Because: * A 233MHz StrongARM processor is much faster than a 233MHz Cyrix or AMD. * A Netwinder is smaller and lighter than anything the Intel world has to offer * A Netwinder runs on less juice than anything the Intel world has to offer * If you're running company can buy a sixpack of Netwinders for a department, and deploy and manage them with no headaches. In business, most headaches cost more than a few hundred bucks. * The more people who buy them, the more will be made, the more that are made, the cheaper they will be.
In the current case against Microsoft, they are charged with illegally tieing their browser to the OS. Personally, I think this is a rediculous charge and MS will easily win.
I think the charge has some merit, but almost nobody with legal knowledge (except the direct Microsoft spokespeople) say that Microsoft will easily win. They might win, they might lose, it means more to the investors than it does to me.
HOWEVER, all of the PC vendors who refuse to sell systems without also charging their customers for Windows could be breaking the law.
I don't know about other countries, but it is both legal and expected in the United States. First, bundling is only illegal for a monopoly, there is no PC vendor with a monopoly. Secondly, Microsoft's OEM license charges most of these vendors per machine sold, not per copy of Windows sold. The profit on a computer is so small that most companies can't afford to reduce the cost of your machine by the Microsoft tax, unless they neglect to pay Microsoft. This constitutes a breach of contract, so the discount becomes against the law, not the charging for Windows.
AFAIK, I have every right to demand that, say, Compaq reduce the price of a computer by removing all traces of Microsoft from it before they ship it. And, if they do not, they MUST refund the price if I don't want it.
Nope. Compaq has the right to charge what they consider is a fair price for their machine, and you have the right to take it or leave it. Compaq is not the one who you can demand the refund from, it is part of the "End User License Agreement" between you and Microsoft. They are the ones who must supply a refund if you do not wish to use their software.
Also, if legal action was taken, would Microsoft be inable to strike agreements with OEMs which require them to bundle Windows with their products?
If Microsoft is ruled to be a monopoly (which you indicated was "rediculous": hint, tying the browser to the OS is only illegal bundling in the US if they are a monopoly), then prohibiting such agreements would make a lot of sense. If Microsoft wins, it will be impossible.
I was even more surprised at his estimate of 200 years to design the thing. I mean, it's big, but it's only about the size of Manhattan. Manhattan as we know it was both "designed" and built in about two hundred years, and that was being lazy about it. I think, given current design and management techniques, once the appropriate technology is available, NASA could do the formal design within 20 years. If you include developing and testing the appropriate technology into the estimate, than we are probably looking at 100 years today, or 40 if it starts after we have a few major orbital construction projects under our belt.
sorry this is a bit off topic but anyone know how, if possible, i can tell what irq settings are being used in linux?
If your kernel is new enough, you can just "cat/proc/interrupt". That will give you the IRQ settings.
my modem works fine in windows (USRobotics 56k faxmodem)
US Robotics (3Com) makes three kinds of modems: crap, decent and excellent. Their Courier line is excellent, the best modems I've seen for under $500. Their Sportster line is decent, but you might have to wade through some plug and play settings to get the modem working in Linux. Their WinModem line is crap, it's a glorified sound card, coupled with a Closed Source windows program for pretending the sound card is a modem. These won't work in Linux until someone rewrites such software from scratch (it's easier to just spend the extra $30 to get a real modem).
and linux doesn't see it, i'm most positive i just need to change the irq or the com settings on the modem...it would be cool if i knew what to change it to, and didn't have to try random ones...thanks =)
Many modem programs in Linux assume/dev/modem as the device./dev/modem is usually just a symbolic link to the appropriate com port device. Boot up your machine in Windows, check which com port it is hooked up to, remove "COM", subract 1 and preceed it with "/dev/ttyS". For example, "COM1" would translate to "/dev/ttyS0".
Once you know which COM port Windows uses, just: $ cd/dev $ rm modem $ ln -s ttyS0 modem Of course replacing ttyS0 with whichever the approprate tag for the com port you want is.
Re: One little voice of dissention
on
NYT covers WINE
·
· Score: 1
Anonymous Coward wrote:
However, I don't like Wine because it removes some of the incentive for companies to port their apps to Linux. I'm afraid the attitude of "if it works in Wine, why bother do a Linux version?" might prevail. If it does, then you have MS leading the way with that klunky directory structure of theirs.
Wine offers developers an incremental approach to Linux support, which will help bring developers over who otherwise might be too unsure to take the plunge. First, before the company acknowledges Linux, Linux users run their programs under Wine. Wine will never be perfect, since the Windows API is a buggy moveing target. Some of these Linux users will write the developer requesting a native Linux version. Eventually, the company will acknowledge Linux.
Then, they need to figure out how to support Linux, and Wine comes to the rescue with Winelib. This allows Windows developers to produce native Linux software with minimal impact on their source code, and minimal training of their developers.
Lastly, assuming Linux is good enough (and I'm confident it is), they will actively embrace Linux, and start using native toolkits.
I have found many GNOME/GTK apps to work just as well under Linux as similar apps under Win95, and better than those apps under Wine. I would much prefer companies port their stuff using GTK.
I would prefer that too. However, I'm realistic, and I know many companies won't want to learn a whole new GUI API just to support Linux. Winelib gives these developers a Windows API on Linux.
The Hurd was originally started by GNU as part of their project to create a completely free Unix system. Linux did not exist back then, and Linus was still learning his multiplication tables. (Or maybe they are smarter in Finland by that age? I don't know.)
Um, according to the Free Software Foundation, HURD wasn't even started until 1990. Linux was well past his multiplication tables by then, I believe solidly in grad school.
The first release of HURD didn't happen until 1996, six years for an alpha release? That's slow even for a Cathedral project. Somehow I suspect that a lot of what happened in the early 1990's on HURD was talk, and most of the development didn't happen until Linux was on the map.
I think that HURD does offer some useful innovations, whether those innovations remain in a separate project like HURD, or get incorporated into Linux remains to be seen.
They ought to give credit where credit is due: Linux/HURD is the proper name for such a system.
Actually, HURDLinux makes more sense, along the lines of MkLinux, another hybrid Linux/Mach kernel. With the GNU tools it would become GNU/HURDLinux. Just HURD is alot easier, dontchathink?
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll bet he can spell...he just can't type worth a crap! Man, if only he didn't have to spend all that time fixing typos in his code, we'd probably have E 0.20 out by now...;-)
This thread seemed to come out of the blue? Where was anyone ragging on Rasterman here?
My experience, it really is his typing, not his spelling. Anything he takes the time to edit and proofread comes out very clear and readable. When he types it looks like his brain goes faster than his fingers, and they have to struggle to keep up. He gets lots of misplaced spaces and missing letters, far from the sign of a bad speller.
He also seems to avoid proofreading many things, if he sends a basic email, his attitude seems to be that he has better things to do with his time than make sure it is perfectly spelled. From what he does do with his time, I tend to agree.
If they can do a nuclear test without the US awareness, they can do it again.
The US was aware of the nuclear test. Everyone was aware of their nuclear test. That was the point of the test, to put knowledge of their nuclear capability out of the intellegence agencies' files and into public awareness. Pakistan's reply was for a similar purpose.
On the contrary. This should be great for India, because it finally create a larger market for software development for domestic use, as opposed to for export.
Even better, once they get their own software together for their local use, they can export it under their own labels to other countries. Should be easy to sell: "Their software is unsecure. Our software is not only as secure as you want it to be, but we've got proper internationalization support as well."
If they play their cards right, there are alot of emerging markets out there where they could become the primary supplier.
Depends on how you define "secure". I define secure encryption as being more costly for an unauthorized person to decrypt the information than: A) the information is worth; and B) gathering the information through other means
RSA can be applied in such a way that it meets both of these requirements. Most, although not all, of this is mathematically provable.
It has not been proven (as of last I looked) that you need to factor the number to break RSA.
Of course it hasn't been proven that you need to factor the number to break RSA. It's been proven that you need to either factor n or compute the eth roots mod m. For more details, you can go here. I understand the formal proof is given in Applied Cryptography, by Bruce Schneier, but I have not personally examined this.
nor that there is not a fast way to factor a large number. Its just that no one has found a good method for doing it.
There is, of course, no proof that we have the fastest method possible to factor a large number. To quote RSA, "Factoring is widely believed to be a hard problem, but this has not yet been proven." We do have some pretty good factoring methods (see What are the best factoring methods in use today?, from RSA's FAQ), but who knows if someone will come up with a better way next year or even next week. In fact it has been proven that a hypothetical quantum computer could be able to do the factoring problem in polynomial time, one just hasn't been built yet.
Actually, where I live I'd be speaking Dutch if it weren't for the Brits. And I'd be speaking Mohawk if it weren't for the Dutch (the Brits were actually nice to the Mohawks).:-)
According to Netscapes web site, LiveWire runs on Solaris.. If I can't run SSJS on Linux, then I have to convince the suits to buy solaris AND netscapes server which will cost more than NT.
Netscape's FastTrack server runs server side Javascript on Linux. It costs only $295, which should be easier for your bosses to swallow. Unfortunately, I don't think it handles ASP, you would need to convert those pages into some other form (which is a good thing in the long run).
I need the new Gnome so that my background image of the giant topless Amazon wrestling with the the huge red serpent can look better.
Nope, GNOME can only really make images inside gnome-canvas look better. It won't help with your topless Amazon background image unless someone writes a gnomecanvasroot application.
Better yet, maybe RedHat has paid Rasterman and co. more money to improve the giant useless icons on the panel.
For one thing, Rasterman doesn't do the panel, he does Enlightenment, Imlib and Electric Eyes. For another thing, most of what you see in screenshots of the panel aren't icons at all, they are active programs. Yes they are big, but if you want a mini-panel, you are free to make one.
My 52 inch monitor looks so great with all this awesome eye candy.
I'm glad you're happy. If you've got a spare 52" monitor laying around, I'm willing to take it off your hands:-)
P.S. You know, it wouldn't be a bad idea for them to add under their copyright that Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Probably, but I don't think the ® is the appropriate symbol for the Linux trademark, that is for Register marks. I think it's supposed to be TM.
For an example, look at Sun's Logo page. Sun's corporate logo gets an ®. The words "Sun", "Solaris" and "Java" get TM's, as does the Solaris and Java logos (the TM in the Java logo is only 2 pixels high, it's under the right edge of the saucer).
Since "Linux" is not a registered corporation, it would get a TM, not an ®.
Just because Microsoft cannot develop a bug free implimintation of MFC, does not mean the open source community cannot.
The trouble is a bug-free MFC just wouldn't be as useful. Many developers end up with code that depends on things in MFC that would properly be called bugs, with behavior that changes from implementation to implementation. This kind of problem is rampant throughout Wine.
If you look at the source code to Wine, you see many functions which first check to see which bugset to implement, and then run the appropriately broken version of the function. If MFC were implemented, a similar approach would be needed.
[Windows application support] didn't help OS/2 much at all back in the early days of version 2. Although it ran Win3.1 apps better and faster than Windlows itself, people didn't flock to it as anticipated.
Well, first of all, it didn't hurt. OS/2 version 2 sales were still suffering from the bad press generated from the disaster that was OS/2 version 1. In addition, IBM's marketting strategy for OS/2 was very muted compared to Microsoft's marketing behemoth. They focused on existing business customers, and almost ignored the consumer market.
OS/2 Warp Version 3, on the other hand, really benefitted from its Windows compatibility. That was one of the reasons Warp 3 sold more retail copies in its first year than Windows 95 did. Most of Windows 95's sales, even in their first year, was OEM bundling contracts.
One of the listeners did a MP3 translation for those who don't have MP4 players. Get it Here [disclaimer: my box has no sound, I haven't checked if this version is any good]
Re: Work is getting worse?!?
on
Why Work Sucks
·
· Score: 1
JoeBuck wrote:
It's quite likely that some overworked child, or maybe a political prisoner in China, made at least some of the clothes you are wearing.
China? How about the United States. The past few years several sweatshops paying unregistered aliens pennies per hour were shut down in New York City. I'm positive there were plenty more which went undetected and/or unmolested.
Also, as the United States prison system has grown (we've got the largest percentage of lawyers and prisoners in the world) it also has been increasingly commercialized. A sizable portion of the United States manufacturing industry is now (quite legal) prison sweatshops.
Slashdot Mirror
Because:
* A 233MHz StrongARM processor is much faster than a 233MHz Cyrix or AMD.
* A Netwinder is smaller and lighter than anything the Intel world has to offer
* A Netwinder runs on less juice than anything the Intel world has to offer
* If you're running company can buy a sixpack of Netwinders for a department, and deploy and manage them with no headaches. In business, most headaches cost more than a few hundred bucks.
* The more people who buy them, the more will be made, the more that are made, the cheaper they will be.
Please turn down your keyboard...
Anonymous Coward wrote:
In the current case against Microsoft, they are charged with illegally tieing their browser to the OS. Personally, I think this is a rediculous charge and MS will easily win.
I think the charge has some merit, but almost nobody with legal knowledge (except the direct Microsoft spokespeople) say that Microsoft will easily win. They might win, they might lose, it means more to the investors than it does to me.
HOWEVER, all of the PC vendors who refuse to sell systems without also charging their customers for Windows could be breaking the law.
I don't know about other countries, but it is both legal and expected in the United States. First, bundling is only illegal for a monopoly, there is no PC vendor with a monopoly. Secondly, Microsoft's OEM license charges most of these vendors per machine sold, not per copy of Windows sold. The profit on a computer is so small that most companies can't afford to reduce the cost of your machine by the Microsoft tax, unless they neglect to pay Microsoft. This constitutes a breach of contract, so the discount becomes against the law, not the charging for Windows.
AFAIK, I have every right to demand that, say, Compaq reduce the price of a computer by removing all traces of Microsoft from it before they ship it. And, if they do not, they MUST refund the price if I don't want it.
Nope. Compaq has the right to charge what they consider is a fair price for their machine, and you have the right to take it or leave it. Compaq is not the one who you can demand the refund from, it is part of the "End User License Agreement" between you and Microsoft. They are the ones who must supply a refund if you do not wish to use their software.
Also, if legal action was taken, would Microsoft be inable to strike agreements with OEMs which require them to bundle Windows with their products?
If Microsoft is ruled to be a monopoly (which you indicated was "rediculous": hint, tying the browser to the OS is only illegal bundling in the US if they are a monopoly), then prohibiting such agreements would make a lot of sense. If Microsoft wins, it will be impossible.
I was even more surprised at his estimate of 200 years to design the thing. I mean, it's big, but it's only about the size of Manhattan. Manhattan as we know it was both "designed" and built in about two hundred years, and that was being lazy about it. I think, given current design and management techniques, once the appropriate technology is available, NASA could do the formal design within 20 years. If you include developing and testing the appropriate technology into the estimate, than we are probably looking at 100 years today, or 40 if it starts after we have a few major orbital construction projects under our belt.
Purple pretty.....
We need to vote on this. The universe lies in the balance. :-)
Anonymous coward wrote:
/proc/interrupt". That will give you the IRQ settings.
/dev/modem as the device. /dev/modem is usually just a symbolic link to the appropriate com port device. Boot up your machine in Windows, check which com port it is hooked up to, remove "COM", subract 1 and preceed it with "/dev/ttyS". For example, "COM1" would translate to "/dev/ttyS0".
/dev
sorry this is a bit off topic but anyone know how, if possible, i can tell what irq settings are being used in linux?
If your kernel is new enough, you can just "cat
my modem works fine in windows (USRobotics 56k faxmodem)
US Robotics (3Com) makes three kinds of modems: crap, decent and excellent. Their Courier line is excellent, the best modems I've seen for under $500. Their Sportster line is decent, but you might have to wade through some plug and play settings to get the modem working in Linux. Their WinModem line is crap, it's a glorified sound card, coupled with a Closed Source windows program for pretending the sound card is a modem. These won't work in Linux until someone rewrites such software from scratch (it's easier to just spend the extra $30 to get a real modem).
and linux doesn't see it, i'm most positive i just need to change the irq or the com settings on the modem...it would be cool if i knew what to change it to, and didn't have to try random ones...thanks =)
Many modem programs in Linux assume
Once you know which COM port Windows uses, just:
$ cd
$ rm modem
$ ln -s ttyS0 modem
Of course replacing ttyS0 with whichever the approprate tag for the com port you want is.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
However, I don't like Wine because it removes some of the incentive for companies to port their apps to Linux. I'm afraid the attitude of "if it works in Wine, why bother do a Linux version?" might prevail. If it does, then you have MS leading the way with that klunky directory structure of theirs.
Wine offers developers an incremental approach to Linux support, which will help bring developers over who otherwise might be too unsure to take the plunge. First, before the company acknowledges Linux, Linux users run their programs under Wine. Wine will never be perfect, since the Windows API is a buggy moveing target. Some of these Linux users will write the developer requesting a native Linux version. Eventually, the company will acknowledge Linux.
Then, they need to figure out how to support Linux, and Wine comes to the rescue with Winelib. This allows Windows developers to produce native Linux software with minimal impact on their source code, and minimal training of their developers.
Lastly, assuming Linux is good enough (and I'm confident it is), they will actively embrace Linux, and start using native toolkits.
I have found many GNOME/GTK apps to work just as well under Linux as similar apps under Win95, and better than those apps under Wine. I would much prefer companies port their stuff using GTK.
I would prefer that too. However, I'm realistic, and I know many companies won't want to learn a whole new GUI API just to support Linux. Winelib gives these developers a Windows API on Linux.
jerodd wrote:
The Hurd was originally started by GNU as part of their project to create a completely free Unix system. Linux did not exist back then, and Linus was still learning his multiplication tables. (Or maybe they are smarter in Finland by that age? I don't know.)
Um, according to the Free Software Foundation, HURD wasn't even started until 1990. Linux was well past his multiplication tables by then, I believe solidly in grad school.
The first release of HURD didn't happen until 1996, six years for an alpha release? That's slow even for a Cathedral project. Somehow I suspect that a lot of what happened in the early 1990's on HURD was talk, and most of the development didn't happen until Linux was on the map.
I think that HURD does offer some useful innovations, whether those innovations remain in a separate project like HURD, or get incorporated into Linux remains to be seen.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
They ought to give credit where credit is due: Linux/HURD is the proper name for such a system.
Actually, HURDLinux makes more sense, along the lines of MkLinux, another hybrid Linux/Mach kernel. With the GNU tools it would become GNU/HURDLinux. Just HURD is alot easier, dontchathink?
Ewan McGregor is Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Liam Neeson is listed as "A Venerable Jedi Knight"
More information (with no spoilers) can be found on the Star Wars: Episode I - Cast page.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
;-)
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll bet he can spell...he just can't type worth a crap! Man, if only he didn't have to spend all that time fixing typos in his code, we'd probably have E 0.20 out by now...
This thread seemed to come out of the blue? Where was anyone ragging on Rasterman here?
My experience, it really is his typing, not his spelling. Anything he takes the time to edit and proofread comes out very clear and readable. When he types it looks like his brain goes faster than his fingers, and they have to struggle to keep up. He gets lots of misplaced spaces and missing letters, far from the sign of a bad speller.
He also seems to avoid proofreading many things, if he sends a basic email, his attitude seems to be that he has better things to do with his time than make sure it is perfectly spelled. From what he does do with his time, I tend to agree.
liang wrote:
If they can do a nuclear test without the US awareness, they can do it again.
The US was aware of the nuclear test. Everyone was aware of their nuclear test. That was the point of the test, to put knowledge of their nuclear capability out of the intellegence agencies' files and into public awareness. Pakistan's reply was for a similar purpose.
Vidar Hokstad wrote:
On the contrary. This should be great for India, because it finally create a larger market for software development for domestic use, as opposed to for export.
Even better, once they get their own software together for their local use, they can export it under their own labels to other countries. Should be easy to sell:
"Their software is unsecure. Our software is not only as secure as you want it to be, but we've got proper internationalization support as well."
If they play their cards right, there are alot of emerging markets out there where they could become the primary supplier.
Zachary Kessin wrote:
No one has ever proved that RSA is secure.
Depends on how you define "secure". I define secure encryption as being more costly for an unauthorized person to decrypt the information than:
A) the information is worth; and
B) gathering the information through other means
RSA can be applied in such a way that it meets both of these requirements. Most, although not all, of this is mathematically provable.
It has not been proven (as of last I looked) that you need to factor the number to break RSA.
Of course it hasn't been proven that you need to factor the number to break RSA. It's been proven that you need to either factor n or compute the eth roots mod m. For more details, you can go here. I understand the formal proof is given in Applied Cryptography, by Bruce Schneier, but I have not personally examined this.
nor that there is not a fast way to factor a large number. Its just that no one has found a good method for doing it.
There is, of course, no proof that we have the fastest method possible to factor a large number. To quote RSA, "Factoring is widely believed to be a hard problem, but this has not yet been proven." We do have some pretty good factoring methods (see What are the best factoring methods in use today?, from RSA's FAQ), but who knows if someone will come up with a better way next year or even next week. In fact it has been proven that a hypothetical quantum computer could be able to do the factoring problem in polynomial time, one just hasn't been built yet.
Actually, where I live I'd be speaking Dutch if it weren't for the Brits. And I'd be speaking Mohawk if it weren't for the Dutch (the Brits were actually nice to the Mohawks). :-)
doog wrote:
What do you mean ASP modules exist for Apache? What are they called?
Check out Apache-ASP by Joshua Chamas.
According to Netscapes web site, LiveWire runs on Solaris.. If I can't run SSJS on Linux, then I have to convince the suits to buy solaris AND netscapes server which will cost more than NT.
Netscape's FastTrack server runs server side Javascript on Linux. It costs only $295, which should be easier for your bosses to swallow. Unfortunately, I don't think it handles ASP, you would need to convert those pages into some other form (which is a good thing in the long run).
Anonymous Troll wrote:
:-)
I need the new Gnome so that my background image of the giant topless Amazon wrestling with the the huge red serpent can look better.
Nope, GNOME can only really make images inside gnome-canvas look better. It won't help with your topless Amazon background image unless someone writes a gnomecanvasroot application.
Better yet, maybe RedHat has paid Rasterman and co. more money to improve the giant useless icons on the panel.
For one thing, Rasterman doesn't do the panel, he does Enlightenment, Imlib and Electric Eyes. For another thing, most of what you see in screenshots of the panel aren't icons at all, they are active programs. Yes they are big, but if you want a mini-panel, you are free to make one.
My 52 inch monitor looks so great with all this awesome eye candy.
I'm glad you're happy. If you've got a spare 52" monitor laying around, I'm willing to take it off your hands
Does having an OpenBible mean we can make modifications? :-)
Zach Baker wrote:
P.S. You know, it wouldn't be a bad idea for them to add under their copyright that Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Probably, but I don't think the ® is the appropriate symbol for the Linux trademark, that is for Register marks. I think it's supposed to be TM.
For an example, look at Sun's Logo page. Sun's corporate logo gets an ®. The words "Sun", "Solaris" and "Java" get TM's, as does the Solaris and Java logos (the TM in the Java logo is only 2 pixels high, it's under the right edge of the saucer).
Since "Linux" is not a registered corporation, it would get a TM, not an ®.
dattaway wrote:
Just because Microsoft cannot develop a bug free implimintation of MFC, does not mean the open source community cannot.
The trouble is a bug-free MFC just wouldn't be as useful. Many developers end up with code that depends on things in MFC that would properly be called bugs, with behavior that changes from implementation to implementation. This kind of problem is rampant throughout Wine.
If you look at the source code to Wine, you see many functions which first check to see which bugset to implement, and then run the appropriately broken version of the function. If MFC were implemented, a similar approach would be needed.
bjwest wrote:
[Windows application support] didn't help OS/2 much at all back in the early days of version 2. Although it ran Win3.1 apps better and faster than Windlows itself, people didn't flock to it as anticipated.
Well, first of all, it didn't hurt. OS/2 version 2 sales were still suffering from the bad press generated from the disaster that was OS/2 version 1. In addition, IBM's marketting strategy for OS/2 was very muted compared to Microsoft's marketing behemoth. They focused on existing business customers, and almost ignored the consumer market.
OS/2 Warp Version 3, on the other hand, really benefitted from its Windows compatibility. That was one of the reasons Warp 3 sold more retail copies in its first year than Windows 95 did. Most of Windows 95's sales, even in their first year, was OEM bundling contracts.
One of the listeners did a MP3 translation for those who don't have MP4 players. Get it Here [disclaimer: my box has no sound, I haven't checked if this version is any good]
JoeBuck wrote:
It's quite likely that some overworked child, or maybe a political prisoner in China, made at least some of the clothes you are wearing.
China? How about the United States. The past few years several sweatshops paying unregistered aliens pennies per hour were shut down in New York City. I'm positive there were plenty more which went undetected and/or unmolested.
Also, as the United States prison system has grown (we've got the largest percentage of lawyers and prisoners in the world) it also has been increasingly commercialized. A sizable portion of the United States manufacturing industry is now (quite legal) prison sweatshops.
News for Finns. Stuff that matters.
:-)