AFAIK CDs don't compress data... what they do with audio CDs and VCDs is to use an encoding scheme with a lower redundancy, since having some bits off will not compromise the contents as much as it does for data files. That's the reason why more data fits in the disc.
Other than that, it's true that you should have SOME control of the bitrate with a lossless codec by controlling the amount of compression (CPU time) used. It's also true that for a given compression algorithm you might not get much (if any) control on the bitrate, like you inherently have in lossy compression.
Absolutely. If you have to share an internet connection with a couple of heavy P2P downloaders that decided to maximize the number of connections and other parameters, you soon realize that not using some sort of shaping is ridiculous. Not only because of bandwith, but also because of latency. Opening a simple and small web page might require opening a lot of connections each of which will download just a few bites... whereas P2P uses lots of simultaneous connections with a steady traffic flow. Prioritizing the page a bit will not change how long the P2P file takes to download at all, but the web browsing experience might be dramatically different.
If you wish to give them the benefit of the doubt, there's lots of things that could be going wrong without them shaping traffic.
At my company we have have a single aDSL connection that we share through a NAT Linux router. When I started using eMule, everything was OK... until a coworker started using eMule as well, which made the internet connection practically dead for everyone in the office until we shut down the mules. We tried lots of tinkering with the connection settings (lowering the max number of connections, connections per minute, etc.) and eventually found out that many people shared more or less the same problem, but we could never solve it.
The combination of bit torrent + eMule also showed the same symptoms through the same router... but when tried through the same provider with a different setup (direct connection to a Windows 2000 workstation) it ran perfectly. I never found the reason to this problem, but evidence points more towards the NAT router and P2P connection handling than to the ISP.
I also had some problems when connecting to certain sites and certain POP3 servers (timeouts) which I eventually traced to the MTU size configuration, after the most painstaking diagnose you can imagine... modem connected to windows worked fine, windows through NAT Linux router didn't... this is a sort-of common problem with PPPoE connections and bad routers or heavy firewalling, which looks like your internet connection is acting up, but is probably your own fault or that of the server you're contacting.
Morale: There's lots of things that can go wrong with TCP connections, and it's usually very hard to diagnose since you hardly get a look at the full picture. ISPs are not always as incompetent or evil as we assume.
Don't forget the miracles. The catholic church has accepted many miracles over the years, which are actually a requirement to qualify for sainthood (and there's a lot of saints, so that's a lot of miracles). You have some popular ones, like those made by the Lady of Fatima and the virgin of Lourdes.
What's interesting is that the church investigates and aproves some of these miracles, but believing in them is not actually required to be a catholic... they leave it to personal choice.
To be fair, that IS a smart choice... because:
- Many people will choose not to believe in miracles and that's fine. I believe you can be a perfectly good scientist but still believe in god, follow the teachings of Jesus and practice the christian faith (some of them, at least).
- Many people will choose to believe in miracles anyway... they want to believe that Virgin Mary chooses to mark a grilled cheese sandwich with her face. There are a lot of these people, and the church just can't drive them away with a stick and deny their faith. The cure would probably be worse than the disease.
- Accepting the possibility of a miracle allows the church to send a very skeptic investigator to check things out... most likely to debunk it, since it's not good for the church to have someone with a direct line to god. However, even in absolute good faith it's a good idea for the church to debunk at minimum the most obviously fraudulent miracles, since letting them pass gives the faith a bad name.
I mean Data corruption during the merge of all the voting stations. That can be checked through a hash or similar procedure. Assuming of course that the merge is done in a serialized fashion and not exposed to a very likely corruption.
During the voting, assuming each station has it's own Jet db, then the db is hit with a single INSERT every N minutes. Hardly critical. It could be trusted to a simple comma separated file as well. The fact that the jet db doesn't keep a log only means that a vote might be lost if the system goes down at the time a vote is being cast... (or that the data could be in an inconsistent state IF there was any need for transactions, but then Jet wouldn't be enough and I don't see the need for transactions in a simple voting db) but that's not enough to significantly affect the election, and with a solid db with transaction support you'd still have to convince the general public that their vote is safely stored even though the power went down right after they pressed the button.
I wouldn't have used Jet... that's for sure... but I don't think it's so easy to point as why it's not kosher. After all... let's start with the fact that this are windows desktops and not real time systems chock-full of redundant hardware or anything, so the whole solution is probably based on the idea of using cheap non-fail-safe parts with some strict points of control here and there to avoid data loss or corruption.
The engine, according to Microsoft, is vulnerable to corruption when a lot of concurrent activity is happening with the database, such as what occurs on an election night when results are uploaded and various servers are interacting with the database simultaneously."
Now, I'd never think about developing this on a Microsoft Jet DB, since it's been somewhat deprecated for the MS Desktop SQL Server (MSDE) and SQL Server 2005 Express, which are much better and lightweight enough for a current desktop.
Nonetheless... what MS probably stated is that basically access to a JET Db is not thread safe, which means that concurrent access will cause corruption with a probability directly proportional to the amount of activity. YET if you serialize access to a Jet Db (which is a necessary and basic requirement given that it's not thread safe) there shouldn't be a fear of corruption, unless the API is buggy. If each voting station has a Jet Db and they all get exported to a central (thread safe) db then there's no need for concurrent access to any of the individual Jet DBs, and there shouldn't be a big fear of data corruption (which, anyway, can be verified somewhat easily).
Giving them the dubious benefit of the doubt here:
When writing error handling code you sometimes have nothing better option than to log the error to the best of your ability and close the program with an error. I mean cases when you make checks and some data is inconsistent (e.g. a pointer that should never be null is null, an array is shorter than it should, etc) and keeping the program running would require some guesswork and might as well result in corrupting the user data.
Now, Microsoft has had for some time some error catching code that generically catches error conditions, reports them home and offers to reload the app. So what should a MS programmer do when some basic consistency check fails but to allow this crash report code to run?
Not all crashes mean a stack overflow or some other exploitable error.
There are high res HDTV caps and low res HDTV caps. The low res HDTV caps are about 300megs for 45 minutes and have a somewhat lower quality when compared to DVD rips. The high res HDTV caps are about twice the size and look better.
Even then, the DVD could be a very well done digital encoding from a non-lossy source (i.e. film) with minimum and very controlled artifacts, while a HDTV cap is a second generation lossy compressión... I still think the high res HDTV will be better, but there might be arguments against it.
If you stopped watching the new movies after watching Episode 1 and Episode 2 then I seriously recommend you give Episode 3 a try. There's a coffin missing a nail somewhere, and that's just not right.
4) Competitors benefit, because there is new idea introduced, and though they can't copy that implementation, they can try their own ways of achieving that idea. (knock-offs) In some cases, these prove to have some benefit over the original (a better method, cheaper production, etc)
I would argue that #4 is why algorithms, business processes, and the like shouldn't be patented. Patenting Babbage's engine doesn't prevent the next guy from trying his luck at building a better mousetrap, so long as he doesn't actually copy Babbage. Patenting the algorithm (effectively the concept) does. Less competition means less benefit, and if I build a better mousetrap that doesn't rely on anything from your mousetrap, I'm not violating your work.
You have a good point. I would add a second situation that for me is the worst with algorithms:
A patent shouldn't be granted if there's a good chance that someone will come across the same exact solution with no knowledge from the patent. By "good chance" I mean probability... in Information Theory terms this would mean that an algorithm should yield some amount of information before being patentable.
IMHO the n-linked lists don't meet the "amount of information" quota because it's very likely someone comes across this solution on his own when faced with certain types of problems. The same way that many people with no knowledge on sorting come across their own versions of bubble sort... or the same way you can "build" (i.e. emerge) quicksort out of some sorting theory.
But I think it'd very easy to hack a player so it doesn't add the watermark... as easy for the producer to add the watermark before distributing. In fact, I bought some PDFs from DriveThruRPG.com (an e-store that sells Role Playing Games in PDF) and they came "watermarked" with my name in the bottom of every page of the PDF. I understand that the iTunes Store also encrypts part of the song (the decryption key, I think) specifically for the buyer.
So, even if I don't see a huge problem with watermarking the output, I'm afraid this scheme will eventually become a watermarking of the copy right at the source. The only cases in which watermarking is not viable is when the movie is broadcasted, or sold at a store (like a regular DVD), but we're moving away from those two sales models.
Yes, I thought of that... but then, the first sale doctrine states that the change of hands doesn't require the "permission" of the producer, and that in fact they loose the right of distribution of the copy once the first sale has been done. So, in order to keep our current rights intact, there shouln't be any extra hoops.
The car license plate is not a great example because license plates are never registered with the person who sold the car, nor the manufacturer... it's a legal thing the state requires.
I don't mean to be picky... but one of my main gripes with DRM and other schemes which require to occasionally call home for certain tasks (such as registering the new owner, a new PC, etc.) is that your product might become useless if the company runs out of business or decides to cut support for your product.
More generally I dislike the fact that non-digital products are bought "for life" (and you can even hope to pass them on to your sons or grandsons) whereas new digital products are sometimes built to last just some years... I mean not only digital film and music, but also electronic devices with non-removable batteries, which require to be connected to a computer with drivers (and hence are tied to some OSs), which require a connection to a web site, which use non-removable rechargeable batteries, etc. My grandmother still uses a very old perfectly working turntable to play records, while fifty years from now an iPod will need some modding and hacking to work (batteries, drivers, software, drm, etc.)
The doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a particular, lawfully made copy of the protected work without permission once it has been obtained.
If I buy a movie and its watermark points at me, I'd be unable to sell it unless I trust the new buyer won't do something illegal with the movie. Besides selling it'd be a real risk to lend a movie... right now I can lend someone a DVD and at worst he'll never return it. Even giving the movie away would be a problem, because even if you can trust the person, you can't trust their friends, he might sell it, etc.
No, I can't... I live in Argentina where laptops cannot be sold unless they work with 220v. I have no idea how they're sold around the world, though I have many electronic devices bought in the US that need a 110-220v converter to work.
Anyway, even if your laptop does work with 220v (as well as your USB charger, cell phone charger, etc.) you still might need adapters for different socket types. Those are relatively easy to get, and shouldn't be overlooked.
I never did anything close to backpacking around the world, but I live in Argentina so I can give you at least a brief hint at what you might come across in South America.
First, yes... there's a good chance they might get stolen. The flashier, the worse. Buenos Aires is a big city, with a decent quality of life and services, yet crime is very common specially in some areas tourists commonly visit. You should also be careful in public transport and taxi cabs (never hail them on the street, call a "radiotaxi"). If you look like a tourist (and chances are you will, even if you think you won't) you will be specially targeted. Also I have friends who had their camera taken from their bag while sleeping while they were taking a long distance trip by bus (don't remember where... Peru perhaps). And my cousin got her Discman picked from her backpack in the terminal bus station here in Buenos Aires without even noticing. I'd be extra careful with my stuff.
WiFi coverage is growing here, specially in bars, restaurants and hotels. But I wouldn't expect the same outside of capital cities... also, you should know that out outlets use 220v, so you might find yourself lugging a heavy adapter around with your notebook. Internet cafes are very common... so I would keep my gadgets to a minimum (non-flash digital camera, MP3 player, PDA) and get accounts in good web app services (GMail, Google docs, Google Notebook, Google Bookmarks, Flickr, etc.) in order to be able to access data anywhere. Take into account that outside from major cities you'll find very bad internet connections and outdated computers which might be ridden with spyware, so be sure to take that into consideration if you need to access sensitive data.
All that aside, I hope you visit Buenos Aires or at least consider visiting it. It's a completely unique south american city, with lots of things to do, great architecture, food, culture, etc. (plus, great exchange rate for you...) If you are more of an outdoorsy type there are many beautiful locations in Argentina for you to visit, like Bariloche, Calafate and other places in the Patagonia. You should also google for "Noroeste Argentino" (Argentine Northwest) which offers some completely different sights, food, music and people.
If domains were more expensive the problem with typo-squatters would be considerably reduced. At 10 U$S each they can afford to have domains that are seldomly hit.
If the price were ten times that, they'd have to concentrate in the really good ones... if they are able to figure out which ones without spending more money than they'll make. OTOH, at 100 U$S every honest business would probably be able to afford their own domain.
I really hate vouching for a tax though. So I hope a better solution comes up.
Mapping from an external IP to an internal LAN IP is called NAT. NAT shouldn't be used as a substitute to a real firewall, though you'll find many people who think of NAT as a security measure.
and then press the "equal" key and get the result. But it wasn't standard. It wasn't a TI either... just a common, cheap scientific calculator. But once again, not standard.
That calculator also requires people to know about order of precedence, which becomes a problem when people type in:
3 + 2 * 5
meaning
(3 + 2) * 5
The M+ and MR keys are the normal way, in a very standard calculator, to solve polynomials... it might sound tricky, but calculators always require some degree of training.
And finally, my point was that for serious use it's not of much use having the calculator be able to solve
a*b + c*d + e*f... if you're serious, you're better of with reverse polish: which doesn't imply that the calculator must support graphics or custom programming (like TIs). A simple, cheap, scientific calculator could very well have a reverse polish stack. It's just a different way of entering data.
In a reverse polish you'd enter a*b + c*d + e*f like:
a b * c d * + e f * +
and you'd get the result. It's easy, because you can start typing as you read the written formula and doesn't require parentheses.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK CDs don't compress data... what they do with audio CDs and VCDs is to use an encoding scheme with a lower redundancy, since having some bits off will not compromise the contents as much as it does for data files. That's the reason why more data fits in the disc.
Other than that, it's true that you should have SOME control of the bitrate with a lossless codec by controlling the amount of compression (CPU time) used. It's also true that for a given compression algorithm you might not get much (if any) control on the bitrate, like you inherently have in lossy compression.
Absolutely. If you have to share an internet connection with a couple of heavy P2P downloaders that decided to maximize the number of connections and other parameters, you soon realize that not using some sort of shaping is ridiculous. Not only because of bandwith, but also because of latency. Opening a simple and small web page might require opening a lot of connections each of which will download just a few bites... whereas P2P uses lots of simultaneous connections with a steady traffic flow. Prioritizing the page a bit will not change how long the P2P file takes to download at all, but the web browsing experience might be dramatically different.
If you wish to give them the benefit of the doubt, there's lots of things that could be going wrong without them shaping traffic.
At my company we have have a single aDSL connection that we share through a NAT Linux router. When I started using eMule, everything was OK... until a coworker started using eMule as well, which made the internet connection practically dead for everyone in the office until we shut down the mules. We tried lots of tinkering with the connection settings (lowering the max number of connections, connections per minute, etc.) and eventually found out that many people shared more or less the same problem, but we could never solve it.
The combination of bit torrent + eMule also showed the same symptoms through the same router... but when tried through the same provider with a different setup (direct connection to a Windows 2000 workstation) it ran perfectly. I never found the reason to this problem, but evidence points more towards the NAT router and P2P connection handling than to the ISP.
I also had some problems when connecting to certain sites and certain POP3 servers (timeouts) which I eventually traced to the MTU size configuration, after the most painstaking diagnose you can imagine... modem connected to windows worked fine, windows through NAT Linux router didn't... this is a sort-of common problem with PPPoE connections and bad routers or heavy firewalling, which looks like your internet connection is acting up, but is probably your own fault or that of the server you're contacting.
Morale: There's lots of things that can go wrong with TCP connections, and it's usually very hard to diagnose since you hardly get a look at the full picture. ISPs are not always as incompetent or evil as we assume.
"Interested in purchasing a CAMPER van?"
You draw a turtle with LOGO? What is that, the soviet russian version of LOGO?
Don't forget the miracles. The catholic church has accepted many miracles over the years, which are actually a requirement to qualify for sainthood (and there's a lot of saints, so that's a lot of miracles). You have some popular ones, like those made by the Lady of Fatima and the virgin of Lourdes.
What's interesting is that the church investigates and aproves some of these miracles, but believing in them is not actually required to be a catholic... they leave it to personal choice.
To be fair, that IS a smart choice... because:
- Many people will choose not to believe in miracles and that's fine. I believe you can be a perfectly good scientist but still believe in god, follow the teachings of Jesus and practice the christian faith (some of them, at least).
- Many people will choose to believe in miracles anyway... they want to believe that Virgin Mary chooses to mark a grilled cheese sandwich with her face. There are a lot of these people, and the church just can't drive them away with a stick and deny their faith. The cure would probably be worse than the disease.
- Accepting the possibility of a miracle allows the church to send a very skeptic investigator to check things out... most likely to debunk it, since it's not good for the church to have someone with a direct line to god. However, even in absolute good faith it's a good idea for the church to debunk at minimum the most obviously fraudulent miracles, since letting them pass gives the faith a bad name.
Be sure to get a free dinner at a restaurant as well.
I mean Data corruption during the merge of all the voting stations. That can be checked through a hash or similar procedure. Assuming of course that the merge is done in a serialized fashion and not exposed to a very likely corruption.
During the voting, assuming each station has it's own Jet db, then the db is hit with a single INSERT every N minutes. Hardly critical. It could be trusted to a simple comma separated file as well. The fact that the jet db doesn't keep a log only means that a vote might be lost if the system goes down at the time a vote is being cast... (or that the data could be in an inconsistent state IF there was any need for transactions, but then Jet wouldn't be enough and I don't see the need for transactions in a simple voting db) but that's not enough to significantly affect the election, and with a solid db with transaction support you'd still have to convince the general public that their vote is safely stored even though the power went down right after they pressed the button.
I wouldn't have used Jet... that's for sure... but I don't think it's so easy to point as why it's not kosher. After all... let's start with the fact that this are windows desktops and not real time systems chock-full of redundant hardware or anything, so the whole solution is probably based on the idea of using cheap non-fail-safe parts with some strict points of control here and there to avoid data loss or corruption.
Now, I'd never think about developing this on a Microsoft Jet DB, since it's been somewhat deprecated for the MS Desktop SQL Server (MSDE) and SQL Server 2005 Express, which are much better and lightweight enough for a current desktop.
Nonetheless... what MS probably stated is that basically access to a JET Db is not thread safe, which means that concurrent access will cause corruption with a probability directly proportional to the amount of activity. YET if you serialize access to a Jet Db (which is a necessary and basic requirement given that it's not thread safe) there shouldn't be a fear of corruption, unless the API is buggy. If each voting station has a Jet Db and they all get exported to a central (thread safe) db then there's no need for concurrent access to any of the individual Jet DBs, and there shouldn't be a big fear of data corruption (which, anyway, can be verified somewhat easily).
Giving them the dubious benefit of the doubt here:
When writing error handling code you sometimes have nothing better option than to log the error to the best of your ability and close the program with an error. I mean cases when you make checks and some data is inconsistent (e.g. a pointer that should never be null is null, an array is shorter than it should, etc) and keeping the program running would require some guesswork and might as well result in corrupting the user data.
Now, Microsoft has had for some time some error catching code that generically catches error conditions, reports them home and offers to reload the app. So what should a MS programmer do when some basic consistency check fails but to allow this crash report code to run?
Not all crashes mean a stack overflow or some other exploitable error.
There are high res HDTV caps and low res HDTV caps. The low res HDTV caps are about 300megs for 45 minutes and have a somewhat lower quality when compared to DVD rips. The high res HDTV caps are about twice the size and look better.
Even then, the DVD could be a very well done digital encoding from a non-lossy source (i.e. film) with minimum and very controlled artifacts, while a HDTV cap is a second generation lossy compressión... I still think the high res HDTV will be better, but there might be arguments against it.
If you stopped watching the new movies after watching Episode 1 and Episode 2 then I seriously recommend you give Episode 3 a try. There's a coffin missing a nail somewhere, and that's just not right.
Like those nefarious aliens that used AppleTalk in Independence Day!
Well... it's a bit like blaming the PC security problems mostly on Windows. The shoe fits.
You have a good point. I would add a second situation that for me is the worst with algorithms:
A patent shouldn't be granted if there's a good chance that someone will come across the same exact solution with no knowledge from the patent. By "good chance" I mean probability... in Information Theory terms this would mean that an algorithm should yield some amount of information before being patentable.
IMHO the n-linked lists don't meet the "amount of information" quota because it's very likely someone comes across this solution on his own when faced with certain types of problems. The same way that many people with no knowledge on sorting come across their own versions of bubble sort... or the same way you can "build" (i.e. emerge) quicksort out of some sorting theory.
Mmmm... while it's true that the price of freedom is eternal VIGILANCE, remember that you can get Vista Ultimate for as little as $399.95.
I agree with you.
But I think it'd very easy to hack a player so it doesn't add the watermark... as easy for the producer to add the watermark before distributing. In fact, I bought some PDFs from DriveThruRPG.com (an e-store that sells Role Playing Games in PDF) and they came "watermarked" with my name in the bottom of every page of the PDF. I understand that the iTunes Store also encrypts part of the song (the decryption key, I think) specifically for the buyer.
So, even if I don't see a huge problem with watermarking the output, I'm afraid this scheme will eventually become a watermarking of the copy right at the source. The only cases in which watermarking is not viable is when the movie is broadcasted, or sold at a store (like a regular DVD), but we're moving away from those two sales models.
Yes, I thought of that... but then, the first sale doctrine states that the change of hands doesn't require the "permission" of the producer, and that in fact they loose the right of distribution of the copy once the first sale has been done. So, in order to keep our current rights intact, there shouln't be any extra hoops.
The car license plate is not a great example because license plates are never registered with the person who sold the car, nor the manufacturer... it's a legal thing the state requires.
I don't mean to be picky... but one of my main gripes with DRM and other schemes which require to occasionally call home for certain tasks (such as registering the new owner, a new PC, etc.) is that your product might become useless if the company runs out of business or decides to cut support for your product.
More generally I dislike the fact that non-digital products are bought "for life" (and you can even hope to pass them on to your sons or grandsons) whereas new digital products are sometimes built to last just some years... I mean not only digital film and music, but also electronic devices with non-removable batteries, which require to be connected to a computer with drivers (and hence are tied to some OSs), which require a connection to a web site, which use non-removable rechargeable batteries, etc. My grandmother still uses a very old perfectly working turntable to play records, while fifty years from now an iPod will need some modding and hacking to work (batteries, drivers, software, drm, etc.)
Quoting from Wikipedia:
If I buy a movie and its watermark points at me, I'd be unable to sell it unless I trust the new buyer won't do something illegal with the movie. Besides selling it'd be a real risk to lend a movie... right now I can lend someone a DVD and at worst he'll never return it. Even giving the movie away would be a problem, because even if you can trust the person, you can't trust their friends, he might sell it, etc.
No, I can't... I live in Argentina where laptops cannot be sold unless they work with 220v. I have no idea how they're sold around the world, though I have many electronic devices bought in the US that need a 110-220v converter to work.
Anyway, even if your laptop does work with 220v (as well as your USB charger, cell phone charger, etc.) you still might need adapters for different socket types. Those are relatively easy to get, and shouldn't be overlooked.
I never did anything close to backpacking around the world, but I live in Argentina so I can give you at least a brief hint at what you might come across in South America.
First, yes... there's a good chance they might get stolen. The flashier, the worse. Buenos Aires is a big city, with a decent quality of life and services, yet crime is very common specially in some areas tourists commonly visit. You should also be careful in public transport and taxi cabs (never hail them on the street, call a "radiotaxi"). If you look like a tourist (and chances are you will, even if you think you won't) you will be specially targeted. Also I have friends who had their camera taken from their bag while sleeping while they were taking a long distance trip by bus (don't remember where... Peru perhaps). And my cousin got her Discman picked from her backpack in the terminal bus station here in Buenos Aires without even noticing. I'd be extra careful with my stuff.
WiFi coverage is growing here, specially in bars, restaurants and hotels. But I wouldn't expect the same outside of capital cities... also, you should know that out outlets use 220v, so you might find yourself lugging a heavy adapter around with your notebook. Internet cafes are very common... so I would keep my gadgets to a minimum (non-flash digital camera, MP3 player, PDA) and get accounts in good web app services (GMail, Google docs, Google Notebook, Google Bookmarks, Flickr, etc.) in order to be able to access data anywhere. Take into account that outside from major cities you'll find very bad internet connections and outdated computers which might be ridden with spyware, so be sure to take that into consideration if you need to access sensitive data.
All that aside, I hope you visit Buenos Aires or at least consider visiting it. It's a completely unique south american city, with lots of things to do, great architecture, food, culture, etc. (plus, great exchange rate for you...) If you are more of an outdoorsy type there are many beautiful locations in Argentina for you to visit, like Bariloche, Calafate and other places in the Patagonia. You should also google for "Noroeste Argentino" (Argentine Northwest) which offers some completely different sights, food, music and people.
If domains were more expensive the problem with typo-squatters would be considerably reduced. At 10 U$S each they can afford to have domains that are seldomly hit.
If the price were ten times that, they'd have to concentrate in the really good ones... if they are able to figure out which ones without spending more money than they'll make. OTOH, at 100 U$S every honest business would probably be able to afford their own domain.
I really hate vouching for a tax though. So I hope a better solution comes up.
No, you're wrong.
Mapping from an external IP to an internal LAN IP is called NAT. NAT shouldn't be used as a substitute to a real firewall, though you'll find many people who think of NAT as a security measure.
It's terrorism, global warming and pedophilia.
I once had a calculator that allowed me to write
... if you're serious, you're better of with reverse polish: which doesn't imply that the calculator must support graphics or custom programming (like TIs). A simple, cheap, scientific calculator could very well have a reverse polish stack. It's just a different way of entering data.
a*b + c*d + e*f
and then press the "equal" key and get the result. But it wasn't standard. It wasn't a TI either... just a common, cheap scientific calculator. But once again, not standard.
That calculator also requires people to know about order of precedence, which becomes a problem when people type in:
3 + 2 * 5
meaning
(3 + 2) * 5
The M+ and MR keys are the normal way, in a very standard calculator, to solve polynomials... it might sound tricky, but calculators always require some degree of training.
And finally, my point was that for serious use it's not of much use having the calculator be able to solve
a*b + c*d + e*f
In a reverse polish you'd enter a*b + c*d + e*f like:
a
b
*
c
d
*
+
e
f
*
+
and you'd get the result. It's easy, because you can start typing as you read the written formula and doesn't require parentheses.