And around and around. How do you think they get elected in the first place? We have a very 'us first' oriented culture (not that it is unique to the US) and thus people who play to it or exemplify how 'me first' can make you rich and powerful tend to get votes.
And that is why there is backlash. Asking people to give up something that gives them an advantage and only negatively impacts other people plays into a rather strong narrative that many have.
Unfortunately people get really pissy when a regulation takes away some advantage they have over other people using the shared resource. It is kinda like those triggers that turn red lights green, when a few people are using them it isn't a huge deal and the people love the devices, but as they become more common it starts to degrade the whole system. Granted the FCC might be jumping the gun a bit here, but conceptually this is pretty in line with what they are supposed to be doing for once.
Unfortunately, that is also why the old 'cowboys and indians' thing is still 'ok' in many people's minds. A significant number of people follow a rather absolute type of morality which is to a significant degree defined by who you preform an action on, not the action. So as long as your victim falls into certain 'otherness' categories it is not unethical, since you are part of the 'good guys' and as long as you are not attacking other 'good guys' then you are fighting evil.
That and the people who would actually be impacted by such a law can not vote. The number of voters who are willing to support votes that restrict people who are not like them is generally greater then the number of voters willing to support votes that benefit people who are not like them. Defending others takes more empathy then defending your own, so most people do not bother.
I recall each question being fairly short in how much work it took, so in general it was fairly obvious if the student knew what they were doing or not. But yeah, compared to being able to just see if their final answer matches a key, harder to grade.
I had a professor once who liked giving 'test of twos'. You knew ahead of time that the answer to every single question was '2', thus showing your work was what was important.
Perhaps not, but given their comparative weakness within the EU, they might get thrown under the buss. Not all member states get the same level of collective defense.
Yeah, but then you depend on Lithuania to defend your claim.
While the US might have issues, one can claim that the federal government can be pretty aggressive in protecting its citizen's interests in the international arena. Register your claim through the US, and it is backed by the US.
There is a good possibility of that. Property rights stem from states willing to enforce them. Take away the established state and everyone becomes a mini-state.. so your claim is only as good as your ability to stop other people from claiming it.
Some people like general tools that can do everything mostly well, some people like specialized tools that are designed around doing one thing, it is an old preference argument.
Though setting aside that, one thing people like about these dedicated devices the physical keys and large amount of space devoted to them. A smartphone (assuming one even has one. geeks consider them universal, but they really are not) will generally provide a smaller UI (display + input) and input has no tactile feedback.
As for laptops, that gets into the whole 'computers in the classroom' argument, which has been well covered on slashdot.
Because the point is to learn the math? The coursework is not designed to teach you how to use a tool, it is to teach you how the underlying pieces work.
Unfortunately, most commenters do not bother looking past 'patent references thing that was done before in its reference section, therefor it is patenting something that was already done!' and tend to leave out that if you make such references, the patent is supposed to explain why the new thing is substantially different.
They are also severely overworked and undertrained. Patent review sounds simple from the outside, but we only tend to feel that way when we have personal knowledge of a particular patent. Throw a thousand various tech patents on any one of our desks and I would wager that even with our domain knowledge we would only recognize historical patterns a small fraction of the time.
Actually they are at the core of the situation. The business relationship between card holder and issuer has a murky set of legal and common expectations, and most users have the expectation that the issuer does not get a say in how and where they spend their money. Banks and similar institutions are generally thought of as neutral, holding on to people's money but when the person wants the bank to send their money to someone else the bank is expected to comply since it is not their money.
Here we have a small group of powerful entities using their positions as gatekeepers of electronic transfer to prevent private entities from interacting with each other economically. This is only legal because they got the laws written in such a way that makes it legal.
While stuff like this gets more press, there are lots of other cases where payment processors are using morality based processing restrictions to try to pressure companies and consumers to conform to their ethics. There is a fairly small number of core groups and, to be blunt, it is hard to run a business if you can not accept payments. There are plenty of cases of this pressure being used on businesses engaged in perfectly legal activities.
Years ago yes, but increasingly, as it has proven itself, Lua has made it deeper and deeper into the code and is increasingly being used in time constrained sections.
Actually, if it is done right, the Lua module would probably provide a better security barrier then regular kernel modules. The interpreter is also pretty small, and lua is pretty compact/efficient. It is unlikely that this capability would tip your system from 'fine' to 'slow'.
On modern desktop and server chips? I disagree. There are places where assembly is still manageable, but such processors are too unpredictable to really take advantage of such things easily.
To a significant degree, community, tradition, and domain knowledge. Kernels are generally written in C, so kernel and driver developers learn the language well and get used to using it in such an environment. If you want to do such development getting help from the community will generally come back in terms of C. This is not to say that the technological reasons are either good or myth, but things like community knowledge/support, examples, tools, APIs, etc, are non trivial factors.
Actually Lua is pretty efficient (and restricted), which is one of the reasons it has become so popular for use in soft real time environments.
True it is not going to be as efficient as C, but when we get to device drivers we are not necessarily talking 'every cycle counts' anymore and other considerations start to factor in.
Slashdot Mirror
That, unfortunately, is what they said about Pascal....
Having it happen to a rich person makes it news, but the basic problem is there and likely impacts middle class people too.
As specs evolve and advances slow down, what software something runs will probably increasingly become the differentiating factor.
And around and around. How do you think they get elected in the first place? We have a very 'us first' oriented culture (not that it is unique to the US) and thus people who play to it or exemplify how 'me first' can make you rich and powerful tend to get votes.
And that is why there is backlash. Asking people to give up something that gives them an advantage and only negatively impacts other people plays into a rather strong narrative that many have.
Unfortunately people get really pissy when a regulation takes away some advantage they have over other people using the shared resource. It is kinda like those triggers that turn red lights green, when a few people are using them it isn't a huge deal and the people love the devices, but as they become more common it starts to degrade the whole system. Granted the FCC might be jumping the gun a bit here, but conceptually this is pretty in line with what they are supposed to be doing for once.
Unfortunately, that is also why the old 'cowboys and indians' thing is still 'ok' in many people's minds. A significant number of people follow a rather absolute type of morality which is to a significant degree defined by who you preform an action on, not the action. So as long as your victim falls into certain 'otherness' categories it is not unethical, since you are part of the 'good guys' and as long as you are not attacking other 'good guys' then you are fighting evil.
That and the people who would actually be impacted by such a law can not vote. The number of voters who are willing to support votes that restrict people who are not like them is generally greater then the number of voters willing to support votes that benefit people who are not like them. Defending others takes more empathy then defending your own, so most people do not bother.
I recall each question being fairly short in how much work it took, so in general it was fairly obvious if the student knew what they were doing or not. But yeah, compared to being able to just see if their final answer matches a key, harder to grade.
I had a professor once who liked giving 'test of twos'. You knew ahead of time that the answer to every single question was '2', thus showing your work was what was important.
Perhaps not, but given their comparative weakness within the EU, they might get thrown under the buss. Not all member states get the same level of collective defense.
Yeah, but then you depend on Lithuania to defend your claim.
While the US might have issues, one can claim that the federal government can be pretty aggressive in protecting its citizen's interests in the international arena. Register your claim through the US, and it is backed by the US.
There is a good possibility of that. Property rights stem from states willing to enforce them. Take away the established state and everyone becomes a mini-state.. so your claim is only as good as your ability to stop other people from claiming it.
Some people like general tools that can do everything mostly well, some people like specialized tools that are designed around doing one thing, it is an old preference argument.
Though setting aside that, one thing people like about these dedicated devices the physical keys and large amount of space devoted to them. A smartphone (assuming one even has one. geeks consider them universal, but they really are not) will generally provide a smaller UI (display + input) and input has no tactile feedback.
As for laptops, that gets into the whole 'computers in the classroom' argument, which has been well covered on slashdot.
Because the point is to learn the math? The coursework is not designed to teach you how to use a tool, it is to teach you how the underlying pieces work.
Unfortunately, most commenters do not bother looking past 'patent references thing that was done before in its reference section, therefor it is patenting something that was already done!' and tend to leave out that if you make such references, the patent is supposed to explain why the new thing is substantially different.
They are also severely overworked and undertrained. Patent review sounds simple from the outside, but we only tend to feel that way when we have personal knowledge of a particular patent. Throw a thousand various tech patents on any one of our desks and I would wager that even with our domain knowledge we would only recognize historical patterns a small fraction of the time.
I use a spring scale personally.
Actually they are at the core of the situation. The business relationship between card holder and issuer has a murky set of legal and common expectations, and most users have the expectation that the issuer does not get a say in how and where they spend their money. Banks and similar institutions are generally thought of as neutral, holding on to people's money but when the person wants the bank to send their money to someone else the bank is expected to comply since it is not their money.
Here we have a small group of powerful entities using their positions as gatekeepers of electronic transfer to prevent private entities from interacting with each other economically. This is only legal because they got the laws written in such a way that makes it legal.
While stuff like this gets more press, there are lots of other cases where payment processors are using morality based processing restrictions to try to pressure companies and consumers to conform to their ethics. There is a fairly small number of core groups and, to be blunt, it is hard to run a business if you can not accept payments. There are plenty of cases of this pressure being used on businesses engaged in perfectly legal activities.
So this is different from vigilante justice how?
Years ago yes, but increasingly, as it has proven itself, Lua has made it deeper and deeper into the code and is increasingly being used in time constrained sections.
Actually, if it is done right, the Lua module would probably provide a better security barrier then regular kernel modules. The interpreter is also pretty small, and lua is pretty compact/efficient. It is unlikely that this capability would tip your system from 'fine' to 'slow'.
On modern desktop and server chips? I disagree. There are places where assembly is still manageable, but such processors are too unpredictable to really take advantage of such things easily.
To a significant degree, community, tradition, and domain knowledge. Kernels are generally written in C, so kernel and driver developers learn the language well and get used to using it in such an environment. If you want to do such development getting help from the community will generally come back in terms of C. This is not to say that the technological reasons are either good or myth, but things like community knowledge/support, examples, tools, APIs, etc, are non trivial factors.
Actually Lua is pretty efficient (and restricted), which is one of the reasons it has become so popular for use in soft real time environments.
True it is not going to be as efficient as C, but when we get to device drivers we are not necessarily talking 'every cycle counts' anymore and other considerations start to factor in.