I believe due to a quirk of Japanese Copyright Law, translations of works are fair game if the original producer doesn't provide one.
Japan and the United States are both signatories of the Berne Convention. Article 8 thereof states:
"Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall enjoy the exclusive right of making and of authorizing the translation of their works throughout the term of protection of their rights in the original works."
Japan does have some right-of-translation stipulations that apply only to works that have been published for over 7 years without a Japanese translation being made available, but even those exceptions do not apply to works originating in Berne signatory countries.
See Japanese Law No. 86, of April 28, 1956,as amended up to December 14, 1994 by Law No. 112, Law No.160, of 1999, Law No.56, of 2000.
Yes it is. It's not criminal, but it is illegal. The fact that you won't be prosecuted by the DA but rather sued in civil court doesn't mean that it's not illegal.
Which one was Postscript? I thought neither was by default.
(The "P" is for Personal, not Postscript. The P is slower than the standard II, I'm not sure what the other differences were. Like the II, it could accept a Postscript expansion cartridge; my parents don't have that).
The "D" is the high-end duplex version that can rotate fonts. I don't know what the other differences are, though.
That's just one example of many differences between C and C++ (and 'a' will be treated as a char literal everywhere in C++ and an int literal everywhere in C). The point is that even if you get your C sources to compile under a C++ compiler there's a good chance that some subtle difference is going to bite you. And, as I said, that's leaving aside all of the C99 features that aren't in C++ at all (though some are being discussed for adoption by future C++ standards).
It can not take longer to learn C++ than to learn C, since C is good C++
1. Restricting yourself to the common subset of C and C++ and claiming that you therefore know C++ is pretty disingenuous. If you learned only how to write programs with printf and for loops, but didn't know conditionals or how to write functions, you couldn't truthfully claim you had learned C. If you haven't learned the preponderance of C++ features you can't truthfully claim you've learned C++.
2. WRT to the comment "C is good C++", there are plenty of valid C programs that will not compile under C++. There are plenty of programs that will compile as C and C++ programs but will give different output depending on which language is used.
(That's leaving out stupid examples like "int new = 1;")
C is most decidedly NOT a subset of C++ even if you aren't talking about features like "restrict" that are in C99 and not in any C++ standard (AFAIK).
Off the top of my head:
/* include stdlib.h, I don't feel like quoting out the angle brackets*/ int main(void) {
int *a = malloc(sizeof(int));
printf("sizeof('a'): %d\n", sizeof('a'));
return 0; }
Compiles in C and prints "sizeof('a'): 4" on most Intel machines.
But it fails to compile in C++, and if it did (by inserting a cast whose only effect in C is to suppress potentially useful compiler warnings, and thus is considered BAD in C code) would print "sizeof('a'): 1" on most Intel machines.
inline functions in C is a gcc extension, and is not portable 1. All reasonable C compilers (and most crappy ones) have supported inline for many years 2. Inline is part of standard C since C99.
I saw it on the linux-kernel mailing list, which is pretty much NOT the right place to ask such a question.
There used to be a Linux hardware compatibility HOWTO (first hit if you google "Linux hardware compatibility), but from the looks of it it's fallen way out of date.:-/
Nonetheless, the hardware support of even the latest Linux distributions is inferior to that of Windows or even Mac OS X
I call shenanigans on this. The last count I saw showed that Red Hat FC2 has more than 3 times as many drivers as Windows XP out of the box, assuming that you only count Intel-compatible platforms (if you count all platforms, Linux has an even wider edge).
E.g. my scanner and TV capture card are both supported out of the box under FC2 and not supported at all under XP. The scanner came with Win95 drivers, but no newer ones are available for Win32 and the old ones don't work with Win2k and later. I can't remember exactly which Windows version broke support for the capture card. I have no intention of buying a new scanner when mine is a great workhorse oversized flatbed with true 1200x1200 resolution that still outperforms the modern cheapo models handily.
And while my wireless LAN card is theoretically supported under Windows, it locks up every 10 minutes when WPA encryption is enabled (WEP is forbidden in our environment for security reasons) but runs for weeks with no problems under Linux--and Linux supports advanced features like running it in host AP mode (as a basestation).
Windows has better support in some areas--brand new 3D graphics cards is one, new winprinters and winmodems are others--but as far as overall hardware support Linux is way ahead.
Re:The long tail is already here
on
The Long Tail
·
· Score: 1
Oh, yeah...
Wrong 'em Boyo has them playing dice, not cards (Nick Cave's version has cards in it). The dice are a very common (to many versions) reason for the killing.
e.g. the Lloyd Price version the OP mentioned says "Stagger Lee threw a seven/Billy swore that he threw eight", and the Clash version says "Stagger Lee throwed seven/Billy said that he throwed eight". The Grateful Dead version says "Billy Delions threw the lucky dice".
Interesting to Clash fans is the (earlier) Grateful Dead version which says "Bayo, bayo how can this be...bayo go get him or give the job to me"--that's the earliest version with a variant of boyo/bayo that I'm familiar with.
The Clash version is unusual in that Billy threatens Stagger Lee; one of the core features of the legend is that Stagger is evil incarnate and Billy pleads for his life with him. In at least one version Stagger is eventually hanged and winds up throwing the devil out of Hell and terrorizing it himself, and many versions have the cops afraid to arrest him. Billy normally tries to get Stagger to spare him so he can provide for his wife and kids (Nick Cave has him do some extremely degrading things to try to save his life).
So making him threaten Stagger first is really playing against the legend (intentionally).
Re:The long tail is already here
on
The Long Tail
·
· Score: 1
If you're just looking for different versions there are a ton of them (the Grateful Dead and Nick Cave have a couple of pretty disparate ones).
The reason I recommend Mississippi John Hurt's version in particular is because it was the very first to introduce a number of elements common to many later versions (e.g. the Stetson hat, time of the incident, etc).
Independent of Stagger Lee, though, the entire London Calling album is incredible (particularly insightful statement, I know...)
Re:The long tail is already here
on
The Long Tail
·
· Score: 1
First tune I bought: "Stagger Lee", by Lloyd Price. Second one: "Whiter Shade of Pale", by Procul Harem. I'd never seen either of them in a record store.
According to a story appearing in the St. Louis, Missouri Globe-Democrat in 1895:
William Lyons, 25, a levee hand, was shot in the abdomen yesterday evening at 10 o'clock in the saloon of Bill Curtis, at Eleventh and Morgan Streets, by Lee Sheldon, a carriage driver. Lyons and Sheldon were friends and were talking together. Both parties, it seems, had been drinking and were feeling in exuberant spirits. The discussion drifted to politics, and an argument was started, the conclusion of which was that Lyons snatched Sheldon's hat from his head. The latter indignantly demanded its return. Lyons refused, and Sheldon withdrew his revolver and shot Lyons in the abdomen. When his victim fell to the floor Sheldon took his hat from the hand of the wounded man and coolly walked away. He was subsequently arrested and locked up at the Chestnut Street Station. Lyons was taken to the Dispensary, where his wounds were pronounced serious. Lee Sheldon is also known as 'Stag' Lee.
You should check out Mississipi John Hurt's "Stack'O'Lee" (also based on this incident).
I would think that the majority of reasonably sized record stores carry the Big Chill soundtrack (which has the Procul Harem "Whiter Shade of Pale" on it), and most of them will carry multiple albums by artists covering Stagger Lee (and a lot of them carry those "Billboard Top Hits of 19xx", which have both of those songs by those artists in the appropriate year but certainly fall into the 3 songs you want and a gazillion you don't category).
Thanks for the response. It is nice to see someone willing to push on the doors of the ignorant but not stand by an idiosyncratic position in the general case.
(This is incredibly idiodic, but....
Is your real name Adam? If so, what's your last name? And, what state did you go to high school in?)
[Note that I make no judgement on whether STO is necessarily a good thing or a bad thing].
Cryptography is obfuscation
Yes, but "security through obscurity" is a technical term of art. It's either ignorant or disingenuous to use English-language definitions to define a technical term when that term is clearly used in context. Yes, the private key in an RSA implementation must be "obscure" in the English sense for the system to be at all secure.
But, as wikipedia puts it (you can read more there): "In cryptography, the reverse of security by obscurity is Kerckhoffs' principle from the late 1880s, which states that system designers should assume that the entire design of a security system is known to all attackers, with the exception of the cryptographic key"
This is supported by how this term is used in practice by experts in the field.
The key principle of systems described by "security through obscurity" is that the _design_ of the system (algorithms, etc) is hidden.
The key to non-security-by-obscurity systems is that the design of the system is public so that it can be publically audited and the assertion that "it's secure when used with any key that satisfies condition X" is well-vetted (X is usually: "Product of 2 large primes", in some algorithms it may be "Never reused" or "not a Weak Key" for some rigorous definition of weak key, in some algorithms other ). It's also usually key that there is a good objective test for condition X, such that implementors have a high degree of confidence that not only is their crypto implementation basically sound but that the keys they implement are believed to be secure as well.
More generally, in non-keyed systems it's not considered reliant on "security through obscurity" if the system architecture as a whole is well-vetted and the conditions that are prerequisites to security are documented and objectively testable via some well-vetted method.
Of course, you probably already new that and were trying to change the accepted definition by arguing against the OP based on an idiosyncratic (within the context) definition.
(Of course, whether or not a system relies on security through obscurity is kind of a spectrum; very few systems are completely non-STO and very few are completely STO.)
When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
This is the key as far as I'm concerned, and the only thing the government has a role in with respect to the entire issue.
I would privatize marriage entirely; it's really just a contract between two people. There is no particular reason that a working man and a working woman should have their tax rates changed (up or down) just because they decide to go through some ceremony. Nor should a working man and a working man have their tax rates changed should they decide to have a ceremony.
However, I believe the government does have a role in the welfare of minor children (including enforcing child support, preventing negligent or abusive parenting, regulating adoption, perhaps tax breaks or other support, etc).
Exactly who (and how many) should be allowed (or preferred) to adopt (and other child-related issues) should be a distinct argument from who should be allowed to commit to each other for life, have power of attorney in the case of horrible accident, recieve inheritance, etc. The latter are clearly private decisions between consenting adults. The former impacts a minor who cannot legally give informed consent, and the government does have a vested role in the protection of minors.
That said, I think I'd disagree with you in the debate over who should be able to adopt (in that I probably wouldn't want to prohibit homosexual couples from adopting, and it sounds like you would). But it should, IMO, be a debate that is seperate from the marriage debate.
The government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business, so to speak.
Amen!
The government should perform "civil unions" for heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.
No way. Marriage or civil unions should be a private contract (possibly endorsed or witnessed by private institutions, possibly religious ones--those details should be up to the couple getting married/united and the institutions they wish to involve).
There should be no legal tax difference between two people who are married and two people who are not married.
There could be a legal tax (or other) difference for people who are dependents. There could (probably should) be government involvement for the welfare of minor children, including regulating adoption thereof and perhaps tax breaks or other support for disadvantaged children.
But marriage per se, or civil union, or whatever else you want to call it, should not have any government involvement beyond what the government normally does to help enforce private contracts.
Any competent group generally needs to be able to handle a mix of languages
I find that statement a bit strong. In my experience, most people are fluent (i.e. practiced, experienced) with only one or maybe two programming languages
1. The group needs to be able to handle a mix of languages. That doesn't mean everyone in the group needs to know every language. 2. I haven't yet worked with a reasonably competent programmer who didn't know more than 2 languages well (and I'd classify 90% of the programmers I work with as reasonably competent--the ones who only knew 1 language weren't very good in that 1). 3. I find that selecting the right language for the job has worked out incredibly well in practice, even when we wound up with heterogenous systems written in 5 different languages. All the straw man arguments about "people won't be able to work together in different languages" or "Joe can't read C++ code" or "we won't be able to find people to maintain it" turn out not to be issues in real life projects.
I think slashdot users tend to overestimate the amount of traffic a slashdot article drives because it can take down very small sites, and slashdot links to a disproportionate number of those.
The last site I worked at got a front-page Slashdot link; the traffic it drove us didn't even register in the noise compared to standard daily variations. It is a popular site but not a top-500 size site.
For any decent sized commercial outfit it's really a modest number of users that click through. We certainly got a lot more traffic when our URL was mentioned on CNN (even though people had to remember it, go to their computer, and type it in), and links from Yahoo! drove us tremendous amounts of traffic.
In the days of rotary phones, the dialed number was detected by the amount of time it took the dial to return to the resting position. (Number of pulses sent as it made the trip, actually, I believe.)
As someone who still has a rotary phone...
It just hung up the phone briefly, once for 1, twice for 2,... 10 times for 0.
If you have pulse service in your area still, you can dial the phone by just hitting the hangup button repeatedly--it's not too tough to get the timing down.
The death penalty is practised in all seriously authoritarian states. In Eastern Europe it was abolished with the fall of communism and adoption of democracy. The United States is the only western democracy where capital punishment is still practised
Are e.g. Peru and Greece not western democracies? They may have a more limited set of crimes where capital punishment applies, but it's certainly legal and is still practised during wartime.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but I never said that everything that you could be sued for was illegal. I said that this particular thing (copyright violation) is illegal.
I believe due to a quirk of Japanese Copyright Law, translations of works are fair game if the original producer doesn't provide one.
Japan and the United States are both signatories of the Berne Convention. Article 8 thereof states:
"Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall enjoy the exclusive right of making and of authorizing the translation of their works throughout the term of protection of their rights in the original works."
Japan does have some right-of-translation stipulations that apply only to works that have been published for over 7 years without a Japanese translation being made available, but even those exceptions do not apply to works originating in Berne signatory countries.
See Japanese Law No. 86, of April 28, 1956,as amended up to December 14, 1994 by Law No. 112, Law No.160, of 1999, Law No.56, of 2000.
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
It's not "illegal" in the United States either.
Yes it is. It's not criminal, but it is illegal. The fact that you won't be prosecuted by the DA but rather sued in civil court doesn't mean that it's not illegal.
(Sorry for the delay, didn't notice the followup)
Which one was Postscript? I thought neither was by default.
(The "P" is for Personal, not Postscript. The P is slower than the standard II, I'm not sure what the other differences were. Like the II, it could accept a Postscript expansion cartridge; my parents don't have that).
The "D" is the high-end duplex version that can rotate fonts. I don't know what the other differences are, though.
That's just one example of many differences between C and C++ (and 'a' will be treated as a char literal everywhere in C++ and an int literal everywhere in C). The point is that even if you get your C sources to compile under a C++ compiler there's a good chance that some subtle difference is going to bite you. And, as I said, that's leaving aside all of the C99 features that aren't in C++ at all (though some are being discussed for adoption by future C++ standards).
1. Restricting yourself to the common subset of C and C++ and claiming that you therefore know C++ is pretty disingenuous. If you learned only how to write programs with printf and for loops, but didn't know conditionals or how to write functions, you couldn't truthfully claim you had learned C. If you haven't learned the preponderance of C++ features you can't truthfully claim you've learned C++.
2. WRT to the comment "C is good C++", there are plenty of valid C programs that will not compile under C++. There are plenty of programs that will compile as C and C++ programs but will give different output depending on which language is used.
(That's leaving out stupid examples like "int new = 1;")
C is most decidedly NOT a subset of C++ even if you aren't talking about features like "restrict" that are in C99 and not in any C++ standard (AFAIK).
Off the top of my head:Compiles in C and prints "sizeof('a'): 4" on most Intel machines.
But it fails to compile in C++, and if it did (by inserting a cast whose only effect in C is to suppress potentially useful compiler warnings, and thus is considered BAD in C code) would print "sizeof('a'): 1" on most Intel machines.
inline functions in C is a gcc extension, and is not portable
1. All reasonable C compilers (and most crappy ones) have supported inline for many years
2. Inline is part of standard C since C99.
Hmm. My parents are using our old IIP without any problems, but I don't know what the difference is compared to the IID.
I saw it on the linux-kernel mailing list, which is pretty much NOT the right place to ask such a question.
:-/
There used to be a Linux hardware compatibility HOWTO (first hit if you google "Linux hardware compatibility), but from the looks of it it's fallen way out of date.
Nonetheless, the hardware support of even the latest Linux distributions is inferior to that of Windows or even Mac OS X
I call shenanigans on this. The last count I saw showed that Red Hat FC2 has more than 3 times as many drivers as Windows XP out of the box, assuming that you only count Intel-compatible platforms (if you count all platforms, Linux has an even wider edge).
E.g. my scanner and TV capture card are both supported out of the box under FC2 and not supported at all under XP. The scanner came with Win95 drivers, but no newer ones are available for Win32 and the old ones don't work with Win2k and later. I can't remember exactly which Windows version broke support for the capture card. I have no intention of buying a new scanner when mine is a great workhorse oversized flatbed with true 1200x1200 resolution that still outperforms the modern cheapo models handily.
And while my wireless LAN card is theoretically supported under Windows, it locks up every 10 minutes when WPA encryption is enabled (WEP is forbidden in our environment for security reasons) but runs for weeks with no problems under Linux--and Linux supports advanced features like running it in host AP mode (as a basestation).
Windows has better support in some areas--brand new 3D graphics cards is one, new winprinters and winmodems are others--but as far as overall hardware support Linux is way ahead.
Selling out of state/country is a common way to unload cars that fail inspection.
The term is "Could NOT care less"! Saying you "Could care less" implies that you do indeed care.
See the alt.usage.english FAQ entry on this:
http://www.english-usage.com/faq.html#fxcould
Oh, yeah...
Wrong 'em Boyo has them playing dice, not cards (Nick Cave's version has cards in it). The dice are a very common (to many versions) reason for the killing.
e.g. the Lloyd Price version the OP mentioned says "Stagger Lee threw a seven/Billy swore that he threw eight", and the Clash version says "Stagger Lee throwed seven/Billy said that he throwed eight". The Grateful Dead version says "Billy Delions threw the lucky dice".
Interesting to Clash fans is the (earlier) Grateful Dead version which says "Bayo, bayo how can this be...bayo go get him or give the job to me"--that's the earliest version with a variant of boyo/bayo that I'm familiar with.
The Clash version is unusual in that Billy threatens Stagger Lee; one of the core features of the legend is that Stagger is evil incarnate and Billy pleads for his life with him. In at least one version Stagger is eventually hanged and winds up throwing the devil out of Hell and terrorizing it himself, and many versions have the cops afraid to arrest him. Billy normally tries to get Stagger to spare him so he can provide for his wife and kids (Nick Cave has him do some extremely degrading things to try to save his life).
So making him threaten Stagger first is really playing against the legend (intentionally).
If you're just looking for different versions there are a ton of them (the Grateful Dead and Nick Cave have a couple of pretty disparate ones).
The reason I recommend Mississippi John Hurt's version in particular is because it was the very first to introduce a number of elements common to many later versions (e.g. the Stetson hat, time of the incident, etc).
Independent of Stagger Lee, though, the entire London Calling album is incredible (particularly insightful statement, I know...)
According to a story appearing in the St. Louis, Missouri Globe-Democrat in 1895:
You should check out Mississipi John Hurt's "Stack'O'Lee" (also based on this incident).
I would think that the majority of reasonably sized record stores carry the Big Chill soundtrack (which has the Procul Harem "Whiter Shade of Pale" on it), and most of them will carry multiple albums by artists covering Stagger Lee (and a lot of them carry those "Billboard Top Hits of 19xx", which have both of those songs by those artists in the appropriate year but certainly fall into the 3 songs you want and a gazillion you don't category).
Thanks for the response. It is nice to see someone willing to push on the doors of the ignorant but not stand by an idiosyncratic position in the general case.
(This is incredibly idiodic, but....
Is your real name Adam? If so, what's your last name? And, what state did you go to high school in?)
[Note that I make no judgement on whether STO is necessarily a good thing or a bad thing].
Cryptography is obfuscation
Yes, but "security through obscurity" is a technical term of art. It's either ignorant or disingenuous to use English-language definitions to define a technical term when that term is clearly used in context. Yes, the private key in an RSA implementation must be "obscure" in the English sense for the system to be at all secure.
But, as wikipedia puts it (you can read more there):
"In cryptography, the reverse of security by obscurity is Kerckhoffs' principle from the late 1880s, which states that system designers should assume that the entire design of a security system is known to all attackers, with the exception of the cryptographic key"
This is supported by how this term is used in practice by experts in the field.
The key principle of systems described by "security through obscurity" is that the _design_ of the system (algorithms, etc) is hidden.
The key to non-security-by-obscurity systems is that the design of the system is public so that it can be publically audited and the assertion that "it's secure when used with any key that satisfies condition X" is well-vetted (X is usually: "Product of 2 large primes", in some algorithms it may be "Never reused" or "not a Weak Key" for some rigorous definition of weak key, in some algorithms other ). It's also usually key that there is a good objective test for condition X, such that implementors have a high degree of confidence that not only is their crypto implementation basically sound but that the keys they implement are believed to be secure as well.
More generally, in non-keyed systems it's not considered reliant on "security through obscurity" if the system architecture as a whole is well-vetted and the conditions that are prerequisites to security are documented and objectively testable via some well-vetted method.
Of course, you probably already new that and were trying to change the accepted definition by arguing against the OP based on an idiosyncratic (within the context) definition.
(Of course, whether or not a system relies on security through obscurity is kind of a spectrum; very few systems are completely non-STO and very few are completely STO.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generator_(computer_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterator
When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
This is the key as far as I'm concerned, and the only thing the government has a role in with respect to the entire issue.
I would privatize marriage entirely; it's really just a contract between two people. There is no particular reason that a working man and a working woman should have their tax rates changed (up or down) just because they decide to go through some ceremony. Nor should a working man and a working man have their tax rates changed should they decide to have a ceremony.
However, I believe the government does have a role in the welfare of minor children (including enforcing child support, preventing negligent or abusive parenting, regulating adoption, perhaps tax breaks or other support, etc).
Exactly who (and how many) should be allowed (or preferred) to adopt (and other child-related issues) should be a distinct argument from who should be allowed to commit to each other for life, have power of attorney in the case of horrible accident, recieve inheritance, etc. The latter are clearly private decisions between consenting adults. The former impacts a minor who cannot legally give informed consent, and the government does have a vested role in the protection of minors.
That said, I think I'd disagree with you in the debate over who should be able to adopt (in that I probably wouldn't want to prohibit homosexual couples from adopting, and it sounds like you would). But it should, IMO, be a debate that is seperate from the marriage debate.
The government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business, so to speak.
Amen!
The government should perform "civil unions" for heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.
No way. Marriage or civil unions should be a private contract (possibly endorsed or witnessed by private institutions, possibly religious ones--those details should be up to the couple getting married/united and the institutions they wish to involve).
There should be no legal tax difference between two people who are married and two people who are not married.
There could be a legal tax (or other) difference for people who are dependents. There could (probably should) be government involvement for the welfare of minor children, including regulating adoption thereof and perhaps tax breaks or other support for disadvantaged children.
But marriage per se, or civil union, or whatever else you want to call it, should not have any government involvement beyond what the government normally does to help enforce private contracts.
No, elven cloak and dwarven ambassador are fantasybabble. The definition is primarily about setting.
I find that statement a bit strong. In my experience, most people are fluent (i.e. practiced, experienced) with only one or maybe two programming languages
1. The group needs to be able to handle a mix of languages. That doesn't mean everyone in the group needs to know every language.
2. I haven't yet worked with a reasonably competent programmer who didn't know more than 2 languages well (and I'd classify 90% of the programmers I work with as reasonably competent--the ones who only knew 1 language weren't very good in that 1).
3. I find that selecting the right language for the job has worked out incredibly well in practice, even when we wound up with heterogenous systems written in 5 different languages. All the straw man arguments about "people won't be able to work together in different languages" or "Joe can't read C++ code" or "we won't be able to find people to maintain it" turn out not to be issues in real life projects.
I think slashdot users tend to overestimate the amount of traffic a slashdot article drives because it can take down very small sites, and slashdot links to a disproportionate number of those.
The last site I worked at got a front-page Slashdot link; the traffic it drove us didn't even register in the noise compared to standard daily variations. It is a popular site but not a top-500 size site.
For any decent sized commercial outfit it's really a modest number of users that click through. We certainly got a lot more traffic when our URL was mentioned on CNN (even though people had to remember it, go to their computer, and type it in), and links from Yahoo! drove us tremendous amounts of traffic.
In the days of rotary phones, the dialed number was detected by the amount of time it took the dial to return to the resting position. (Number of pulses sent as it made the trip, actually, I believe.)
... 10 times for 0.
As someone who still has a rotary phone...
It just hung up the phone briefly, once for 1, twice for 2,
If you have pulse service in your area still, you can dial the phone by just hitting the hangup button repeatedly--it's not too tough to get the timing down.
The death penalty is practised in all seriously authoritarian states. In Eastern Europe it was abolished with the fall of communism and adoption of democracy. The United States is the only western democracy where capital punishment is still practised
Are e.g. Peru and Greece not western democracies? They may have a more limited set of crimes where capital punishment applies, but it's certainly legal and is still practised during wartime.