That's why you did it, but the Apple ][, PET, VIC-20, and C64 could have managed it if expanded from the base models. Certainly, the old IBM-PC (or the many clones) could handle a C compiler, but it was a few years before anything like a useful proprietary C compiler became somewhat affordable.
Keep in mind, the PDP-7 wasn't that much more capable.
That "ideological wankery" is why so many kids can afford access to mainstream professional development tools today. The kids in the '70s and early '80s didn't use BASIC because they thought it was the best choice, they did it because a decent professional grade C compiler cost hundreds of dollars (close to a thousand in today's dollars)
What you call wankery, I call simple practicality. Why would I want to tie the future of my software to the "good will" of a proprietary vendor?
But for long after that, in simple C compilers, ++ would use INC if it was available while +=1 and a=a+1 would generate multiple instructions or use ADD immediate (and so take more cycles to execute).
Of course these days, optimization is better and the different forms will produce the same instructions.
It makes a lot more sense to use near field, That way, you can at the same time make sure an ER doctor can readily access your device in an emergency but your angry at the world neighbor can't kill you from his recliner.
That's true of the ones that caused infamous incidents as well. The problems tend to come in the uneven execution.
For example, expecting someone to apologize and admit guilt for using a racial slur when they did not, but not expecting the other party to apologize for hearing a slur that wasn't there and making honestly horrible accusations against the speaker and admit to that guilt.
I'm not saying that would happen here, just explaining the misgivings many have when they see a code of conduct pop up where before there was just an unwritten expectation that people behave decently. Once there is a rule on paper, it becomes too easy to quickly hang someone from the yardarm without due consideration. Without the written rule to point at and call for blood, there tends to be more discussion of whether or not offense was given and a more informal discussion that gets the point across without being overly heavy handed.
Several reasons. First, I have a regular residential kitchen. To sell food to others, I would need a commercial kitchen so it could pass an inspecton. Then I would need such an inspection. Then proper business and food service licenses. I would need to sell a hell of a lot more burgers to cover all of that.
I think what people react to is some fairly infamous mis-applications. For example, when David Howard was fired for using the word 'nigardly', or a couple guys getting fired because they had a brief snicker over the word 'dongle' that was overheard. In general, it's a bad situation where such a tempest can be raised when offense is taken even when it was not given.
Things like that have given the term "code of conduct" a bad reputation even where there is no intention of such behavior. It's like an organization that wants to give candy and flowers to people having a bad day names itself "the fourth reich".
Low to lower middle income people voting for the Rs (against their own interests) because they are "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" is the bulk of the constituency. That's why they pay lip service to the fundies.
But it is. How long does it take you to buy the ingredients, clean and prepare them, then cook the burger? Is your time worthless?
Of course my time isn't worthless. My time and gas to drive to McDs, wait in line, pay, and drive home also isn't worthless. As it happens, the nearest McDs is in the same parking lot as the nearest grocery store. But I only need groceries once a week. By comparison, it only takes me 7 minutes to cook burgers. I can be done by the time I would be paying for the McDs. So, if I factor in time, home cooking looks even better. If I factor in quality of the result, McDs isn't even in the running.
As for the rest, The unemployed and marginally employed will still have SNAP (and I would advise making it easier to get and make it cover costs better).
I would prefer UBI, but it'll take years of conservatives wailing and rending garments before we can push that through.
You typed a lot, but it's the same tired excuses adding up to little. Obviously since only a portion of consumers are making only minimum wage, the rise in price wouldn't negate the rise in income at the bottom.
Personally, I would support a reasonable UBI, I've advocated for that myself. But realistically, that's going to be a much longer argument. Raising minimum wage is a reasonable interim measure.
As for economic efficiency, if a business cannot remain solvent without the rest of us subsidizing their payroll, it SHOULD fail. Just as it should if it can't stay open unless we send them a government check to maintain their griddle and fryer or pay the power bill.
BTW, if McDs was ACTUALLY more efficient than me preparing my own burgers at home, it would be cheaper than burgers cooked at home. That is simply not the case.
Your analysis only makes sense if everyone was currently being paid minimum wage or a salaried equivalent.
The employer who tries to make the office staff clean the toilets will end up with nothing but bottom of the barrel office staff and quite likely, filthy bathrooms that make it impossible to make a good impression on visiting clients. In the current economic climate, if they could do without janitors they would do so even if they only had to pay them $3/hr.
Likewise, if they could get by with one guy on call 24/7, they would have done it already. Especially an employer chintzy enough that IT staff would be affected by a rise in MINIMUM WAGE. (Or more likely, they already went down in flames. The kind of IT 'support' you could get for minimum wage is worse than nothing).
Salaried positions very rarely work out to minimum wage
Because only part of the population works for minimum wage and so would make more money with an increase, the rise in prices would be less than the rise in income for a minimum wage worker.
Further mechanization is a red herring. Remember that flap about 'flippy'? Then the reality set in that it was expensive and slow even compared to employees with raises. Eventually, the automation will work and it will be introduced even if we half the minimum wage. Hopefully, by then the old guard that's stuck in the 19th century will have died off and we can talk seriously about how to restructure our economy so it can work even as more and more labor is replaced by machines. That's a GOOD thing.
Naturally, prices will rise, but the net result still leaves the poorest better off and the rest of us paying less for SNAP.
The most likely answer is the same way they deal with an increase in fuel/food/other costs. They pass it on to the customer. You don't think an increase in minimum wage is the first time a business has ever had to deal with a rising cost of business, do you?
Of course, that can (and often does) lead to a virtuous cycle. The employees have more money, so they can afford to buy things, so businesses have more money. At the same time, less demand for SNAP and other safety net services means we don't have that coming out of our pockets anymore. That also means more people with more to spend.
As a nice bonus, since low wage payers are forced to stop dipping into our pockets through subsidized payroll, they get our money based on merit, just like the market intended:-)
Is it your contention that employers would rather fire everyone and rage quit than raise their prices a bit and pay a living wage? Or do you believe that labor is so cheap that employers are in the habit of hiring more people than they actually need to run their business?
Because otherwise, if the minimum wage increases, employers will pay it so they can continue to make money. Since their competition will also have to pay it, they won't be disadvantaged. Then, we the taxpayers won't have to subsidize their payroll anymore.
Consider, if employees were businesses, they would leave the market before they would sell at a loss (that is, work for less than a living).
Is it really that hard to imagine someone who WANTS to work in order to have more, but by virtue of already having their basic needs met is not *DESPERATE* for work?
Your characterization doesn't hold. The right is also full of people who are dirt poor but still think their ship will come in. Meanwhile, there's some crazy wealthy people leaning left out there. Also a lot of people who work for a living that couldn't be called unsuccessful.
Most of the trap aspect of the safety net is the result of the right trying to push people out of the net before they're quite able to land on their feet.
It's more than easy, I'll do it right now. If their power supply is able to damage USB compliant devices or be damaged by them, they should have used a different connector. There, problem solved with no design compromise or expensive hardware.
The Samsung case you mentioned doesn't support your argument that proper support may be too costly at all. They just plain screwed it up. The correct resister wouldn't have cost any more than the wrong one. In a perfect world, Samsung would have had it's feet held to the fire to repair or replace each and every defective device or come up with a decent workaround that didn't involve the rest of the world joining them in being wrong.
The Intel one was mostly harmless since few people have 16 USB devices connected.
Like a standard cert from someone else requires anything beyond rudimentary photochop skills?
Pinning would do a LOT more for security than the CAs ever have, but since that doesn't present any exciting new business opportunities, it remains unimplemented.
And yes, that means that you'll eventually get to hear "Dude, we answered that a million times before, care to find the field up there labeled search? Effin' use it!"
I *REALLY* wish people wouldn't pollute the search engines with that. There's nothing more frustrating than searching for the answer to a question and all the "just search for it" results drown out any actual answers. I *AM* searching for it you pointy headed morons!
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you did it, but the Apple ][, PET, VIC-20, and C64 could have managed it if expanded from the base models. Certainly, the old IBM-PC (or the many clones) could handle a C compiler, but it was a few years before anything like a useful proprietary C compiler became somewhat affordable.
Keep in mind, the PDP-7 wasn't that much more capable.
That "ideological wankery" is why so many kids can afford access to mainstream professional development tools today. The kids in the '70s and early '80s didn't use BASIC because they thought it was the best choice, they did it because a decent professional grade C compiler cost hundreds of dollars (close to a thousand in today's dollars)
What you call wankery, I call simple practicality. Why would I want to tie the future of my software to the "good will" of a proprietary vendor?
But for long after that, in simple C compilers, ++ would use INC if it was available while +=1 and a=a+1 would generate multiple instructions or use ADD immediate (and so take more cycles to execute).
Of course these days, optimization is better and the different forms will produce the same instructions.
It makes a lot more sense to use near field, That way, you can at the same time make sure an ER doctor can readily access your device in an emergency but your angry at the world neighbor can't kill you from his recliner.
I would think near field is a better choice. Although minor, would you want to have surgery every time there's an update?
Nevertheless, someone got fired for snickering about "dongle". The woman being fired didn't re-employ him.
That's true of the ones that caused infamous incidents as well. The problems tend to come in the uneven execution.
For example, expecting someone to apologize and admit guilt for using a racial slur when they did not, but not expecting the other party to apologize for hearing a slur that wasn't there and making honestly horrible accusations against the speaker and admit to that guilt.
I'm not saying that would happen here, just explaining the misgivings many have when they see a code of conduct pop up where before there was just an unwritten expectation that people behave decently. Once there is a rule on paper, it becomes too easy to quickly hang someone from the yardarm without due consideration. Without the written rule to point at and call for blood, there tends to be more discussion of whether or not offense was given and a more informal discussion that gets the point across without being overly heavy handed.
Several reasons. First, I have a regular residential kitchen. To sell food to others, I would need a commercial kitchen so it could pass an inspecton. Then I would need such an inspection. Then proper business and food service licenses. I would need to sell a hell of a lot more burgers to cover all of that.
I already have a day job.
I think what people react to is some fairly infamous mis-applications. For example, when David Howard was fired for using the word 'nigardly', or a couple guys getting fired because they had a brief snicker over the word 'dongle' that was overheard. In general, it's a bad situation where such a tempest can be raised when offense is taken even when it was not given.
Things like that have given the term "code of conduct" a bad reputation even where there is no intention of such behavior. It's like an organization that wants to give candy and flowers to people having a bad day names itself "the fourth reich".
Low to lower middle income people voting for the Rs (against their own interests) because they are "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" is the bulk of the constituency. That's why they pay lip service to the fundies.
But it is. How long does it take you to buy the ingredients, clean and prepare them, then cook the burger? Is your time worthless?
Of course my time isn't worthless. My time and gas to drive to McDs, wait in line, pay, and drive home also isn't worthless. As it happens, the nearest McDs is in the same parking lot as the nearest grocery store. But I only need groceries once a week. By comparison, it only takes me 7 minutes to cook burgers. I can be done by the time I would be paying for the McDs. So, if I factor in time, home cooking looks even better. If I factor in quality of the result, McDs isn't even in the running.
As for the rest, The unemployed and marginally employed will still have SNAP (and I would advise making it easier to get and make it cover costs better).
I would prefer UBI, but it'll take years of conservatives wailing and rending garments before we can push that through.
You typed a lot, but it's the same tired excuses adding up to little. Obviously since only a portion of consumers are making only minimum wage, the rise in price wouldn't negate the rise in income at the bottom.
Personally, I would support a reasonable UBI, I've advocated for that myself. But realistically, that's going to be a much longer argument. Raising minimum wage is a reasonable interim measure.
As for economic efficiency, if a business cannot remain solvent without the rest of us subsidizing their payroll, it SHOULD fail. Just as it should if it can't stay open unless we send them a government check to maintain their griddle and fryer or pay the power bill.
BTW, if McDs was ACTUALLY more efficient than me preparing my own burgers at home, it would be cheaper than burgers cooked at home. That is simply not the case.
Yeah, those google and duckduckgo clowns wouldn't know anything about search algos,
Or perhaps there's just too many pointy headed morons who have no time to help but plenty of time to pontificate.
Your analysis only makes sense if everyone was currently being paid minimum wage or a salaried equivalent.
The employer who tries to make the office staff clean the toilets will end up with nothing but bottom of the barrel office staff and quite likely, filthy bathrooms that make it impossible to make a good impression on visiting clients. In the current economic climate, if they could do without janitors they would do so even if they only had to pay them $3/hr.
Likewise, if they could get by with one guy on call 24/7, they would have done it already. Especially an employer chintzy enough that IT staff would be affected by a rise in MINIMUM WAGE. (Or more likely, they already went down in flames. The kind of IT 'support' you could get for minimum wage is worse than nothing).
Salaried positions very rarely work out to minimum wage
Because only part of the population works for minimum wage and so would make more money with an increase, the rise in prices would be less than the rise in income for a minimum wage worker.
Who said anything about losing money. They'll increase prices just like they do when any other expense rises. So will all of their competition.
Note that in the few places that have already increased the minimum wages, businesses are expanding.
Further mechanization is a red herring. Remember that flap about 'flippy'? Then the reality set in that it was expensive and slow even compared to employees with raises. Eventually, the automation will work and it will be introduced even if we half the minimum wage. Hopefully, by then the old guard that's stuck in the 19th century will have died off and we can talk seriously about how to restructure our economy so it can work even as more and more labor is replaced by machines. That's a GOOD thing.
Naturally, prices will rise, but the net result still leaves the poorest better off and the rest of us paying less for SNAP.
The most likely answer is the same way they deal with an increase in fuel/food/other costs. They pass it on to the customer. You don't think an increase in minimum wage is the first time a business has ever had to deal with a rising cost of business, do you?
Of course, that can (and often does) lead to a virtuous cycle. The employees have more money, so they can afford to buy things, so businesses have more money. At the same time, less demand for SNAP and other safety net services means we don't have that coming out of our pockets anymore. That also means more people with more to spend.
As a nice bonus, since low wage payers are forced to stop dipping into our pockets through subsidized payroll, they get our money based on merit, just like the market intended :-)
Is it your contention that employers would rather fire everyone and rage quit than raise their prices a bit and pay a living wage? Or do you believe that labor is so cheap that employers are in the habit of hiring more people than they actually need to run their business?
Because otherwise, if the minimum wage increases, employers will pay it so they can continue to make money. Since their competition will also have to pay it, they won't be disadvantaged. Then, we the taxpayers won't have to subsidize their payroll anymore.
Consider, if employees were businesses, they would leave the market before they would sell at a loss (that is, work for less than a living).
So you contend that if employers have to pay a living wage, they'll fire everyone and rage quit their business?
Is it really that hard to imagine someone who WANTS to work in order to have more, but by virtue of already having their basic needs met is not *DESPERATE* for work?
Your characterization doesn't hold. The right is also full of people who are dirt poor but still think their ship will come in. Meanwhile, there's some crazy wealthy people leaning left out there. Also a lot of people who work for a living that couldn't be called unsuccessful.
Most of the trap aspect of the safety net is the result of the right trying to push people out of the net before they're quite able to land on their feet.
It's more than easy, I'll do it right now. If their power supply is able to damage USB compliant devices or be damaged by them, they should have used a different connector. There, problem solved with no design compromise or expensive hardware.
The Samsung case you mentioned doesn't support your argument that proper support may be too costly at all. They just plain screwed it up. The correct resister wouldn't have cost any more than the wrong one. In a perfect world, Samsung would have had it's feet held to the fire to repair or replace each and every defective device or come up with a decent workaround that didn't involve the rest of the world joining them in being wrong.
The Intel one was mostly harmless since few people have 16 USB devices connected.
Like a standard cert from someone else requires anything beyond rudimentary photochop skills?
Pinning would do a LOT more for security than the CAs ever have, but since that doesn't present any exciting new business opportunities, it remains unimplemented.
And yes, that means that you'll eventually get to hear "Dude, we answered that a million times before, care to find the field up there labeled search? Effin' use it!"
I *REALLY* wish people wouldn't pollute the search engines with that. There's nothing more frustrating than searching for the answer to a question and all the "just search for it" results drown out any actual answers. I *AM* searching for it you pointy headed morons!
All the more reason to curb flavor of the day 'New math'.
Of course, if we confine schools to only teach what all of the parents know, we might as well just send the kids to the park and tell them to go wild.