A few major vendors (I want to say Microsoft was among them) were infamous for silently dropping email without bounce backs. They'd perform then whole protocol sequence as if they accepted the email, then simply never actually put it in that user's inbox or even spam folder.

For a while, the PRU blocks in the beaglebone's SoC were popular for similar reasons, but those were an order of magnitude more expensive.

This is pretty much the old school single threaded unix process model, where the heap grows up from the end of bss and the stack grows down from the top of the process.

It also changes quite a bit if you enter *#06# as the number.

That determination is rooted in contract law.

Right. Things like consideration are missing.

You would absolutely normally get source to the vast majority of the unix components with a unix install.

At a bare minimum, you would almost have to have source to the vast majority of the kernel because there was no kernel modules. Sysgenning for a particular system involved compiling the kernel for that set of hardware.

I'm literally working on an early sun system emulator right now, heavily assisted by the standard sec tape that came with the standard software distribution of sunos, which has plenty of AT&T code.

> The courts have found that legally, one officer recording one person is no different from a large-scale, automated surveillance system recording everyone.

That is not the case. It hasn't been truly tested, and there are very strong hints in SCOTUS's previous opinions that scale dramatically changes the equation for them.

Of course SCOTUS is currently much more amenable to the idea of changing their mind, so who knows how it'd actually hit, but it's far from decided law in the US.

For one example, Sotomayer's concurrence in US v. Jones (2012)

> Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).

> I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements. I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on. I do not regard as dispositive the fact that the Government might obtain the fruits of GPS monitoring through lawful conventional surveillance techniques. See Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 35, n. 2; ante, at 11 (leaving open the possibility that duplicating traditional surveillance “through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy”). I would also consider the appropriateness of entrusting to the Executive, in the absence of any oversight from a coordinate branch, a tool so amenable to misuse, especially in light of the Fourth Amendment’s goal to curb arbitrary exercises of police power to and prevent “a too permeating police surveillance,” United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 595 (1948).*

If you go to someone else's house who is a member of that club and has agreed to follow its rules, it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.

Which is all the ICC can do to nations that aren't signatories to the Rome statute.

> it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.

It's not crazy to think that I won't be served meat if I'm going to a house of a vegetarian. It is however crazy to think that I will be stoned in that house for having eaten meat in the past.

And it's absolutely bonkers to think that I could be driving on my business on the road that just so happens to pass through some property belonging to a vegetarian, who will drag me out of the car and stone me as "a perpetrator of Gallinaceous Ordocide" or something.

We're not talking about eating meat; we're talking about crimes against humanity.

And you would have had to break this law in a territory that also was a signatory of the Rome statute. This isn't some out of jurisdiction or ex post facto form of law.

So for instance, US military personnel couldn't be arrested up for crimes that occured in Iraq, because Iraq is not a signatory of the Rome statute.

So your example doesn't make sense unless you ate meat somewhere else that it was also explicitly banned, and then went to another country that had the same cross agreement to arrest people in the combined territories.

To keep all of that money you just enumerated flowing in the local economy.

FWIW the "international" folks I work with hardly spend any money in the US. Most of it is saved and spent or invested during 2-month annual visits to homeland.

Your logic is incorrect, you are thinking that a "international" folk buying a TV is what they mean. But that's not correct. Paying income taxes, paying tax on cars, paying tax on gas, paying rent, these matter a lot more to the government then you buying an iphone from the apple store in the mall versus one in "international country".

That's probably just your company. In Silicon Valley, "international" folks spend a lot of money on buying houses (multiple of them sometimes), cars, home improvement, going out to restaurants, etc.

Absolutely anecdotal, but in the Silicon Valley I know, I rarely see coworkers participating in skiing/surfing/hiking/US travel. Hell, even dining out outside of free-food campus is a tough sell.

As for buying multiple houses, I'm sure the wider population is happy with foreigners buying rental properties.

Me buying food from restaurant would make the owner richer, but would also employ more people at the restaurant.

The scarcity issue is valid when the resource is limited. In case of US, I was not aware of food scarcity. Even housing is more due to policies than actual land scarcity.

Economic activity does have positive feeback. Yes, some people get unfairly rich - but the solution is not to stop the activity, instead try to get the rich pay their fair share of contribution to the country.

> Me buying food from restaurant would make the owner richer, but would also employ more people at the restaurant

What of one of the employees at the restaurant had your job, and they bought food there? Or are you declaring only you can do your job?

Eh, most device interactions are mostly "build a command list and shared memory buffers" rather than the classic touch a a bunch of registers to perform the data plane work. UARTs are one of the last bastion of the old style, mostly because of how you want them so early in the boot process for debug out, it's nice to not have a shared memory/command list access pattern.

That being said, I've even seen it for UARTs on microcontrollers where they're hoping to not have FIFO block RAMs taking up area dedicated to UARTs that might not even be enabled. There you have a absoute minimal staging buffers in the UART, and a fairly reconfigurable DMA controller to allow you to use sharable main RAM instead.