Since the COBOL applications in question work perfectly well, I assume they are written in a way that is platform independent.
How are those two concepts even connected? That's like saying Since the COBOL applications in question work perfectly well, I assume they are written using lots of variable names with "blue" in them.
It goes up v^2 because of friction. Not such a huge problem in space. The cost is likely to be linear once we escape from earth's gravity with materials.
Y2K was because of an integer datatype with 2 digits and inconsistent treatment for the first digit being something other than 5-9, there they really did run out of room.
The next Y2K fiasco is going to be 32 bit timestamps in C...
A wide variety of data types including built-in fix point and decimal for example.
Structurally that's an integer datatype with a show routine that includes a decimal. Modern languages don't confuse how data is displayed with how it is computed.
Verbosity isn't better for humans. Humans can only retain and manipulate fairly short lists which means the number of things in any block of information has to be small. The more things the more levels need to be in the hierarchy.
Look at human languages. The density of Perl came from just starting to import even some of the density features of human language into computer languages. So no. If computer languages were more like human like them to be they would:
a) Take much longer to learn b) Have tremendous amounts of implicit syntax c) Be a total bear to write a compiler for.
Oh I read, it I just read what you meant backwards.
Phone service of course was a regulated monopoly. It is very hard to compare since technology has improved so there is no way to do apples to apples. But let's take that:
Basic service was provided at a loss. AT&T was very concerned in advancing the USA's objective of universal telephone access. The best analogy might be broadband. For the last decade the FCC been imposing a huge tax to get universal availability to most Americans and that has been successful and expensive. But there is still a fairly large number of people who reject the service because even the local cable costs are too high in rural areas. Alternatively would be the cell phone system which makes no attempt at universality.
Warranties were absolutely comprehensive. Every piece of equipment was warranted against everything, forever.
Interior wiring was a phone company expense. When you consider that many of the homes AT&T had to deal with were designed for kerosine not electrical lights that is not a small difference in service.
AT&T made 5.25% on their gross. A reasonable profit. Today's companies try and make whatever they can and most telcos are way more profitable though accounting rules have changed so this is a bit distorted.
AT&T was heavily involved on community support. They funded sports teams, cultural events, charities.... While corporate giving still exists not on remotely the same scale.
AT&T did a lot of fundamental research for the United States and helped to advance the sciences in many areas.
Again it is hard to compare here but yeah I think you can make a fairly good case that one heavily regulated provider worked pretty darn well for America's phone system.
_______
As for cable service... Who knows? Certainly the amount of content on US cable stations in incredible and part of what makes that possible are the very high rates paid for shows plus a vibrant advertising industry. We may find out as more people move to Roku type services but I suspect that it just won't be apples to apples like the AT&T situation. What makes you so sure that cable service is worse?
Of course they are waivable. They have things like an appeals board that has the ability to waive them. Executive orders can frequently waive them. Etc... State by state and county by county these vary but waivers are often quite easy (relative to the cost of a house) to get.
A system designed for your safety would allow you an inspector who answered to you, responsive to you. A system designed to serve power would require an inspector who answers to power, responds to power, enforces the code rather than your desires, needs, or wishes. Which system do we have again?
Where I live for example I can do whatever I want to my house. I don't have to meet code at all more or less. The only time code comes into effect is if I want to sell my house. Then it needs to be brought up to code. The inspectors are there to protect buyers from sellers more than owners from contractors.
A system designed for the communities collective safety would have inspectors that answered to the instrument of collective policy making. This isn't about my personal safety it is about the community's standards for safety. And they do answer to my local government.
1) Large seats with lots of foot room 2) Stewardess were highly paid and high quality it was a glamour job. 3) Regular food service on air planes 4) Almost unlimited amounts of luggage allowed 5) Security check throughs which took a few minutes 6) Porters who would take your luggage curb side all the way through 7) Generous compensation if the plane was late causing you to miss a transfer
etc...
You really want to claim that the lack of competition didn't result in higher quality?
Regulations are implemented by imperfect people and are subject to review. There is a huge range between regulations are arbitrary and regulations have places where they could use a bit of improvement.
I think they completely (or almost completely) replaced that old code base twice. Once when they stripped it down to make it faster and then 2004 when they switched to the IOS-XR. The layers are just stuff that would never exist in a generic Unix. So for example QoS (Quality of Service) is a kernel level module.
Do you think the code is arbitrary? The state has plenty of power, they have power to tax and the power to use violence to resolve disputes. They don't need to go on power hunts.
It is already illegal to possess lockpicks, unless you are a licensed locksmith; or certain drugs, unless you are a pharmacist, or if the drugs are prescribed personally to you.
Those are explicit laws. Were there an explicit law against creating code designed to assist unregulated money transfers then there wouldn't be much argument.
Besides, why do we need a new law here if BTC is a currency exactly like GBP or CDN or RMB? BTC was itching to get into the "big boys' club" but suddenly discovered that membership comes with strings attached.
There is some question that BTC is a currency under existing law. But your claim was that there is a law against writing software to assist in unregulated money transfers and there is no existing law.
Courts and lawyers always use existing laws because that's all they have. Only the legislature can make new ones, and it takes a long time.
And in the meanwhile they don't get to charge people.
While I'm on my soap box: I think it would be nice if we could have a programming environment that is completely sandboxed from every other program and every other user. In those cases where information must pass from one user to another on the same computer or from one computer to another, socket technologies with easy-to-use encryption seem like a good answer. And the runtime environment for that should be controlled by the installing user. It should be installed where I say with the sandboxed files going where I say. None of this hidden behind several curtains and modify-the-registry crap. No technology that I see today fulfills these needs.
Interestingly enough NT started with this model and then turned it off because it was too complex. So NTs can do this. iOS (Apple's) is capability based.
From a 10000 foot view, it looks like Javascript is better because it is better sandboxed, but when you get down to how many technologies are involved to make a web browser work, it seems like there are going to be holes that are always open because no one can be an expert in all of those technologies.
It is much easier to secure bad technologies in a hardened environment than to secure good technologies in a soft environment. If just about all permissions default to "no" things are a lot harder to get screwed up.
Is it legal to produce software, and to train people to use this software, if the primary mode of operation of that software is against the law?
I'm not sure. But this strikes me as borderline and borderline needs to be specifically regulated against. The legislature needs to decide what constitutes writing software to assist money laundering and be more specific. Using existing law strikes me as ex post facto law.
This ideology sure sounds like a very fat client to me. If we're going to use "sessionStorage, localStorage, and client-side databases" (as per TFA), why not just use an executable?
Browsers are much more hardened environments than mainstream OSes. More or less what this is evolving towards is what Microsoft proposed a decade ago of having a very hardened windows core running normal windows and a trusted computing subsystem that had limited ability to pass information between them. Everyone agrees that browsers need to be hardened. Even Apple agrees that what they do for iOS to harden it is impractical for OSX and Microsoft would have an even tougher time doing it for Windows NT, and Linux triumphed not various hardened OSes. So it appears that everyone agrees that core OSes can't be hardened. So we are getting Microsoft's solution through gradual evolution rather than deliberate design a decade later.
Many other industries are regulated to insure that work meets certain quality standards. Further they often have professional associations with real teeth.
Most likely ignorance. They just don't understand how BitCoin works and the role of the foundation. A reasonable response to a cease and desist letter is to inform the issuing authority you aren't the one performing the act they are asking you to desist from.
Netscape 4 was June 1997. IE4 was September 1997. IE4 is the fair comparison. And that was already so far beyond Netscape that they threw in the towel and decided to redesign the engine from scratch. By the time IE6 came out 4 years later you are looking at Mozilla 0.9 as being the comparative suite. There were/.ers using Mozilla at the time as IE had been losing features from version 4.5 to 6. But it was getting considerably less buggy.
Xenix was SVR3 based. SVR4 was Xenix based, SVR5 was defined by SCO which was the new name for Xenix and Unixware (also SVR4 based Novell product that was acquired by SCO).
As for the architecture the cutover was the sun4c architecture that was the first hardware that supported Solaris. The Sun-4u architecture (64 bit processors) was the first architecture which was Solaris only.
Netscape 4 was netscape 3 with a few enhancements. IE. 4 has amazing features far better than IE 6, and arguably a lot of features I'd still like to have. I don't think Netscape 4 sucked so much as it was just wasn't anything special while IE 4 was revolutionary
Slashdot Mirror
How are those two concepts even connected? That's like saying Since the COBOL applications in question work perfectly well, I assume they are written using lots of variable names with "blue" in them.
It goes up v^2 because of friction. Not such a huge problem in space. The cost is likely to be linear once we escape from earth's gravity with materials.
No from the point of view of the ship once you are going fast the other planet isn't very far away so it shouldn't take long to get there.
Y2K was because of an integer datatype with 2 digits and inconsistent treatment for the first digit being something other than 5-9, there they really did run out of room.
The next Y2K fiasco is going to be 32 bit timestamps in C...
Structurally that's an integer datatype with a show routine that includes a decimal. Modern languages don't confuse how data is displayed with how it is computed.
Verbosity isn't better for humans. Humans can only retain and manipulate fairly short lists which means the number of things in any block of information has to be small. The more things the more levels need to be in the hierarchy.
Look at human languages. The density of Perl came from just starting to import even some of the density features of human language into computer languages. So no. If computer languages were more like human like them to be they would:
a) Take much longer to learn
b) Have tremendous amounts of implicit syntax
c) Be a total bear to write a compiler for.
I assume they were looking at amortization period tricks. Not all software expenses can taken in the year in which they occur
A develops software they have to take the credit over 3-5 years.
B donates money to non-profit C.
C writes software which is only useful to B.
B takes the donation tax credit fully in the initial year.
I don't have any inside knowledge but if I had to guess, that's what they were worried about.
Oh I read, it I just read what you meant backwards.
Phone service of course was a regulated monopoly. It is very hard to compare since technology has improved so there is no way to do apples to apples. But let's take that:
Basic service was provided at a loss. AT&T was very concerned in advancing the USA's objective of universal telephone access. The best analogy might be broadband. For the last decade the FCC been imposing a huge tax to get universal availability to most Americans and that has been successful and expensive. But there is still a fairly large number of people who reject the service because even the local cable costs are too high in rural areas. Alternatively would be the cell phone system which makes no attempt at universality.
Warranties were absolutely comprehensive. Every piece of equipment was warranted against everything, forever.
Interior wiring was a phone company expense. When you consider that many of the homes AT&T had to deal with were designed for kerosine not electrical lights that is not a small difference in service.
AT&T made 5.25% on their gross. A reasonable profit. Today's companies try and make whatever they can and most telcos are way more profitable though accounting rules have changed so this is a bit distorted.
AT&T was heavily involved on community support. They funded sports teams, cultural events, charities.... While corporate giving still exists not on remotely the same scale.
AT&T did a lot of fundamental research for the United States and helped to advance the sciences in many areas.
Again it is hard to compare here but yeah I think you can make a fairly good case that one heavily regulated provider worked pretty darn well for America's phone system.
_______
As for cable service... Who knows? Certainly the amount of content on US cable stations in incredible and part of what makes that possible are the very high rates paid for shows plus a vibrant advertising industry. We may find out as more people move to Roku type services but I suspect that it just won't be apples to apples like the AT&T situation. What makes you so sure that cable service is worse?
Of course they are waivable. They have things like an appeals board that has the ability to waive them. Executive orders can frequently waive them. Etc... State by state and county by county these vary but waivers are often quite easy (relative to the cost of a house) to get.
Where I live for example I can do whatever I want to my house. I don't have to meet code at all more or less. The only time code comes into effect is if I want to sell my house. Then it needs to be brought up to code. The inspectors are there to protect buyers from sellers more than owners from contractors.
A system designed for the communities collective safety would have inspectors that answered to the instrument of collective policy making. This isn't about my personal safety it is about the community's standards for safety. And they do answer to my local government.
Take a look at the experience from the 1970s.
1) Large seats with lots of foot room
2) Stewardess were highly paid and high quality it was a glamour job.
3) Regular food service on air planes
4) Almost unlimited amounts of luggage allowed
5) Security check throughs which took a few minutes
6) Porters who would take your luggage curb side all the way through
7) Generous compensation if the plane was late causing you to miss a transfer
etc...
You really want to claim that the lack of competition didn't result in higher quality?
Regulations are implemented by imperfect people and are subject to review. There is a huge range between regulations are arbitrary and regulations have places where they could use a bit of improvement.
I think they completely (or almost completely) replaced that old code base twice. Once when they stripped it down to make it faster and then 2004 when they switched to the IOS-XR. The layers are just stuff that would never exist in a generic Unix. So for example QoS (Quality of Service) is a kernel level module.
Do you think the code is arbitrary? The state has plenty of power, they have power to tax and the power to use violence to resolve disputes. They don't need to go on power hunts.
I get your point but even that can be reversed... Limiting competition helps to maintain margins which often helps to raise quality.
Those are explicit laws. Were there an explicit law against creating code designed to assist unregulated money transfers then there wouldn't be much argument.
There is some question that BTC is a currency under existing law. But your claim was that there is a law against writing software to assist in unregulated money transfers and there is no existing law.
And in the meanwhile they don't get to charge people.
Actually there is a technology that offers user / applications level sandboxing and permissions between applications are off by default:
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/ and http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/
Or for that matter any OS with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security
Interestingly enough NT started with this model and then turned it off because it was too complex. So NTs can do this. iOS (Apple's) is capability based.
It is much easier to secure bad technologies in a hardened environment than to secure good technologies in a soft environment. If just about all permissions default to "no" things are a lot harder to get screwed up.
I'm not sure. But this strikes me as borderline and borderline needs to be specifically regulated against. The legislature needs to decide what constitutes writing software to assist money laundering and be more specific. Using existing law strikes me as ex post facto law.
Browsers are much more hardened environments than mainstream OSes. More or less what this is evolving towards is what Microsoft proposed a decade ago of having a very hardened windows core running normal windows and a trusted computing subsystem that had limited ability to pass information between them. Everyone agrees that browsers need to be hardened. Even Apple agrees that what they do for iOS to harden it is impractical for OSX and Microsoft would have an even tougher time doing it for Windows NT, and Linux triumphed not various hardened OSes. So it appears that everyone agrees that core OSes can't be hardened. So we are getting Microsoft's solution through gradual evolution rather than deliberate design a decade later.
Many other industries are regulated to insure that work meets certain quality standards. Further they often have professional associations with real teeth.
Most likely ignorance. They just don't understand how BitCoin works and the role of the foundation. A reasonable response to a cease and desist letter is to inform the issuing authority you aren't the one performing the act they are asking you to desist from.
You aren't alone in the sentiment. Lots of people prefered designing for IE 6 in the early 2000s.
Netscape 4 was June 1997. IE4 was September 1997. IE4 is the fair comparison. And that was already so far beyond Netscape that they threw in the towel and decided to redesign the engine from scratch. By the time IE6 came out 4 years later you are looking at Mozilla 0.9 as being the comparative suite. There were /.ers using Mozilla at the time as IE had been losing features from version 4.5 to 6. But it was getting considerably less buggy.
Xenix was SVR3 based. SVR4 was Xenix based, SVR5 was defined by SCO which was the new name for Xenix and Unixware (also SVR4 based Novell product that was acquired by SCO).
As for the architecture the cutover was the sun4c architecture that was the first hardware that supported Solaris. The Sun-4u architecture (64 bit processors) was the first architecture which was Solaris only.
Netscape 4 was netscape 3 with a few enhancements. IE. 4 has amazing features far better than IE 6, and arguably a lot of features I'd still like to have. I don't think Netscape 4 sucked so much as it was just wasn't anything special while IE 4 was revolutionary