This is code for straight-up Socialism or Chinese Style "Capitalism". Picking winners and losers by the Government.
I would instantly agree that we need to stop picking winners like we do now under Crony Capitalism, but putting that power more in the hands of Bureaucrats and Politicians is not the solution.
Along those same lines, Windows 11 is dropping support for older Intel Processors lacking certain features. Supposedly, it's to improve virtualization, but how much would it cost to just not support that virtualization as well on older processors?
It's a boon to PC manufacturers that push Windows 11. The big PC makers say "Works best with Windows!" on their websites and don't highlight or give you any price break on units with Linux installed. Didn't I read that MS requires that they get a payment for every PC sold, whether it runs Windows or not as part of their licensing agreement with the manufacturers? I know the manufacturers get a big break on Windows copies from retail.
I thought Apple should have bought Dell when Dell went private a few years ago, made PCs with no Windows advantage, pushed Linux and maybe even Darwin on these new PCs. I'm not saying don't sell Windows too. They could keep the Dell and marketing separate to not dilute the Apple brand. They would have enjoyed massive buying power for PC parts, screens, batteries, SDs. They could have gotten Dell for a tiny fraction of their massive war chest a few years ago. Could have had most of it financed, too, just like the deal to go private did. This idea might have faced anti-trust scrutiny.
Apple should have recognized that MS wasn't going away and as long as they are there, they are a potential huge competitor in many of their markets.
It would have also been revenge for the obnoxious remarks Michael Dell made back in the 90s when Apple was experiencing hard times.
The third images from the preview indicates that there is only dampening by 14 dB. This doesn't seem like much.
If this works by reflection, is it even possible to stack more of these in several layers to achieve higher dampening (because the layers would themselves reflect the sound)?
They used the AGPL for the server, but also told their users that it would not affect client code (the applications the users write). As a result, it was rather unclear whether you would even have to distribute modified server sources if you offered a public database service using the software.
Furthermore, the AGPL is only a deterrent against competition if the competition needs to modify the source code and does not want to share the modifications (assuming the the source code disclosure obligation actually kicks in at all). Neither of the cited organizations is vehemently opposed to sharing source code, so I do not think the AGPL (even applied as intended, which the original authors of the database software did not do) actually deters commercial competition here. It probably would not have prevented revenue seeping towards third parties offering services related to the software, either.
I eventually put a pin through his coax, which apparently burned out his linear. Ha Ha!
I, too, love to chuckle about committing felonies (depending on the price of his amp) based on my complete misunderstanding of regulations and my rights and responsibilities under them. Hee hee, ho ho!
My company explicitly states that it's our job, as senior developers, to farm the crop of new junior developers. And FWIW, we've seen enormous success from hiring inexperienced (but talented and eager) new engineers and mentoring them in the ways of our world. The main difference between me and a new kid out of college is that I've made a lot more stupid mistakes than they've had time to. I share my experiences with them, and they share their excitement and willingness to try new things with us. If I can play a small part in helping them graduate to a senior role - either here or elsewhere - I'll consider it a personal accomplishment.
We did our time as juniors. Now it's our turn to help the next cohort learn the ropes.
Gotta agree. I was ready to be all offended by a super restrictive list, but there's nothing there that seems likely to every be accidentally crossed.
Probably OK:
Probably not OK:
I think all those rules are there so that if someone won't quit being an ass then they have an explicit rule they can point to. That seems reasonable.
The first problem is that there's provably no way to reconcile "only the One True Protector should have access to a backdoor" and "any backdoor can be, will be, and has been exploited by third parties". It's like hoping desperately to find some value of A such that "A & ~A == true". It won't (and can't) happen.
The second problem is that encryption only makes it more convenient for criminals to do the things they've always been doing anyway. If I wanted to communicate secretly with you, we used to meet in the woods and talk privately. If we didn't want to be seen going into the woods, we sent emissaries to chat over coffee in a busy restaurant. Criminals are using encryption today. They are also meeting in woods and restaurants and behind barns and in churches and above taverns and on boats. There is no question that intercepting their woods / restaurants / barns / churches / taverns / boats communications would play in huge part in stopping there schemes, maybe saving lives. That point is just not debatable.
But what is debatable is whether it's worth bothering to live in a society where you and I can't talk in private, or where I can't exchange pillow talk with my wife without someone listening. If it came to that, fuck it - the experiment's over. I'd rather burn it all to the ground and start over than live in a society where laws and technology mean it's impossible to communicate without eavesdropping.
It's almost like people want to live here, even if they have to pay more for the privilege.
Neither one, no. The 2600 doesn't measure seconds but frames. Seconds aren't actually clock seconds but the number of rendered frames divided by a constant.
If the clock crystal ran faster (but not so much that it screwed up the TV sync), then the "time" score would speed up by the exact same proportion. The 2600 would still calculate the exact same amount of animated movement per frame because that's how it works. On a modern computer, something updates video RAM while another something reads from that same RAM and generates a video signal for the screen to display. On the 2600, the CPU fills in the current TV scanline as it's being displayed, with only a few ms between screen refreshes to do work like calculating scores, etc. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... if you want to be horrified at what our predecessors had to do to put a dot on the screen.
The 2600 doesn't get feedback from the TV display. It just blindly writes its signals to the wire and it's up to the TV to decode them properly. The TV doesn't send a clock signal to the 2600.
This is an excellent time to make an exception to that otherwise-sacred rule. The video was awesomely damning, entertaining, and infuriating. Other "accomplishments" it documents:
- Getting high scores of exactly 15,000,000 on two different games whose scores increment by 100 each time. Not 14,999,900 or 15,000,100, but exactly 15,000,000.
- Beating the second highest scores on those games by factors of like 30x. He got 15,000,000; #2 got 500,000.
- Beating the Barnstorming game by an unlikely margin. Summary: every time you move up or down in that game, you lose a bit of horizontal speed: the fewer movements you make, the better your time. Testers hacked up a copy of the ROM to remove all obstacles, then timed flying from one end of the course to the other in a perfectly flat line. Rogers beat that machine perfect time by over half a second.
- Scoring 1,698 in a game that increments by 5 points at a time and that caps at 1,300.
i don't speak French but even I can figure out that's a big mealy mouthful... hard for six or seven syllables to come up with two...
First rule of speaking French: get bored and trail off halfway through each word. No one says six or seven syllables. In practice, you'll get two on a regular basis and three if it's your waiter sneering at your bad accent.
"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."
