What's sad is that you might actually be naive enough to believe that load of crap.
What's not to believe about regulatory capture? Even outside of a captured market, regulation proposed for the benefit of the public always come with some cost (e.g. reporting or certification). These costs will always favor larger businesses simply due to economies of scale. Worse is when an entrenched player simply gets an exemption from the rule.
That's the way to legally cheat, consistently make a profit, and not have your bones broken.
One of the articles you referenced cites NASDAQ "flash orders" as a blatant mechanism for cheating. Fortunately for everyone, flash orders were shut down within months.
if you have stock that you can't sell, but you don't want to hold the stock, then short it
I would bet that is either outright illegal or a violation of some of the SEC's rules—selling short when you are in fact holding the stocks. Technically, you are mis-marking your trades. Even if that was A-OK, that trading behavior clearly indicates intent to subvert the holding clause, which will reduce any possible sympathy from regulators/judges to 0%.
If "this" refers to "political satire", I believe that's covered in The Ancient Scrolls of Yore. But if by "this" you are suggesting that the segment is factually inaccurate (either by error or omission), can you back it up with a reference?
A better idea is to learn how to compromise. Your spouse will appreciate the effort and may return it in kind. If that doesn't sound appealing, then you probably shouldn't have a spouse.
... eventually real people will feel very uncomfortable to look at?
Unlikely. Newborns still spend a considerable amount of time looking at the faces of their parents and other people around them. Kids in school still get a lot of face time with each other. More likely is that this will lead to unrealistic standards between the sexes when they get to the age of being interested in each other... but there won't be the discomfort that the Uncanny Valley creates. Ugly people are still people.
Is there any reason to assume that 'cat', 'tail', and 'grep' would function and 'readJournalLog' would not? Are the cat binaries more robust or something?
If I had to guess, I would say it has something to do with the camel-casing.
First, plant fast growing, cold tolerant plants that fix atmospheric nitrogen like Russian Olives, Bog Myrtles, Northern Bayberries and Buffalo Berries.
Are those all indigenous species? If not, I could see strong resistance from conservationist groups, as the new flora could accelerate destruction of habitat or spread south. In fairness I know little of tundra ecology so maybe it's not an issue here, but historically we seem to have a bad track record with the "introduce new species!" route.
DRM is not about copy protection, DRM is about restricting the use of a product to paying customers.
To implementors, DRM is about raising the rate of payment-per-user which is essentially copy protection. Onerous restrictions on paying customers are collateral damage. Sadly.
You need to correct that. Pirates didn't *bother* to crack the PS3 UNTIL OtherOs was removed. It was then cracked rather easily then after.
I know that. Prior to the removal of OtherOS, the cost to crack the PS3 was higher than the cost to use a supported platform feature. After its removal, cracking became an attractive target (and as you point out, it didn't take long).
DRM does not stop casual or any type of pirates, from everything the general public has been told/seen from cracking groups Ubisoft with their draconian DRM was just as fast and easy to crack as every other game ever released.
By your admission that there exist "cracking groups" my statement is justified. The average person lacks the expertise to break most DRM schemes and therefore relies upon experts, even if the task is dead simple for said experts. Really, stop trying to pretend that it isn't an arms race. Solid arguments against DRM focus on the fact that it's wrong, not that it's ineffective.
DRM does not stop pirates, they are smart enough to circumvent it
DRM stops "casual" pirates (pre-crack) and it increases the R&D cost for serious pirates. Take the PS3 for example: it was not cracked until the removal of Other OS. Increasing the cost of legitimate hacking and made the USB solution more attractive to research. I do not say this in support of DRM, but any counter-argument must be honest in order to succeed. DRM works for certain definitions of "works", and that angle must be addressed head-on rather than brushed aside.
I'll be glad when these clowns finally sell their Exxon stock...
Most people who have money sitting in the stock market include some variant of the S&P index. The popular ETF SPY has ~3% of its holdings in Exxon (XOM). You may be waiting a long time, and when you get your wish you'll probably find another waiting to take Exxon's spot.
I always thought Apple stuff was overpriced too, but there's a lot more to it than the CPU speed and how much memory is in a laptop
When I was in college I saw hardware failures on Toshiba laptops that I've not seen elsewhere. Most memorable: one with a hardware clock drifting by minutes per day, and another with dead peripheral ports. Obviously these events are not statistically relevant, but they are problems that easy to hide in advertising/sales literature. No laptop manufacturer touts mean-time-to-failure in their components, but it is easy to cut corners elsewhere in order to beef up cpu/ram/disk.
Regarding this particular back-of-the-envelope calculation:
... about 164 million policemen wasting their lives enforcing traffic laws. That's more than the entire workforce in the country.
When the number you've computed exceeds obvious bounds such as "total working population", perhaps you should consider that your calculation is inaccurate.
Think before proposing solutions that involve the government.
From a practical standpoint: Parking laws—as an exemple—are enforced sufficiently to deter most drivers from parking illegally most of the time. Effective enforcement doesn't require 100% coverage, just enough to adjust the driver's cost/benefit analysis past a certain tipping point. There is a cost associated with enforcement, but most of the violations I've listed are penalized by fines which might subsidize the enforcement. For no additional cost at all, the police officers where I live could set the example and consistently obey all basic traffic laws themselves (when sirens are off, of course).
From a civil liberties perspective, I don't want laws on the books that criminalize "average Joe" behavior. Such laws allow selective enforcement that will surely be used abusively. I understand that 100% enforcement is unrealistic, but they could at least pretend to try.
Furthermore, the government is already involved. If you don't want them involved, then you should be in favor of repealing laws, not ignoring them.
Actually, if you read my post more carefully you would realize that I am not exactly favorable about additional regulation. Let me reiterate my "next idea":
Slashdot Mirror
What's not to believe about regulatory capture? Even outside of a captured market, regulation proposed for the benefit of the public always come with some cost (e.g. reporting or certification). These costs will always favor larger businesses simply due to economies of scale. Worse is when an entrenched player simply gets an exemption from the rule.
One of the articles you referenced cites NASDAQ "flash orders" as a blatant mechanism for cheating. Fortunately for everyone, flash orders were shut down within months.
Which part of an IPO is the honorable part?
(emphasis mine) I think you mean drugs, but when I first read that my mind jumped to acetone, butane, and other combustibles.
I would bet that is either outright illegal or a violation of some of the SEC's rules—selling short when you are in fact holding the stocks. Technically, you are mis-marking your trades. Even if that was A-OK, that trading behavior clearly indicates intent to subvert the holding clause, which will reduce any possible sympathy from regulators/judges to 0%.
Make it a shell built-in and chide the user if only a single input was used (e.g. cat file | grep blah).
The distinguished artist sees "cat" as an excellent choice—a palette for the creative file-namer, a mad-lib left incomplete!
At least, that's how I justify log files named dog and crap.
If "this" refers to "political satire", I believe that's covered in The Ancient Scrolls of Yore. But if by "this" you are suggesting that the segment is factually inaccurate (either by error or omission), can you back it up with a reference?
A better idea is to learn how to compromise. Your spouse will appreciate the effort and may return it in kind. If that doesn't sound appealing, then you probably shouldn't have a spouse.
Unlikely. Newborns still spend a considerable amount of time looking at the faces of their parents and other people around them. Kids in school still get a lot of face time with each other. More likely is that this will lead to unrealistic standards between the sexes when they get to the age of being interested in each other... but there won't be the discomfort that the Uncanny Valley creates. Ugly people are still people.
The roads are that empty on the leeward side of some Hawaiian mountains. I wouldn't drive a new car there, though.
If I had to guess, I would say it has something to do with the camel-casing.
I'm your huckleberry.
Are those all indigenous species? If not, I could see strong resistance from conservationist groups, as the new flora could accelerate destruction of habitat or spread south. In fairness I know little of tundra ecology so maybe it's not an issue here, but historically we seem to have a bad track record with the "introduce new species!" route.
Corporations are tasty meat!
I've always wanted to hear Yoda's take on the Mines of Moria. Thank you.
To implementors, DRM is about raising the rate of payment-per-user which is essentially copy protection. Onerous restrictions on paying customers are collateral damage. Sadly.
I know that. Prior to the removal of OtherOS, the cost to crack the PS3 was higher than the cost to use a supported platform feature. After its removal, cracking became an attractive target (and as you point out, it didn't take long).
By your admission that there exist "cracking groups" my statement is justified. The average person lacks the expertise to break most DRM schemes and therefore relies upon experts, even if the task is dead simple for said experts. Really, stop trying to pretend that it isn't an arms race. Solid arguments against DRM focus on the fact that it's wrong, not that it's ineffective.
DRM stops "casual" pirates (pre-crack) and it increases the R&D cost for serious pirates. Take the PS3 for example: it was not cracked until the removal of Other OS. Increasing the cost of legitimate hacking and made the USB solution more attractive to research. I do not say this in support of DRM, but any counter-argument must be honest in order to succeed. DRM works for certain definitions of "works", and that angle must be addressed head-on rather than brushed aside.
Most people who have money sitting in the stock market include some variant of the S&P index. The popular ETF SPY has ~3% of its holdings in Exxon (XOM). You may be waiting a long time, and when you get your wish you'll probably find another waiting to take Exxon's spot.
When I was in college I saw hardware failures on Toshiba laptops that I've not seen elsewhere. Most memorable: one with a hardware clock drifting by minutes per day, and another with dead peripheral ports. Obviously these events are not statistically relevant, but they are problems that easy to hide in advertising/sales literature. No laptop manufacturer touts mean-time-to-failure in their components, but it is easy to cut corners elsewhere in order to beef up cpu/ram/disk.
Regarding this particular back-of-the-envelope calculation:
When the number you've computed exceeds obvious bounds such as "total working population", perhaps you should consider that your calculation is inaccurate.
From a practical standpoint: Parking laws—as an exemple—are enforced sufficiently to deter most drivers from parking illegally most of the time. Effective enforcement doesn't require 100% coverage, just enough to adjust the driver's cost/benefit analysis past a certain tipping point. There is a cost associated with enforcement, but most of the violations I've listed are penalized by fines which might subsidize the enforcement. For no additional cost at all, the police officers where I live could set the example and consistently obey all basic traffic laws themselves (when sirens are off, of course).
From a civil liberties perspective, I don't want laws on the books that criminalize "average Joe" behavior. Such laws allow selective enforcement that will surely be used abusively. I understand that 100% enforcement is unrealistic, but they could at least pretend to try.
Furthermore, the government is already involved. If you don't want them involved, then you should be in favor of repealing laws, not ignoring them.
Your circle of friends has much higher standards for texting content than mine.
Actually, if you read my post more carefully you would realize that I am not exactly favorable about additional regulation. Let me reiterate my "next idea":