It never fails. Whenever someone criticizes the current administration for something that isn't the federal government's problem now and never has been, and then someone else retorts with an example of the same (or worse) situation that went wholly uncriticized during the previous Clinton administration, the Bush critic makes like he can't see the parallel or calls it irrelevant.
Oh, it wasn't a problem before and deserves no criticism even in retrospect, but in the case of Bush no holds are barred and he's responsible for everything since we must re-write the rules and ignore separation of powers as needed to provide an excuse to criticize Bush at any cost, including our own credibility.
When will liberals learn that it is hypocritical to call "incompetence" something that is and has always been constitutional standard practice and that even Clinton practiced just because a president they don't like is continuing to do it? How many more times with the liberals weaken their case and future chances of success by preaching hypocrisy to their own choir and failing to hear the murmurs of those they need to address?
Seriously man, I have a lot of beefs with the Bush administration but the response to Katrina isn't one of them, and it only makes you look angry, ignorant, and spiteful to latch onto such weak attempts to bash Bush at any cost when there are so many other good reasons (which stand up to scrutiny, even) to do so.
The Clinton example is a perfect one as it shows what the rules of law are in this situation that so many are crying about (but didn't when a president they liked was in office and dit the same.) This is called a double standard and most intelligent people can spot it immediately. If you want FEMA and the Fed to be primary responders and accountable for this problem, you're going to have to amend the constitution.
And what if he had exposed the corruption and incompetence in Louisiana state and New Orleans city government that diverted federal levy funds to cronies and failed to follow it's own evacuation plans?
What if he predicted that a city that can mobilize the poor to vote with the aid of city and school busses wouldn't bother to do the same to move those same voters out of harm's way because the school busses weren't comfortable enough according to Mayor Nagin and they wanted to wait for the feds to send greyhounds?
And what if he had screamed "murderer" at Clinton and cried "where was FEMA?" and "the federal government and the president are racist because they didn't evacuate or help the 1,000 mostly poor, old, and black people who died in the Chicago Heat Wave?
What about those? Or are those points not on your anti-Bush agenda?
I can sue you because I don't like the color of your eyes, but even in the US, loser pays everyone's expenses for frivolous lawsuits. In the UK loser pays even more often.
A lawsuit founded on a physical impossibility is pretty much a shoo-in for frivolous status.
Yeah. Dead and/or unfounded FUD. I'm afraid you're wrong. This is already in TiVo. My replays are still unaffected (54xx and 55xx.) And, given that one can simulate a replayTV "mother-ship" (though I'm not -- yet, but I do have my current firmware backed up just in case) it will never happen to a moderately-savvy replayTV owner.
Sorry about that TiVO choice you made. Better luck next time.
What? Damage? To a lens? From a light? What physical property would allow such a (cool) thing to happen (this isn't a megawatt laser!) I'm afraid not, but nice FUD!
Of course, if on your planet light damages lenses, you could always opt to leave your camera at home, or in your car, or with the security desk like I often have to do when visiting certain facilites. But wait, what's this? From TFA:
Companies commonly confiscate digital cameras temporarily from visitors coming to their labs or confidential meetings. "But you can't confiscate a phone. Someone might be expecting an important call," Patel said.
Oh really? I'm afraid that yes, yes you can -- important phone call possibility notwithstanding, many places (and not just DOD-security type places) can and do. They will either let you leave your camera phone with the security desk, in your car, or anywhere you like, but you can't bring it inside. And they won't forward your important call. That's what voicemail is for.
OK, now that I've skewered some of the silliness going on here, I'll add some of my own: maybe they'll put these in libraries soon, or even in the books themselves to prevent NEC's cool new page-scanning-with-a-cellphone technology themselves.;)
I doubt this will be added to old replay's in any case, since they haven't even reomoved the automatic commerical skip or sharing shows over the net feature from the 54xx series that got the original owner (SonicBlue) sued into bankruptcy.
YMMV on the new 55xx models, but it's still possible to get the 54xx's on ebay and such. Moreover, it's possible to cut replay's mothership out of the loop entirely, so there's always a solution, though I prefer to pay my ($10) monthly fee because it's worth it and right.
Right. But with a replayTV or a mythTV, even PPV doesn't expire or get deleted. And you can automatically skip commercials (with the replayTV, at least.) People need to know they have choices.
If ReplayTV was still developing new versions, I'd expect their licensing of MPEG-2 which makes Macrovision support compulsary would require them to make the same restrictions as TiVo does now.
If?!?
ReplayTV was bought from the failed SonicBlue by Denon/Marantz Holdings. ReplayTV then released the new 5500 series which does not include the same restrictions as TiVo. ReplayTV is doing pretty well these days.
In fact, even the new replayTV's are much better than TiVo in most ways (unless you dig DRM.) But the best systems are the original 54xx series ReplayTV, which you can still buy if you look hard.
Sorry for the reality check to the face there, but that's the truth.
For those who don't want to deal with wondering what TiVo will take from them next, but also don't want the hassle of building your own MythTV box, there is an alternative .
We are still very happy with our ReplayTV 54xx series (which is still available in some places, incuding eBAY, but have ben replaced by the 55xx series after Denon/Marantz Holdings bought ReplatTV from the failed SonicBlue.) A lot of people avoided these and went for TiVo a few years back because SonicBlue's future was uncertain. It's been a pleasure to find that Denon/Marantz has kept all of the existing features on old models, only removed auto-commercial skip from the new models, reduced the monthly guide fee, and actually improved on SonicBlue's already pretty good customer service.
A ReplayTV has all of the Tivo features except advertisements, control flags, and predicting what you want to record. Instead you can fully control what it records and when, using simple "themes" or search words that also will avoid re-runs for you. Plus, a Replay includes automatic commercial skip (no need to press any button, it detects and omits commercials -- or not if you disable that feature,) 30-second skip without a hack, and most importantly open source apps for getting recordings off the replay (no way for them to stop or limit this!,) sharing them over the net or LAN, full remote control, scheduling, or even making your own guide service. Plus the monthly subscription is cheaper ($0 if you make your own guide.)
MythTV is cool, but it's not a good solution for my parents or grandparents. ReplayTV is.
As qwbiz already indicated: it's easier to accept any number than screen some out. Note that they accept business numbers too, but there is no law against telemarketing to a business number, so you can't complain about that and get any enforcement as you can with a residential line.
It is illegal to make auto-dialed calls to any phone for which the user may be charged for airtime. And any telemarketing company with people punching the tone buttons isn't calling enough to matter. I honestly don't believe any manual-dialing telemarketing firms still exist -- do you know of any?
At any rate -- I didn't say that registering your cellphone on the do not call list will do harm. But you did say "Just a heads up, soon it will not be illegal for them to call cell phones unless they are registered on the do not call list. I would suggest that everyone in the US register their cell phones on http://www.donotcall.gov/" which implies that the law is changing (whatever is "illegal" now, "soon . . . will not be.") Yet you provided no evidence to back this up.
Then you even admitted that was pure speculation based the creation of a "411 wireless directory that will be implemented in 2006" which, is not anything like a certainty. Got any links to back even that claim up? No? Try this one then and quit with the FUD.
And now, despite being called on two unfounded claims stated as facts, you're still arguing. Weird, that.
I just realized you might not see my reply, since it's in reply to a reply to your post. Please read this and, if you won't do it to help geminidomino, please consider doing it to help Wikipedia. This article in particular is in great need of someone with your knowledge.
I'm afraid he cornered himself and had nowhere to go. Though certainly open to criticism, especially with regard to the dubious value of using IQ tests to assess intelligence, The Bell Curve data haven't really been succussfully debunked. Check out the Wikipedia page on Race and Intelligence and you'll see that even more modern research into IQ test scores and race results in data very similar to those published in (only two chapters of) that notorious tome.
And, if the debunking of those data, or indeed the entire work, were as easy as Nasarius claims then he might do us all a favor and head on over to the Wikipedia Talk Page and enlighten the dozen or so serious editors and researchers who have put in hundreds of hours on this topic and are still having quite a hard time doing so (try as they might!) Note also that they, and I, have all googled the topic as he suggests and found lots of opinion pieces explaining how such research is inherently racist and conceptually flawed, but nothing to indicate that the data were (or are) bogus or that the conclusions reached are wrong.
So, he sort of lost his cool when you called him on something which he had long-assumed to be "false" just because he read it somewhere but without any real investigation or analysis of the available data. And because it's politically incorrect to think otherwise. You can't really blame him; it is embarrassing when that happens.
Thanks . . . for stealing my night. I just spent three hours reading the Talk Page for that article. This is where the editors argue about what should be in the article and how it should be written.
With few exceptions (some guy named Ultramarine is the only one I can recall) that is by far the most intelligent, informed, detailed, reasoned, and, well, nice "argument" I've ever read. Kudos to the Wiki editors for being so level-headed and sane. It's like the exact opposite of reading/. with a +5 modifier on troll and flamebait and -5 on everything else.
It really makes me want to get more involved and help out more over there.
Thought so. Let me help re-write your OP a little more appropriately then:
"Just to regurgitate some nonsense one of my friends forwarded to me, I, with no reason or qualification, wildly speculate that soon it will not be illegal for them to call cell phones unless they are registered on the do not call list. If, like me, you're supid enough to perpetuate unsubstantiated and even previously-debunked FUD, then I would suggest that everyone in the US register their cell phones on http://www.donotcall.gov/"
Oh my. (1) I asked for you to not fill in the missing ones and most importantly (2) That's the lame joke in the post to which I replied. Except that moron got it (closer to) right. It's Soviet Russia and it's just not funny anymore. Do you even know where that comes from? Is that idiot comedian even still alive? Sigh.
How about my reply; did you read that? I'm suggesting this wasn't the only violation. Sure, I don't know for sure that they were annoying everyone in other ways prior to this, but similarly you don't know they were canned for just the emails.
It could have been the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, or the first real policy violation management could find to get rid of some annoying cunts. Who knows, but you be sure to keep raging against that corporate machine!
Did you read the actual emails or just the summary? They sound like nasty little harpies who probably annoyed half the staff.
Sometimes management (and staff) is just waiting for the office bitches (male or female) to violate a policy so they can fire the annoying bickerers.
Or it could be overreaction, but I have a hard time believing a really valuable employee who is otherwise well-liked, hard-working, and useful would get fired for this.
Please let this (bad) joke die. You didn't even do it right, not that it would have been funny either way.
Preemptive strike (please don't add any missing ones):
But do they run linux email clients?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those
1. Flame co-worker via email
2. ???
3. Profit!
I don't have email access you insensitive clod!
I, for one, welcome our new email-flaming overlords.
Rude emails at work? Won't somebody think of the children?!
Well, in my day we used real flamethrowers to flame each other, and we liked it that way!
Ecpecting a dupe post in 5, 4, 3, . . .
Netcraft confirms, email flaming is dead . . .
All your jobs are belong to email flamewar.
George Bush is responsible somehow.
I have email flamewars at work all the time and there's never been a prob%^%@13#^$3@#$*^&^NO CARRIER
The "5.8GHz" refers to analog circuitry that oscillates at that rate to generate an analog signal for propagation in the air or other media. This is very different from clock rates in digital circuits, where millions of transistors organized into chains of combinatorial circuits (logic AND, OR, etc.) which process digital (1 and 0, if you will) signals before their outputs are captured by memory (sequential, or storage elements) all of which are activated by a synchronous clock. There are no transistors that are fast enough to do any significant number of logical operations between clock edges of a 5.8GHz clock (~172 picoseconds, or 1.72413793 × 10^-10 seconds).
The more transistors shrink and the lower their operating voltage gets, the faster they get, but the lower the noise margin and greater the chance for error (failure to properly distinguish a 1 from a 0.) But, even with the lower voltage, shrinking the transistors and packing more into smaller spaces creates heat dissipation problems. This, and managing design complexity, are the motivation for multiple cores. Not sure what you were trying to get at, but I am sure it was painfully wrong.
The first quantum computer will not be the last processor anyone ever needs any more than 640kB is "enough for anyone."
I hope you are not suggesting that nuclear bombs violate the laws of physics, because they do not, but I would not really be surprised given the rest of your post.
In conclusion: be surprised if this happens any time soon. Oh, and please, stick to programming very high-level languages, and only those with good compilers.
Slashdot Mirror
It never fails. Whenever someone criticizes the current administration for something that isn't the federal government's problem now and never has been, and then someone else retorts with an example of the same (or worse) situation that went wholly uncriticized during the previous Clinton administration, the Bush critic makes like he can't see the parallel or calls it irrelevant.
Oh, it wasn't a problem before and deserves no criticism even in retrospect, but in the case of Bush no holds are barred and he's responsible for everything since we must re-write the rules and ignore separation of powers as needed to provide an excuse to criticize Bush at any cost, including our own credibility.
When will liberals learn that it is hypocritical to call "incompetence" something that is and has always been constitutional standard practice and that even Clinton practiced just because a president they don't like is continuing to do it? How many more times with the liberals weaken their case and future chances of success by preaching hypocrisy to their own choir and failing to hear the murmurs of those they need to address?
Seriously man, I have a lot of beefs with the Bush administration but the response to Katrina isn't one of them, and it only makes you look angry, ignorant, and spiteful to latch onto such weak attempts to bash Bush at any cost when there are so many other good reasons (which stand up to scrutiny, even) to do so.
The Clinton example is a perfect one as it shows what the rules of law are in this situation that so many are crying about (but didn't when a president they liked was in office and dit the same.) This is called a double standard and most intelligent people can spot it immediately. If you want FEMA and the Fed to be primary responders and accountable for this problem, you're going to have to amend the constitution.
And what if he had exposed the corruption and incompetence in Louisiana state and New Orleans city government that diverted federal levy funds to cronies and failed to follow it's own evacuation plans?
What if he predicted that a city that can mobilize the poor to vote with the aid of city and school busses wouldn't bother to do the same to move those same voters out of harm's way because the school busses weren't comfortable enough according to Mayor Nagin and they wanted to wait for the feds to send greyhounds?
And what if he had screamed "murderer" at Clinton and cried "where was FEMA?" and "the federal government and the president are racist because they didn't evacuate or help the 1,000 mostly poor, old, and black people who died in the Chicago Heat Wave?
What about those? Or are those points not on your anti-Bush agenda?
With enough time of direct exposure, sure. But do you think they're using the sun to implement this?
Oh, and please STFU or login so I can use my prefs to mod you out of my sight.
And how far did that one go?
Exactly.
I can sue you because I don't like the color of your eyes, but even in the US, loser pays everyone's expenses for frivolous lawsuits. In the UK loser pays even more often.
A lawsuit founded on a physical impossibility is pretty much a shoo-in for frivolous status.
Yeah. Dead and/or unfounded FUD. I'm afraid you're wrong. This is already in TiVo. My replays are still unaffected (54xx and 55xx.) And, given that one can simulate a replayTV "mother-ship" (though I'm not -- yet, but I do have my current firmware backed up just in case) it will never happen to a moderately-savvy replayTV owner.
Sorry about that TiVO choice you made. Better luck next time.
What? Damage? To a lens? From a light? What physical property would allow such a (cool) thing to happen (this isn't a megawatt laser!) I'm afraid not, but nice FUD!
;)
Of course, if on your planet light damages lenses, you could always opt to leave your camera at home, or in your car, or with the security desk like I often have to do when visiting certain facilites. But wait, what's this? From TFA:
Companies commonly confiscate digital cameras temporarily from visitors coming to their labs or confidential meetings. "But you can't confiscate a phone. Someone might be expecting an important call," Patel said.
Oh really? I'm afraid that yes, yes you can -- important phone call possibility notwithstanding, many places (and not just DOD-security type places) can and do. They will either let you leave your camera phone with the security desk, in your car, or anywhere you like, but you can't bring it inside. And they won't forward your important call. That's what voicemail is for.
OK, now that I've skewered some of the silliness going on here, I'll add some of my own: maybe they'll put these in libraries soon, or even in the books themselves to prevent NEC's cool new page-scanning-with-a-cellphone technology themselves.
Link to your source please?
I doubt this will be added to old replay's in any case, since they haven't even reomoved the automatic commerical skip or sharing shows over the net feature from the 54xx series that got the original owner (SonicBlue) sued into bankruptcy.
YMMV on the new 55xx models, but it's still possible to get the 54xx's on ebay and such. Moreover, it's possible to cut replay's mothership out of the loop entirely, so there's always a solution, though I prefer to pay my ($10) monthly fee because it's worth it and right.
Right. But with a replayTV or a mythTV, even PPV doesn't expire or get deleted. And you can automatically skip commercials (with the replayTV, at least.) People need to know they have choices.
Try this See this post for more info.
If ReplayTV was still developing new versions, I'd expect their licensing of MPEG-2 which makes Macrovision support compulsary would require them to make the same restrictions as TiVo does now.
If?!?
ReplayTV was bought from the failed SonicBlue by Denon/Marantz Holdings. ReplayTV then released the new 5500 series which does not include the same restrictions as TiVo. ReplayTV is doing pretty well these days.
In fact, even the new replayTV's are much better than TiVo in most ways (unless you dig DRM.) But the best systems are the original 54xx series ReplayTV, which you can still buy if you look hard.
Sorry for the reality check to the face there, but that's the truth.
For those who don't want to deal with wondering what TiVo will take from them next, but also don't want the hassle of building your own MythTV box, there is an alternative .
We are still very happy with our ReplayTV 54xx series (which is still available in some places, incuding eBAY, but have ben replaced by the 55xx series after Denon/Marantz Holdings bought ReplatTV from the failed SonicBlue.) A lot of people avoided these and went for TiVo a few years back because SonicBlue's future was uncertain. It's been a pleasure to find that Denon/Marantz has kept all of the existing features on old models, only removed auto-commercial skip from the new models, reduced the monthly guide fee, and actually improved on SonicBlue's already pretty good customer service.
A ReplayTV has all of the Tivo features except advertisements, control flags, and predicting what you want to record. Instead you can fully control what it records and when, using simple "themes" or search words that also will avoid re-runs for you. Plus, a Replay includes automatic commercial skip (no need to press any button, it detects and omits commercials -- or not if you disable that feature,) 30-second skip without a hack, and most importantly open source apps for getting recordings off the replay (no way for them to stop or limit this!,) sharing them over the net or LAN, full remote control, scheduling, or even making your own guide service. Plus the monthly subscription is cheaper ($0 if you make your own guide.)
MythTV is cool, but it's not a good solution for my parents or grandparents. ReplayTV is.
As qwbiz already indicated: it's easier to accept any number than screen some out. Note that they accept business numbers too, but there is no law against telemarketing to a business number, so you can't complain about that and get any enforcement as you can with a residential line.
It is illegal to make auto-dialed calls to any phone for which the user may be charged for airtime. And any telemarketing company with people punching the tone buttons isn't calling enough to matter. I honestly don't believe any manual-dialing telemarketing firms still exist -- do you know of any?
At any rate -- I didn't say that registering your cellphone on the do not call list will do harm. But you did say "Just a heads up, soon it will not be illegal for them to call cell phones unless they are registered on the do not call list. I would suggest that everyone in the US register their cell phones on http://www.donotcall.gov/" which implies that the law is changing (whatever is "illegal" now, "soon . . . will not be.") Yet you provided no evidence to back this up.
Then you even admitted that was pure speculation based the creation of a "411 wireless directory that will be implemented in 2006" which, is not anything like a certainty. Got any links to back even that claim up? No? Try this one then and quit with the FUD.
And now, despite being called on two unfounded claims stated as facts, you're still arguing. Weird, that.
I just realized you might not see my reply, since it's in reply to a reply to your post. Please read this and, if you won't do it to help geminidomino, please consider doing it to help Wikipedia. This article in particular is in great need of someone with your knowledge.
I'm afraid he cornered himself and had nowhere to go. Though certainly open to criticism, especially with regard to the dubious value of using IQ tests to assess intelligence, The Bell Curve data haven't really been succussfully debunked. Check out the Wikipedia page on Race and Intelligence and you'll see that even more modern research into IQ test scores and race results in data very similar to those published in (only two chapters of) that notorious tome.
And, if the debunking of those data, or indeed the entire work, were as easy as Nasarius claims then he might do us all a favor and head on over to the Wikipedia Talk Page and enlighten the dozen or so serious editors and researchers who have put in hundreds of hours on this topic and are still having quite a hard time doing so (try as they might!) Note also that they, and I, have all googled the topic as he suggests and found lots of opinion pieces explaining how such research is inherently racist and conceptually flawed, but nothing to indicate that the data were (or are) bogus or that the conclusions reached are wrong.
So, he sort of lost his cool when you called him on something which he had long-assumed to be "false" just because he read it somewhere but without any real investigation or analysis of the available data. And because it's politically incorrect to think otherwise. You can't really blame him; it is embarrassing when that happens.
Thanks . . . for stealing my night. I just spent three hours reading the Talk Page for that article. This is where the editors argue about what should be in the article and how it should be written.
/. with a +5 modifier on troll and flamebait and -5 on everything else.
With few exceptions (some guy named Ultramarine is the only one I can recall) that is by far the most intelligent, informed, detailed, reasoned, and, well, nice "argument" I've ever read. Kudos to the Wiki editors for being so level-headed and sane. It's like the exact opposite of reading
It really makes me want to get more involved and help out more over there.
Thought so. Let me help re-write your OP a little more appropriately then:
"Just to regurgitate some nonsense one of my friends forwarded to me, I, with no reason or qualification, wildly speculate that soon it will not be illegal for them to call cell phones unless they are registered on the do not call list. If, like me, you're supid enough to perpetuate unsubstantiated and even previously-debunked FUD, then I would suggest that everyone in the US register their cell phones on http://www.donotcall.gov/"
Hope that helps.
Thank you for posting this.
Oh my. (1) I asked for you to not fill in the missing ones and most importantly (2) That's the lame joke in the post to which I replied. Except that moron got it (closer to) right. It's Soviet Russia and it's just not funny anymore. Do you even know where that comes from? Is that idiot comedian even still alive? Sigh.
Isn't there some slight overlap between anti-virus companies and virus writers? I think so. Your post may not be that far off.
Remember: cuo bono?
Sure, these days botnet renters and others besides anti-virus peddlers stand to benefit from viruses, but who knows? (/TINFOIL)
How about my reply; did you read that? I'm suggesting this wasn't the only violation. Sure, I don't know for sure that they were annoying everyone in other ways prior to this, but similarly you don't know they were canned for just the emails.
It could have been the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, or the first real policy violation management could find to get rid of some annoying cunts. Who knows, but you be sure to keep raging against that corporate machine!
It's hugely disappointing and unfunny. The sandwich looks pretty good though, better than the chicks (warning: catfight fantasy spoiler link.)
Did you read the actual emails or just the summary? They sound like nasty little harpies who probably annoyed half the staff.
Sometimes management (and staff) is just waiting for the office bitches (male or female) to violate a policy so they can fire the annoying bickerers.
Or it could be overreaction, but I have a hard time believing a really valuable employee who is otherwise well-liked, hard-working, and useful would get fired for this.
Please let this (bad) joke die. You didn't even do it right, not that it would have been funny either way.
Preemptive strike (please don't add any missing ones):
But do they run linux email clients?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those
1. Flame co-worker via email
2. ???
3. Profit!
I don't have email access you insensitive clod!
I, for one, welcome our new email-flaming overlords.
Rude emails at work? Won't somebody think of the children?!
Well, in my day we used real flamethrowers to flame each other, and we liked it that way!
Ecpecting a dupe post in 5, 4, 3, . . .
Netcraft confirms, email flaming is dead . . .
All your jobs are belong to email flamewar.
George Bush is responsible somehow.
I have email flamewars at work all the time and there's never been a prob%^%@13#^$3@#$*^&^NO CARRIER
email catfight ends in dismissals. Film at 11.
The "5.8GHz" refers to analog circuitry that oscillates at that rate to generate an analog signal for propagation in the air or other media. This is very different from clock rates in digital circuits, where millions of transistors organized into chains of combinatorial circuits (logic AND, OR, etc.) which process digital (1 and 0, if you will) signals before their outputs are captured by memory (sequential, or storage elements) all of which are activated by a synchronous clock. There are no transistors that are fast enough to do any significant number of logical operations between clock edges of a 5.8GHz clock (~172 picoseconds, or 1.72413793 × 10^-10 seconds).
The more transistors shrink and the lower their operating voltage gets, the faster they get, but the lower the noise margin and greater the chance for error (failure to properly distinguish a 1 from a 0.) But, even with the lower voltage, shrinking the transistors and packing more into smaller spaces creates heat dissipation problems. This, and managing design complexity, are the motivation for multiple cores. Not sure what you were trying to get at, but I am sure it was painfully wrong.
The first quantum computer will not be the last processor anyone ever needs any more than 640kB is "enough for anyone."
I hope you are not suggesting that nuclear bombs violate the laws of physics, because they do not, but I would not really be surprised given the rest of your post.
In conclusion: be surprised if this happens any time soon. Oh, and please, stick to programming very high-level languages, and only those with good compilers.
Keep a healthy skepticism,