And that's why he belongs in the slammer. He had not a single concern for people's lives as long as he could make big bux tap dancing on the line between shrewd investments and fraud.
Sure. The police have apparently decided that if they're not going to be allowed to beat people to death once they're in cuffs, there's no point in arresting them at all.
Nobody I know of has claimed we need less police, just that we need police who will act like police rather than goons.
They spent decades inspiring community hatred, it's not going to go away overnight, especially when they have yet to take steps to accept responsibility and make amends.
The problem isn't choices, it's confusing choices. Like when just one competitor has 10 'plans' with a dizzying array of rules and service levels (each with nasty gotchas) and the other competitors each have their own dizzying array and none of the advertising compares apples to apples.
Agreed. Jam is nothing to get stressed about. The problem is the confuseopoly choices. Do you want the health insurance that has X deductable and Y copay except on alternate Tuesdays when a moose bellows between 2 and 3 A.M. in Montreal (according to the insurance company) or do you want 2X deductable bur Y/2 copay except when a gator growls next to the company's offices in Florida. OH, btw, here's the list of 26.2 million exceptions for plan 1, and this is the 26 million exceptions in plan 2. Now if you will turn to page 10,672, 3rd paragraph, you can find the address to write to if you want the 5 volume set of what things don't count full price towards your deductable for plans 1 - 987, but for......
If they're doing all that packet inspection anyway, they can do proper fair queueing. Each customer is assigned their fair share of the total uplink for their area and each queue is allowed to borrow as much as is available from under-used queues.
Suddenly everyone gets their fair share without regard to what they're communicating with, where it is, or over what protocol. Further, they can keep their fingers out of the payload and just look at the src and dst fields of the header.
There are all kinds of reasons. One of my favorites was power company shut off power due to an error in paperwork. It was good to have a backup while they dispatched a truck to turn it back on.
Actually, based on tyhe data, it's a study that shows LNT or inverse LNT or random results, depending on how you want to coerce the finding. Any of those and more will fit comfortably within the error bars.
We also have studies showing that people in higher background radiation get less cancer and that radiologists in the UK live longer than other medical professionals.
Since we know our cells have some ability to repair radiation damage but that it is rate limited, LNT would actually be an astonishing result.
Yes, they need a beam strong enough to penetrate the vehicle and still be strong enough that the x-rays that reflect from things inside can again penetrate the vehicle and register on the detector.
Actually, in that case, I would set return_value before the switch, use break as usual, and then wrap free_memory with if(return_value).
A better case is if you have taken several resources (mutex, spinlocks, etc) and you will discover the error condition inside a nested loop. Then you should definitely use goto to break out of the top level loop. You COULD add logic to each loop to fall out on return_value, but in the end that might be more confusing.
That works well as long as there isn't a lot of local state in the function. Of course, when you have some significant cleanup to do, there often is.
The case for goto more commonly involves unwinding. For example, if you have to acquire multiple resources.
Honestly, continue, break, and return are already just special cases of goto albeit they are often less ambiguous.
Personally, when I find goto tempting, I take the "considered harmful" as a reminder. Would it unwind cleanly if I turn the logic inside out? Am I trying to do too much here? If not, goto may be the best answer.
Nerf it. Remove the capability to relay calls to a legit phone network and have it "complete" all calls to a recording identifying the device and it's serial number, then to a handset connected to the box in case it's a 911 call.
It does make sense if the postage is subsidized. It almost has to be.
Even so, there's a matter of figuring out where the money is going with U.S. manufacture since the prices are still incredibly low compared to U.S. Labopr accounts for some of it, but even generous estimates of labor required and assuming the China manufacturer gets free labor, it's nowhere near making up the difference on a lot of items.
One possibility is real estate. You know the market is warped when an office building has 45% (and falling) occupancy and they raise the rent causing several occupants to leave.
I really don't know how they manage it. The things I've bought haven't been very heavy, but they arrived within a week or so mailed China Post to USPS.
The last was an Arduino Pro-mini clone for $2 postage and all.
According to TFA, they are NOT currently using the devices the FDA hasn't approved. They are still an order of magnitude cheaper than the competition.
Keep in mind, the FDA is griping about the container that holds the blood. Apparently it hasn't yet been plated with pure unobtanium or something.
There seems to be more consternation among investor types that want to see a magic widget rather than a simple play at cost and efficiency taking the market by competing on price.
So it's no longer about liability. What makes you think hackable hardware is more expensive to make? It's actually cheaper since they don't waste money on preventing it.
If you want unhackable hardware, pay more. Why should I pay more to subsidize your lack of self control?
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I suggest we bring back the public good condition in corporate charters. If we would actually enforce that, things would improve.
And that's why he belongs in the slammer. He had not a single concern for people's lives as long as he could make big bux tap dancing on the line between shrewd investments and fraud.
Sure. The police have apparently decided that if they're not going to be allowed to beat people to death once they're in cuffs, there's no point in arresting them at all.
Nobody I know of has claimed we need less police, just that we need police who will act like police rather than goons.
They spent decades inspiring community hatred, it's not going to go away overnight, especially when they have yet to take steps to accept responsibility and make amends.
I guess they should have thought about that before they made enemies of the public.
There's only so many times you can shoot preteens and taze 1st graders before people start deciding they don't want you around.
The problem isn't choices, it's confusing choices. Like when just one competitor has 10 'plans' with a dizzying array of rules and service levels (each with nasty gotchas) and the other competitors each have their own dizzying array and none of the advertising compares apples to apples.
Agreed. Jam is nothing to get stressed about. The problem is the confuseopoly choices. Do you want the health insurance that has X deductable and Y copay except on alternate Tuesdays when a moose bellows between 2 and 3 A.M. in Montreal (according to the insurance company) or do you want 2X deductable bur Y/2 copay except when a gator growls next to the company's offices in Florida. OH, btw, here's the list of 26.2 million exceptions for plan 1, and this is the 26 million exceptions in plan 2. Now if you will turn to page 10,672, 3rd paragraph, you can find the address to write to if you want the 5 volume set of what things don't count full price towards your deductable for plans 1 - 987, but for ......
THAT causes stress.
Of course, many of those brands aren't distinct products. They're the same thing with a different label on them.
If they're doing all that packet inspection anyway, they can do proper fair queueing. Each customer is assigned their fair share of the total uplink for their area and each queue is allowed to borrow as much as is available from under-used queues.
Suddenly everyone gets their fair share without regard to what they're communicating with, where it is, or over what protocol. Further, they can keep their fingers out of the payload and just look at the src and dst fields of the header.
There are all kinds of reasons. One of my favorites was power company shut off power due to an error in paperwork. It was good to have a backup while they dispatched a truck to turn it back on.
Actually, based on tyhe data, it's a study that shows LNT or inverse LNT or random results, depending on how you want to coerce the finding. Any of those and more will fit comfortably within the error bars.
We also have studies showing that people in higher background radiation get less cancer and that radiologists in the UK live longer than other medical professionals.
Since we know our cells have some ability to repair radiation damage but that it is rate limited, LNT would actually be an astonishing result.
The error bars are big enough to cover any conclusion you'd care to make.
Even the summary table shows U.S. workers with more cancer but lass radiation dose than U.K. workers.
Yes, they need a beam strong enough to penetrate the vehicle and still be strong enough that the x-rays that reflect from things inside can again penetrate the vehicle and register on the detector.
Actually, in that case, I would set return_value before the switch, use break as usual, and then wrap free_memory with if(return_value).
A better case is if you have taken several resources (mutex, spinlocks, etc) and you will discover the error condition inside a nested loop. Then you should definitely use goto to break out of the top level loop. You COULD add logic to each loop to fall out on return_value, but in the end that might be more confusing.
That works well as long as there isn't a lot of local state in the function. Of course, when you have some significant cleanup to do, there often is.
The case for goto more commonly involves unwinding. For example, if you have to acquire multiple resources.
Honestly, continue, break, and return are already just special cases of goto albeit they are often less ambiguous.
Personally, when I find goto tempting, I take the "considered harmful" as a reminder. Would it unwind cleanly if I turn the logic inside out? Am I trying to do too much here? If not, goto may be the best answer.
Nerf it. Remove the capability to relay calls to a legit phone network and have it "complete" all calls to a recording identifying the device and it's serial number, then to a handset connected to the box in case it's a 911 call.
It does make sense if the postage is subsidized. It almost has to be.
Even so, there's a matter of figuring out where the money is going with U.S. manufacture since the prices are still incredibly low compared to U.S. Labopr accounts for some of it, but even generous estimates of labor required and assuming the China manufacturer gets free labor, it's nowhere near making up the difference on a lot of items.
One possibility is real estate. You know the market is warped when an office building has 45% (and falling) occupancy and they raise the rent causing several occupants to leave.
Yes, but the missing piece is where the costs come from.
I really don't know how they manage it. The things I've bought haven't been very heavy, but they arrived within a week or so mailed China Post to USPS.
The last was an Arduino Pro-mini clone for $2 postage and all.
Or, of course if the other labs are gouging like crazy to perform a largely automated battery of tests.
That seems quite likely to me. After all, this is America, home of medical bills that exceed the GDP of a small country.
You must have read something I didn't. The only similar thing I saw was machine and vials they're not currently using are not FDA approved.
According to TFA, they are NOT currently using the devices the FDA hasn't approved. They are still an order of magnitude cheaper than the competition.
Keep in mind, the FDA is griping about the container that holds the blood. Apparently it hasn't yet been plated with pure unobtanium or something.
There seems to be more consternation among investor types that want to see a magic widget rather than a simple play at cost and efficiency taking the market by competing on price.
So it's no longer about liability. What makes you think hackable hardware is more expensive to make? It's actually cheaper since they don't waste money on preventing it.
If you want unhackable hardware, pay more. Why should I pay more to subsidize your lack of self control?
Now it's just a matter of sub-dividing and delivering.
Yes. That's why it hasn't already happened.
Good question, but it seems unlikely that the seller is in it to lose money.