That number you've pulled out of your ass may or may not be close to the truth.
However, it does not contradict the parents contention that most software is written for a compiler, not a chip instruction set.
If you want to support the grand parent's absurd contention that 99% of software is written for X86 specifically, then please provide more data, because my experience is that most software is written for a compiler and tuned to many things, least of all the processor.
If you want to contend that most software written with the expectation to run on windows is tuned specifically to X86, presumably via hand coded assembly, please provide same, because I contend the vast majority of software writen does not include assembly written just for that software to run faster on a particular processor.
If you want to contend that 4% of software is coded to a processor, well, that is less outrageuous, but still doesn't pass the smell test. Please provide data for your unfounded assertion.
Yes -- I think you and the grandparent are either living in an assembly centric world and ignoring the majority of software development, or are stuck in an X86 specific world even more deeply distanced from most development.
no one remembers WarCraft II?
It really isn't that hard to think of sequels that don't suck.
The article is a predictive rant at best, a troll at worst.
Your profile says everything necessary about your state of mind.
Please, let us look at economic realities.
It circa 1999 in the US, there was a desperate search for anyone who could do any kind of software.
That lead to a radical inflation of the salraies of anyone who could claim to do software.
Bubble expands, lots of bozos get jobs.
Bubble burts, lots of random people lose jobs.
CS grads have problems getting work
Cs Grads are in decline.
(now) later...
CS grads are in demand.
CS grads are now able to get jobs if they qualify.
sounds like a healthy job market to me.
Boot note: I am desparate to hire smart people with the requisite skills, but at the moment they are not grads. They are individuals who have been in the industry and know how to deliver a certain kind of software.
When things have been good for software engineers, the average tenure for a software engineer was less then 2 years, because they kept getting raises with new jobs.
If you want a job for thirty years, pick a different job and a differerent financial profile.
The key is that CC works under the current political framework.
Those who license their content with the CC license protect their content in a particular manner which specifies more freedom of use than is specified under copywright law, but is still restricted.
The restriction is typically some form of "you can not charge for this if I do not charge you for it". However, that is not the only available restricted use under the CC.
From this you should be able to see that the work is available to the masses, but still protected by the author to the extent that it is valuable financially.
This is not a political mechanism, which would require action by congress. This is a legal mechnaism which operates under the current legal structure.
One could say that while it operates under the current legal structure, and is designed to operate within those constraints to facillitate content authors to allow distribution of their work in some circumstances and not others, without action by congress or any other political body, that is serves a political purpose, in freeing content beyond what the current political regime prefers, but that would rate the CC as additionally political, rather than purely political.
You would be much more correct to assess the CC as purely legal, and the Open Source Movement (not any licenses or licensers) as political.
Please stop posting the "If he was stupid enough to agree to foobar clause..." responses.
Employment agreements are 10 + pages of legalize, reasonably standardized within geographical regions, and for the most part, non-negotiable.
In most cases, even the case of a technical employee with 17 years of experience, the employer has the majority of the power.
Your average joe, or technical joe, without benefit of a law degree or a truly unique skill set, doesn't stand a chance.
Most of us will sign damn near anything to seal a job offer, and we depend on state law and the courts to protect us from employers who try to take advantage of their position.
Disregarding the veracity of your report, the point you make is exactly why California courts refuse to enforce these clauses.
Your friend accepted the clause, and has a job.
You refused the clause, and presumably others like it at other employers, and can not get a job.
If one can not pick and choose employment restrictions, then the employment market is not sufficiently competitive to manage without regulations, hence employees need governmental protection from employers.
NOTE: The bottom line is not purchase decisions. I'll leave the real bottom line as an exercise for the reader.
According to you, Seagate is requiring _LOWLY INTERNS_ to sign one year non-compete agreements.
This is not unusual in the tech field, but it illustrates the point that non-competes as forced on employees today are completely unreasonble.
I disagree with you that Seagate's position is reasonable. A person who works for 17 years in a specific area of technology has effectively tied their earning power to that area of technology, and the company benefits far more than the employee.
While I don't feel that a person who has tied themselves to a narrow area of technology should be sheltered from change in technology, I do feel that they should be free to exercise their expertise in their field with any employer in that field.
Let's all make a very important distinction. An NDA prevents a person from using / disclosing specific and secret information learned in working for a particular company on a particular project or projects. NDAs are about specific and identifiable pieces of information.
A non-compete clause prevents a person from exercising general knowlege in relatively broad field at an alternate employer. Non-competes are about preventing a person from moving, not about preventing information from moving.
NDA's are routinely enforced. Non-competes are frequently ignored, especially in Califonia, where they are signed as part of the initial employment ageement as standard practice
Some whining about gerrymandering is done by people whose votes are negated by districting sematintics, rather than polls who can not get elected.
Those whiners want to remove as much "game" and "tactical advantage" as possible from election races, and attempt to refocus them on the priorities of everyday people, rather than the priorites of radical idealogists.
By the way, "independent" councils have been shown to work quite well in many states.
Gerrymandering is a common verb, if you pay any attention at all to politics.
Posting Links is valuable and informative, so please continue, but you should be aware that just because a word or phrase is not technical, does not mean that it is not well known to a technical community.
Nutshell - post links more - trash the mods and submitters less.
There is a standard for integrating between carriers for this, as you would expect.
Implementation of that standard is what the ISVs (portability companies) do.
There is no standard for integrating from a wireless company into the portablity company's software.
This makes the process of switching ISVs for portability software much more burdensome than the process of working with the ISV to adjust the software which is currently used.
Integrations with enterprise ISVs are measured in months, at a minimum, so the decision to extract an enterprise from an ISV solution is not one which occurs over a bad week.
In addition, if you look at the publicly available information, you will see that everyone's software has problems, so on top of the transition costs, it isn't a simple choice of works vs. doesn't work.
Guys and gals, please review your history...
Regulation promoted customer churn results in a finite period of market chaos which is largely centered on the inter-connection software. Doesn't anyone remember the first couple of years (not that long ago) of DSL? This (the lag and pain) too shall pass
Slashdot Mirror
"95% of software is written for Microsoft "
That number you've pulled out of your ass may or may not be close to the truth.
However, it does not contradict the parents contention that most software is written for a compiler, not a chip instruction set.
If you want to support the grand parent's absurd contention that 99% of software is written for X86 specifically, then please provide more data, because my experience is that most software is written for a compiler and tuned to many things, least of all the processor.
If you want to contend that most software written with the expectation to run on windows is tuned specifically to X86, presumably via hand coded assembly, please provide same, because I contend the vast majority of software writen does not include assembly written just for that software to run faster on a particular processor.
If you want to contend that 4% of software is coded to a processor, well, that is less outrageuous, but still doesn't pass the smell test. Please provide data for your unfounded assertion.
Yes -- I think you and the grandparent are either living in an assembly centric world and ignoring the majority of software development, or are stuck in an X86 specific world even more deeply distanced from most development.
no one remembers WarCraft II? It really isn't that hard to think of sequels that don't suck. The article is a predictive rant at best, a troll at worst.
Ok "MasterOfUniverse".
...
CS grads are in demand.
Your profile says everything necessary about your state of mind.
Please, let us look at economic realities.
It circa 1999 in the US, there was a desperate search for anyone who could do any kind of software.
That lead to a radical inflation of the salraies of anyone who could claim to do software.
Bubble expands, lots of bozos get jobs. Bubble burts, lots of random people lose jobs.
CS grads have problems getting work
Cs Grads are in decline.
(now) later
CS grads are now able to get jobs if they qualify.
sounds like a healthy job market to me.
Boot note: I am desparate to hire smart people with the requisite skills, but at the moment they are not grads. They are individuals who have been in the industry and know how to deliver a certain kind of software.
It isn't nearly as simple as you suggest.
Three jobs in the past ten years.
What is your point?
That is normal.
That is a vibrant economy in your position.
When things have been good for software engineers, the average tenure for a software engineer was less then 2 years, because they kept getting raises with new jobs. If you want a job for thirty years, pick a different job and a differerent financial profile.
It is not purely political, it is purely legal.
The key is that CC works under the current political framework.
Those who license their content with the CC license protect their content in a particular manner which specifies more freedom of use than is specified under copywright law, but is still restricted.
The restriction is typically some form of "you can not charge for this if I do not charge you for it". However, that is not the only available restricted use under the CC.
From this you should be able to see that the work is available to the masses, but still protected by the author to the extent that it is valuable financially.
This is not a political mechanism, which would require action by congress. This is a legal mechnaism which operates under the current legal structure.
One could say that while it operates under the current legal structure, and is designed to operate within those constraints to facillitate content authors to allow distribution of their work in some circumstances and not others, without action by congress or any other political body, that is serves a political purpose, in freeing content beyond what the current political regime prefers, but that would rate the CC as additionally political, rather than purely political.
You would be much more correct to assess the CC as purely legal, and the Open Source Movement (not any licenses or licensers) as political.
easy, douglas d
If you paid attention, you would have been informed that in may states (U.S) and countries clauses like these in employment agreements are invalid.
In many cases, contracts like these have been rules null and void in courts.
The trick is to understand which ones, where, and why.
Please stop posting the "If he was stupid enough to agree to foobar clause ..." responses.
Employment agreements are 10 + pages of legalize, reasonably standardized within geographical regions, and for the most part, non-negotiable.
In most cases, even the case of a technical employee with 17 years of experience, the employer has the majority of the power.
Your average joe, or technical joe, without benefit of a law degree or a truly unique skill set, doesn't stand a chance.
Most of us will sign damn near anything to seal a job offer, and we depend on state law and the courts to protect us from employers who try to take advantage of their position.
Disregarding the veracity of your report, the point you make is exactly why California courts refuse to enforce these clauses.
Your friend accepted the clause, and has a job.
You refused the clause, and presumably others like it at other employers, and can not get a job.
If one can not pick and choose employment restrictions, then the employment market is not sufficiently competitive to manage without regulations, hence employees need governmental protection from employers.
NOTE: The bottom line is not purchase decisions. I'll leave the real bottom line as an exercise for the reader.
I disagree.
Refer to other responses to this article about the relative imbalance of power between the employer and the employee.
Even if he signed a non-compete, the non-compete was effectively coerced and should have minimal, if any validity.
Non-compete is different from NDA.
According to you, Seagate is requiring _LOWLY INTERNS_ to sign one year non-compete agreements.
This is not unusual in the tech field, but it illustrates the point that non-competes as forced on employees today are completely unreasonble.
I disagree with you that Seagate's position is reasonable. A person who works for 17 years in a specific area of technology has effectively tied their earning power to that area of technology, and the company benefits far more than the employee.
While I don't feel that a person who has tied themselves to a narrow area of technology should be sheltered from change in technology, I do feel that they should be free to exercise their expertise in their field with any employer in that field.
Let's all make a very important distinction. An NDA prevents a person from using / disclosing specific and secret information learned in working for a particular company on a particular project or projects. NDAs are about specific and identifiable pieces of information.
A non-compete clause prevents a person from exercising general knowlege in relatively broad field at an alternate employer. Non-competes are about preventing a person from moving, not about preventing information from moving.
NDA's are routinely enforced. Non-competes are frequently ignored, especially in Califonia, where they are signed as part of the initial employment ageement as standard practice
The problem with your interpretation is that you are accepting the employer's explanation.
As with most matters of law, there are two sides, and each tries to skew the interpretation of law towards their side.
One should never accept advice on employmnet law from one's employer.
The clause being dicussed is at best unenforceable in California, and at worst, not a legal employment restriction in th U.S.
NOTE: IANAL, so don't take my advice too much more seriously than that of your employer.
It ain't that simple.
The act of signing does not make the agreement signed legally binding.
For example, in the U.S. you can not agree to enslave yourself.
Interpretation of agreements like this is jurisdiction dependent.
California for years has consistentley refused to enforce non-competes of this nature.
Check your location for the validity of these employment agreement clauses.
easy, douglas d
Some whining about gerrymandering is done by people whose votes are negated by districting sematintics, rather than polls who can not get elected.
Those whiners want to remove as much "game" and "tactical advantage" as possible from election races, and attempt to refocus them on the priorities of everyday people, rather than the priorites of radical idealogists.
By the way, "independent" councils have been shown to work quite well in many states.
easy,
douglas d
Gerrymandering is a common verb, if you pay any attention at all to politics.
Posting Links is valuable and informative, so please continue, but you should be aware that just because a word or phrase is not technical, does not mean that it is not well known to a technical community.
Nutshell - post links more - trash the mods and submitters less.
easy,
douglas d
As pointed out previously, you are wrong due to an over abundance of synicism.
A significant portion of SCOs stock market boyancy is due to projections of software licensing fees.
If SCO loses, or appears to be losing this lawsuit, the estimates of those fees will fall to zero, along with the value of SCO stock.
Beyond losing a licensing / contract dispute lawsuit against IBM, what, exactly, would you view as a major smackdown?
easy,
douglas d
There is a standard for integrating between carriers for this, as you would expect.
Implementation of that standard is what the ISVs (portability companies) do.
There is no standard for integrating from a wireless company into the portablity company's software.
This makes the process of switching ISVs for portability software much more burdensome than the process of working with the ISV to adjust the software which is currently used.
Integrations with enterprise ISVs are measured in months, at a minimum, so the decision to extract an enterprise from an ISV solution is not one which occurs over a bad week.
In addition, if you look at the publicly available information, you will see that everyone's software has problems, so on top of the transition costs, it isn't a simple choice of works vs. doesn't work.
Guys and gals, please review your history...
Regulation promoted customer churn results in a finite period of market chaos which is largely centered on the inter-connection software. Doesn't anyone remember the first couple of years (not that long ago) of DSL? This (the lag and pain) too shall pass
easy,
douglas d