Not even close. First, GPRS is orthogonal to the radio interface, GSM/WCDMA. Hence proper terminology is GSM/GPRS and WCDMA/GPRS (or indeed EDGE/GPRS). GPRS being 'General Packet Radio System.' I.e. the packet radio layer on top of whatever radio carrier technology that happens to be present. (Indeed in the Ericsson offering the same nodes handle GSM/GPRS and WCDMA/GPRS).
As to it being buggy and crap, that's not true either. Is it more complicated than it would have to be? Yes, telecoms people love complex networks (i.e. 'valuable' networks) and simple terminals. Would a few people with more background in TCP/IP in the early standardisation efforts have helped? You bet. However, the Bamerican alternative certainly isn't any better (Ericsson makes those to, or at least used to), and unfortunately the IETF isn't immune to creaping featurism either these days (witness the craptastrophy that is VRRP; cisco seems to have smelled those roses that is "the more complex the network the easier to lock in customers and eliminate competition").
Despite this, does GSM/GPRS work today? You bet, even though usage isn't that wide spread yet, it's picking up by leaps and bounds. People are MMS-ing, and running laptops left and right, and pretty soon it'll be as common as teenage girls SMS:ing.
I say this based not only on my own experience as a satisfied user (both WAP and laptop access), but also as a systems manager for the Ericsson GSN division. Sure two years ago the products were little more than prototypes, but these days they're pretty solid. With a little more usage and field experience they'll be as solid as telecoms equipment is traditionally.
The is no new network rollout of GSM. It is obosolete.
Even though GSM interest is vaning, that's far from true. POTS, i.e. fixed telephony is dead. Ericsson is hard pressed to give away AXE-10 switches (almost). But market pressure on GSM is still there. True, there's not much new rollout in terms of completely new networks; but that's also a consequence of the fact that GSM won the international market. There's hardly any place left on earth that doesn't already have a GSM network. Hence it's only natural that most business today is going to come from upgrades.
This is of course not true when it comes to 3G-WCDMA as there is yet very little deployment. The same is also true of CDMA2000 (a business that Ericsson is still in). I'd say it's a toss up between the two in terms of technology, and almost deployement.
That's not to say that it would be financially wise for Iraq to go for a new, expensive and as of yet untested (in the field) technology. Whether that be CDMA2000 or WCDMA. Of course they should go for the tried and tested, cheap option that is GSM. The knowledge is there in the region, equipment to suit a wide range of operational conditions and requirements can be had relatively cheap, and the upgrade path via EDGE is there.
It's not for nothing that the first mobile phone system in Afghanistan even as the american bombs were falling was GSM. The UN has a self sustained container based system that can be put into operation and provide GSM coverage for disaster areas within 24 hours. It's simpler, and more feature full than ordinary radio communications. That's how wide spread GSM is.
As for hydrogen and oxygen emissions, the other bad things are oxides of nitrogen (NOx), in case you hadn't remembered yet.:)
You know it's funny. My wife explained the finer points about the serious problem of NOx (and SOx) emissions when she worked with the issue of alternate fuels for the Volvo heavy truck corp, and how burning (e.g.) hydrogen and air wouldn't solve the problem, since it's the nitrogen in the air toghether with high combustion temperature that's the culprit.
I immediately answered: "Well, we'll just carry the oxygen with us as well, and then water vapour is the only possible emission." That's when she started lecturing me on the other possible ways of combining oxygen and hydrogen into something that's decidedly unwaterlike... There's just no way to win it seems;-)
I'm beginning to think that the only way to zero emission road bound transportation is a tightly wound spring, or a rubber band. Even though I haven't had any serious objections to that proposal, emission wise that is;-) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they'd outgas something nasty as well...
Just curious where you found that information I can't seem to find any reference to NASA shuttle launches emitting any CO2. Considering their rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen an oxygen, water vapor is about all the engines ought to leave behind.
Well, there's the small matter of having a pair of the world's largest solid fuel rockets strapped to the whole contraption as it climbes skyward.
Otherwise, you're partially right. It'd be good if water wapor was indeed the only way to combine oxygen and hydrogen, but unfortunately the high temperatures involved will give rise to some H2O2 (Hydrogen peroxide). I seem to remember another, but cannot recall it now.
Home users get their copy of Windows for all but free(tm) with the purchase of their PC.
If they buy a new computer whenever the next "must have" windows comes out they do.
Most of the ones I've installed for friends and family tends to live quite a lot longer, most ordinary home users aren't on the bleeding edge. You can usually run the next two "releases" (e.g. win95-98-me) until it gets impossible even for the unsavy home user.
I'd say the lock in at home is a major factor in the continued lock in at work. Not unlike how Nokia played their cards right by marketing to teen-agers, when Ericsson stayed with the corporate demographic. The sons and daugheters of the captains of industry ran around with cooler mobiles than their dads, a situation that ultimately couldn't (and didn't) last long.
Yes, that's funny Northern Ireland is, as in peculiar, not ha-ha. And a text book example in how media skews the picture.
Just how bad is violence in Northern Ireland? The statistics are telling. From 1972 up to the cease-fire, Northern Ireland had about 7.8 deaths per 100k inhabitants per year. That's counting terrorism and crime.
New York city during the same period? About 32 per 100k inhabitants. After zero-tolerance that's now down to about 16/100k, which is about par with other US cities over 1 million inhabitants. The US national average is what, around 8/100k.
So, in that multicultural garden of eden that is the US, more people die on average from violence, than what northern Europe's most organised and violent terrorist/guerilla managed.
Witnessing these numbers, it's more reasonable to assume that you couldn't differentiate any ethnical violence in the US (from them drowning in the sheer number of violent deaths), than anything else.
I'm not saying we don't have problems with friction among ethnic groups (or people in general) in Europe, we do. But we don't kill each other over it. At least not in comparison...
This is complete BS (not the whole comment, just this point). It doesn't follow from a (essentially) 50/50 split that the populace didn't care. All you can tell from that is that half voted for each of the two major candidates.
I thought that only about half of those entitled to vote, actually did so? That's a pretty strong indication of apathy, even if the statement to which you refer is a non sequitur, isn't it?
You know, there's a difference between anti-semitic, and anti-sionist.
And the original poster didn't even express any of those, anti-sionist tendencies that is. He merely stated a concern with the policies of the state of Israel.
Quite a few of us share his concerns, without being either anti-semitic, or even anti-sionist per se.
Its just that it is very hard to beat the economics of fossil fuels. It will probably be that way until we start to run out which probably won't be in my lifetime.
Well, it's only cheap if you don't have to pay for the clean up, i.e. emissions in the case of coal or oil, or the use of a non renewable resource.
That unsustainable (some would say short sighted) use of resources can be "economic" has never really been in dispute. At least not in the short run. Witness deforrestation for example. Sicily was clear cut by the Romans, and hasn't really recovered in that respect since. That was great economy for the Romans, but doesn't do much good for the present inhabitants. In effect, the Romans took out a loan against future generations, that they have to pay back.
If coal and oil had to carry (fully) their cost, say including the cost of replacement of much of the energy infrastructure when they've run out, I gather you wouldn't even have to mention "global warming" for the balance to shift in favour of alternative solutions.
So what your saying is XFree86 and Cygwin are big peices of shit? Yeah, I'll buy that.
No, he's saying that a user level app shouldn't be able to crash the kernel. All kernel accesses (through system calls) should be checked by the kernel so that nothing untoward could happen.
He's in fact saying that it's a crap kernel that lets itself be crashed by a user level app. If Cygwin/Xfree86 was crap, then that's all that should be able to crash! Not the kernel.
In fact, any decent kernel should be able to survive programs that do system calls with random parameters.
To that, I point out that the first 'innocent' verdict would have stood without a further legal process, therefore it is aquittal and hence it was a trial.
Well, how's that different from the US system with grand juries. Whereby if a grand jury fails to see enough evidence to prosecute (i.e. my lower court returning a "not guilty" since the evidence does not sufficiently support a "guilty verdict"), the case can still go to the next step (aka "trial") and a guilty verdict handed down?
If that's not "double yeopardy", why is our system? As I said; the trial cannot be started over, once the final verdict has been handed down.
And what about that twist where you can be tried twice; first by your state, and then by your federal government? That couldn't happen here, but again your system does not violate the human right that says "one trial"?
And while we're at it: What about that wonderful practice where you're in two trials, one a criminal and one civil, where you can be aquitted in the criminal proceeding and convicted in the civil? That's not "double yeopardy"? That likewise couldn't happen here. If you've been aquitted, you've been aquitted! No, two trials.
Our system (that you can liken to one long trial if you will) is that each case is tried in the lowest court, both parties can apeal twice (to the next higher, and then highest) for review of the facts presented (there isn't a new "trial" per se in the higher courts). And that's it. Strict time limits in each step.
No grand juries, no civil/criminal, and no state/federal. I'd say our system constains less double jeopardy than yours. That you claim does not contain any, (I presume from the tone of your post).
So let me turn the question and ask how exactly you think that the US system is compatible with the human right not to be tried twice for the same crime?
We agree fully on facts, of course Jon should be aquitted. But, and that's important in our system, he should be aquitted by the highest court (and that's what everybody expects) since it's a case that could (and IMHO should) set a precedent. And like your system, one trial, one precedent. The lower courts in our system cannot set a precedent.
P.S. If you wish to discuss differences, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the other ones; no bail, no plea bargaining, no turning states evidence in exchange for immunity against prosecution, and no jury.
Sometimes you get off the first time and sometime you have to go two or even three times.
No, but like was said before the wait before the judgement is final is 3 weeks. It's not exactly like you're being strung along.
The proceedings end three weeks after the judge hits his gavel (not that he does, or has one in Sweden), not then and there.
Double jeopardy or not I seem to remember a certain Kevin Mitnick who was held for years pending a trial that never came. His entire case, apealed or not could not have taken even a fraction of that time under Swedish/Norwegian law. Single double or tripple jeopardy notwithstanding.
What ever your semantics the effect is the same. You are in jeopardy twice (hence the term "Double Jeopardy") of going to jail. I go through one trail. I win. I'm free. (Now pay close attention, this is where that double part comes in.) They appeal I have to go though the process again. I am in jeopardy a second time (there's that nasty double again) of being punished. Just because the don't say "two prosecutions" doesn't mean its not double jeopardy.
How so?
As stated, just view it as one long(er) trial, with intermediate verdicts that may or may not hold and that's it.
And it's not a whole new trial in higher court (if it's not sent down), it's a review of the facts of the lower court's trial.
So, the case will be heard once, perhaps by as much as three seperate sets of judges, within a set time limit. Once the process is over, the government cannot prosecute a second time for the same crime. No double jeopardy. That you may have to apear for two courts (there are never arguments before the highest court) doesn't really change that.
The situation that made the double jeopardy clause seem so important to the framers of the US Constitution was that oppressive governments can and do repeatedly prosecute people until they reach the verdict they wanted. Because the government has unlimited resources to accomplish this, compared to those of any defendant, the situation is fundamentally unfair.
As have been said previously, it's not really a new prosecution, but rather the continuation of the one that was started by the lower courts. The state cannot start over again at the lower court, once the final verdict has been reached.
There are actually only two posibilities for apeal, and that's it. Combined with the fact that as a citizen you (typically) don't pay your legal costs in a criminal proceedings, and hence can get any lawyer that's interested in your case to represent you, I'd much rather be tried in Sweden, than in the U.S. The words "pro bono" does not exist here, you are not at its mercy.
"Double jeopardy" or not.
P.S. And yes, we're quite familiar with the abuses of kings and tyrants in Norway and Sweden, that's why we had wars and revolutions to strip them of their power. Not that they were ever as bad, we never really had a feudal period.
Because allowing prosecutors to appeal gives the government a way to harass opponents with years of trials and the massive legal fees associated with said trials.
No, not in Norway (or Sweden), because if the government decides to prosecute you they have to pay your legal costs. Not that you can force any lawyer of your choosing to represent you, there's no forced labour in Sweden, but if he's willing to take your case; you don't pay (or rather you pay a share, according to your income if you lose. If you win, you pay nothing).
That's why you in Sweden routinely see "ordinary" criminals in high profile cases, with high profile laywers (that are interested just because it's a high profile case). It's not as if said criminals could actually afford said lawyers.
Some governments might even keep a defendent imprisoned until appeals are exhausted.
Yepp, and if you win your apeal, you'll be roundly compensated by the state for the time you were held. This happens automatically by the state, without any lawsuits. But you can of course apeal the compensation by a lawsuit if you so desire.
But the rule is only that they have to *decide* to appeal within those two weeks, not that appeal has to be over within two weeks.
Apply the 'dictator' test. If a dictator made a rule that said "I can appeal any innocent verdict within 2 weeks", then he could simply endlessly appeal every innocent verdict until he gets a guilty. Exactly the type of "abusing their power and resources by continuously starting a new prosecution in the same case" you argued it doesn't allow.
No, but by the same token the proceedings in a US court doesn't have to be finished by a set date either, do they.
In Sweden, there are only three levels of courts. Both parties can apeal to the next higher level. That level can either revisit the case, send it down to be tried again, or just deny to take the case, in which case the lower courts verdict stands.
Since there are set time limits on the apeals, the process is really to be viewed as one long case, with a definite end. The government cannot (of course) start over again, with the same case, once a verdict has been finally reached.
So your dictator couldn't endlessly apeal, actually he had only two attempts (maximum) and that's it. Each carrying the risk that the higher court will find your disatisfaction with the lower verdict unwarranted, and actually adjust the penalties against your wishes.
P.S. FYI, we don't have juries in Sweden, and hence none of the charade so common in US courts. In the lowest court there is one judge and 6 "laymen", appointed by (and from) the political parties in parliament. The next higher court has three judges. The highest court (which doesn't see many cases, since all cases before it have to have the potential to set a precedent. In 2000 1/2 percent of all apealed criminal cases were heard before the court) have five judges. If a precedent that differs from previous precedents by the highest court is to be set, all 16 judges have to be heard.
Not that precedents can only be set by the highest court, not the lower courts.
That's by and large the entire Swedish legal system. (With the exception of the other chain of courts, in which you apeal government decisions, similar in spritit to the above, but different names).
First, you mix strongly typed languages with statically typed languages. Perl is stronlgy, but dynamically typed language, while C++ is weakly, but statically typed language. But even assuming you meant statically typed languages, your reasoning is flawed.
Well, that's close, but usual terminology is slightly different:
Strongly/weakly typed has to do with what types we consider equivalent. Strongly typed means that the type has to stem from the same definition, weakly typed that they have to be "compatible" e.g. have the same structure. Hence two new types that both derive from are not equivalent in a strongly typed language, while they are equivalent in a weakly typed language. Ada is the prototypical strongly typed language here. Also surprisingly C is also strongly typed, but only because of the twist that 'typedef' doesn't introduce a new type, but only a new name for an old type.
Static/dynamic is as you use it, i.e. has to do with whether the type of the program can be determined statically (at compile time) or dynamically (at runtime).
Now, what you call strong/weak is really type safe/type unsafe. I.e. can the execution of the program ignore the types or not. C.f. C where you even though you have strong static typing, it's also type unsafe, i.e. the running of the program can result in a silent type error, whereas in Scheme for example it cannot, all type errors will be found.
Speaking of types, myself I prefer languages that statically typed, and type safe (with polymorphism). The static types aren't really a problem if you use a language with a Hindley-Milner (like) typesystem, since it will automatically infer the types of all your expressions, meaning that you don't have to annotate the source with types unless you really want to. Such langages as Haskell and O'Caml meet these criteria.
Well, there's 'wrong' and there's 'wrong' it's a sliding scale. While it's true that he was 'wrong' in the narrow sense of the word, he got most of it right. Certainly much more so than other's before him. Almost all everyday phenomena can be readily explained by his 'laws'.
Einstein didn't so much prove Newton wrong, as proving him incomplete. Which is a different kind of 'wrong' than invalidating the whole theory/law, and instead state the oposite (c.f phlogistone).
Assimov wrote a nice essay on the subject: The Relativity of Wrong which puts this more eloquently than I have.
One solution is to use a universally accessible pad that's pre-agreed upon. Like, "download CNN.com at precisely 5:00am, convert it to binary, and use that."
That's a book cipher, and it's not a one time pad. There's a lot of structure in your pad material.
No, the problem is still the random source. If you have two sources that produce the same key stream they are not "random" in the sense that we mean. And if you distribute (broadcast) the pad, then you have the key distribution problem again.
Not to say that book ciphers cannot (and have not) been used to good effect. But one-time-pads they're not.
It is this cleanup of hundreds and/or thousands of systems (since you may not know exactly what has been compromised in an attack) that causes havoc and great damages to the victims.
While this is true, to what extent is has a bearing on a criminal case is an interesting moral quandry.
A direct analog from Sweden a few years back. As some of you may know SAAB still develops military aircraft. In '93 when they were being tested at at the SAAB military airfield, members of the plowshare movement broke into the hangars and hammered on the weapons mounts of one aircraft.
They were subsequently arrested and convicted in the lower court of trespassing and vandalism, and was sentenced to 1.5 years in prison and to pay $170,000 to SAAB, the logic being that while they hadn't actually caused damages to the aircraft in that amount, SAAB coulnd't know that they hadn't done something they hadn't testified to, and wisely decided to postpone further trials while the aircraft was inspected.
This was overturned in higher court however, on the grounds that such an intangible loss couldn't be given a monetary value as was done by the lower court. There must be, the court argued, a limit to consequential losses, when they are not a direct result of the actions of the accused, or even forseeable by the accused at the time of the dead. The prison sentece was reduced to 1 year, and the fine lowered to $8400. This is still higher than the direct damages that resulted, there is a punitive aspect, and a compensatory aspect to SAAB, but nowhere near SAAB's original projected loss.
I think a similar argument could and should have prevailed in Mitnick's case. Of course to put the value of the monetary loss at the development cost of the project involved is so outright absurd as to not warrant further discussion.
When I read what the other guy was talking about, it sounded like Nvidia had made another driver f-up that required a hack to fix. Fault me for not searching for it if you like, I'm using XP on my laptop so this issue wouldn't have come up for me. (60hz on an LCD doesn't flicker.)
No sweat, I was just annoyed that no-one mentioned it. Since I'm not on an LCD but on a (too) old Sun 21 inch that flickers in 60Hz, it's one of my main gripes. It seems that the WinXP team will go for 60Hz whenever they can, from the boot screen on.
So in this case, X wins hands down. Always drives the monitor optimally. Another funny thing was when I uppgraded my video card the other week from an older Nvidia to a Ti4200. X just kept on going, same driver so no problem. I could not convince WinXP to keep the same driver for a new card though. Couldn't find any work around, short of "removing, rebooting, re-installing".
On a whole I must say that I'm less and less impressed with XP the more I run it. It seems nice at first, but just scratch the surface and all manner of old crap starts to shine through that thin layer of veneer.
My comment was very much called for. First off, your example is not relevant. The problem with Nvidia's card (assuming that problem ever existed, let's pretend it did) was not Microsoft's fault. Video support in Windows works very well. If it took a registry hack to make the Nvidia card work, then Nvidia fucked up pretty bad.
This is so wrong I don't know where to start. Windows XP doesn't know how to do refresh rates worth a damn. X-windows does.
No, it's not NVidias fault, it's WinXP (in particular) that chooses a sub optimal refresh rate when OpenGL is involved (they've fixed DirectX sort of...). In this case the lowest possible refresh rate. Since that 60Hz mode is needed elsewhere (TV-out for instance), that leaves you with 60Hz when your monitor combo easily would do 85Hz (or 100Hz).
The same company's drivers on X drives the monitor optimally. The only possible "fix" on windows is to delete the 60Hz mode from the registry database, but then there goes your TV-out if you happen to use the same mode for that to.
Note that this is not a driver issue. It's a Winblows issue, every card works the same. With no exceptions.
A quick Google search would have turned up the whole story.
is a limitation on your freedom, I hardly think it's fair to call the GPL free (not that you did, but I kinda have to assume that's what the original poster meant by free, being that he used 2/3s of the FSF's name, and in capitals too).
I, for one, feel completely comfortable calling any software where I may make modifications, distribute those modifications, and distribute the original software, free. But that's just me...
Yeah, it's just you;-) Since you brought up the GPL; the SFS's position on the subject is:
Daniel Bernstein's licenses:
These licenses are not free software licenses because they do not permit publication of modified versions.
So I wouldn't call it "unfair" to call Dan Bernsteins licences "unfree" while calling the GPL "free." They defined the term after all...
Slashdot Mirror
Hear, hear!
Not even close. First, GPRS is orthogonal to the radio interface, GSM/WCDMA. Hence proper terminology is GSM/GPRS and WCDMA/GPRS (or indeed EDGE/GPRS). GPRS being 'General Packet Radio System.' I.e. the packet radio layer on top of whatever radio carrier technology that happens to be present. (Indeed in the Ericsson offering the same nodes handle GSM/GPRS and WCDMA/GPRS).
As to it being buggy and crap, that's not true either. Is it more complicated than it would have to be? Yes, telecoms people love complex networks (i.e. 'valuable' networks) and simple terminals. Would a few people with more background in TCP/IP in the early standardisation efforts have helped? You bet. However, the Bamerican alternative certainly isn't any better (Ericsson makes those to, or at least used to), and unfortunately the IETF isn't immune to creaping featurism either these days (witness the craptastrophy that is VRRP; cisco seems to have smelled those roses that is "the more complex the network the easier to lock in customers and eliminate competition").
Despite this, does GSM/GPRS work today? You bet, even though usage isn't that wide spread yet, it's picking up by leaps and bounds. People are MMS-ing, and running laptops left and right, and pretty soon it'll be as common as teenage girls SMS:ing.
I say this based not only on my own experience as a satisfied user (both WAP and laptop access), but also as a systems manager for the Ericsson GSN division. Sure two years ago the products were little more than prototypes, but these days they're pretty solid. With a little more usage and field experience they'll be as solid as telecoms equipment is traditionally.
Even though GSM interest is vaning, that's far from true. POTS, i.e. fixed telephony is dead. Ericsson is hard pressed to give away AXE-10 switches (almost). But market pressure on GSM is still there. True, there's not much new rollout in terms of completely new networks; but that's also a consequence of the fact that GSM won the international market. There's hardly any place left on earth that doesn't already have a GSM network. Hence it's only natural that most business today is going to come from upgrades.
This is of course not true when it comes to 3G-WCDMA as there is yet very little deployment. The same is also true of CDMA2000 (a business that Ericsson is still in). I'd say it's a toss up between the two in terms of technology, and almost deployement.
That's not to say that it would be financially wise for Iraq to go for a new, expensive and as of yet untested (in the field) technology. Whether that be CDMA2000 or WCDMA. Of course they should go for the tried and tested, cheap option that is GSM. The knowledge is there in the region, equipment to suit a wide range of operational conditions and requirements can be had relatively cheap, and the upgrade path via EDGE is there.
It's not for nothing that the first mobile phone system in Afghanistan even as the american bombs were falling was GSM. The UN has a self sustained container based system that can be put into operation and provide GSM coverage for disaster areas within 24 hours. It's simpler, and more feature full than ordinary radio communications. That's how wide spread GSM is.
You know it's funny. My wife explained the finer points about the serious problem of NOx (and SOx) emissions when she worked with the issue of alternate fuels for the Volvo heavy truck corp, and how burning (e.g.) hydrogen and air wouldn't solve the problem, since it's the nitrogen in the air toghether with high combustion temperature that's the culprit.
I immediately answered: "Well, we'll just carry the oxygen with us as well, and then water vapour is the only possible emission." That's when she started lecturing me on the other possible ways of combining oxygen and hydrogen into something that's decidedly unwaterlike... There's just no way to win it seems ;-)
I'm beginning to think that the only way to zero emission road bound transportation is a tightly wound spring, or a rubber band. Even though I haven't had any serious objections to that proposal, emission wise that is ;-) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they'd outgas something nasty as well...
Well, there's the small matter of having a pair of the world's largest solid fuel rockets strapped to the whole contraption as it climbes skyward.
Otherwise, you're partially right. It'd be good if water wapor was indeed the only way to combine oxygen and hydrogen, but unfortunately the high temperatures involved will give rise to some H2O2 (Hydrogen peroxide). I seem to remember another, but cannot recall it now.
If they buy a new computer whenever the next "must have" windows comes out they do.
Most of the ones I've installed for friends and family tends to live quite a lot longer, most ordinary home users aren't on the bleeding edge. You can usually run the next two "releases" (e.g. win95-98-me) until it gets impossible even for the unsavy home user.
I'd say the lock in at home is a major factor in the continued lock in at work. Not unlike how Nokia played their cards right by marketing to teen-agers, when Ericsson stayed with the corporate demographic. The sons and daugheters of the captains of industry ran around with cooler mobiles than their dads, a situation that ultimately couldn't (and didn't) last long.
Yes, that's funny Northern Ireland is, as in peculiar, not ha-ha. And a text book example in how media skews the picture.
Just how bad is violence in Northern Ireland? The statistics are telling. From 1972 up to the cease-fire, Northern Ireland had about 7.8 deaths per 100k inhabitants per year. That's counting terrorism and crime.
New York city during the same period? About 32 per 100k inhabitants. After zero-tolerance that's now down to about 16/100k, which is about par with other US cities over 1 million inhabitants. The US national average is what, around 8/100k.
So, in that multicultural garden of eden that is the US, more people die on average from violence, than what northern Europe's most organised and violent terrorist/guerilla managed.
Witnessing these numbers, it's more reasonable to assume that you couldn't differentiate any ethnical violence in the US (from them drowning in the sheer number of violent deaths), than anything else.
I'm not saying we don't have problems with friction among ethnic groups (or people in general) in Europe, we do. But we don't kill each other over it. At least not in comparison...
I thought that only about half of those entitled to vote, actually did so? That's a pretty strong indication of apathy, even if the statement to which you refer is a non sequitur, isn't it?
You know, there's a difference between anti-semitic, and anti-sionist.
And the original poster didn't even express any of those, anti-sionist tendencies that is. He merely stated a concern with the policies of the state of Israel.
Quite a few of us share his concerns, without being either anti-semitic, or even anti-sionist per se.
Actually, if you're doing numerical work, even with a floating point co-processor, it's still very handy to use a rational approximation of pi...
Well, it's only cheap if you don't have to pay for the clean up, i.e. emissions in the case of coal or oil, or the use of a non renewable resource.
That unsustainable (some would say short sighted) use of resources can be "economic" has never really been in dispute. At least not in the short run. Witness deforrestation for example. Sicily was clear cut by the Romans, and hasn't really recovered in that respect since. That was great economy for the Romans, but doesn't do much good for the present inhabitants. In effect, the Romans took out a loan against future generations, that they have to pay back.
If coal and oil had to carry (fully) their cost, say including the cost of replacement of much of the energy infrastructure when they've run out, I gather you wouldn't even have to mention "global warming" for the balance to shift in favour of alternative solutions.
No, he's saying that a user level app shouldn't be able to crash the kernel. All kernel accesses (through system calls) should be checked by the kernel so that nothing untoward could happen.
He's in fact saying that it's a crap kernel that lets itself be crashed by a user level app. If Cygwin/Xfree86 was crap, then that's all that should be able to crash! Not the kernel.
In fact, any decent kernel should be able to survive programs that do system calls with random parameters.
No, that's the only reason people deal with him at all! Myself I choose to ignore him, Vietse Veenema is just as smart and a really nice guy to boot.
Well, how's that different from the US system with grand juries. Whereby if a grand jury fails to see enough evidence to prosecute (i.e. my lower court returning a "not guilty" since the evidence does not sufficiently support a "guilty verdict"), the case can still go to the next step (aka "trial") and a guilty verdict handed down?
If that's not "double yeopardy", why is our system? As I said; the trial cannot be started over, once the final verdict has been handed down.
And what about that twist where you can be tried twice; first by your state, and then by your federal government? That couldn't happen here, but again your system does not violate the human right that says "one trial"?
And while we're at it: What about that wonderful practice where you're in two trials, one a criminal and one civil, where you can be aquitted in the criminal proceeding and convicted in the civil? That's not "double yeopardy"? That likewise couldn't happen here. If you've been aquitted, you've been aquitted! No, two trials.
Our system (that you can liken to one long trial if you will) is that each case is tried in the lowest court, both parties can apeal twice (to the next higher, and then highest) for review of the facts presented (there isn't a new "trial" per se in the higher courts). And that's it. Strict time limits in each step.
No grand juries, no civil/criminal, and no state/federal. I'd say our system constains less double jeopardy than yours. That you claim does not contain any, (I presume from the tone of your post).
So let me turn the question and ask how exactly you think that the US system is compatible with the human right not to be tried twice for the same crime?
We agree fully on facts, of course Jon should be aquitted. But, and that's important in our system, he should be aquitted by the highest court (and that's what everybody expects) since it's a case that could (and IMHO should) set a precedent. And like your system, one trial, one precedent. The lower courts in our system cannot set a precedent.
P.S. If you wish to discuss differences, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the other ones; no bail, no plea bargaining, no turning states evidence in exchange for immunity against prosecution, and no jury.
No, but like was said before the wait before the judgement is final is 3 weeks. It's not exactly like you're being strung along.
The proceedings end three weeks after the judge hits his gavel (not that he does, or has one in Sweden), not then and there.
Double jeopardy or not I seem to remember a certain Kevin Mitnick who was held for years pending a trial that never came. His entire case, apealed or not could not have taken even a fraction of that time under Swedish/Norwegian law. Single double or tripple jeopardy notwithstanding.
How so?
As stated, just view it as one long(er) trial, with intermediate verdicts that may or may not hold and that's it.
And it's not a whole new trial in higher court (if it's not sent down), it's a review of the facts of the lower court's trial.
So, the case will be heard once, perhaps by as much as three seperate sets of judges, within a set time limit. Once the process is over, the government cannot prosecute a second time for the same crime. No double jeopardy. That you may have to apear for two courts (there are never arguments before the highest court) doesn't really change that.
As have been said previously, it's not really a new prosecution, but rather the continuation of the one that was started by the lower courts. The state cannot start over again at the lower court, once the final verdict has been reached.
There are actually only two posibilities for apeal, and that's it. Combined with the fact that as a citizen you (typically) don't pay your legal costs in a criminal proceedings, and hence can get any lawyer that's interested in your case to represent you, I'd much rather be tried in Sweden, than in the U.S. The words "pro bono" does not exist here, you are not at its mercy.
"Double jeopardy" or not.
P.S. And yes, we're quite familiar with the abuses of kings and tyrants in Norway and Sweden, that's why we had wars and revolutions to strip them of their power. Not that they were ever as bad, we never really had a feudal period.
No, not in Norway (or Sweden), because if the government decides to prosecute you they have to pay your legal costs. Not that you can force any lawyer of your choosing to represent you, there's no forced labour in Sweden, but if he's willing to take your case; you don't pay (or rather you pay a share, according to your income if you lose. If you win, you pay nothing).
That's why you in Sweden routinely see "ordinary" criminals in high profile cases, with high profile laywers (that are interested just because it's a high profile case). It's not as if said criminals could actually afford said lawyers.
Yepp, and if you win your apeal, you'll be roundly compensated by the state for the time you were held. This happens automatically by the state, without any lawsuits. But you can of course apeal the compensation by a lawsuit if you so desire.
No, but by the same token the proceedings in a US court doesn't have to be finished by a set date either, do they.
In Sweden, there are only three levels of courts. Both parties can apeal to the next higher level. That level can either revisit the case, send it down to be tried again, or just deny to take the case, in which case the lower courts verdict stands.
Since there are set time limits on the apeals, the process is really to be viewed as one long case, with a definite end. The government cannot (of course) start over again, with the same case, once a verdict has been finally reached.
So your dictator couldn't endlessly apeal, actually he had only two attempts (maximum) and that's it. Each carrying the risk that the higher court will find your disatisfaction with the lower verdict unwarranted, and actually adjust the penalties against your wishes.
P.S. FYI, we don't have juries in Sweden, and hence none of the charade so common in US courts. In the lowest court there is one judge and 6 "laymen", appointed by (and from) the political parties in parliament. The next higher court has three judges. The highest court (which doesn't see many cases, since all cases before it have to have the potential to set a precedent. In 2000 1/2 percent of all apealed criminal cases were heard before the court) have five judges. If a precedent that differs from previous precedents by the highest court is to be set, all 16 judges have to be heard.
Not that precedents can only be set by the highest court, not the lower courts.
That's by and large the entire Swedish legal system. (With the exception of the other chain of courts, in which you apeal government decisions, similar in spritit to the above, but different names).
Well, that's close, but usual terminology is slightly different:
Strongly/weakly typed has to do with what types we consider equivalent. Strongly typed means that the type has to stem from the same definition, weakly typed that they have to be "compatible" e.g. have the same structure. Hence two new types that both derive from are not equivalent in a strongly typed language, while they are equivalent in a weakly typed language. Ada is the prototypical strongly typed language here. Also surprisingly C is also strongly typed, but only because of the twist that 'typedef' doesn't introduce a new type, but only a new name for an old type.
Static/dynamic is as you use it, i.e. has to do with whether the type of the program can be determined statically (at compile time) or dynamically (at runtime).
Now, what you call strong/weak is really type safe/type unsafe. I.e. can the execution of the program ignore the types or not. C.f. C where you even though you have strong static typing, it's also type unsafe, i.e. the running of the program can result in a silent type error, whereas in Scheme for example it cannot, all type errors will be found.
Speaking of types, myself I prefer languages that statically typed, and type safe (with polymorphism). The static types aren't really a problem if you use a language with a Hindley-Milner (like) typesystem, since it will automatically infer the types of all your expressions, meaning that you don't have to annotate the source with types unless you really want to. Such langages as Haskell and O'Caml meet these criteria.
Well, there's 'wrong' and there's 'wrong' it's a sliding scale. While it's true that he was 'wrong' in the narrow sense of the word, he got most of it right. Certainly much more so than other's before him. Almost all everyday phenomena can be readily explained by his 'laws'.
Einstein didn't so much prove Newton wrong, as proving him incomplete. Which is a different kind of 'wrong' than invalidating the whole theory/law, and instead state the oposite (c.f phlogistone).
Assimov wrote a nice essay on the subject: The Relativity of Wrong which puts this more eloquently than I have.
That's a book cipher, and it's not a one time pad. There's a lot of structure in your pad material.
No, the problem is still the random source. If you have two sources that produce the same key stream they are not "random" in the sense that we mean. And if you distribute (broadcast) the pad, then you have the key distribution problem again.
Not to say that book ciphers cannot (and have not) been used to good effect. But one-time-pads they're not.
While this is true, to what extent is has a bearing on a criminal case is an interesting moral quandry.
A direct analog from Sweden a few years back. As some of you may know SAAB still develops military aircraft. In '93 when they were being tested at at the SAAB military airfield, members of the plowshare movement broke into the hangars and hammered on the weapons mounts of one aircraft.
They were subsequently arrested and convicted in the lower court of trespassing and vandalism, and was sentenced to 1.5 years in prison and to pay $170,000 to SAAB, the logic being that while they hadn't actually caused damages to the aircraft in that amount, SAAB coulnd't know that they hadn't done something they hadn't testified to, and wisely decided to postpone further trials while the aircraft was inspected.
This was overturned in higher court however, on the grounds that such an intangible loss couldn't be given a monetary value as was done by the lower court. There must be, the court argued, a limit to consequential losses, when they are not a direct result of the actions of the accused, or even forseeable by the accused at the time of the dead. The prison sentece was reduced to 1 year, and the fine lowered to $8400. This is still higher than the direct damages that resulted, there is a punitive aspect, and a compensatory aspect to SAAB, but nowhere near SAAB's original projected loss.
I think a similar argument could and should have prevailed in Mitnick's case. Of course to put the value of the monetary loss at the development cost of the project involved is so outright absurd as to not warrant further discussion.
No sweat, I was just annoyed that no-one mentioned it. Since I'm not on an LCD but on a (too) old Sun 21 inch that flickers in 60Hz, it's one of my main gripes. It seems that the WinXP team will go for 60Hz whenever they can, from the boot screen on.
So in this case, X wins hands down. Always drives the monitor optimally. Another funny thing was when I uppgraded my video card the other week from an older Nvidia to a Ti4200. X just kept on going, same driver so no problem. I could not convince WinXP to keep the same driver for a new card though. Couldn't find any work around, short of "removing, rebooting, re-installing".
On a whole I must say that I'm less and less impressed with XP the more I run it. It seems nice at first, but just scratch the surface and all manner of old crap starts to shine through that thin layer of veneer.
This is so wrong I don't know where to start. Windows XP doesn't know how to do refresh rates worth a damn. X-windows does.
No, it's not NVidias fault, it's WinXP (in particular) that chooses a sub optimal refresh rate when OpenGL is involved (they've fixed DirectX sort of...). In this case the lowest possible refresh rate. Since that 60Hz mode is needed elsewhere (TV-out for instance), that leaves you with 60Hz when your monitor combo easily would do 85Hz (or 100Hz).
The same company's drivers on X drives the monitor optimally. The only possible "fix" on windows is to delete the 60Hz mode from the registry database, but then there goes your TV-out if you happen to use the same mode for that to.
Note that this is not a driver issue. It's a Winblows issue, every card works the same. With no exceptions.
A quick Google search would have turned up the whole story.
Yeah, it's just you ;-) Since you brought up the GPL; the SFS's position on the subject is:
So I wouldn't call it "unfair" to call Dan Bernsteins licences "unfree" while calling the GPL "free." They defined the term after all...