Maybe you're thinking of the TRS-80 Model 4P: http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/trs80_4p/
Hence the reason why recent hardware projects like REX and NADSBox have been important. NADSBox adds an external hard disk. REX is a completely plug-and-play Option ROM which you can switch OptROMs and save/restore full RAM images to flash.
"To get any boost of performance over C, you have to be an extremely good assembly coder..."
Well that may be true but it's a distinction without a difference. I find most serious assembly language "coders" from the CS side of the house are excellent programmers/engineers. They are going to write MUCH faster assembly programs than any compiler will generate. They understand modern coding patterns... OOP, state charts, algorithmic complexity but they adapt techniques to fit a given problem on a given machine far more efficiently than a good C programmer. With C and certainly CPP you're locked into a certain development style that encourages maintainability over all else. When you're programming in assembly language you have more degrees of freedom to optimize and the rules for "maintainable" code are quite a bit more liberal.
The distinction should be solely between encrypted and unencrypted traffic. Encrypted traffic presumes an expectation of privacy. Unencrypted *should* not.
I think you're overreading this ruling. The EPA is quite likely to be the blunt instrument for regulating CO2, and they are required to under the Clean Air Act.
Better would be a significant energy bill but Republicans and Conservadems have made a more intelligent approach impossible.
The complainants were smacked down unanimously simply because suing the power companies is the wrong target. They are free to sue EPA once it hands down regs, and SCOTUS made this clear. I'm not sure why they thought anything different would happen here.
*Was* a community organizer. Your meme has expired. Barack Obama is PRESIDENT. He is the only man eligible to be President aside from Jimmy Carter that can claim that, period, end of story. He has experience being the most powerful executive in the world.
Sarah Palin on the other hand... hmm... governor of a state of low population, couldn't hack it and quit.
You are right. The FCC can't grant powers to itself. If it does overreach, it gets spanked in the courts. So it is unclear what you are frightened about... the checks and balances are in place, and by your own example, quite effective.
The current rule making, as all successful rule making, is based on EXISTING AUTHORITY ALREADY GRANTED BY CONGRESS. The FCC tried to use its existing authority to create net neutrality rules. The court didn't like how they justified their authority so they sent the FCC back to the drawing board with reasoning that forms a roadmap for the current iteration of the rules. That was version 1.0. This is version 2.0.
Consider the pace at which Congress is able to pass laws. It is glacially slow. In our system of government, enforcement and interpretation are left to the executive branch and the courts. It is the only thing that makes the whole system work... that other branches closer to the practical problems of implementing the law are left to "fill in the blanks." Congress INTENTIONALLY leaves those blanks because it cannot predict every eventuality.
"the document does not make many guarantees about freedoms for enterprises or corporations of any sort,"
Mostly true... but it does guarantee freedom of speech for exactly one type of organization: The Press. Guess that's the exception that proves the rule.
It all hinges on what intellectual property Arrington has. I mean, a web tablet... is that innovative? Really? Web only devices have been around for some time. Making an oversized PDA that only does web browsing does not equal innovation.
So if all the IP he has is trademarks that Fusion Garage is not using, well, game over. Take it as a life lesson and move on.
Obstruficates? Is that like encapsulates, or abstracts?
Where do individual authors get off thinking that their incremental improvements on the ideas of other inventors which they released out into the world as a working product get to keep other people from making incremental improvements on top of it and distributing their own products?
Where do authors get off thinking they are doing more than riffing off someone else's chord?
And where do they get off thinking the government needs to enforce a monopoly for them on these derivative ideas?
No it doesn't. Read it again... it says "Krause says Matthew Krippen advertised online and had a large clientele."
That's presumably a fact, but it doesn't say anything about advertising specifically to run pirated games.
I'm not a journalist, so I don't have an obligation to write an unbiased summary. I added my interpretation intentionally. If you want an alternative bias, just read TFA.
Doing something that should be legal, in a country that loves liberty, for profit, doesn't make it more or less wrong.
It is quite popular to make homebrew games for consoles. Just, say, google for "homebrew wii games"
To run it, you would have to mod the console violating the DMCA.