I meant, the resulting cells would be a QR code not that it calculates the data for a useful one.

In that case, probably not without a truly funky neighborhood and ruleset.

3699: You've accidentally banned yourself multiple times.

3700: You wrote a bot to post these so you could grab the best numbers.

Wrong! The treaties have no binding effect AT ALL because the governments involved have no jurisdiction over the entire world! The only way that the treaties would have effect is if EVERY country had a say... Why? It's called the World Wide Web...

Does this mean that participating countries won't abide by said treaties? Not at all. They will abide... but until ALL the countries of the world make a GLOBAL law regarding the internet and treaties involving the usage there thereof, the treaties can be broken easily by participating countries...

What? Whose jurisdiction would such a global law fall under? There isn't a global government to HAVE laws in the first place. That's why international law is such a vague field.

As for your point that the internet is a global network, that's irrelevant. Roads are also a global network. They can still be regulated by every government where they fall within its borders. The only difference with the internet is the question of "where are the borders?"

What shoud be regulated is terrorist attack plans (and by terrorism, I don't mean Syrian Government's definition of it, I really mean 9/11-esque stuff), scamming/phishing/counterfeit item sales, illicit drug dealing, death threats and any plan to physically assault/put in danger the life/lives of someone or a group of person. Anything that is already illegal outside the Internet, kinda.

This comes back to the borders question as well. Who has jursidiction where? Take this site, for example. It's a site catering to a fairly international audience, served on an international cloud, administrated by a group with two different nationalities, started by a person with a canadian nationality. Whose laws apply here? At various times, you could point to either Canada or the US and easily make arguments for the other.

Secondly, those "real life" laws are precisely the issue. The methods governments have in real life don't necessarily apply online, which is why they're modifying their laws to reflect the internet better.

I'm not saying that government shouldn't have power... I'm saying that government should not attempt to GAIN power for the sake of gaining power...

It's not "gaining" power to say you have claim a right you already possess. I think you're misunderstanding the position of governments and the powers of the ITU.

First of all, governments have every "legal" right to do pretty much whatever the heck they want on their territory, so long as it doesn't violate human rights. Now, the UN has declared that everyone has a right to protection against "arbitrary interference with his privacy." All of the UN agencies uphold this view, including the ITU. Note that this is an essentially meaningless right. For one thing, all that's necessary to get around it is a legitimate reason to violate your privacy. For another, the UN and all of its component agencies have no legislative power. None. The UN can make recommendations and set standards, but it cannot change the laws of any of its member countries unless they agree to the laws for themselves. The UN, and hence the ITU, fundamentally cannot regulate the internet. It has no power to do so.

All of that said, nothing prevents any of the member countries from regulating their own networks unless it is their own internal laws. They have every ability to regulate their own portions of the internet as and they've had this power from the beginning!

Finally, the meetings won't be over till the end of next week, but all I've seen of their schedule is that they'll be putting out standards. Let's say the worst happens and the ITU edits the treaty, which is then ratified in the US, (or wherever) and becomes a law. Well, it doesn't overrule any other laws in power and legally, the US government can't do anything more than before. As for the question of them using extralegal methods, they already do.

These talks are only really important from the aspect of showing how the international political community is looking at computer networks. Beyond that, it's a lot of hype over nothing.

New theme. All of the system windows are pretty much transparent with it.

What do you mean by "Unique Representation of Cube Configurations"?

A driver would be necessary no matter what the system is like. Even your computer with a fancy GPU has a screen driver to handle the low level hardware management. It's also not that big of a difference, since even the current z80s could handle a color screen with a proper driver, albeit slowly. The difference is speed and cost of production. Rewriting the OS in ARM/C, debugging it, and then making sure a new hardware platform works well with the OS is expensive. I would not be surprised at all to find that this calculator is a derivative of the Nspire for no other reason than development costs on TI's end, especially considering that any production costs they have are passed onto the consumer at a steep markup.