The logic goes like this:
1. Manipulator with a large amount of cash to blow through places a large bet on Intrade and similar sites in favor of a candidate.
2. Media dutifully report that Intrade is giving odds in favor of the preferred candidate.
3. Voters mindlessly vote for whoever does best on Intrade.
The thing is, step 3 is wrong. Very wrong.
Well, the logic you present is inaccurate (at least as to the general argument for prediction markets influencing results; I'm not going to bother going back through Haselton's earlier post to see if he ever explicitly presented logic for his perception and what that logic is). The general argument is more subtle, and instead of #2 being that the media just reports the bare fact of the Intrade standings, that the Intrade standings influence the overall amount and positivity of coverage the media provides to the candidate, and in #3 instead of voters simply voting based on reported Intrade ratings, increases in the quantity and favorability of media coverage tend, on balance, to produce better results for candidates, all other things being equal.
your scenario about elections being swung through manipulation of odds on Intrade is based on an assumption that large numbers of voters pay attention to the odds on Intrade and that those odds influence their votes. I'm not sure I believe either to be true.
Actually, what it actually relies on is that a small-number of opinion leaders in media pay attention to Intrade, and that a large number of voters are subject to influence by the same small number of opinion leaders in media.
I suppose the other thing that my bank does is requiring you to enter a generated number (which they provide by SMS or automated call) to a phone number they have on file. The number is only valid for a few minutes (I don't know the actual timeout).
This seems closer to two-factor, except 1) they have the number generator, so it isn't something YOU have
The thing you have is the phone, not the generator, so it is two factor.
2) you can tell their log-in site that "this computer is trusted" and you don't have to enter the number again.
The replaces the phone with the specific computer as "the thing you have". Still two-factor.
Both languages suffer from the global interpreter lock defect and will require a rewrite in the next 5-10 years if the languages have any chance of surviving in the servers.
No, they don't. The CPython and MRI/YARV implementations of Python and Ruby, respectively, have global interpreter locks, but those are implementation quirks not language features. On the Python side, IronPython and Jython don't have a GIL, on the Ruby side neither JRuby, MacRuby, IronRuby nor Rubinius (the latter being particularly important, because it has been widely suggested as the next mainline Ruby platform, in the same way that the YARV-based Ruby, which replaced the old mainline interpreter from 1.9, was prior to 1.9) have a GIL.
Further, I'm not sure the GIL is that big of an issue going forward: threadsafe native code in the runtime or extensions can release the GIL, and directly using native system threads with shared mutable state at the application level rather than using isolated task abstractions at the application level with threads managed in the runtime doesn't seem to be all that great a way to build scalable application code (there is a reason why languages designed specifically for scalable concurrency often don't directly expose threading at the language level: this is true both of newer languages like Go and Rust, and older and more widely used concurrency-focussed languages like Erlang.)
Finally, insofar as the GIL is important, its not like a ground-up rewrite that starts from square one would need to be done to get rid of it in the next 5-10 years: the mainline interpreters have been working on improving the thread-safety of the underlying code for years with the intent of removing the GIL in both CPython and MRI, and as noted previously, alternative implementations of the languages have already been built that don't have a GIL -- so the work of the "rewrite" has already been done and is available (multiple times, for each language.)
I love Ruby, it's a very fun and effective language, I could write it in my sleep but there are so many cool projects that are written in Python.
Those languages are *very* similar, and it's a shame that so much effort is being divided between communities.
I think I disagree. I think that its great that both communities exist and each can develop languages in ways unconstrained by the particular historical choices that shaped the other languages (and that, in both cases, each has subcommunities around particular implementations that can experiment with things unconstrained by the historical choices that shaped other implementations.) In both the between-languages and between-implementations cases, this results in a lot of new ideas which spread between the various subcommunities that probably wouldn't happen as much if you had a monoculture around one language (or, within a language, around one implementation.)
I might get to learn Python one day but I'm afraid I'd become a so-so programmer in both languages.
I think, on balance, learning Python alongside Ruby (no matter which you learn first) makes you a better programmer at both: sure, you might occasionally conflate syntax constructs from one language with ones from the other, but that's more than offset by the deeper understanding of each language you get from the broader perspective that comes from experience with the different ways each does things, and the idioms common to each language.
"server-side" javascript: probably talking about Node.js
Well, except that Node.js was introduced in 2009 and Netscape introduced server-side JavaScript in 1994 (and Microsoft supported it in IIS from 1996) -- while Node.js may be the currently "hot" server-side JavaScript implementation, its hardly the universe of server side JavaScript, and GP didn't give any indication of when this interview was.
Oh, I know that asking questions that relate to real problems in interviews and looking for real, useful responses is a not-uncommon part of interviews. But that's just because the actually giving someone an opportunity to address the kind of challenges they would really face in the position is a useful part of evaluating them for the position, not because companies seriously view bringing people in for "interviews" as a way to get low-cost consulting (since, given the commitment of staff time to conduct the interviews and the number of interviewees that won't provide value -- because pre-interview screening isn't sufficient for selection, which is why interviews exist in the first place -- this is a very expensive way, rather than a cheap way, to get consulting.)
An actual job may or may not be on the table, but if they can get what they need from you before hiring, then at the very least your bargaining position will have gotten worse. Have you dealt with situations like this in the past?
Yeah, that's not going to happen in the real world, because it would require their pre-interview screening process to be so good as to effectively select, without an interview, the people whom it would be worth their while to get free consulting from under the guise of an interview.
Holding a loan can give you influence over the lender, even if it doesn't give the kind of voting rights that equity comes with.
Why is Microsoft acting like a bank?
They aren't. They are acting like a company that has an interest in the deal for market reasons beyond being paid back. If they were acting like a bank (and, therefore, basing their lending decision on Dell's creditworthiness and the overall lending market) rather than an interested market player, there would be no reason for Dell to take a loan from them rather than an actual bank.
TFS already indicates that the change affects where the Solar System's habital zone is calculated to be; even without looking at TFA it is clear that the "habitable zone" is star-specific.
Oh good god, if we built software the way houses are built than nothing would work. Houses start with a plan, but then fall apart right after that. you hire the cheapest contractor possible, they cut corners by buying B grade lumber and fudge things here and there. The architect NEVER comes back to make sure that the house is being built right. The plans are rarely followed. Electrician and HVAC just makes it work by cutting corners where they can.
In the end more attention is paid to the paint, carpet and countertops than the structure and infrastructure of the home. So it looks pretty, but is in fact a ball of hidden mistakes and covered up changes to cut corners.
AFAICT, that's a pretty spot-on analogy for how many software projects (particularly, large, contract-built business systems) are built now.
I say this as a citizen of the USA: we like to complain, sure, but we also like to do hard work.
Well, long work at least. Maybe hard (though that's less evident), and definitely not efficient. Which is why for a long time the US, while its had the highest per-employed-worker productivity in the developed world, has also been near the bottom in per-worker-hour productivity.
So fucking-A right we complain when the JOBS WE GO TO WORK AND DO EVERY DAY DESPITE HATING THEM GET OUTSOURCED.
I'm confused, are you claiming that US workers "like to do hard work" (your first sentence) or view jobs which involve hard work as something they "go to work and do every day despite hating them" (your last sentence). Because those claims are directly opposed to each other.
The context of these remarks is immigration reform. I think the point is, "if they come here for an education, we should focus on attracting those people so they STAY here, and contribute to the US economy." They come here, pay thousands of dollars in tuition, and then take all the valuable skills and knowledge they've acquired, and leave the US... which doesn't really help the US expand its economy - they're not starting companies here, paying taxes here, and creating jobs here.
If they are paying thousands of dollars of tuition and then leaving, they are helping the US expand its economy, independently of what they do afterwards.
There can be a debate about whether or not there would be some additional net economic benefit from changing policy to encourage them to stay, but that's a different question.
And both are, more to the point, really far from addressing the central problems with our immigration system -- and the ones which create illegal immigration and create widespread disrespect for immigration laws and difficulty enforcing them -- which is the hard caps in family-based immigration categories which create excessively-long backlogs for people to immigrate legally who have connections to the US and are not individually undesirable immigrants. There's a simple market-based solution to this that mitigates the costs due to the level of immigration without the hard caps -- keep the numerical caps on "free" immigration in those categories, but let qualified would-be immigrants in those categories pay to bypass the lines.
Python can be either interpreted or compiled.
No-one uses it compiled anymore for new projects.
Perhaps no one you know.
Hence legacy.
No, legacy would be "no one uses it at all for new projects", not "no one uses it compiled for new projects". But its not either. (It may be legacy in a specific organization that has adopted a policy that all new development will be in some other language, but that's true of any language, whether its old or a relatively new popular language that happens to have fallen out of favor at the particular organization.)
You can't transform from "an interpreted language" to "a compilation target"
Of course you can.
No, you can't, because the two aren't opposed. You can be both together. Becoming the latter doesn't stop you from being the former.
You're arguing a point of semantics no-one in industry accepts as valid.
I think pretty much everyone I know in the industry recognizes whether or not something is a compilation target is orthogonal to whether or not it is, itself, an interpreted language.
Google would probably be surprised to learn that Python can't handle that use case
No they wouldn't. They invented Go and Dart because Python can't handle that use case.
While Dart is usable on the back-end (and that's important, because a big part of its motivation is to have a front-and-back-end language), its main motivation is dealing with issues with JavaScript in the browser for large applications, not dealing with problems with Python as an application language for scalable web services.
And Go is a lower-level system language for scalable services, not really comparable at the same level as Python. Its not motivated to deal with problems with Python.
So, also, Python (JVM and CLR via Jython and IronPython), Ruby (JVM, CLR, and JavaScript via JRuby, IronRuby, Opal/HotRuby/Ruby2js), etc.?
That's cute - but no. Legacy languages with bolt-ons few people use.
Most of those aren't "bolt ons", they are language implementations. And, while some of them aren't widely used, some of them are (particularly JRuby.)
Interpreted languages in general are old, and increasingly less useful.
Python can be either interpreted or compiled. As is the case with most languages. Interpreted/compiled is a feature of implementations, not languages, and even in implementations isn't really a bright-line distinction.
Javascript is transforming from an interpreted language into a compilation target due to its integration with web technologies
You can't transform from "an interpreted language" to "a compilation target", because whether or not a language is implemented via an interpreter is orthogonal to whether or not some other language is compiled to it.
Python is just python.
This is not true except in the trivial sense in which it is true of every language, including JavaScript.
Jython was a thing for a while, but it's not functional-language enough to handle new virtual and cloud infrastructures, where an app has to run on thousands of machines, scaling up to thousands more in response to load, all without operator intervention.
Google would probably be surprised to learn that Python can't handle that use case, which is the prime use case for AppEngine.
Languages that are not legacy compile to JVM, CLR and/or Javascript - Clojure, CoffeeScript, Opa.
So, also, Python (JVM and CLR via Jython and IronPython), Ruby (JVM, CLR, and JavaScript via JRuby, IronRuby, Opal/HotRuby/Ruby2js), etc.?
Perl's is an actual operator in the language, all other languages require you to build and use a regex object... which means 1 line in perl requires more lines (define+create, then test) in others to do the same.
Actually, plenty of other languages have language-level RegEx literals and either match operators or string methods that match against them, and don't require separate "creation" and "test" statements to match a string against a regex. JavaScript and Ruby come immediately to mind.
And plenty that don't have regex literals as a language features can still do one-line define+test using their standard library (e.g., Python). So, no, it doesn't take more lines in other languages.
So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?
Like pretty much all of international law (except the fairly narrow domain of international criminal law regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity as embodied in various ad hoc war crimes tribunals and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), the entities at issue in the WTO are nation-states, not individuals or "businesses".
So, it is not "one business is being unfairly discriminated against" and retaliation against a "completely separate business". It is one nation-state discriminating against imports from another nation-state, and the victim nation-state being allowed to retaliate against the offending nation-state.
We don't have a world government that deals with disputes between businesses, we have treaty organizations that deal with disputes between nation-states. That's a consequence of an international regime driven first and foremost, almost without exception, by the idea that nations are completely sovereign within their jurisdiction, with international organizations governing only the relations between those nation-states.
Israel was the strongest country in the region (stronger than the rest combined), and demonstrated such on several occasions before they stole nuclear weapons technology (and then proliferated it to their sister apartheid regime in South Africa.)
Although the world tolerating Israel's nukes is the reason many other countries in the region have scrambled to get nukes, or other WMDs like Syria's chemical arsenal.
Maybe I'm being wildly optimistic, but I'd hope most gun owners would realize that the voting box and soapbox are their main two lines of defense against tyranny. The ammo box was a viable option at some point in our history. I don't know when it stopped being so, but it definitely isn't now.
The ammo box has never been viable on its own, its always required the soapbox along with it. And a big part of that has always been getting some sizable portion of the force the regime would depend on on your side.
Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons why reliance on a citizen militia (which would be connected to the population) rather than standing armies (which would likely become either attached to the regime or, worse yet, kingmakers loyal to their own internal leaders rather than either the population or civilian regime) was an important part of the model of a free state for many of the founders. (Insofar as the 2nd Amendment is intended as a guarantee of popular liberty rather than State soveriegnty, it is within that context and its pretty much completely irrelevant for that purpose in a system where the mass militia isn't what the central government relies on if it needs military force to implement its will.)
CS is not IT, or Networking? Um...who do you think developed AD? A person who studied metallurgy?
Just because people who study CS may go on to work in IT or networking doesn't make CS into IT or networking (instead of, as it is, a discipline that bears the same relation to each that physics bears to civil or mechanical engineering) anymore than the fact that plenty of software developers studied, say, Philosophy make Philosophy the study of software development.
For exploits like that, the black market still pays somewhat better than Google is.
Yes, but if you get caught, you can lose anything you got paid (as the profits of crime) plus go to jail.
Whereas if you sell to Google, you get money, publicity that you can use openly outside of the black market world, and you don't have to worry about going to jail for it.
Also, some people have moral codes which would discourage selling exploits on the black market, but not seeking rewards through something like Pwnium.
The claim made by a spokesperson for an anti-tax advocacy group in the article regarding the options of the FTB is wrong. I've not only read the article, I've read other articles on the case, the decisions in the case, and have a good understanding of the distribution of authority in the California state government.
Option 1 being from 2012 on, the exemption/deferment is no longer allowed. 2008-2011 tax filings are left as is.
Option 2 being what they're doing: retroactively collecting taxes, interest, and penalties.
The court decision didn't allow either of those simple options. It required the State to eliminate the discriminatory effect created by the invalid statute from its inception (and not just back to 2008, the last year for which the FTB has authority to assess taxes.)
The State had the option to do this either by extending the benefit of the deferment without the discriminatory limitation, or by eliminating the benefit entirely, or by any combination of those two which treats taxpayers that are alike but for the discriminatory limitation the same.
The FTB, as an executive branch agency in the State government, however, lacks the authority to give away money without either specific legislative authority or an order of the court which leaves no discretion. So, for the State to exercise the option allowed by the court to extend the benefit, where there was another means available under the parameters of the decision, the legislature would need to act. For tax years prior to 2008 -- for which the statute of limitations for tax assessment had passed -- there was no discretion in the court order, the only way to eliminate the discriminatory effect was to allow the deferment without discriminatory effect. So, for those years, that's what the FTB did.
For tax years where the statute of limitations had not expired, they assessed the taxes. It is true that the State had the option to instead extend the deferment without the discriminatory limitation, but that option is not within the purview of the FTB (or the executive branch more generally) absent a non-discretionary order from a court with appropriate authority.
Also, the analogies drawn to Hunt-Wesson is wrong; In Hunt-Wesson, it was specifically and only the application of a deduction limitation to out-of-state corporations that was struck down, and the FTB applied that decision retroactively to all past tax years on the request of taxpayers as well as applying it prospectively. Its both not an example of a parallel case, and not an example of a case where past tax years were left untouched and only future tax years were affected.
Not sure here, but if I recall correctly all Fox would have to do is file a counter notice and then the on demand sites could put it back up and be out of the lawsuit loop.
Assuming that the "On Demand" services were services that accept user-submitted content and thus could be within the safe harbor to start with, rather than organizations which actively contract to supply specific content, which puts them outside of the DMCA safe harbor and the protection of the notice/counternotice provisions entirely.
And Youtube, obviously. And most importantly: Hulu and any other sites that host Glee on demand -- Fox, for example. Dish and DirectTV also have on demand access, are they susceptible to DMCA requests?
Most of those (other than Youtube) probably aren't properly situated for the form of request defined in the DMCA safe harbor provisions to apply, because their relationship to the content isn't within the safe harbor in the first place -- they aren't sites that host user-submitted content, they are entities that have specifically purchased the identified content from its producers for distribution.
Of course, the content of a DMCA takedown notice isn't all that different from the content of a regular cease-and-desist; the difference is that complying with a DMCA takedown if you are properly situated to be within the safe harbor protects you from copyright liability from hosting the content prior to the notice, while if you are outside of the safe harbor complying with a C&D just prevents additional liability and may be enough to satisfy the copyright owner so that they don't bother to pursue a claim for your prior use of the content.
Funny, I thought the '09 reboot was Starfleet Academy: 90210. Gotta get my glasses fixed...
IIRC, the people involved in the '09 reboot explicitly referred to it as being the embodiment of the original-characters-at-the-academy idea first pitched by Roddenberry in 1968 and that kept resurfacing starting around 1980 as the basis of a new movie and/or series.
So, yeah.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the logic you present is inaccurate (at least as to the general argument for prediction markets influencing results; I'm not going to bother going back through Haselton's earlier post to see if he ever explicitly presented logic for his perception and what that logic is). The general argument is more subtle, and instead of #2 being that the media just reports the bare fact of the Intrade standings, that the Intrade standings influence the overall amount and positivity of coverage the media provides to the candidate, and in #3 instead of voters simply voting based on reported Intrade ratings, increases in the quantity and favorability of media coverage tend, on balance, to produce better results for candidates, all other things being equal.
Actually, what it actually relies on is that a small-number of opinion leaders in media pay attention to Intrade, and that a large number of voters are subject to influence by the same small number of opinion leaders in media.
The thing you have is the phone, not the generator, so it is two factor.
The replaces the phone with the specific computer as "the thing you have". Still two-factor.
No, they don't. The CPython and MRI/YARV implementations of Python and Ruby, respectively, have global interpreter locks, but those are implementation quirks not language features. On the Python side, IronPython and Jython don't have a GIL, on the Ruby side neither JRuby, MacRuby, IronRuby nor Rubinius (the latter being particularly important, because it has been widely suggested as the next mainline Ruby platform, in the same way that the YARV-based Ruby, which replaced the old mainline interpreter from 1.9, was prior to 1.9) have a GIL.
Further, I'm not sure the GIL is that big of an issue going forward: threadsafe native code in the runtime or extensions can release the GIL, and directly using native system threads with shared mutable state at the application level rather than using isolated task abstractions at the application level with threads managed in the runtime doesn't seem to be all that great a way to build scalable application code (there is a reason why languages designed specifically for scalable concurrency often don't directly expose threading at the language level: this is true both of newer languages like Go and Rust, and older and more widely used concurrency-focussed languages like Erlang.)
Finally, insofar as the GIL is important, its not like a ground-up rewrite that starts from square one would need to be done to get rid of it in the next 5-10 years: the mainline interpreters have been working on improving the thread-safety of the underlying code for years with the intent of removing the GIL in both CPython and MRI, and as noted previously, alternative implementations of the languages have already been built that don't have a GIL -- so the work of the "rewrite" has already been done and is available (multiple times, for each language.)
I think I disagree. I think that its great that both communities exist and each can develop languages in ways unconstrained by the particular historical choices that shaped the other languages (and that, in both cases, each has subcommunities around particular implementations that can experiment with things unconstrained by the historical choices that shaped other implementations.) In both the between-languages and between-implementations cases, this results in a lot of new ideas which spread between the various subcommunities that probably wouldn't happen as much if you had a monoculture around one language (or, within a language, around one implementation.)
I think, on balance, learning Python alongside Ruby (no matter which you learn first) makes you a better programmer at both: sure, you might occasionally conflate syntax constructs from one language with ones from the other, but that's more than offset by the deeper understanding of each language you get from the broader perspective that comes from experience with the different ways each does things, and the idioms common to each language.
Well, except that Node.js was introduced in 2009 and Netscape introduced server-side JavaScript in 1994 (and Microsoft supported it in IIS from 1996) -- while Node.js may be the currently "hot" server-side JavaScript implementation, its hardly the universe of server side JavaScript, and GP didn't give any indication of when this interview was.
Oh, I know that asking questions that relate to real problems in interviews and looking for real, useful responses is a not-uncommon part of interviews. But that's just because the actually giving someone an opportunity to address the kind of challenges they would really face in the position is a useful part of evaluating them for the position, not because companies seriously view bringing people in for "interviews" as a way to get low-cost consulting (since, given the commitment of staff time to conduct the interviews and the number of interviewees that won't provide value -- because pre-interview screening isn't sufficient for selection, which is why interviews exist in the first place -- this is a very expensive way, rather than a cheap way, to get consulting.)
Yeah, that's not going to happen in the real world, because it would require their pre-interview screening process to be so good as to effectively select, without an interview, the people whom it would be worth their while to get free consulting from under the guise of an interview.
Holding a loan can give you influence over the lender, even if it doesn't give the kind of voting rights that equity comes with.
They aren't. They are acting like a company that has an interest in the deal for market reasons beyond being paid back. If they were acting like a bank (and, therefore, basing their lending decision on Dell's creditworthiness and the overall lending market) rather than an interested market player, there would be no reason for Dell to take a loan from them rather than an actual bank.
TFS already indicates that the change affects where the Solar System's habital zone is calculated to be; even without looking at TFA it is clear that the "habitable zone" is star-specific.
AFAICT, that's a pretty spot-on analogy for how many software projects (particularly, large, contract-built business systems) are built now.
Well, long work at least. Maybe hard (though that's less evident), and definitely not efficient. Which is why for a long time the US, while its had the highest per-employed-worker productivity in the developed world, has also been near the bottom in per-worker-hour productivity.
I'm confused, are you claiming that US workers "like to do hard work" (your first sentence) or view jobs which involve hard work as something they "go to work and do every day despite hating them" (your last sentence). Because those claims are directly opposed to each other.
If they are paying thousands of dollars of tuition and then leaving, they are helping the US expand its economy, independently of what they do afterwards. There can be a debate about whether or not there would be some additional net economic benefit from changing policy to encourage them to stay, but that's a different question. And both are, more to the point, really far from addressing the central problems with our immigration system -- and the ones which create illegal immigration and create widespread disrespect for immigration laws and difficulty enforcing them -- which is the hard caps in family-based immigration categories which create excessively-long backlogs for people to immigrate legally who have connections to the US and are not individually undesirable immigrants. There's a simple market-based solution to this that mitigates the costs due to the level of immigration without the hard caps -- keep the numerical caps on "free" immigration in those categories, but let qualified would-be immigrants in those categories pay to bypass the lines.
Perhaps no one you know.
No, legacy would be "no one uses it at all for new projects", not "no one uses it compiled for new projects". But its not either. (It may be legacy in a specific organization that has adopted a policy that all new development will be in some other language, but that's true of any language, whether its old or a relatively new popular language that happens to have fallen out of favor at the particular organization.)
No, you can't, because the two aren't opposed. You can be both together. Becoming the latter doesn't stop you from being the former.
I think pretty much everyone I know in the industry recognizes whether or not something is a compilation target is orthogonal to whether or not it is, itself, an interpreted language.
While Dart is usable on the back-end (and that's important, because a big part of its motivation is to have a front-and-back-end language), its main motivation is dealing with issues with JavaScript in the browser for large applications, not dealing with problems with Python as an application language for scalable web services.
And Go is a lower-level system language for scalable services, not really comparable at the same level as Python. Its not motivated to deal with problems with Python.
Most of those aren't "bolt ons", they are language implementations. And, while some of them aren't widely used, some of them are (particularly JRuby.)
Python can be either interpreted or compiled. As is the case with most languages. Interpreted/compiled is a feature of implementations, not languages, and even in implementations isn't really a bright-line distinction.
You can't transform from "an interpreted language" to "a compilation target", because whether or not a language is implemented via an interpreter is orthogonal to whether or not some other language is compiled to it.
This is not true except in the trivial sense in which it is true of every language, including JavaScript.
Google would probably be surprised to learn that Python can't handle that use case, which is the prime use case for AppEngine.
So, also, Python (JVM and CLR via Jython and IronPython), Ruby (JVM, CLR, and JavaScript via JRuby, IronRuby, Opal/HotRuby/Ruby2js), etc.?
Actually, plenty of other languages have language-level RegEx literals and either match operators or string methods that match against them, and don't require separate "creation" and "test" statements to match a string against a regex. JavaScript and Ruby come immediately to mind.
And plenty that don't have regex literals as a language features can still do one-line define+test using their standard library (e.g., Python). So, no, it doesn't take more lines in other languages.
Like pretty much all of international law (except the fairly narrow domain of international criminal law regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity as embodied in various ad hoc war crimes tribunals and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), the entities at issue in the WTO are nation-states, not individuals or "businesses".
So, it is not "one business is being unfairly discriminated against" and retaliation against a "completely separate business". It is one nation-state discriminating against imports from another nation-state, and the victim nation-state being allowed to retaliate against the offending nation-state.
We don't have a world government that deals with disputes between businesses, we have treaty organizations that deal with disputes between nation-states. That's a consequence of an international regime driven first and foremost, almost without exception, by the idea that nations are completely sovereign within their jurisdiction, with international organizations governing only the relations between those nation-states.
Israel was the strongest country in the region (stronger than the rest combined), and demonstrated such on several occasions before they stole nuclear weapons technology (and then proliferated it to their sister apartheid regime in South Africa.) Although the world tolerating Israel's nukes is the reason many other countries in the region have scrambled to get nukes, or other WMDs like Syria's chemical arsenal.
The ammo box has never been viable on its own, its always required the soapbox along with it. And a big part of that has always been getting some sizable portion of the force the regime would depend on on your side. Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons why reliance on a citizen militia (which would be connected to the population) rather than standing armies (which would likely become either attached to the regime or, worse yet, kingmakers loyal to their own internal leaders rather than either the population or civilian regime) was an important part of the model of a free state for many of the founders. (Insofar as the 2nd Amendment is intended as a guarantee of popular liberty rather than State soveriegnty, it is within that context and its pretty much completely irrelevant for that purpose in a system where the mass militia isn't what the central government relies on if it needs military force to implement its will.)
Just because people who study CS may go on to work in IT or networking doesn't make CS into IT or networking (instead of, as it is, a discipline that bears the same relation to each that physics bears to civil or mechanical engineering) anymore than the fact that plenty of software developers studied, say, Philosophy make Philosophy the study of software development.
Yes, but if you get caught, you can lose anything you got paid (as the profits of crime) plus go to jail.
Whereas if you sell to Google, you get money, publicity that you can use openly outside of the black market world, and you don't have to worry about going to jail for it.
Also, some people have moral codes which would discourage selling exploits on the black market, but not seeking rewards through something like Pwnium.
The claim made by a spokesperson for an anti-tax advocacy group in the article regarding the options of the FTB is wrong. I've not only read the article, I've read other articles on the case, the decisions in the case, and have a good understanding of the distribution of authority in the California state government.
The court decision didn't allow either of those simple options. It required the State to eliminate the discriminatory effect created by the invalid statute from its inception (and not just back to 2008, the last year for which the FTB has authority to assess taxes.) The State had the option to do this either by extending the benefit of the deferment without the discriminatory limitation, or by eliminating the benefit entirely, or by any combination of those two which treats taxpayers that are alike but for the discriminatory limitation the same. The FTB, as an executive branch agency in the State government, however, lacks the authority to give away money without either specific legislative authority or an order of the court which leaves no discretion. So, for the State to exercise the option allowed by the court to extend the benefit, where there was another means available under the parameters of the decision, the legislature would need to act. For tax years prior to 2008 -- for which the statute of limitations for tax assessment had passed -- there was no discretion in the court order, the only way to eliminate the discriminatory effect was to allow the deferment without discriminatory effect. So, for those years, that's what the FTB did. For tax years where the statute of limitations had not expired, they assessed the taxes. It is true that the State had the option to instead extend the deferment without the discriminatory limitation, but that option is not within the purview of the FTB (or the executive branch more generally) absent a non-discretionary order from a court with appropriate authority. Also, the analogies drawn to Hunt-Wesson is wrong; In Hunt-Wesson, it was specifically and only the application of a deduction limitation to out-of-state corporations that was struck down, and the FTB applied that decision retroactively to all past tax years on the request of taxpayers as well as applying it prospectively. Its both not an example of a parallel case, and not an example of a case where past tax years were left untouched and only future tax years were affected.
Assuming that the "On Demand" services were services that accept user-submitted content and thus could be within the safe harbor to start with, rather than organizations which actively contract to supply specific content, which puts them outside of the DMCA safe harbor and the protection of the notice/counternotice provisions entirely.
Most of those (other than Youtube) probably aren't properly situated for the form of request defined in the DMCA safe harbor provisions to apply, because their relationship to the content isn't within the safe harbor in the first place -- they aren't sites that host user-submitted content, they are entities that have specifically purchased the identified content from its producers for distribution.
Of course, the content of a DMCA takedown notice isn't all that different from the content of a regular cease-and-desist; the difference is that complying with a DMCA takedown if you are properly situated to be within the safe harbor protects you from copyright liability from hosting the content prior to the notice, while if you are outside of the safe harbor complying with a C&D just prevents additional liability and may be enough to satisfy the copyright owner so that they don't bother to pursue a claim for your prior use of the content.
IIRC, the people involved in the '09 reboot explicitly referred to it as being the embodiment of the original-characters-at-the-academy idea first pitched by Roddenberry in 1968 and that kept resurfacing starting around 1980 as the basis of a new movie and/or series. So, yeah.