Am I free to compile, without modification, a copy of the code that I receive and give it to a less-technical friend? (GPLv2: Only if I give him either a copy of the source code or a written offer good for 3 [I think] years to provide him with the source code on demand. GPLv3: yes, if I also give him a link to where he can download the source).
Am I free to link against it in a proprietary program and call a single function that consumes a string and produces a string as output? (No).
Am I free to write an BSD-licensed wrapper around the library that runs in a separate process and receives a string from stdin and writes the result to stdout, publish that, and use it from my program? (Not 100% sure, but the FSF lawyers believe that the answer is yes)
Am I free to create some well-defined interfaces, ship a proprietary program that uses them and can load another module, wrap the GPL'd library in some BSDL code that exposes these interfaces, and have my program load it at run time (Yes, probably, though not tested in court - lots of lawyers agree that this one is fine though).
Am I free to ship a proprietary program that can optionally load a GPL'd library and use its functionality directly, as long as I don't distribute the GPL'd code? (Maybe, depending on the copyright status of the interfaces that I use, which Oracle vs Google has now made a lot more murky. Probably 50:50 which way a court would go on this one.)
Yup, the GPL is very simple.
Europeans love to hate on American companies. Just see all of the court cases the European Union brings against American companies (Apple and Microsoft being the first two to spring to mind).
Have you looked at the list of court cases the European Union brings against companies? I'm guessing not, and I'm also guessing that you read about these court cases only in the tech press where they're reporting only on cases brought against big tech firms where American companies tend to dominate, and not against other markets where EU companies dominate.
Our big build machines have been 24 or 32 core for quite a few years, so neither of these gives us a huge performance improvement. We'll evaluate them when we get around to buying more, but from what I've seen they just mean that our next upgrade will be cheaper, not significantly faster.
I remember shitty laptop keyboards. I remember ones with so little travel that your fingers hurt after 20 minutes of typing. I remember ones with a spring right in the middle and a really crappy mechanism so if you hit them slightly off centre they'd bend and not register a key press.
I haven't seen a shitty keyboard on any laptop for about 10 years. There are a few really nice ones but most, including the Macs, have been good enough for a long time.
I haven't used a Mac with the OLED bar, but some of my colleagues have them. If you're in the terminal, they'll show the function keys (though that's configurable and a few command-line apps do modify the display). For most other things, they show context info that is more useful than having to remember what F5 does in this particular application (for example, in XCode they'll show things like 'run' and 'debug').
In the corporate office we have PC's on 5 year replacement cycles
How long have you been doing 5-year replacements? We used to do 3-year replacements, but that's been gradually extended. My work machine is now over four years old and is eligible for replacement, but there's nothing really compelling to replace it with. The same is true for everything from laptops to our big build servers. On our old one, I tried running poudriere and rebuilding the entire FreeBSD ports collection. It took 24 hours, but the last 4 hours were spent downloading the Vega Strike game data files from a very slow upstream source. On the newer machines, it's closer to 16 hours, but that's not really a compelling upgrade - for most things, we get a bigger return from buying more machines, rather than replacing old ones (we can never have enough continuous integration machines, for example).
Gold is a good conductor and doesn't corrode in air. These two things mean that there is a real demand for gold for electrical connectors and jewellery. It's relatively scarce, so the demand is high in proportion to the supply. If gold were cheaper, then we'd plate a lot more things in gold (e.g. pretty much every electrical connector - gold isn't quite as good a conductor as copper, but it's a much better conductor than copper oxide). That gives a lower bound on the price of gold: if it were plentiful then we'd use it for a lot more and its price would drop to close to that of copper or aluminium, but not to zero.
Salt hasn't been a viable currency for quite a long time, but that doesn't mean that people don't still trade salt in futures markets.
It can take a long time though, and while you're riding the upwards curve and selling slowly you can make a lot of money. The thing that people always forget when they read about the tulip bubble and he wall street crash is that as many people became rich as went bankrupt. It's a zero-sum game, so every dollar someone loses will be won by someone else. In many ways, it resembles a poker game where both players are bluffing. Eventually either one will fold or they'll call and whoever has the higher card will win.
I have not speculated on bitcoin, because I don't have any confidence that I can predict the inflection point well enough to find a greater fool before it does.
The test had little to nothing to do with what she learned in high school or what she's learning in college right now
Note that this is intentional. The SAT is intended as an aptitude test. As such, it is intended to measure your ability as independent of knowledge and learned skills as possible. This is obviously impossible, but tests like the SAT and IQ tests try to get as close as they can. Unfortunately, it is often possible with such tests to learn for a particular style of test (and you can't significantly change the style without compromising reliability). There's some research that indicates that you get much more useful information by making people take a lot of these tests and comparing their best and worst marks, but that is not normally practical.
The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.