No.

Careful, the same would imply that someone who can manage projects, manpower and deadlines can manage pointers and complex sets of data safely. The most fundamental difference is that working with people is that your subordinates have a brain and will let you know when something is obviously wrong, non-nonsensical or impossible. I don't mean they're geniuses but the computer isn't even toilet trained and will poop all over the floor if it can't find the bathroom. It'll go in an infinite loop or write full the disk or flood the network or trash the database with total obliviousness.

Half my job is figuring out every conceivable way the system can crap out, take bad input, return junk or be exploited because the system won't deal with any situation on its own. Project management is a lot more about resolving the daily issues your team is struggling with right now, not chasing corner cases that might one day happen. And the software solution is often just throwing some kind of error, if you're aware you've almost trivially dealt with it.

Management problems are typically "soft issues" that doesn't have definitive causes or solutions. Like today we talked about a new reporting solution that is behind schedule and how the estimates were set and causes they're off, consequences, remaining uncertainty, mitigation strategies, if it's possible to free up existing resources or add resources without running into the mythical man-month and how we plan to deal with our needs just not today but going forward. You're not chasing a bug in code that you can patch and declare fixed. It's a constant re-balancing of competing priorities.

Sure, as long as you use some GPL code the requirements apply to the work as a whole. But if you write part A using the GPL license, I can write part B using the BSD license. The GPL license is okay with A+B and if someone wants to use part B in a non-GPL project or replace part A with differently licensed code they can. The point was he doesn't have to use the GPL unless he wants to. He can use a far more permissive "I don't care, use it wherever you want" license for his bits.

The way copyright law defines distribution it essentially means transmit, like over radio and TV or down a wire. There's a very limited exception carved out for passing along transitory copies unaltered so each node on the Internet isn't liable for everything passing through just the source and potentially the sink. Moving a copy physically around never invokes copyright, which is why Apple is on the hook and the post office not. And Apple's software storing it on the user device leads to vicarious and contributory liability if they violate the reproduction right, since they're both materially contributing and profiting from it.

This is pretty much straight up copyright law, not the FSFs opinion. I haven't read up on exactly what beef they have with the app store's terms, but Apple's activity very clearly falls under copyright law.

Oh, how /. has fallen when this is modded up. It must be GPL-compatible, it must not be GPL. The FSF keeps a list of compatible licenses though the general theme is "like GPL or freer", like it doesn't have to be a copyleft license. If he doesn't want to introduce any new license headaches he could just use the modified BSD license which is pretty much as minimal as it gets. Whether it resolves his license problems are another matter, the GPL demands the whole project must be compatible and I'd guess that Apple's code is not. So the lawyer is right it doesn't matter, it's probably a violation either way.

Well even if we change the medium there'll still be a desire for professionally made content, no offence to YouTube ads but it's not likely to produce Game of Thrones or The Hobbit any time soon. That you're stuck with what your cable provider gives you is going the way of AOL though, everyone can use Spotify and once the bandwidth is sufficient you can get all your TV from anywhere too. The only reason we don't have streaming BluRay quality is will, better to pretend 5 Mbit is enough for HD. Oddly enough Netflix recommends 25 mbit for UHD, 5x the bandwidth for 4x the pixels, despite the audio track being the same. But the way things are going with fiber eventually that'll be like 128kbps vs 256kbps AAC, it's not significant.

I'm utterly impressed with the expertise level the random slashdot user possesses.

Being able to dismiss anyone's study as being written by idiots without even reading the study (as typical on /.), that's really amazing!

Unfortunately, that's not really how that swings. If you make for example a movie adaptation of a book it might drive book sales, but your use is primarily a replacement for a commercial opportunity to sell the movie rights. Sun/Oracle was selling Java ME licenses, Android was pretty clearly created to avoid those license terms. If we first assume the API is copyrighted, that does not seem like a typical fair use. The purpose is not interoperability with Java, it's to substitute it so the character of use is also against it and clearly they replicate a substantial amount of the API. The only factor that really speaks in favor of fair use is the nature of the work, which is purely descriptive and necessary to achieve the same functional operation.

Part of me want to agree a little bit with Oracle though, clearly designing an API is a creative effort. It's not merely stating a bunch of facts where somebody else designing an API would have to come up with something very, very similar. But the whole purpose of an API is to have a standardized way to interact with it, like being able to copyright where the brake pedal goes so nobody else can put it in the same spot and have it work in the same way. Like, I can't really think of a non-fair way to use an API which is why it shouldn't be copyrighted in the first place.

...you insensitive clod!

You forget the next Bill Gates (if he wants to be) after this ruling: Tim Berners-Lee. Any use of the HTTP protocol from 1991 to date is clearly derivative of the HTTP 1.0 protocol and since he owns the copyright which is life+70 he now can sue every website in existence for royalties.

Well you know they're not going to give up the ad revenue for free and how many people already complain it's too expensive? I don't exactly feel the market vibe would be positive. That said, online services aren't stuck with one service tier. They could offer some form of "first class" service, bump the price out of the "premium" class and offer simultaneous or near-cinema exclusives - preferably less insane than Prima Cinema ($35000 + $500/rental), like upper middle class not 1%ers. Of course cinemas would be blatantly opposed to the idea, they refuse to show anything also being aired.

As a commuter vehicle, even the Renault Twizy would serve my purpose. The problem is that with depreciation, insurance, parking and all those other costs it's not worth having two cars and having to pick up a rental every time I do something outside the commuter box is hassle, though it'd probably make economic sense. My ICE car covers 100% of my needs, except when it's so far that I'm flying. Somehow the cost/benefit - or rather saving/benefit isn't very compelling.

Well, Windows doesn't run Linux applications but AMD CPUs do run the same software as Intel CPUs. That sort of thing matters. To use a car analogy, it's one thing to use a competitor's trucks because you don't make trucks even though they also have cars that compete with yours. It's another thing if your sales reps show up in a competitor's car. I'd wager the people at Samsung use Windows and Office, but I don't expect to see many Lumia phones. Last I heard AMD is still making desktop CPUs. Now they're making a desktop without their own desktop CPU. That's as clear a case of not eating your own dog food that you're going to get.

I guess nobody here at /. took the Nokia lesson. No matter how badly your product sucks, you never, ever admit that to the market. It doesn't matter if you got less credibility than the Iraqi information minister, it's still better than the alternative. Do you know how much ridicule they're going to get for this with funny fake ads with the "Intel inside" logo and jingle? It's brand suicide. The only plausible explanation is that AMD is in "screw tomorrow, we need sales NOW" mode. It's not a shocker if the market pairs an Intel CPU with an AMD dGPU if that makes sense, but if I was head of marketing at AMD I'd rather resign than have this to my name.

Just another anecdote:

I just whipped out my iPhone 1, and it is downright snappy compared to my iPhone 4s, and from a usability perspective in terms of "snappiness" comparable to my wife's iPhone 5s. Of course the iPhone 1 does a lot less than the newer models, but certainly appears to me that it did the core things just as fast (calling, messaging, etc).