Look, I love Linux, and it makes me a little sad to see all these sub-notebook makers dropping their Linux versions or putting up notes on their website saying "for everyday computing we recommend Windows"...
But you know what? I'm not about to delude myself that the majority of people are going to be perfectly fine with running Linux.
Some people, I'm sure, will be happy with the pre-installed Linux software - if it gets them a web browser, flash and Youtube work, they've got a word processor and they can print, etc. - that may be all they want out of a $300-$500 laptop.
Personally, I would want to install a different distro - I just need the flexibility, and I don't like Openoffice.
Other people might look at a EEE with pre-installed Linux and think "Well, the pre-installed software can do some things, but what I'd really like is to run this Windows application I like to use." To someone with that perspective, starting with a Linux laptop and installing XP on it, getting it to work nicely - that would be an improvement. They could still do all the things they could before, but now they can also download and install all the packages they're used to running.
My conspiracy theory for this whole situation goes like this: companies wanted to produce the cheapest notebooks possible as soon as possible to get the edge in this "netbook" market. Windows licensing was probably, initially, expensive enough to seriously impact these price points - and so they started by offering low-price netbooks with Linux pre-installed. The success of these items helped them to bargain for a better price on Windows.
Given that popular usage is that (which) defines the terms we use, if what 99% of the world calls science fiction doesn't meet your definition, then may(be) it's your definition that's wrong.
"Majority rule" is a lousy way to determine what's correct.
"Science fiction" is made of exactly two words, both of which are well-defined on their own. That being the case I think it's fair to at least make a distinction between "science fiction" that does meaningfully represent the combination of those two concepts, and "science fiction" that doesn't.
But the point here isn't to tell people they can't call Dr. Who or B5 "sci-fi" - it's more that I sympathize with people who feel it shouldn't be considered sci-fi, because the stories aren't really about science fiction themes - and because I feel like "real sci-fi" (or "hard sci-fi") is a valuable concept, that's been largely forgotten.
Perhaps you should watch some old dr who episodes instead of this kind of dreamy new stuff. How is it not science fiction? How is it different than babylon 5 or any other made up universe with fictional characters doing siencey things.
Babylon 5 was notable for a certain grounding in real physics - mainly rotational "gravity" and inertial flight - when they bothered to represent it that way. Of course, this was limited to the Earth technology, mostly. And there were certain other realistic assertions that go against the usual patterns in science fiction TV - no "universal translators", no interspecies breeding, etc. But that was about it.
Think - when did anybody in Babylon 5 ever do anything "sciencey"? The show was all about interpersonal intrigue, political maneuvering, war, racism, a few monsters, and encounters with alien races so old that the usual grounding in credible reality needn't apply.
Calling shows like B5, Star Trek, or Dr. Who "science fiction" is the easiest way to get the point across that they are contemporary or futuristic fantasy. To me, though, it's distinct from "real" science fiction, which is characterized by scientific speculation as a major theme. Sci-fi fantasy shows often have some scientific grounding (or sometimes, just technobabble) but most of the time it's just "whatever we can do to tell the story we want to tell."
How is it possible for even American developers to be this clueless. Which characters are convenient to type depends entirely on the keyboard layout that is used. Case in point, $ is insanely painful to type on Scandinavian layout.
I hate issues like this. I want to create a Unix Shell-ish language - which means one of the very first design decisions is that $ prefix is used for variable names... But I hate the idea that the language I want to create could be a pain in the ass for people in other countries!* I'm not entirely sure how to solve issues like this, since there's a limited number of syntax characters available for use, and I don't want to define a whole bunch of reserved keywords... (My best plan to deal with this, so far, involves allowing for the definition of equivalent syntax characters for other natural languages, and also making the regular ASCII versions I'll be using easy to input regardless of the keyboard layout of the user, in interactive sessions anyway...)
But the choice of syntax characters, to some extent, must be guided by how that affects the complexity of the parsing process. There are a number of reasons for this. Obviously the language interpreter itself has to be able to interpret the language - but also it is generally helpful if it's relatively easy for ancillary utilities (editors, IDE systems, debuggers, etc.) to handle the syntax... And with things like PHP where the source code gets interpreted over and over again each time a page is loaded, for practical reasons it's best if parsing is fast...)
(* Obligatory joke: If the design pans out, it'll be a pain in the ass for everyone, regardless of nationality.:D )
how about @? I don't know any language other than cyclone using @ character for anything.
My biggest problem with that:
"some_module@x" reads "some module at x"...
When in fact, it's "x" at "some module"... Basically, the operator represents the same thing as scope resolution, but the order of the arguments is backwards relative to how it'd usually be handled in programming languages...
Something along the lines of the Japanese particle "no" would be great...:D
1) "/" - used by almost all languages in regex expressions. I wouldn't want to pollute that namespace.
Don't forget little things like division... But if you can get over that conflict, then using slash is nicely analogous to path separators at the shell...
2) "::" - Awesome. Many other languages do this. I think this is already taken for PHP, but I dont know PHP well enough
I think somebody said it's already used for class static methods. I don't understand why that can't be the same syntax as namespace references, though...
3) "|" - Pipe has a very specific meaning on the command line and I'd hate to pollute that. Plus it looks ugly.
Most scripting languages don't make any effort at all to avoid "polluting" shell conventions... Unless you're dealing with a language where the syntax really is mergeable with shell syntax (harder than it might sound - believe me, I've tried.) I don't think there's much point in worrying about that.
But regardless - pipe character is already bitwise OR, I believe.
4) "~" - Any reasons this wouldn't work?
Bitwise negation operator. Otherwise, I'm not sure...
5) "." - Again, awesome. Many other languages use this.
String concatenation operator in PHP.
8) "," - Why not? Does any language use the comma for anything? Might be kinda ugly though "$var = My,Class($arg1);"
Technically, in C it's a command sequencing operator (For instance, "for (x=0, y=0; x parseably unambiguous but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not confusing...)
Oh yeah, and the other option to consider is named function arguments:
error_reporting(E_ALL = true, E_NOTICE = false);
This is nice 'cause it gives you a lot of flexibility in how you call things. And then if you want to operate on sets of values you'd pass to a function, you can store the options in an associative array and flatten it out as arguments to a function call later...
Of course the downside is that this isn't as memory-efficient as something like a bit field... Even in a language like PHP, storing a number is more efficient than storing a mapping from (non-interned) symbols to (arbitrary-type) values...
But what might be better in the context of a high level language would be to not use bit fields for sets of options - but rather, have distinct types used to represent sets of options...
For instance, in a set of binary-combinable options, you can almost use the "+" operator to combine options. The only reason you can't is because of the danger you'd wind up adding an option twice - or for sets of options that overlap and use the same bits for different things (usually for efficiency, or else to indicate that "option X" also implies "option Y" by necessity...)
So you could use the "+" operator, basically, as long as the datatype used to implement the bit flags is designed such that it's really a bit set operation and not an addition... If you wanted to be more computer sciencey about it you could instead use some kind of set combination operator or a concatenation operator...
I think in PHP there's not really much point to bitwise operators... But in languages where I can control how my data is stored, that's another matter...
I actually own one, and I'm pretty enthusiastic about on a practical level. Orrery, the star-map application is fun, Duke 3d...
I was wondering how this would be possible on a device with no keys... It seemed accelerometers + touchsceen was the only possibility... I was gonna ask but got curious and looked it up... Sure enough, accelerometers + touchscreen. I can't help but think how much nicer it'd be to play games on the thing if they'd just included a handful of hardware keys... even just a 5 way navigator and a couple buttons next to it would be dandy...
This is what tears me up about the Freerunner. I got into Palms and such because I wanted a portable computer - something I could use to tinker in Scheme or Python or whatever at random times... Openmoko's software environment is great for that - but the hardware's not great for anything apart from pure pen apps. (If I'm gonna be hacking around in Python, a keyboard would be very helpful...)
You can get the phone in Canada RIGHT NOW, you don't have to hack it like an iPhone or beg someone in the USA to send you one like the G1, and it is completely open source so there is no stupid EULA's to get in the way.
You know, in some ways that phone is real appealing... Particularly the whole "hackable" aspect. In other ways it looks like complete garbage, at both the hardware and software levels... I have trouble these days getting past the lack of a keyboard. I mean, I was a Palm fan until they decided to stop meaningfully improving the OS, so I'm down with pen computing - but I've also been using a Treo 650 for a couple years now, and I use that built-in keyboard all the time. I hate the idea of being without that.
I would be all over the G1, personally - except I hate the idea of a mobile device that doesn't allow you to develop and install native code. I don't like the idea of a Linux system that can't run "bash", or run the same software I run on my Linux machine at home... And I don't like the whole idea of my phone having to waste cycles converting one instruction set to another. I've had enough of that on the Treo with PACE.
Of course I recognize the benefits of a virtual environment for sandboxing, and of an API that's really designed for phone use... But to me the point of running Linux on a device is to be able to do Linuxy things with it...
All this is almost enough to make me turn to Windows Mobile - it doesn't require everything to go through an emulation layer like Android does, its operating software is a lot more mature than OpenMoko, you can get decent hardware for it (sliding keyboards, etc.)... Basically, it's still more of a "portable computer" system adapted to work as a phone (like PalmOS on the Treo) rather than "high-functionality phone" system like Android...
Why they gotta make this so hard? Android looks great except the whole "Linux appeal" is negated by the fact that you apparently can't actually get at it...
GAWD! First Google with jet fighters... now Bill Gates with think TANKS. What's next?
Oh, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Those Fuchikomas are pretty dangerous if you are fighting one, but ordinarily they're too preoccupied with musing on the philosophical implications of their existence as A.I. and the meaning of humanity in an increasingly cybernetic world, or obsessing over data-linking with every intelligent machine they come across to give much thought to practical matters...
It all depends on how many times the mirror is rebuilt...
Like I said - smashing an orbital mirror would bring 7 years of profoundly bad luck (due to the size of the mirror) - which in turn would make it more likely that the mirror would be smashed again if repaired... So if they rebuilt the mirror a couple times, ignoring the dangers of compound bad luck, we could be looking at more than 20 years of bleak misfortune distributed across the entire Earth.
Man, can you imagine if the US government declared that from now on, from April through November, was non-stop Hammer Time? TV stations would remind you it was coming up, and then when it finally happened they'd say "STOP! Hammer Time!"and everybody would wear parachute pants and dance sideways for the next seven months...
I'm sure lots of people would question the practical benefits of having Hammer Time for more than half the year - but then somebody would spout off misinformation about how it's good for farmers, or saves energy (everybody Hammer-dancing to and from work, etc.), or some other BS like that...
While, the geek in me is enchanted by the mega-engineering aspect of your solution, the part of me that can't get to sleep with the sun up is trembling in fear that somehow this will actually come to pass.
Actually, there's a very good reason why this hasn't come to pass, and why it never will...
Basically, the amount of micrometeorites and orbital debris in space makes it incredibly likely that a mirror high enough up to provide light at times of day when it's not available, and to stay in orbit, and also large enough to provide a significant amount of light would be smashed before too long...
Of course, the practical aspects of retrieving the broken pieces and repairing or replacing the broken mirror aren't such a major problem: of more concern is the inherent misfortune brought on by the destruction of a mirror. Being a larger mirror means more bad luck, but it's still distributed over the same seven-year cycle... When this kind of massive orbital mirror breaks we'd experience unprecedented levels of chaotic worldwide misfortune - and this misfortune would compound the probability that any replacement mirror would be broken, thus continuing the cycle...
Except that East Indiana used to be DST-free, too, but they finally caved in and adopted it... I wouldn't want to move somewhere just because they're rational about one particular thing, only to have them maybe change it in the future...
I don't get it... If DRM works, it restricts what you do. If it restricts what you do, it's not inivisible. How is this implementation different from any other DRM?
Slashdot Mirror
The show was all about interpersonal intrigue, political maneuvering, war, racism, a few monsters, and encounters with alien races
Funny - I thought it was all about really, really bad acting and crappy CGI.
You're only half-right there - they didn't have the budget to make their crappy CGI a central theme :D
Look, I love Linux, and it makes me a little sad to see all these sub-notebook makers dropping their Linux versions or putting up notes on their website saying "for everyday computing we recommend Windows"...
But you know what? I'm not about to delude myself that the majority of people are going to be perfectly fine with running Linux.
Some people, I'm sure, will be happy with the pre-installed Linux software - if it gets them a web browser, flash and Youtube work, they've got a word processor and they can print, etc. - that may be all they want out of a $300-$500 laptop.
Personally, I would want to install a different distro - I just need the flexibility, and I don't like Openoffice.
Other people might look at a EEE with pre-installed Linux and think "Well, the pre-installed software can do some things, but what I'd really like is to run this Windows application I like to use." To someone with that perspective, starting with a Linux laptop and installing XP on it, getting it to work nicely - that would be an improvement. They could still do all the things they could before, but now they can also download and install all the packages they're used to running.
My conspiracy theory for this whole situation goes like this: companies wanted to produce the cheapest notebooks possible as soon as possible to get the edge in this "netbook" market. Windows licensing was probably, initially, expensive enough to seriously impact these price points - and so they started by offering low-price netbooks with Linux pre-installed. The success of these items helped them to bargain for a better price on Windows.
Given that popular usage is that (which) defines the terms we use, if what 99% of the world calls science fiction doesn't meet your definition, then may(be) it's your definition that's wrong.
"Majority rule" is a lousy way to determine what's correct.
"Science fiction" is made of exactly two words, both of which are well-defined on their own. That being the case I think it's fair to at least make a distinction between "science fiction" that does meaningfully represent the combination of those two concepts, and "science fiction" that doesn't.
But the point here isn't to tell people they can't call Dr. Who or B5 "sci-fi" - it's more that I sympathize with people who feel it shouldn't be considered sci-fi, because the stories aren't really about science fiction themes - and because I feel like "real sci-fi" (or "hard sci-fi") is a valuable concept, that's been largely forgotten.
Perhaps you should watch some old dr who episodes instead of this kind of dreamy new stuff. How is it not science fiction? How is it different than babylon 5 or any other made up universe with fictional characters doing siencey things.
Babylon 5 was notable for a certain grounding in real physics - mainly rotational "gravity" and inertial flight - when they bothered to represent it that way. Of course, this was limited to the Earth technology, mostly. And there were certain other realistic assertions that go against the usual patterns in science fiction TV - no "universal translators", no interspecies breeding, etc. But that was about it.
Think - when did anybody in Babylon 5 ever do anything "sciencey"? The show was all about interpersonal intrigue, political maneuvering, war, racism, a few monsters, and encounters with alien races so old that the usual grounding in credible reality needn't apply.
Calling shows like B5, Star Trek, or Dr. Who "science fiction" is the easiest way to get the point across that they are contemporary or futuristic fantasy. To me, though, it's distinct from "real" science fiction, which is characterized by scientific speculation as a major theme. Sci-fi fantasy shows often have some scientific grounding (or sometimes, just technobabble) but most of the time it's just "whatever we can do to tell the story we want to tell."
Worst. Pun. Ever.
Yeah. I hate when people make "Sto-Vo-Kor" puns!
They've also licenced all of Mozart's works for their upcoming Harpsichord Hero.
I'm sure the kids are dying to pretend playing grandpa's music.
No, Harmonix doesn't do the "Hero" series anymore...
This also means, unfortunately, the long-rumored "Accordion Hero" will never be released...
"This is Stallman. He has caused the Corporation much grief. His views do not coincide with ours, and that makes him dangerous. Silence him."
"Your main opposition will be Battle Linux - a Linux distribution specifically formulated to counteract and incapacitate Microsoft software..."
Actually, I laugh at people who wage wars over programming languages. ;-)
PHP is good for what it was designed for. If you disagree, just don't use it. Fine with me. :-)
Bah! Pansy... You just have no passion for programming!
Will the people who made PHP a good programming language please fork it and take it away from the clueless morons who have taken over?
As a Perl programmer, I have to laugh at your suggestion that somebody ever made PHP a good programming language. Read this and this.
It's good that there's a programming language out there that Perl Programmers can laugh at...
How is it possible for even American developers to be this clueless. Which characters are convenient to type depends entirely on the keyboard layout that is used. Case in point, $ is insanely painful to type on Scandinavian layout.
I hate issues like this. I want to create a Unix Shell-ish language - which means one of the very first design decisions is that $ prefix is used for variable names... But I hate the idea that the language I want to create could be a pain in the ass for people in other countries!* I'm not entirely sure how to solve issues like this, since there's a limited number of syntax characters available for use, and I don't want to define a whole bunch of reserved keywords... (My best plan to deal with this, so far, involves allowing for the definition of equivalent syntax characters for other natural languages, and also making the regular ASCII versions I'll be using easy to input regardless of the keyboard layout of the user, in interactive sessions anyway...)
But the choice of syntax characters, to some extent, must be guided by how that affects the complexity of the parsing process. There are a number of reasons for this. Obviously the language interpreter itself has to be able to interpret the language - but also it is generally helpful if it's relatively easy for ancillary utilities (editors, IDE systems, debuggers, etc.) to handle the syntax... And with things like PHP where the source code gets interpreted over and over again each time a page is loaded, for practical reasons it's best if parsing is fast...)
(* Obligatory joke: If the design pans out, it'll be a pain in the ass for everyone, regardless of nationality. :D )
how about @? I don't know any language other than cyclone using @ character for anything.
My biggest problem with that:
"some_module@x" reads "some module at x"...
When in fact, it's "x" at "some module"... Basically, the operator represents the same thing as scope resolution, but the order of the arguments is backwards relative to how it'd usually be handled in programming languages...
Something along the lines of the Japanese particle "no" would be great... :D
1) "/" - used by almost all languages in regex expressions. I wouldn't want to pollute that namespace.
Don't forget little things like division... But if you can get over that conflict, then using slash is nicely analogous to path separators at the shell...
2) "::" - Awesome. Many other languages do this. I think this is already taken for PHP, but I dont know PHP well enough
I think somebody said it's already used for class static methods. I don't understand why that can't be the same syntax as namespace references, though...
3) "|" - Pipe has a very specific meaning on the command line and I'd hate to pollute that. Plus it looks ugly.
Most scripting languages don't make any effort at all to avoid "polluting" shell conventions... Unless you're dealing with a language where the syntax really is mergeable with shell syntax (harder than it might sound - believe me, I've tried.) I don't think there's much point in worrying about that.
But regardless - pipe character is already bitwise OR, I believe.
4) "~" - Any reasons this wouldn't work?
Bitwise negation operator. Otherwise, I'm not sure...
5) "." - Again, awesome. Many other languages use this.
String concatenation operator in PHP.
8) "," - Why not? Does any language use the comma for anything? Might be kinda ugly though "$var = My,Class($arg1);"
Technically, in C it's a command sequencing operator (For instance, "for (x=0, y=0; x parseably unambiguous but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not confusing...)
Oh yeah, and the other option to consider is named function arguments:
error_reporting(E_ALL = true, E_NOTICE = false);
This is nice 'cause it gives you a lot of flexibility in how you call things. And then if you want to operate on sets of values you'd pass to a function, you can store the options in an associative array and flatten it out as arguments to a function call later...
Of course the downside is that this isn't as memory-efficient as something like a bit field... Even in a language like PHP, storing a number is more efficient than storing a mapping from (non-interned) symbols to (arbitrary-type) values...
I think they are suggesting
which wouldn't be so bad.
It kind of would be, actually...
But what might be better in the context of a high level language would be to not use bit fields for sets of options - but rather, have distinct types used to represent sets of options...
For instance, in a set of binary-combinable options, you can almost use the "+" operator to combine options. The only reason you can't is because of the danger you'd wind up adding an option twice - or for sets of options that overlap and use the same bits for different things (usually for efficiency, or else to indicate that "option X" also implies "option Y" by necessity...)
So you could use the "+" operator, basically, as long as the datatype used to implement the bit flags is designed such that it's really a bit set operation and not an addition... If you wanted to be more computer sciencey about it you could instead use some kind of set combination operator or a concatenation operator...
I think in PHP there's not really much point to bitwise operators... But in languages where I can control how my data is stored, that's another matter...
I actually own one, and I'm pretty enthusiastic about on a practical level. Orrery, the star-map application is fun, Duke 3d...
I was wondering how this would be possible on a device with no keys... It seemed accelerometers + touchsceen was the only possibility... I was gonna ask but got curious and looked it up... Sure enough, accelerometers + touchscreen. I can't help but think how much nicer it'd be to play games on the thing if they'd just included a handful of hardware keys... even just a 5 way navigator and a couple buttons next to it would be dandy...
This is what tears me up about the Freerunner. I got into Palms and such because I wanted a portable computer - something I could use to tinker in Scheme or Python or whatever at random times... Openmoko's software environment is great for that - but the hardware's not great for anything apart from pure pen apps. (If I'm gonna be hacking around in Python, a keyboard would be very helpful...)
You can get the phone in Canada RIGHT NOW, you don't have to hack it like an iPhone or beg someone in the USA to send you one like the G1, and it is completely open source so there is no stupid EULA's to get in the way.
You know, in some ways that phone is real appealing... Particularly the whole "hackable" aspect. In other ways it looks like complete garbage, at both the hardware and software levels... I have trouble these days getting past the lack of a keyboard. I mean, I was a Palm fan until they decided to stop meaningfully improving the OS, so I'm down with pen computing - but I've also been using a Treo 650 for a couple years now, and I use that built-in keyboard all the time. I hate the idea of being without that.
I would be all over the G1, personally - except I hate the idea of a mobile device that doesn't allow you to develop and install native code. I don't like the idea of a Linux system that can't run "bash", or run the same software I run on my Linux machine at home... And I don't like the whole idea of my phone having to waste cycles converting one instruction set to another. I've had enough of that on the Treo with PACE.
Of course I recognize the benefits of a virtual environment for sandboxing, and of an API that's really designed for phone use... But to me the point of running Linux on a device is to be able to do Linuxy things with it...
All this is almost enough to make me turn to Windows Mobile - it doesn't require everything to go through an emulation layer like Android does, its operating software is a lot more mature than OpenMoko, you can get decent hardware for it (sliding keyboards, etc.)... Basically, it's still more of a "portable computer" system adapted to work as a phone (like PalmOS on the Treo) rather than "high-functionality phone" system like Android...
Why they gotta make this so hard? Android looks great except the whole "Linux appeal" is negated by the fact that you apparently can't actually get at it...
GAWD! First Google with jet fighters... now Bill Gates with think TANKS. What's next?
Oh, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Those Fuchikomas are pretty dangerous if you are fighting one, but ordinarily they're too preoccupied with musing on the philosophical implications of their existence as A.I. and the meaning of humanity in an increasingly cybernetic world, or obsessing over data-linking with every intelligent machine they come across to give much thought to practical matters...
Did the name 'bgc3' make anyone else think "Borg Cubed"?
I was actually thinking "Bubblegum Crisis 3"...
How many years of bad luck would that bring?
It all depends on how many times the mirror is rebuilt...
Like I said - smashing an orbital mirror would bring 7 years of profoundly bad luck (due to the size of the mirror) - which in turn would make it more likely that the mirror would be smashed again if repaired... So if they rebuilt the mirror a couple times, ignoring the dangers of compound bad luck, we could be looking at more than 20 years of bleak misfortune distributed across the entire Earth.
And of course - Hammer Time.
Man, can you imagine if the US government declared that from now on, from April through November, was non-stop Hammer Time? TV stations would remind you it was coming up, and then when it finally happened they'd say "STOP! Hammer Time!"and everybody would wear parachute pants and dance sideways for the next seven months...
I'm sure lots of people would question the practical benefits of having Hammer Time for more than half the year - but then somebody would spout off misinformation about how it's good for farmers, or saves energy (everybody Hammer-dancing to and from work, etc.), or some other BS like that...
While, the geek in me is enchanted by the mega-engineering aspect of your solution, the part of me that can't get to sleep with the sun up is trembling in fear that somehow this will actually come to pass.
Actually, there's a very good reason why this hasn't come to pass, and why it never will...
Basically, the amount of micrometeorites and orbital debris in space makes it incredibly likely that a mirror high enough up to provide light at times of day when it's not available, and to stay in orbit, and also large enough to provide a significant amount of light would be smashed before too long...
Of course, the practical aspects of retrieving the broken pieces and repairing or replacing the broken mirror aren't such a major problem: of more concern is the inherent misfortune brought on by the destruction of a mirror. Being a larger mirror means more bad luck, but it's still distributed over the same seven-year cycle... When this kind of massive orbital mirror breaks we'd experience unprecedented levels of chaotic worldwide misfortune - and this misfortune would compound the probability that any replacement mirror would be broken, thus continuing the cycle...
Here are a few real alternatives to daylight savings time:
-Daylight wasting time
-Nightlight saving time
-Dayheavy saving time
-Some permutation of the above terrible puns
You forgot...
...move to Arizona. Problem solved.
-B
Except that East Indiana used to be DST-free, too, but they finally caved in and adopted it... I wouldn't want to move somewhere just because they're rational about one particular thing, only to have them maybe change it in the future...
You forgot esperanto.
And believe me, it took some effort...
I don't get it... If DRM works, it restricts what you do. If it restricts what you do, it's not inivisible. How is this implementation different from any other DRM?