This is a warning shot over the bow for Apple before the record industry tries to retaliate for the Beats/Apple Music subscription services' pay-out structure.

Meh. When I was an undergrad, you really needed to understand netmasks if you wanted to set up a network for multiplayer games. Now, it's much easier (although Windows makes it stupidly hard to create an ad-hoc WiFi network. No idea how people think it's ready for the desktop), and you can do a lot without caring. I can't remember the last time I needed to know about them.

If the images are anything to go by, then one of them is a Hasidic Jew from Israel, another is an actress in Chicago, and another is some guy in New York.

Unless they aren't, in which case their picture icons are being used in violation of Copyright, unless they have written permission from the image owners...

The point of this is not to enforce it, it's so that you can justify doing the right thing to management in the name of standards compliance.

Your statistics suck. Nothing talking about what caused the traffic-related death. Drunk fucks? Inattentive idiots on cell phones? Intentional suicide? Too busy focusing on the radio dial than the road? None of your point has any relevance without that additional information.

"So your night vision isn't getting fucked with by the head lights of oncoming cars?"

Less so than when you go throwing more photons at your eyes from inside the windshield, taking detail away from what's outside the windshield, and blocking your vision because you're trying to see shit outside your windshield through a damned reflected projection coming from inside your windshield.

"but that's probably because sodium vapor lights are efficient and reliable"

*LAAAAAUGH* Efficient in ONE COLOR with horrible color and detail reproduction.

" The move to LED street lighting is going to see a lot more blue light at night (white LED's being a blue LED with yellow phosphor)"

You're trying to talk to someone that does LEDs for a living about LEDs?

We've got new junction tech that allows a single substrate to produce all wavelengths, and is tunable in-manufacturing. Blue with a shit phosphor isn't going to be around much longer.

"No, there is substantial debate on this subject still."

From IDIOTS. The USAF has already conducted test after test after test. For night conditions, a red HUD causes the least amount of interference. We also know exactly why this is, it is a simple matter of chemistry.

"Get a car with good headlights, use them."

That won't make a difference if your green or blue HUD is overcoming the average levels of light coming through your windshield - it will effectively wash out anything past the HUD. Similar to a dirty windshield in application.

can't the guy claim Office Space Solutions ripped him off?

i mean, i don't actually believe that, "Work Better" is not a difficult slogan to formulate

but when dealing with this kind of abusive litigation, i think it's fair to reply to this kind of crap with the same crap

"your honor, Office Space Solutions must have found my website and decided to steal my intellectual property" or some such nonsense

Not true. Go back and re-read the GPL. You are required to release your code under a license that places no more restrictions on it than the GPL. You must also license the combined work under the GPL. It is, however, completely fine to take a few files of GPL'd code, combine them with some BSDL'd code files (as long as those files are not a derived work of the GPL'd code) and ship the resulting program under the GPL. If someone else takes only the BSDL'd files for use in another project then they are not bound by the GPL.

There are two ways in which the GPL is 'viral'. The first is that you cannot change the license of something that you do not own, so any derived works retain the copyright and license of the original. The second is that the GPL is a distribution license and, if you wish to retain the right to distribute it, then you must not distribute it in a way that does not pass on the freedoms listed in the license (meaning that the combined work must grant all of the permissions as the GPL'd parts).

It's the non-engineers.

They have this misconception that people used to dealing with the intricate semantics of programming languages are going to be unaware of the intricate semantics of English. Therefore, if they ask a question once, and do not get an answer they like, they will repeatedly ask the same question in different guises, hoping to obtain the answer they wanted to hear.

This really comes down to who is more patient than whom.

I usually attempt to buffer my answers in order to soften the blow, but you can ask the same question as many ways as you want, and the answer will likely not change, so long as it is fundamentally the same question. And I usually have the patience of Job. However, there was one incident where I was up against a deadline, and was being asked to "just cobble together something that works, and we'll (read: you'll) fix it (read: in a binary compatible way) later. Which was an impossibility (I was working on some very complex database code written in C++ which did subschema definitional enforcement on an upper level database schema, and the semantics had to be correct for the data stored in the binary backing store to be usable going forward, when we did the next update). The code had to be *right*, as opposed to *right now*, and the time difference was important.

We had a UI person who was in a management position, and they brought her over to argue their case that immediate was better than correct (correct would fit under the deadline, but only if everyone left me alone to finish the code). The UI person was constantly revising the UI in each release, and each release was practically a full rewrite. And she did not understand why I could not write my code the same way she wrote hers. Finally having had enough, I explained "It's OK if your code is crap; you are going to rewrite it in the next release anyway. My code has to work now, and it has to continue to work going forward, and therefore it needs to be correct. I understand that you are feeling the approaching deadline. So am I. However, while your code can be crap, mine can't be because I have to maintain it going forward. Now if you will get the hell out of my office, I will be able to finish the code by the deadline."

Needless to say, there were some ruffled feathers. The director of engineering sided with me. I completed the (correct, rather than expedient) code by the deadline, and the product didn't turn into unmaintainable crap vis-a-vis the update process going forward.

What's the moral to this story?

Well, with specific regard to DICE:

(1) Repeatedly asking the same question in different ways is not going to get them a different answer, if the first answer was correct. Any other answer than that answer would be incorrect, for the question asked.

With specific regard to the current topic:

(2) Engineers who actually reliably, repeatedly, and consistently deliver what they are asked to deliver, within the timeframe that was agreed upon, can, and often do, wield more authority than the managers nominally set above them in the food chain, so it's not like going into management is going to give you any more real authority than you already have by way of your relationship with the team, and their trust of your judgement.

A management path can be a good idea if:

(A) You want more perks (stock options, etc.), although in a good company, if you are a great engineer, you will get those anyway

(B) You are tired of doing engineering for a living (which probably means you didn't qualify as "great engineer" under option 'A' anyway)

(C) You feel you would be more useful and/or happier in such a position (but if your happiness is based on power, don't expect it will necessarily follow)

(D) You are an OK (but not great) engineer at a company which engages in age discrimination, and you are happy to continue working for such a company going forward, and it's your only way to do so (at which point, I pretty much need to question your personal ethics)

Other than that... DICE: Asked and Answered. Please go on to the next survey question.

Please explain what they are.

I repeat: I'm only responding to YOUR OWN insults and accusations. I point out the fallacies in your arguments and accusations.

For the most part the only things I've "accused" you of are things I can prove beyond reasonable doubt: misrepresentation, misrepresentation out-of-context, outright libel, and intentional, malicious defamation of character.

What else do I need to say? In fact I don't think I've "accused" you of anything else, and the truth isn't an "insult". It is just the truth.

Maybe he's actually starting to get the point.

But there is SO MUCH evidence to the contrary... I'm not buying it at this time.

I don't make "baseless" comments, as I have explained to you innumerable times. And you have never -- not once -- demonstrated that my comments were "baseless".

You seem to think you can "wear me down" by making the same false accusations over and over.

All that really accomplishes is another entry in the journal.

Obvious typo: s/testerone/testosterone

Does distorting what other people actually say make YOU feel like a big man, Bryan?

Seriously... if you had the courage of your convictions, wouldn't you just repeat what other people actually said and then refute it?

As opposed to, say, your actual habit of misrepresenting what other people say so you can try to knock THAT down with straw-man or out-of-context misrepresentations?

Do you really want to have a testerone contest? Ooops... wait... you already did, and you didn't come out smelling very good.

I will ask again: WTF is wrong with you?