Exactly how close the Soviet Union came to losing is a matter of debate. It depended on the resilience of the Soviet government, which was sorely tested, and I consider it a matter of speculation how close it came to losing it. If the Soviets were going to lose, it would probably have been in 1941, and the Soviets really didn't get significant Western help in that time. After 1942, it was clear (at least in hindsight) that the Soviets were going to win and Germany was going to lose, as long as Britain, the Soviet Union, and the US remained allies.
I'm not sure what you mean by not pulling Rommel. North Africa was forward defense for Italy and Southern Europe, and served well in that capacity until the destruction of the German armies in Tunisia in 1943. Rommel kept the British off-balance and far away from victory fairly cheaply.
Pearl Harbor changed very little regarding Germany. The US was already waging an undeclared war against Germany using the navy, and Roosevelt was preparing to wage full-scale war. Pearl Harbor was, if anything, unfortunate timing, as it opened the US to submarine attack before the US was really ready, and caused the acceleration of US troop raising, which diverted materiel which would otherwise have gone to the Brits. A US entry delayed another six months or so would probably have been better for the Allies.
And what Stalin basically did with any information he had on Barbarossa was to ignore it. The trains exporting stuff to Germany continued right to the end, and Stalin expressly forbade his Front commanders from preparing for attack. Kirponos, in the south, ignored that order, and therefore put up a good deal of resistance for a few months.
It's tough to care when the person is too lazy, green or stupid to do due diligence and gets fucked.
I can understand not having sympathy for the lazy or stupid, but the green? We were all n00bs once, at everything we now do well. We've been through that, and we should remember what it was like.
"Political correctness" tends to be used in two ways. The less common is people, typically on the left, who want people to phrase their speech carefully to avoid offending people. They don't have any enforcement power, and they're not actively trying to discriminate against political viewpoints. The more common by far is as a magic phrase invoked to justify talking like an asshole, and that tends to be right-wing.
I'm not going to be impolite and inconsiderate to Trump supporters in general. I will call out the worst liars, and I will not hold back on my opinions, but I'll push them with support and respect.
I also note that you want people to show politeness and consideration to the people you like, and have no objection to being offensive to people whose politics you disagree with. You might want to clean up your act.
Microsoft effectively can't refuse access to their signing system. Even if the US doesn't prosecute for anti-competitive practices, the EU certainly will.
If I'm developing for Windows (I'm assuming C++ here, which is probably the best for multiplatform), I'm going to have a Windows machine. Count on it. I'm probably going to want to run Visual Studio, since that's a decent software development environment that's designed to support Windows. I'm not going to develop on Linux, compiling with g++ or clang, and then try moving to VC++ when the stuff's developed. If I'm developing multi-platform, I might well develop on Linux first, but I'm going to be constantly recompiling with VC++, since Microsoft is notoriously slow to implement standard C++.
If I"m aiming for the largest possible audience, I develop for Windows, particularly if this is some form of personal software, and as I explained above I am going to be running Windows.
I don't see any evidence that most developers have left Windows. It may be partly true for web apps (MacBooks seem very popular among those developers), but it's not going to be true for application developers for a long time.
Actually, this wouldn't allow GPLv3 apps on the App Store, so I don't think RMS would be pleased.
There's possible reasons why it could be wrong to release source. The app may have third-party source code that isn't licensed for public release. The developer may have personal problems (illness, for example) that causes the developer to miss the deadline, but may not want the source released. There could be mix-ups causing Apple to release source incorrectly, whereas if there is no mechanism to release source that isn't going to happen.
Basically, this would be an additional restriction on developers, and would make the App Store less attractive, and this isn't what Apple wants to do.
Seriously, the only place I see complaints about iPhone batteries not being removable is Slashdot. Slashdot users and people like them make up a very small amount of the total market.
People, however, buy phones that don't have that bulk and weight over ones that do, and they prefer longer battery life, so phones with non-removable batteries tend to win in the marketplace.
There's really only two use cases for a removable battery. One is to have the ability to carry extra batteries around so the user can swap out to lengthen effective battery life, and one is to make it easy to replace the battery when it's degraded too much. In fact, you can get an external battery for an iPhone to address the battery charge issue, and last I looked you can get Apple to replace the battery, so neither use case presents something that's impossible to have without a removable battery.
I had a problem once with the start screen. I could bring it up and send it away, but Windows wouldn't launch any program no matter what I tried, which was clicking repeatedly on its tile, repeatedly selecting it from the "all apps" list, or typing the executable name in. I had to use the power button on the laptop to shut it down, since it wouldn't let me shut it down normally. Fortunately, that hasn't happened again.
I'm assuming this is part of your job. If so, that's not a problem: the whole reason you work is to make money, and part of doing work is doing stuff that's not any fun.
That doesn't mean either GP or his employer wants to have more crap to wade through. Intelligent companies spend some money on making sure people can do their jobs, and aren't fond of suppliers that make life difficult for their employees.
I spent the extra hundred bucks for 10 Pro, so I can at least delay updates.
One solution for the forced-update problem is for Microsoft to do good QC on updates, which they don't. I know it's a really big deal, but MS could certainly do better.
What we're looking at here is a scenario that runs: GP had a working computer with a working SSD array. Microsoft forced an update. GP's SSD array stopped working.
In other words, a Microsoft action that GP couldn't stop trashed his SSD array. There's no way Microsoft can dodge the blame for that. It may be that his SSD array was put together faulty, and it was just luck that it worked in the first place, and in that sense it might not be Windows' fault specifically, but the fault of the Windows 10 update system.
Look up Raymond Chen, "The Old New Thing". He wrote about working to make sure everything that ran on Windows 3.1 would run on Windows 95, on the principle that, if the user upgraded the OS, and stuff stopped working, the user would blame the OS. He went to the extreme of modifying the memory manager to handle one application separately. When software wouldn't run on Windows 95, he took it personally. That attitude seems to have left Microsoft long ago.
My big annoyance so far is that Microsoft seems to think that the time I turn my computer on is excellent for doing long processes that don't allow me to use the computer for anything.
Her handling of classified material was at a level that is normally handled administratively, not with criminal prosecution. Nobody's showed me an exception yet. The cases I've seen cited are either cases where the defendant deliberately moved classified material to a system not cleared for it, which Clinton didn't do, or they were handled administratively. That's a definite illegal action that she definitely committed, but if it's not normally prosecuted I don't consider it serious.
Plenty of people are working on it, and every part we need is clearly possible. It's a matter of putting things together and refining them.
What we will not have any time soon is highly intelligent obstacle prediction. The software can notice a ball coming into the street, and anticipate a child following. It can note whether cars along the street are ready to pull out or not. However, it won't be able to do what I did once: there was a pedestrian on a corner when I approached an intersection, and I just knew he was going to dart into the street in front of me, so I was easily able to avoid him. Considering how many times I've done that in my lifetime, I'm not sure it's all that important.
I think I exaggerated on the "no one else", since expected profits play a part in deciding whether to do something, but the cost is generally not to employees and customers. (It may be to potential employees and customers, since this can turn a worthwhile business expansion plan to one that isn't worthwhile.)
Ireland has signed treaties that say they won't do what they did. Not being familiar with Irish jurisprudence, I don't know whether that nullifies any conflicting Irish law. I do know that signed and ratified treaties are part of the law of the land in the US, and I don't know how a Federal law that conflicts with a treaty would be treated by the courts.
Neither workers nor customers pay for this, unless there's some sort of monopoly going on. Workers' pay is tax-deductible, so it isn't involved in corporate income taxes. Moreover, the company doesn't get to set pay unilaterally, and if it lowers pay people are going to find jobs elsewhere. Customers don't pay, because the corp presumably has set retail prices to maximize profit, and the same prices maximize profit and profit after income taxes.
The cost is borne by the shareholders. There's no particular reason why they shouldn't be taxed in this particular way.
The US Congress has the Constitutional power to issue letters of marque and reprisal (basically, to commission privateers to prey on enemy shipping). However, sometime around 1850, the US government agreed by treaty to not do that any more. Yet, Congress still passes laws on other matters.
A landlord is free to agree with a tenant about rent, in general, even if one or both is stupid and they come up with a bad rent amount. It's generally legal in US law to make a bad deal that costs you money.
However, this is a legal issue, not a contractual one. If there's a rent below which the landlord cannot legally go, then any agreement to rent for less is illegal and hence void.
Suppose that your uncle wants to give you money beyond the tax-free gift limit, and sells you a $100K car for $1K, so you pay taxes as if it were a $1K car. The appropriate governments might figure that the car is worth more and charge more taxes. It happens.
It was all legal according to some authorities in Ireland. The EU is saying that these authorities didn't have the authority to make the deal they did, and hence the deal is illegal, and Apple must pay the legally determined taxes. The EU is saying that Apple was wrong about the taxes it owed, and so were the Irish authorities they dealt with.
Suppose California had tax rules that turned out to be unconstitutional, or in conflict with legitimate Federal law, and you got a reduced rate because of those rules. When things shook out, you'd owe your legal taxes, not the taxes assessed through a scheme that turned out to be illegal.
Wrong. Corporations pay taxes, and they come off profits. Corporate income taxes do not affect employees (their pay is deductible as a business expense), and don't affect customers (since the optimal price to maximize profit is the same whether or not there's income taxes). The result is less profit, which does affect investors and pretty much no one else.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly how close the Soviet Union came to losing is a matter of debate. It depended on the resilience of the Soviet government, which was sorely tested, and I consider it a matter of speculation how close it came to losing it. If the Soviets were going to lose, it would probably have been in 1941, and the Soviets really didn't get significant Western help in that time. After 1942, it was clear (at least in hindsight) that the Soviets were going to win and Germany was going to lose, as long as Britain, the Soviet Union, and the US remained allies.
I'm not sure what you mean by not pulling Rommel. North Africa was forward defense for Italy and Southern Europe, and served well in that capacity until the destruction of the German armies in Tunisia in 1943. Rommel kept the British off-balance and far away from victory fairly cheaply.
Pearl Harbor changed very little regarding Germany. The US was already waging an undeclared war against Germany using the navy, and Roosevelt was preparing to wage full-scale war. Pearl Harbor was, if anything, unfortunate timing, as it opened the US to submarine attack before the US was really ready, and caused the acceleration of US troop raising, which diverted materiel which would otherwise have gone to the Brits. A US entry delayed another six months or so would probably have been better for the Allies.
And what Stalin basically did with any information he had on Barbarossa was to ignore it. The trains exporting stuff to Germany continued right to the end, and Stalin expressly forbade his Front commanders from preparing for attack. Kirponos, in the south, ignored that order, and therefore put up a good deal of resistance for a few months.
I can understand not having sympathy for the lazy or stupid, but the green? We were all n00bs once, at everything we now do well. We've been through that, and we should remember what it was like.
"Political correctness" tends to be used in two ways. The less common is people, typically on the left, who want people to phrase their speech carefully to avoid offending people. They don't have any enforcement power, and they're not actively trying to discriminate against political viewpoints. The more common by far is as a magic phrase invoked to justify talking like an asshole, and that tends to be right-wing.
I'm not going to be impolite and inconsiderate to Trump supporters in general. I will call out the worst liars, and I will not hold back on my opinions, but I'll push them with support and respect.
I also note that you want people to show politeness and consideration to the people you like, and have no objection to being offensive to people whose politics you disagree with. You might want to clean up your act.
Microsoft effectively can't refuse access to their signing system. Even if the US doesn't prosecute for anti-competitive practices, the EU certainly will.
Modern Intel-type processors are a mishmash of instruction sets. The more of the outdated crap we can ditch, the better off we are.
If I'm developing for Windows (I'm assuming C++ here, which is probably the best for multiplatform), I'm going to have a Windows machine. Count on it. I'm probably going to want to run Visual Studio, since that's a decent software development environment that's designed to support Windows. I'm not going to develop on Linux, compiling with g++ or clang, and then try moving to VC++ when the stuff's developed. If I'm developing multi-platform, I might well develop on Linux first, but I'm going to be constantly recompiling with VC++, since Microsoft is notoriously slow to implement standard C++.
If I"m aiming for the largest possible audience, I develop for Windows, particularly if this is some form of personal software, and as I explained above I am going to be running Windows.
I don't see any evidence that most developers have left Windows. It may be partly true for web apps (MacBooks seem very popular among those developers), but it's not going to be true for application developers for a long time.
Actually, this wouldn't allow GPLv3 apps on the App Store, so I don't think RMS would be pleased.
There's possible reasons why it could be wrong to release source. The app may have third-party source code that isn't licensed for public release. The developer may have personal problems (illness, for example) that causes the developer to miss the deadline, but may not want the source released. There could be mix-ups causing Apple to release source incorrectly, whereas if there is no mechanism to release source that isn't going to happen.
Basically, this would be an additional restriction on developers, and would make the App Store less attractive, and this isn't what Apple wants to do.
Seriously, the only place I see complaints about iPhone batteries not being removable is Slashdot. Slashdot users and people like them make up a very small amount of the total market.
People, however, buy phones that don't have that bulk and weight over ones that do, and they prefer longer battery life, so phones with non-removable batteries tend to win in the marketplace.
There's really only two use cases for a removable battery. One is to have the ability to carry extra batteries around so the user can swap out to lengthen effective battery life, and one is to make it easy to replace the battery when it's degraded too much. In fact, you can get an external battery for an iPhone to address the battery charge issue, and last I looked you can get Apple to replace the battery, so neither use case presents something that's impossible to have without a removable battery.
I had a problem once with the start screen. I could bring it up and send it away, but Windows wouldn't launch any program no matter what I tried, which was clicking repeatedly on its tile, repeatedly selecting it from the "all apps" list, or typing the executable name in. I had to use the power button on the laptop to shut it down, since it wouldn't let me shut it down normally. Fortunately, that hasn't happened again.
That doesn't mean either GP or his employer wants to have more crap to wade through. Intelligent companies spend some money on making sure people can do their jobs, and aren't fond of suppliers that make life difficult for their employees.
I spent the extra hundred bucks for 10 Pro, so I can at least delay updates.
One solution for the forced-update problem is for Microsoft to do good QC on updates, which they don't. I know it's a really big deal, but MS could certainly do better.
What we're looking at here is a scenario that runs: GP had a working computer with a working SSD array. Microsoft forced an update. GP's SSD array stopped working.
In other words, a Microsoft action that GP couldn't stop trashed his SSD array. There's no way Microsoft can dodge the blame for that. It may be that his SSD array was put together faulty, and it was just luck that it worked in the first place, and in that sense it might not be Windows' fault specifically, but the fault of the Windows 10 update system.
Look up Raymond Chen, "The Old New Thing". He wrote about working to make sure everything that ran on Windows 3.1 would run on Windows 95, on the principle that, if the user upgraded the OS, and stuff stopped working, the user would blame the OS. He went to the extreme of modifying the memory manager to handle one application separately. When software wouldn't run on Windows 95, he took it personally. That attitude seems to have left Microsoft long ago.
My big annoyance so far is that Microsoft seems to think that the time I turn my computer on is excellent for doing long processes that don't allow me to use the computer for anything.
Her handling of classified material was at a level that is normally handled administratively, not with criminal prosecution. Nobody's showed me an exception yet. The cases I've seen cited are either cases where the defendant deliberately moved classified material to a system not cleared for it, which Clinton didn't do, or they were handled administratively. That's a definite illegal action that she definitely committed, but if it's not normally prosecuted I don't consider it serious.
I'm still waiting.
Plenty of people are working on it, and every part we need is clearly possible. It's a matter of putting things together and refining them.
What we will not have any time soon is highly intelligent obstacle prediction. The software can notice a ball coming into the street, and anticipate a child following. It can note whether cars along the street are ready to pull out or not. However, it won't be able to do what I did once: there was a pedestrian on a corner when I approached an intersection, and I just knew he was going to dart into the street in front of me, so I was easily able to avoid him. Considering how many times I've done that in my lifetime, I'm not sure it's all that important.
Right. We've got laws to handle replacing the braking system, and they can be adapted to the auto driving system.
I think I exaggerated on the "no one else", since expected profits play a part in deciding whether to do something, but the cost is generally not to employees and customers. (It may be to potential employees and customers, since this can turn a worthwhile business expansion plan to one that isn't worthwhile.)
Ireland has signed treaties that say they won't do what they did. Not being familiar with Irish jurisprudence, I don't know whether that nullifies any conflicting Irish law. I do know that signed and ratified treaties are part of the law of the land in the US, and I don't know how a Federal law that conflicts with a treaty would be treated by the courts.
Neither workers nor customers pay for this, unless there's some sort of monopoly going on. Workers' pay is tax-deductible, so it isn't involved in corporate income taxes. Moreover, the company doesn't get to set pay unilaterally, and if it lowers pay people are going to find jobs elsewhere. Customers don't pay, because the corp presumably has set retail prices to maximize profit, and the same prices maximize profit and profit after income taxes.
The cost is borne by the shareholders. There's no particular reason why they shouldn't be taxed in this particular way.
The US Congress has the Constitutional power to issue letters of marque and reprisal (basically, to commission privateers to prey on enemy shipping). However, sometime around 1850, the US government agreed by treaty to not do that any more. Yet, Congress still passes laws on other matters.
A landlord is free to agree with a tenant about rent, in general, even if one or both is stupid and they come up with a bad rent amount. It's generally legal in US law to make a bad deal that costs you money.
However, this is a legal issue, not a contractual one. If there's a rent below which the landlord cannot legally go, then any agreement to rent for less is illegal and hence void.
Suppose that your uncle wants to give you money beyond the tax-free gift limit, and sells you a $100K car for $1K, so you pay taxes as if it were a $1K car. The appropriate governments might figure that the car is worth more and charge more taxes. It happens.
It was all legal according to some authorities in Ireland. The EU is saying that these authorities didn't have the authority to make the deal they did, and hence the deal is illegal, and Apple must pay the legally determined taxes. The EU is saying that Apple was wrong about the taxes it owed, and so were the Irish authorities they dealt with.
Suppose California had tax rules that turned out to be unconstitutional, or in conflict with legitimate Federal law, and you got a reduced rate because of those rules. When things shook out, you'd owe your legal taxes, not the taxes assessed through a scheme that turned out to be illegal.
Wrong. Corporations pay taxes, and they come off profits. Corporate income taxes do not affect employees (their pay is deductible as a business expense), and don't affect customers (since the optimal price to maximize profit is the same whether or not there's income taxes). The result is less profit, which does affect investors and pretty much no one else.