Comment Re:Before someone says it (Score 4, Insightful) 68
No, but treating two wrongs as the same degree of wrongness is pretty dumb.
No, but treating two wrongs as the same degree of wrongness is pretty dumb.
Or just shit like this: https://www.wsj.com/business/m...
And the number of false convictions (roughly 25% of those convicted in the US) doesn't cause a problem for you?
Then you're part of the problem.
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It's not a social welfare program.
Those three statements are policy choices, not objective facts. Capitalists like to present them as inevitable, but of course they are not; they are only presented as such because it's in capitalists' interest for people to see them that way.
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It's not a social welfare program.
The way things are headed, the only way people are going to be able to obtain money to pay for those widgets is via social welfare programs.
Adjusted for inflation, the 2TB model is a bit cheaper than a Panasonic 3DO or a Neo Geo was at launch.
Additional context: at the time of their release, both the Neo Geo and the 3DO were considered to be unaffordable, except by the very rich.
the complete lack of any Anti-Trust regulation preventing anyone from making RAM and storage except the existing players
I don't think it's monopoly issues holding anyone back, so much as the fact that setting up a viable fab for RAM or storage takes billions of dollars and a number of years, and everyone is expecting the AI bubble to burst before then anyway.
e.g. why invest $$$ to build a new manufacturing facility, when by the time it comes online be competing with auctioned-off near-new equipment from all the belly-up data centers that didn't make it?
US: 66% (Wall Street's numbers aren't those found in official statistics)
UK: 28.9%
Holland: 23%
Norway: 16%
China: 6%
US' conclusion: The rate is a complete mystery, we've no idea how to decrease it, let's do more of what we're currently doing differently to everyone else.
There is a slight possibility this may be flawed.
I have never detected even a single advantage of systemd. It didn't bother me enough tow switch distributions, but that's the best I can say for it.
The real problem with C is that it doesn't have any built-in support for strings. Everyone is forced to fake it with char-arrays, which aren't quite the same thing and require very careful handling. The problem with that is, everyone has their off days, and so everyone who does string-handling in C eventually ends up shipping string-related bugs that introduce security problems.
strncpy() was not intended for null-terminated strings at all. It should have been named copy_null_padded_buffer(). Then its operation would have made sense to almost anyone. People wouldn't have minded the longer name much either, because hardly anybody uses null-padded buffers in modern software.
Note that a null-padded buffer that is completely full doesn't have any nulls in it at all. That's why strncpy() doesn't necessarily add a null termination. It also fills the entire destination buffer with nulls after the end of a short copy, which can be very inefficient when used with null-terminated strings.
TL;DR: don't use strncpy(). It doesn't do what anybody thinks it does.
Developers can make the license whatever they want including on consoles.
Not once the console maker shuts down the platform's reactivation servers.
Or say the publisher wants to publish a multiplayer game where players 2 through 4 can download a limited-functionality version of the game without charge so long as player 1 is a paying licensee and on their mutual contacts list. This resembles the model used by StarCraft spawned installations, single-Pak multiplayer on Game Boy Advance, and DS Download Play on Nintendo DS. I don't think all consoles support this sort of game sharing.
Which is not an ownership issue, it's a DRM/license enforcement issue.
Correct. The digital restrictions management regime on paid downloads from PlayStation Store doesn't grant rights to a licensee that are equivalent to those that the law reserves for the owner of a copy. The complaint, as I understand it, is that the required notice of inequivalence is not conspicuous enough.
The plaintiffs can still get the same benefits of the product even if their purchase is just for a license.
The benefits are not the same if the publisher or the platform gatekeeper retains the ability to remotely disable licensed software.
The only thing you really lose is the ability to resell your license easily.
Or, in the case of certain failure modes of PlayStation Store (such as end of support for a particular platform), the ability to restore your license to replacement hardware.
printed books, zines, and newspapers
You are allowed to copy these for your friends (but not for selling or public sharing).
I never heard of that being the case in the United States, where the lawsuit described in the featured article was filed.
CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...