I know someone who had some surgery - they drained the fluid, fixed stuff, and re-filled the eye. In the process, they filtered out the floaters.

Maybe it was cataract, I don't remember. But yes, those can be removed. I doubt any doctor would do surgery just for those, of course.

too much of a PITA for the crackers to write their own

I've seen much harder stuff added in just for the fun of it. If you're cracking something, adding a bit of code is most likely going to be trivial.

And on top of the other replies, keygens are usually made by disassembling the code and replicating the algorithm. No guessing, no trial and error, just figuring out what the code does. You can't easily get code out of a dongle, and it might be for some dedicated PLC that might not even make sense. So if the key check is in there, which it's probably not, there's a huge difference.

Usually it does a calculation and checks the outcome, as an example something simple like the Luhn algorithm for checking credit card numbers. Make a random CC number, and if it doesn't pass the result tells you what to change to make it pass (Mod 10 math).

Usually they are more complicated, you just have to work backwards. A keygen has to work relatively easily forward and backward. Remember, for every key checked, one must be generated. So it can't be something too crazy. It is not unknown, just hidden. Perhaps heavily obfuscated. But it can be read like a cake recipe - take this, put with this, and you get a valid key.

Used to be, you would see a lot of XORing, easily reversible calculations, so you just take the final result and do the same thing backwards and that's your input. Of course, you see fewer keygens these days because it gets more difficult with better algorithms - easier to just hack and patch. Plus, you release a keygen and thousands of junk sites pop up with "serialz" made with your keygen.

The watermarking idea is probably the best bet, track who uploaded the patched version. Most likely it will be a shallow-pocket customer and you won't get much other than knowing.

Let's not forget the shell. If you drag and drop huge numbers of files, Windows allows the program to do this:

For each file
    Get the filename
    Do some processing

For simple operations, this is fine. For processing that takes a while, the entire shell is locked up waiting for the program to release the HDROP. Far better to ask programs to just get the filenames and process from the list. But shouldn't the shell remain responsive?

And virus scanners, when something like FireFox has a huge SQLite history file that has to be scanned when it is accessed. The app is ready to go, but the hard disk is churning like a Norwegian making butter.

Or apps like VLC which use standard libraries, but those libraries are not already being used because you don't have a media player open. Then it loads everything you *might* need, instead of delay-loading. I've heard the latest release is faster but still has problems rebuilding the font cache, just in case the media has subtitles.

Not to mention a slow SharePoint site which you're never quite sure if it is opening that file you clicked on. And of course the online editing means the browser doesn't download the file, it passes the URL to Word or Excel which then opens it.

There are too many bottlenecks, some caused by the hard disk, libraries, operating system, background tasks... I'm sure there are similar problems with Linux. There are too many places to make mistakes - best to let the user know something is happening.

Most foreign nations are states, USA happens to be a collection of states. It would be equally true to say "The United States [of America] is..." because you are talking about the country as a single entity, or "The United States [of America] are..." because not every state is on board.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/collectivenoun.htm

As you pointed out, people more generally assume you are talking about the country and not the collection of states when you say "United States" or "US", and therefore "is" has evolved to be the most natural fit.

Your link does nothing to settle the singular/plural question, it simply reflects common usage to refer to the country as a whole instead of the individual states together.

It became more common right before the War Between the States, and right after, having a clear difference of opinion, people referred to the states as an individual collection. After that anomaly, the trend resumed.

Depending on usage, either way is still correct. The only thing that changed is the assumption that we are talking about the country as a whole. That would be expected as a country matures. Considering that most of the country was a stable size by around 1850, then the anomaly, then Alaska was acquired, a case could be made that it is more a sign of geopolitical stability than anything related to grammar.

No. The final price is what you pay for the item. The receipt should spell out how much goes to the government. And tax rates are pretty clearly spelled out and public information, not hidden. Friendly warning, you're heading to nutter territory. A receipt without the price, tax, and total would be an issue between you and the store, and the "hidden government tax" you fear is more likely the store putting a tent pole in its profits.

Also, if you read more and typed less, you might figure out there are a few ways to adjust your withholding so that it comes out as close to even as possible. Most people seem to want that check, since they are unable to save money and allow the government to do it for them. The government might make a little extra money on the float, but the IRS, and Congress generally, wants it to come out as close to even as possible.

It's called a W-4, and the IRS instructions, and position, are pretty clearly spelled out here.
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p919/index.html

You're talking about a development from a time when sales tax didn't exist (or wasn't collected). There was a reason, but that is not the reason now.

Now, it is well-accepted that the "primacy effect" means that a $5.99 price will be mentally converted to "$5" and seen as cheaper. Most of this seems to be philosophical arguments rather than good hard science, but I'll leave that.

Although networkBoy mentions alternate reasons, these are usually store-specific, and still keep the price within a few pennies of the next dollar up. Walmart typically ends prices in .88 or .87 for the same reason, IIRC. The psychology there is two-fold. One, a $19.99 item is cheap at the Walmart price of $19.88. Two, for customers who don't really think about it, it is very easy to make people think $4.88 is better than $3.99 because it was "4 dollars or so" and Walmart is 11 cents less. There is an entire game show, "The Price Is Right", based on the idea that people don't know how much normal products typically cost (whevever they survey the prices, which tyically is not where the contestant lives).

They are still counting on getting as close to the next dollar without going over, no matter the reasons, due to the business schools teaching primacy.

You're using logic to counter belief. It's not going to work.

Also, Randi is not an impassive man of science and logic. He is trolling the believers, and trolling them hard. It is a thing of beauty, because people who tend toward logic will be on his side without even needing to see someone refuse. People who believe will get all frothy in the mouth and argue any shred of evidence that his methods are not "fair" or "real science".

When someone claims psychic powers, implicit in their claim is that they can do this only in their own way, and not by some artificial method corrupted by some contest and its rules. If I can give you a cold reading after sending people to mingle with you n the lobby and feeding me details, then that is what I claim. Only, since I have no reason to state what should be obvious (I repeated on stage exactly what you told someone in the lobby), I only claim the supernatural part, that I can cold read you.

Make no mistake, Randi is most definitely being a showman with this claim, and it *is* set up so that anyone who accepts the challenge will fail. Not because he sabotages their performance, but because he removes the air of mystery. Mistakes can't be glossed over, preparation work will be revealed, and all opportunities for trickery are eliminated.

Once you prove something, there is no room for belief. Make no mistake - even if someone were psychic to maybe 75% certainty on a coin toss (50% better than expected) they would not be rigorously tested. Because with belief, you can get that number up to "almost 100%" because people stop counting. With logic, the counting never stops. This is why I believe no one will ever claim his prize, *even if they are legit*.

Randi knows this, he is a zealot on the other side, and he is trolling hard.

Doesn't make him any less right, it just puts him clearly in the realm of logic, not belief.

I agree with one exception. The person who believes is in the realm of faith, and has no burden to, nor even reason to deal in, the realm of fact.

This may look like an argument where one side is accusing the other side of bad science. It's not. The giveaway is here: The side accusing the other side of using bad science is using bad science.

Let me rephrase. If I don't understand science enough to change my beliefs to match observation, and it is clear in my argument that I don't, then my argument is most likely an emotional one with phrases pulled from critics of my belief. Not science.

And when you argue against science with faith, there is no win. On either side. Neither side has the tools to change understanding in the opposite domain. It is impossible, and only someone who already leans in the opposite direction will be pulled across to the other domain. And in some cases, people will retain both understandings (cognitive dissonance) because they cannot change their understanding.

Science says the same thing. Facts make people believe even more, especially when they contradict belief.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Sorry if it seems I have posted this before, you'd think more people would just let it go implied at this point, as common knowledge.