Bootcamp was only necessary because Windows XP needed the legacy BIOS to function
Bootcamp also provides a tool for shrinking HFS+ partitions and a set of Windows device drivers for things like the multitouch trackpads and other hardware in Apple machines, in a convenient bundle. I believe it also includes its own installer, so you can install Windows and the drives from OS X and then just reboot into the newly installed system.
A license that does not allow commercial use would not meet the definition of free or open source software (Freedom 0: the freedom to use the software for any purpose), so his restriction would effectively make it impossible for anyone to incorporate his code into a larger project, open or proprietary.
Does anyone know if there's a licence out there which forbids using any part of the code in proprietary software, but which does not force derivative code to release its source?
The question doesn't make sense. Proprietary software is the opposite of Free Software (or Open Source, depending on your leanings). It is software where the person who receives the binary also receives the code, along with modification and redistribution rights. You can not require derived works not to be proprietary without also requiring their code to be released - it's like requiring them to include air, but not requiring them to include oxygen.
The GPL doesn't require you to release the code to anyone that you don't give binaries to, so it doesn't require public release. More importantly, it doesn't require giving back, only giving forward, which is why the 'I use the GPL so that companies that use my code have to give me their improvements' argument irritates me so much: 90% of all software is developed for in-hosue use and never distributed, so anyone using and improving the code for in-hosue use has no legal obligation to share it under the GPL.
'America' appears 7 times in the article 'Irish republicanism' (3 times as 'America' 4 in 'American') and so by their metric (must occur 3 or more times) it would go in, in spite of being nothing at all to do with the US political party of the same name.
This isn't a new ruling, however - certainly not something from a few months ago. The UK has accepted AOC regulations for over a hundred years, since the Treaty of Madrid in 1891. The USA rejected them. The AOC regulations are now protected by the PDO framework, which also protects things like Stilton cheese. As you say, they're a form of trademark. You can't call just any sparkling wine Champagne (as you can in the USA), because doing so would be trading on the reputation earned by French vineyards over the past few centuries. This is no different from not being able to call a Linux distribution Canonical Microsoft Windows or have Microsoft rebrand IIS as Microsoft Apache.
If your product is good, it should be able to stand on its own merits and, in fact, the nicest methode champenoise wine I've had in the last few months was made in the UK. It didn't call itself Champagne (although it did put itself in that price bracket, and deservedly so) and there was no expectation that it should be.
Blaming the EU for a treaty signed almost 60 years before the first steps were taken towards creating the EU shows just how out of touch with reality commodore64_love (sorry, cpu6502, his other accounts all post at -1 now) is.
I'm going to have to ask for a source for that, because somehow I managed to miss it being reported in the UK press, and it didn't seem to prevent the beer festival that I attended last week from having a stall full of British wines, described as wines...
See, it's true! The Democrats are anti-trade, meaning that they are anti-capitalist! Joe the Unicorn Importer is going to be earning less under Obama's policy!
Maybe some people who read Slashdot are interested in it? There are currently several stories on the front page that I have no interest in (especially the one with SlashCloud in the summary, a clear indication that at least one of the editors is dangerously rabid) and Slashdot comes with a very convenient feature to let me avoid them. There is a link next to the story that I am not interested in labelled 'Read the {some number} comments'. Using my pointing device of choice, I carefully move the cursor away from this link and don't click on it. Slashdot even provides a very convenient user interface optimisation here, by making not clicking on it the default! I suggest that you may wish to do the same thing.
LoveFilm in the UK just switched from Flash to Silverlight, because of reason 2: the studios refused to keep licensing them for streaming with Flash, believing that Silverlight was somehow more secure (which it probably is, on the basis that it's so unpopular that no one as yet has cared enough to crack it). This has effectively rendered their streaming useless to me, as neither of the machines that I want to stream video to run a Silverlight-supported OS.
This is also possible with a modern phone. I have a cheap Android phone (HTC Desire - nice phone, but apparently 'obsolete' when I got it) running OSMAnd. It lets me download OSM vector maps, so I currently have England, Wales, Belgium, and northern France on it (taking about 1GB of my 16GB SD card). The offline routing is still considered experimental. It works reasonably well, but on longer journeys it can run out of memory. It was great when I moved here - I'd set the destination and leave it in my pocket telling me when to turn as I cycled around and got to know my way.
Bing is great don't use OSM doesn't even make sense as an argument, since Bing uses an OSM layer and permits the OSM project to trace its aerial photographs to generate more detailed maps.
No, they added an extra holiday, but since there was one already scheduled a week earlier they moved it so that we get a four-day weekend instead of two three-day weekends.
They are? Almost everywhere I've considered working, the standard hours are 9-5, with a half hour lunch break. Modulo flexitime and occasional places that displace the start and finish times by the same amount, they seem to be pretty standard. I think you're working 2.5 hours a week longer than most British people, but well done to your manager for convincing you that it's normal.
There was an interesting article about this about a year ago. Did, by any chance, your daughter have female maths teachers between the ages of about 5-9 and, if so, were they people with some qualification in mathematics, or just primary school teachers who had to teach maths but were nervous of it? The study I'm referring to identified that a lot of women teaching maths at this age are very nervous of the subject and that girls pick up on this (boys are totally oblivious) and learn a subconscious dislike of the subject.
By the way, a related result from an entirely different study looked at performance of students measuring a wide variety of factors. They found that there was only one that had a strong correlation with pupil performance: the enthusiasm of the teacher. This reinforced my belief that you can't really teach anyone, you can just provide an environment where they can teach themselves: if you make the subject seem interesting, students will learn it.
Wow, way to miss the point. If you have 10 applicants for 2 posts, 8 from one group and 2 from another and you have a quota that says you have to hire at least one from the second group, then what is the result going to be? If you have no quotas, then you will hire the two best qualified. If you assume that there is no intrinsic difference in abilities between the two sets, then there is a 20% chance that you will end up with one from the second set. If there is a quota, then there is a 100% chance that you will end up with one from the second set, meaning that there is an 80% chance that you will end up with someone less qualified with the quota than without.
This then leads back to an ugly feedback cycle, where people are aware that the person in the second group is there instead of someone more qualified (see the caste quota system in India for examples of this) and so they grow to resent people from that group and, importantly, don't trust the competence of anyone from that group. This then makes it harder for the competent people in the group, because now they have an extra layer of prejudice against them.
Now, if you want more members of the second group to be hired, then you need to look at the causes and address them. For example, do they encounter the relevant skills later? Are there hidden prejudices against them in hiring? Are they excluded or discouraged from participating in some relevant educational prerequisites?
Experienced programmers still need to learn your process, your frameworks, and in some cases even your language. They'll have had more practice learning, but on the down side they'll have more preconceived ideas about how things should work (some valuable, some just habit). The old guys who do things because this is how we've always done things are just as problematic as the young guys who do things because the latest buzzword methodology says they should.
There are good reasons and bad reasons for hiring inexperienced programmers. The bad reason is that they're cheap and willing to put up with a lot of crap. The good reason is that they haven't picked up very many bad habits yet. It's usually easier to teach someone good habits than it is to persuade someone to unlearn bad ones. If you're willing to put in effort in terms of mentorship and training, and then make sure that your work environment encourages them to stick around so you reap the rewards, then hiring inexperienced programmer can be a good idea. I can think of a very small number of companies that do this, but they tend to do well. Of course, this requires that you also hire some good, experienced programmers to bootstrap the process...
NT 4 ran on MIPS, PowerPC and Alpha. The Alpha version included FX32!, which allowed you to run x86 binaries, in many cases faster than on any shipping x86 chip at the time. Very few places, however, actually needed 64-bit CPUs at the time, and so there wasn't much native code available. If there had been a demand for 64-bit Windows and no x86-64, I am certain Microsoft would have delivered something. Remember,.NET was originally conceived as a contingency plan for making Windows applications architecture-agnostic in case Intel failed to deliver with Itanium...
It also helped that the (region 2, at least) DVDs of Babylon 5 were cheap. At launch, play.com had each series for about £20. £100 for the whole set, spread over a few years (I think they released one series every 9 months) was a simple choice for anyone who enjoyed the series. They now sell the entire series (5 seasons) for £42 - £1/disk. In contrast, the original series of Star Trek is £41 (for 3 seasons, 23 disks) for £42, and TNG is £111 (7 seasons, 49 disks), although you can get them for about £70 if you buy one season at a time. I was actually quite surprised by the TNG prices, as they were about £35/season last time I looked - at launch they were almost twice the price of B5. The BBC seemed to be having a laugh when they released Blake's 7 on DVD - something like £2.50/episode (I remember paying about £6/episode to get about half of them on VHS as a teenager, but it still felt overpriced).
I disagree. I want to watch enjoyable and entertaining shows. Writers, producers, and actors want to produce things that they enjoy working on and they want to get paid. There are two possible business models:
Studios produce something I want to watch
I pay them money.
Or:
Studios produce something
TV networks buy it
TV networks sell advertising space on it to cover their costs
I (possibly) buy something that's advertised on it, which justifies the purchase of advertising, which justifies the show.
Now, from the perspective of a studio, do you think the business model with zero or two intermediaries between the people who want their product and them makes more sense? Which is more likely to result in long-term funding for their project?
Slashdot Mirror
Bootcamp was only necessary because Windows XP needed the legacy BIOS to function
Bootcamp also provides a tool for shrinking HFS+ partitions and a set of Windows device drivers for things like the multitouch trackpads and other hardware in Apple machines, in a convenient bundle. I believe it also includes its own installer, so you can install Windows and the drives from OS X and then just reboot into the newly installed system.
This is, in fact, how Budweiser is produced...
A license that does not allow commercial use would not meet the definition of free or open source software (Freedom 0: the freedom to use the software for any purpose), so his restriction would effectively make it impossible for anyone to incorporate his code into a larger project, open or proprietary.
Does anyone know if there's a licence out there which forbids using any part of the code in proprietary software, but which does not force derivative code to release its source?
The question doesn't make sense. Proprietary software is the opposite of Free Software (or Open Source, depending on your leanings). It is software where the person who receives the binary also receives the code, along with modification and redistribution rights. You can not require derived works not to be proprietary without also requiring their code to be released - it's like requiring them to include air, but not requiring them to include oxygen.
The GPL doesn't require you to release the code to anyone that you don't give binaries to, so it doesn't require public release. More importantly, it doesn't require giving back, only giving forward, which is why the 'I use the GPL so that companies that use my code have to give me their improvements' argument irritates me so much: 90% of all software is developed for in-hosue use and never distributed, so anyone using and improving the code for in-hosue use has no legal obligation to share it under the GPL.
'America' appears 7 times in the article 'Irish republicanism' (3 times as 'America' 4 in 'American') and so by their metric (must occur 3 or more times) it would go in, in spite of being nothing at all to do with the US political party of the same name.
Bombs along Hadrian's wall and the a LOT of rowing...
This isn't a new ruling, however - certainly not something from a few months ago. The UK has accepted AOC regulations for over a hundred years, since the Treaty of Madrid in 1891. The USA rejected them. The AOC regulations are now protected by the PDO framework, which also protects things like Stilton cheese. As you say, they're a form of trademark. You can't call just any sparkling wine Champagne (as you can in the USA), because doing so would be trading on the reputation earned by French vineyards over the past few centuries. This is no different from not being able to call a Linux distribution Canonical Microsoft Windows or have Microsoft rebrand IIS as Microsoft Apache.
If your product is good, it should be able to stand on its own merits and, in fact, the nicest methode champenoise wine I've had in the last few months was made in the UK. It didn't call itself Champagne (although it did put itself in that price bracket, and deservedly so) and there was no expectation that it should be.
Blaming the EU for a treaty signed almost 60 years before the first steps were taken towards creating the EU shows just how out of touch with reality commodore64_love (sorry, cpu6502, his other accounts all post at -1 now) is.
I'm going to have to ask for a source for that, because somehow I managed to miss it being reported in the UK press, and it didn't seem to prevent the beer festival that I attended last week from having a stall full of British wines, described as wines...
locally grown unicorn
See, it's true! The Democrats are anti-trade, meaning that they are anti-capitalist! Joe the Unicorn Importer is going to be earning less under Obama's policy!
Maybe some people who read Slashdot are interested in it? There are currently several stories on the front page that I have no interest in (especially the one with SlashCloud in the summary, a clear indication that at least one of the editors is dangerously rabid) and Slashdot comes with a very convenient feature to let me avoid them. There is a link next to the story that I am not interested in labelled 'Read the {some number} comments'. Using my pointing device of choice, I carefully move the cursor away from this link and don't click on it. Slashdot even provides a very convenient user interface optimisation here, by making not clicking on it the default! I suggest that you may wish to do the same thing.
LoveFilm in the UK just switched from Flash to Silverlight, because of reason 2: the studios refused to keep licensing them for streaming with Flash, believing that Silverlight was somehow more secure (which it probably is, on the basis that it's so unpopular that no one as yet has cared enough to crack it). This has effectively rendered their streaming useless to me, as neither of the machines that I want to stream video to run a Silverlight-supported OS.
This is also possible with a modern phone. I have a cheap Android phone (HTC Desire - nice phone, but apparently 'obsolete' when I got it) running OSMAnd. It lets me download OSM vector maps, so I currently have England, Wales, Belgium, and northern France on it (taking about 1GB of my 16GB SD card). The offline routing is still considered experimental. It works reasonably well, but on longer journeys it can run out of memory. It was great when I moved here - I'd set the destination and leave it in my pocket telling me when to turn as I cycled around and got to know my way.
Bing is great don't use OSM doesn't even make sense as an argument, since Bing uses an OSM layer and permits the OSM project to trace its aerial photographs to generate more detailed maps.
No, they added an extra holiday, but since there was one already scheduled a week earlier they moved it so that we get a four-day weekend instead of two three-day weekends.
The depressing thing is that our anachronistic, out-of-touch, hereditary monarch is probably the sanest and best informed member of our government...
They are? Almost everywhere I've considered working, the standard hours are 9-5, with a half hour lunch break. Modulo flexitime and occasional places that displace the start and finish times by the same amount, they seem to be pretty standard. I think you're working 2.5 hours a week longer than most British people, but well done to your manager for convincing you that it's normal.
I have a hard time believing there are people anywhere that are significantly lazier then a lot of my fellow citizens.
Speaking as a Brit, yes, yes I am. Uh, I mean, we are.
There was an interesting article about this about a year ago. Did, by any chance, your daughter have female maths teachers between the ages of about 5-9 and, if so, were they people with some qualification in mathematics, or just primary school teachers who had to teach maths but were nervous of it? The study I'm referring to identified that a lot of women teaching maths at this age are very nervous of the subject and that girls pick up on this (boys are totally oblivious) and learn a subconscious dislike of the subject.
By the way, a related result from an entirely different study looked at performance of students measuring a wide variety of factors. They found that there was only one that had a strong correlation with pupil performance: the enthusiasm of the teacher. This reinforced my belief that you can't really teach anyone, you can just provide an environment where they can teach themselves: if you make the subject seem interesting, students will learn it.
Wow, way to miss the point. If you have 10 applicants for 2 posts, 8 from one group and 2 from another and you have a quota that says you have to hire at least one from the second group, then what is the result going to be? If you have no quotas, then you will hire the two best qualified. If you assume that there is no intrinsic difference in abilities between the two sets, then there is a 20% chance that you will end up with one from the second set. If there is a quota, then there is a 100% chance that you will end up with one from the second set, meaning that there is an 80% chance that you will end up with someone less qualified with the quota than without.
This then leads back to an ugly feedback cycle, where people are aware that the person in the second group is there instead of someone more qualified (see the caste quota system in India for examples of this) and so they grow to resent people from that group and, importantly, don't trust the competence of anyone from that group. This then makes it harder for the competent people in the group, because now they have an extra layer of prejudice against them.
Now, if you want more members of the second group to be hired, then you need to look at the causes and address them. For example, do they encounter the relevant skills later? Are there hidden prejudices against them in hiring? Are they excluded or discouraged from participating in some relevant educational prerequisites?
No. 2000 Watts for two hours is 4kWh. 4000W for four hours is 16kWh. Neither four nor sixteen equals one.
Experienced programmers still need to learn your process, your frameworks, and in some cases even your language. They'll have had more practice learning, but on the down side they'll have more preconceived ideas about how things should work (some valuable, some just habit). The old guys who do things because this is how we've always done things are just as problematic as the young guys who do things because the latest buzzword methodology says they should.
There are good reasons and bad reasons for hiring inexperienced programmers. The bad reason is that they're cheap and willing to put up with a lot of crap. The good reason is that they haven't picked up very many bad habits yet. It's usually easier to teach someone good habits than it is to persuade someone to unlearn bad ones. If you're willing to put in effort in terms of mentorship and training, and then make sure that your work environment encourages them to stick around so you reap the rewards, then hiring inexperienced programmer can be a good idea. I can think of a very small number of companies that do this, but they tend to do well. Of course, this requires that you also hire some good, experienced programmers to bootstrap the process...
NT 4 ran on MIPS, PowerPC and Alpha. The Alpha version included FX32!, which allowed you to run x86 binaries, in many cases faster than on any shipping x86 chip at the time. Very few places, however, actually needed 64-bit CPUs at the time, and so there wasn't much native code available. If there had been a demand for 64-bit Windows and no x86-64, I am certain Microsoft would have delivered something. Remember, .NET was originally conceived as a contingency plan for making Windows applications architecture-agnostic in case Intel failed to deliver with Itanium...
It also helped that the (region 2, at least) DVDs of Babylon 5 were cheap. At launch, play.com had each series for about £20. £100 for the whole set, spread over a few years (I think they released one series every 9 months) was a simple choice for anyone who enjoyed the series. They now sell the entire series (5 seasons) for £42 - £1/disk. In contrast, the original series of Star Trek is £41 (for 3 seasons, 23 disks) for £42, and TNG is £111 (7 seasons, 49 disks), although you can get them for about £70 if you buy one season at a time. I was actually quite surprised by the TNG prices, as they were about £35/season last time I looked - at launch they were almost twice the price of B5. The BBC seemed to be having a laugh when they released Blake's 7 on DVD - something like £2.50/episode (I remember paying about £6/episode to get about half of them on VHS as a teenager, but it still felt overpriced).
I disagree. I want to watch enjoyable and entertaining shows. Writers, producers, and actors want to produce things that they enjoy working on and they want to get paid. There are two possible business models:
Or:
Now, from the perspective of a studio, do you think the business model with zero or two intermediaries between the people who want their product and them makes more sense? Which is more likely to result in long-term funding for their project?