"Why, certainly it is! What do you suppose the 8th amendment is referring to? Heres a hint, it doesnt say "punish them as long as it takes to rehabilitate them".
Theres also a reason its called a "penal" (meaning punishment) or "justice" system, not a clinical or rehab system."
Please point out where you think I said ANYTHING about "rehabilitation". I didn't mention it at all. I certainly was talking about society's interest in keeping people locked up, but I didn't even once say "rehabilitation" was one of those reasons. Since you brought it up, Dr. Roache's idea would almost certainly qualify as "cruel or unusual" punishment. But that in itself has nothing to do with what *I* was saying.
"But I do fear for the day when noone gets that anymore, and the courts are free to detain you for as long as it takes to "cure" you. If you're curious as to what that looks like, I hear Winston Smith can give a pretty good account."
Again, I didn't say punishment wasn't called for, I simply said it wasn't the primary consideration. The reason is simple: unlike our forefathers, we know that it just doesn't work very well as a means to prevent re-offense.
But having said that: I still didn't say anything about "rehabilitation". I didn't say anything about that and I didn't mean anything like that.
"Tests have already been done on countless millions of people. None of them complained about being dead, said they'd rather be doing something else, or petitioned to be made no-longer dead. Zero."
That's really beside the point. The big problem here is that Dr. Roache seems to think that the primary purpose of incarceration is to "punish" people. Nonsense.
While punishment as an incentive to prevent re-offense might have some value, statistics and what we know of psychology say that really doesn't work very well.
Society's main interest, when it comes to incarcerating physically dangerous people, is to lock them up so that they don't continue to cause societal damage (rape, injury, murder, etc.). From a societal standpoint, "punishment" is (and should be) far from the first consideration. It just isn't that important.
For more minor offenders, punishment might be more of a consideration. But at the same time, torturing minor offenders probably isn't a good idea.
Which leaves us with: harsh punishment just isn't that important. Keeping them away from society is.
"They are both Java IDEs. Android Studio is IntelliJ, not specific to Android any more than the Android plugin is for Eclipse. "
You're not arguing with me, you're reinforcing my point.
If he wanted to avoid comparing apples to oranges, he would be comparing Eclipse to IntelliJ. But he wasn't... he was comparing Eclipse to Android Studio.
""Fraud is in FACT not science" But scientist can commit fraud. And when you say, well when the scientist commits fraud isn't really doing science, you are falling into the Scottsman fallacy."
No, you're not. Because fraud still isn't science. Science has well-established rules such as verifiability, repeatability, prediction, lack of bias. If you violate those rules by committing fraud you're not doing science. That isn't "One True Scotsman", it's simply a statement of concrete fact.
Thanks for the example, but I know how the "One True Scotsman" fallacy works. This isn't it.
"This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme."
I also know what that is, and that's why I mentioned it. The key words in your quote are "not necessarily". One CAN make a "slippery slope" argument without it being fallacious. But when you claim a slippery slope where none actually exists, then the fallacy arises. The point being: it's possible to make slippery slope arguments without indulging in the "slippery slope fallacy", and it is possible to make "X is not Y" arguments without committing the One True Scotsman fallacy.
The fact that these fallacies exist does not mean that they hold true in all possible circumstances.
"Another good example is climate change denial science. It willfully ignores counterarguments, cherry-picks data to fit hypotheses, but it still counts as science."
I could show you about 20 clear examples of "climate scientists" doing that today, if I had the time, and more over the next week after I had time to dig them up. I don't deny that some "deniers", as you put it, may be guilty too but to suggest this is one-sided is just dishonest. I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked.
"Also, not something that exists or is what we are talkiing about. Read the trademark. We're talking about a yellow edging and dark gray face, combined."
It's still a pretty common combination, not exclusive to Fluke. See some of the examples posted elsewhere in this thread.
Despite all the configuration options and plugins and the like available for it, Emacs still does not meet most peoples' definition of IDE.
No, I did not use Turbo Pascal until its later incarnation in Delphi. But Microsoft had character-based IDEs for some of its BASIC products well before Visual BASIC as well (I.e., late 80s.)
In Turbo Pascal's heyday, I did not even know it existed. If I had, I probably would have been delighted since I had started programming in Pascal in the late 70s, long before I became familiar with Microsoft products. I finally got my hands on a copy of Turbo Pascal only after I had learned to use Delphi on my own, and I never really got much chance to do anything with it.
I believe in medical conspiracy theories because they exist.
(Disclaimer: that doesn't mean I believe very many of them, or very often. But the idea that believing in ANY medical conspiracy is nuts is... well... nuts. "Those who don't remember history" and all that.)
Not only that, but despite "youth culture" it's actually illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, for that large subset of companies which fall under the law.
"The federal government has nothing to do with this case. The grandparent post proposes that Oregon state officials are going to sic the TSA and the IRS on someone, which makes no sense."
Missing the point. It's still an implementation of Obamacare, and the Obama administration has been known to sic its little attack doggies on its political opponents, without regard to whether it's a state or federal matter.
The WHOLE POINT here is that you can't separate it into strictly Federal or strictly State issues. It's BOTH, all muddled up. Which is just one of the reasons Obamacare is such an "Obamanation": separation of powers is violated right up the ass.
In a nutshell, Android is Java on a Linux base with Java libraries for "system" calls, and (usually) lots of description of interface elements via XML.
Here's the problem, though: TFA compares Eclipse (which is a "general-purpose" IDE, usable for many languages) to Android Studio (which is specific to Android), and comes out saying Eclipse is wanting.
Well, duh.
But hey, if you're comparing apples to oranges by trying to see which one thrives more in a tropical climate, guess which one you're going to pick? No news here, move along now.
And I think this unbalanced comparison is evident in the discussion of Gradle integration. Both can use Gradle. But Eclipse can use other things, too while Android Studio cannot. Very big point goes to Eclipse in this regard. But the reviewer (inexplicably) gave that point to Android Studio instead. I disagree.
Yes, Eclipse is old. It probably isn't as good at Android development as Android Studio. But it IS good at other things that Android Studio doesn't even do. So it's hardly an across-the-board comparison.
(I say that even though I'm not one who really cares for Eclipse very much.)
"Eclipse was a good IDE (relative to others) for a brief period of time early in its life, give or take 10 years ago (i think?), and that was it."
Actually, Visual BASIC (and subsequently Delphi) were the real "Grandaddy" IDEs. Eclipse came along much later (2001) and was originally for Java projects. Visual BASIC and its brethren (soon to become Visual Studio) then borrowed from some of the good ideas in Eclipse.
Did Eclipse "keep up"? Arguably not. It is a Java "base" platform that was adapted to other uses by other people. So a lot of the good ideas that came out of that were not incorporated back into that base.
On the other hand, some of the IDEs that rose up to challenge Eclipse have their own limitations: NetBeans and so on.
But my main point here was that Visual Studio's ancestry goes way back before Eclipse came out.
"It only takes one male to fertilize countless females. If you want to eliminate a species, you focus your efforts on the females, not the males. We could lose 90% of the human male population tomorrow and our population would be back to normal in a generation or less. If we lost 90% of the human female population, it'd take centuries to get back to our present population. Males simply don't affect population much; kill off a bunch, and the remaining ones have more sex partners."
That's true of humans, not mosquitoes. The reason is the low birth rate of humans. But mosquitoes breed prolifically.
It is true that males can fertilize many females. But because of their high birth rate, this means that killing off the females does not restrict the population for long. At most a few months.
But kill off the males -- or better yet, as they have done with both mosquitoes and flies sterilize the males but let them mate -- and they produce no offspring.
That's why most fly and mosquito eradication programs focus on the males.
"i don't know, but if you look at the pictures of both the sparkfun literally copied the color scheme
"i don't know if they designed it or just sell some chinese copy, but they could at least have changed the colors
Let's face it: a "trademark" on a common electronic gadget being yellow is overly-broad and never should have been issued. It probably happened back in the day when multimeters in the U.S. were made by only a few companies.
Maybe I should go out and trademark traffic signs that are red and white. Or black and white. Think what a business I could have!
" It's not that they won't "want" to implement it, it's that it would cost money and competition is completely insane right now for ISPs."
Are you in the United States? If so, you're nuts. Your local situation does not translate to the rest of the country.
80% of the people here live where there is a cable monopoly. Mostly Comcast or Time-Warner. In most places DSL is not as fast for the money, and satellite has too much latency for business use.
"Competition", my ass. They don't do it because it costs money, but their customers are locked-in, so they don't have to.
Why do you think broadband is so much more expensive in the U.S. than it is in the rest of the Western world? That's right: lack of competition.
A few years ago, somebody (I don't remember who) came up with a laser bug zapper that could shoot down flies and mosquitoes. It was accurate, but I doubt it was very discriminatory.
Couple it with this, and you could have a selective bug zapper that only killed "bad" insects.
Though I think OP's idea of only killing female mosquitoes (because they're the ones that bite) is misguided. Male mosquitoes lead to more female mosquitoes. If there is one insect that I think could safely (and even beneficially) be eliminated from the planet, mosquitoes would be them.
If you expand insects to other arthropods, I'd just as soon get rid of ticks, too. But they don't fly.
No it isn't. Saying fraud "is not science" is very far from a No True Scotsman argument.
No True Scotsman arguments rely on someone's opinion of what a Scotsman is. Fraud is in FACT not science. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Whether there actually was fraud in this case is another matter. But GP didn't make a comment about this case, he made a general comment about fraud in science. So it wasn't No True Scotsman.
YOU, on the other hand, say that failing to acknowledge problems in science circles is relevant. But no, it's not. Regardless of the amount of fraud, fraud is still not science. So it's still not No True Scotsman.
You appear to be thinking of this along the line of those who say that a claim of "slippery slope" is a fallacy. But that's not true either. Slippery slope can be a fallacious argument, when there is no slippery slope. But slippery slopes can and do exist.
In the same vein, "X is not Y" can be a No True Scotsman argument, but often (I would say usually) is not. This time it is not.
"she should probaly loose her reelection just on this bit..."
I my opinion Feinstein should have been washed out of the Senate a long time ago. Maybe this most recent bit of outrageous hypocrisy will finally be the turning point for her.
"Unless you think of the end product actually being created as being your profit. And really, that's the only way to look at it."
Well, sure. That's part of my point. You aren't an "investor" in the sense of, say, a stockholder. But you're still "investing" in the startup, in a very real sense.
But Kickstarter makes it very clear that while most products offer an incentive for making a donation, you're not "purchasing" a product.
No, they aren't "investors" in the sense that they're expecting a return on their investment. That's why FTC has fuck all to do with it. That's THE POINT people are trying to make here.
You're helping to fund a startup. You get a fixed reward in exchange for your funding. You aren't buying stock, and you aren't "purchasing" a product. Rather, it's like fund raisers who give you a stuffed dog or a lapel pin when you donate.
Many Kickstarter projects don't even offer the product itself for contributions. They offer other things instead, like T-Shirts, or dinner with the inventor. So no, it's not "purchase" of the project's product.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why, certainly it is! What do you suppose the 8th amendment is referring to? Heres a hint, it doesnt say "punish them as long as it takes to rehabilitate them".
Theres also a reason its called a "penal" (meaning punishment) or "justice" system, not a clinical or rehab system."
Please point out where you think I said ANYTHING about "rehabilitation". I didn't mention it at all. I certainly was talking about society's interest in keeping people locked up, but I didn't even once say "rehabilitation" was one of those reasons. Since you brought it up, Dr. Roache's idea would almost certainly qualify as "cruel or unusual" punishment. But that in itself has nothing to do with what *I* was saying.
"But I do fear for the day when noone gets that anymore, and the courts are free to detain you for as long as it takes to "cure" you. If you're curious as to what that looks like, I hear Winston Smith can give a pretty good account."
Again, I didn't say punishment wasn't called for, I simply said it wasn't the primary consideration. The reason is simple: unlike our forefathers, we know that it just doesn't work very well as a means to prevent re-offense.
But having said that: I still didn't say anything about "rehabilitation". I didn't say anything about that and I didn't mean anything like that.
Yes, exactly. But not just Apple, by any means. Apple, AT&T, Comcast, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
They've all been using Orwellian doublespeak, implying they had no knowledge at all by claiming they had no knowledge of a tiny, specific thing.
Traitors, the lot of them.
Let's all remember that treason is not disobeying your government, it is betraying your country and your people.
"Tests have already been done on countless millions of people. None of them complained about being dead, said they'd rather be doing something else, or petitioned to be made no-longer dead. Zero."
That's really beside the point. The big problem here is that Dr. Roache seems to think that the primary purpose of incarceration is to "punish" people. Nonsense.
While punishment as an incentive to prevent re-offense might have some value, statistics and what we know of psychology say that really doesn't work very well.
Society's main interest, when it comes to incarcerating physically dangerous people, is to lock them up so that they don't continue to cause societal damage (rape, injury, murder, etc.). From a societal standpoint, "punishment" is (and should be) far from the first consideration. It just isn't that important.
For more minor offenders, punishment might be more of a consideration. But at the same time, torturing minor offenders probably isn't a good idea.
Which leaves us with: harsh punishment just isn't that important. Keeping them away from society is.
"They are both Java IDEs. Android Studio is IntelliJ, not specific to Android any more than the Android plugin is for Eclipse. "
You're not arguing with me, you're reinforcing my point.
If he wanted to avoid comparing apples to oranges, he would be comparing Eclipse to IntelliJ. But he wasn't... he was comparing Eclipse to Android Studio.
""Fraud is in FACT not science" But scientist can commit fraud. And when you say, well when the scientist commits fraud isn't really doing science, you are falling into the Scottsman fallacy."
No, you're not. Because fraud still isn't science. Science has well-established rules such as verifiability, repeatability, prediction, lack of bias. If you violate those rules by committing fraud you're not doing science. That isn't "One True Scotsman", it's simply a statement of concrete fact.
Thanks for the example, but I know how the "One True Scotsman" fallacy works. This isn't it.
"This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme."
I also know what that is, and that's why I mentioned it. The key words in your quote are "not necessarily". One CAN make a "slippery slope" argument without it being fallacious. But when you claim a slippery slope where none actually exists, then the fallacy arises. The point being: it's possible to make slippery slope arguments without indulging in the "slippery slope fallacy", and it is possible to make "X is not Y" arguments without committing the One True Scotsman fallacy.
The fact that these fallacies exist does not mean that they hold true in all possible circumstances.
"Another good example is climate change denial science. It willfully ignores counterarguments, cherry-picks data to fit hypotheses, but it still counts as science."
I could show you about 20 clear examples of "climate scientists" doing that today, if I had the time, and more over the next week after I had time to dig them up. I don't deny that some "deniers", as you put it, may be guilty too but to suggest this is one-sided is just dishonest. I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked.
"Also, not something that exists or is what we are talkiing about. Read the trademark. We're talking about a yellow edging and dark gray face, combined."
It's still a pretty common combination, not exclusive to Fluke. See some of the examples posted elsewhere in this thread.
You obviously have never used GNU/Emacs.
or Turbo Pascal
Despite all the configuration options and plugins and the like available for it, Emacs still does not meet most peoples' definition of IDE.
No, I did not use Turbo Pascal until its later incarnation in Delphi. But Microsoft had character-based IDEs for some of its BASIC products well before Visual BASIC as well (I.e., late 80s.)
In Turbo Pascal's heyday, I did not even know it existed. If I had, I probably would have been delighted since I had started programming in Pascal in the late 70s, long before I became familiar with Microsoft products. I finally got my hands on a copy of Turbo Pascal only after I had learned to use Delphi on my own, and I never really got much chance to do anything with it.
I believe in medical conspiracy theories because they exist.
(Disclaimer: that doesn't mean I believe very many of them, or very often. But the idea that believing in ANY medical conspiracy is nuts is... well... nuts. "Those who don't remember history" and all that.)
Not only that, but despite "youth culture" it's actually illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, for that large subset of companies which fall under the law.
"The federal government has nothing to do with this case. The grandparent post proposes that Oregon state officials are going to sic the TSA and the IRS on someone, which makes no sense."
Missing the point. It's still an implementation of Obamacare, and the Obama administration has been known to sic its little attack doggies on its political opponents, without regard to whether it's a state or federal matter.
The WHOLE POINT here is that you can't separate it into strictly Federal or strictly State issues. It's BOTH, all muddled up. Which is just one of the reasons Obamacare is such an "Obamanation": separation of powers is violated right up the ass.
In a nutshell, Android is Java on a Linux base with Java libraries for "system" calls, and (usually) lots of description of interface elements via XML.
Here's the problem, though: TFA compares Eclipse (which is a "general-purpose" IDE, usable for many languages) to Android Studio (which is specific to Android), and comes out saying Eclipse is wanting.
Well, duh.
But hey, if you're comparing apples to oranges by trying to see which one thrives more in a tropical climate, guess which one you're going to pick? No news here, move along now.
And I think this unbalanced comparison is evident in the discussion of Gradle integration. Both can use Gradle. But Eclipse can use other things, too while Android Studio cannot. Very big point goes to Eclipse in this regard. But the reviewer (inexplicably) gave that point to Android Studio instead. I disagree.
Yes, Eclipse is old. It probably isn't as good at Android development as Android Studio. But it IS good at other things that Android Studio doesn't even do. So it's hardly an across-the-board comparison.
(I say that even though I'm not one who really cares for Eclipse very much.)
"Eclipse was a good IDE (relative to others) for a brief period of time early in its life, give or take 10 years ago (i think?), and that was it."
Actually, Visual BASIC (and subsequently Delphi) were the real "Grandaddy" IDEs. Eclipse came along much later (2001) and was originally for Java projects. Visual BASIC and its brethren (soon to become Visual Studio) then borrowed from some of the good ideas in Eclipse.
Did Eclipse "keep up"? Arguably not. It is a Java "base" platform that was adapted to other uses by other people. So a lot of the good ideas that came out of that were not incorporated back into that base.
On the other hand, some of the IDEs that rose up to challenge Eclipse have their own limitations: NetBeans and so on.
But my main point here was that Visual Studio's ancestry goes way back before Eclipse came out.
"It only takes one male to fertilize countless females. If you want to eliminate a species, you focus your efforts on the females, not the males. We could lose 90% of the human male population tomorrow and our population would be back to normal in a generation or less. If we lost 90% of the human female population, it'd take centuries to get back to our present population. Males simply don't affect population much; kill off a bunch, and the remaining ones have more sex partners."
That's true of humans, not mosquitoes. The reason is the low birth rate of humans. But mosquitoes breed prolifically.
It is true that males can fertilize many females. But because of their high birth rate, this means that killing off the females does not restrict the population for long. At most a few months.
But kill off the males -- or better yet, as they have done with both mosquitoes and flies sterilize the males but let them mate -- and they produce no offspring.
That's why most fly and mosquito eradication programs focus on the males.
Better a gun-grabbing loon than a gun-grabbing AND privacy-grabbing loon. Evil of two lessers and all that.
"i don't know, but if you look at the pictures of both the sparkfun literally copied the color scheme
"i don't know if they designed it or just sell some chinese copy, but they could at least have changed the colors
Let's face it: a "trademark" on a common electronic gadget being yellow is overly-broad and never should have been issued. It probably happened back in the day when multimeters in the U.S. were made by only a few companies.
Maybe I should go out and trademark traffic signs that are red and white. Or black and white. Think what a business I could have!
" It's not that they won't "want" to implement it, it's that it would cost money and competition is completely insane right now for ISPs."
Are you in the United States? If so, you're nuts. Your local situation does not translate to the rest of the country.
80% of the people here live where there is a cable monopoly. Mostly Comcast or Time-Warner. In most places DSL is not as fast for the money, and satellite has too much latency for business use.
"Competition", my ass. They don't do it because it costs money, but their customers are locked-in, so they don't have to.
Why do you think broadband is so much more expensive in the U.S. than it is in the rest of the Western world? That's right: lack of competition.
Meh. Grammar.
s/mosquitoes would be them/the mosquito would be it
A few years ago, somebody (I don't remember who) came up with a laser bug zapper that could shoot down flies and mosquitoes. It was accurate, but I doubt it was very discriminatory.
Couple it with this, and you could have a selective bug zapper that only killed "bad" insects.
Though I think OP's idea of only killing female mosquitoes (because they're the ones that bite) is misguided. Male mosquitoes lead to more female mosquitoes. If there is one insect that I think could safely (and even beneficially) be eliminated from the planet, mosquitoes would be them.
If you expand insects to other arthropods, I'd just as soon get rid of ticks, too. But they don't fly.
"She's suing the Oregon STATE government."
... over its handling of a FEDERAL program. There. FTFY.
No it isn't. Saying fraud "is not science" is very far from a No True Scotsman argument.
No True Scotsman arguments rely on someone's opinion of what a Scotsman is. Fraud is in FACT not science. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Whether there actually was fraud in this case is another matter. But GP didn't make a comment about this case, he made a general comment about fraud in science. So it wasn't No True Scotsman.
YOU, on the other hand, say that failing to acknowledge problems in science circles is relevant. But no, it's not. Regardless of the amount of fraud, fraud is still not science. So it's still not No True Scotsman.
You appear to be thinking of this along the line of those who say that a claim of "slippery slope" is a fallacy. But that's not true either. Slippery slope can be a fallacious argument, when there is no slippery slope. But slippery slopes can and do exist.
In the same vein, "X is not Y" can be a No True Scotsman argument, but often (I would say usually) is not. This time it is not.
"she should probaly loose her reelection just on this bit..."
I my opinion Feinstein should have been washed out of the Senate a long time ago. Maybe this most recent bit of outrageous hypocrisy will finally be the turning point for her.
"Unless you think of the end product actually being created as being your profit. And really, that's the only way to look at it."
Well, sure. That's part of my point. You aren't an "investor" in the sense of, say, a stockholder. But you're still "investing" in the startup, in a very real sense.
But Kickstarter makes it very clear that while most products offer an incentive for making a donation, you're not "purchasing" a product.
"No, they are NOT investors."
WHOOSH
No, they aren't "investors" in the sense that they're expecting a return on their investment. That's why FTC has fuck all to do with it. That's THE POINT people are trying to make here.
You're helping to fund a startup. You get a fixed reward in exchange for your funding. You aren't buying stock, and you aren't "purchasing" a product. Rather, it's like fund raisers who give you a stuffed dog or a lapel pin when you donate.
Many Kickstarter projects don't even offer the product itself for contributions. They offer other things instead, like T-Shirts, or dinner with the inventor. So no, it's not "purchase" of the project's product.