None of your examples are very good examples of "literature" as it's usually understood - in everyday use, the term by itself denotes prose fiction (and often excepting pulp novels).
Not by coincidence, this is the "limited" definition Seibel uses.
After two years (IIRC) on a 457, you can apply for a permanent visa, and that's also easier - and more expensive, of course - with a nominating employer. At least at the moment, there doesn't seem to be any education requirement for the nominated permanent visa (but they have a tendency to change the rules quite often).
The 457 requires you "have skills, qualifications, experience and an employment background which match those required for the position". I never finished uni and got a 457 in 2008 (I'm Swedish). I did have ~10 years of experience though.
The Department of Immigration have lots of information on their site, http://www.immi.gov.au/.
I see that the 457 requires those things but I don't know what their criteria is other than what's on the SOL list which is a BSC or a lot of years of experience.
I'm trying to figure out if they will accept me being sponsored by my employer with my 2.5 - 3 years experience and DipHE... basically, will they take me despite my lack of BSc?
The dev kit isn't just an SDK - like console dev kits, it includes the hardware. Giving them away to anyone who says "yeah, I'll totally make software for that" doesn't sound like a brilliant business plan.
Actually, that is a valid tactic, if you are having trouble getting your hardware to gain mindshare.
For this, though... Well, it's already over 3x its initial goal and shows no signs of slowing. They absolutely made the right decision to charge for the devkits. At least, to the plebs, like me.
Higher level developers (i.e. famous names) probably will get a kit or 2 for free still. If Carmack wasn't already part of it, he'd be one of the names I'd expect to get a free kit.
There's no such thing as "intuitive", there's only what you've become used to.
All the things that annoy you are "intuitive" to me.
You could probably code a maximizing script in Automator in a matter of minutes and bind that thing to a keyboard shortcut if it bothers you that much. I think the fact that most people don't is a sign that maximization isn't that great an idea once you get un-used to it.
Hmmm... I think most people don't do this because they quickly find out they'll never hear the last of it if they say they don't like it ;)
(Also, Automator isn't the easiest thing in the world to figure out - Apple Script isn't terribly well documented, and I've never once seen the Record option record anything useful.)
Fortunately, ShiftIt fixes the problem nicely, and for free. (There are also programs you can pay for, which are probably a bit slicker.) So, no problem.
When I'm on Windows, I frequently miss the instant side-by-side folder comparisons and the ability to select files in multiple folders simultaneously.
Like everything else, it's a tradeoff.
Plus, once you learn the traditional Mac shortcuts (right-left arrows to expand and contract, Command+down to narrow the view to one folder, Command-up to go back, type to select) it's pretty fast.
Of course, for really complex tasks, a decent shell beats any GUI.
I use both myself, depending on whether I'm using the mouse or a terminal, i.e. I "open a folder" but "list a directory". I've heard others do the same.
In my experience, the best game developers are primarily motivated by their desire to create awesome games and their motivation level is already maxed out. Some see shares and other bonuses more as a sign of distrust than as a motivator, as if their dedication to awesomositude is being questioned.
Besides, awesomest isn't necessarily most profitable, so if you encourage your team to optimise for profit, there's a pretty big risk that the awesomeosity output rate will drop. With time you might even end up with a team churning out click-grinding Skinner boxes, which is not very awesome at all.
