We didn't lose a thing. We'd be exactly where we are today - with software bloat and inefficiency expanding to consume any increase in hardware power. PC-DOS booted faster on that 0.33 MIPS machine than Windoze 8 does on a 300,000x faster processor today.
But (assuming the second half costs the same as the first), the net effect is that people get more than they bargained for - they have the choice between using the credit to pay for the second half season - getting exactly what they paid for, or they can chose to use it for something else.
"Magnuson-Moss is related to warranties. It says that car-makers can't rescind your warranty if you used after-market parts on your car unless they could prove that these parts caused the problem which the warranty should have covered. "
It says no such thing. What the MMWA actually says is
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name;
"So if I attached a super-charger to the engine and later had issues with the pistons, it was up to the car-maker to prove that the super-charger is what caused the problem with the pistons."
Poor example, because it's not true. A manufacturer can make have a "no modifications" clause in a warranty. Many do. So if you add a supercharger, and the engine blows up, you're on your own. And if the engine did come with a supercharger, the manufacturer can indeed condition the warranty on only using their supercharger, provided a failed supercharger would be replaced without charge under the warranty. If a manufacturer wants to write a warranty which says warranty coverage of your engine ends if you hang fuzzy dice from your mirror, they can - they just have to write the terms clearly.
Regarding your claim that "they have to prove," meh. Good luck with that. They'll honor a claim or they won't. If they don't, then you will have to sue them and you will have to prove your case. And, since they're the experts on their product, if they say some aftermarket part you added caused damage, the court's gonna give their word more weight, so you'd better have a slew of expensive expert witnesses on your side.
I believe that might have been true of the early '60's RS-232 standard. By the 1969 RS-232C, the Cannon DB-25 was a defacto industry standard, and was mentioned in the standard informatively. It became an actual part of the standard with RS-232D in 1986.
Apple, of course, actually used RS-422 (where no connector is specified) serial in the early Macs, first on a DE-9, and later on a mini-DIN 8, to be similarly cheaper and smaller. RS-422 could be wired to be compatible with RS-232 signaling.
"DE-9 variant was open, with off the shelf connectors..."
...as were the pinouts and connectors used by Apple. What was your point?
Really? You don't know where the "PS/2" in "PS/2 keyboards and mice" comes from? Or that the ANSI/TIA-232-F standard specifies 25 pin (with a 26 pin alternate) connectors, and DE-9 ones just as proprietary as the mini-DIN which Apple used?
"stuff like this is exactly why Apple lost the Desktop OS battle years ago"
Because, say, QuickTime is more proprietary than DirectX? Or that Windows is more open than FreeBSD and Mach? Or Appletalk is closed evil, while NETBEUI is open wonderfullness? Or are you simply delusional, and think that Linux won the desktop OS battle?
A picture of a car part is not a car part. It's a two dimensional representation. A CAD file of a car part is not a car part. Neither represent an infringement of IP rights. (Well, unless their's copyright or trademarks involved, which would be rare for a utility car part - don't copy the logo). Infringement would come when you print a patented part. If the part is not patented, no problem. If the part is one component of a patented system, it starts to become a gray area, but I'd expect that printing replacement parts would be generally be considered non-infringing. Producing a patented part for new use would be a problem.
Infringement might also come from duplicating design parts, like body panels - auto companies tend to view the shape of their vehicles as IP. That might be protected by either copyright or design patents.
Because, this quote from the claimant, on the University of Sheffield's web site, sure sounds Onion-esque:
We will take some of the samples which we have isolated from the stratosphere and introduce them into a complex machine - a button will be pressed. If the ratio of certain isotopes gives one number then our organisms are from Earth, if it gives another, then they are from space. The tension will obviously be almost impossible to live with!
Just. Wow. You don't know what "monotonic" means. You don't know what a discontinuity is. You don't know how to do subtraction. You obviously suck at programming. You don't know the difference between a normative standard and an informative statement. No wonder you have problems dealing with relatively simple matters like leap seconds.
During the one second interval when they are applied, what happens to [UTC] timestamps on files that are modified?
Whoosh.
You're not describing a problem, you are the problem. If an event occurs during a leap second, you simply timestamp the time, 23:59:60.x. What you describe simply demonstrates the problem with incorrect assumptions and sloppy coding: that a minute can't have more than 60 seconds. That hasn't been the case for over 40 years.
based on POSIX-compliant UTC
'taint no such thing. There's UTC, and there's POSIX, which is in no way compatible with UTC, which existed long before POSIX. Just another example of brain-dead, incorrect assumptions about timescales.
Since July 2012, IIRC, all corrections are now formally set at six month intervals.
YRI. You should at least try to understand the subject you're discussing.
"A positive or negative leap-second should be the last second of a UTC month, but first
preference should be given to the end of December and June, and second preference to the end of
March and September. - ITU-R TF.460-6.
Slashdot Mirror
You can boot an Acer tablet into Windows 8 in 6 seconds?
You must be a young-un. Having a hard drive had nothing to do with it.
PC-DOS originally came on mini-floppy disc. And yes, it did boot faster than Win8 from a SSD.
We didn't lose a thing. We'd be exactly where we are today - with software bloat and inefficiency expanding to consume any increase in hardware power. PC-DOS booted faster on that 0.33 MIPS machine than Windoze 8 does on a 300,000x faster processor today.
Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh.
"You think Obama personally approves of this filing, that he was in some way responsible for writing it?"
He heads the executive branch which includes the DEA, so yes, he is ultimately responsible.
"What he thought he was buying was Series 5 not season 5."
Nope. The source, AMC, refers to them as "seasons." A "series" is all the seasons. Your attempt to be pedantic fails.
But (assuming the second half costs the same as the first), the net effect is that people get more than they bargained for - they have the choice between using the credit to pay for the second half season - getting exactly what they paid for, or they can chose to use it for something else.
"God you are an idiot."
If you're an atheist, you're confused. If you're religious, you're in trouble.
"Problem is that some clever people might wait for it to hit the free cart..."
Well, no. That only works if there's only one clever person (per book). Otherwise, they'll find out "snooze, you lose."
Keep anything you think might sell. Track by acquisition date. If it's not gone in X months, throw it on the free cart. Another month, toss it.
"X" depends on your turnover, space, and how many books are coming in. Since you're space limited, get rid of the oldest ones first.
"ozone; but if your ground-level sampling station is turning up any nontrival amount, that means that something is rather wrong..."
Or your LASER printer is next to your sensor.
"the CCC used milk and latex to simulate human skin, to trick the capacitors. A very old technique btw."
They used latex milk (i.e. liquid latex rubber), not "milk and latex."
But, by timothy's standards, it's pretty good.
It says no such thing. What the MMWA actually says is
"So if I attached a super-charger to the engine and later had issues with the pistons, it was up to the car-maker to prove that the super-charger is what caused the problem with the pistons."
Poor example, because it's not true. A manufacturer can make have a "no modifications" clause in a warranty. Many do. So if you add a supercharger, and the engine blows up, you're on your own. And if the engine did come with a supercharger, the manufacturer can indeed condition the warranty on only using their supercharger, provided a failed supercharger would be replaced without charge under the warranty. If a manufacturer wants to write a warranty which says warranty coverage of your engine ends if you hang fuzzy dice from your mirror, they can - they just have to write the terms clearly.
Regarding your claim that "they have to prove," meh. Good luck with that. They'll honor a claim or they won't. If they don't, then you will have to sue them and you will have to prove your case. And, since they're the experts on their product, if they say some aftermarket part you added caused damage, the court's gonna give their word more weight, so you'd better have a slew of expensive expert witnesses on your side.
"DB-25 was suggested but not mandatory, AFAIK."
I believe that might have been true of the early '60's RS-232 standard. By the 1969 RS-232C, the Cannon DB-25 was a defacto industry standard, and was mentioned in the standard informatively. It became an actual part of the standard with RS-232D in 1986.
Apple, of course, actually used RS-422 (where no connector is specified) serial in the early Macs, first on a DE-9, and later on a mini-DIN 8, to be similarly cheaper and smaller. RS-422 could be wired to be compatible with RS-232 signaling.
"DE-9 variant was open, with off the shelf connectors..."
...as were the pinouts and connectors used by Apple. What was your point?
Really? You don't know where the "PS/2" in "PS/2 keyboards and mice" comes from? Or that the ANSI/TIA-232-F standard specifies 25 pin (with a 26 pin alternate) connectors, and DE-9 ones just as proprietary as the mini-DIN which Apple used?
This is about a cell phone charging cable, not a mission critical enterprise system.
"They are just trying to protect their revenue stream from dying because they buy cheap knockoffs."
FTFY.
...as happens so often with microUSB chargers.
"stuff like this is exactly why Apple lost the Desktop OS battle years ago"
Because, say, QuickTime is more proprietary than DirectX? Or that Windows is more open than FreeBSD and Mach? Or Appletalk is closed evil, while NETBEUI is open wonderfullness? Or are you simply delusional, and think that Linux won the desktop OS battle?
"Golf" is just "flog" spelled backwards.
A picture of a car part is not a car part. It's a two dimensional representation. A CAD file of a car part is not a car part. Neither represent an infringement of IP rights. (Well, unless their's copyright or trademarks involved, which would be rare for a utility car part - don't copy the logo). Infringement would come when you print a patented part. If the part is not patented, no problem. If the part is one component of a patented system, it starts to become a gray area, but I'd expect that printing replacement parts would be generally be considered non-infringing. Producing a patented part for new use would be a problem.
Infringement might also come from duplicating design parts, like body panels - auto companies tend to view the shape of their vehicles as IP. That might be protected by either copyright or design patents.
Just. Wow. You don't know what "monotonic" means. You don't know what a discontinuity is. You don't know how to do subtraction. You obviously suck at programming. You don't know the difference between a normative standard and an informative statement. No wonder you have problems dealing with relatively simple matters like leap seconds.
Whoosh.
You're not describing a problem, you are the problem. If an event occurs during a leap second, you simply timestamp the time, 23:59:60.x. What you describe simply demonstrates the problem with incorrect assumptions and sloppy coding: that a minute can't have more than 60 seconds. That hasn't been the case for over 40 years.
'taint no such thing. There's UTC, and there's POSIX, which is in no way compatible with UTC, which existed long before POSIX. Just another example of brain-dead, incorrect assumptions about timescales.
YRI. You should at least try to understand the subject you're discussing.
"A positive or negative leap-second should be the last second of a UTC month, but first preference should be given to the end of December and June, and second preference to the end of March and September.
- ITU-R TF.460-6.