/Video/Filetransfers
XMPP has had that for years. The problem was fragmentation. There are at least a dozen file transfer XEPs and people were allowed to publish XEPs without a reference implementation. The foundation should have made sure that there was a reference server implementation and a BSD-licensed reference client library and that standards track XEPs had all of the core functionality that people actually wanted. Instead, they allowed loads of incompatible XEPs for basic things to be published and never selected one winner to push, so finding two clients that can interoperate beyond basic messaging was pretty hard.
Facebook never supported Federated XMPP, which is what makes it actually useful. Using SMTP and IMAP for mail isn't that useful if your mail server won't exchange mail with anyone else's. Google Talk supported federated XMPP, I could easily add Google Talk users to my XMPP roster on my own server and chat to them, but now Google is trying to use hangouts to replace Google Talk.
AOL started to die long before it became an ISP. It was an OSP (Online Service Provider) back when those things existed, along with CompuServe and a number of other players. They had their own walled garden and, eventually, also allowed web browsing via a gateway (they used a non-IP network protocol for their dial-up users and so you couldn't initially just run a web browser, you had to use the one embedded in their client). Most of their value came from the stuff that was exclusive to AOL. You may remember that even in the early 2000s, a load of movie posters had a URL and also an 'AOL Keyword' that you could use to find out more. Then most content moved to the web, and people who were using AOL gradually became able to access everything that they wanted outside of the walled garden and eventually most people moved away to other ISPs that were cheaper because all that they were offering was access, not content.
The libertarian belief that property rights are the most important is very dangerous. Taken to extremes, it lets you argue that your right to own slaves (a property right) is more important than other people's rights to be free. Property rights are restricted by the government all of the time (if you're a landlord, then the government is restricting your right to do whatever you want with your property by forcing you to adhere to certain health and safety rules, for example). Even without that, if you're running an ISP, then you're dependent on cables that are on common ground and so it's perfectly acceptable to require that, in exchange for the use of common land, you're going to respect free speech rights of people sending traffic across your network. It's less clear cut for hosting companies, but generally people operating commercial enterprises are held to a higher level of account than individuals: it's fine for you to not allow black people into your house as a private individual, but if you don't allow black people into your restaurant then you're likely to be in trouble.
Okay, so in a world where pretty much everything is private property, where do you think that free speech lives? Or are you the kind of libertarian who thinks that freedom is what you get when you privatise oppression?
Okay, so no free speech on the Internet. And, obviously, no free speech on broadcast TV and radio, because they're all privately owned (or, at least, leased). I guess you can have free speech on CB radio and in your living room, and maybe if you stand on a public street (as long as it really is a publicly owned street).
Where do you draw the line? You can't post anything on the Web without using someone else's infrastructure - even if you host your own server, you still need to get it connected to a commercial ISP. Is it okay for them to refuse the connection because it would be giving you a platform to say something that you don't want to say? Free speech is pretty meaningless if you can only exercise it in your own home - you shouldn't be able to force everyone to listen, but you should be able to give everyone the opportunity to listen if they choose to, and that's pretty hard without someone giving you a platform.