A diallable symbol is a symbol which is to be dialled and appears on a telephone set to designate either a finger hole of a dial or a push button of a keyset[2[. These symbols can be digits, letters, or other signs. Some desirable properties to be considered when selecting diallable symbols are listed in Annex A.
7 Procedural symbols
A procedural symbol is a symbol which tells the subscriber how to dial. Such symbols should not appear in a finger hole or on a push button because they are not to be dialled.
7.1 International prefix symbol
The international prefix symbol should be + (plus) and should precede the country code in the international number. It serves to remind the subscriber to dial the international prefix which differs from country to country and also serves to identify the number following as the international telephone number.
Perhaps some phones allow you to press a "+" key to enter your current locale's international prefix (especially on mobile phones, where a trip might change what that prefix is), but I know of no telephone networks where the only way to make an international call requires that you enter a "+" key.
It's an actual character that you can enter on a cellphone, or on a VOIP phone.
...as well as being a "procedural symbol" used in "international telephone numbers... on letterheads, business cards, bills, etc." (to quote the Summary of E.123).
I haven't looked into the standards, but presumably ISDN handles + as well
Well, E.164 says, in Annex B "Application of international ITU-T E.164-numbers for ISDN"
B.4 Dialling procedures
B.4.1 The subscriber dialling procedures for local, national and international calls shall be in accordance with clause 7....
but that doesn't say anything about the international prefix, perhaps because the international prefix is country-dependent and the digit analysis required to recognize the international prefix is also country-dependent.
What happens inside the network is not necessarily relevant to what people dial.
and surely SS7 does
People don't directly talk to SS7 - again, what happens inside the network is not necessarily relevant to what people dial.
By pressing "011" on my phone's keypad. Next question? (If the next question is "how did I know I didn't want to dial the operator?", the answer is "because I pressed the "1"s quickly enough after pressing the "0" - next next question?)
What is that ITU international dialling you refer to? The +country prefix that works on cellphones? This is available everywhere in the world, U.S. included. As for calling from landlines -- ah, it's some pipe dream
Then the US landline system must have regressed, because I made international calls from the US on a landline, using +country, back in the late '80's or early '90's.
then it's a good thing chem engineers dont make airplanes. it may be chemically the same, but it is not materially, mechanically, or structurally the same.
...which was his point. The person to whom he was responding said "Even a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry would help you understand how you're wrong. There are fundamental differences at the atomic level between things that are cast, forged, and "printed" in the manner that modern metal-based 3D printing works.", and his reply was saying that it's not a matter of chemistry, it's a matter of materials science.
We're talking about the alleged copyrights on the APIs for C in the absurd hypothetical case that there is such a thing. It's not reported that CPTN Holdings got any copyrights that I know of. Do you have some such info?
I.e., "this particular property" is "Unix" in the sense of the AT&T code. Is there some particular entity who you might think owns or controls those private equity funds? If so, do you have some info to support that suspicion?
Thanks for that, but that's what - not who. These private equity groups are not required to disclose who owns or controls them. Which is creepy given the history of this particular property.
Which property? The "intellectual property assets" that Novell sold to a Microsoft-created consortium as part of the deal to get acquired by Attachmate (and that are presumably owned by that consortium, not Attachmate)?
It is hard to take seriously someone who compares a Linux distro, which is the kernel, userland tools, and pretty much every application most anyone could ever need to the Windows OS. If you want to talk about the Windows vs. Linux world OS' then you need to compare only the Linux kernel and userland tools to Windows.
OK, then let's compare the Linux kernel, and those userland tools equivalent to what comes with Windows. Do you have evidence to support a belief that, say, all the libraries in a Linux distribution that provide APIs equivalent to those provided by Windows, and the cores of the major desktop environments (both API cores and tools such as the file manager, Web browser, system configuration apps, etc.) were all written by "competent engineers with portability in mind", whilst the equivalent software in Windows wasn't? If not, then your claim of competent programmers who emphasize security and portability is suddenly lacking in evidence to support it.
By Linux I'm referring to Linux. If one doesn't know that Linux is a kernel then it makes further discussion fruitless, now, doesn't it.
OK, then, if one doesn't know that "Linux" rather than "a Linux distribution" corresponds to "Windows NT's kernel-mode code" rather than "Windows", it makes further discussion fruitless.
I shall assume that when you said "It would be very different, because Linux was written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind. Windows was written by some very competent engineers, and many more with -shall we say - much less competence.", you really meant "It would be very different, because Linux was written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind. Windows NT's kernel-mode code was written by some very competent engineers, and many more with -shall we say - much less competence.", in which case I'd like to see some data to support your assertion that some of the engineers working on said kernel-mode code weren't competent enough to avoid making "[assumptions] about internal representation of data structures, word size, endian-ness, and a host of other issues".
Porting a Linux distro to ARM does not mean rewriting the code from the ground up, it means recompiling with different flags... why would it be any different for Windows?
(emphasis mine), so merely speaking about the Linux kernel would not validly reply to that post. Perhaps some of the code in Windows-as-a-whole was written by engineers who couldn't avoid making said assumptions (although earlier versions of NT ran on MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC, and apparently it was originally developed on i860 machines, and current versions run on x86 in 32-bit mode and x86-64 in 64-bit mode and earlier versions ran on Itanium in 64-bit mode, so at least for those versions they managed to avoid making some incorrect assumptions of that sort). However, not all of the code in pick-your-Linux-distribution-as-a-whole necessarily avoids making those assumptions, and porting the distribution as a whole might not be a snap (although Debian, at least, supports several architectures, so either the Debian packages that work on those architectures avoided making those assumptions or got them fixed when they failed to work on those architectures).
They do, but they still have to authenticate to do things users may expect to do with unreliable connectivity, and still end up preventing configuration by the local user. On a "company laptop" it's tolerable but on a handheld it will be a mess.
So what's the difference between a "company laptop" and a tablet? Is there some difference between a laptop - "company" or not - and a tablet, or is the distinction between a company machine (whether laptop or tablet) and a Bring Your Own Device machine (whether laptop or tablet), or is there some magical combination of "not company" and "tablet" that causes an explosion?
Now... what are the characteristics of tablets? Well, tablets are ultraportable computing devices. If a business hands them out to employees expecting them to only ever be used on the corporate network, then... well, why is the business handing them out at all? Why not just go for regular PCs?
Because that subset of "regular PCs" known as "notebooks" or "laptops" are also portable computing devices that are not guaranteed "only to ever be used on the corporate network". Tablets are not some form of magical device that suddenly lets you take your computing with you (regardless of how whether any Apple spokespeople said "magical" during any particular Apple tablet's announcement); that flavor of mobile computing existed before the iPad (or other tablets).
And if they're expecting the users to use them anywhere, then without hacks using VPNs
Perhaps they're not expecting that - perhaps they're expecting them to be used with VPNs if you want to get on the corporate network, just as with laptops.
Micriosoft code is well known for its bit twiddling features. If you come across the leaked code of an old version of Windows, you will be amazed on how much low level code is there. They use the preprocessor and shift opeators arbitrarily.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the preprocessor" here, but using the C preprocessor in your code hardly makes it non-portable bit-twiddling code. Not being careful when using the C shift operators (e.g., writing code that shifts left by a variable amount and that works only if, when the variable amount is equal to the number of bits in the quantity being shifted, the result is 0) can make your code non-portable.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "an old version of Windows"; as has been noted several times in comments here, Windows NT ran on MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC as well as on x86, so what "bit-twiddling features" it used either ran on more than just x86 or was buried in the platform-specific parts of the code.
"Porting a Linux distro to ARM does not mean rewriting the code from the ground up, it means recompiling with different flags... why would it be any different for Windows?"
It would be very different, because Linux was written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind. Windows was written by some very competent engineers, and many more with -shall we say - much less competence. In order to port Windows to ARM they have to find every place where an assumption was made about internal representation of data structures, word size, endian-ness, and a host of other issues.
By "Linux" are you referring to the Linux kernel, in which case you should be comparing it to the NT kernel-mode code, or are you referring to the Linux distributions as a whole, in which case I would not be so quick to assume that all of "Linux" in that sense "was written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind".
(And as for whether even the Linux kernel was "written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind", well, I'll let somebody whom a lot of people would consider a very competent engineer speak to that issue when he said, back in 1991, "It is NOT protable[sic] (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that’s all I have:-(.)
Initially NT was DEC Alpha and x86, but they scrapped Alpha support.
The reason is simple. Writing portable code, especially in languages like C and C++ take skill, significant effort, and additional time. Obviously, a company that couldn't be bothered to put the time and effort into develop secure code could not be bothered to invest the effort to make it portable either.
If it supported Alpha and MIPS in addition to x86, they apparently did make an effort to make it portable. Whether it made sense to make the effort to keep it portable, given that this involved testing on various Alpha-based and MIPS-based machines and PowerPC-based machines in addition to x86-based machines, and given the relative number of x86-based and non-x86-based machines sold, is another matter; it may have been an arguably-sensible business decision to drop support for non-x86 platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I wasn't clear: + is not a stand in for a prefix.
International Telecommunications Union Recommendation E.123 says otherwise:
Perhaps some phones allow you to press a "+" key to enter your current locale's international prefix (especially on mobile phones, where a trip might change what that prefix is), but I know of no telephone networks where the only way to make an international call requires that you enter a "+" key.
It's an actual character that you can enter on a cellphone, or on a VOIP phone.
...as well as being a "procedural symbol" used in "international telephone numbers ... on letterheads, business cards, bills, etc." (to quote the Summary of E.123).
I haven't looked into the standards, but presumably ISDN handles + as well
Well, E.164 says, in Annex B "Application of international ITU-T E.164-numbers for ISDN"
but that doesn't say anything about the international prefix, perhaps because the international prefix is country-dependent and the digit analysis required to recognize the international prefix is also country-dependent.
What happens inside the network is not necessarily relevant to what people dial.
and surely SS7 does
People don't directly talk to SS7 - again, what happens inside the network is not necessarily relevant to what people dial.
Pray tell, how did you enter + using DTMF?
By pressing "011" on my phone's keypad. Next question? (If the next question is "how did I know I didn't want to dial the operator?", the answer is "because I pressed the "1"s quickly enough after pressing the "0" - next next question?)
I would agree with you if Social programs was 70% of our spending, but in reality it's not even 20%. Defense is the bulk of our spending
Well, bulk of our "discretionary" spending. The New York Times's "Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent" chart (requires Flash) shows that - click on "Hide Mandatory Spending". That's probably what most of the replies to your post are talking about.
and is not needed to be that large.
That I certainly find credible.
USA is the only country that uses MM/DD/YYYY
Well, there's Canada, but they use MM/DD/YYYY and DD/MM/YYYY - and YYYY-MM-DD.
USA is the only country that does not understand 24hr time ...(except the Military)
See previous link.
USA (and others in NANPA) is the only country that does not have ITU international dialling
Presumably you mean "all of NANPA has the same ITU-T E.164 country code".
What is that ITU international dialling you refer to? The +country prefix that works on cellphones? This is available everywhere in the world, U.S. included. As for calling from landlines -- ah, it's some pipe dream
Then the US landline system must have regressed, because I made international calls from the US on a landline, using +country, back in the late '80's or early '90's.
then it's a good thing chem engineers dont make airplanes. it may be chemically the same, but it is not materially, mechanically, or structurally the same.
...which was his point. The person to whom he was responding said "Even a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry would help you understand how you're wrong. There are fundamental differences at the atomic level between things that are cast, forged, and "printed" in the manner that modern metal-based 3D printing works.", and his reply was saying that it's not a matter of chemistry, it's a matter of materials science.
Objective-C literally looks like vomit.
The last time I looked at Objective-C code, I didn't see any partially-digested bits of dinner in it, so I don't think that's true.
I don't see them in the Mac App store - give it a year and you'll only be able to run what Steve Jobs 'brain in a jar' says.
And my prediction is "give it a year and you'll still be able to run stuff not from the App Store". We'll see who's right in a year.
Leave MY computer alone Apple!
Is Apple preventing you from running, say, Firefox on your Mac? Firefox, as far as I know, isn't doing the Flash player check that Safari is doing.
Not just UNIX-like, OS X is CERTIFIED UNIX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification
Actually, only Leopard and Snow Leopard are certified; Lion isn't (and pre-Leopard versions weren't).
Apple now requires all new MacOS X applications to create a proper sandboxing profile,
Apple now requires all new Mac App Store applications to create a proper sandboxing profile. Non-App Store apps need not do so.
We're talking about the alleged copyrights on the APIs for C in the absurd hypothetical case that there is such a thing. It's not reported that CPTN Holdings got any copyrights that I know of. Do you have some such info?
I.e., "this particular property" is "Unix" in the sense of the AT&T code. Is there some particular entity who you might think owns or controls those private equity funds? If so, do you have some info to support that suspicion?
Thanks for that, but that's what - not who. These private equity groups are not required to disclose who owns or controls them. Which is creepy given the history of this particular property.
Which property? The "intellectual property assets" that Novell sold to a Microsoft-created consortium as part of the deal to get acquired by Attachmate (and that are presumably owned by that consortium, not Attachmate)?
AKA Microsoft.
The Attachmate Group is also known as "Microsoft"? Note: "Novell sold some intellectual property assets to a consortium organized by Microsoft as part of the process of being bought by Attachmate" is inequivalent to "Attachmate is Microsoft".
Not att. Attachmate. They got it with Novell. And who owns Attachmate?
The Attachmate Group, the principal investors in which are the private equity groups Francisco Partners, Golden Gate Capital, Elliott Management, and Thoma Bravo.
you'll find plenty of Google, Facebook, and other South Bay company employees living in San Francisco, but not Apple employees
You just haven't looked hard enough.
...they're right.
Srsly. As a whole bunch of posts have said, plenty of companies have in-house cafeterias, and this is Apple's second one.
Maybe it'll save some employees the disappointment of finding out that the Little Mustard Seed isn't a sandwich shop....
I'm betting they'll take cheap diner food, put it on fancy plates, and charge 3x more for it. Amirite?
No, you're not, if its anything like Caffe Macs.
Not surprise, indeed kind of surprised it's 1: not already the case,
It is already the case. It's just a longer walk from, say, Bandley 3, although you can walk to Caffe Macs from Bandley 3.
2: it would raise any interest external to the enterprise concerned,
It's Apple - if somebody replaces a toilet tank in IL1, somebody will think it's one of the most significant world events of the day.
It is hard to take seriously someone who compares a Linux distro, which is the kernel, userland tools, and pretty much every application most anyone could ever need to the Windows OS. If you want to talk about the Windows vs. Linux world OS' then you need to compare only the Linux kernel and userland tools to Windows.
OK, then let's compare the Linux kernel, and those userland tools equivalent to what comes with Windows. Do you have evidence to support a belief that, say, all the libraries in a Linux distribution that provide APIs equivalent to those provided by Windows, and the cores of the major desktop environments (both API cores and tools such as the file manager, Web browser, system configuration apps, etc.) were all written by "competent engineers with portability in mind", whilst the equivalent software in Windows wasn't? If not, then your claim of competent programmers who emphasize security and portability is suddenly lacking in evidence to support it.
By Linux I'm referring to Linux. If one doesn't know that Linux is a kernel then it makes further discussion fruitless, now, doesn't it.
OK, then, if one doesn't know that "Linux" rather than "a Linux distribution" corresponds to "Windows NT's kernel-mode code" rather than "Windows", it makes further discussion fruitless.
I shall assume that when you said "It would be very different, because Linux was written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind. Windows was written by some very competent engineers, and many more with -shall we say - much less competence.", you really meant "It would be very different, because Linux was written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind. Windows NT's kernel-mode code was written by some very competent engineers, and many more with -shall we say - much less competence.", in which case I'd like to see some data to support your assertion that some of the engineers working on said kernel-mode code weren't competent enough to avoid making "[assumptions] about internal representation of data structures, word size, endian-ness, and a host of other issues".
Of course, the post to which you replied was speaking not just of the kernel-mode code, but all the code:
(emphasis mine), so merely speaking about the Linux kernel would not validly reply to that post. Perhaps some of the code in Windows-as-a-whole was written by engineers who couldn't avoid making said assumptions (although earlier versions of NT ran on MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC, and apparently it was originally developed on i860 machines, and current versions run on x86 in 32-bit mode and x86-64 in 64-bit mode and earlier versions ran on Itanium in 64-bit mode, so at least for those versions they managed to avoid making some incorrect assumptions of that sort). However, not all of the code in pick-your-Linux-distribution-as-a-whole necessarily avoids making those assumptions, and porting the distribution as a whole might not be a snap (although Debian, at least, supports several architectures, so either the Debian packages that work on those architectures avoided making those assumptions or got them fixed when they failed to work on those architectures).
They do, but they still have to authenticate to do things users may expect to do with unreliable connectivity, and still end up preventing configuration by the local user. On a "company laptop" it's tolerable but on a handheld it will be a mess.
So what's the difference between a "company laptop" and a tablet? Is there some difference between a laptop - "company" or not - and a tablet, or is the distinction between a company machine (whether laptop or tablet) and a Bring Your Own Device machine (whether laptop or tablet), or is there some magical combination of "not company" and "tablet" that causes an explosion?
Now... what are the characteristics of tablets? Well, tablets are ultraportable computing devices. If a business hands them out to employees expecting them to only ever be used on the corporate network, then... well, why is the business handing them out at all? Why not just go for regular PCs?
Because that subset of "regular PCs" known as "notebooks" or "laptops" are also portable computing devices that are not guaranteed "only to ever be used on the corporate network". Tablets are not some form of magical device that suddenly lets you take your computing with you (regardless of how whether any Apple spokespeople said "magical" during any particular Apple tablet's announcement); that flavor of mobile computing existed before the iPad (or other tablets).
And if they're expecting the users to use them anywhere, then without hacks using VPNs
Perhaps they're not expecting that - perhaps they're expecting them to be used with VPNs if you want to get on the corporate network, just as with laptops.
Micriosoft code is well known for its bit twiddling features. If you come across the leaked code of an old version of Windows, you will be amazed on how much low level code is there. They use the preprocessor and shift opeators arbitrarily.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the preprocessor" here, but using the C preprocessor in your code hardly makes it non-portable bit-twiddling code. Not being careful when using the C shift operators (e.g., writing code that shifts left by a variable amount and that works only if, when the variable amount is equal to the number of bits in the quantity being shifted, the result is 0) can make your code non-portable.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "an old version of Windows"; as has been noted several times in comments here, Windows NT ran on MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC as well as on x86, so what "bit-twiddling features" it used either ran on more than just x86 or was buried in the platform-specific parts of the code.
It would be very different, because Linux was written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind. Windows was written by some very competent engineers, and many more with -shall we say - much less competence. In order to port Windows to ARM they have to find every place where an assumption was made about internal representation of data structures, word size, endian-ness, and a host of other issues.
By "Linux" are you referring to the Linux kernel, in which case you should be comparing it to the NT kernel-mode code, or are you referring to the Linux distributions as a whole, in which case I would not be so quick to assume that all of "Linux" in that sense "was written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind".
(And as for whether even the Linux kernel was "written from the ground up by competent engineers with portability in mind", well, I'll let somebody whom a lot of people would consider a very competent engineer speak to that issue when he said, back in 1991, "It is NOT protable[sic] (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that’s all I have :-(.)
Initially NT was DEC Alpha and x86, but they scrapped Alpha support.
Actually, it initially supported x86, MIPS, and Alpha, with MIPS support coming out earlier than Alpha support, with PowerPC support added later.
The reason is simple. Writing portable code, especially in languages like C and C++ take skill, significant effort, and additional time. Obviously, a company that couldn't be bothered to put the time and effort into develop secure code could not be bothered to invest the effort to make it portable either.
If it supported Alpha and MIPS in addition to x86, they apparently did make an effort to make it portable. Whether it made sense to make the effort to keep it portable, given that this involved testing on various Alpha-based and MIPS-based machines and PowerPC-based machines in addition to x86-based machines, and given the relative number of x86-based and non-x86-based machines sold, is another matter; it may have been an arguably-sensible business decision to drop support for non-x86 platforms.