Very few people carry around a PDA, GPS, computer, and cell phone. Pretty much only rich people. And even many people who own them all don't carry them all the time. That's the whole point of small specialized devices -- so you can take just one with you. if you're always going to carry them all, might as well just get a laptop and carry that around, or one of the more powerful cell phone / PDA hybrids.
In short, this may fix your problem, but it's not a very common problem. I personally know about 2 people who own PDAs at all.
I see wireless as primarily usefull when you're not 2 feet away. If the devices are within 2 feet of each other, how is Bluetooth easier than just hooking them up with a cable that takes about 1 second to plug in?
But that's nitpicking. It may be legally required, but it's also completely fucking useless. You're essentially asking them to make an offer "for $5, we'll mail you a mirror of ftp.kernel.org on CD-R". What good would such an offer be?
If they did things right, the only source they'd have to redistribute would be the stock kernel source. You can already get that from ftp.kernel.org, so what exactly would you be gainin?
It may be a technical violation, but why should anyone care? Basically, you're saying they should have accompanied their product with a written offer to mail you a CD-R with a.tar.gz downloaded off kernel.org, for the cost of a CD-R plus postage. What good exactly would that have done, since you can download the damn thing yourself?
The ecliptic is the plane of the Earth's orbit. Most other planets in the solar system have planes that are very close (though not identical), but Pluto's orbital plane is tilted by about 17 degrees.
At any velocity Newtonian mechanics is incorrect; the reason it's not a problem at small velocities is that the error term is very small. But if you were to make measurements to arbitrary precision, Newtonian mechanics would give you wrong results at any speed.
Given that the solar system isn't all in the same plane, it'd be quite a trick to make a three-dimensional model stay on the Earth's surface (even ignoring curvature). Or are they not tracing out orbits, but instead picking a point on the orbits where the planets happen to be collinear?
Consider this scenario: A --> B is intercepted by E, who responds to A (and thus gets 100% of the information). There is now essentially an A E connection, but A things he's talking to B. E then sets up a connection to B, pretending to be A, and retransmits the data.
It seems to avoid this requires some sort of host-identity verification mechanism.
You should probably be confident that something is wrong with quantum mechanics. Being confident that it's 100% correct would be like being confident 300 years ago that Newtonian mechanics was 100% correct. There's always something that turns out to be wrong.
I've noticed far more Europeans leaving out important linking words, especially when writing dates. Americans will usually write "September 5th," whereas it's not at all uncommon to see Europeans write "5 September," as in "I'd like to schedule a meeting for 5 September if no one has any conflicts," something you'd never see an American write.
As for "write me," that's standard English, and there are many other verbs used similarly. You can say "sing me a song," or "give me your wallet," or "help me," and such usage dates back at least to the previous century.
It's a lot easier to audit one C/C++ implementation, even if it is something gigantic like a compiler, than it is to audit an entire system's worth of code. In any case, it's the translation stage that provides safety -- when the language can guarantee safety, it translates directly to C/C++; when it cannot, it inserts runtime checks in the translation. The only way this would fail is if the translation stage was too aggressive in optimizing and failed to insert a runtime check where it should have. This doesn't happen very often though, and is in any case much better than C/C++, where the only runtime checks are those inserted by the programmer (who in large systems almost always leaves out checks that were necessary).
The other argument is often "well it's bad coders' fault, not C/C++'s fault." If that's the case, then all major software, including nearly all Linux security and server software, is coded by bad coders. There's been overflows in: Apache, Sendmail, BIND, Samba, OpenSSH, the Linux kernel, ProFTPd, WuFTPd, XFree86, and many more.
So basically, if you use C/C++, it's going to be insecure, no matter how much effort you put into it. Even OpenBSD, which spent an inordinate amount of effort auditing their code, has had a remote root exploit in their default install (and many more in stuff not installed by default but commonly used).
My preferred solution would be to use either a high-level safe language where feasible (SML, Java, Scheme, etc.), or to use a low-level safe language where not (Cyclone is probably the best of these).
I think it was around 7-8 years ago they went from "releasing cool tools" to "whoring for big consulting contracts and never, ever releasing anything cool." Have you seen their website? Microsoft's website looks more "authentic" than that crap.
It's simply a convention. Of the six possible ways to arrange month, day, and year, three are in widespread use: mm/dd/yy, dd/mm/yy, and yy/mm/dd (yy might be yyyy as well).
The US standard makes sense in some ways: mm/dd is what you commonly write, with an implicit year (though this used to be more true in the past). This is in the normal sense-making big-endian format (rather than the crazy European little-endian format). Then when you want to denote the year explicitly you tack it into the end. This is admittedly a bad place for it -- it really should go on the front, but it makes sense in a way, since it's being tacked on as an annotation. I.e. "It's 12/24. In 2003." That makes sense, whereas "The year is 2003. It's 12/24." doesn't really.
In most contracts, the artist is billed against future royalties, not outright. If the artist makes no money (as is usually the case), the label eats the costs -- they don't garnish their wages from their job at McDonald's. The only thing the artist is risking is that they'll make it big but fail to make much money from it.
The main point is that it's very common for artists to make no money, and very uncommon for artists to sell millions of albums. So in most cases the label has basically thrown away the cost of some studio time and promotion for no return. And the artist hasn't really lost anything except time.
Despite all the whining by very rich people, contracts aren't quite as bad as they claim (if they were, Courtney Love wouldn't be quite so incredibly rich as she is). Sure, as a percentage the royalties suck, but as the parent poster mentioned, without publishing the artist would probably not have gotten any money. So they got $100,000 by signing with the label, whereas if they hadn't signed, they would've gotten maybe $50. Even if the album makes $50m, that's still $100,000 more than before. And if you don't like it, you can always release it yourself, or on a non-RIAA label. Of course, fewer people will listen to it, but that's 'cause people have crappy taste.
There are some external costs that aren't properly accounted for by free trade, particularly environmental and political issues. However, I think even if that were all taken into account, we'd end up with a very similar situation -- the fact is that most of the world has a far lower standard of living than we do, so without protectionism this will even out somewhat, which will result in evening them upwards and evening us downwards. Basically if you were to pick a sustainable minimum wage that's uniform for the entire world, it'd probably be in the range of $1/hour (if not less), which would represent quite a wage cut for western workers (but a significant wage increase for most of the world).
I like my standard of living, and don't want to be equalized with the third world either. But I don't pretend it's all about corporate greed and whatnot -- it's just about me liking having a good standard of living.
Most people don't get rich just to have a big bank account -- they get rich so they can buy stuff. The money eventually gets back into the economy, though it may take some time. When you buy a yacht, go golfing, buy first-class plane tickets, build a beach house, buy three cars, and so on, that's supporting jobs all over the place.
Most calls to call centers are from people who haven't bothered to read the manual, or didn't understand it. It's basically an enforced "RTFM," only they read it out loud to you over the phone.
Labor supply is indeed far in excess of demand. But your solution seems to be to corner off small portions of labor and exclude the rest so that these small portions of labor remain in demand in their protectionist markets. What this amounts to is making these people "in demand" by relegating some people to an "even less in demand than before" ghetto where they can't even be considered for employment. In short, if the average free-market wage would be $0.75/day (making up numbers here), your solution increases the wage in some countries to $100/day at the expense of decreasing it in others to $0.10/day. Which is pretty much how things are.
Slashdot Mirror
Very few people carry around a PDA, GPS, computer, and cell phone. Pretty much only rich people. And even many people who own them all don't carry them all the time. That's the whole point of small specialized devices -- so you can take just one with you. if you're always going to carry them all, might as well just get a laptop and carry that around, or one of the more powerful cell phone / PDA hybrids.
In short, this may fix your problem, but it's not a very common problem. I personally know about 2 people who own PDAs at all.
I see wireless as primarily usefull when you're not 2 feet away. If the devices are within 2 feet of each other, how is Bluetooth easier than just hooking them up with a cable that takes about 1 second to plug in?
Basically, JavaScript is used to trick the browser into loading an unsandboxed Java applet.
But that's nitpicking. It may be legally required, but it's also completely fucking useless. You're essentially asking them to make an offer "for $5, we'll mail you a mirror of ftp.kernel.org on CD-R". What good would such an offer be?
If they did things right, the only source they'd have to redistribute would be the stock kernel source. You can already get that from ftp.kernel.org, so what exactly would you be gainin?
It may be a technical violation, but why should anyone care? Basically, you're saying they should have accompanied their product with a written offer to mail you a CD-R with a .tar.gz downloaded off kernel.org, for the cost of a CD-R plus postage. What good exactly would that have done, since you can download the damn thing yourself?
The ecliptic is the plane of the Earth's orbit. Most other planets in the solar system have planes that are very close (though not identical), but Pluto's orbital plane is tilted by about 17 degrees.
At any velocity Newtonian mechanics is incorrect; the reason it's not a problem at small velocities is that the error term is very small. But if you were to make measurements to arbitrary precision, Newtonian mechanics would give you wrong results at any speed.
Given that the solar system isn't all in the same plane, it'd be quite a trick to make a three-dimensional model stay on the Earth's surface (even ignoring curvature). Or are they not tracing out orbits, but instead picking a point on the orbits where the planets happen to be collinear?
This may be wrong, but I'll mention it anyway.
Consider this scenario:
A --> B is intercepted by E, who responds to A (and thus gets 100% of the information). There is now essentially an A E connection, but A things he's talking to B. E then sets up a connection to B, pretending to be A, and retransmits the data.
It seems to avoid this requires some sort of host-identity verification mechanism.
You should probably be confident that something is wrong with quantum mechanics. Being confident that it's 100% correct would be like being confident 300 years ago that Newtonian mechanics was 100% correct. There's always something that turns out to be wrong.
I've noticed far more Europeans leaving out important linking words, especially when writing dates. Americans will usually write "September 5th," whereas it's not at all uncommon to see Europeans write "5 September," as in "I'd like to schedule a meeting for 5 September if no one has any conflicts," something you'd never see an American write.
As for "write me," that's standard English, and there are many other verbs used similarly. You can say "sing me a song," or "give me your wallet," or "help me," and such usage dates back at least to the previous century.
It's a lot easier to audit one C/C++ implementation, even if it is something gigantic like a compiler, than it is to audit an entire system's worth of code. In any case, it's the translation stage that provides safety -- when the language can guarantee safety, it translates directly to C/C++; when it cannot, it inserts runtime checks in the translation. The only way this would fail is if the translation stage was too aggressive in optimizing and failed to insert a runtime check where it should have. This doesn't happen very often though, and is in any case much better than C/C++, where the only runtime checks are those inserted by the programmer (who in large systems almost always leaves out checks that were necessary).
The other argument is often "well it's bad coders' fault, not C/C++'s fault." If that's the case, then all major software, including nearly all Linux security and server software, is coded by bad coders. There's been overflows in: Apache, Sendmail, BIND, Samba, OpenSSH, the Linux kernel, ProFTPd, WuFTPd, XFree86, and many more.
So basically, if you use C/C++, it's going to be insecure, no matter how much effort you put into it. Even OpenBSD, which spent an inordinate amount of effort auditing their code, has had a remote root exploit in their default install (and many more in stuff not installed by default but commonly used).
My preferred solution would be to use either a high-level safe language where feasible (SML, Java, Scheme, etc.), or to use a low-level safe language where not (Cyclone is probably the best of these).
I think it was around 7-8 years ago they went from "releasing cool tools" to "whoring for big consulting contracts and never, ever releasing anything cool." Have you seen their website? Microsoft's website looks more "authentic" than that crap.
Probably 90% of security holes are buffer overflows...
If you thought whirring fans were bad, wait until you hear how loud this one is.
It's simply a convention. Of the six possible ways to arrange month, day, and year, three are in widespread use: mm/dd/yy, dd/mm/yy, and yy/mm/dd (yy might be yyyy as well).
The US standard makes sense in some ways: mm/dd is what you commonly write, with an implicit year (though this used to be more true in the past). This is in the normal sense-making big-endian format (rather than the crazy European little-endian format). Then when you want to denote the year explicitly you tack it into the end. This is admittedly a bad place for it -- it really should go on the front, but it makes sense in a way, since it's being tacked on as an annotation. I.e. "It's 12/24. In 2003." That makes sense, whereas "The year is 2003. It's 12/24." doesn't really.
In most contracts, the artist is billed against future royalties, not outright. If the artist makes no money (as is usually the case), the label eats the costs -- they don't garnish their wages from their job at McDonald's. The only thing the artist is risking is that they'll make it big but fail to make much money from it.
The main point is that it's very common for artists to make no money, and very uncommon for artists to sell millions of albums. So in most cases the label has basically thrown away the cost of some studio time and promotion for no return. And the artist hasn't really lost anything except time.
Despite all the whining by very rich people, contracts aren't quite as bad as they claim (if they were, Courtney Love wouldn't be quite so incredibly rich as she is). Sure, as a percentage the royalties suck, but as the parent poster mentioned, without publishing the artist would probably not have gotten any money. So they got $100,000 by signing with the label, whereas if they hadn't signed, they would've gotten maybe $50. Even if the album makes $50m, that's still $100,000 more than before. And if you don't like it, you can always release it yourself, or on a non-RIAA label. Of course, fewer people will listen to it, but that's 'cause people have crappy taste.
Not only do you get cheap labor, but your "business trips" can be to beautiful and historic eastern europe.
There are some external costs that aren't properly accounted for by free trade, particularly environmental and political issues. However, I think even if that were all taken into account, we'd end up with a very similar situation -- the fact is that most of the world has a far lower standard of living than we do, so without protectionism this will even out somewhat, which will result in evening them upwards and evening us downwards. Basically if you were to pick a sustainable minimum wage that's uniform for the entire world, it'd probably be in the range of $1/hour (if not less), which would represent quite a wage cut for western workers (but a significant wage increase for most of the world).
I like my standard of living, and don't want to be equalized with the third world either. But I don't pretend it's all about corporate greed and whatnot -- it's just about me liking having a good standard of living.
Most people don't get rich just to have a big bank account -- they get rich so they can buy stuff. The money eventually gets back into the economy, though it may take some time. When you buy a yacht, go golfing, buy first-class plane tickets, build a beach house, buy three cars, and so on, that's supporting jobs all over the place.
Most calls to call centers are from people who haven't bothered to read the manual, or didn't understand it. It's basically an enforced "RTFM," only they read it out loud to you over the phone.
Labor supply is indeed far in excess of demand. But your solution seems to be to corner off small portions of labor and exclude the rest so that these small portions of labor remain in demand in their protectionist markets. What this amounts to is making these people "in demand" by relegating some people to an "even less in demand than before" ghetto where they can't even be considered for employment. In short, if the average free-market wage would be $0.75/day (making up numbers here), your solution increases the wage in some countries to $100/day at the expense of decreasing it in others to $0.10/day. Which is pretty much how things are.
But you claim this is justified?