While I understand that people have to feed their families and need a job, the people working at the TSA employees get no sympathy from me. Yes, you have every right to hate your job and still do it. But if you are in a "service" industry (or more generally, where you interact with a large number of people), you shouldn't do a shitty job just because you hate it. Most TSA people seem to try the experience unpleasant for passengers. And with a myriad of changing rules, they don't seem to grasp that people will make mistakes. Even a slight deviation from routine gets you the "deluxe" treatment (like the woman carrying a bottle with breast milk being held up for hours).
I give them quite a bit of sympathy - but namely because I know how stuck they are.
One of my good friends worked there when they first started up TSA. They promised the guys a lot - security clearances, ability to move to other government jobs, etc. Then they screwed them over by not delivering on those promises. Further, they're exempted from much of the Federal Employee stuff, and Congress made it very hard for a TSA employee to complain, etc. In the end, they have a very high turn over rate, and no one likes working there. It's one case where the Federal Workers Union is desperately needed but is not able to act.
So next time you see a TSA worker, do give them some sympathy - they feel about as good about what they're doing as you do. And they'd mostly like to fix the system, but none of them are able to.
Only for functions, not for non-static class members; and (as I pointed out) not efficiently enough for how Qt manages signals/slots; not likely sufficiently enough for how Boost handles them either.
Re:I use it so it's relevant to me.
on
Qt 5.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
Small correction: wxWidgets isn't public domain. It's licensed under the wxWindows Licence which, as their page states, is like the LGPL but with a few differences.
Interesting. I hadn't looked at in in a few years (2004,2005). So they've changed their license since it use to be public domain. I was surprised at the time, but oh well. Good to see them using a nicer license though.
Re:C++ Standards
on
Qt 5.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It works for any symbol, regardless of its type.
This has nothing to do with RTTI.
The API for plug-ins is platform-specific since there is no standard interface for C++ plug-ins.
Yes, you could use dlsym() when building the table MOC builds for the connector calls. That's it. That's also a very very small part of what MOC does. That could be done as part of the object constructor...except now you need to store both static compile-time information (the functions you want to add) and dynamic run-time information instead of just the static compile time stuff that MOC generates (in the moc_*.cpp files).
RTTI does a good bit of the rest of what MOC does. In neither case are they both supported by all platform+compiler combinations that Qt supports.
Qt5 now allows C++11 lambas in signal/slots; but only if you enable C++11 functionality when you build it - they still support compilers that don't support C++11 lambas.
dlsym(h, "my_method")
There is no need to store it, it's already in the symbol table.
If you do want to store it, there is no need to use an external preprocessor anyway.
That works for functions, but not Class Methods that require an instance of the class. And, even more so, how do you do it in a multi-platform environment in a uniform way? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_loading). Windows doesn't use dlopen/dlsym/dlclose but has its own Win32 functions to do something similar.
You're also relying on RTTI; and not every compiler or environment supported by Qt supports RTTI. (RTTI also has its own run-time overhead which is bad in embedded environments like what Qt supports.)
It's the only multi-platform development kit that is really as feature complete as most platforms.
It runs on more devices than you'd ever imagine - from small embedded devices to your kitchen appliances to mobile devices to desktops and servers.
It's what KDE is built on.
It's what MeeGo/Mer/Tizen/Sailfish are built on.
It's what Blackberry 10 (BB10) is built on.
AutoDesk is built on it.
CiscoVPN is built on it (well, a really old version at least).
There's plenty more out there; but I'm going to stop there.
Re:I use it so it's relevant to me.
on
Qt 5.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It's mature and has all the bells and whistles. Only other alternative is WxWidgets...
What else did you have in mind ?
Here's the basic group that Qt belongs as part of:
Qt
Gtk
WxWidgets (WxWindows)
SDL
WxWidgets is public domain; and was the first (AFAIK) to do both Signals/Slots and Message Maps for inter-object comms.
Gtk was originally just MessageMaps, and now also does Signals/Slots; but it also tends to be heavily GNOME centric and rather largely ignored by GNOME in maintaining it - it moves along, but at a snails pace because they're not really paying attention to it (to my understanding from talking to someone in the GNOME community).
SDL isn't quite as feature complete as any of the others, but can get the job done.
Qt is really the only first class library in that group, and now reaches even more platforms than ever before. And with Qt embedded, it runs in many devices that you may never have thought of as having run Qt (Microwaves, TVs, Refrigerators, etc.). Qt really is to multi-platform development what Linux is to processors in that respect.
So in the sense that nothing else is really as feature complete and professional as Qt - yes, it's in its own category. But in reality there are several other major competitors - and all from the FLOSS community at that.
Of course they are. Just like the telco's and long distance charges. The lines where long paid for but they just keep say that to many people are making LD calls so to help increase the number we need more money. All the while they don't actually increase capacity and just pocket the money.
How we solve this I don't know. The only thing I can think of is to move to the ISP's that aren't gouging as much as the next guy. I know that's hard. I also live in a small town and have very limited choices of ISP's.
Here's one way to try and save your self some money. Buy shares in the ISP (if public). Just like the banks. Try and get some shares so you to can get in on the profits. Yes again easier said then done. I don't have solutions for everything and everyone just ideas, and not always good ones.
I think the telcos, cable companies, etc need to be removed from the business of providing the infrastructure and have it all turned over to a single entity; then they all have to lease it back from that entity. The whole purpose of that entity would be maintaining the infrastructure, and would probably be a part of county or state governments; or an agency - such as a commercial not-for-profit company - on their behalf; and they would be required to keep it maintained to a certain level and relatively current technology while charging the minimum to do so; very similar to how the Bells were regulated.
I'm not one for big government but the required types of infrastructure just don't make sense to leave to anyone else. The current companies just prove over and over that they don't have their customers interests in mind except when required by law, and even then they sometimes don't (e.g. NSA warrantless wiretapping).
While I haven't looked into this seriously, I'm starting to wonder if there is a general ISP bash going on. I understand that some of their policies are seedy, however I'm thinking about the cost.
While I agree that there may be some of that going on...
They invested huge amounts to create the infrastructure they currently have, and it could be that it is only paying off now? Or it could be that it started off as this, with companies attempting to recoup the costs and start making profit, but then found that they could continue the status quo and make large amounts of money?
Not likely. The capital costs for the infrastructure were paid for during the upgrades, and pretty much written off shortly thereafter. It doesn't take long for that to be accounted for in their accounting systems. So the operating costs are not nearly that bad, and certainly are not significantly high all the time.
This also doesn't take into account that they are selling customers different speeds over the same network. Straight-line networks (like DSL, Fibre) this generally makes sense since the provisioning of the single line can be handled very easily; however, it doesn't make sense for ring networks (like Cable) as they all share the same bandwidth regardless. So either everyone gets the lowest or highest common denominator - that is, everyone gets stuck to the lowest or highest speed of what was purchased by everyone participating in the ring; realistically it means the highest speed.
Do they need to justify what they are doing? They have a responsibility to their shareholders, they serve their customers in the way they think their customers deserve,
Because of how they operate people are going to question it. Yes, they have a responsiblity to their shareholders (by law for public companies); but that is typically at odds with their customers.
what stops the customers from leaving to another company? Honestly is there? Lack of competition?
Lack of ability to change providers to another more meaninful on.
For DSL, the telcos share the lines as required by law; but the backend service is still managed by the same company operating the CO regardless of who you're paying to get the access from. It's the nature of the system. So if you don't like your DSL service from company A, switching to DSL service from company B isn't going to really change anything as Company C operating the CO provide service to both A and B - and may in fact be A or B to start with.
For Fibre, you only get three choices: (i) Verizon FIOS, (ii) AT&T u-Verse, or (iii) paying for the very expensive T1/T3/OC lines that businesses get - typically not something home owners do. And you don't typically get a choice of 'i' or 'ii'; usually only one of them is available if either.
For cable, the cable companies negotiate with municipalities and counties to lock in entire regions into their network. Don't like your cable company? Too bad, if you want Cable you only get one choice unless you move to another area; then you might get a different Cable provider but you still have the same problem if you don't like them either - and that's a rather costly way to change providers.
Satellite? Well, they still (typically) require a telephone line, but again - you get only a few choices, and in the US it's mostly limited to DirecTV or DISH (aka Dish Network).
So you might be able to switch between the various types of providers, but in any given category your options are typically very limited. Sadly, the companies behind the above get in the way of residents getting together to lease a line (e.g. T1/T3) to share - they have often taken the residents to court to get their exclusivity agreements with counties and municipalities enforced even when they didn't provide service yet to the area where the residents were.
I disagree, the reasons the ISP's can continue to charge outrageous rates is because they have a government sanctioned monopoly on last mile delivery. Even if I wanted to setup a cable ISP I couldn't as I have no access. I could setup a telco based one using DSL, but I would be limited to the transit charges the owner (Centurylink in my case) wants to charge my customers.
Exactly. Instead of allowing competion, they fight it. DSL is required to allow competition because of the old regulations on the telephone lines that carry it. But Verizon and AT&T are changing the game by going to fiber instead, and letting DSL languish. Meanwhile, the Cable companies get contracts from the counties/municpalities to be the sole providers for the region so there is no competition in the same technology, and they're not required to share like the telcos are.
Even then, when communities have gotten together to setup their own provider the telcos (via shared fiber) and cable companies have filed lawsuits to prevent them from actually using it.
Short of moving, there's no way you can simply change your providers.
Not saying its right, but Comcast, the other Cable Providers, AT&T, Verizon, etc. will probably all join together in suit to shut it down. They've done it before to other municipalities, even where residents paid to have the fibre optic line installed and split between their homes the telecoms industry has suited and gotten judges to shut it down. Its sad, but true.
So what good is in such demand that it is singlehandedly keeping everyone in Poland employed? What good has gone so out of style that Spain and Greece have such high unemployment rates.
So let's look at the issue for the specific countries you list, and I'll add one more - Italy. Italy, Greece, and Spain are all having a major issue with their economy. The question is why? And the answer really has nothing to do with this thread, but since you asked...
Look at the age spreads.
All typically have a 66% 15-64 age range for the population; but if you look at the 0-14 and 65+ ranges and median ages, you'll see the problem - and it's one of entitlements. The 65+ group is generally dependent on each countries equivalent of the US's Social Security program; yet how fast the 65+ group is growing is an issue - especially for southern Europe. It would be one thing if the age spreads were relatively even - that is, 0-14 and 65+ were about equal (as is Poland) as it is more sustainable than when the 0-14 is a smaller group than 65+. Preferably 0-14 would be larger group.
Leaving the 0-14 and 65+ groups aside, the bigger issue is the spread of ages in the 15-64 range, which the median age reveals. Greece is listed at 40+; and Greece. Comparatively, US and Poland are around 36 median age. (Italy and Spain are more like Greece in demographics, but I cannot find a similar source to specify it.) So this tells us that for Greece the 65+ group is going to start growing really fast compared to the other two groups; Spain and Italy being similar will have the same issue. Without the Median age coming down, and the growth of the 0-14 grow, having a Social Security type program that the 65+ group relies on is only going to be more and more of a problem as people exit the economy and draw benefits, thus depressing the economy as more money is extracted from the economy in order to pay for those benefits - money that could have otherwise been used to promote economic growth and in turn encourage people to have more children and thereby grow the population.
You are clueless;)
But seriously, there are a lot more causes for unemployment than just "advanced technology". If it was technology, then unemployment would increase evenly everywhere it was adopted. This is not happening. Spain does not have the same unemployment rate as Poland, despite similar levels of technology and economic development.
That would be like saying unemployment isn't the same in a city as the country because the farmer had to close the farm.
Different types of jobs are affected differently by technology, and not every job type is in every geographic location. So even if the technology spread evenly across the geography, it would have uneven spreads of how it effected unemployment.
But it seems pretty obvious to me that the drive towards robotic labour will displace millions, perhaps even billions of workers. Modern day capitalism will not survive a future with robotics. I only hope that whatever will replace modern day capitalism will be more humanistic than the current system is!
Economists discount it because in their view any laboror replaced by a robot can be retrained for another job. They fail to account, however, that many of those laborors may be sufficiently along in their careers that another career option may not be an option - e.g. someone about 50 who would need 10 years of retraining for an equivalent position. Pilots would be in that category if they could ever be replaced; especially since there is a mandatory retirement at 65 for commercial pilots (you can ignore it if you are running your own charter company to a degree, or doing bush-pilot) - needless to say, that's how most things are.
The negativity surrounding KickStarter is based on a number of things.
1. project issues
a. There are scam projects. Period. Sometimes they're easily outed, other times you won't know it's a scam until it's well over with.
b. A lot of projects - especially in technology/design (and why these are 2 separate categories is beyond everyone - the overlap is ridiculous) - do not deliver on the estimated shipping date. KickStarter themselves acknowledged this and made everybody using those categories add a 'risks' explanation in which the project creator will explain what difficulties a project may face and how they believe they can overcome these difficulties.
c. Some projects, delivered on time or not, don't deliver what was promised or do deliver what was promised but then the 'thing' falls apart or is otherwise not particularly useful. Think an iPhone holder using a suction cup that fails to keep suction. A fire piston that leaks and fails to ignite the material (fabrication issue, manufacturer has taken responsibility after the creator informed them of the issue, so backers will get a good one). A colorful iDevice cable that is rendered obsolete by the new design (yes, they pledged for the old connector design... more than a year ago before anybody even knew Apple would change things around, but deliver is after that change.
d. Some projects just don't deliver. You already mentioned Zeyez.. that one remains to be seen. But then there's projects like Hanfree. Its creator eventually had to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after some backers went to the courts out of principle - the guy received tens of thousands of dollars, then apparently mismanaged those funds (what they were hoping to find out through the case).
And in 'd' lies a bigger issue, along with 'a'.
Sounds like Kickstarter should require that projects:
1. put funds into an escrow account,
2. receive payments from that escrow account after meeting certain milestones
There would certainly need to be variance based on projects since some projects may require more at different phases - cost for materials for R&D, then later manufacturering, vs. software development vs creating a movie or recording a CD. But they could easily do that, and even allow the backers to have at least a partial say in when the milestones have been reached.
ipv6 could address this problem very easily... no nat allowed on the box, every device have its own ip.
There is still NAT capabilities with IPv6. Of course, that is also assuming the home networks run IPv6 internally as opposed to using IPv4 internally and the router device (cable/DSL/fibre modems) converting to IPv6.
you do not need to do anything special to go from 16-bit real-mode to 32-bit real mode aside from changing what instructions you are using.
As far as I recall it is still called protected mode even if you don't enable paging.
Incorrect. There is 16-bit Real-Mode, 32-bit Real-Mode, and 32-bit Protected Mode. 32-bit Real-Mode is the same as 16-bit Real-Mode except you are using the 32-bit register set (e.g. EAX instead of AX). This is delineated by specifying the Assembly Code as 32-bit up front (for the entire application), or calling into a 32-bit code section (for only part of an application). You can switch between 32-bit and 16-bit Real Modes rather easily - a simple jump to the applicable code.
32-bit Protected Mode enables a buch of other processor features that "protect" you from things. For example, it requires the Descriptor Tables (LDT and GDT) to be configured, and enables more memory than 1 MB. You can, for instance, write the boot loader in pure 32-bit Real Mode, but you would still be limited to 1 MB until you switch from Real Mode to Protected Mode.
Now admitted, Wikipedia's page on x86 Execution Modes only lists 32-bit mode as protected mode, however it neglects to mention the fact that the 32-bit registers are available for use in Real-Mode - thus a 32-bit Real Mode application; this may be a discrepency between documentation and implementation. Note also that its page on 32-bit X-86 Assembly does not state anything about which modes the 32-bit instructions are available in. Unfortunately I don't have my copy of the IA-32 instruction set readily available to refer to right now.
AFAIK, there is already a double-dipping in this respect. They government typically taxes the estate of the dead person, and then taxes the individuals receiving the dispersements from the estate. However, how much typically varies from state to state. For instance, Floriday is a great place for retirees as it has zero taxing on the estate and inheritance; leaving only the individuals to pay their respective taxes in their respective states (if they are not in Florida).
I am not an accountant or a CPA. Consult one for the best advise.
Going further, I wonder if it is possible to rip the 32-bit parts completely away from the silicon at some point?
Do you want that to happen before or after ripping out the 16-bit parts? Even the latest 64-bit CPUs boot up in 16-bit mode. As far as I recall you still need 32-bit mode because there isn't support for switching directly from 16-bit mode to 64-bit mode.
IIRC, I believe you switch into 64-bit mode just like 32-bit mode - by setting a flag in the processor then executing a far jump. So I believe you can indeed go from 16-bit mode directly to 64-bit mode with the AMD64/Intel64 instruction sets.
essentially - you can do it but you do risk resetting the processor if you don't setup the minimal protected mode environment - even if you don't actually go into protected mode.
And, for the record, you do not need to do anything special to go from 16-bit real-mode to 32-bit real mode aside from changing what instructions you are using.
So, how many 386 computers actually have enough RAM to handle a modern kernel?
The size of the kernel had certainly bloated with module & stuff. Yes, I am aware that you COULD custom-compile a kernel with just what you need, but would that even fit in 32Mb RAM (probably a pretty good amount of memory when the 386 was king)?
I used to have a i386 with 4 MB RAM - well, it technically had 8 MB but there was a fault that limited it to 4MB. Linux ran just fine out of the box from Debian, you just had to use the low-memory kernel that was supplied from the distro.
BTW, the Linux kernel uses pittence for memory compared to other kernels.
...well it could be a specialized replacement for the Shuttle, but more likely its a replacement for the high-altitude spy planes - e.g. SR-71 and similar. It's can be more effectively moved around than a satellite so it can easily be where they want it and when. True, people can track it and try to hide from it, but they may not have time to - at least for things like the Cuban Missle Crisis (though to be honest, those days are likely long long gone any how).
That's the point. Are you going to argue that taxing the dead person's disbursement is less moral than taxing a living person's labor, assets, or other?
The dispursement is taxed. It's a matter of what group of people are being hit by the tax. See my other response. The proposed change would hit the low income people far more than it would the high income people.
Wouldn't quite work since it would severely hurt the estates of elderly that are dispersing inheritance to the decease's families. You would be surprised at how many non-wealthy people are still able to leave tens of thousands to their children.
So what? It's still taxing the dead. Whether rich or poor the dead won't need it.
No it's not. That's not how inheritance taxes work.
First, I am not a CPA or lawyer, so talk to one of them for final advice.
Second, the estate pays the estate taxes. But the living indivuals pay inheritance taxes on what they receive after certain limits. So if you receive a $100k check from your now-dead grandparent, you will have a certain amount of that exempted from taxes (for example, the first $60k - namely due to yearly gift limitations, inheritance limitations, etc) and then have to record the remainder as income - and pay income taxes on it yourself.
Reducing that to as low as $5k-$10k won't do anything to keep the rich people from receiving more riches - it'll only further hurt the poor people that don't have much of anything to start with.
Slashdot Mirror
I give them quite a bit of sympathy - but namely because I know how stuck they are.
One of my good friends worked there when they first started up TSA. They promised the guys a lot - security clearances, ability to move to other government jobs, etc. Then they screwed them over by not delivering on those promises. Further, they're exempted from much of the Federal Employee stuff, and Congress made it very hard for a TSA employee to complain, etc. In the end, they have a very high turn over rate, and no one likes working there. It's one case where the Federal Workers Union is desperately needed but is not able to act.
So next time you see a TSA worker, do give them some sympathy - they feel about as good about what they're doing as you do. And they'd mostly like to fix the system, but none of them are able to.
Now then, what you can argue is that this isn't a nice programming interface. It isn't, it's just how the platform does dynamic linking.
It's also not portable. dlopen()/etc are not on Windows - which has its own unique interface for doing the same thing.
It does work in all cases.
Only for functions, not for non-static class members; and (as I pointed out) not efficiently enough for how Qt manages signals/slots; not likely sufficiently enough for how Boost handles them either.
Small correction: wxWidgets isn't public domain. It's licensed under the wxWindows Licence which, as their page states, is like the LGPL but with a few differences.
Interesting. I hadn't looked at in in a few years (2004,2005). So they've changed their license since it use to be public domain. I was surprised at the time, but oh well. Good to see them using a nicer license though.
It works for any symbol, regardless of its type. This has nothing to do with RTTI.
The API for plug-ins is platform-specific since there is no standard interface for C++ plug-ins.
Yes, you could use dlsym() when building the table MOC builds for the connector calls. That's it. That's also a very very small part of what MOC does. That could be done as part of the object constructor...except now you need to store both static compile-time information (the functions you want to add) and dynamic run-time information instead of just the static compile time stuff that MOC generates (in the moc_*.cpp files).
RTTI does a good bit of the rest of what MOC does. In neither case are they both supported by all platform+compiler combinations that Qt supports.
Qt5 now allows C++11 lambas in signal/slots; but only if you enable C++11 functionality when you build it - they still support compilers that don't support C++11 lambas.
dlsym(h, "my_method") There is no need to store it, it's already in the symbol table.
If you do want to store it, there is no need to use an external preprocessor anyway.
That works for functions, but not Class Methods that require an instance of the class. And, even more so, how do you do it in a multi-platform environment in a uniform way? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_loading). Windows doesn't use dlopen/dlsym/dlclose but has its own Win32 functions to do something similar. You're also relying on RTTI; and not every compiler or environment supported by Qt supports RTTI. (RTTI also has its own run-time overhead which is bad in embedded environments like what Qt supports.)
How is Qt still relevant?
Let's see...
It's the only multi-platform development kit that is really as feature complete as most platforms.
It runs on more devices than you'd ever imagine - from small embedded devices to your kitchen appliances to mobile devices to desktops and servers.
It's what KDE is built on.
It's what MeeGo/Mer/Tizen/Sailfish are built on.
It's what Blackberry 10 (BB10) is built on.
AutoDesk is built on it.
CiscoVPN is built on it (well, a really old version at least).
There's plenty more out there; but I'm going to stop there.
It's mature and has all the bells and whistles. Only other alternative is WxWidgets...
What else did you have in mind ?
Here's the basic group that Qt belongs as part of:
WxWidgets is public domain; and was the first (AFAIK) to do both Signals/Slots and Message Maps for inter-object comms.
Gtk was originally just MessageMaps, and now also does Signals/Slots; but it also tends to be heavily GNOME centric and rather largely ignored by GNOME in maintaining it - it moves along, but at a snails pace because they're not really paying attention to it (to my understanding from talking to someone in the GNOME community).
SDL isn't quite as feature complete as any of the others, but can get the job done.
Qt is really the only first class library in that group, and now reaches even more platforms than ever before. And with Qt embedded, it runs in many devices that you may never have thought of as having run Qt (Microwaves, TVs, Refrigerators, etc.). Qt really is to multi-platform development what Linux is to processors in that respect.
So in the sense that nothing else is really as feature complete and professional as Qt - yes, it's in its own category. But in reality there are several other major competitors - and all from the FLOSS community at that.
Of course they are. Just like the telco's and long distance charges. The lines where long paid for but they just keep say that to many people are making LD calls so to help increase the number we need more money. All the while they don't actually increase capacity and just pocket the money.
How we solve this I don't know. The only thing I can think of is to move to the ISP's that aren't gouging as much as the next guy. I know that's hard. I also live in a small town and have very limited choices of ISP's.
Here's one way to try and save your self some money. Buy shares in the ISP (if public). Just like the banks. Try and get some shares so you to can get in on the profits. Yes again easier said then done. I don't have solutions for everything and everyone just ideas, and not always good ones.
I think the telcos, cable companies, etc need to be removed from the business of providing the infrastructure and have it all turned over to a single entity; then they all have to lease it back from that entity. The whole purpose of that entity would be maintaining the infrastructure, and would probably be a part of county or state governments; or an agency - such as a commercial not-for-profit company - on their behalf; and they would be required to keep it maintained to a certain level and relatively current technology while charging the minimum to do so; very similar to how the Bells were regulated.
I'm not one for big government but the required types of infrastructure just don't make sense to leave to anyone else. The current companies just prove over and over that they don't have their customers interests in mind except when required by law, and even then they sometimes don't (e.g. NSA warrantless wiretapping).
While I haven't looked into this seriously, I'm starting to wonder if there is a general ISP bash going on. I understand that some of their policies are seedy, however I'm thinking about the cost.
While I agree that there may be some of that going on...
They invested huge amounts to create the infrastructure they currently have, and it could be that it is only paying off now? Or it could be that it started off as this, with companies attempting to recoup the costs and start making profit, but then found that they could continue the status quo and make large amounts of money?
Not likely. The capital costs for the infrastructure were paid for during the upgrades, and pretty much written off shortly thereafter. It doesn't take long for that to be accounted for in their accounting systems. So the operating costs are not nearly that bad, and certainly are not significantly high all the time.
This also doesn't take into account that they are selling customers different speeds over the same network. Straight-line networks (like DSL, Fibre) this generally makes sense since the provisioning of the single line can be handled very easily; however, it doesn't make sense for ring networks (like Cable) as they all share the same bandwidth regardless. So either everyone gets the lowest or highest common denominator - that is, everyone gets stuck to the lowest or highest speed of what was purchased by everyone participating in the ring; realistically it means the highest speed.
Do they need to justify what they are doing? They have a responsibility to their shareholders, they serve their customers in the way they think their customers deserve,
Because of how they operate people are going to question it. Yes, they have a responsiblity to their shareholders (by law for public companies); but that is typically at odds with their customers.
what stops the customers from leaving to another company? Honestly is there? Lack of competition?
Lack of ability to change providers to another more meaninful on.
For DSL, the telcos share the lines as required by law; but the backend service is still managed by the same company operating the CO regardless of who you're paying to get the access from. It's the nature of the system. So if you don't like your DSL service from company A, switching to DSL service from company B isn't going to really change anything as Company C operating the CO provide service to both A and B - and may in fact be A or B to start with.
For Fibre, you only get three choices: (i) Verizon FIOS, (ii) AT&T u-Verse, or (iii) paying for the very expensive T1/T3/OC lines that businesses get - typically not something home owners do. And you don't typically get a choice of 'i' or 'ii'; usually only one of them is available if either.
For cable, the cable companies negotiate with municipalities and counties to lock in entire regions into their network. Don't like your cable company? Too bad, if you want Cable you only get one choice unless you move to another area; then you might get a different Cable provider but you still have the same problem if you don't like them either - and that's a rather costly way to change providers.
Satellite? Well, they still (typically) require a telephone line, but again - you get only a few choices, and in the US it's mostly limited to DirecTV or DISH (aka Dish Network).
So you might be able to switch between the various types of providers, but in any given category your options are typically very limited. Sadly, the companies behind the above get in the way of residents getting together to lease a line (e.g. T1/T3) to share - they have often taken the residents to court to get their exclusivity agreements with counties and municipalities enforced even when they didn't provide service yet to the area where the residents were.
I disagree, the reasons the ISP's can continue to charge outrageous rates is because they have a government sanctioned monopoly on last mile delivery. Even if I wanted to setup a cable ISP I couldn't as I have no access. I could setup a telco based one using DSL, but I would be limited to the transit charges the owner (Centurylink in my case) wants to charge my customers.
Exactly. Instead of allowing competion, they fight it. DSL is required to allow competition because of the old regulations on the telephone lines that carry it. But Verizon and AT&T are changing the game by going to fiber instead, and letting DSL languish. Meanwhile, the Cable companies get contracts from the counties/municpalities to be the sole providers for the region so there is no competition in the same technology, and they're not required to share like the telcos are.
Even then, when communities have gotten together to setup their own provider the telcos (via shared fiber) and cable companies have filed lawsuits to prevent them from actually using it.
Short of moving, there's no way you can simply change your providers.
Not saying its right, but Comcast, the other Cable Providers, AT&T, Verizon, etc. will probably all join together in suit to shut it down. They've done it before to other municipalities, even where residents paid to have the fibre optic line installed and split between their homes the telecoms industry has suited and gotten judges to shut it down. Its sad, but true.
So what good is in such demand that it is singlehandedly keeping everyone in Poland employed? What good has gone so out of style that Spain and Greece have such high unemployment rates.
So let's look at the issue for the specific countries you list, and I'll add one more - Italy. Italy, Greece, and Spain are all having a major issue with their economy. The question is why? And the answer really has nothing to do with this thread, but since you asked...
Here's some demographic information: Poland
Spain Population Spain Ages
Greece Ages Greece CIA Demographics
Italy Ages
For comparison, we'll also look at the USA: Ages, 2010 Census population and age information.
Look at the age spreads.
All typically have a 66% 15-64 age range for the population; but if you look at the 0-14 and 65+ ranges and median ages, you'll see the problem - and it's one of entitlements. The 65+ group is generally dependent on each countries equivalent of the US's Social Security program; yet how fast the 65+ group is growing is an issue - especially for southern Europe. It would be one thing if the age spreads were relatively even - that is, 0-14 and 65+ were about equal (as is Poland) as it is more sustainable than when the 0-14 is a smaller group than 65+. Preferably 0-14 would be larger group.
Leaving the 0-14 and 65+ groups aside, the bigger issue is the spread of ages in the 15-64 range, which the median age reveals. Greece is listed at 40+; and Greece. Comparatively, US and Poland are around 36 median age. (Italy and Spain are more like Greece in demographics, but I cannot find a similar source to specify it.) So this tells us that for Greece the 65+ group is going to start growing really fast compared to the other two groups; Spain and Italy being similar will have the same issue. Without the Median age coming down, and the growth of the 0-14 grow, having a Social Security type program that the 65+ group relies on is only going to be more and more of a problem as people exit the economy and draw benefits, thus depressing the economy as more money is extracted from the economy in order to pay for those benefits - money that could have otherwise been used to promote economic growth and in turn encourage people to have more children and thereby grow the population.
You are clueless ;)
But seriously, there are a lot more causes for unemployment than just "advanced technology". If it was technology, then unemployment would increase evenly everywhere it was adopted. This is not happening. Spain does not have the same unemployment rate as Poland, despite similar levels of technology and economic development.
That would be like saying unemployment isn't the same in a city as the country because the farmer had to close the farm.
Different types of jobs are affected differently by technology, and not every job type is in every geographic location. So even if the technology spread evenly across the geography, it would have uneven spreads of how it effected unemployment.
But it seems pretty obvious to me that the drive towards robotic labour will displace millions, perhaps even billions of workers. Modern day capitalism will not survive a future with robotics. I only hope that whatever will replace modern day capitalism will be more humanistic than the current system is!
Economists discount it because in their view any laboror replaced by a robot can be retrained for another job. They fail to account, however, that many of those laborors may be sufficiently along in their careers that another career option may not be an option - e.g. someone about 50 who would need 10 years of retraining for an equivalent position. Pilots would be in that category if they could ever be replaced; especially since there is a mandatory retirement at 65 for commercial pilots (you can ignore it if you are running your own charter company to a degree, or doing bush-pilot) - needless to say, that's how most things are.
The negativity surrounding KickStarter is based on a number of things.
1. project issues a. There are scam projects. Period. Sometimes they're easily outed, other times you won't know it's a scam until it's well over with. b. A lot of projects - especially in technology/design (and why these are 2 separate categories is beyond everyone - the overlap is ridiculous) - do not deliver on the estimated shipping date. KickStarter themselves acknowledged this and made everybody using those categories add a 'risks' explanation in which the project creator will explain what difficulties a project may face and how they believe they can overcome these difficulties. c. Some projects, delivered on time or not, don't deliver what was promised or do deliver what was promised but then the 'thing' falls apart or is otherwise not particularly useful. Think an iPhone holder using a suction cup that fails to keep suction. A fire piston that leaks and fails to ignite the material (fabrication issue, manufacturer has taken responsibility after the creator informed them of the issue, so backers will get a good one). A colorful iDevice cable that is rendered obsolete by the new design (yes, they pledged for the old connector design... more than a year ago before anybody even knew Apple would change things around, but deliver is after that change. d. Some projects just don't deliver. You already mentioned Zeyez.. that one remains to be seen. But then there's projects like Hanfree. Its creator eventually had to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after some backers went to the courts out of principle - the guy received tens of thousands of dollars, then apparently mismanaged those funds (what they were hoping to find out through the case).
And in 'd' lies a bigger issue, along with 'a'.
Sounds like Kickstarter should require that projects:
1. put funds into an escrow account,
2. receive payments from that escrow account after meeting certain milestones
There would certainly need to be variance based on projects since some projects may require more at different phases - cost for materials for R&D, then later manufacturering, vs. software development vs creating a movie or recording a CD. But they could easily do that, and even allow the backers to have at least a partial say in when the milestones have been reached.
ipv6 could address this problem very easily... no nat allowed on the box, every device have its own ip.
There is still NAT capabilities with IPv6. Of course, that is also assuming the home networks run IPv6 internally as opposed to using IPv4 internally and the router device (cable/DSL/fibre modems) converting to IPv6.
So the questions is, is that cut being taken from the dead person or the living person?
Both.
you do not need to do anything special to go from 16-bit real-mode to 32-bit real mode aside from changing what instructions you are using.
As far as I recall it is still called protected mode even if you don't enable paging.
Incorrect. There is 16-bit Real-Mode, 32-bit Real-Mode, and 32-bit Protected Mode. 32-bit Real-Mode is the same as 16-bit Real-Mode except you are using the 32-bit register set (e.g. EAX instead of AX). This is delineated by specifying the Assembly Code as 32-bit up front (for the entire application), or calling into a 32-bit code section (for only part of an application). You can switch between 32-bit and 16-bit Real Modes rather easily - a simple jump to the applicable code.
32-bit Protected Mode enables a buch of other processor features that "protect" you from things. For example, it requires the Descriptor Tables (LDT and GDT) to be configured, and enables more memory than 1 MB. You can, for instance, write the boot loader in pure 32-bit Real Mode, but you would still be limited to 1 MB until you switch from Real Mode to Protected Mode.
Now admitted, Wikipedia's page on x86 Execution Modes only lists 32-bit mode as protected mode, however it neglects to mention the fact that the 32-bit registers are available for use in Real-Mode - thus a 32-bit Real Mode application; this may be a discrepency between documentation and implementation. Note also that its page on 32-bit X-86 Assembly does not state anything about which modes the 32-bit instructions are available in. Unfortunately I don't have my copy of the IA-32 instruction set readily available to refer to right now.
AFAIK, there is already a double-dipping in this respect. They government typically taxes the estate of the dead person, and then taxes the individuals receiving the dispersements from the estate. However, how much typically varies from state to state. For instance, Floriday is a great place for retirees as it has zero taxing on the estate and inheritance; leaving only the individuals to pay their respective taxes in their respective states (if they are not in Florida).
I am not an accountant or a CPA. Consult one for the best advise.
Do you want that to happen before or after ripping out the 16-bit parts? Even the latest 64-bit CPUs boot up in 16-bit mode. As far as I recall you still need 32-bit mode because there isn't support for switching directly from 16-bit mode to 64-bit mode.
IIRC, I believe you switch into 64-bit mode just like 32-bit mode - by setting a flag in the processor then executing a far jump. So I believe you can indeed go from 16-bit mode directly to 64-bit mode with the AMD64/Intel64 instruction sets.
Documentation: http://wiki.osdev.org/X86-64#Entering_Long_Mode_directly
Code: http://wiki.osdev.org/Entering_Long_Mode_Directly
essentially - you can do it but you do risk resetting the processor if you don't setup the minimal protected mode environment - even if you don't actually go into protected mode.
And, for the record, you do not need to do anything special to go from 16-bit real-mode to 32-bit real mode aside from changing what instructions you are using.
So, how many 386 computers actually have enough RAM to handle a modern kernel?
The size of the kernel had certainly bloated with module & stuff. Yes, I am aware that you COULD custom-compile a kernel with just what you need, but would that even fit in 32Mb RAM (probably a pretty good amount of memory when the 386 was king)?
I used to have a i386 with 4 MB RAM - well, it technically had 8 MB but there was a fault that limited it to 4MB. Linux ran just fine out of the box from Debian, you just had to use the low-memory kernel that was supplied from the distro.
BTW, the Linux kernel uses pittence for memory compared to other kernels.
...well it could be a specialized replacement for the Shuttle, but more likely its a replacement for the high-altitude spy planes - e.g. SR-71 and similar. It's can be more effectively moved around than a satellite so it can easily be where they want it and when. True, people can track it and try to hide from it, but they may not have time to - at least for things like the Cuban Missle Crisis (though to be honest, those days are likely long long gone any how).
That's the point. Are you going to argue that taxing the dead person's disbursement is less moral than taxing a living person's labor, assets, or other?
The dispursement is taxed. It's a matter of what group of people are being hit by the tax. See my other response. The proposed change would hit the low income people far more than it would the high income people.
Wouldn't quite work since it would severely hurt the estates of elderly that are dispersing inheritance to the decease's families. You would be surprised at how many non-wealthy people are still able to leave tens of thousands to their children.
So what? It's still taxing the dead. Whether rich or poor the dead won't need it.
No it's not. That's not how inheritance taxes work.
First, I am not a CPA or lawyer, so talk to one of them for final advice.
Second, the estate pays the estate taxes. But the living indivuals pay inheritance taxes on what they receive after certain limits. So if you receive a $100k check from your now-dead grandparent, you will have a certain amount of that exempted from taxes (for example, the first $60k - namely due to yearly gift limitations, inheritance limitations, etc) and then have to record the remainder as income - and pay income taxes on it yourself.
Reducing that to as low as $5k-$10k won't do anything to keep the rich people from receiving more riches - it'll only further hurt the poor people that don't have much of anything to start with.