This comment doesn't seem to make much sense. It's not about where the files are placed on disk. Wow64 is a Windows subsystem to let you run 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows. Every major OS has some layer to do this (except maybe Linux, I don't now). HP-Itanium can run HP-RISC binaries. Many AIX systems can run binaries from architectures that went out of existence before I was born.
Microsoft also provides a toolkit to help you harden third-party apps if the developers of those apps haven't done so themselves. Those same vendors may only have 32-bit versions of their apps. A lot of applications have defects that don't materialize in 32-bit mode but do in 64-bit mode. Assign a pointer to an int much? People used to do it all the time. If an app won't benefit from being 64-bit (A 64-bit version of Freecell wouldn't be any better than a 32-bit version), many vendors may not bother to do a 64-bit build since the 32-bit builds run fine on 64-bit OS.
The gist of this article is that the tools that MS provides to harder 3rd party apps won't work if those apps are 32-bit apps running on 64-bit Windows. It's just not a capability that is shipping.
Web browsers are particularly problematic. They contain a lot of legacy code. And you don't need to be a 64-bit process in order to render HTML. So the 32-bit builds are often more stable and reliable. Microsoft actively discouraged the use of 64-bit Internet Explorer. (Although I think that EDGE is 64-bit, but I don't know).
EMET is a nice tool set, but the software builders/vendors need to do a better job. There's a huge industry involving *buyers* of software have to secure it. Ultimately that will never be as good as if the vendors did it themselves. And here is one example of that limitation.
When it comes to software it's amazing how much money people will spend on products that are really bad and insecure.
Even if you can pay for it right now, you should purchase with a credit card and pay it off every month. First it's like the bank lending you money at zero interest. Second you get a lot of consumer protection using the card. The only reason to always pay cash is because you don't trust yourself to have the credit card.
Yes but there's no dichotomy here. You can increase the first guys limit to the sky. In fact, American Express has no limit on many cards issued to the type of borrower in your first example. No preset spending limit.
On a credit card, the issuing bank makes a cut of every purchase even if you pay on time. So, yes, you would. I wouldn't expect the customer service person to actually know the reason they didn't give you the increase. But since most credit cards these days will give you your credit score for free as well as a summary of the factors that affect it, this stuff is easy to figure out.
I don't think it's fair to say they are lying. The darn stickers say "EPA estimated MPG." Not sure how much more honest about the number you can be. And the fine print even goes into more detail. Also most cars now have instantaneous MPG readouts and they calculate an average. My experience is that their calculated number is *very* close to what I get if I fill the tank, reset the trip meter, drive a while, fill the tank again and use the advanced math called division. Others have pointed out the limits of the EPA method but there's certainly not lying. Lying would be if the EPA came up with one number and they put a different one on the sticker.
Phone and laptop manufacturers don't lie about battery either. They say exactly how many mAH the battery holds. They then estimate how many hours of life you will get from the device. They also provide very exact charging times. Of course device use varies so they can't really say how many hours a particular user will get. And we can debate the methodology. But I've never heard of a phone having a battery with less capacity than advertised.
Which ones are good? Could you post them here? I wouldn't object if you used amazon referrer links, although some would grip about it. There was a Calculus book mentioned in an earlier comment and I already bought a copy. This is a rare opportunity for a recommendation that I can actually trust not to be a shill.
I'm not a lawyer but I've seen this play out in traffic court. If you refuse the test, you will be charged with *both* the refusal *and* drunken driving. You will then be offered a deal where you plea guilty to only the drunken driving charge. If you're drunk and you're driving, it's really a hopeless situation. Just don't do it. If you refuse the test and then somehow get found not guilty for the DUI, it won't matter, as the penalties for the two are about the same.
You don't know the history of Pepsi in China. They make *everything* including shoes. It's not a soft drink company its a branding conglomerate. The story is long, but interesting if you Google it. There was a time when companies had to choose between doing business in mainland China or Taiwan. Coke went to Taiwan, Pepsi to China.
I live in an upper middle class suburb. Occasionally somebody gets upset about a ticket for rolling through a stop sign. Otherwise we don't have much controversy. The police even responded when somebody stole a toy car from my porch. I imagine that most of the officers have never even drawn their weapons. On the other hand, there are places not so far away where, if I were a cop, I'd want to walk around with my weapon constantly drawn. Those of us in the suburbs do know how to behave and to comply with police orders. If they are unlawful we'll deal with it later. Of course most of us also know deescalation techniques that we would use if the cop was having a bad day. But that's partly because the secondary consequences (ruined careers mostly) of an arrest are so severe that we aren't going to challenge authority. If somebody's life is already hopeless they aren't going to respond in the same way. And those people live in high crime areas. I really don't think police can solve this problem.
I haven't done a large-scale survey the way somebody with grant money would, but I have observed this behavior in action. Do I know how prevalent it is, of course not. But I have seen the frenzy over the free chargers in office buildings. In the meantime I'm also an annual Disneyworld ticket holder. They have electric vehicle charging. About twelve spots the same as the office building of which I'm thinking. Cost id $0.35/kWH of electricity. Always plenty of "pumps" available! If Disney had free charging, I would be one of those people I just described. I'd pay for my annual ticket in electricity recovery. I would even go charge up come back and run my house off the thing!
Put them out of business and somebody will buy their patents from the bankruptcy estate and start the process all over again. This will only work if a technology company that actually makes stuff purchases the bankruptcy assets.
I take it you've never tried to participate. Have you ever gone to a town meeting? That's where most of this stuff gets handled. Have you ever worked on a political campaign? I'm assuming not. And the responses will be something to the effect of the process being 'owned' by corporations. Which of course supports my original point that Uber is a corporation and has access to the process.
As somebody who received that mileage reimbursement, I love getting it. Feels like tax free income. My vehicle depreciates with time whether I operate it or not. Assuming a $20k vehicle that will be worth $10k with $100k miles on it, that's $0.10 per mile in depreciation. $0.10 per mile for gasoline. Tires, brakes, oil changes. Probably about $5k over the life of the vehicle. That comes up with $0.25/mile, less than half of the IRS guidance. Notice that they only give you $0.14 per mile if driving for charitable purposes. It's not cheaper to drive for charity so these IRS numbers aren't based on "hard data." Your car doesn't know the intent of your trip and adjust itself accordingly.
However if you're wearing a suit, people do treat you much differently when attempting to gain access to certain areas. Maybe that shouldn't matter, but it does. Show up looking like you're from the inner city and say "I have a delivery for... " and you'll be subject to endless scrutiny. Put on a suit and say "I have an appointment with... " and you'll be ushered in and offered coffee.
No it's not. We have an entire political process. You can write to your local officials, protest outside their offices, donate to their opponents. There are a whole myriad of ways to get regulations changed. This is a false argument. Stop operating an illegal taxi service until you're done with the political process. And sometimes you don't get your way.
Again Rosa Parks openly admitted that what she did was illegal. She didn't do it for profit. And she was willing to go to jail. If Uber did those three things (with the execs going to jail, not the drivers), you would have a point. Rosa Parks acted to improve society. Uber acts to improve their bottom line. The two are not comparable in any way.
I've never seen an argument that the current taxi laws are ideal although feel free to prove me wrong with a link to a -1 comment. The argument is that you change commercial laws through the political process, not by ignoring them. The usual comparisons to Rosa Parks come up. But it's not relevant at all. She didn't claim that what she was doing was legal. She thought it was a social injustice and was willing to go to jail to prove her point. Uber claims not to be a taxi company, but they are a taxi company. If you torture the Rosa Parks analogy it would be the equivalent of her sitting at the front of the bus while insisting comically that she was indeed in the back. If Uber execs stood up and said that they were operating an illegal taxi company in order to make the world a better place and that (a) they were willing to go to jail and (b) would operate as a non-profit and take no salary, they might have a leg to stand on. They're a business that openly ignores the law where they operate and it's a terrible indictment of our society that they've gotten away with it for so long.
Citation, please. The EPA seems to be saying that they aren't going to take action against owners. But you fail to understand how emissions are regulated in the US. The EPA sets one set of standards. California is free to set a stricter standard. Each of the rest of the states chooses which standard to enforce. But enforcement is up to the states. The EPA doesn't do enforcement of individual vehicles, that's up to the states. Since the owners of the vehicles are victims, it seems that the states are refraining from prosecution for operating those vehicles, but there's nothing that would stop a local police department in need of revenue from stopping and impounding every VW diesel that passes through their jurisdiction.
The economic result for the owner of the hardware store (website) is the same. They cease to exist. If content isn't worth viewing, don't view it. If the content has value, be willing to pay for it.
I made the conclusion that it's the right thing to do based on the fact that it's the right thing to do. I provided evidence that some car makers have done it. (Mazda) Some have not. But VW should be issuing full refunds and trying to get these noxious pollution machines out of circulation as quickly as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
This comment doesn't seem to make much sense. It's not about where the files are placed on disk. Wow64 is a Windows subsystem to let you run 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows. Every major OS has some layer to do this (except maybe Linux, I don't now). HP-Itanium can run HP-RISC binaries. Many AIX systems can run binaries from architectures that went out of existence before I was born. Microsoft also provides a toolkit to help you harden third-party apps if the developers of those apps haven't done so themselves. Those same vendors may only have 32-bit versions of their apps. A lot of applications have defects that don't materialize in 32-bit mode but do in 64-bit mode. Assign a pointer to an int much? People used to do it all the time. If an app won't benefit from being 64-bit (A 64-bit version of Freecell wouldn't be any better than a 32-bit version), many vendors may not bother to do a 64-bit build since the 32-bit builds run fine on 64-bit OS. The gist of this article is that the tools that MS provides to harder 3rd party apps won't work if those apps are 32-bit apps running on 64-bit Windows. It's just not a capability that is shipping. Web browsers are particularly problematic. They contain a lot of legacy code. And you don't need to be a 64-bit process in order to render HTML. So the 32-bit builds are often more stable and reliable. Microsoft actively discouraged the use of 64-bit Internet Explorer. (Although I think that EDGE is 64-bit, but I don't know). EMET is a nice tool set, but the software builders/vendors need to do a better job. There's a huge industry involving *buyers* of software have to secure it. Ultimately that will never be as good as if the vendors did it themselves. And here is one example of that limitation. When it comes to software it's amazing how much money people will spend on products that are really bad and insecure.
Even if you can pay for it right now, you should purchase with a credit card and pay it off every month. First it's like the bank lending you money at zero interest. Second you get a lot of consumer protection using the card. The only reason to always pay cash is because you don't trust yourself to have the credit card.
Yes but there's no dichotomy here. You can increase the first guys limit to the sky. In fact, American Express has no limit on many cards issued to the type of borrower in your first example. No preset spending limit.
On a credit card, the issuing bank makes a cut of every purchase even if you pay on time. So, yes, you would. I wouldn't expect the customer service person to actually know the reason they didn't give you the increase. But since most credit cards these days will give you your credit score for free as well as a summary of the factors that affect it, this stuff is easy to figure out.
I don't think it's fair to say they are lying. The darn stickers say "EPA estimated MPG." Not sure how much more honest about the number you can be. And the fine print even goes into more detail. Also most cars now have instantaneous MPG readouts and they calculate an average. My experience is that their calculated number is *very* close to what I get if I fill the tank, reset the trip meter, drive a while, fill the tank again and use the advanced math called division. Others have pointed out the limits of the EPA method but there's certainly not lying. Lying would be if the EPA came up with one number and they put a different one on the sticker. Phone and laptop manufacturers don't lie about battery either. They say exactly how many mAH the battery holds. They then estimate how many hours of life you will get from the device. They also provide very exact charging times. Of course device use varies so they can't really say how many hours a particular user will get. And we can debate the methodology. But I've never heard of a phone having a battery with less capacity than advertised.
p doesn't have to be volatile here, only the possibility of it changing in the first block!
If the value of the pointer could change in the first block, it's actually possible to execute the third one.
Which ones are good? Could you post them here? I wouldn't object if you used amazon referrer links, although some would grip about it. There was a Calculus book mentioned in an earlier comment and I already bought a copy. This is a rare opportunity for a recommendation that I can actually trust not to be a shill.
I'm not a lawyer but I've seen this play out in traffic court. If you refuse the test, you will be charged with *both* the refusal *and* drunken driving. You will then be offered a deal where you plea guilty to only the drunken driving charge. If you're drunk and you're driving, it's really a hopeless situation. Just don't do it. If you refuse the test and then somehow get found not guilty for the DUI, it won't matter, as the penalties for the two are about the same.
You don't know the history of Pepsi in China. They make *everything* including shoes. It's not a soft drink company its a branding conglomerate. The story is long, but interesting if you Google it. There was a time when companies had to choose between doing business in mainland China or Taiwan. Coke went to Taiwan, Pepsi to China.
I live in an upper middle class suburb. Occasionally somebody gets upset about a ticket for rolling through a stop sign. Otherwise we don't have much controversy. The police even responded when somebody stole a toy car from my porch. I imagine that most of the officers have never even drawn their weapons. On the other hand, there are places not so far away where, if I were a cop, I'd want to walk around with my weapon constantly drawn. Those of us in the suburbs do know how to behave and to comply with police orders. If they are unlawful we'll deal with it later. Of course most of us also know deescalation techniques that we would use if the cop was having a bad day. But that's partly because the secondary consequences (ruined careers mostly) of an arrest are so severe that we aren't going to challenge authority. If somebody's life is already hopeless they aren't going to respond in the same way. And those people live in high crime areas. I really don't think police can solve this problem.
I haven't done a large-scale survey the way somebody with grant money would, but I have observed this behavior in action. Do I know how prevalent it is, of course not. But I have seen the frenzy over the free chargers in office buildings. In the meantime I'm also an annual Disneyworld ticket holder. They have electric vehicle charging. About twelve spots the same as the office building of which I'm thinking. Cost id $0.35/kWH of electricity. Always plenty of "pumps" available! If Disney had free charging, I would be one of those people I just described. I'd pay for my annual ticket in electricity recovery. I would even go charge up come back and run my house off the thing!
Yes but there are plenty of people who commute ten miles to work but make sure never to charge at home.
Put them out of business and somebody will buy their patents from the bankruptcy estate and start the process all over again. This will only work if a technology company that actually makes stuff purchases the bankruptcy assets.
I take it you've never tried to participate. Have you ever gone to a town meeting? That's where most of this stuff gets handled. Have you ever worked on a political campaign? I'm assuming not. And the responses will be something to the effect of the process being 'owned' by corporations. Which of course supports my original point that Uber is a corporation and has access to the process.
As somebody who received that mileage reimbursement, I love getting it. Feels like tax free income. My vehicle depreciates with time whether I operate it or not. Assuming a $20k vehicle that will be worth $10k with $100k miles on it, that's $0.10 per mile in depreciation. $0.10 per mile for gasoline. Tires, brakes, oil changes. Probably about $5k over the life of the vehicle. That comes up with $0.25/mile, less than half of the IRS guidance. Notice that they only give you $0.14 per mile if driving for charitable purposes. It's not cheaper to drive for charity so these IRS numbers aren't based on "hard data." Your car doesn't know the intent of your trip and adjust itself accordingly.
However if you're wearing a suit, people do treat you much differently when attempting to gain access to certain areas. Maybe that shouldn't matter, but it does. Show up looking like you're from the inner city and say "I have a delivery for ... " and you'll be subject to endless scrutiny. Put on a suit and say "I have an appointment with ... " and you'll be ushered in and offered coffee.
No it's not. We have an entire political process. You can write to your local officials, protest outside their offices, donate to their opponents. There are a whole myriad of ways to get regulations changed. This is a false argument. Stop operating an illegal taxi service until you're done with the political process. And sometimes you don't get your way.
Again Rosa Parks openly admitted that what she did was illegal. She didn't do it for profit. And she was willing to go to jail. If Uber did those three things (with the execs going to jail, not the drivers), you would have a point. Rosa Parks acted to improve society. Uber acts to improve their bottom line. The two are not comparable in any way.
I've never seen an argument that the current taxi laws are ideal although feel free to prove me wrong with a link to a -1 comment. The argument is that you change commercial laws through the political process, not by ignoring them. The usual comparisons to Rosa Parks come up. But it's not relevant at all. She didn't claim that what she was doing was legal. She thought it was a social injustice and was willing to go to jail to prove her point. Uber claims not to be a taxi company, but they are a taxi company. If you torture the Rosa Parks analogy it would be the equivalent of her sitting at the front of the bus while insisting comically that she was indeed in the back. If Uber execs stood up and said that they were operating an illegal taxi company in order to make the world a better place and that (a) they were willing to go to jail and (b) would operate as a non-profit and take no salary, they might have a leg to stand on. They're a business that openly ignores the law where they operate and it's a terrible indictment of our society that they've gotten away with it for so long.
Citation, please. The EPA seems to be saying that they aren't going to take action against owners. But you fail to understand how emissions are regulated in the US. The EPA sets one set of standards. California is free to set a stricter standard. Each of the rest of the states chooses which standard to enforce. But enforcement is up to the states. The EPA doesn't do enforcement of individual vehicles, that's up to the states. Since the owners of the vehicles are victims, it seems that the states are refraining from prosecution for operating those vehicles, but there's nothing that would stop a local police department in need of revenue from stopping and impounding every VW diesel that passes through their jurisdiction.
The economic result for the owner of the hardware store (website) is the same. They cease to exist. If content isn't worth viewing, don't view it. If the content has value, be willing to pay for it.
I made the conclusion that it's the right thing to do based on the fact that it's the right thing to do. I provided evidence that some car makers have done it. (Mazda) Some have not. But VW should be issuing full refunds and trying to get these noxious pollution machines out of circulation as quickly as possible.
If a car falls short of power claims, the manufacturer should buy it back at full retail. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Just so you know, though, you can't register and drive them on public roadways. They don't meet emissions requirements.