Hence the reason why recent hardware projects like REX and NADSBox have been important. NADSBox adds an external hard disk. REX is a completely plug-and-play Option ROM which you can switch OptROMs and save/restore full RAM images to flash.
"To get any boost of performance over C, you have to be an extremely good assembly coder..."
Well that may be true but it's a distinction without a difference. I find most serious assembly language "coders" from the CS side of the house are excellent programmers/engineers. They are going to write MUCH faster assembly programs than any compiler will generate. They understand modern coding patterns... OOP, state charts, algorithmic complexity but they adapt techniques to fit a given problem on a given machine far more efficiently than a good C programmer. With C and certainly CPP you're locked into a certain development style that encourages maintainability over all else. When you're programming in assembly language you have more degrees of freedom to optimize and the rules for "maintainable" code are quite a bit more liberal.
The distinction should be solely between encrypted and unencrypted traffic. Encrypted traffic presumes an expectation of privacy. Unencrypted *should* not.
I think you're overreading this ruling. The EPA is quite likely to be the blunt instrument for regulating CO2, and they are required to under the Clean Air Act.
Better would be a significant energy bill but Republicans and Conservadems have made a more intelligent approach impossible.
The complainants were smacked down unanimously simply because suing the power companies is the wrong target. They are free to sue EPA once it hands down regs, and SCOTUS made this clear. I'm not sure why they thought anything different would happen here.
*Was* a community organizer. Your meme has expired. Barack Obama is PRESIDENT. He is the only man eligible to be President aside from Jimmy Carter that can claim that, period, end of story. He has experience being the most powerful executive in the world.
Sarah Palin on the other hand... hmm... governor of a state of low population, couldn't hack it and quit.
You are right. The FCC can't grant powers to itself. If it does overreach, it gets spanked in the courts. So it is unclear what you are frightened about... the checks and balances are in place, and by your own example, quite effective.
The current rule making, as all successful rule making, is based on EXISTING AUTHORITY ALREADY GRANTED BY CONGRESS. The FCC tried to use its existing authority to create net neutrality rules. The court didn't like how they justified their authority so they sent the FCC back to the drawing board with reasoning that forms a roadmap for the current iteration of the rules. That was version 1.0. This is version 2.0.
Consider the pace at which Congress is able to pass laws. It is glacially slow. In our system of government, enforcement and interpretation are left to the executive branch and the courts. It is the only thing that makes the whole system work... that other branches closer to the practical problems of implementing the law are left to "fill in the blanks." Congress INTENTIONALLY leaves those blanks because it cannot predict every eventuality.
"the document does not make many guarantees about freedoms for enterprises or corporations of any sort,"
Mostly true... but it does guarantee freedom of speech for exactly one type of organization: The Press. Guess that's the exception that proves the rule.
It all hinges on what intellectual property Arrington has. I mean, a web tablet... is that innovative? Really? Web only devices have been around for some time. Making an oversized PDA that only does web browsing does not equal innovation. So if all the IP he has is trademarks that Fusion Garage is not using, well, game over. Take it as a life lesson and move on.
Where do individual authors get off thinking that their incremental improvements on the ideas of other inventors which they released out into the world as a working product get to keep other people from making incremental improvements on top of it and distributing their own products?
Where do authors get off thinking they are doing more than riffing off someone else's chord?
And where do they get off thinking the government needs to enforce a monopoly for them on these derivative ideas?
I'm not a journalist, so I don't have an obligation to write an unbiased summary. I added my interpretation intentionally. If you want an alternative bias, just read TFA.
Doing something that should be legal, in a country that loves liberty, for profit, doesn't make it more or less wrong.
Fuck all these laws that control how we use stuff we own!
[/sarcasm]
Yes... so are you arguing that the government has a right to control how we do everything because we permit it to control some things? Where does liberty come into the equation then?
The general idea is that your right to swing your arms stops at your neighbor's chin.
The Supreme Court may have found a corporation to be a person, but I don't.
All these examples you gave are pretty weak. Disable your catalytic converter, and you have a fairly direct effect on air pollution which impacts you and your neighbors health. Roll back your odometer... there's really no reason to do that ever except to cheat someone. That's effectively interfering with an official measurement. Remove seat belts in a car... again, a safety issue.
Now, a game console. There is a legitimate purpose to doing that: running unsigned games on hardware you own (did you sign a contract saying otherwise when you bought your console?). That shouldn't be illegal, if you believe in liberty.
I understand you were correcting another poster, but if you agree that this is an issue of the government intruding on personal freedom, it shouldn't matter whether he was modifying the consoles for profit. The owners were exercising their own freedom in getting the console modified. They paid someone else to do it. That doesn't bear on the question of whether it is right to imprison someone for taking a soldering iron to some computer equipment.
So are you also going to tell me what I can eat (no big macs I presume?) and what recreational chemicals I can enjoy (no nicotine or booze?) because those can increase your costs as well? What about hobbies? Going to tell me that I can't engage in skydiving or bungee jumping because of the increased risk of injury? Where does it end?
Where does it end? Where does it start?
Sweet baby Jesus... there are rules to rational discussions. Here's an important one: you can't just make shit up.
More charitably, you just demonstrated a particular variant of the logical fallacy known as the "slippery slope argument." You can't or won't argue on the merits, so you say this could lead to this which could lead to that made up remotely possible thing. You saved some time I guess and skipped right to making up the remotely possible thing.
Hey buddy, what do you call it when my premiums go up because *you* decided you could go without insurance?
It shifts the costs to everyone else. Is that fair? Is that the conservative way? Don't pay your fair share, and then when you get sick, screw your creditor (the hospital) and pass the costs along to the rest of society. Real nice.
The system is actually more efficient if the government administrates that. At least I will have the peace of mind that, along the way, if you made enough to pay in, you did, because you had to pay tax.
RFID is very appropriate for this. It's short range... you just need to walk your reader by the stack it will tell you if it's there or not. That is, it's a heuristic that tells you whether you need to bother looking closer, which presumably would save time.
Also, the reader + database could tell you if you are near a book which is in the wrong place, and which book it is. Then you look closer, pull the problem book for re-shelving.
Think about how many young people are being graduated all over the world today.
Lots of green recruits that think they know everything but don't. Welcome to Software.
Think how are they eager to work for way less than you get.
Commensurate with the quality of their work (where quality includes correctness, time to completion, and maintainability at least) since they have no Experience...
Think how faster than you they are at learning new things.
Umm, Bullshit. You're telling me that after 25 some years of learning within this field I'll have a harder time learning new tech? There's really not much new under the sun, Son. Did you know C# just got Lambda expressions?
Now where'd you put the only asset you have, i.e. experience?
Pretty high... apparently you haven't read any job listings, since HR drones do too.
Slashdot Mirror
What free market? If there was a free market you wouldn't need a license to make a competitive cable.
Maybe you're thinking of the TRS-80 Model 4P: http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/trs80_4p/
Hence the reason why recent hardware projects like REX and NADSBox have been important. NADSBox adds an external hard disk. REX is a completely plug-and-play Option ROM which you can switch OptROMs and save/restore full RAM images to flash.
"To get any boost of performance over C, you have to be an extremely good assembly coder..."
Well that may be true but it's a distinction without a difference. I find most serious assembly language "coders" from the CS side of the house are excellent programmers/engineers. They are going to write MUCH faster assembly programs than any compiler will generate. They understand modern coding patterns... OOP, state charts, algorithmic complexity but they adapt techniques to fit a given problem on a given machine far more efficiently than a good C programmer. With C and certainly CPP you're locked into a certain development style that encourages maintainability over all else. When you're programming in assembly language you have more degrees of freedom to optimize and the rules for "maintainable" code are quite a bit more liberal.
The distinction should be solely between encrypted and unencrypted traffic. Encrypted traffic presumes an expectation of privacy. Unencrypted *should* not.
I think you're overreading this ruling. The EPA is quite likely to be the blunt instrument for regulating CO2, and they are required to under the Clean Air Act.
Better would be a significant energy bill but Republicans and Conservadems have made a more intelligent approach impossible.
The complainants were smacked down unanimously simply because suing the power companies is the wrong target. They are free to sue EPA once it hands down regs, and SCOTUS made this clear. I'm not sure why they thought anything different would happen here.
*Was* a community organizer. Your meme has expired. Barack Obama is PRESIDENT. He is the only man eligible to be President aside from Jimmy Carter that can claim that, period, end of story. He has experience being the most powerful executive in the world.
Sarah Palin on the other hand... hmm... governor of a state of low population, couldn't hack it and quit.
You are right. The FCC can't grant powers to itself. If it does overreach, it gets spanked in the courts. So it is unclear what you are frightened about... the checks and balances are in place, and by your own example, quite effective.
The current rule making, as all successful rule making, is based on EXISTING AUTHORITY ALREADY GRANTED BY CONGRESS. The FCC tried to use its existing authority to create net neutrality rules. The court didn't like how they justified their authority so they sent the FCC back to the drawing board with reasoning that forms a roadmap for the current iteration of the rules. That was version 1.0. This is version 2.0.
Consider the pace at which Congress is able to pass laws. It is glacially slow. In our system of government, enforcement and interpretation are left to the executive branch and the courts. It is the only thing that makes the whole system work... that other branches closer to the practical problems of implementing the law are left to "fill in the blanks." Congress INTENTIONALLY leaves those blanks because it cannot predict every eventuality.
"the document does not make many guarantees about freedoms for enterprises or corporations of any sort,"
Mostly true... but it does guarantee freedom of speech for exactly one type of organization: The Press. Guess that's the exception that proves the rule.
It all hinges on what intellectual property Arrington has. I mean, a web tablet... is that innovative? Really? Web only devices have been around for some time. Making an oversized PDA that only does web browsing does not equal innovation.
So if all the IP he has is trademarks that Fusion Garage is not using, well, game over. Take it as a life lesson and move on.
Obstruficates? Is that like encapsulates, or abstracts?
Where do individual authors get off thinking that their incremental improvements on the ideas of other inventors which they released out into the world as a working product get to keep other people from making incremental improvements on top of it and distributing their own products?
Where do authors get off thinking they are doing more than riffing off someone else's chord?
And where do they get off thinking the government needs to enforce a monopoly for them on these derivative ideas?
No it doesn't. Read it again... it says "Krause says Matthew Krippen advertised online and had a large clientele."
That's presumably a fact, but it doesn't say anything about advertising specifically to run pirated games.
I'm not a journalist, so I don't have an obligation to write an unbiased summary. I added my interpretation intentionally. If you want an alternative bias, just read TFA.
Doing something that should be legal, in a country that loves liberty, for profit, doesn't make it more or less wrong.
It is quite popular to make homebrew games for consoles. Just, say, google for "homebrew wii games"
Here's a
Linux distro for the Wii:
To run it, you would have to mod the console violating the DMCA.
QED.
Seriously? Are there legitimate applications for modifying an odometer other than cheating people?
There are legitimate reasons to jailbreak an iPhone, or a game console: running unsigned binaries on equipment you own.
The government shouldn't take your liberty to protect a business model.
Fuck all these laws that control how we use stuff we own!
[/sarcasm]
Yes... so are you arguing that the government has a right to control how we do everything because we permit it to control some things? Where does liberty come into the equation then?
The general idea is that your right to swing your arms stops at your neighbor's chin.
The Supreme Court may have found a corporation to be a person, but I don't.
All these examples you gave are pretty weak. Disable your catalytic converter, and you have a fairly direct effect on air pollution which impacts you and your neighbors health. Roll back your odometer... there's really no reason to do that ever except to cheat someone. That's effectively interfering with an official measurement. Remove seat belts in a car... again, a safety issue.
Now, a game console. There is a legitimate purpose to doing that: running unsigned games on hardware you own (did you sign a contract saying otherwise when you bought your console?). That shouldn't be illegal, if you believe in liberty.
Well, it sounds like you have an opinion. But I'm not really sure since you didn't say anything substantive.
I understand you were correcting another poster, but if you agree that this is an issue of the government intruding on personal freedom, it shouldn't matter whether he was modifying the consoles for profit. The owners were exercising their own freedom in getting the console modified. They paid someone else to do it. That doesn't bear on the question of whether it is right to imprison someone for taking a soldering iron to some computer equipment.
So it falls on us to explain it to anyone who will listen.
Pick one person to explain it to today while you are fired up.
So are you also going to tell me what I can eat (no big macs I presume?) and what recreational chemicals I can enjoy (no nicotine or booze?) because those can increase your costs as well? What about hobbies? Going to tell me that I can't engage in skydiving or bungee jumping because of the increased risk of injury? Where does it end?
Where does it end? Where does it start?
Sweet baby Jesus... there are rules to rational discussions. Here's an important one: you can't just make shit up.
More charitably, you just demonstrated a particular variant of the logical fallacy known as the "slippery slope argument." You can't or won't argue on the merits, so you say this could lead to this which could lead to that made up remotely possible thing. You saved some time I guess and skipped right to making up the remotely possible thing.
Hey buddy, what do you call it when my premiums go up because *you* decided you could go without insurance?
It shifts the costs to everyone else. Is that fair? Is that the conservative way? Don't pay your fair share, and then when you get sick, screw your creditor (the hospital) and pass the costs along to the rest of society. Real nice.
The system is actually more efficient if the government administrates that. At least I will have the peace of mind that, along the way, if you made enough to pay in, you did, because you had to pay tax.
RFID is very appropriate for this. It's short range... you just need to walk your reader by the stack it will tell you if it's there or not. That is, it's a heuristic that tells you whether you need to bother looking closer, which presumably would save time.
Also, the reader + database could tell you if you are near a book which is in the wrong place, and which book it is. Then you look closer, pull the problem book for re-shelving.
Think about how many young people are being graduated all over the world today.
Lots of green recruits that think they know everything but don't. Welcome to Software.
Think how are they eager to work for way less than you get.
Commensurate with the quality of their work (where quality includes correctness, time to completion, and maintainability at least) since they have no Experience...
Think how faster than you they are at learning new things.
Umm, Bullshit. You're telling me that after 25 some years of learning within this field I'll have a harder time learning new tech? There's really not much new under the sun, Son. Did you know C# just got Lambda expressions?
Now where'd you put the only asset you have, i.e. experience?
Pretty high... apparently you haven't read any job listings, since HR drones do too.