The other problem with the death penalty is that it's applied capriciously. Someone who's an accomplice to a crime that results in murder may be the death penalty while the person who actually did the killing may get 25 years with parole possibility instead, in the same jurisdiction. The death penalty is absolutely not reserved only for the most heinous crimes. Often prosecutors seek the death penalty because it looks good around re-election time.
There are even better ways to go though. Use anesthesia first for example. But that requires doctors and doctors having taken the Hippocratic oath won't involve themselves in the death penalty. Trying to buy anesthetics is difficult if the seller knows it will be used for the death penalty.
Also, for some reason, those administering the death penalty often avoid figuring out better ways of execution, they inherently trust that the current method is the best method, and seem to have no motivation in reducing pain or discomfort. I think there's a political aspect here, and politics is nearly the same as religion when it comes to being unwavering in your views.
The death penalty will eventually go away in the US, it's just a matter of time.
Gamers... A lot of people play games on their home laptops. Developers... i5 is ok, but if you're compiling code you can peg things out fast. Not everybody is a web or cloud developer or admin. I've got an i7 Macbook pro, and I peg it out a lot with the fan going full aggro. Data crunching... faster CPU means faster data crunching (unless you're solely on the cloud). MS Office... seriously, least efficient programs in the universe...
A lot of systems were written at a time when printers that didn't all work the same way and display terminals that did not all work the same way, so they would add a bit of translation when printing files, converting the text format to a printable format. Ie, read a record, send to printer, add CR+LF, repeat. Ie, the file didn't have the same format as the protocol needed to send the file and display it properly on a printer. There were tons of file formats out there, the "plain array of bytes" used on Unix wasn't all that common. No one could point to just one format and say "this one is correct all the others are wrong, without sounding like it was proselytizing".
When microcomputers came along later, most affordable printers had settle into a single way of doing things with CR and LF, so the micros found it easy to just copy a file verbatim to a printer without needing a file. In other words, the file and the protocol were merged, somewhat out of ignorance perhaps, or maybe for convenience.
These were telegraph codes originally, later standardized in Baudot codes (1900ish). CR and LF were separated from each other for practical purposes. CR took a long time for the carriage to actually return, but LF was fast. So you could send CR+LF+LF to do double spacing, or send lots of LFs to put in more gaps. Sending a redundant CRLF when only an LF was needed was wasteful, slow, and expensive.
So there is no "correct" implementation. A file format does not need to have a printable representation internally.
Thank heavens the abysmal DOS way of using ^Z was ditched though.
Ha. I know RFCs are treated as "standards" but those are only standards through general grudging agreement. Many of them came into existence with very little feedback, some were modified by later RFCs, etc. I take them with a grain of salt. My guess is that requirement is there just so that some less-than-stellar programs would work.
Microsoft has been steadily removing more and more user options from menus. They seem to fundamentally dislike the notion of user customization. Sometimes those removed options go to the registry, but they also remove registry entries as well.
I used Wordpad for viewing text documents instead of Notepad, because Wordpad would let you wrap lines. I didn't use either to actually write text docs though. I did go to notepad+ a couple years back, but it does a lot of things I don't like, but it's much better as a "default" application to read text files.
Taking care of Saddam in the second Iraq war was a disaster. We killed hundreds of thousands of people to get one guy, we created more terrorists than we stopped, and it's still not over and no one has a plan of how to fix things. Sure, he had been abusing ethnic groups in the country, but does it seem like a place full of peace and hope today where ethnic groups are getting along? And the stated reasons for starting the war never included any hint about how Saddam was treating his own people - instead we were perfectly fine with Saddam screwing around his own people for a few decades as long as we still got the oil.
Don't forget that "intervention" is in the eye of the beholder. It happens from the US a lot because we seem to have taken on a self-proclaimed role of being the "good guy" and "defender of freedom". This is taken as a matter of faith, it's taught in schools, we know it's right because someone told us it's right. We also have a pattern of absolutely ignoring all other countries who tell us we might be wrong and that war isn't a good idea, we flip our finger at the UN, we ridicule peacekeeping missions that aren't working. When we do go to war there is even cheering from the domestic crowds, like it was merely a sports contest.
The cases where the alternative to war is worse than the war is in the minority. And by ignoring the causes of a war, and placing everything in the moment, then more wars seem justified even if they were preventable with foresight. Cases like WWII are in the vast majority of wars, it is extremely rare that such extremes should be needed. Most wars about about swagger, showing the other side who's boss, showing the domestic audience that you're a tough guy, grabbing economic resources, and so forth.
The executive does not need a treaty for every single act of foreign policy. By not being a treaty it just means that it can be withdrawn again without congressional approval. But the executive does have the authority to enact foreign policy.
Well, our technology is declining, we're all about social media now. Science is being laughed at and ignored in government. Our exported culture tends to be bad movies and bad hamburgers and lip sync. How long does all of that hold together?
It's a complex issue where all sides act like utter novices. They may not be utter novices but it's how they act. If they're not so stupid, then there are sinister motives behind the actions that continually keep the heat up. Anytime it seems like things might be slightly cooler, someone says something to inflame it all again, or builds new settlements, or shoots off a rocket, or invades someone, or assassinates the person advocating for peace, etc.
And why is the US even in it at all? Why are we screwing up other countries when we can't even manage to figure out our own?
War is bad no matter who it's with. People forget this. They see WWII and think "we stopped Hitler, yea!" and become warhawks. Never mind that Hitler came to power because of WWI, and WWI happened because of prior wars, and you can follow the chain all the way back to the Romans. And after WWI we majorly screwed up in Vietnam and Iraq, and yet we still have people who think we could have "won" Vietnam even though technically we were only supposed to be advisors there, and people who think Iraq was a good idea and that we just need more troops on the ground. At some point the world needs to just agree to stop fighting over petty issues, like economics, religion, oil, ideology, tribalism, etc.
I don't think this was a treaty, just an agreement. Congress didn't approve it. Which made congress at the time very very angry, but then the president as executive can abide by the agreements anyway and doesn't need permission from congress to remove the sanctions or insist on inspections. However without congress this agreement doesn't have force of law, and the next president can overturn the agreement on a whim. The executive branch decides on foreign policy, not congress.
And they ignore the part about all the suffering everyone else endures as described in Revelations. Anyone who wants to speed up the coming of end times has a very distorted theology.
But I think we're sort of at the level of "this byte is normally 0x23 in healthy people, but I see 0x24", without having the source code to verify. Changing it might fix things, it might have an effect, or it might make things worse. We really don't know what these genes do, we just know there are strong correlations. We could learn more with human experimentation, but that's a road I think we're not yet ready to go down. We have to prove gene therapy is safe before we start double blind trials, much less just jump in head first and dispense with the science.
There's a whole industry of fake cancer cure clinics in Mexico, those only succeed in extracting money from desperate and gullible patients. People are still touting laetrile as effective and blame the US medical industry as suppressing it, despite no evidence of it working. We don't need another such clinic.
Well, the PC competition at the time was very beige and very ad-hoc. PC design is almost an oxymoron, as it was design through accretion of new features. Apple was very good at wanting to adopt newer and better standards for things, which is why they stuck with SCSI for a very long time (even today's hard drives have SCSI command sets under the hood). Having USB as a default option wasn't common on the PCs.
The "edge" will be a lot of things, as in Internet-of-Things. So the edge is not necessarily your PC or computing device. The description above just seems to be one vague description, but before this article all of the "edge computing" I had heard about was in regards to IoT types of applications. We've had some of this for a long time, just not called that. Ie, to prevent power blackouts there are devices that can sense problems and cut off circuits automatically. But even smarter would be if those sensors could talk to other sensors locally and make decisions locally/quickly, rather than just reporting data to some remote server room. Or edge computing could be doing local calculations (what's the average number of cars passing this location), aggregating them, and reporting the results that way, rather than sending all the raw data over a low bandwidth link.
Not necessarily back to your computer, but back to something more important perhaps. Your automobile, a traffic light, a power plant, and so forth. That is, you rely on reflex actions rather than waiting for the brain to respond.
Well, they don't teach a lot of things these days, especially in the US. That doesn't mean the teaching is wrong, or that the people who learned the old way no longer exist or should be ignored as irrelevant.
A space between paragraphs is ok. But another acceptable way is to indent the first line a new paragraph. I see books doing it both ways. Some people screwup and indent plus add a blank line, which looks odd.
The reason for the old double spacing between lines was so that there was room for markup from the teacher or editor, or to make notes yourself on the first draft.
Most computer programs doing this are not nearly the same as real typesetting. I used to review academic papers and you could easily spot those created with simplistic word processors versus professional programs versus intermediate tools. Word was usually one of the worst (maybe it's gotten better these days, but I haven't seen evidence of it). Sometimes those papers using fixed width fonts were actually more readable than those from bad word processors.
In typesetting there isn't a single versus double space issue. You have en-space or em-space, and between words you may have subtly variable spacing.
Slashdot Mirror
The other problem with the death penalty is that it's applied capriciously. Someone who's an accomplice to a crime that results in murder may be the death penalty while the person who actually did the killing may get 25 years with parole possibility instead, in the same jurisdiction. The death penalty is absolutely not reserved only for the most heinous crimes. Often prosecutors seek the death penalty because it looks good around re-election time.
There are even better ways to go though. Use anesthesia first for example. But that requires doctors and doctors having taken the Hippocratic oath won't involve themselves in the death penalty. Trying to buy anesthetics is difficult if the seller knows it will be used for the death penalty.
Also, for some reason, those administering the death penalty often avoid figuring out better ways of execution, they inherently trust that the current method is the best method, and seem to have no motivation in reducing pain or discomfort. I think there's a political aspect here, and politics is nearly the same as religion when it comes to being unwavering in your views.
The death penalty will eventually go away in the US, it's just a matter of time.
Gamers... A lot of people play games on their home laptops.
Developers... i5 is ok, but if you're compiling code you can peg things out fast. Not everybody is a web or cloud developer or admin. I've got an i7 Macbook pro, and I peg it out a lot with the fan going full aggro.
Data crunching... faster CPU means faster data crunching (unless you're solely on the cloud).
MS Office... seriously, least efficient programs in the universe...
A lot of systems were written at a time when printers that didn't all work the same way and display terminals that did not all work the same way, so they would add a bit of translation when printing files, converting the text format to a printable format. Ie, read a record, send to printer, add CR+LF, repeat. Ie, the file didn't have the same format as the protocol needed to send the file and display it properly on a printer. There were tons of file formats out there, the "plain array of bytes" used on Unix wasn't all that common. No one could point to just one format and say "this one is correct all the others are wrong, without sounding like it was proselytizing".
When microcomputers came along later, most affordable printers had settle into a single way of doing things with CR and LF, so the micros found it easy to just copy a file verbatim to a printer without needing a file. In other words, the file and the protocol were merged, somewhat out of ignorance perhaps, or maybe for convenience.
These were telegraph codes originally, later standardized in Baudot codes (1900ish). CR and LF were separated from each other for practical purposes. CR took a long time for the carriage to actually return, but LF was fast. So you could send CR+LF+LF to do double spacing, or send lots of LFs to put in more gaps. Sending a redundant CRLF when only an LF was needed was wasteful, slow, and expensive.
So there is no "correct" implementation. A file format does not need to have a printable representation internally.
Thank heavens the abysmal DOS way of using ^Z was ditched though.
Ha. I know RFCs are treated as "standards" but those are only standards through general grudging agreement. Many of them came into existence with very little feedback, some were modified by later RFCs, etc. I take them with a grain of salt. My guess is that requirement is there just so that some less-than-stellar programs would work.
Microsoft has been steadily removing more and more user options from menus. They seem to fundamentally dislike the notion of user customization. Sometimes those removed options go to the registry, but they also remove registry entries as well.
I used Wordpad for viewing text documents instead of Notepad, because Wordpad would let you wrap lines. I didn't use either to actually write text docs though. I did go to notepad+ a couple years back, but it does a lot of things I don't like, but it's much better as a "default" application to read text files.
Taking care of Saddam in the second Iraq war was a disaster. We killed hundreds of thousands of people to get one guy, we created more terrorists than we stopped, and it's still not over and no one has a plan of how to fix things. Sure, he had been abusing ethnic groups in the country, but does it seem like a place full of peace and hope today where ethnic groups are getting along? And the stated reasons for starting the war never included any hint about how Saddam was treating his own people - instead we were perfectly fine with Saddam screwing around his own people for a few decades as long as we still got the oil.
Don't forget that "intervention" is in the eye of the beholder. It happens from the US a lot because we seem to have taken on a self-proclaimed role of being the "good guy" and "defender of freedom". This is taken as a matter of faith, it's taught in schools, we know it's right because someone told us it's right. We also have a pattern of absolutely ignoring all other countries who tell us we might be wrong and that war isn't a good idea, we flip our finger at the UN, we ridicule peacekeeping missions that aren't working. When we do go to war there is even cheering from the domestic crowds, like it was merely a sports contest.
The cases where the alternative to war is worse than the war is in the minority. And by ignoring the causes of a war, and placing everything in the moment, then more wars seem justified even if they were preventable with foresight. Cases like WWII are in the vast majority of wars, it is extremely rare that such extremes should be needed. Most wars about about swagger, showing the other side who's boss, showing the domestic audience that you're a tough guy, grabbing economic resources, and so forth.
I am not sure that the Microsoft Store is going to shine a spotlight on anything.
The executive does not need a treaty for every single act of foreign policy. By not being a treaty it just means that it can be withdrawn again without congressional approval. But the executive does have the authority to enact foreign policy.
I don't think half the people in the US even voted.
Well, our technology is declining, we're all about social media now. Science is being laughed at and ignored in government. Our exported culture tends to be bad movies and bad hamburgers and lip sync. How long does all of that hold together?
It's a complex issue where all sides act like utter novices. They may not be utter novices but it's how they act. If they're not so stupid, then there are sinister motives behind the actions that continually keep the heat up. Anytime it seems like things might be slightly cooler, someone says something to inflame it all again, or builds new settlements, or shoots off a rocket, or invades someone, or assassinates the person advocating for peace, etc.
And why is the US even in it at all? Why are we screwing up other countries when we can't even manage to figure out our own?
War is bad no matter who it's with. People forget this. They see WWII and think "we stopped Hitler, yea!" and become warhawks. Never mind that Hitler came to power because of WWI, and WWI happened because of prior wars, and you can follow the chain all the way back to the Romans. And after WWI we majorly screwed up in Vietnam and Iraq, and yet we still have people who think we could have "won" Vietnam even though technically we were only supposed to be advisors there, and people who think Iraq was a good idea and that we just need more troops on the ground. At some point the world needs to just agree to stop fighting over petty issues, like economics, religion, oil, ideology, tribalism, etc.
I don't think this was a treaty, just an agreement. Congress didn't approve it. Which made congress at the time very very angry, but then the president as executive can abide by the agreements anyway and doesn't need permission from congress to remove the sanctions or insist on inspections. However without congress this agreement doesn't have force of law, and the next president can overturn the agreement on a whim. The executive branch decides on foreign policy, not congress.
And they ignore the part about all the suffering everyone else endures as described in Revelations. Anyone who wants to speed up the coming of end times has a very distorted theology.
But I think we're sort of at the level of "this byte is normally 0x23 in healthy people, but I see 0x24", without having the source code to verify. Changing it might fix things, it might have an effect, or it might make things worse. We really don't know what these genes do, we just know there are strong correlations. We could learn more with human experimentation, but that's a road I think we're not yet ready to go down. We have to prove gene therapy is safe before we start double blind trials, much less just jump in head first and dispense with the science.
There's a whole industry of fake cancer cure clinics in Mexico, those only succeed in extracting money from desperate and gullible patients. People are still touting laetrile as effective and blame the US medical industry as suppressing it, despite no evidence of it working. We don't need another such clinic.
Well, the PC competition at the time was very beige and very ad-hoc. PC design is almost an oxymoron, as it was design through accretion of new features. Apple was very good at wanting to adopt newer and better standards for things, which is why they stuck with SCSI for a very long time (even today's hard drives have SCSI command sets under the hood). Having USB as a default option wasn't common on the PCs.
The "edge" will be a lot of things, as in Internet-of-Things. So the edge is not necessarily your PC or computing device. The description above just seems to be one vague description, but before this article all of the "edge computing" I had heard about was in regards to IoT types of applications. We've had some of this for a long time, just not called that. Ie, to prevent power blackouts there are devices that can sense problems and cut off circuits automatically. But even smarter would be if those sensors could talk to other sensors locally and make decisions locally/quickly, rather than just reporting data to some remote server room. Or edge computing could be doing local calculations (what's the average number of cars passing this location), aggregating them, and reporting the results that way, rather than sending all the raw data over a low bandwidth link.
Not necessarily back to your computer, but back to something more important perhaps. Your automobile, a traffic light, a power plant, and so forth. That is, you rely on reflex actions rather than waiting for the brain to respond.
Well, they don't teach a lot of things these days, especially in the US. That doesn't mean the teaching is wrong, or that the people who learned the old way no longer exist or should be ignored as irrelevant.
A space between paragraphs is ok. But another acceptable way is to indent the first line a new paragraph. I see books doing it both ways. Some people screwup and indent plus add a blank line, which looks odd.
The reason for the old double spacing between lines was so that there was room for markup from the teacher or editor, or to make notes yourself on the first draft.
Most computer programs doing this are not nearly the same as real typesetting. I used to review academic papers and you could easily spot those created with simplistic word processors versus professional programs versus intermediate tools. Word was usually one of the worst (maybe it's gotten better these days, but I haven't seen evidence of it). Sometimes those papers using fixed width fonts were actually more readable than those from bad word processors.
In typesetting there isn't a single versus double space issue. You have en-space or em-space, and between words you may have subtly variable spacing.
Since when? Double spacing was recommended for decades when typing documents. Going to a single space is what is new.