> I wrote a micro-kernel for an ARM platform about a decade ago, and there was an assload of inline ASM code and direct pointer manipulation to access the underlying hardware, there is no other way to do this.

thats not an ugly hack, thats awesome! ugly hack to me means adding side-effects. like making data structures global and using extern to pull them in across unreleated parts of the code because you are to lazy to write a proper interface, using preprocessor hacks to hijack functions, using sed to "fix" binaries, most if not all of libc...

it could be worse :)

char *f = "foobar";
f[0] = 'a';

he hasn't actually leaked anything. he gave all the docs he stole to greenwald and his team has been leaking them. his descision to go to russia came well after.

you know you can do 'vi scp://user@host:port/' so you dont actually need a vi installed on the remote machine just sshd.

whats the difference between this guy and snowden?

what about using a large enough private key such that brute forcing it is the amount of time you want the message to stay hidden. Obviously adjust for the strength of the attacker and moors law.

> I agree, this is a horrible idea. The rate of students actually graduating in 4 years is already low, it will just go down as soon as students are attending for "free". There might be some minor improvement if there were a competitive process and only the students who gave a crap about their education would qualify. But this notion that every slacker has a "right" to attend and fart around for six years is a disaster. When I went to graduate school, anyone could tell, with a high degree of accuracy, which students were paying their own way and which were not. The ones paying for it were the ones who worked hard and tried to get something out of even the easy classes. The other just wasted everyone's time. A couple times I had to get one of the latter removed from my team projects since they weren't worth anything.

I think its a self correcting problem. I am assuming that the tax is going to the selected University, not some general fund. Universities have limited space, they would compete for the corp of students who would have the highest income to generate the highest return for education. Kids that want to fart around for 4 years would actually have a tougher time, since their income prospects are going to be rather limited.

This might actually align the schools interests with the students ability to graduate and get a job that justifies the costs of going to school, who knows, maybe the kids would learn something useful. Right now that decision is entirely in the hands of an 18 year old who is taking on a financial burden of an amount of they have absolutely no way of comprehending.

My costs of education were roughly 1.5% of my income for 10 years (woot woot Computer Science), so it would have been an overall crappier deal for me. But when I was graduating at 2003 a 40k loan seemed like an insane amount of money to me, had I just been on the hook for a 3% of my income I would have probably tried to start my own company or joined a barebones startup instead of getting a job (which has been awesome for the last 10 years).

So let me be the devils advocate here,

The argument is that if India does this the rest will follow and then the companies will not be able to make up their research costs to facilitate the development of new drugs, since the current batch of drugs was researched with the expectation of selling them worldwide.

If pharmaceutical companies are making that much money, why doesn't India create their own state or private pharmaceutical companies (or buy a stake in Pfizer) and use the profits to pay for local drugs? India has an enormous pool of talented researchers and a big enough budget to accomplish this. As they argue, the profits are so large then there is no way they could lose money. That would be a win win for everyone.

> There's no direct linear correlation between compensation and performance. Anything but, considering that some people rake in more for failure than most of us will receive in a lifetime of success.

Well compare nokia vs blackberry. Both ended up on the shit end of the smartphone market, but nokia hired a microsoft exec to prepare it for a sale and we see a large payoff to the CEO and the majority shareholders compared to blackberry compared to blackberry The difference Elops connection to microsoft is a difference in Many Billions of dollars to the majority shareholders, so his 50m dollar bonus is a tiny drop.

But as a small retail investor I feel screwed. I wasn't sold a back room deal that I could use to hedge against shorting blackberry. I was sold nokia's great technology and a smartphone comeback that would put it back in a competitive position with apple and google What do i care if i lost 2k or 4k, I want my CEO to fight to the death to keep the business going instead of making back room deals and stripping the company. I can't imagine what the employees feel.

If you really want to make CEOs sweat, how about making it easy for employees to leave and start competing companies? Like healthcare and cheap small business loans to industry professionals. It would force companies to value their experienced employees, pay them more, treat them better and much less likely to offshore.

> Somehow, to me this just looks like it is the most blatant proof that the whole stock trade has become a self serving gambling place without any connection to reality and economy anymore. It used to serve the purpose of accumulating money for projects larger than what any single person or even government could finance. Today, it is just a self serving leech on our economy.

It lowers the spreads and eliminates arbitrage, and that reduces transaction costs for every trade, which is a much much much larger volume than what HFTs take in. HFT's take a slice of any arbitrage opportunity available, so we see a price thats closer to the optimal. Arbitrage is bad, it means that there is a price difference between the same thing in two different markets, as in i just bought a tv at costco only to find it 20% less at walmart across the street. If we had HFT's for retail those price differences wouldn't exist and i could buy a product anywhere and know that i got the lowest price possible. The good thing is that there is nothing to worry about. HFTs compete to the death for every arbitrage opportunity, so they quickly disappear.

> it really just looks like Qualcomm is trying to spin their business decision (to not do eight-core chips, probably because they don't think they can compete) to their investors as cost-saving for their customers.

its more they other way. They are calling out MediaTeks 8 core hype. the 8 core chip is 4 A15 and 4 A7 cores, and you can run only 2 of the A15 at the same time (may be able to burst all 4 for a second) or the chip will overheat, and a7 is basically the chip you had in your feature phone 5 years ago. Qualcomm's chips run each core at variable voltage, so all of the cores can be on at any time at different voltages.

why not do the easy thing and politely inform the client? I am sure if you have a good working relationship with them it wouldn't be a problem to credit you.

I think the OP is assuming that the set of criminal statues is small and they are concretely defined. Just California has over 34000 intentionally ambiguos statues in its penal code. So there is absolutely no way for a common citizen to live a life that doesn't violate a single one of those statues. Given that we are all guilty of something, the Fifth amendment benefits all of us :).

> When electric cars make sense by the numbers, when they are overall cheaper than their fossil fueled counterparts, they will be built and bought by the millions and charging stations will show up everywhere. Until then, the totally electric car will be a fringe market limited to the rich and hobbyist. I expect that Tesla's will continue to be hugely expensive toys, and not much more than that, for a LONG time yet.

I have a feeling that without enormous government intervention electrics will never be viable. Increases in fuel efficiency in cars decreases demand for gas and lowers its price, which decreases incentives for further improvements in feul efficiency. So unless there is a really huge technological breakthrough in batteries, or a big government commitment i think electrics will remain just 10 years out of reach.

But Elon is crazy enough to put giant pilons all over the country (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/25691610), so who knowns.

full disclosure, I got a chance to drive a performance model S, and its f**king awesome. the dash is awesome, the interior is awesome, the handling is awesome, the insane acceleration (sub 5 seconds to 60), but its definitely a 90k luxury car.

samsung s3 with LTE use a dual core snapdragon, clocked at 1.5ghz with 2gb of ram. how come they didn't compare apples to apples?