I once worked on a project where we were developing a new telecom product. Our development servers and source code repository were in a lab with no uninterruptable power supplies (UPS's). We kept having our servers rebooting at odd hours. Then we found out that the cleaning crew was using portable "backpack" vacuum cleaners. They would plug into a wall outlet that was on the same breaker as our lab. When the breaker popped, they would reset it, and continue cleaning. There was a tape backup to preserve our source code, but unfortunately the backup was bigger than our tape, so the backups kept failing silently. We requisitioned some UPS's, and they kept failing. We found out later that the IT guys had inventoried some bad UPS's and those were the ones we got. This was the same project where I had to go to the PC graveyard and scavenge parts to build our production servers. Serious hackage, but a pretty fun project to work on...
(IANAL) I don't suppose there would be anything to prevent a plaintiff from filing an appeal even if their suit were dismissed "with prejudice". If the plaintiff could show the judge was obviously biased, mentally unstable, or both, then the appellate court would theoretically be able to remedy it (e.g., vacate the judge's ruling). But to be more precise, the "with prejudice" means the original judge won't hear any additional motions by the plaintiff on the case. If the appellate court (and so on up the chain of appellate courts) agrees with the judge, the plaintiff is out of luck.
The point I was trying to make was that the important part is the judges' finding and not the irrelevant statements about the GPL with respect to derivative works.
(IANAL) The case was dismissed "with prejudice" and the dismissal was based on the failure of the plaintiff to show that he suffered damages or that antitrust law applied to him since he was a "producer" and not a "consumer". "With prejudice" means the plaintiff has lost and can't appeal. The statement about the GPL was not a finding, but simply some explanation used by the judge. So there'd be no reason for the defendant to appeal to correct the explanation.
For example, if the judge said "I find that you are not a consumer. One reason that you are not a consumer is that the sky is green." There would be no reason the appeal that the sky is rather blue. But if the judge said "I find that the sky is green and that you are not a consumer.", then we might have to worry about green skys becoming a legal precedant.
This is the same person that unsuccessfully sued the FSF, also for alleged antitrust reasons.
lack of competition, not too much competition
on
IBM Opts for AMD
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I think TFA misses an important point. It's not whether Intel or AMD captures the entire market, or what market share these two players have. With only two major players, I'd say the main problem is that we have too little competition, not too much!
First of all, my condolences and utmost sympathy for the test participants for their unfortunate condition as a result of these tests.
I did RTFA but it didn't mention anything about animal testing. One other poster mentioned primate tests had been performed. Does anyone have any references for this? It would be common sense to have animal testing first, and one would expect results such as total destruction of T-cells to have been detected in animal testing.
Also, why would they select apparently healthy young individuals for the first test trials? Shouldn't they be testing on terminally ill or those already affected by auto-immune dysfunction?
Some things to consider are how much risk can you afford (e.g., could you afford to loose it all on a bad investment?) and how long you can wait for the investment to start showing returns (e.g., 2 years vs 40 years). Lower risk investments include CDs, quality bonds, etc. The spectrum gets more risky as you look at money markets, mutuals, stocks, derivatives, options, etc. With longer term investment horizons, you might be able to take advantage of longer term trends, ammortize risk over a longer period of time, take advantage of compounding power, etc. Diversifying your investment can help reduce risk as well.
As others have suggested, it's always a good idea to get professional advice. I'd add that no matter how good the advice you get, it's still your responsibility to make the investment decisions. So you also need to do your own research. You'll probably make mistakes at the begining. But any investment mistakes you make at this point in your life are probably smaller and easier to deal with than if you wait and start investing later in life.
One source I'd recommend is to read the works of Benjamin Graham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Graham. He's considered the "Father of Value Investing". His analysis of areas such as the conditions that triggered the great depression and "investing" versus "speculating" are a great read.
> What do other programmers do to motivate themselves?
How do I motivate myself to work? Usually I just visualize my family and I living under a bridge and carrying a handwritten "will program for food" sign.
Slashdot Mirror
I once worked on a project where we were developing a new telecom product. Our development servers and source code repository were in a lab with no uninterruptable power supplies (UPS's). We kept having our servers rebooting at odd hours. Then we found out that the cleaning crew was using portable "backpack" vacuum cleaners. They would plug into a wall outlet that was on the same breaker as our lab. When the breaker popped, they would reset it, and continue cleaning. There was a tape backup to preserve our source code, but unfortunately the backup was bigger than our tape, so the backups kept failing silently. We requisitioned some UPS's, and they kept failing. We found out later that the IT guys had inventoried some bad UPS's and those were the ones we got. This was the same project where I had to go to the PC graveyard and scavenge parts to build our production servers. Serious hackage, but a pretty fun project to work on...
(IANAL) I don't suppose there would be anything to prevent a plaintiff from filing an appeal even if their suit were dismissed "with prejudice". If the plaintiff could show the judge was obviously biased, mentally unstable, or both, then the appellate court would theoretically be able to remedy it (e.g., vacate the judge's ruling). But to be more precise, the "with prejudice" means the original judge won't hear any additional motions by the plaintiff on the case. If the appellate court (and so on up the chain of appellate courts) agrees with the judge, the plaintiff is out of luck.
The point I was trying to make was that the important part is the judges' finding and not the irrelevant statements about the GPL with respect to derivative works.
(IANAL) The case was dismissed "with prejudice" and the dismissal was based on the failure of the plaintiff to show that he suffered damages or that antitrust law applied to him since he was a "producer" and not a "consumer". "With prejudice" means the plaintiff has lost and can't appeal. The statement about the GPL was not a finding, but simply some explanation used by the judge. So there'd be no reason for the defendant to appeal to correct the explanation.
For example, if the judge said "I find that you are not a consumer. One reason that you are not a consumer is that the sky is green." There would be no reason the appeal that the sky is rather blue. But if the judge said "I find that the sky is green and that you are not a consumer.", then we might have to worry about green skys becoming a legal precedant.
This is the same person that unsuccessfully sued the FSF, also for alleged antitrust reasons.
I think TFA misses an important point. It's not whether Intel or AMD captures the entire market, or what market share these two players have. With only two major players, I'd say the main problem is that we have too little competition, not too much!
Regards,
Art
First of all, my condolences and utmost sympathy for the test participants for their unfortunate condition as a result of these tests.
I did RTFA but it didn't mention anything about animal testing. One other poster mentioned primate tests had been performed. Does anyone have any references for this? It would be common sense to have animal testing first, and one would expect results such as total destruction of T-cells to have been detected in animal testing.
Also, why would they select apparently healthy young individuals for the first test trials? Shouldn't they be testing on terminally ill or those already affected by auto-immune dysfunction?
Some things to consider are how much risk can you afford (e.g., could you afford to loose it all on a bad investment?) and how long you can wait for the investment to start showing returns (e.g., 2 years vs 40 years). Lower risk investments include CDs, quality bonds, etc. The spectrum gets more risky as you look at money markets, mutuals, stocks, derivatives, options, etc. With longer term investment horizons, you might be able to take advantage of longer term trends, ammortize risk over a longer period of time, take advantage of compounding power, etc. Diversifying your investment can help reduce risk as well.
As others have suggested, it's always a good idea to get professional advice. I'd add that no matter how good the advice you get, it's still your responsibility to make the investment decisions. So you also need to do your own research. You'll probably make mistakes at the begining. But any investment mistakes you make at this point in your life are probably smaller and easier to deal with than if you wait and start investing later in life.
One source I'd recommend is to read the works of Benjamin Graham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Graham. He's considered the "Father of Value Investing". His analysis of areas such as the conditions that triggered the great depression and "investing" versus "speculating" are a great read.
Best of luck!
> What do other programmers do to motivate themselves?
How do I motivate myself to work? Usually I just visualize my family and I living under a bridge and carrying a handwritten "will program for food" sign.
So you're interviewing fresh grads and not finding them to be experienced, right?
And you want to pay them peanuts and not invest in them at all, right?
Wow, why would they ever do that?!?!
So, we're talking up to $4.20/hr bonus on top of the $5.25/hr base pay?!?!? These guys have to be crazy to pass that up!
My guess is that they went to the University of Unrealistic Expectations.
Regards,
Art