The TechCrunch article referenced has a related article link to Where The Free Software Movement Went Wrong, which has the following nugget from a writer discussing the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software:
Morozov writes that the difference between the two is that free software emphasizes users and that open source emphasizes developers. But I would submit that free software is also primarily interested in developers as well, in that the freedoms it emphasizes are ones that matter to developers, but very little to the rest of us. That’s where the movement went wrong.
and then goes on to say
try telling graphic designers that they should use GIMP instead of Photoshop because they can study the code, modify it and release their own version. Or try telling a data analyst why they should use Libre Office instead of Excel, or a musician why they should use Ardour instead of Logic. See how far you get.
Where I think that goes wrong is one of educating the users, specifically that even if they can't code themselves, Free Software helps them by preventing lock-in. As an example, a friend has a bunch of stuff she worked on years ago, in Appleworks format. While there are still a few programs that can read that format (including Pages), they don't implement everything, fonts are different, pagination is different, etc. If Appleworks had been Free, and the fonts Free, it's much more likely that there would be programs and fonts that could perfectly reproduce what she originally had, and she wouldn't be relying on continuing support from any one source. Alternatively, if MacOS and the Mac ROM had been Free, she'd be able to LEGALLY fire up an emulator to run the original version of Appleworks. Even if she herself hadn't stashed away source code, it's almost certain that someone would have, and what she had wouldn't be locked away behind proprietary walls.
It's bad enough we have hardware obsolescence, we shouldn't have unnecessary software obsolescence when it's so easy to prevent (the entire source code to the Mac ROM and OS and all the development tools would be a tiny blip on any current storage device, I can transfer the entire hard drive of my first computer (Lisa, 10MB) in a couple seconds to almost anywhere in the world; the cache files for this page are probably larger than a MacPlus ROM image plus an early Mac boot diskette).
Except your eyes are still moving. You can keep it focused on a fairly small area, but if they completely stop moving, you can't see anything. When I had laser surgery for a small retinal tear, they injected a paralytic in that eye. As it took effect, I basically went blind. I could sense light and dark, and I could tell when there was movement, but there was no way to actually see anything. The other eye was fine.
If you can't move your eyes at all, then I don't see how you can "attend" to anything. Vision isn't possible without continuous saccades, your eyes are always moving.
There should ALWAYS be a way to reset a boot loader to a default usable state, whether it's by holding down the power button for 10 seconds or some other hardware based override, or having the bootloader on a microSD card that you can take out and fix on any other computer, or a pre-boot-loader phase where a keyboard override routes to a low level interface where you can fix things, or a jumper or switch inside the case that does the same thing. There should also always be a backup firmware image that can be used.
I'd also think that having the efivar interface expose each variable as a separate file isn't a particularly good idea. Having a simple program to modify variables using another mechanism isn't all that terrible, the convenience of being able to use echo to change a variable isn't worth the risk.
An ARM system I use has u-boot variables at a fixed location on the SD slot boot device, which is hardwired (on the SoC with fuses) to be the only boot source (which can then boot something else either from the SD card or some other device, u-boot itself starts up in well under a second). You can take the microSD card out and put whatever bootloader you want on it, or modify the variable block from the OS by direct writes to a partition (or to a known location on the raw device). The block is checksummed, and u-boot falls back to a default configuration if it's trashed.
The program to read or write variables is quite simple and easy to use in a script.
There's no reason UEFI couldn't do something similar. Last I looked I didn't see an open UEFI implementation on ARM, it might be fun to try replacing u-boot with UEFI and see what it takes to get Linux to boot with it.
Hybrid apps would have a well defined interface that the loadable code can use, with it being well isolated otherwise. This goes well beyond that, allowing the entire app to be rewritten (for example, allowing it to load arbitrary code to execute, bypassing the app store entirely).
Yeah, the "converted into Objective-C" doesn't make any sense.
What it seems to actually be doing is creating an interface between Obj-C and JavaScript so that JS can call out to any Obj-C method, and can override any method as well to call into JavaScript code. Combined with converting Obj-C code into JavaScript, you can effectively patch existing (compiled) Obj-C code with downloaded JavaScript.
This probably went undetected in the review process because it just looks like a call to execute some sandboxed JavaScript, not something that has full access to the dispatch tables of Obj-C classes.
I have not looked at the details of RemixOS licensing, I was responding to the comment regarding GPL requirements.
The document you linked is not accurate with respect to distribution of code licensed under the GPL. It may be accurate with respect to what you need to provide if you want to submit something to kernel.org to be included in what they distribute, but if you're going to distribute software that includes GPL code that isn't yours and isn't covered under some other license, you'd need to comply with the GPL, and that means providing source (or a written offer), not just identifying where you got it from.
That's not true. The source must be available "with the binary", it doesn't necessarily have to be hosted on the same server, but it needs to be available about as easily as downloading the binary. You could probably have a directory which, if you downloaded all the files in it (e.g. a bunch of tarballs for various pieces and a Makefile to build the whole thing), you'd have everything required. Telling you to use git to retrieve version torvalds-stable-3 from a kernel.org git repository, and another package from some svn server, and another only available using http, and one using rsync, and another using netcat (lol) is not sufficient.
You can use the "written offer" variant, or pass on a written offer if you got the binary from someone else who provided one, but very few people who distribute binaries take that route, since it requires maintaining any released version's source for 3 years.
Arch Linux binaries are built using scripts which specify where to retrieve a specific version of source code. The scripts (PKGBUILD shell scripts, plus files such as custom patches or config files) are all available, but the sources they point to aren't actually included, the script specifies where to get them from.
Arch was out of compliance with the GPL since "look in the PKGBUILD file, available through svn or git, to see where the source files might all be located, then use some other method to retrieve the correct version" doesn't satisfy the GPL requirements.
Arch supposedly now saves the retrieved source files for GPL packages (or maybe even all packages) and stores them, along with the PKGBUILD files, in a sources directory. However, I can't find any link to where that is now.
In this case, there's a serious question as to whether the copyright was renewed. The claim is that when the publisher renewed the copyright on the book, that had the effect of renewing the copyright on the song in the book.
That doesn't make any sense to me, to claim that the publisher was able to renew the copyright of the song, but then was not allowed to sell any rights to the song. I suspect that if they can't come up with proof of copyright renewal of the song itself, by the author, it will be found to be public domain.
The reference to re-using primes is about Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol, which is susceptible to breaking discrete logarithms for a given prime. This is currently feasible with 1024-bit primes, and it is true that a significant number of web sites share the same prime modulus, which makes the expense required to break that prime worth it.
This is a different problem from factoring the modulus used in an RSA key, which is what you're talking about.
Breaking modern encryption algorithms without the key is infeasible, with or without quantum computers. The attacks are all going to be on the key agreement (often called key exchange) algorithms. RSA and DH are both vulnerable to quantum techniques, but there are other algorithms that appear to be safe.
You aren't subscribed to a meal, it's a one-shot deal, worst that can happen to them is they refund your money and kick you out. Writing down the rules is generally unnecessary. I guarantee you that if you go in and start shoveling food into a bucket to take away, or try to fill a 50-gallon container with "unlimited refill drinks" you'll be stopped.
Since there are TRUE "unlimited data" plans, there's a different expectation when an ISP says "unlimited data" or "no data caps". Claiming that you get unlimited data, but they'll charge you more if you go over some limit, would be like saying you get unlimited refills, but you have to pay by the ounce if you go over 64 ounces (regardless of the size of your cup).
The problem with the ISPs isn't that they're writing down rules to prevent problems, but that the rules they're creating (data caps) aren't the solution to the problem they claim to be fixing. It's purely based on jacking up their profits, and the only reason they can get away with it is because of a lack of competition in most markets (and/or implicit or explicit collusion).
There are much better ways to control allocation of available bandwidth than data caps, but they aren't as ridiculously profitable for the ISPs.
All-you-can-eat places do have rules. The food has to be put on a plate, you can only have one plate at a time, you can't share, you can't cherry-pick from the serving dish, you can't throw away too much of what you've taken before refilling. You can't fill up a 50 gallon bucket with "unlimited refill" soft drinks, and you can't stretch out one meal to cover the whole day.
I've never had anyone give me a problem when I ask for a 5th bowl if soup and 3rd salad on an "unlimited refill soup-salad lunch special". I've had no problems getting my 7th fried catfish refill or 6th order of unlimited shrimp. Usually I don't pig out so much, but sometimes I "save some room" for it.
Picking away the breading and throwing that away is violating the rules. If the rules weren't written down, they should have continued to serve her, and then written down the rules so it isn't a problem in the future.
ISPs don't pay for bits, they pay for bandwidth. They have a completely different business model than a restaurant. The analogy is inapt.
The resource they're selling is bandwidth, not bits. There are unlimited bits, crunch all you want, we'll make more.
Bandwidth isn't unlimited, and no one has ever sold "unlimited bandwidth".
There's no reason for putting a limit on the unlimited resource in order to control allocation of the limited resource, it's a very crude and ineffective method. When I didn't watch that Netflix movie at 3am Sunday morning, the ISP didn't save up those bits, so why should it affect how much it costs for the bits I'm using Wednesday morning at 2pm 3 weeks later? Throttling or charging more based on usage in a billing period simply doesn't make any sense.
Sell the bandwidth (say, by the Mbps), and at any particular point in time your connection from point A to point B will have a throttle of N% of your base rate. If you aren't trying to use more than that, you won't even see that there's a limit. N is determined based on current network congestion and your recent usage (e.g. last 15 minutes or something on that order). Very low recent usage (as a percentage of your base rate) would give a boost to your throttle level, e.g. 150% bonus. High congestion for a particular network segment would decrease N for any connection using that segment. I leave the algorithm for propogating congestion information as an exercise for the reader.
This has the effect of shifting usage to underutilized times/locations, which makes the network more efficient.
Such a method does need some transparency, with guarantees of percentage of time that you'll be able to get a certain percent of your base rate, perhaps as a function of time/day of week. If you can live with 5Mbps at peak usage, when the throttle might be at 60% for an hour, then you'd buy an 8-10Mbps plan, which might give you a short burst of 15-20Mbps even at peak, and 30Mbps sustained at 3am Sunday.
What do you care if someone is "wasting" bits when it doesn't impact anyone else? The actual marginal cost of transmitting data bits instead of idle/keepalive bits is a rounding error, the ONLY reason to be measuring data is to allocate the limited resource, which is bandwidth.
the Secretary shall... establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
There are plenty of places in the law (in general) where references to things are somewhat indirect. If I'm operating on behalf of someone with power of attorney, there are regulations referring to the person I'm representing, but the they actually apply to me.
I see the wording of the above section of the ACA as being effectively setting up "an exchange established by the State" on behalf of the State when it won't do it for itself.
It also is beyond reasonable to believe that the if the intention was to create such a major difference in the case of the Secretary establishing the Exchange, it wouldn't have been explicit. There are no references to "Exchange established by the Secretary", there are no restrictions put on such Exchanges in section 1311. All of the references are to "an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (6 of them exactly that, one "this section", one dropping "section").
If some of the other references don't include Exchanges established by the Secretary, then such Exchanges would have some serious deficiencies. If the intent was to severely cripple such Exchanges, why would they be established at all?
Most of the time you'll chose wrong, so you'd like to switch if only you had a clue of which one to switch to. Monty (because he already knows which one is the big prize) has conveniently given you a clue. Even though he's shown you one of the wrong doors, it's still true that your first choice was probably wrong. If your choice is probably wrong, and there's only one choice remaining, it's probably the right choice. Switch!
If I was taking someone's exclusivity, then I'd have some of it. Guess what I DON'T have if I copy something, with or without permission?
If I take something from you, then I have it and you don't (despite various idiomatic phrases, e.g. to take someone's virginity). If I haven't taken something from you, it isn't theft. If I copy something, I haven't taken anything. It may be copyright violation, but it isn't theft.
I was programming in Pascal on a Lisa (dual boot to the Lisa command-line OS (Lisa Workshop) for development and MacOS for testing, occassionally booting to the Office environment). I bought it shortly before it came out as the MacXL, so had non-square pixels. I wasn't rich, and it wasn't any more expensive than a PC would have been with the same capacity.
The entire thing (Office 7/7, Workshop, MacWorks) plus system partitions for each was 10MB. System RAM was 1MB. I can compress and copy that whole system in a few seconds across a network now.
I'm sorry you were stuck with BASIC, but that wasn't exactly cutting edge in 1985, and there was lots of development in better environments.
A couple years later I started using Lightspeed/THINK C. No NEAR/FAR pointers thankfully. I avoided Intel stupidity for many years.
C really hasn't changed very much. The biggest change has been function prototypes. POSIX and ANSI certainly helped, especially with esoteric details of things like real-time and multi-threading/multi-processing, but that didn't enable much, just made it more portable. There are still plenty of incompatibilities despite all of that standardization (e.g. autoconf).
C++ as on object model was there. It was a poor model, and it still is. There are a lot more features now, but a lot of the "extra complexity" that modern hardware enables is spent dealing with the extra complexity C++ adds. I never used it, but maybe the world would be in a better place if THINK Object Pascal had caught on more.
CVS started out as shell scripts working with RCS. There were also plenty of other revision systems that had been around for a long time (eg NOS MODIFY). It's not that the concepts were unknown, just that the hardware simply didn't have the capacity and speed, and networking it all together was much slower and less available.
Slashdot Mirror
The TechCrunch article referenced has a related article link to Where The Free Software Movement Went Wrong, which has the following nugget from a writer discussing the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software:
Morozov writes that the difference between the two is that free software emphasizes users and that open source emphasizes developers. But I would submit that free software is also primarily interested in developers as well, in that the freedoms it emphasizes are ones that matter to developers, but very little to the rest of us. That’s where the movement went wrong.
and then goes on to say
try telling graphic designers that they should use GIMP instead of Photoshop because they can study the code, modify it and release their own version. Or try telling a data analyst why they should use Libre Office instead of Excel, or a musician why they should use Ardour instead of Logic. See how far you get.
Where I think that goes wrong is one of educating the users, specifically that even if they can't code themselves, Free Software helps them by preventing lock-in. As an example, a friend has a bunch of stuff she worked on years ago, in Appleworks format. While there are still a few programs that can read that format (including Pages), they don't implement everything, fonts are different, pagination is different, etc. If Appleworks had been Free, and the fonts Free, it's much more likely that there would be programs and fonts that could perfectly reproduce what she originally had, and she wouldn't be relying on continuing support from any one source. Alternatively, if MacOS and the Mac ROM had been Free, she'd be able to LEGALLY fire up an emulator to run the original version of Appleworks. Even if she herself hadn't stashed away source code, it's almost certain that someone would have, and what she had wouldn't be locked away behind proprietary walls.
It's bad enough we have hardware obsolescence, we shouldn't have unnecessary software obsolescence when it's so easy to prevent (the entire source code to the Mac ROM and OS and all the development tools would be a tiny blip on any current storage device, I can transfer the entire hard drive of my first computer (Lisa, 10MB) in a couple seconds to almost anywhere in the world; the cache files for this page are probably larger than a MacPlus ROM image plus an early Mac boot diskette).
Except your eyes are still moving. You can keep it focused on a fairly small area, but if they completely stop moving, you can't see anything. When I had laser surgery for a small retinal tear, they injected a paralytic in that eye. As it took effect, I basically went blind. I could sense light and dark, and I could tell when there was movement, but there was no way to actually see anything. The other eye was fine.
If you can't move your eyes at all, then I don't see how you can "attend" to anything. Vision isn't possible without continuous saccades, your eyes are always moving.
There should ALWAYS be a way to reset a boot loader to a default usable state, whether it's by holding down the power button for 10 seconds or some other hardware based override, or having the bootloader on a microSD card that you can take out and fix on any other computer, or a pre-boot-loader phase where a keyboard override routes to a low level interface where you can fix things, or a jumper or switch inside the case that does the same thing. There should also always be a backup firmware image that can be used.
I'd also think that having the efivar interface expose each variable as a separate file isn't a particularly good idea. Having a simple program to modify variables using another mechanism isn't all that terrible, the convenience of being able to use echo to change a variable isn't worth the risk.
An ARM system I use has u-boot variables at a fixed location on the SD slot boot device, which is hardwired (on the SoC with fuses) to be the only boot source (which can then boot something else either from the SD card or some other device, u-boot itself starts up in well under a second). You can take the microSD card out and put whatever bootloader you want on it, or modify the variable block from the OS by direct writes to a partition (or to a known location on the raw device). The block is checksummed, and u-boot falls back to a default configuration if it's trashed.
The program to read or write variables is quite simple and easy to use in a script.
There's no reason UEFI couldn't do something similar. Last I looked I didn't see an open UEFI implementation on ARM, it might be fun to try replacing u-boot with UEFI and see what it takes to get Linux to boot with it.
Hybrid apps would have a well defined interface that the loadable code can use, with it being well isolated otherwise. This goes well beyond that, allowing the entire app to be rewritten (for example, allowing it to load arbitrary code to execute, bypassing the app store entirely).
Yeah, the "converted into Objective-C" doesn't make any sense.
What it seems to actually be doing is creating an interface between Obj-C and JavaScript so that JS can call out to any Obj-C method, and can override any method as well to call into JavaScript code. Combined with converting Obj-C code into JavaScript, you can effectively patch existing (compiled) Obj-C code with downloaded JavaScript.
This probably went undetected in the review process because it just looks like a call to execute some sandboxed JavaScript, not something that has full access to the dispatch tables of Obj-C classes.
I have not looked at the details of RemixOS licensing, I was responding to the comment regarding GPL requirements.
The document you linked is not accurate with respect to distribution of code licensed under the GPL. It may be accurate with respect to what you need to provide if you want to submit something to kernel.org to be included in what they distribute, but if you're going to distribute software that includes GPL code that isn't yours and isn't covered under some other license, you'd need to comply with the GPL, and that means providing source (or a written offer), not just identifying where you got it from.
That's not true. The source must be available "with the binary", it doesn't necessarily have to be hosted on the same server, but it needs to be available about as easily as downloading the binary. You could probably have a directory which, if you downloaded all the files in it (e.g. a bunch of tarballs for various pieces and a Makefile to build the whole thing), you'd have everything required. Telling you to use git to retrieve version torvalds-stable-3 from a kernel.org git repository, and another package from some svn server, and another only available using http, and one using rsync, and another using netcat (lol) is not sufficient.
You can use the "written offer" variant, or pass on a written offer if you got the binary from someone else who provided one, but very few people who distribute binaries take that route, since it requires maintaining any released version's source for 3 years.
Arch Linux binaries are built using scripts which specify where to retrieve a specific version of source code. The scripts (PKGBUILD shell scripts, plus files such as custom patches or config files) are all available, but the sources they point to aren't actually included, the script specifies where to get them from.
Arch was out of compliance with the GPL since "look in the PKGBUILD file, available through svn or git, to see where the source files might all be located, then use some other method to retrieve the correct version" doesn't satisfy the GPL requirements.
Arch supposedly now saves the retrieved source files for GPL packages (or maybe even all packages) and stores them, along with the PKGBUILD files, in a sources directory. However, I can't find any link to where that is now.
In this case, there's a serious question as to whether the copyright was renewed. The claim is that when the publisher renewed the copyright on the book, that had the effect of renewing the copyright on the song in the book.
That doesn't make any sense to me, to claim that the publisher was able to renew the copyright of the song, but then was not allowed to sell any rights to the song. I suspect that if they can't come up with proof of copyright renewal of the song itself, by the author, it will be found to be public domain.
Or even "Dude, is that a bomb?"
"Yeah, right."
Look, a false bomb threat!
The reference to re-using primes is about Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol, which is susceptible to breaking discrete logarithms for a given prime. This is currently feasible with 1024-bit primes, and it is true that a significant number of web sites share the same prime modulus, which makes the expense required to break that prime worth it.
This is a different problem from factoring the modulus used in an RSA key, which is what you're talking about.
Breaking modern encryption algorithms without the key is infeasible, with or without quantum computers. The attacks are all going to be on the key agreement (often called key exchange) algorithms. RSA and DH are both vulnerable to quantum techniques, but there are other algorithms that appear to be safe.
No. If you aren't free to leave, you're under arrest.
http://criminal-law.freeadvice...
You aren't subscribed to a meal, it's a one-shot deal, worst that can happen to them is they refund your money and kick you out. Writing down the rules is generally unnecessary. I guarantee you that if you go in and start shoveling food into a bucket to take away, or try to fill a 50-gallon container with "unlimited refill drinks" you'll be stopped.
Since there are TRUE "unlimited data" plans, there's a different expectation when an ISP says "unlimited data" or "no data caps". Claiming that you get unlimited data, but they'll charge you more if you go over some limit, would be like saying you get unlimited refills, but you have to pay by the ounce if you go over 64 ounces (regardless of the size of your cup).
The problem with the ISPs isn't that they're writing down rules to prevent problems, but that the rules they're creating (data caps) aren't the solution to the problem they claim to be fixing. It's purely based on jacking up their profits, and the only reason they can get away with it is because of a lack of competition in most markets (and/or implicit or explicit collusion).
There are much better ways to control allocation of available bandwidth than data caps, but they aren't as ridiculously profitable for the ISPs.
All-you-can-eat places do have rules. The food has to be put on a plate, you can only have one plate at a time, you can't share, you can't cherry-pick from the serving dish, you can't throw away too much of what you've taken before refilling. You can't fill up a 50 gallon bucket with "unlimited refill" soft drinks, and you can't stretch out one meal to cover the whole day.
I've never had anyone give me a problem when I ask for a 5th bowl if soup and 3rd salad on an "unlimited refill soup-salad lunch special". I've had no problems getting my 7th fried catfish refill or 6th order of unlimited shrimp. Usually I don't pig out so much, but sometimes I "save some room" for it.
Picking away the breading and throwing that away is violating the rules. If the rules weren't written down, they should have continued to serve her, and then written down the rules so it isn't a problem in the future.
ISPs don't pay for bits, they pay for bandwidth. They have a completely different business model than a restaurant. The analogy is inapt.
The resource they're selling is bandwidth, not bits. There are unlimited bits, crunch all you want, we'll make more.
Bandwidth isn't unlimited, and no one has ever sold "unlimited bandwidth".
There's no reason for putting a limit on the unlimited resource in order to control allocation of the limited resource, it's a very crude and ineffective method. When I didn't watch that Netflix movie at 3am Sunday morning, the ISP didn't save up those bits, so why should it affect how much it costs for the bits I'm using Wednesday morning at 2pm 3 weeks later? Throttling or charging more based on usage in a billing period simply doesn't make any sense.
Sell the bandwidth (say, by the Mbps), and at any particular point in time your connection from point A to point B will have a throttle of N% of your base rate. If you aren't trying to use more than that, you won't even see that there's a limit. N is determined based on current network congestion and your recent usage (e.g. last 15 minutes or something on that order). Very low recent usage (as a percentage of your base rate) would give a boost to your throttle level, e.g. 150% bonus. High congestion for a particular network segment would decrease N for any connection using that segment. I leave the algorithm for propogating congestion information as an exercise for the reader.
This has the effect of shifting usage to underutilized times/locations, which makes the network more efficient.
Such a method does need some transparency, with guarantees of percentage of time that you'll be able to get a certain percent of your base rate, perhaps as a function of time/day of week. If you can live with 5Mbps at peak usage, when the throttle might be at 60% for an hour, then you'd buy an 8-10Mbps plan, which might give you a short burst of 15-20Mbps even at peak, and 30Mbps sustained at 3am Sunday.
What do you care if someone is "wasting" bits when it doesn't impact anyone else? The actual marginal cost of transmitting data bits instead of idle/keepalive bits is a rounding error, the ONLY reason to be measuring data is to allocate the limited resource, which is bandwidth.
So ELIoT compiled is about 2.9MB, plus the C++ standard library (which is another 1.5MB or so) - this is compiled for MacOSX.
The code to create an interpreter and have it run a file is about 1KB, and the Tcl library is under 2MB.
I'd have to look more closely at ELIoT to see how comparable the two are in terms of capability.
Actually, sort of reminds me of Tcl. I wonder how it compares size- and speed-wise.
Tcll also has Tk available for anything with a display.
the Secretary shall ... establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
There are plenty of places in the law (in general) where references to things are somewhat indirect. If I'm operating on behalf of someone with power of attorney, there are regulations referring to the person I'm representing, but the they actually apply to me.
I see the wording of the above section of the ACA as being effectively setting up "an exchange established by the State" on behalf of the State when it won't do it for itself.
It also is beyond reasonable to believe that the if the intention was to create such a major difference in the case of the Secretary establishing the Exchange, it wouldn't have been explicit. There are no references to "Exchange established by the Secretary", there are no restrictions put on such Exchanges in section 1311. All of the references are to "an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (6 of them exactly that, one "this section", one dropping "section").
If some of the other references don't include Exchanges established by the Secretary, then such Exchanges would have some serious deficiencies. If the intent was to severely cripple such Exchanges, why would they be established at all?
Not if the one time pad is much longer than one transaction and you only use part of it for each one.
The real problem is that the bank has to (securely) keep a different one time pad for each customer.
Most of the time you'll chose wrong, so you'd like to switch if only you had a clue of which one to switch to. Monty (because he already knows which one is the big prize) has conveniently given you a clue. Even though he's shown you one of the wrong doors, it's still true that your first choice was probably wrong. If your choice is probably wrong, and there's only one choice remaining, it's probably the right choice. Switch!
1, 3, 9, 27, 81
Base 3 with digits -1, 0, +1
-1 means on the same side as the object being weighed, +1 means on the opposite side. Can weigh up to 121.
Am I hired?
If I was taking someone's exclusivity, then I'd have some of it. Guess what I DON'T have if I copy something, with or without permission?
If I take something from you, then I have it and you don't (despite various idiomatic phrases, e.g. to take someone's virginity). If I haven't taken something from you, it isn't theft. If I copy something, I haven't taken anything. It may be copyright violation, but it isn't theft.
Check crontab entries trying to run an executable in /tmp. Disable execution from /tmp. Read the paper linked in TFA.
A trojan that's inside a bulk e-mailer program, yet. Almost funny.
I was programming in Pascal on a Lisa (dual boot to the Lisa command-line OS (Lisa Workshop) for development and MacOS for testing, occassionally booting to the Office environment). I bought it shortly before it came out as the MacXL, so had non-square pixels. I wasn't rich, and it wasn't any more expensive than a PC would have been with the same capacity.
The entire thing (Office 7/7, Workshop, MacWorks) plus system partitions for each was 10MB. System RAM was 1MB. I can compress and copy that whole system in a few seconds across a network now.
I'm sorry you were stuck with BASIC, but that wasn't exactly cutting edge in 1985, and there was lots of development in better environments.
A couple years later I started using Lightspeed/THINK C. No NEAR/FAR pointers thankfully. I avoided Intel stupidity for many years.
C really hasn't changed very much. The biggest change has been function prototypes. POSIX and ANSI certainly helped, especially with esoteric details of things like real-time and multi-threading/multi-processing, but that didn't enable much, just made it more portable. There are still plenty of incompatibilities despite all of that standardization (e.g. autoconf).
C++ as on object model was there. It was a poor model, and it still is. There are a lot more features now, but a lot of the "extra complexity" that modern hardware enables is spent dealing with the extra complexity C++ adds. I never used it, but maybe the world would be in a better place if THINK Object Pascal had caught on more.
CVS started out as shell scripts working with RCS. There were also plenty of other revision systems that had been around for a long time (eg NOS MODIFY). It's not that the concepts were unknown, just that the hardware simply didn't have the capacity and speed, and networking it all together was much slower and less available.