It depends on the type of people being locked up. Minorities, hippies, street kids, runaways, well... if they get caught up in a drug abuse epidemic then lock up and forget about them seems to be society's response. But "normal" people caught up in the current opiate epidemic and now the problem needs to be solved with medical and social workers and not with prisons. A double standard?
Historically, Intel was huge for Silicon Valley in the early days. It had the first commercial CPU on a semiconductor chip. Intel was prominent amongst the early semiconductor companies that gave Silicon Valley it's name, founded by two of the original Traitorous 8. Intel kept a big hold when it became the chip used in the PC, moving microcomputers out of the hobbyist realm, thus keeping itself highly influential and relevant even when Silicon Valley started being more about software than silicon.
Intel is itself a victim of Intel's success. Just like PCs find it difficult to shed the x86 model because of compatibility requirements, even intel can't compete with the x86, newer chips that aren't a part of the x86 line have been flops, they couldn't even get their first 64-bit alternative failed to gain popularity because it wasn't compatible enough with the 32-bit x86, so they got beaten at it by AMD.
And when a product is not a big initial success, Intel loses interest in it and considers it a failure. They could have kept going with their early ARM chips but they dropped those before ARM suddenly became popular. The reason they have all those older CPU products that never got very popular is because Intel has actually tried to break out of its PC stereotype.
On the other hand, this has given enormous room for smaller companies to get more play time and differentiate themselves in the market, which is a good thing overall.
Generally the need to keep these around comes from the combination of a lack of budget to get an alternative running, and the lack of knowledge of how to get an alternative. Ie, a lot of those old must-have DOS programs can be run in an emulator. And a lot of those single-source third party production codes should be thoroughly documented when first installed, backups made, etc.
One problem is that something that seems like just a temporary solution very often becomes mission critical over time.
Knowing what runs means that if I go to xyz.com then ONLY scripts and code from xyz.com should be allowed to run. In reality when I thought I was looking at someone's blog I actually end up being tracked for advertising purpose by third party sites I've never heard of. Javascript is a popular for malware precisely because customers don't know where all these scripts are coming from, and the original web site owner probably doesn't know either.
What this means is that because I use noscript, I can only view about 10% of the web, and that's shrinking every day. But there is no viable alternative to this.
I wouldn't mind ads on the web if they were actually curated by the web site owners. Instead these web site owners have handed over their responsibilities to third party sites.
(except for work, where the new parent company is so in bed with Microsoft and the Cloud that you literally can't change your password if you have noscript, even if you've whitelisted all the scripts, so I have a second browser profile just for official work related activities)
No, I don't normally run unverified code from third parties that I have never heard of. I used to have to manually download and install programs. Now programs run by themselves from sites I don't know about, just because some loser website uses third party advertisement and analytic sites to try and monetize a blog.
It was also a stupid idea from the start. It was Windows only and invented primarily to try and enforce more customer lockdown. Like so many Microsoft ideas, the priority was to push features out first and worry about security issues never.
They just have different goals than the users is all. Internet decision makers want money from advertisers so they will do everything in their power to shove more of it at us, and more and more targeted ads. The users just want to see kitten videos and what their friends are up to.
No, RISC wasn't supposed to be "simple", it was supposed to simplify just one part of the CPU so that those resources could then be used to speed up other parts. Ie, greatly simplify the instruction decoding and then you can add more registers, cache, pipelining, and so forth.
Well, now you execute random code from random third parties and will start wondering why you're getting so much malware all of a sudden. Why is noscript become popular, not because javascript is too slow, but because that's where so many malware, spying, tracking, and advertising attacks are coming from.
No, by law mail order companies are required to collect use tax for interstate sales depending upon each particular state.
My issue is not that the tax is good or bad, but that it's fundamentally unfair for online companies to be exempt from such rules when other companies that ship to other states are not exempt.
At 200 the game was very slow to start up. I haven't found better games really, except for some puzzle locked-room things that don't last long. I'm not "gaming" on the phone, it's for a few minutes of distraction at time, not like a PC game.
There are only 50 jurisdictions. You do not need to pay use taxes to individual counties or cities. This is not sales tax, but use tax, and it is easy to lookup online and learn about.
Why is this a mess? How is this in any way different from pre-internet catalog sales, where the rules were essentially identical, and rules that still apply today to catalog sales?
We've had over a century to figure this out and yet it hasn't happened yet. Why should it change now? Online purchases should fundamentally be treated just like out-of-state mail or phone purchases. We've managed just find to have 50 slightly different rules so far. (and again, no county or municipal use taxes are applicable here)
If you buy a product in New York and drive back home to use it in California, you are legally bound to pay the California use tax (not the same as sales tax). If you already paid New York sales tax, the you're allowed to deduct that from the use tax, so it probably evens out somewhat.
Maybe it seems unfair, but there are many laws that may seem unfair as well, and yet they are still laws that need to be followed. Don't like it, then change the laws. Ie, if you earn money in a foreign country, you still need to pay US federal taxes on it no matter how unfair it seems.
Maybe a small business can't handle it, or they need to hire a couple of people to assist. This is no different than any other mail order company, and we've definitely had many small businesses that handle interstate deliveries and were able to comply by the rules. Being on the "internet" should not create special exemptions.
Again, there are no county or municipal taxes to worry about here. The same rules apply to you if the seller does not collect the use tax, meaning you must voluntarily pay the tax yourself (assuming you are patriotic and law abiding). This applies even if you drive to a different state to purchase a product and then drive back home again with the product.
We've already gone down this road! These rules have applied to mail, phone, and wire orders for a long time before internet commerce came along, depending upon each state's determination of "presence" (which often meant merely advertising on television). The only difference here is that the court decided that the internet was too ubiquitous for claims that an online company had no actual presence, and that each state was allowed to make their own rules to decide whether or not they should collect use tax; exactly like how states already individually decide their rules for mail orders.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the type of people being locked up. Minorities, hippies, street kids, runaways, well... if they get caught up in a drug abuse epidemic then lock up and forget about them seems to be society's response. But "normal" people caught up in the current opiate epidemic and now the problem needs to be solved with medical and social workers and not with prisons. A double standard?
Historically, Intel was huge for Silicon Valley in the early days. It had the first commercial CPU on a semiconductor chip. Intel was prominent amongst the early semiconductor companies that gave Silicon Valley it's name, founded by two of the original Traitorous 8. Intel kept a big hold when it became the chip used in the PC, moving microcomputers out of the hobbyist realm, thus keeping itself highly influential and relevant even when Silicon Valley started being more about software than silicon.
Intel is itself a victim of Intel's success. Just like PCs find it difficult to shed the x86 model because of compatibility requirements, even intel can't compete with the x86, newer chips that aren't a part of the x86 line have been flops, they couldn't even get their first 64-bit alternative failed to gain popularity because it wasn't compatible enough with the 32-bit x86, so they got beaten at it by AMD.
And when a product is not a big initial success, Intel loses interest in it and considers it a failure. They could have kept going with their early ARM chips but they dropped those before ARM suddenly became popular. The reason they have all those older CPU products that never got very popular is because Intel has actually tried to break out of its PC stereotype.
On the other hand, this has given enormous room for smaller companies to get more play time and differentiate themselves in the market, which is a good thing overall.
What it really means, is that Microsoft doesn't really support its operating systems by any reasonable definition of "support".
Generally the need to keep these around comes from the combination of a lack of budget to get an alternative running, and the lack of knowledge of how to get an alternative. Ie, a lot of those old must-have DOS programs can be run in an emulator. And a lot of those single-source third party production codes should be thoroughly documented when first installed, backups made, etc.
One problem is that something that seems like just a temporary solution very often becomes mission critical over time.
Knowing what runs means that if I go to xyz.com then ONLY scripts and code from xyz.com should be allowed to run. In reality when I thought I was looking at someone's blog I actually end up being tracked for advertising purpose by third party sites I've never heard of. Javascript is a popular for malware precisely because customers don't know where all these scripts are coming from, and the original web site owner probably doesn't know either.
What this means is that because I use noscript, I can only view about 10% of the web, and that's shrinking every day. But there is no viable alternative to this.
I wouldn't mind ads on the web if they were actually curated by the web site owners. Instead these web site owners have handed over their responsibilities to third party sites.
But why would I want to do that? I've got a real job that doesn't involve exploiting customers.
Why is why I use noscript.
(except for work, where the new parent company is so in bed with Microsoft and the Cloud that you literally can't change your password if you have noscript, even if you've whitelisted all the scripts, so I have a second browser profile just for official work related activities)
No, I don't normally run unverified code from third parties that I have never heard of. I used to have to manually download and install programs. Now programs run by themselves from sites I don't know about, just because some loser website uses third party advertisement and analytic sites to try and monetize a blog.
Isn't that what they said about Java?
It was also a stupid idea from the start. It was Windows only and invented primarily to try and enforce more customer lockdown. Like so many Microsoft ideas, the priority was to push features out first and worry about security issues never.
They just have different goals than the users is all. Internet decision makers want money from advertisers so they will do everything in their power to shove more of it at us, and more and more targeted ads. The users just want to see kitten videos and what their friends are up to.
I vote for decent programing language instead of Javascript.
No, RISC wasn't supposed to be "simple", it was supposed to simplify just one part of the CPU so that those resources could then be used to speed up other parts. Ie, greatly simplify the instruction decoding and then you can add more registers, cache, pipelining, and so forth.
Well, now you execute random code from random third parties and will start wondering why you're getting so much malware all of a sudden. Why is noscript become popular, not because javascript is too slow, but because that's where so many malware, spying, tracking, and advertising attacks are coming from.
No, by law mail order companies are required to collect use tax for interstate sales depending upon each particular state.
My issue is not that the tax is good or bad, but that it's fundamentally unfair for online companies to be exempt from such rules when other companies that ship to other states are not exempt.
At 200 the game was very slow to start up. I haven't found better games really, except for some puzzle locked-room things that don't last long. I'm not "gaming" on the phone, it's for a few minutes of distraction at time, not like a PC game.
I wouldn't even trust them to drive in Grand Theft Auto.
There are only 50 jurisdictions. You do not need to pay use taxes to individual counties or cities. This is not sales tax, but use tax, and it is easy to lookup online and learn about.
Why is this a mess? How is this in any way different from pre-internet catalog sales, where the rules were essentially identical, and rules that still apply today to catalog sales?
We've had over a century to figure this out and yet it hasn't happened yet. Why should it change now? Online purchases should fundamentally be treated just like out-of-state mail or phone purchases. We've managed just find to have 50 slightly different rules so far. (and again, no county or municipal use taxes are applicable here)
If you buy a product in New York and drive back home to use it in California, you are legally bound to pay the California use tax (not the same as sales tax). If you already paid New York sales tax, the you're allowed to deduct that from the use tax, so it probably evens out somewhat.
Maybe it seems unfair, but there are many laws that may seem unfair as well, and yet they are still laws that need to be followed. Don't like it, then change the laws. Ie, if you earn money in a foreign country, you still need to pay US federal taxes on it no matter how unfair it seems.
Maybe a small business can't handle it, or they need to hire a couple of people to assist. This is no different than any other mail order company, and we've definitely had many small businesses that handle interstate deliveries and were able to comply by the rules. Being on the "internet" should not create special exemptions.
Again, there are no county or municipal taxes to worry about here. The same rules apply to you if the seller does not collect the use tax, meaning you must voluntarily pay the tax yourself (assuming you are patriotic and law abiding). This applies even if you drive to a different state to purchase a product and then drive back home again with the product.
We've already gone down this road! These rules have applied to mail, phone, and wire orders for a long time before internet commerce came along, depending upon each state's determination of "presence" (which often meant merely advertising on television). The only difference here is that the court decided that the internet was too ubiquitous for claims that an online company had no actual presence, and that each state was allowed to make their own rules to decide whether or not they should collect use tax; exactly like how states already individually decide their rules for mail orders.