Maybe, just maybe, Sony is making a business decision, not a moral one?
Maybe they think that by removing this kind of material they will keep parents who see the issue like I do from tossing their PlayStations and keep them as customers?
Nintendo had quite the following with the Wii family of games. Seems to me they kept strict control of the kinds of games and content allowed and it worked well for their business model. MAYBE... Just, maybe, Sony is thinking that it will be better for their business to do this and are not passing moral judgment on anything themselves.
However, if Sony doesn't have the infrastructure and procedures in place to protect children as they'd like and still offer the material, it's up to them to remove it.
You almost had it. Here:
However, if Sony doesn't have the infrastructure and procedures in place to protect children as they'd like and still offer the material, it's up to [[THE PARENTS]] to remove it [[from their children's reach]]
I as assuming that Sony was reacting to what they thought was a good business decision. Maybe they understand that parents like me would be tossing Sony products out of the house to remove the material from their children's reach and thought that they'd be better of if they remove the material and keep that market share?
Maybe this is about keeping market share and not about censorship of material with specific content. Maybe Sony is just trying to keep their customer base and they see this as the best way?
The studies I've heard about pretty much indicate that exposure to porn at a young age can lead to addictions to same and a difficulty to successfully establish and maintain healthy sexual identities. It *can* lead to the inability to actually interact with *people* in an appropriate sexual way as most porn is unrealistic on many levels. I heard a guy the other day complaining that he could not have a normal (to him) sex life because of his early porn addiction had made arousal impossible without porn, and the women he was in relationships with found that to be unacceptable.
Like anything that is sometimes addicting... It depends on the person.... But why do we insist on exposing children to such stuff before they are equipped and mature enough to understand and decide for themselves if the risk is worth it? We don't let them drink for a reason. We don't sell them cigarettes for a reason.
But all I'm really saying here is that this should be a parental decision, if not by convention, by law. Parents should be made aware of what's available and should be interested enough to make choices about what they allow their kids to see. Personally, I think preventing access by minors w/o a verified parent or guardian's permission should be the default for a lot of this material, and I'm not going to allow it into my minor children's hands. So if that means tossing the Sony products out, so be it. Maybe Sony wants to keep business and sees this as a way to keep market share and prevent parents like me from refusing to buy their stuff? It's up to them to decide what's best for their business and it's up to me to decide what entertainment my kids consume.
Seriously? So you equate sexual explicit games with a healthy sex life as an Adult?? That's messed up.
Have you ever learned anything about the effect of porn exposure on kids sex lives? It's not good. I'm no prude and I didn't overly shelter my kids, but I did protect them from explicit material until they where mature enough to understand the realities of life. Same with depictions of violence for similar reasons.
Where I'm not for censorship I AM for parental information and control. I'd prefer that Sony make such material less easily obtained by children, but not outright remove it. However, if Sony doesn't have the infrastructure and procedures in place to protect children as they'd like and still offer the material, it's up to them to remove it.
BS...Receiving competitive bids on some hair brained idea is one thing.. Actually BUILDING it is quite another.
I dare say they didn't find a viable builder who could do what you claim for anything more than a tiny fraction of their customer's usage and Xcell will be turning a lot of natural gas into electrical power even if they build this thing.
So... Do you have a citation to make here? I'd love to see which idiots think they can do this at that price and how they got to their numbers. Somehow I get the feeling they left a whole bunch of costs out of their calculations or are depending on subsidies and tax abatements to make up the difference, but without seeing their bid, all we have is your opinion of it.
You are incorrect and your numbers are a decade old.
Did you even LOOK at the study? It's based on numbers from 2018 and projects an industrial scale power plant's cost per megawatt hour that goes into service in 2022 or later. My numbers are NOT out of date or a decade old. They are from last year.
Also, there is a HUGE difference between "scheduled" and "unscheduled" power generation here too. IF you have to store power generated by say solar panels to get you though the night (because solar is NOT scheduled capacity) then it goes from just more expensive to WAY overpriced. Unscheduled resources are useful only as long as you need the power when they provide it, if you have to store power, you just added huge levels of expense to convert that unscheduled resource into one you can schedule.
IF you look at the total life cycle cost of various industrial sources of electrical energy, Natural Gas is the cheapest. The only way renewables compete is though tax breaks, carbon surcharges, subsidies and accounting slight of hand (where they conveniently *forget* to include the total life cycle costs).
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/a... does a better job.
Renewables do NOT win on numbers. Never have and it's unlikely they ever will in my lifetime if you do a full cost accounting.
Natural Gas is *cheap*. It's actually Cheaper than any other source out there if you look at the entire life cycle costs of the plant. That kind of throws a wrench in your fantasy land view of the electrical generation world. Nuclear plants are being killed off by the lower cost of NG, even for base load.
It just makes sense (and cents) to use the cheapest source for power. Natural gas is that source and thanks to fracking, will continue to be the cheapest source for decades, barring regulatory changes.
The decommissioning is the part that will go on for generations, the legal and political fall out will eventually fall into obscurity.
Moving the spent fuel is emblematic of the struggle to make the reactor sites inherently safe, to make them less likely to again damage the environment around them. In this it makes sense to move this material to safer sites that are not compromised.
The "clean up" of the surrounding area is one that only time will really accomplish. Sure, they will find and remove any high level point sources they locate (likely already done), but after that it's cheaper to wait and pay folks to relocate over paying generations of folks for perceived medical issues blamed on nuclear radiation. As long as there is *any* detectable increase in background radiation levels, they will NOT agree to let anybody return. But this is more of a political reality than a safety question. It's likely safe enough now to return to live, at least for adults, but politically and perceived liability being what it is, forget that option.
The post you are responding to didn't say the industry should be deregulated at all, they said that the current regulations are incomparable with the state of the art of nuclear design.
Politicians often make such stupid rules. Rules that stifle innovation and the adoption of new technologies. The NRCC is similar, in that they have developed a set of regulations based on technologies from the 1950's and have made it harder to adopt safer alternatives. This is clearly true of the regulatory structure today.
However, the "problem" with nuclear power today is more the public relations issue that comes with all the regulations and the price of alternative like Natural Gas. Who wants to take the risk and engage the PR fight? With Natural Gas being so abundant and priced so low, nuclear power isn't worth the risk. In fact, it's natural gas that's killing off nuclear power as we know it now.
The compiler doesn't really care if you want to multiply the letter "A" by "5" and then use the result as a pointer to a data structure.
Of course the compiler does- unless you know of a magical flag to disable type checking.
It's the CPU that doesn't care, and the compiler that allows you to tell it to pretend "A" and "5" are of the same type.
The C compiler doesn't care (though some may warn you), that you are combining different types doing some operation. The ANSI-C compiler is a bit more rigorous in it's type checking, but still really only is going to warn you and keep compiling unless you tell it to stop on warnings. C isn't a strongly typed language, and it's this way for a reason, well two reasons. First, It's easier, faster, cheaper to write a compiler that doesn't care about such stuff and when C was getting started, hardware speed and memory sizes where a major consideration, so we left off the bells and whistles and let the programmer deal with keeping up with the jots and tittles like type checking. Second, all the data types generally took up the same amount of space, 8 bits or 16 bits and that's all the compiler really needed to care about. You got all sorts of flexibility, and when you are interacting directly with hardware, this is a huge advantage. Sometimes all that type checking is really just a PIA and having to worry with a cast is just making the source code harder to read.
Of course, now days, with processing power and memory space limitations largely a ting of the past, we've "moved on" to highly typed languages. Languages where the compiler is always harping at you about things. I get why it's important and the kinds of errors it prevents, but it's like having a really fast and powerful motorcycle which won't start w/o the training wheels attached to me. I personally don't like the added type checking, it keeps my code from being as efficient as I'd like, but OK, I'm willing to live within the constraints of the language. Just don't get me stared on the memory management in languages like Java.... I think we pay too high a performance price for that myself.
The compiler doesn't really care if you want to multiply the letter "A" by "5" and then use the result as a pointer to a data structure. Of course, there have been improvements in the compilers over the years, where they will at least complain about type mismatches, and the ever valuable LINT program to help keep you out of the weeds. But in the end, you are free to do as you please, as fast as the machine will chew though the assembly code the compiler wrote for you (or as I've done in the past, the assembly you wrote for the compiler).
The issue most of these surveys don't take into account is which tool is suited for which job. My favorite language depends on the task at hand and the suitable tools in the my tool box. Writing a device driver? C or assembly.. Writing some GUI to run locally? C++/Java... Need to interface with some specific Java library? Then Java.... It all depends.
With only a few cores, a few GB of disk space, and a few GB of ram, "hello world" compiles and runs in just minutes!
And it gets faster every time it's run!
Find me a language more secure.
Find me a language more compact.
Find me a language that's faster.
C is full of security holes, and slow.
ASSembly is slow, full of holes, and slow.
The minimum specs are there for a reason. If you don't have at least a few cores, and a few GB of RAM, and say 100GB of disk space, go back to your speak and spell.
Shesh.. I don't know if this is a joke or not...
So wrong on every level.. Java is none of the things you claim and just about *any* compiled language will be faster than Java on the same hardware.
But.. Then there is the security thing.... C isn't full of security holes per say, nor is Assembly.. Neither language enforces the strict type checking that the Java compiler gives you I suppose, but that doesn't mean they are insecure. It just means the programmer needs to mind his P's and Q's and be careful to avoid getting off in the weeds... But you PAY dearly for all that "security" that Java gives you in performance and complexity...
So was this an attempt at humor that failed? Or just stupidity on parade?
Always produce significant and valid results.... NOT!
Sure.. But they make for GREAT headlines...(Click bait for $$)
You want to create some fake news narrative? Conduct a POLL and publish the results.. Don't have money to pay a pollster? Do an online poll...
This technique comes right after quoting an "unnamed source" who is claiming some kind of malfeasance is taking place due to some conspiracy or something and writing a "news" story based only on the quote and a bunch of "we think it means..." logical leaps.
Exactly.. He's never going to see GITMO and even if the DOJ gets the maximum sentence on the current charges it's 5-8 years. He's coming to the USA and soon, to face the music.
The whole "They will torture me" argument to fight extradition is patently ridiculous and without legal merit. There are SO many reasons they won't do this to him, and sooo many ways they *could* get around extradition if they really wanted too that badly. The sad fact here is that the conspiracy theories run deep with the likes of AmiMoJo and they have to make up stuff to keep their champion in play..
His other arguments against extradition will be that he has little prospect of a fair trial and faces torture.
The US secret court system can be argued to prevent a fair trial. It's probably a weak argument, the UK tends to recognize other countries doing that because the UK does it too.
The prospect of torture is more realistic. The US has Guantanamo, it has indefinite solitary confinement, and Assange may have medical issues that he could argue would not be properly treated.
You cannot seriously think that they'd extradite him to Gitmo? Now, that's just plain crazy talk there.. Seriously... If the USA intends to send him there, why bother with the extradition process? Just mount a "special rendition" operation once the UK sets him free, extract as much useful information as you can though any means necessary in some country where nobody would ask questions and do this whole thing you imagine off the books, then dump him as close to Osama as you can, or stage his death and dump his body near where you snatched him, making it look like he killed himself. Easy peasy if you don't really care about the law as you seem to believe the USA doesn't.
So bye bye to what you think is your best argument..
And if you don't think the UK wouldn't willingly participate in such a activity with the USA.. You are sadly mistaken.
Sure, you believe what your partisan bias inclines you towards, just like you were inclined to rant that Obama locked up children en masse as the default policy enough that you ranted about it while claiming you ended it. The same week you fired half your homeland security leadership be abuse they wouldn't reinstitute the policy.
Oh wait no, that was your incompetent glorious leader.
Look, I get it, you are a total shill. But can't you find a figurehead that isn't suffering from rapid onset dementia?
And I'm a total shill?
I at last recognize my bias and am aware of the facts here through independent investigation (I've actually listened to most of the public testimony of the guys I name and have looked at the primary sources we have available). You though, don't seem to be aware of even the basic facts about what happened during the 2016 campaign. But as being a shill, let's investigate your claim...
Would a "total shill" be telling you that they don't expect this to rise very high in the Obama administration? The only real political appointee I've named in Brennon as CIA director, everybody else I'd expect are lower level career types. And I'm not holding my breath on any of these. Clearly Comey and McCabe are in legal trouble for lying to congress, Stroke and Page may get caught up in that mess. Comey mishandled classified information, by his own admission, and where that's likely only going to result in his loosing his clearances, which he doesn't have now anyway, and possibly a criminal conviction if things go badly but I doubt it will result in prison time. The FISA abuse allegations are what really matters here though, and they only really matter politically.
Now if that's what a total shill would be saying, unlike Hanity and Limbaugh who are clearly saying this will implicate people high in the Obama administration, political appointees, if not Obama himself, then I wonder about your objectivity... I've never been a "Lock her up" type, I know how this field is striped and where I think Hillary did mishandle classified information, and Comey let her off when he should not have, I NEVER thought she'd be locked up or even handcuffed. All I ever said was that she should loose her security clearances, which, to be fair, would happen anyway in time. Personally I feel it was a waste of time, but I get the political impact of that chant..
So, where I'm obviously biased, I don't think I'm the "total shill" here..
Well Um.. No US law he's subject to? Not so fast there legal mind.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and in this case IF he gets extradited, he'd then face the music in a US court on US soil, where he's obviously subject to US law.
To be clear, the argument you are making is two fold. First that he's not a US citizen and not subject to US law and Second that he wasn't on US soil or sovereign territory and therefore not subject to US law enforcement's authority. These are pretty thin arguments to make in a US court. How do you think that will turn out?
So IF he gets extradited (and that is a very open question) he's going to face trial in the USA unless he takes a plea deal. I expect him to plea in exchange for giving up his sources myself, which is really what the USA is after here. Julian is pretty much worthless at this point, except for what he may know about who's leaking stuff to him.
At least Hillary didn't make president. She would have hung, drawn and quartered him.
Maybe the USA has had time to cool off. Me? I'm betting he'll be over there within three months.
Assange worked for Putin.
Assange worried America would nab him.
Putin controls Trump.
Trump ain't gonna do shit.
Assange's worries are over.
Or maybe not. Remains to be seen.
Good God, give it a rest already.
There was no Trump/Russia collusion.
There WAS spying on the Trump campaign for political reasons by the Obama administration, and the lid is about to be blown off THAT.
Which is probably why Democrats and the media (BIRM) are shitting their pants right now.
You SURE you want to see the full Mueller report? The full contents of the documents directing what Mueller was to investigate remain secret. Hmm, what if he was also looking into the spying Obama did on Trump's campaign?
Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Yates, McCabe, Strzok, and maybe even Obama himself might be getting measured for orange jumpsuits right now.
Well... Whoa up there just a wee bit and lay off the Hanity/Limbaugh theories..
Where I fully agree that the tables are FINALLY turning and the real collusion investigation is started as you indicate, I'm not expecting there was much involvement at the higher levels that can be proven. Surely Obama, even if he was directing this side show, won't be implicated, nor will the likes of Hillary, Holder or anybody at that level will be indicted unless they where just plain stupid, and none of these people are stupid.
So we may have a couple of perp walks, Andy McCabe, Comey, maybe Brennon, but I'd be totally surprised if any of these get much jail time..
Not that he walked away. Spending 6 years cooped up in a single building in down town London is not exactly living the good life and has got to be a mental strain. Based on the video I saw, the guy has not aged well and appears to be a mental case now. Of course that's what his hosts are saying about him, that they didn't think it was healthy for him to continue to be under house arrest like he was.
I suspect that he's not really in all that much danger. He may be in jail for the majority of what remains of his life, but the last 6 years where not kind to him to start with. He may be much better off, though less visible in the years to come. If indeed he has mental issues now, he can get treatment. I wish him the best, but we all knew he was either going to die in the embassy under effective house arrest or face the music someday.
And about exposing Hillary... She exposed herself, (that's a mental picture I wish I hadn't seen) Julian just pointed it out like the little boy who said the "Look! The emperor has no clothes". Trump benefited as a result. So in a way, you can blame Julian for at least part of Hillary's loss.... (As if she needs any more items on her "it's not my fault" list.)
My point was that Net Neutrality wasn't important enough to voters to impact the election.
Most people I know, left and right, simply don't care about this issue, even if they have an opinion. It's not important. Further, I don't see Net Neutrality in any pollster's top 10 list of issues people care about. So it doesn't matter how many people say they want or don't want it. Face it, politically Net Neutrality is a dead horse, and if your party is beating it in hopes of garnering votes it only really means they are desperate to drive the daily narrative away from what is seen as more important.
Don't fool yourself. This whole thing is a desperate political move for "show" and not "go". Much like the House Republicans voting repeatedly to repeal Obamacare when the Senate was in Democrat hands and Obama was in office, then failing to ACTUALLY do it when they had the chance. This was nothing more than a show vote, a little bit of political theater... Only in this case, the "show" is playing to a very small audience, who's votes are likely already committed to vote for the players on the stage... Which, if you look at this and think about why the players are on the stage, says something important about what they think is likely to happen in the next election cycle.
If the Senate doesn't pass it, say goodbye to all the Republican Senators during the next election.
Choice is theirs. Do as the Public wants...(snip).
Hold up there AC. I'm not so sure this is what the public wants... But let's discuss Republican Senator elections in 2020..
First up, There are 34 seats up for grabs in 2020, 22 Republican and 14 Democrats. There are 5 seats seen as toss ups, all Democrats and an additional 6 seats which lean one way or the other, 3 for each party based on past election results. Of course, the election is a LONG way away and we don't have any idea how this is going to play out nationally and each state.
IMHO Net Neutrality is going to be a very small portion of the picture this time around, if it even plays a role. As I see this, things like health care, immigration, the economy and foreign policy are going form the election landscape. And don't forget, an incumbent Trump vrs whomever will suck up the bulk of the oxygen and national news coverage, making Senate elections mostly secondary and regulated to local news coverage. The "coat tails" will impact the election more than this issue will, by far.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, just maybe, Sony is making a business decision, not a moral one?
Maybe they think that by removing this kind of material they will keep parents who see the issue like I do from tossing their PlayStations and keep them as customers?
Nintendo had quite the following with the Wii family of games. Seems to me they kept strict control of the kinds of games and content allowed and it worked well for their business model. MAYBE... Just, maybe, Sony is thinking that it will be better for their business to do this and are not passing moral judgment on anything themselves.
However, if Sony doesn't have the infrastructure and procedures in place to protect children as they'd like and still offer the material, it's up to them to remove it.
You almost had it. Here:
However, if Sony doesn't have the infrastructure and procedures in place to protect children as they'd like and still offer the material, it's up to [[THE PARENTS]] to remove it [[from their children's reach]]
I as assuming that Sony was reacting to what they thought was a good business decision. Maybe they understand that parents like me would be tossing Sony products out of the house to remove the material from their children's reach and thought that they'd be better of if they remove the material and keep that market share?
Maybe this is about keeping market share and not about censorship of material with specific content. Maybe Sony is just trying to keep their customer base and they see this as the best way?
What studies have you seen?
The studies I've heard about pretty much indicate that exposure to porn at a young age can lead to addictions to same and a difficulty to successfully establish and maintain healthy sexual identities. It *can* lead to the inability to actually interact with *people* in an appropriate sexual way as most porn is unrealistic on many levels. I heard a guy the other day complaining that he could not have a normal (to him) sex life because of his early porn addiction had made arousal impossible without porn, and the women he was in relationships with found that to be unacceptable.
Like anything that is sometimes addicting... It depends on the person.... But why do we insist on exposing children to such stuff before they are equipped and mature enough to understand and decide for themselves if the risk is worth it? We don't let them drink for a reason. We don't sell them cigarettes for a reason.
But all I'm really saying here is that this should be a parental decision, if not by convention, by law. Parents should be made aware of what's available and should be interested enough to make choices about what they allow their kids to see. Personally, I think preventing access by minors w/o a verified parent or guardian's permission should be the default for a lot of this material, and I'm not going to allow it into my minor children's hands. So if that means tossing the Sony products out, so be it. Maybe Sony wants to keep business and sees this as a way to keep market share and prevent parents like me from refusing to buy their stuff? It's up to them to decide what's best for their business and it's up to me to decide what entertainment my kids consume.
Seriously? So you equate sexual explicit games with a healthy sex life as an Adult?? That's messed up.
Have you ever learned anything about the effect of porn exposure on kids sex lives? It's not good. I'm no prude and I didn't overly shelter my kids, but I did protect them from explicit material until they where mature enough to understand the realities of life. Same with depictions of violence for similar reasons.
Where I'm not for censorship I AM for parental information and control. I'd prefer that Sony make such material less easily obtained by children, but not outright remove it. However, if Sony doesn't have the infrastructure and procedures in place to protect children as they'd like and still offer the material, it's up to them to remove it.
Ooops.. Wrong manufacturer.. Sorry. .
BS...Receiving competitive bids on some hair brained idea is one thing.. Actually BUILDING it is quite another.
I dare say they didn't find a viable builder who could do what you claim for anything more than a tiny fraction of their customer's usage and Xcell will be turning a lot of natural gas into electrical power even if they build this thing.
So... Do you have a citation to make here? I'd love to see which idiots think they can do this at that price and how they got to their numbers. Somehow I get the feeling they left a whole bunch of costs out of their calculations or are depending on subsidies and tax abatements to make up the difference, but without seeing their bid, all we have is your opinion of it.
You are incorrect and your numbers are a decade old.
Did you even LOOK at the study? It's based on numbers from 2018 and projects an industrial scale power plant's cost per megawatt hour that goes into service in 2022 or later. My numbers are NOT out of date or a decade old. They are from last year.
Also, there is a HUGE difference between "scheduled" and "unscheduled" power generation here too. IF you have to store power generated by say solar panels to get you though the night (because solar is NOT scheduled capacity) then it goes from just more expensive to WAY overpriced. Unscheduled resources are useful only as long as you need the power when they provide it, if you have to store power, you just added huge levels of expense to convert that unscheduled resource into one you can schedule.
I'm calling BS on this..
IF you look at the total life cycle cost of various industrial sources of electrical energy, Natural Gas is the cheapest. The only way renewables compete is though tax breaks, carbon surcharges, subsidies and accounting slight of hand (where they conveniently *forget* to include the total life cycle costs). https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/a... does a better job.
Renewables do NOT win on numbers. Never have and it's unlikely they ever will in my lifetime if you do a full cost accounting.
LOL...
Natural Gas is *cheap*. It's actually Cheaper than any other source out there if you look at the entire life cycle costs of the plant. That kind of throws a wrench in your fantasy land view of the electrical generation world. Nuclear plants are being killed off by the lower cost of NG, even for base load.
It just makes sense (and cents) to use the cheapest source for power. Natural gas is that source and thanks to fracking, will continue to be the cheapest source for decades, barring regulatory changes.
Maybe...
The decommissioning is the part that will go on for generations, the legal and political fall out will eventually fall into obscurity.
Moving the spent fuel is emblematic of the struggle to make the reactor sites inherently safe, to make them less likely to again damage the environment around them. In this it makes sense to move this material to safer sites that are not compromised.
The "clean up" of the surrounding area is one that only time will really accomplish. Sure, they will find and remove any high level point sources they locate (likely already done), but after that it's cheaper to wait and pay folks to relocate over paying generations of folks for perceived medical issues blamed on nuclear radiation. As long as there is *any* detectable increase in background radiation levels, they will NOT agree to let anybody return. But this is more of a political reality than a safety question. It's likely safe enough now to return to live, at least for adults, but politically and perceived liability being what it is, forget that option.
Way to spin this you idiot.
The post you are responding to didn't say the industry should be deregulated at all, they said that the current regulations are incomparable with the state of the art of nuclear design.
Politicians often make such stupid rules. Rules that stifle innovation and the adoption of new technologies. The NRCC is similar, in that they have developed a set of regulations based on technologies from the 1950's and have made it harder to adopt safer alternatives. This is clearly true of the regulatory structure today.
However, the "problem" with nuclear power today is more the public relations issue that comes with all the regulations and the price of alternative like Natural Gas. Who wants to take the risk and engage the PR fight? With Natural Gas being so abundant and priced so low, nuclear power isn't worth the risk. In fact, it's natural gas that's killing off nuclear power as we know it now.
The compiler doesn't really care if you want to multiply the letter "A" by "5" and then use the result as a pointer to a data structure.
Of course the compiler does- unless you know of a magical flag to disable type checking. It's the CPU that doesn't care, and the compiler that allows you to tell it to pretend "A" and "5" are of the same type.
The C compiler doesn't care (though some may warn you), that you are combining different types doing some operation. The ANSI-C compiler is a bit more rigorous in it's type checking, but still really only is going to warn you and keep compiling unless you tell it to stop on warnings. C isn't a strongly typed language, and it's this way for a reason, well two reasons. First, It's easier, faster, cheaper to write a compiler that doesn't care about such stuff and when C was getting started, hardware speed and memory sizes where a major consideration, so we left off the bells and whistles and let the programmer deal with keeping up with the jots and tittles like type checking. Second, all the data types generally took up the same amount of space, 8 bits or 16 bits and that's all the compiler really needed to care about. You got all sorts of flexibility, and when you are interacting directly with hardware, this is a huge advantage. Sometimes all that type checking is really just a PIA and having to worry with a cast is just making the source code harder to read.
Of course, now days, with processing power and memory space limitations largely a ting of the past, we've "moved on" to highly typed languages. Languages where the compiler is always harping at you about things. I get why it's important and the kinds of errors it prevents, but it's like having a really fast and powerful motorcycle which won't start w/o the training wheels attached to me. I personally don't like the added type checking, it keeps my code from being as efficient as I'd like, but OK, I'm willing to live within the constraints of the language. Just don't get me stared on the memory management in languages like Java.... I think we pay too high a performance price for that myself.
Yup, exactly this...
The compiler doesn't really care if you want to multiply the letter "A" by "5" and then use the result as a pointer to a data structure. Of course, there have been improvements in the compilers over the years, where they will at least complain about type mismatches, and the ever valuable LINT program to help keep you out of the weeds. But in the end, you are free to do as you please, as fast as the machine will chew though the assembly code the compiler wrote for you (or as I've done in the past, the assembly you wrote for the compiler).
The issue most of these surveys don't take into account is which tool is suited for which job. My favorite language depends on the task at hand and the suitable tools in the my tool box. Writing a device driver? C or assembly.. Writing some GUI to run locally? C++/Java... Need to interface with some specific Java library? Then Java.... It all depends.
My point is that it fails even to be sarcastic, because on one hand the author is right, then on the other hand they are wrong...
I would expect that a sarcastic post to be 100% sarcastic, not actually valid some times and at other times not.
I don't understand the hate for Java.
Java is fast, secure, and compact.
With only a few cores, a few GB of disk space, and a few GB of ram, "hello world" compiles and runs in just minutes!
And it gets faster every time it's run!
Find me a language more secure.
Find me a language more compact.
Find me a language that's faster.
C is full of security holes, and slow.
ASSembly is slow, full of holes, and slow.
The minimum specs are there for a reason. If you don't have at least a few cores, and a few GB of RAM, and say 100GB of disk space, go back to your speak and spell.
Shesh.. I don't know if this is a joke or not...
So wrong on every level.. Java is none of the things you claim and just about *any* compiled language will be faster than Java on the same hardware.
But.. Then there is the security thing.... C isn't full of security holes per say, nor is Assembly.. Neither language enforces the strict type checking that the Java compiler gives you I suppose, but that doesn't mean they are insecure. It just means the programmer needs to mind his P's and Q's and be careful to avoid getting off in the weeds... But you PAY dearly for all that "security" that Java gives you in performance and complexity...
So was this an attempt at humor that failed? Or just stupidity on parade?
Always produce significant and valid results .... NOT!
Sure.. But they make for GREAT headlines...(Click bait for $$)
You want to create some fake news narrative? Conduct a POLL and publish the results.. Don't have money to pay a pollster? Do an online poll...
This technique comes right after quoting an "unnamed source" who is claiming some kind of malfeasance is taking place due to some conspiracy or something and writing a "news" story based only on the quote and a bunch of "we think it means..." logical leaps.
Exactly.. He's never going to see GITMO and even if the DOJ gets the maximum sentence on the current charges it's 5-8 years. He's coming to the USA and soon, to face the music.
The whole "They will torture me" argument to fight extradition is patently ridiculous and without legal merit. There are SO many reasons they won't do this to him, and sooo many ways they *could* get around extradition if they really wanted too that badly. The sad fact here is that the conspiracy theories run deep with the likes of AmiMoJo and they have to make up stuff to keep their champion in play..
His other arguments against extradition will be that he has little prospect of a fair trial and faces torture.
The US secret court system can be argued to prevent a fair trial. It's probably a weak argument, the UK tends to recognize other countries doing that because the UK does it too.
The prospect of torture is more realistic. The US has Guantanamo, it has indefinite solitary confinement, and Assange may have medical issues that he could argue would not be properly treated.
You cannot seriously think that they'd extradite him to Gitmo? Now, that's just plain crazy talk there.. Seriously... If the USA intends to send him there, why bother with the extradition process? Just mount a "special rendition" operation once the UK sets him free, extract as much useful information as you can though any means necessary in some country where nobody would ask questions and do this whole thing you imagine off the books, then dump him as close to Osama as you can, or stage his death and dump his body near where you snatched him, making it look like he killed himself. Easy peasy if you don't really care about the law as you seem to believe the USA doesn't.
So bye bye to what you think is your best argument..
And if you don't think the UK wouldn't willingly participate in such a activity with the USA.. You are sadly mistaken.
Sure, you believe what your partisan bias inclines you towards, just like you were inclined to rant that Obama locked up children en masse as the default policy enough that you ranted about it while claiming you ended it. The same week you fired half your homeland security leadership be abuse they wouldn't reinstitute the policy.
Oh wait no, that was your incompetent glorious leader.
Look, I get it, you are a total shill. But can't you find a figurehead that isn't suffering from rapid onset dementia?
And I'm a total shill?
I at last recognize my bias and am aware of the facts here through independent investigation (I've actually listened to most of the public testimony of the guys I name and have looked at the primary sources we have available). You though, don't seem to be aware of even the basic facts about what happened during the 2016 campaign. But as being a shill, let's investigate your claim...
Would a "total shill" be telling you that they don't expect this to rise very high in the Obama administration? The only real political appointee I've named in Brennon as CIA director, everybody else I'd expect are lower level career types. And I'm not holding my breath on any of these. Clearly Comey and McCabe are in legal trouble for lying to congress, Stroke and Page may get caught up in that mess. Comey mishandled classified information, by his own admission, and where that's likely only going to result in his loosing his clearances, which he doesn't have now anyway, and possibly a criminal conviction if things go badly but I doubt it will result in prison time. The FISA abuse allegations are what really matters here though, and they only really matter politically.
Now if that's what a total shill would be saying, unlike Hanity and Limbaugh who are clearly saying this will implicate people high in the Obama administration, political appointees, if not Obama himself, then I wonder about your objectivity... I've never been a "Lock her up" type, I know how this field is striped and where I think Hillary did mishandle classified information, and Comey let her off when he should not have, I NEVER thought she'd be locked up or even handcuffed. All I ever said was that she should loose her security clearances, which, to be fair, would happen anyway in time. Personally I feel it was a waste of time, but I get the political impact of that chant..
So, where I'm obviously biased, I don't think I'm the "total shill" here..
Well Um.. No US law he's subject to? Not so fast there legal mind.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and in this case IF he gets extradited, he'd then face the music in a US court on US soil, where he's obviously subject to US law.
To be clear, the argument you are making is two fold. First that he's not a US citizen and not subject to US law and Second that he wasn't on US soil or sovereign territory and therefore not subject to US law enforcement's authority. These are pretty thin arguments to make in a US court. How do you think that will turn out?
So IF he gets extradited (and that is a very open question) he's going to face trial in the USA unless he takes a plea deal. I expect him to plea in exchange for giving up his sources myself, which is really what the USA is after here. Julian is pretty much worthless at this point, except for what he may know about who's leaking stuff to him.
At least Hillary didn't make president. She would have hung, drawn and quartered him.
Maybe the USA has had time to cool off. Me? I'm betting he'll be over there within three months.
Assange worked for Putin. Assange worried America would nab him. Putin controls Trump. Trump ain't gonna do shit. Assange's worries are over.
Or maybe not. Remains to be seen.
Good God, give it a rest already.
There was no Trump/Russia collusion.
There WAS spying on the Trump campaign for political reasons by the Obama administration, and the lid is about to be blown off THAT.
Which is probably why Democrats and the media (BIRM) are shitting their pants right now.
You SURE you want to see the full Mueller report? The full contents of the documents directing what Mueller was to investigate remain secret. Hmm, what if he was also looking into the spying Obama did on Trump's campaign?
Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Yates, McCabe, Strzok, and maybe even Obama himself might be getting measured for orange jumpsuits right now.
Well... Whoa up there just a wee bit and lay off the Hanity/Limbaugh theories..
Where I fully agree that the tables are FINALLY turning and the real collusion investigation is started as you indicate, I'm not expecting there was much involvement at the higher levels that can be proven. Surely Obama, even if he was directing this side show, won't be implicated, nor will the likes of Hillary, Holder or anybody at that level will be indicted unless they where just plain stupid, and none of these people are stupid.
So we may have a couple of perp walks, Andy McCabe, Comey, maybe Brennon, but I'd be totally surprised if any of these get much jail time..
You don't expose Hillary and just walk away.
Not that he walked away. Spending 6 years cooped up in a single building in down town London is not exactly living the good life and has got to be a mental strain. Based on the video I saw, the guy has not aged well and appears to be a mental case now. Of course that's what his hosts are saying about him, that they didn't think it was healthy for him to continue to be under house arrest like he was.
I suspect that he's not really in all that much danger. He may be in jail for the majority of what remains of his life, but the last 6 years where not kind to him to start with. He may be much better off, though less visible in the years to come. If indeed he has mental issues now, he can get treatment. I wish him the best, but we all knew he was either going to die in the embassy under effective house arrest or face the music someday.
And about exposing Hillary... She exposed herself, (that's a mental picture I wish I hadn't seen) Julian just pointed it out like the little boy who said the "Look! The emperor has no clothes". Trump benefited as a result. So in a way, you can blame Julian for at least part of Hillary's loss.... (As if she needs any more items on her "it's not my fault" list.)
Discuss this YESTERDAY?
Cheerleading on Slashdot never changes I guess..
My point was that Net Neutrality wasn't important enough to voters to impact the election.
Most people I know, left and right, simply don't care about this issue, even if they have an opinion. It's not important. Further, I don't see Net Neutrality in any pollster's top 10 list of issues people care about. So it doesn't matter how many people say they want or don't want it. Face it, politically Net Neutrality is a dead horse, and if your party is beating it in hopes of garnering votes it only really means they are desperate to drive the daily narrative away from what is seen as more important.
Don't fool yourself. This whole thing is a desperate political move for "show" and not "go". Much like the House Republicans voting repeatedly to repeal Obamacare when the Senate was in Democrat hands and Obama was in office, then failing to ACTUALLY do it when they had the chance. This was nothing more than a show vote, a little bit of political theater... Only in this case, the "show" is playing to a very small audience, who's votes are likely already committed to vote for the players on the stage... Which, if you look at this and think about why the players are on the stage, says something important about what they think is likely to happen in the next election cycle.
If the Senate doesn't pass it, say goodbye to all the Republican Senators during the next election. Choice is theirs. Do as the Public wants ...(snip) .
Hold up there AC. I'm not so sure this is what the public wants... But let's discuss Republican Senator elections in 2020..
First up, There are 34 seats up for grabs in 2020, 22 Republican and 14 Democrats. There are 5 seats seen as toss ups, all Democrats and an additional 6 seats which lean one way or the other, 3 for each party based on past election results. Of course, the election is a LONG way away and we don't have any idea how this is going to play out nationally and each state.
IMHO Net Neutrality is going to be a very small portion of the picture this time around, if it even plays a role. As I see this, things like health care, immigration, the economy and foreign policy are going form the election landscape. And don't forget, an incumbent Trump vrs whomever will suck up the bulk of the oxygen and national news coverage, making Senate elections mostly secondary and regulated to local news coverage. The "coat tails" will impact the election more than this issue will, by far.