Hosnestly, when it comes to businesses and GPL some small dose of "okay, I'll pretend I didn't see that" is needed!
GPL will only be popular is more businesses use their fruits, and business can sometimes only be fruitful by relying on GPL code.
GPL is competition unfriendly as far as businesses are concerned because whatever enhancements a business makes to the code, they are forced to publish it and let their competition burst with laughter.
Also, looking at the Danish Satellite Company, they seem to be offering non-existentially threatening products.
Wouldn't it be better if this focus of GPL abuse is shifted to say.... Comcast and other companies that threaten net-neutrality.... for example? I mean those companies would be an existential threat to GPL (among others) wouldn't they? So why focus on the Danish Satellite Company BvHD?
Unless NGO's have an office/unit internally within Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google to oversee their conducts and verify their compliance to the flashy Global Code they are taunting - all this is just a PR stunt.
With ANY company:
FIRST comes MONEY!!!
SECOND comes morals (if any, and entirely optional).
The pure reason why the Internet is the way it is today, is simply because the current 'inferior' internet provides more economic opportunities than a utopian internet.
If the internet was security aware, spammers, trojans, phishers, etc... won't exist and this would effectively kill Symantec, Network Associates, etc...
Firstly, the core determinants of HDD failures are:
Number of writes per second
Number of reads per second
Revolutions per minute
Environmental conditions, i.e. - temperature, humidity, etc...
The studies by CMU and Google are not broken down at the application level, i.e. - what purpose were the HDDs serving. For example an HDD serving as an archive will perform differently from an HDD doing constant defragmentation, for the sake of example, or other read/write intensive functions as compared to archiving.
Such a mashing is therefore "unfair". But ok, lets take the numbers produced by CMU and Google. Their rates of failure does seem to threaten RAID 5's (and other RAIDs) reliability with increasing disk sizes. This issue is immediately resolved by the RAID controller - but yes it means an extra performance penalty for the RAID implementation.
As such, RAID 5 will not die. Its the RAID controllers that need to be more intelligent, at the expense of performance.
I feel that is a bad idea because an Internship implies that the inexperienced individual will be a slave of authority and incapable of setting his own direction of specialisation.
My advice instead is to keep your QA job, but be inflexible with it. By inflexible I mean you walk in the office and 8am, and then shoot out at 5pm - regardless of the circumstance. Ofcourse you must exercise your own judgement if you need to break this rule assuming a deadline is looming. But if you break this rule more than 20% of the time (more than once in every 5 working days) - you have lost your objective.
The reason for the very inflexible hours is so that you can shoot home and spend 2 hours each working day actually working on your programming skills. There are bucket-loads of Open Source projects that require actual people - regardless of your talent or experience. The only condition all projects require is that you are able to learn new things relatively quickly and are good at the new things you are learning - something which should be a breeze given your CS background.
MUTITASK!
What are you doing now?
You are at work, and you are reading Slashdot.
If you wish to classify "reading" / "researching" as part of your work, I am pretty sure that it can be arranged. After all, you are programming.... right?
Slashdot Mirror
Hosnestly, when it comes to businesses and GPL some small dose of "okay, I'll pretend I didn't see that" is needed!
GPL will only be popular is more businesses use their fruits, and business can sometimes only be fruitful by relying on GPL code.
GPL is competition unfriendly as far as businesses are concerned because whatever enhancements a business makes to the code, they are forced to publish it and let their competition burst with laughter.
Also, looking at the Danish Satellite Company, they seem to be offering non-existentially threatening products.
Wouldn't it be better if this focus of GPL abuse is shifted to say .... Comcast and other companies that threaten net-neutrality .... for example? I mean those companies would be an existential threat to GPL (among others) wouldn't they? So why focus on the Danish Satellite Company BvHD?
Hmmm .... could you supply some examples?
Actually, from what I see - I feel that Matlab is a superset of R. A big difference to your "overlap" comment.
The only benefit of R is OSS. This is also technically bad because another OSS project (Octave) also exists.
Would it not be better if R and Octave were consolidated and their differences merged together?
Whatever the case, I don't see Matlab losing ground (unless they seriously hike their costs).
Unless NGO's have an office/unit internally within Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google to oversee their conducts and verify their compliance to the flashy Global Code they are taunting - all this is just a PR stunt.
With ANY company:
The pure reason why the Internet is the way it is today, is simply because the current 'inferior' internet provides more economic opportunities than a utopian internet.
If the internet was security aware, spammers, trojans, phishers, etc... won't exist and this would effectively kill Symantec, Network Associates, etc...
Firstly, the core determinants of HDD failures are:
The studies by CMU and Google are not broken down at the application level, i.e. - what purpose were the HDDs serving. For example an HDD serving as an archive will perform differently from an HDD doing constant defragmentation, for the sake of example, or other read/write intensive functions as compared to archiving.
Such a mashing is therefore "unfair". But ok, lets take the numbers produced by CMU and Google. Their rates of failure does seem to threaten RAID 5's (and other RAIDs) reliability with increasing disk sizes. This issue is immediately resolved by the RAID controller - but yes it means an extra performance penalty for the RAID implementation.
As such, RAID 5 will not die. Its the RAID controllers that need to be more intelligent, at the expense of performance.
I feel that is a bad idea because an Internship implies that the inexperienced individual will be a slave of authority and incapable of setting his own direction of specialisation.
My advice instead is to keep your QA job, but be inflexible with it. By inflexible I mean you walk in the office and 8am, and then shoot out at 5pm - regardless of the circumstance. Ofcourse you must exercise your own judgement if you need to break this rule assuming a deadline is looming. But if you break this rule more than 20% of the time (more than once in every 5 working days) - you have lost your objective.
The reason for the very inflexible hours is so that you can shoot home and spend 2 hours each working day actually working on your programming skills. There are bucket-loads of Open Source projects that require actual people - regardless of your talent or experience. The only condition all projects require is that you are able to learn new things relatively quickly and are good at the new things you are learning - something which should be a breeze given your CS background.
For example - take the Ubuntu project - they actually have a Wiki page for peeps like yourself wanting to get into the game: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributeToUbuntu
... to
swap = max mainboard RAM capacity
There should be conditions attached to this new rule though:
MUTITASK! What are you doing now? You are at work, and you are reading Slashdot. If you wish to classify "reading" / "researching" as part of your work, I am pretty sure that it can be arranged. After all, you are programming .... right?