Right. The maximum amplitude of the TV show (or at least the maximum volume it could have for some part if it chose to do so) and the maximum amplitude of commercials are the same. But commercials stay at the maximum amplitude all the time (So pretty much no dynamic range remains), while television shows often use the maximum amplitude very rarely with an average volume much lower.
Thus the difference is that the average amplitude of a commercial is much higher than the average amplitude of a TV show, although the maximums of both are the same.
What people want is for the average amplitude of commericals to be equal to the average amplitude of Tv shows. Commercials could either stop compressing the dynamic range, or turn it down such that it is still highly compressed, but now the maximum used amplitude happens to be roughly equal to average amplitude of the show. Obviously, there is little reason to do the latter, so the companies would instead have a normal dynamic range, and adjust the gain so the average amplitude matches that of television shows, and everybody is happy.
I am not aware of any commercial detection system that uses volume. Myth TV for example flags apparent scene changes, looking for fade to black, a TV station logo no longer being present, and several other things.
If all went well it notices and flags the point where commericals start, as well as where commericals end, without flagging internal scene changes or anthing like that. If it worked, then when watching there are controls to jump to the next marked pointed or back to the last marked point.
If automatic commercial skipping is on, then whenever it reached one of these markers, it jumps to the next one. If markers were only inserted at commercial start and stop points, then this will be perfect. If it flagged a break between two commercials, or a show's internal scene change then this breaks, and you need to help it out by jumping back to the previous marker, or forward to the next, as the case may be.
Hot metal crane operators need no degree, and are considered part of the unskilled labor force. I know this, since I have a friend who is a hot metal crane operator, at least when he can be, and has not been bumped to say the assembly line by somebody with more seniority. Yes there is some training, but it is not nearly as significant any of the jobs classified as "skilled jobs". Not to say that there is no skill at all involved, but the skill involved is not sufficient to cause classification as "skilled labor".
Android 2.1 will be out before this phone will be out. What I'm hoping for in 2.5 is proper multi-touch support in the core applications (like pinch zoom in the browser), fixes to allow proper hands free phone operations. (Pressing the Bluetoooth headset button when not in a call will call up voice search, which doubles as voice dial).
And a proper solution to apps on SD. That has some issues, such as what to do if the card is removed while running, but on some phones like the Droid, it makes little difference since the battery must be removed to remove the card. But that is only a minor issue.
The next issue is how to best do this. Using unionfs or equivalent to mount the SD card directory over the main directory works ok, although makes it almost impossible to move any apps so they live directly on the phone. The alternative is to just have the phone check more locations for applications (it already checks 3 locations, so what are a few more?
The biggest question is how to handle copy protected apps (not all for-pay apps are copy protected, nor are all copy protected apps for pay). Android currently handles them by putting them in a directory protected with Unix permissions. Unless one has root to the phone the directory cannot be read. Dev Phones are not supposed to be allowed to downlad any copy protected app, so those having root available is moot.
That level of protection is not ideal, but works better than nothing. Google does not want an APPS-on-SD solution to be any less secure. There is an easy way to solve this though. Simple create a file system as a file on the SD card. The filesystem will be encrypted and loopback mounted using the standard Linux facilities for this. The key (generated on first run of the phone) will be stored on the phone itself in the existing POSIX permissions protected directory.
The filesystem inside the loopback mounted file will also have POSIX permissions protection of course. This is where all the copy protected apps will be stored if stored on SD.
----
By the way, besides hacked in multitouch support (which is obsoleted by Eclair with its official multitouch support) what all is in the SenseUI suite of changes?
I know a rewritten home app is present, with 7 (?) pages and a replacement shape for the drawer at the bottom that has 3 buttons, one of which opens the drawer, the second of which launches the phone app, and the third of which, I'm not really sure what it does. It includes several additional widgets for the home screen, with selectable styles (of varying sizes, some that take up a whole page). The status bar color has been made black.
Most of the other built-in other apps looks like they have been rewritten to conform to a new GUI standard, but it is not clear if much functionality was added, at least that was worthwhile. The apparent Social networking integration features it has look like they would need to be integrated into android 2.0's account manager. They also seem pointless to me, Since I'm not a big user of social networks.
I will say though that the visuals of SenseUI are rather impressive, and do look more polished than the default android application visuals.
Hot metal crane operation is an unskilled job, which has minimal training, and in fact is far more likely to fail in a fatal manner when operated by a human then when not. There have been fatalities under human operation, while there have been no fatalities under automated operation in those plants that use them. Draw your own conclusions.
Reply to myself again. It looks like the frien hiding is possible, but it reqwuires removing them from your profile entirely, but it is still possible for anybody to see the list using a URL like http://www.facebook.com/friends/?id=zuck. Thanks to gleffler for this info.
I agree. It in fact seems probable that the photos were inadvertant, although I'm no sure about the rest. Some of the rest may have been intentional or it all amy have been unintentional. His removal of the images strongly implies it was unintentional.
Many conditions like OCD or bipolar in young children are generally guesses on the part of the doctor who prescribe something that tends to work on many mental illnesses, and if a positive improvement is noted, then this is cited as evidence that the original diagnosis was correct, despite potentially being completely wrong, and the actual condition being something else the medication is effective on.
Of course, that is not as horrible as it sounds. If the medication fixes the problem, the initial diagnosis is somewhat less important, although if looking for alternatives to medication, or alternate medications, the correct diagnosis becomes important again.
http://www.facebook.com/markzuckerberg is a Facebook Page about Mark, that he runs, which allows people to become "fans" of him. His Profile is at http://www.facebook.com/zuck, although either he removed his photos, or Facebook is glitching again. More damning is the fact that he appears to have hidden his friend's list, unless that is part of the glitch.
Sure, I admit up front that I have a strong bias in the direction of the US, where CDMA very common, so common in fact that even users of the GSM networks have no understanding of a carrier independent phone. In Europe, South Ameria, Africa, and Asia Nokias may be way mor common, but in the US, most commonly seen phones seem to be in no particular order: Apple, LG, Samsung, Motorola, and for older style smartphones HTC.
with SELinux like the parent was describing, you can restrict rights to only what is needed by the program. You can do this for any application if you know what rights the application needs.
So if gwenview does not need acess to cookies and you've set things up right, than no exploit in it can give access to cookies, since gwenview lacks to permission to access cookies.
No argument from me. Perl 6 is a big project. I was just correcting the implication that Python 3000 has been as long time in coming as Perl 6, since it is already here.
My problem was with the statement that "The robot thing is wrong as well - if somebody is doing it instead of a robot then it's not easy enough for a robot to do."
I do know that in a nearyby GM foundry, there is a job that involves driving a crane around on tracks attached to the ceiling, with the cranes carrying molton iron. The cranes are driven by human operators, despite the fact that the job is essentially mindless. The operators of the cranes all agree that there is no reason the system could not be automated, and that the automation might even make things safer. The articulated robot arms used in parts of the assembly process are far more complicated then such a robotic crane would need to be.
Basically the main reason GM does not is that the union would fight it, and it would be a major pain in the ass of a project to set up, so they feel it is not worth it. That is despite the fact that the job is indisputably easy enough for a robot to do.
If there was a good reason for not wanting to do robots, perhaps they can be made remote control. It would move people out of harms way, allowing GM to avoid hazard pay to the crane drivers, plus the cranes move slow enough, and the reaction time requirerments are low enough that in doing so they could have one person remoting driving several of these cranes saving more money.
I have no doubt that complex welds take skill, and even some moderate complexity welds can benefit greatly from skill.
True, but sometimes the current models are more complicated models that have been closely tuned to appear to match reality, but in fact are overcomplicated. Take quantum mechanics. It really looks to me like somewhere along the line we ignored Occam's Razor and jumped to a more complicated model. I believe this happened when we decided to take particle statistics and claim that these applied to individual particles. So instead of a particle having a position it has a position probability field, etc.
In contrast to say the theory of special relativity, where the results although awkward must be roughly true, or one of the two premises on which it is based must be incorrect. Since it is pretty much the simplest possible model that allows the properties to hold, and there is tons of evidence that strongly suggests the premises must be true. Compair that to QM, where the basic premises are not well defined, and where one really can't say that it is the simplest possible model that supports a small number of well supported premises. It is not very clear that no simpler model could possibly work.
Now lets say I come up with a simpler model, that is a closer match to experimental data than early QM was. However it is not as good a match as the latest really complicated and heavily tunes QM models are. It would be largely ignored by most Theoretical physicists, since the current model is better. Now my new model might with a bit more development turn into a far better match than the current latest models, while being substantially similar. In that case, many mainstream physicists might start looking at it. But to find out if my model can become better than the latest and greatest would require some other people to take some additional interest in it, and play around with it some more before the improvements are discovered.
The problem basically is that the modern models are so complicated and so highly tuned that it is not viable to devise a substantially different model that has results just as good as the current ones. as no one person or small team could come up with the core of such a theory and make adjustments till it becomes a better predictor than the current model, but there is no way to get more than a small team to work on such a model.
The adblock equivlent is available. It is called adthwart. It is listed as a top extension. It by default uses EasyList which is by far the most popular advertisement list for Adblock.
That is not true. There are quite a few remaining jobs in the auto industry that could be replaced by robots but are not. Some of them the unions would never allow toe be automated. Others while automatable, might cost more per unit work once you factor in costs of the robot. (Robots wear out over time, need maintence etc), even if the job is actually quite easy for the robot to do.
Others are cases of laziness, where it would take too much work on the part of those in charge of making decisions for a rather small gain.
One last possibiltiy is that switching over to robots would result in a major short term loss, with the gains coming in only in the long term. Modern corporations tend to chose to maximize short term profits. Consider the fact that the plant might need to be shut down for a few moths to set up the robots, during which no cars are made. No cars made means fewer cars to sell. Fewer cars to sell means less short term profit. Combined with the major expenses of the retooling, the quarterly and annual earnings reports would look quite dismal.
Nobody can develop a Flash VM but Adobe? That is nonsense. What you meant to say was that nobody can use the swf documentation to develop a Flash VM wihtout first getting permission from Adobe.
Also, what pdf reader comes by default on an Android phone? I'm guessing you mean the one developed by HTC and that is only available on non Google-Experience phones (phones that don't have the Google logo on them).
True, and it is a good idea. However, if the existance of the treaty and the general terms are not secret, but only the exact wording, it is hardly a secret treaty. I'm of the opinion that even only-the-exact-wording-is-secret treaties should not be permitted either, but they are indisputable much better than a fully secret treaty.
We also have the associated concept of secrecy of treaties in development. Here nearly full secrecy may be acceptable for military treaties especially surrenders and the like. After all, it really does not hurt to have ongoing negotiations in this respect throughout a war. The parties may find a mutually agreeable resolution the the conflict via such negotiations long before either party is willing to surrender. But if public was generally aware of such negotiations, especially if they were painted as negations for surrender, it could really hurt morale.
But I'm not sure I see much reason for non-military treaties to be developed in secret. If the idea is to avoid embarrassment to a nation that is unwilling to accept what appears to be a very desirable idea (perhaps they have a legitmate reason to reject such a term), secret development is overkill. Diplomats are rather good at publicly discussing something without revealing unessisary information to the public. If needed the negotiations could a parliamentary procedure system that allows moving for discussion of a small and specific topic off the record, as long as only one such secret discussion is going on at a time, and at the conclusion the idea must either be implemented in the draft, or discarded. At all times though the draft must be public and the wording under consideration must be public. Thus the public will know everything that was considered, and if it was rejected or not, but not necessarily who rejected it or why.
But Python 3000 is already out, as Python 3.0, while Perl 6 is not. So Perl 6 is taking longer than even Python 3000. Besides, the real reason Guido changed jobs was because Google felt that python was so important to its operations that it could not risk letting development stall, so they made Guido a job offer, with his job being at least in part, developing python. (I have no idea how much work on Google specific stuff Guido does, but I imagine it is probably more than zero).
It takes me one second or less to recognize that "for(p = s->next; p; p = p->next)" is iterating a linked list, or a close relative thereof. It definitely takes several seconds for me to recognize "for(ss = s->ss; ss; ss = ss->ss)" as doing the same. At first glance it looks like the initial and loop conditions are the same, thanks to using "s" and "ss".
I'm also not particularly used to seeing a for loop being used for linked list iteration. I'm familiar with for_each loops for the purpose, in languages that have such a feature, otherwise the code I see tends to use while loops for this. The for loop form is actually better in that experienced programmers can quickly recognize it by the structure of a single line, while the while loop requires scanning multiple lines.
This is not nearly as bad as say Duff's Device which would be very confusing upon seeing it for the first time.
Hell from my US experience Nokia was the maker of many of the dirt cheap candy-bar phones that had no os to speak of. Everything ran on the base-band processor, with no opertunaty for new software. The only filesystem was that required by the CDMA base-band, which was used to hold the background images, ringtones, contacts, and SMS's.
I've never seen anybody with one of the better Nokia phones, since the other brands phones were better anyway. I've honestly never even seen a real phone that uses SymbianOS. So if Nokia's are at all popular it is a very regional thing.
Why would I travel to Kinko's (or whatever my local copy shop is) every time I want something printed out in color? Inkjet printers work well enough, especially when supplemented with a reasonably high quality laser printer for B&W prints. Even though it costs Kinko's less per page than it costs me, they charge me more than it costs me, not to mention cost of time.
Belive me. I recently spent a fair amount of time without any working printer, and having to get stuff printed elsewhere (even free) is a real pain.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. The maximum amplitude of the TV show (or at least the maximum volume it could have for some part if it chose to do so) and the maximum amplitude of commercials are the same. But commercials stay at the maximum amplitude all the time (So pretty much no dynamic range remains), while television shows often use the maximum amplitude very rarely with an average volume much lower.
Thus the difference is that the average amplitude of a commercial is much higher than the average amplitude of a TV show, although the maximums of both are the same.
What people want is for the average amplitude of commericals to be equal to the average amplitude of Tv shows. Commercials could either stop compressing the dynamic range, or turn it down such that it is still highly compressed, but now the maximum used amplitude happens to be roughly equal to average amplitude of the show. Obviously, there is little reason to do the latter, so the companies would instead have a normal dynamic range, and adjust the gain so the average amplitude matches that of television shows, and everybody is happy.
I am not aware of any commercial detection system that uses volume. Myth TV for example flags apparent scene changes, looking for fade to black, a TV station logo no longer being present, and several other things.
If all went well it notices and flags the point where commericals start, as well as where commericals end, without flagging internal scene changes or anthing like that. If it worked, then when watching there are controls to jump to the next marked pointed or back to the last marked point.
If automatic commercial skipping is on, then whenever it reached one of these markers, it jumps to the next one. If markers were only inserted at commercial start and stop points, then this will be perfect. If it flagged a break between two commercials, or a show's internal scene change then this breaks, and you need to help it out by jumping back to the previous marker, or forward to the next, as the case may be.
Hot metal crane operators need no degree, and are considered part of the unskilled labor force. I know this, since I have a friend who is a hot metal crane operator, at least when he can be, and has not been bumped to say the assembly line by somebody with more seniority. Yes there is some training, but it is not nearly as significant any of the jobs classified as "skilled jobs". Not to say that there is no skill at all involved, but the skill involved is not sufficient to cause classification as "skilled labor".
Android 2.1 will be out before this phone will be out. What I'm hoping for in 2.5 is proper multi-touch support in the core applications (like pinch zoom in the browser), fixes to allow proper hands free phone operations. (Pressing the Bluetoooth headset button when not in a call will call up voice search, which doubles as voice dial).
And a proper solution to apps on SD. That has some issues, such as what to do if the card is removed while running, but on some phones like the Droid, it makes little difference since the battery must be removed to remove the card. But that is only a minor issue.
The next issue is how to best do this. Using unionfs or equivalent to mount the SD card directory over the main directory works ok, although makes it almost impossible to move any apps so they live directly on the phone. The alternative is to just have the phone check more locations for applications (it already checks 3 locations, so what are a few more?
The biggest question is how to handle copy protected apps (not all for-pay apps are copy protected, nor are all copy protected apps for pay). Android currently handles them by putting them in a directory protected with Unix permissions. Unless one has root to the phone the directory cannot be read. Dev Phones are not supposed to be allowed to downlad any copy protected app, so those having root available is moot.
That level of protection is not ideal, but works better than nothing. Google does not want an APPS-on-SD solution to be any less secure. There is an easy way to solve this though. Simple create a file system as a file on the SD card. The filesystem will be encrypted and loopback mounted using the standard Linux facilities for this. The key (generated on first run of the phone) will be stored on the phone itself in the existing POSIX permissions protected directory.
The filesystem inside the loopback mounted file will also have POSIX permissions protection of course. This is where all the copy protected apps will be stored if stored on SD.
----
By the way, besides hacked in multitouch support (which is obsoleted by Eclair with its official multitouch support) what all is in the SenseUI suite of changes?
I know a rewritten home app is present, with 7 (?) pages and a replacement shape for the drawer at the bottom that has 3 buttons, one of which opens the drawer, the second of which launches the phone app, and the third of which, I'm not really sure what it does. It includes several additional widgets for the home screen, with selectable styles (of varying sizes, some that take up a whole page). The status bar color has been made black.
Most of the other built-in other apps looks like they have been rewritten to conform to a new GUI standard, but it is not clear if much functionality was added, at least that was worthwhile. The apparent Social networking integration features it has look like they would need to be integrated into android 2.0's account manager. They also seem pointless to me, Since I'm not a big user of social networks.
I will say though that the visuals of SenseUI are rather impressive, and do look more polished than the default android application visuals.
Hot metal crane operation is an unskilled job, which has minimal training, and in fact is far more likely to fail in a fatal manner when operated by a human then when not. There have been fatalities under human operation, while there have been no fatalities under automated operation in those plants that use them. Draw your own conclusions.
Reply to myself again. It looks like the frien hiding is possible, but it reqwuires removing them from your profile entirely, but it is still possible for anybody to see the list using a URL like http://www.facebook.com/friends/?id=zuck. Thanks to gleffler for this info.
I agree. It in fact seems probable that the photos were inadvertant, although I'm no sure about the rest. Some of the rest may have been intentional or it all amy have been unintentional. His removal of the images strongly implies it was unintentional.
Many conditions like OCD or bipolar in young children are generally guesses on the part of the doctor who prescribe something that tends to work on many mental illnesses, and if a positive improvement is noted, then this is cited as evidence that the original diagnosis was correct, despite potentially being completely wrong, and the actual condition being something else the medication is effective on.
Of course, that is not as horrible as it sounds. If the medication fixes the problem, the initial diagnosis is somewhat less important, although if looking for alternatives to medication, or alternate medications, the correct diagnosis becomes important again.
Damnit, s/friend's/friends/.
Also for clarification the reason why the missing friend's list is damning is because hiding the friends list is one of the options that was removed.
http://www.facebook.com/markzuckerberg is a Facebook Page about Mark, that he runs, which allows people to become "fans" of him. His Profile is at http://www.facebook.com/zuck, although either he removed his photos, or Facebook is glitching again. More damning is the fact that he appears to have hidden his friend's list, unless that is part of the glitch.
Sure, I admit up front that I have a strong bias in the direction of the US, where CDMA very common, so common in fact that even users of the GSM networks have no understanding of a carrier independent phone. In Europe, South Ameria, Africa, and Asia Nokias may be way mor common, but in the US, most commonly seen phones seem to be in no particular order: Apple, LG, Samsung, Motorola, and for older style smartphones HTC.
306 057 512 216 440 636 035 370 461 297 268 629 388 588 804 173 576 999 416 776 741 259 476 533 176 716 867 465 515 291 422 477 573 349 939 147 888 701 726 368 864 263 907 759 003 154 226 842 927 906 974 559 841 225 476 930 271 954 604 008 012 215 776 252 176 854 255 965 356 903 506 788 725 264 321 896 264 299 365 204 576 448 830 388 909 753 943 489 625 436 053 225 980 776 521 270 822 437 639 449 120 128 678 675 368 305 712 293 681 943 649 956 460 498 166 450 227 716 500 185 176 546 469 340 112 226 034 729 724 066 333 258 583 506 870 150 169 794 168 850 353 752 137 554 910 289 126 407 157 154 830 282 284 937 952 636 580 145 235 233 156 936 482 233 436 799 254 594 095 276 820 608 062 232 812 387 383 880 817 049 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
with SELinux like the parent was describing, you can restrict rights to only what is needed by the program. You can do this for any application if you know what rights the application needs.
So if gwenview does not need acess to cookies and you've set things up right, than no exploit in it can give access to cookies, since gwenview lacks to permission to access cookies.
No argument from me. Perl 6 is a big project. I was just correcting the implication that Python 3000 has been as long time in coming as Perl 6, since it is already here.
Interesting. That was not documented on the official site for the Droid.
I did not say that welding was one of the jobs.
My problem was with the statement that "The robot thing is wrong as well - if somebody is doing it instead of a robot then it's not easy enough for a robot to do."
I do know that in a nearyby GM foundry, there is a job that involves driving a crane around on tracks attached to the ceiling, with the cranes carrying molton iron. The cranes are driven by human operators, despite the fact that the job is essentially mindless. The operators of the cranes all agree that there is no reason the system could not be automated, and that the automation might even make things safer. The articulated robot arms used in parts of the assembly process are far more complicated then such a robotic crane would need to be.
Basically the main reason GM does not is that the union would fight it, and it would be a major pain in the ass of a project to set up, so they feel it is not worth it. That is despite the fact that the job is indisputably easy enough for a robot to do.
If there was a good reason for not wanting to do robots, perhaps they can be made remote control. It would move people out of harms way, allowing GM to avoid hazard pay to the crane drivers, plus the cranes move slow enough, and the reaction time requirerments are low enough that in doing so they could have one person remoting driving several of these cranes saving more money.
I have no doubt that complex welds take skill, and even some moderate complexity welds can benefit greatly from skill.
True, but sometimes the current models are more complicated models that have been closely tuned to appear to match reality, but in fact are overcomplicated. Take quantum mechanics. It really looks to me like somewhere along the line we ignored Occam's Razor and jumped to a more complicated model. I believe this happened when we decided to take particle statistics and claim that these applied to individual particles. So instead of a particle having a position it has a position probability field, etc.
In contrast to say the theory of special relativity, where the results although awkward must be roughly true, or one of the two premises on which it is based must be incorrect. Since it is pretty much the simplest possible model that allows the properties to hold, and there is tons of evidence that strongly suggests the premises must be true. Compair that to QM, where the basic premises are not well defined, and where one really can't say that it is the simplest possible model that supports a small number of well supported premises. It is not very clear that no simpler model could possibly work.
Now lets say I come up with a simpler model, that is a closer match to experimental data than early QM was. However it is not as good a match as the latest really complicated and heavily tunes QM models are. It would be largely ignored by most Theoretical physicists, since the current model is better. Now my new model might with a bit more development turn into a far better match than the current latest models, while being substantially similar. In that case, many mainstream physicists might start looking at it. But to find out if my model can become better than the latest and greatest would require some other people to take some additional interest in it, and play around with it some more before the improvements are discovered.
The problem basically is that the modern models are so complicated and so highly tuned that it is not viable to devise a substantially different model that has results just as good as the current ones. as no one person or small team could come up with the core of such a theory and make adjustments till it becomes a better predictor than the current model, but there is no way to get more than a small team to work on such a model.
The adblock equivlent is available. It is called adthwart. It is listed as a top extension. It by default uses EasyList which is by far the most popular advertisement list for Adblock.
That is not true. There are quite a few remaining jobs in the auto industry that could be replaced by robots but are not. Some of them the unions would never allow toe be automated. Others while automatable, might cost more per unit work once you factor in costs of the robot. (Robots wear out over time, need maintence etc), even if the job is actually quite easy for the robot to do.
Others are cases of laziness, where it would take too much work on the part of those in charge of making decisions for a rather small gain.
One last possibiltiy is that switching over to robots would result in a major short term loss, with the gains coming in only in the long term. Modern corporations tend to chose to maximize short term profits. Consider the fact that the plant might need to be shut down for a few moths to set up the robots, during which no cars are made. No cars made means fewer cars to sell. Fewer cars to sell means less short term profit. Combined with the major expenses of the retooling, the quarterly and annual earnings reports would look quite dismal.
Nobody can develop a Flash VM but Adobe? That is nonsense. What you meant to say was that nobody can use the swf documentation to develop a Flash VM wihtout first getting permission from Adobe.
Also, what pdf reader comes by default on an Android phone? I'm guessing you mean the one developed by HTC and that is only available on non Google-Experience phones (phones that don't have the Google logo on them).
True, and it is a good idea. However, if the existance of the treaty and the general terms are not secret, but only the exact wording, it is hardly a secret treaty. I'm of the opinion that even only-the-exact-wording-is-secret treaties should not be permitted either, but they are indisputable much better than a fully secret treaty.
We also have the associated concept of secrecy of treaties in development. Here nearly full secrecy may be acceptable for military treaties especially surrenders and the like. After all, it really does not hurt to have ongoing negotiations in this respect throughout a war. The parties may find a mutually agreeable resolution the the conflict via such negotiations long before either party is willing to surrender. But if public was generally aware of such negotiations, especially if they were painted as negations for surrender, it could really hurt morale.
But I'm not sure I see much reason for non-military treaties to be developed in secret. If the idea is to avoid embarrassment to a nation that is unwilling to accept what appears to be a very desirable idea (perhaps they have a legitmate reason to reject such a term), secret development is overkill. Diplomats are rather good at publicly discussing something without revealing unessisary information to the public. If needed the negotiations could a parliamentary procedure system that allows moving for discussion of a small and specific topic off the record, as long as only one such secret discussion is going on at a time, and at the conclusion the idea must either be implemented in the draft, or discarded. At all times though the draft must be public and the wording under consideration must be public. Thus the public will know everything that was considered, and if it was rejected or not, but not necessarily who rejected it or why.
But Python 3000 is already out, as Python 3.0, while Perl 6 is not. So Perl 6 is taking longer than even Python 3000. Besides, the real reason Guido changed jobs was because Google felt that python was so important to its operations that it could not risk letting development stall, so they made Guido a job offer, with his job being at least in part, developing python. (I have no idea how much work on Google specific stuff Guido does, but I imagine it is probably more than zero).
It takes me one second or less to recognize that "for(p = s->next; p; p = p->next)" is iterating a linked list, or a close relative thereof. It definitely takes several seconds for me to recognize "for(ss = s->ss; ss; ss = ss->ss)" as doing the same. At first glance it looks like the initial and loop conditions are the same, thanks to using "s" and "ss".
I'm also not particularly used to seeing a for loop being used for linked list iteration. I'm familiar with for_each loops for the purpose, in languages that have such a feature, otherwise the code I see tends to use while loops for this. The for loop form is actually better in that experienced programmers can quickly recognize it by the structure of a single line, while the while loop requires scanning multiple lines.
This is not nearly as bad as say Duff's Device which would be very confusing upon seeing it for the first time.
Hell from my US experience Nokia was the maker of many of the dirt cheap candy-bar phones that had no os to speak of. Everything ran on the base-band processor, with no opertunaty for new software. The only filesystem was that required by the CDMA base-band, which was used to hold the background images, ringtones, contacts, and SMS's.
I've never seen anybody with one of the better Nokia phones, since the other brands phones were better anyway. I've honestly never even seen a real phone that uses SymbianOS. So if Nokia's are at all popular it is a very regional thing.
Why would I travel to Kinko's (or whatever my local copy shop is) every time I want something printed out in color? Inkjet printers work well enough, especially when supplemented with a reasonably high quality laser printer for B&W prints. Even though it costs Kinko's less per page than it costs me, they charge me more than it costs me, not to mention cost of time.
Belive me. I recently spent a fair amount of time without any working printer, and having to get stuff printed elsewhere (even free) is a real pain.