It's irrelevant to those components that do not use naked C API calls
Utterly untrue. This is about language ambiguity, not standard library ambiguity, so the C language API is moot.
My point was that this is mainly useful on programs that already have flaws
How many programs don't?
I strongly recommend reading (or at least doing a quick pass over) http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/ub:apsys12.pdf to get an idea of the scope of the problem.
[T]he asshole is at least going to perform the job duties
Counterexample: Current House of Representatives.
The only thing stopping Google from abandoning Microsoft's patents is that the end result would be worse than all the cheap Chinese rip-off tablets and phones.
That's only potentially true when the patents are disclosed. It's fashionable to not disclose what the specific patents argued to be infringed actually are (or the mechanics of how they're infringed) when trying to license a portfolio.
Can't work around a patent when you don't know what it is.
My wife has spina bifida -- as one of the effects, she doesn't sweat. At all.
This has the effect that when living somewhere where outside temperatures go above mid-90s, she's under doctor's orders to never be away from air conditioning, ever.
A personal, portable climate control device would be great... if it were more than just illusion. I imagine something peltier-effect based with a backpack -- perhaps with the actual heat-transfer region on the other side of a heat pipe, and thus able to be located under clothing. Sure, they're energy-inefficient, so even a Li-Co battery of reasonable weight wouldn't last that long, but being able to be outside for 30 minutes instead of 2 without getting heat stroke would be a big improvement.
Not that the tech will be personally relevant for long -- we're moving to Chicago in the spring.
It's pretty simple: As a cyclist on a general road, make yourself as little nuisance as possible, so hug the right side of the road. If you need to overtake someone, see a pothole or need to take a left turn, look back, and if it's fairly clear, claim your place closer to the middle of the lane.
I suggest taking a class before you try riding in the US like that. The League of American Bicyclists -- formerly, the League of American Wheelmen -- has a great one; first day is nothing but classroom theory, talking accident statistics, lane positioning, etc.
Among the outcomes from those statistics? Hugging the shoulder is absolutely the wrong thing to do; it makes it look like you're safe to pass in the same lane even when you aren't. It doesn't kill as many people as riding on the wrong side of the road, riding at night without lights, or riding at speed on the sidewalk (which, yes, are the three biggest causes of cyclist-at-fault accidents; riding on the sidewalk means folks pulling in and out of driveways can't see you).
Much, much safer to actually take the lane. You're highly visible there; your location communicates to other road users that you're traveling straight ahead; and folks who need to pass you are encouraged to change to the next lane over rather than trying to pass too close within the existing lane.
Now, if you're on a one-lane road, things get hairy -- but even then, the best practice is to have a good rear-view mirror and yield to passing traffic whenever possible. If your default position is in the far right, you don't have anywhere to swerve if there's a hazard in your way; if your default position is middle-of-the-lane, you have options -- one of those being to pull over to the side when you've observed that it's safe to do so.
They essentially want congress to live by the same means the people who use the exchange will have to
Congressional staff gets special-cased because they're forced into the exchanges (this is a feature, not a bug!). Most people with full-time employment get employer contributions; the intent of the "special treatment" clause that everyone derides is basically giving Congressional staff the equivalent of a private employer contribution towards their insurance. But, here's the thing -- the Democrats would gladly accept this if it were offered to get things rolling again. I saw the glee when it looked like that was going to be the only, symbolic demand being made pre-shutdown; sadly, it didn't come to pass.
and either delay the mandate for as long as the executive order allows Big business to ignore it, or force big business to play on the same terms as the citizens
Has the House offered a proposal in which cutting off the subsidy for Congressional staffers and undoing the executive order giving big business a deferral was the only change made? I'm entirely serious here.
- A flipper -- someone looking to buy low and sell high, with lots of cash on hand. The "buy low" part of that makes this a very undesirable option.
- Someone looking for owner financing (such as a wrap). I've actually gotten an offer of this sort already, but folks who can only buy with owner-financing aren't exactly the best-qualified buyers, are expecting a substantial discount for being willing to pay a lump in cash... and am I going to trust my own credit rating to their responsibility? Nuh-uh.
- An idiot paying too much for a loan (because the most cost-effective ones in this price range, even for well-qualified buyers, may be arranged through private lenders -- but are actually FHA-backed). There aren't many of these around.
The downside is that their less-pessimistic competitors undercut them on rates and win big.
Until, of course, the pessimistic view proves right, and those competitors go under. Or, if you're really pessimistic, get a bailout.
I only spent a few minutes looking last time I was in the US, but I found lots of mobile phone shops that were willing to give cheaper SIM-only deals and even more such deals were available online.
The question isn't whether you can get a SIM-only deal. The question is whether you can buy an unlocked phone directly from a major carrier.