There's another step in here: is the code copyrighted? Without that part the rest does not matter. That's why GPL has a copyright even though Stallman seems to be personally opposed to the concept with software.

Because that's what a lot of customers want and it's easy to market a Linux product to IT departments. I also think there may be some synergy between a VM running Linux and the underlying vmklinux host.

Page 11 is talking about capital cost. The figure for nuclear is $7,591/kW, which is a lot more than some (although not the highest). But how does that work out over the lifetime of the plant? Assuming 100% uptime, that's 8,760kWh in the first year, so that's less than $0.90/kWh. If the plant is operating for 20 years, then that's around 4/kWh. Most nuclear plants are built with a 40-60 year expected lifespan, which makes the capital cost negligible over the lifetime of the plant.

The correct page to look at is Page 2, which gives the unsubsidised cost of electricity from all of the generating mechanisms. Nuclear is $124/MWh - that's lower than all of the other fuel sources in their 'conventional' bucket that have a little representative diamond listed (coal doesn't, and has a range that extends both above and below nuclear). Only Gas Combined Cycle is cheaper on average, and that's only when excluding most of the costs. Only utility-scale PV comes out cheaper overall, and you also need to add in storage costs if you want to use PV for a significant amount of grid supply.

That's fine too. The problem is building neither. The other problem is not fixing the design that was known to cause hydrogen build-up and explosions that breach containment in any problem scenario.

For every anecdote of a human taking over and saving the day, you can find a similar one of the human taking over and crashing. It mostly boils down to the amount of training that the pilot has had - and even the ones that end up crashing in situations where the automatic systems would probably have managed have had vastly more training than almost any driver on the road...

It's worth noting that there is one piece of automation in cars already that does give a different kind of driving license in a lot of places: automatic gear change. If you get a driving license in a car that has an automatic transmission then you can't drive manual cars with it, though the converse is allowed.

So are the console makers creating the games, or are there independent companies who make the games? Sure, Sony may not want to port to a Microsoft platform, but certainly a third party game maker would be interested in doing this.

There were games on terminal before there was even the first console or gaming computer or arcade games. So keyboards came first.

I never got used to a joystick, they were always awful. And the thing on the consoles are too much like that stupid nipple mouse thing on some laptops that are impossible to use (but which somehow some people like).

I have no idea what the alternative, they're not the sort of game that sounds interesting. Most console games fit into that category.

Of course, the idea of playing the game in a TV from my couch does sound interesting, but then you're stuck with a godawful controller that's utterly useless for gaming compared to keyboard and mouse. If you manage it then the game has a bug but you can't fix it without subscribing and selling your soul to Microsoft or Sony, can't use mods, etc. So the console ultimately is to keep the kids occupied and I don't have kids.

I think that console exclusive games are a travesty, a stupid concept that the customers *should* have boycotted to preserve a better gaming environment. This is not a matter of game companies deciding not to port a game because it's hard or the market is small, but because they signed a deal with the console maker.

I can't be bothered to pay more for a console when I already have a PC.

"We are a hedge, please move along."

I've been playing a bit with GOGS. It has most of the things that I like about GitHub, but can be hosted locally.

Newton looked at the spectrum and saw that it contained six distinct colours to the human eye: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple. But his alchemist beliefs considered 7 to be a magic number and so wanted the spectrum to have seven colours. He decided that purple should be split into indigo and violet to reflect this, but didn't split any of the others (even where the difference is at least as pronounced) because it contradicted his mystical thinking.

If even Newton 'One of the smartest men to ever live' couldn't manage to keep his science separate from his mysticism, what hope do you think other religious people have?

Code runs. It continues to run. And, over time, the requirements change. Maintenance is adapting the code to the new requirements. If you don't understand why this is important, then I can only assume that no one is using code that you've written.

No, sorry. A compiler is, in theoretical terms, a partial application of an interpreter to a program. In practical terms, a compiler transforms the input into some other form, which is then executed, whereas an interpreter executes the input directly. JIT compilation is still compilation. A just-in-time compiler is the term given to compilers that produce their output just before it is executed, as opposed to ahead-of-time (AoT) compilers, which produce it all up front, even if some paths are never executed.

There's some complication, because most environments that do JIT compilation also include interpreters that gather profiling information to incorporate into the JIT compiled code and to improve startup times. JavaScript implementations, in particular, often spend a reasonable amount of time in the interpreter because most web pages contain a load of JavaScript that's only run one or two times and the time taken to compile it is more than the time saved to execute it. Some have multiple compilers - JavaScriptCore from the WebKit project has an interpreter and three different JIT compilers that have different points in the space between compilation time and execution time - they'll recompile hot paths multiple times as they're executed more, with more optimisation each time. The key difference between the interpreter and compilers here is that the compilers are each invoked once on a segment of code and it's then executed without involving the compiler. The interpreter is involved every time the bytecode is run. It reads a bytecode and then jumps to the segment of interpreter code that executes it and then returns. The compiler takes a sequence of bytecodes, generates a fragment of native code to execute them, and then this fragment is combined with other fragments to produce a running program.

The shader compilers in drivers, however, are not JIT compilers. They are AoT compilers that are invoked at load time - often at install time. They don't compile the code just before it's run, they typically compile it once and cache the result for multiple invocations of the program. Some drivers (Windows and Android come to mind) have a mechanism that allows you to do the compilation at install time. Unlike most JIT environments, graphics drivers don't tend to use run-time profiling for optimisation, the bytecode exists solely for the purpose of providing an ISA-neutral distribution format.