No, not at all. It's called preventative maintenance, and if you have a car you should be familiar with the concept.
Software in critical applications (and what's more critical than running a nuke reactor??) has to work flawlessly. Believe it or not even old critical software can have things identified that need fixed before they become an issue. Or the NRC issues a directive that in the end means the software needs to be updated in order to implement it.
its not so much what its capable of doing. its what its capable of surviving.
these systems are extremely robust and reliable. its like when people wonder why aircraft avionics tend to be so big and expensive when an arduino could probably handle those tasks too (and yes ive heard that too)...same thing. vibration, rough landings, random mechanics using a hammer to get the screws to line up, or overwrenched a cannonplug.
and this is precisely the point. but people on slashdot like to say "fuck the rurals" and they dont really understand, or reemember, just how quikcly one can get out into the "rural" hinterlands where the speed drops to nothing. bigger metros have more service centers spread out that serve a bigger "spiderwerb" of area. smaller metros (such as i live in) you can be within sight of the downtown skyscrapers, only 5 minutes from downtown...but you're across the magic line that's like crossing the Berlin Wall from West to East. Super speed on one side, dont even bother on the other.
Yet that isnt a builtin function of the system as we see in European rural net access, and a few of the posters below can show. So again, its a case of the telcos taking advantage of what they got, and screwing the people. This is one of those infrastructure things we keep talking about that requires investment.
It took government intervention to get phone lines across the US, it will take gov intervention to get equal internet access across the US.
Ok. Number of providers level of competition Cost per byte per month Accessibility (you yourself brought that one up)
these metrics are going...slowly...and only when absolutely forced to.
remember that conspiracy theory that intel was intentionally not advancing CPUs as fast as they could, in order to maximize profit every step of the way ? (or any industry really, they all have a similar conspiriacy theory)
In the case of the telco's, it not a theory, it's completely 100% true.
the Buran flew once. it did so and was developed over 10 years after the shuttle and was nothing more than a cheaper smaller copy of the shuttle. it only flew automated because it was unmanned, as befits a test flight that they dont even know will work (believe it or not, even the russians didnt want to risk losing astronauts...they're kinda hard to replace) it never flew again. it never did anything again. and "From the very beginning Buran was intended to be used in both fully automatic and manual mode", meaning it was ntended to have people, and people in control. if we had had the tech to test the shuttle unmanned initially (and recover it), we likely would have too before moving to manned missions.
and if youre going to have people along for the ride anyway (EVA, repair the Hubble, experiments, etc etc) it makes no sense for them to be at the mercy of a computer that might fail when you could just as easily add some extra training so they can fly the damn thing if need be and add yet another layer of safety to the system and increase the odds of everyone's survival.
meanwhile there are multiple instances where the has shuttle faced a problem inflight that either did require the pilot to correct, or potentially would have, and the technology to have an automated system recover the aircraft did not exist at that time. moreover, several of these incidents would have called into question the ability of such a system to make the right corrections. spaceflight and launch and recovery is a very dynamic scenario encompassing multiple modes of flight. the pilot IS the computer you seek capable of taking all the data being fed him by the hundreds of men in mission control and performing the correct actions, and he's easier to train and produce than such a multi-modal control computer. 1985 July 29: STS-51-F: Space Shuttle in-flight engine failure. They almost aborted launch and detached the shuttle frm the boosters engines before reaching altitude in order to fly cross atlantic to a recovery field. No computer at the time could have handled such a maneuver. Even today it owuld be hard pressed thing to do...its rather hard to test and develop such a system because you dont exactly go around destroying shuttles to perfect a system. (they ended up aborting to orbit rather than aborting to xatlantic)
1999 July 23: STS-93: main engine electrical short and hydrogen leak: Five seconds after liftoff, an electrical short knocked out controllers for two shuttle main engines. The engines automatically switched to their backup controllers. Had a further short shut down two engines, Columbia would have ditched in the ocean, although the crew could have possibly bailed out. Concurrently a pin came loose inside one engine and ruptured a cooling line, allowing a hydrogen fuel leak. This caused premature fuel exhaustion, but the vehicle safely achieved a slightly lower orbit. Had the failure propagated further, a risky transatlantic or RTLS abort would have been required.
1981 Apr 12: Columbia STS-1 - the perfect example of why your computer still needs a pilot. the computer demands predictable flight characteristics. but if you pay attention, in the very first shuttle flight a flight control was knocked out of alignment. A computer cannot handle such a thing. A computer cannot "feel its way" through the modifed flight envelope.
humans on the ground (sloppy maintenence crew), not the human in control. big difference. humans in control have much larger history of saving the day or mitigating/reducing the tragedy than they do of causing the tragedy.
driving a ferrari pedal to the floor blindfolded is no different than driving a Model T pedal to the floor blindfolded....except its much more likely to kill you.
"no different but much faster" is still different and is not an excuse. the higher speed now causes it to be a bad thing and harmful. what was fine before is no longer fine when it is now different.
apparently if you are arrested you must be appraised of your rights. but if you go witht eh police willingly, ie arent under arrested, the assumption is one of implied foreknowledge of your rights, and no appraisal is required. thus removing the miranda requirement. i think that's possibly fishy, but its too fine a point of law for me to make a good determiniation. but the dude's lawyer didnt even contest it, and that I think is the big failure. if it was me, that's what i would have focused my energies on.
"All agree that the interview was noncustodial, and the parties litigated this case on the assumption that he was not read Miranda warnings"
That there I think is the primary failure, and it's a failure of the defendant's lawyer. So he wasnt arrested. it was "noncustodial" meaning he went of his own free will. I guess that removes the Miranda requirement. But if I was the lawyer I would be arguing that he should have been appraised of his rights before questioning, arrested or not, willing or not. And in bringing the surpeme court case i wouldnt give up that token either, but apparently his lawyer did theer too.
reading further, the line is too fine for me to have a good opinion on the courts decision about having to specifically invoke the 5th.
but the most important datum for me is when he became a suspect. was the question a shot in the dark, or was he already a suspect when the question was asked? if he was a suspect, why werent his miranda's read? these are hte questions i ask.
i dont believe the officers in the case did this on purpose. this is too fine a point of law to be premeditated, and they could never know a future supreme court decision, let alone they would never risk a mistrial in such a way. so if he was a suspect, or even person of interest, and his miranda's were not read...why? Just forgot? Possibly...but on the other hand if he's being cooperative and asnwering questions, and he apparently came to them in the first place...what are the rules on Miranda in that case?
The joint report "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could send stocks into a sudden spiral," that a large mutual fund firm "chose to sell a big number of futures contracts using a computer program that essentially ended up wiping out available buyers in the market," that as a result high-frequency firms "were also aggressively selling the E-mini contracts," contributing to rapid price declines.[12]
The joint report also noted "'HFTs began to quickly buy and then resell contracts to each other — generating a 'hot-potato' volume effect as the same positions were passed rapidly back and forth.'"[12]
The combined sales by Waddell and high-frequency firms quickly drove "the E-mini price down 3% in just four minutes."[12] As prices in the futures market fell, there was a spillover into the equities markets where "the liquidity in the market evaporated because the automated systems used by most firms to keep pace with the market paused" and scaled back their trading or withdrew from the markets altogether.[12]
The joint report then noted that "Automatic computerized traders on the stock market shut down as they detected the sharp rise in buying and selling."[40] As computerized high-frequency traders exited the stock market, the resulting lack of liquidity "...caused shares of some prominent companies like Procter & Gamble and Accenture to trade down as low as a penny or as high as $100,000."[40]
While some firms exited the market, high-frequency firms that remained in the market exacerbated price declines because they "'escalated their aggressive selling' during the downdraft. -- Boom. Headshot.
The joint report "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could send stocks into a sudden spiral," that a large mutual fund firm "chose to sell a big number of futures contracts using a computer program that essentially ended up wiping out available buyers in the market," that as a result high-frequency firms "were also aggressively selling the E-mini contracts," contributing to rapid price declines.[12]
The joint report also noted "'HFTs began to quickly buy and then resell contracts to each other — [b][u]generating a 'hot-potato' volume effect as the same positions were passed rapidly back and forth.[/b][/u]'"[12]
The combined sales by Waddell and high-frequency firms quickly drove "the E-mini price down 3% in just four minutes."[12] As prices in the futures market fell, there was a spillover into the equities markets where "the liquidity in the market evaporated because the automated systems used by most firms to keep pace with the market paused" and scaled back their trading or withdrew from the markets altogether.[12]
The joint report then noted that "Automatic computerized traders on the stock market shut down as they detected the sharp rise in buying and selling."[40] As computerized high-frequency traders exited the stock market, the resulting lack of liquidity "...caused shares of some prominent companies like Procter & Gamble and Accenture to trade down as low as a penny or as high as $100,000."[40]
[b][u]While some firms exited the market, high-frequency firms that remained in the market exacerbated price declines because they "'escalated their aggressive selling' during the downdraft. [/b][/u] -- Boom. Headshot.
HFTs hurt the market. they do not trade on value. they do not trade on confidence. they do not trade on any kind of rational investment criteria.
they increase volatility. they decrease confidence. they cut out normal investors who actually care about the products or companies the are attempting to invest in. they abuse the rules of the market to cut out investors by finding their hidden/secret limits (playing poker with marked cards). they are prone to creating run away bubbles. a market that becomes dominated by HFT's becomes an echo chamber preaching to itself.
they are bad for the market, period. rockoon is a shill.
normal traders dont trade volumes in the hundreds of millions of shares per day, nor do they trade at fractions of a cent per share difference.
moreover, the speedbump should not just be on completed orders, since over hlaf of the HFT volume is buy and sell orders that are then canceled and never completed: the microtax should be on all buy and sell orders, even if canceled.
that alone would stop the majority of the bogus HFT trading and restore vast amounts of confidence in the market while barely even registering on normal traders activities.
buying 100 million shares in london and immediately selling the same in tokyo to exploit a 1 ms diffrence in ping that causes the price to be 0.01 different in both locations to eek out a tiny bit of profit that was NOT DUE TO ANY ACTUAL CHANGE IN STOCK VALUE BUT DUE TO PING TIME.
buying a few thousand shares at a time and immediately canceling the buy order in order to fish out normal trader's sell limits (which are hidden and theoreatically secret from the buyer) in order to remove them from the market
multiple HFT caused viscious cycles that cause the market to be extremely volatile and nearly crash...
seriously, if you need it explained in this day and age, you're just a troll or a shill for an HFT company.
"your steam" doesnt get closed down such that you "lose all your games". steam is an online store combined with a online backup service and a front end that handles the installation and downloading for you.
you're right about selling/transfering games, but thats a minor caveat when talking about digital distribution rather than physical media. its one thing to trade a disc around, another to trade an abstract virtual item.
when i saw wired's review i chalked it up to their typical clickbait review process.
ie, "if we, a nerd mag, say we like it, no one is surprised. but if we say it sucks, everyone will want to know why, and we'll get X times the normal amount of click revenue"
then in a few months the tone will start changing and some of their writers will start saying how "they liked it even though critics didnt".
but laws to what purpose? to what end goal? too much regulation is as bad as too little so we need to have some clear end goal. there also needs to be room for personal choice because free individuals need the room to make free choices, and that includes the contracts they enter into. personally, i like the more liberal maternity/paternity rules i hear they have over in the EU. But I'm also not so naive to think such things exist in a vacuum: such things cost money, and drive prices up. in businesses where the price cant go up, because the market wont support it (ie, wont tolerate a higher cost, at least initially or sharply), it chills business and only serves to reduce the number of players. fewer players makes for a less free market, etc etc....everything ties together and has far reaching impacts. there oughta be a law is easy to say. but done too dramatically and it can have the opposite effect than the desired outcome.
did i say anything about bailing out? did i say i can do whatever i want?
i said its easy to say there ought to be a law, but not so easy to pay for it. which is why the burden of cost in these kinds of laws is passed onto the "victim" in the first place: the law would never pass otherwise "because its expensive"...so they make the law "Free" by passing the buck, literally. but why should this couple be forced to pay the bill for an archeological dig on tehir own property due to completely random, unlikely and and unforseen circumstances? this is precisely why the 3S's came about.
you're an idiotic troll, and not a terribly good one.
Slashdot Mirror
Ancient != bad/insecure.
If anything it's security through obscurity.
then by definition something is broke.
No, not at all.
It's called preventative maintenance, and if you have a car you should be familiar with the concept.
Software in critical applications (and what's more critical than running a nuke reactor??) has to work flawlessly. Believe it or not even old critical software can have things identified that need fixed before they become an issue. Or the NRC issues a directive that in the end means the software needs to be updated in order to implement it.
its not so much what its capable of doing.
its what its capable of surviving.
these systems are extremely robust and reliable. its like when people wonder why aircraft avionics tend to be so big and expensive when an arduino could probably handle those tasks too (and yes ive heard that too)...same thing. vibration, rough landings, random mechanics using a hammer to get the screws to line up, or overwrenched a cannonplug.
press the buttons in the right order and win!
Call it....Rock Band Lobster
and this is precisely the point. but people on slashdot like to say "fuck the rurals" and they dont really understand, or reemember, just how quikcly one can get out into the "rural" hinterlands where the speed drops to nothing. bigger metros have more service centers spread out that serve a bigger "spiderwerb" of area. smaller metros (such as i live in) you can be within sight of the downtown skyscrapers, only 5 minutes from downtown...but you're across the magic line that's like crossing the Berlin Wall from West to East. Super speed on one side, dont even bother on the other.
Yet that isnt a builtin function of the system as we see in European rural net access, and a few of the posters below can show.
So again, its a case of the telcos taking advantage of what they got, and screwing the people. This is one of those infrastructure things we keep talking about that requires investment.
It took government intervention to get phone lines across the US, it will take gov intervention to get equal internet access across the US.
Ok.
Number of providers
level of competition
Cost per byte per month
Accessibility (you yourself brought that one up)
these metrics are going...slowly...and only when absolutely forced to.
remember that conspiracy theory that intel was intentionally not advancing CPUs as fast as they could, in order to maximize profit every step of the way ? (or any industry really, they all have a similar conspiriacy theory)
In the case of the telco's, it not a theory, it's completely 100% true.
the Buran flew once.
it did so and was developed over 10 years after the shuttle and was nothing more than a cheaper smaller copy of the shuttle.
it only flew automated because it was unmanned, as befits a test flight that they dont even know will work (believe it or not, even the russians didnt want to risk losing astronauts...they're kinda hard to replace)
it never flew again.
it never did anything again.
and "From the very beginning Buran was intended to be used in both fully automatic and manual mode", meaning it was ntended to have people, and people in control. if we had had the tech to test the shuttle unmanned initially (and recover it), we likely would have too before moving to manned missions.
and if youre going to have people along for the ride anyway (EVA, repair the Hubble, experiments, etc etc) it makes no sense for them to be at the mercy of a computer that might fail when you could just as easily add some extra training so they can fly the damn thing if need be and add yet another layer of safety to the system and increase the odds of everyone's survival.
meanwhile there are multiple instances where the has shuttle faced a problem inflight that either did require the pilot to correct, or potentially would have, and the technology to have an automated system recover the aircraft did not exist at that time. moreover, several of these incidents would have called into question the ability of such a system to make the right corrections. spaceflight and launch and recovery is a very dynamic scenario encompassing multiple modes of flight. the pilot IS the computer you seek capable of taking all the data being fed him by the hundreds of men in mission control and performing the correct actions, and he's easier to train and produce than such a multi-modal control computer.
1985 July 29: STS-51-F: Space Shuttle in-flight engine failure. They almost aborted launch and detached the shuttle frm the boosters engines before reaching altitude in order to fly cross atlantic to a recovery field. No computer at the time could have handled such a maneuver. Even today it owuld be hard pressed thing to do...its rather hard to test and develop such a system because you dont exactly go around destroying shuttles to perfect a system. (they ended up aborting to orbit rather than aborting to xatlantic)
1999 July 23: STS-93: main engine electrical short and hydrogen leak: Five seconds after liftoff, an electrical short knocked out controllers for two shuttle main engines. The engines automatically switched to their backup controllers. Had a further short shut down two engines, Columbia would have ditched in the ocean, although the crew could have possibly bailed out. Concurrently a pin came loose inside one engine and ruptured a cooling line, allowing a hydrogen fuel leak. This caused premature fuel exhaustion, but the vehicle safely achieved a slightly lower orbit. Had the failure propagated further, a risky transatlantic or RTLS abort would have been required.
1981 Apr 12: Columbia STS-1 - the perfect example of why your computer still needs a pilot. the computer demands predictable flight characteristics. but if you pay attention, in the very first shuttle flight a flight control was knocked out of alignment. A computer cannot handle such a thing. A computer cannot "feel its way" through the modifed flight envelope.
because its harder to get into the AFA.
seriously, you are a bloody tool and you're just as ignorant on this topic as you are on every other.
humans on the ground (sloppy maintenence crew), not the human in control.
big difference.
humans in control have much larger history of saving the day or mitigating/reducing the tragedy than they do of causing the tragedy.
driving a ferrari pedal to the floor blindfolded is no different than driving a Model T pedal to the floor blindfolded....except its much more likely to kill you.
"no different but much faster" is still different and is not an excuse.
the higher speed now causes it to be a bad thing and harmful.
what was fine before is no longer fine when it is now different.
supreme court isnt part of the USDOJ. DOJ is part of the executive branch, not judicial.
apparently if you are arrested you must be appraised of your rights. but if you go witht eh police willingly, ie arent under arrested, the assumption is one of implied foreknowledge of your rights, and no appraisal is required. thus removing the miranda requirement. i think that's possibly fishy, but its too fine a point of law for me to make a good determiniation. but the dude's lawyer didnt even contest it, and that I think is the big failure. if it was me, that's what i would have focused my energies on.
talking to myself...but I'll go further...
"All agree that the interview was noncustodial, and the parties litigated this case on the assumption that he was not read Miranda warnings"
That there I think is the primary failure, and it's a failure of the defendant's lawyer.
So he wasnt arrested. it was "noncustodial" meaning he went of his own free will. I guess that removes the Miranda requirement. But if I was the lawyer I would be arguing that he should have been appraised of his rights before questioning, arrested or not, willing or not. And in bringing the surpeme court case i wouldnt give up that token either, but apparently his lawyer did theer too.
reading further, the line is too fine for me to have a good opinion on the courts decision about having to specifically invoke the 5th.
but the most important datum for me is when he became a suspect. was the question a shot in the dark, or was he already a suspect when the question was asked? if he was a suspect, why werent his miranda's read? these are hte questions i ask.
i dont believe the officers in the case did this on purpose. this is too fine a point of law to be premeditated, and they could never know a future supreme court decision, let alone they would never risk a mistrial in such a way. so if he was a suspect, or even person of interest, and his miranda's were not read...why? Just forgot? Possibly...but on the other hand if he's being cooperative and asnwering questions, and he apparently came to them in the first place...what are the rules on Miranda in that case?
no, if you read the article it says that his behaviour visibly changed when that one question was asked.
This is after he had been talkative and cooperative with the police. So this is two very different sets of behaviour.
I bet if we dug further it wasnt his "silence" so much as this change in behaviour that was presented in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash
The joint report "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could send stocks into a sudden spiral," that a large mutual fund firm "chose to sell a big number of futures contracts using a computer program that essentially ended up wiping out available buyers in the market," that as a result high-frequency firms "were also aggressively selling the E-mini contracts," contributing to rapid price declines.[12]
The joint report also noted "'HFTs began to quickly buy and then resell contracts to each other — generating a 'hot-potato' volume effect as the same positions were passed rapidly back and forth.'"[12]
The combined sales by Waddell and high-frequency firms quickly drove "the E-mini price down 3% in just four minutes."[12] As prices in the futures market fell, there was a spillover into the equities markets where "the liquidity in the market evaporated because the automated systems used by most firms to keep pace with the market paused" and scaled back their trading or withdrew from the markets altogether.[12]
The joint report then noted that "Automatic computerized traders on the stock market shut down as they detected the sharp rise in buying and selling."[40] As computerized high-frequency traders exited the stock market, the resulting lack of liquidity "...caused shares of some prominent companies like Procter & Gamble and Accenture to trade down as low as a penny or as high as $100,000."[40]
While some firms exited the market, high-frequency firms that remained in the market exacerbated price declines because they "'escalated their aggressive selling' during the downdraft.
--
Boom. Headshot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash
The joint report "portrayed a market so fragmented and fragile that a single large trade could send stocks into a sudden spiral," that a large mutual fund firm "chose to sell a big number of futures contracts using a computer program that essentially ended up wiping out available buyers in the market," that as a result high-frequency firms "were also aggressively selling the E-mini contracts," contributing to rapid price declines.[12]
The joint report also noted "'HFTs began to quickly buy and then resell contracts to each other — [b][u]generating a 'hot-potato' volume effect as the same positions were passed rapidly back and forth.[/b][/u]'"[12]
The combined sales by Waddell and high-frequency firms quickly drove "the E-mini price down 3% in just four minutes."[12] As prices in the futures market fell, there was a spillover into the equities markets where "the liquidity in the market evaporated because the automated systems used by most firms to keep pace with the market paused" and scaled back their trading or withdrew from the markets altogether.[12]
The joint report then noted that "Automatic computerized traders on the stock market shut down as they detected the sharp rise in buying and selling."[40] As computerized high-frequency traders exited the stock market, the resulting lack of liquidity "...caused shares of some prominent companies like Procter & Gamble and Accenture to trade down as low as a penny or as high as $100,000."[40]
[b][u]While some firms exited the market, high-frequency firms that remained in the market exacerbated price declines because they "'escalated their aggressive selling' during the downdraft. [/b][/u]
--
Boom. Headshot.
HFTs hurt the market.
they do not trade on value.
they do not trade on confidence.
they do not trade on any kind of rational investment criteria.
they increase volatility.
they decrease confidence.
they cut out normal investors who actually care about the products or companies the are attempting to invest in.
they abuse the rules of the market to cut out investors by finding their hidden/secret limits (playing poker with marked cards).
they are prone to creating run away bubbles.
a market that becomes dominated by HFT's becomes an echo chamber preaching to itself.
they are bad for the market, period.
rockoon is a shill.
normal traders dont trade volumes in the hundreds of millions of shares per day, nor do they trade at fractions of a cent per share difference.
moreover, the speedbump should not just be on completed orders, since over hlaf of the HFT volume is buy and sell orders that are then canceled and never completed: the microtax should be on all buy and sell orders, even if canceled.
that alone would stop the majority of the bogus HFT trading and restore vast amounts of confidence in the market while barely even registering on normal traders activities.
buying 100 million shares in london and immediately selling the same in tokyo to exploit a 1 ms diffrence in ping that causes the price to be 0.01 different in both locations to eek out a tiny bit of profit that was NOT DUE TO ANY ACTUAL CHANGE IN STOCK VALUE BUT DUE TO PING TIME.
buying a few thousand shares at a time and immediately canceling the buy order in order to fish out normal trader's sell limits (which are hidden and theoreatically secret from the buyer) in order to remove them from the market
multiple HFT caused viscious cycles that cause the market to be extremely volatile and nearly crash...
seriously, if you need it explained in this day and age, you're just a troll or a shill for an HFT company.
steam has offline mode that works.
"your steam" doesnt get closed down such that you "lose all your games". steam is an online store combined with a online backup service and a front end that handles the installation and downloading for you.
you're right about selling/transfering games, but thats a minor caveat when talking about digital distribution rather than physical media. its one thing to trade a disc around, another to trade an abstract virtual item.
when i saw wired's review i chalked it up to their typical clickbait review process.
ie, "if we, a nerd mag, say we like it, no one is surprised. but if we say it sucks, everyone will want to know why, and we'll get X times the normal amount of click revenue"
then in a few months the tone will start changing and some of their writers will start saying how "they liked it even though critics didnt".
thou shalt not speak ill of Donner's Superman 1 and 2.
a statement i dont disagree with.
but laws to what purpose? to what end goal? too much regulation is as bad as too little so we need to have some clear end goal. there also needs to be room for personal choice because free individuals need the room to make free choices, and that includes the contracts they enter into. personally, i like the more liberal maternity/paternity rules i hear they have over in the EU. But I'm also not so naive to think such things exist in a vacuum: such things cost money, and drive prices up. in businesses where the price cant go up, because the market wont support it (ie, wont tolerate a higher cost, at least initially or sharply), it chills business and only serves to reduce the number of players. fewer players makes for a less free market, etc etc....everything ties together and has far reaching impacts. there oughta be a law is easy to say. but done too dramatically and it can have the opposite effect than the desired outcome.
did i say anything about bailing out?
did i say i can do whatever i want?
i said its easy to say there ought to be a law, but not so easy to pay for it. which is why the burden of cost in these kinds of laws is passed onto the "victim" in the first place: the law would never pass otherwise "because its expensive"...so they make the law "Free" by passing the buck, literally. but why should this couple be forced to pay the bill for an archeological dig on tehir own property due to completely random, unlikely and and unforseen circumstances? this is precisely why the 3S's came about.
you're an idiotic troll, and not a terribly good one.