Ah now, back in the day, the IBM PeeCee (which had an 8088) kept time at a rate of 65536 ticks per hour. How this divides into a second is left as an exercise for the interested reader.

The second question for the interested reader is how on Earth anyone could achieve any sort of calculation at all on a 6502 what with it being quite the most pathetic excuse for a CPU ever devised by person-kind.

You'll go far, young man. Now back to your VB.NET.

All programmers work for Microsoft and they are the guardians of the Secret Knowledge of the Diabolical Black Art of Making Computers do Stuff by Programming. They produce point-and-click tools for everyone to use their computers. If you are not part of The Sect you have no business engaging in the Diabolical Black Act and you will be hunted down and made to renounce any Secret Knowledge. You will be instructed in the use of the point-and-click tools and made to see that this is the True Path.

You do nothing that a small shell script can't except post silly comments and waste our time. :p

They weren't. They were pointing out that the Mongolia being referred to in the story is the independent country that's not a part of China, and making the distinction between the two Mongolias without getting bogged down in a discussion of internal Chinese politics that would be utterly irrelevant to the point being made.

One perk of having a job, however, is precisely giving you a way to pass the day.

...I have no need for supervised activity.

This lesson is the same as in Candide, where in spite of adventures of tumult, death, and agony, it turns out that idleness is just as bad.

And the lesson Lord of the Rings is that if you work hard, a dragon or a demon will come and kill you.

Fictitious stories are not evidence.

Another thing that is bad is the self-concept of being unemployed -- I had some very rich friends at college who took great effort to avoid showing off how rich they were while at college and after graduating took semi-grunt-work IT positions just so they could think of themselves as productive, working people.

This is a cultural problem. It can be eliminated by changing said culture.

But there being "no need to work" at all is not an ideal end state. If there were no need to work, I would be a very unhappy person, even moreso than I already am.

You would be unhappy for a while, then you'd pick a hobby and get on with your life.

You're giving mental adaptations to the needs of the current system more credit than they're worth. They're just that: adaptations, learned values of reward and punishment directing your behaviour so you don't need to engage your higher reasoning for every decision you make. Change the situation and they change too, even if it'll take a while.

Yes, this gets predicted every day going back to the invention of language. Alas, it never happens. We continue to lurch and stumble forward into the future like the large group of incompetent boobs that we are...

Of course it does. One does not accidentally create a headline so well fine tuned to misrepresent the contents of a story or contradict its conclusions. It requires careful editing...

Yes, well, perhaps in La-la Land. Here, in reality, no matter how good your organization may be (for whatever definition of "good" you choose to use), you may still end up with bad employees. The question of securing your data shouldn't be about good or evil, or any particular moral judgment, but simply about how to make sure you're critical and confidential data doesn't end up being ripped off.

Moral judgements matter because good organizations need only worry about bad employees, while bad organizations must worry about everyone; bad employees will still backstab them for personal gain while good employees backstab them because they're villains. Unconditional loyalty belongs to La-La Land. Here, in reality, you either earn what you need or suffer the consequences. And bad organizations have a much harder time doing that, because appealing to the social contract they're themselves violating isn't effective.

I understand the software writers don't want to marginalize themselves in case servers adopt UEFI. However, there are zero security benefits of UEFI, versus booting part of your OS right from the BIOS/Firmware. It's up to the OS's bootloader to kick of an encryption chain after UEFI loads. So, put the damn bootloader in the firmware with Coreboot.

The way my setup works is that Coreboot has a bootstrap loader for my OS in firmware. The BIOS requrires a password to access it, and enable the flashing of firmware. Type password, "Enable Firmware Flash On Next Boot" option. No screwy hex code you're bound to mess up several times. My boot protocol uses public key crptography so that the custom multi-boot loader can handle any number of OS updates. The 2nd stage OS loader changes, it can include the signature of via key that's paired with the OS's 1st stage firmware boot loader. DONE. All we need is a standardized way for BIOS to flash a small part of the OS loader at OS install, and then any OS can be just as secure as secure boot, without ANY hierarchy of control -- The OS devs can own all the keys they use to secure and load their own OS. It's not like the chips don't have the memory now -- Shit, on new desktop systems the firmware has gaudy graphics, animations, and sounds -- The damn motherboard runs a stipped down Linux or BSD to prestent you the BIOS config options!

So, think about this. Coreboot + Key/Signing you already have to have in the OS loader is just as secure as UEFI, except there's no grand central Microsoft authority who says what OS can and can not install on the hardware, or to pressure hardware makers into bowing to the demands of the Windows requirements. If there is a bug in the BIOS or hardware that lets it rewrite firmware from software without permission, then it exploits UEFI or Coreboot equally -- How do you think UEFI is implemented -- IN FIRMWARE? Hell, I have the option with Coreboot to use UEFI boot if I want. However, I can also remove that shite, or even have the firmware setup legacy BIOS interrupt tables for booting old OS's like MSDOS, DR DOS, etc. Currently, I have my system config in my Coreboot, so it doesn't search for shit, just loads my OS and runs instantly at power up.
Coreboot w/ OS + SSD = Milliseconds to boot; Beat that, Security Theater Boot.

They should rename that shite, Microsoft Controlled Boot, because it is, for all intents and purposes. Stop and think. How can a sysop like me figure out a more flexible system that's just as secure as SecureBoot, more easy to use and maintain, and even adds security to tons of legacy x86 hardware -- Yet all those well paid folks who's only job was to engineer a secure boot standard "UEFI", came up with some restrictive shit that in effect gives Microsoft more control of the hardware and software arena? NO. ACTUALLY THINK. SEE?

What the hell man, have you ever installed or released software? What kind of literally retarded question is this?

MIT License

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

BSD

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

GPL

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

No, really. Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on the Internet? For fuck's sake man, there are even disclaimers that state the software can't be used in nuclear power facilities. Living under the rock wasn't good enough for you, so you made some glasses out of stone and entered the real world?! Are you Kidding Me? Even JOKE licenses have indemnity clauses. The truth of the matter is this: Writing perfect software is possible, I have created perfect driver software in assembly that handled EVERY possible input EXACTLY as they should -- computers have finite state, so it's very doable. However, that shit is expensive as hell. Furthermore, even when I knew my software was PERFECT I still used an indemnity clause. Why? Because unless you're willing to guarantee me that the RAM and CPU and all other Hardware that my software touches is operating PERFECTLY at all times, physically audited by ME or my agents whenever I want to, perhaps even tearing a machine apart down to the microchip level, and peeling away the silicone level by level to ensure your circuits are NOT haywire and ensure you're not lying, then I can't EVER be absolutely sure what "my software" will do.

If you can't assume the responsibility for the operation of the machines and systems YOU are responsible for operating, including the testing and verification of the software in and beyond the hardware's operating environment, then YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO USE MY SOFTWARE.

Exactly.

And the cheapest alternative is to keep the minimum wage so low that 80â of the workers get subsidized in taxpayer funded food stamps and Medicare.

The Walmart & Friends Executive Union is double dipping. They suck profits from their employees' paychecks and cut costs with taxpayers' paychecks and stick them all in their pocket because "you can't have businesses without capital."

Once you buy that, it's a simple step to accept that human health absolutely MUST be a "for profit" enterprise. If there is no profit for someone, it must not be good for any one, right?

As long as the capitalists control the conversation, the only relevant result is profit. Nothing else matters.

Is that covered?

This isn't about "them" or "the elites", this is simply people behaving rationally. If you got $1b in your account tomorrow, you'd be behaving exactly the same way, and you're no elite either.

I wouldn't. Why would I? $1b is enough to spend the rest of my life on the lap of luxury, while having plenty of resources leftover to spend in any cause I considered worthwhile, be it charity or space colonization or whatever.

Technically speaking, "rational" means maximizing expected utility. The utility of money asymptotically approaches a finite value as the amount of money approaches infinity, and for most people is already pretty darn close to it at $1b. Thus it is not generally rational to make great or even modest sacrifices to make more money at that point, especially since you are pretty much guaranteed to profit from simple and perfectly above-ground index investing.

Cheating when you're winning is the domain of people with severe psychological problems, not Joe Average. It is also extremely irrational.

If you're using PHP and you've got something against Perl, you're a fucking idiot.