And what did they lose out to? The fact that there's more money to be made in keeping them alive in a private prison than there is to just get it over with.
This does not seem convincing - from what I can gather, about 4% of inmates in the US are currently in private prisons, and even that is a relatively recent development. The other 96% cost money and generate no profit.
This may be terribly naive of me, but you do have to take into account a certain "civilizing" effect over the last few centuries - people are less inclined to be personally responsible for condemning others to death on scant evidence.
And even if it's not just the money interests, something changed in the population in a very rapid manner to go from "kill the criminals and let God deal with them" to "they have to live!"
Not true either. Plenty of people still feel as above, it's our damn attention to human rights, at the state level, that's changed.
My main problem with saying that the current attitudes towards euthanasia are caused by the medical industry is that said industry has existed in its current form for (maybe) a century, and the attitudes towards suicide/euthanasia have not changed since, well, recorded history.
It's a weird ante hoc ergo propter hoc argument which makes no sense.
Or a medical industry the brings in the lion's share of its profits from the last years of people's lives.
No, it's religion - it's been around for a few thousand years longer, so it's had a bit more of an impact.
Seriously though, it's amazing how much energy and effort religions had to, until relatively recent times, put into keeping people from offing themselves. And it's pretty universal, too. In all the reincarnation-based religions, for example, getting reincarnated isn't some wonderful chance to do it all over, but basically punishment for not leading a good enough life to escape the cycle of rebirth. If you try hard enough, some day they'll let you shuffle off the mortal coil for good!
Guess life was pretty shit for most people, for a rather long time.
has been done for hundreds of years, and nobody calls e.g. Messines an IED attack
I suppose because you don't have to commonly deal with both professionally manufactured and improvised variants, so there is no need to distinguish the two?
sun would as a hole be run as sun a Oracle company idea as a hole
Could you do me a favor? Just take a minute to read that sentence to yourself three or four times. Maybe even read it out loud - people say that helps.
Good developers should have tested their code so as to not have serious problems to fix at the last minute, and designed it so as to be able to extend it easily.
Right, even if the "real world" did work that way, there are still plenty of unreasonable deadlines to contend with.
(though now that I think about it, the above was probably sarcasm; in which case: never mind)
Yes, it's fairly complicated, but then all languages tend to become that as they move from academia or design-by-committee stage into real world - witness Java.
Java is an extremely simple language; it has a large library and a lot of auxiliary APIs - which do often tend toward overnegineering - but the language syntax is quite a bit simpler than Scala. It's an important distinction, ignoring libraries you don't need takes a lot less effort than language features you don't need.
And yes, I do tend to like statically typed languages as well.
You probably aren't. It's been a big thing in.NET land ever since C# 3.0 appeared, and grows even bigger now with F#. It's a pragmatic approach - it gives you both OO and FP tools, and lets you mix and match freely to get the optimal balance for the task at hand.
I understand the concept, I'm just not sold on The Scala Way in practice (hey, just a personal opinion). Actually, the C# way seems like a much quicker win - I would love to have a subset of Scala's functional features in Java (certainly would make adoption easier).
Funny how you speak about performance hit, and then immediately mention Clojure... Anyway, where did you see the "huge" perf hit there? Examples?
Fair enough, "huge" is an overstatement, let's go with "significant". The best performance data I could find was this - it does show that you will run into at least a few cases where the compiler is being quite dumb - good benchmarks are hard to come by, though. And yes, Clojure has the same problem, but hard data is even sparser for Clojure.
Am I the only one not terribly enamored with Scala? It's a massive language (have you seen the book?), but a lot of the syntax is somewhat redundant and doesn't seem to add that much. The type system is downright byzantine, and the Java interface is, let's say, somewhat inelegant. And the whole object-functional thing seems like a paradigm in search of an audience (maybe I'm just not getting it).
And you get to pay for all this with a huge performance hit.
I guess their "more is more" approach is mostly making Clojure look more attractive.
Ah yes, it's something that the US doesn't do well in, so it's a whole lot of inconsequential nothing. Way to keep the stereotype alive.
For the record, the winners of the ones held in Wisconsin (2003) and Mexico (2006) were from Korea and Poland, respectively.
I doubt many teachers would approve of having a kid postpone high school for something like this?
I've attended both American and Easter European high schools - trust me, you wouldn't be missing much by skipping a couple of years of the American ones.
Probation is just a different type of sentence - it's no different from prison time in that it's imposed by a judge, after a conviction, on a case-by-case basis.
The problem with them whole "sex offender" thing is that it's an indiscriminate grab-bag of "evil boogeymen" for whom busybody politicians can dream up new restrictions at any time, just to show how much they are thinking of the children. It's political posturing at other people's expense.
unless you remember that the people running these businesses are reasonably stupid
Are they? Like you said, the technology that renders their business model essentially obsolete has been around for more than a decade, yet they've managed to hold on to their (near) monopoly and have consistently made obscene amounts of money (while providing no tangible benefit to their consumers).
They can't really "change with the times" and embrace new distribution technologies - that would leave them open to competition they could never hope to survive. Their best bet is to throw around their financial and political weight to keep the barriers to entry high and marginalize new distribution methods as much as possible; it's probably a losing battle in the long run, but they can make it a long run indeed.
That says: you don't want to spend $15 - $20 for a complete CD / $9.99 per digital album download. You prefer to purchase individual tracks.
Personally, I've never really felt that way. If an artist can't manage an album that I would enjoy, I can't really see paying for any music from them, even if it is $1 for one song. What does it mean to like an artist, if you think they can only manage a couple of listenable songs every few years?
Maybe it's because I'm so used to listening to complete albums that I just haven't caught up with the way the kids today "consume" their music (get off my lawn, etc; but dammit - I'm not even 30 yet!)
One thing I definitely disagree with, though, is the whole "nobody makes good music anymore" assessment. Even with my (apparently archaic) purchasing strategy, I can still easily find one or two dozen releases per year that I am excited enough about to at least download for "evaluation" (I end up buying probably half of those).
(Having said all that, I really don't care about the various packaging accoutrements: 14 mp3s/oggs (and maybe a jpeg of the cover art) is just fine by me)
Small nitpick but they aren't 'murderers' when they were found innocent by a jury of their peers.
Huh? Maybe not legally, but we are not part of the legal system. A jury verdict isn't some kind of magical proclamation that overrides every person's opinion.
Unless you believe that every single jury out there is somehow infallible?
This is very reminiscent of lengthy, legally binding EULAs on software and webpages that the average consumer doesn't read or understand.
Hmm, never seen such a thing... though there are plenty of lengthy EULAs filled with wishful thinking, that the average consumer doesn't read or understand.
In science, if you say that anything has been "proven", you get laughed out of all respectable circles. Instead, you demonstrate a hypothesis by providing experimental evidence.
The term for these is "natural sciences", they are a subset of "science".
Slashdot Mirror
And what did they lose out to? The fact that there's more money to be made in keeping them alive in a private prison than there is to just get it over with.
This does not seem convincing - from what I can gather, about 4% of inmates in the US are currently in private prisons, and even that is a relatively recent development. The other 96% cost money and generate no profit.
This may be terribly naive of me, but you do have to take into account a certain "civilizing" effect over the last few centuries - people are less inclined to be personally responsible for condemning others to death on scant evidence.
And even if it's not just the money interests, something changed in the population in a very rapid manner to go from "kill the criminals and let God deal with them" to "they have to live!"
Not true either. Plenty of people still feel as above, it's our damn attention to human rights, at the state level, that's changed.
My main problem with saying that the current attitudes towards euthanasia are caused by the medical industry is that said industry has existed in its current form for (maybe) a century, and the attitudes towards suicide/euthanasia have not changed since, well, recorded history.
It's a weird ante hoc ergo propter hoc argument which makes no sense.
Religion?
Or a medical industry the brings in the lion's share of its profits from the last years of people's lives.
No, it's religion - it's been around for a few thousand years longer, so it's had a bit more of an impact.
Seriously though, it's amazing how much energy and effort religions had to, until relatively recent times, put into keeping people from offing themselves. And it's pretty universal, too. In all the reincarnation-based religions, for example, getting reincarnated isn't some wonderful chance to do it all over, but basically punishment for not leading a good enough life to escape the cycle of rebirth. If you try hard enough, some day they'll let you shuffle off the mortal coil for good!
Guess life was pretty shit for most people, for a rather long time.
has been done for hundreds of years, and nobody calls e.g. Messines an IED attack
I suppose because you don't have to commonly deal with both professionally manufactured and improvised variants, so there is no need to distinguish the two?
I'd have a hard time believing that these would give even F-15E's or Super Hornets a tough time.
Based on what, exactly?
Isn't it funny how thoroughly someone can expose their ignorance, with one stupid sentence?
For the rest of us of course 570% increase is 5.7X faster.
It seems the rest of us don't understand what a "percent increase" means, either.
(hint: 570% increase == 6.7X)
sun would as a hole be run as sun a Oracle company idea as a hole
Could you do me a favor? Just take a minute to read that sentence to yourself three or four times. Maybe even read it out loud - people say that helps.
Good developers should have tested their code so as to not have serious problems to fix at the last minute, and designed it so as to be able to extend it easily.
Right, even if the "real world" did work that way, there are still plenty of unreasonable deadlines to contend with.
(though now that I think about it, the above was probably sarcasm; in which case: never mind)
The honest consumer loses. No doubt about it.
How, exactly, does the honest consumer lose here?
I really can't picture the person who hosts LAN parties, yet does not have an internet connection.
Just saying that this reply feels like a massive FUCK YOU to every person who owns multiple star craft 1 keys for use at a lan.
Um, yeah, LAN parties are downright notorious for being overrun with people who've bought multiple license keys.
And nary a mention of the debacle
Yes, how dare they leave out something from five freakin' years ago, from an interview about an upcoming game?
Time to let that one go, I think.
If buying isk distorts the economy as they claim, then buying it via plex is still buying it.
Huh? PLEX is nothing of the sort, it just lets you pay for game time with ISK.
Well yeah, we knew all of that before the trailer came out.
Yes, it's fairly complicated, but then all languages tend to become that as they move from academia or design-by-committee stage into real world - witness Java.
.NET land ever since C# 3.0 appeared, and grows even bigger now with F#. It's a pragmatic approach - it gives you both OO and FP tools, and lets you mix and match freely to get the optimal balance for the task at hand.
Java is an extremely simple language; it has a large library and a lot of auxiliary APIs - which do often tend toward overnegineering - but the language syntax is quite a bit simpler than Scala. It's an important distinction, ignoring libraries you don't need takes a lot less effort than language features you don't need.
And yes, I do tend to like statically typed languages as well.
You probably aren't. It's been a big thing in
I understand the concept, I'm just not sold on The Scala Way in practice (hey, just a personal opinion). Actually, the C# way seems like a much quicker win - I would love to have a subset of Scala's functional features in Java (certainly would make adoption easier).
Funny how you speak about performance hit, and then immediately mention Clojure... Anyway, where did you see the "huge" perf hit there? Examples?
Fair enough, "huge" is an overstatement, let's go with "significant". The best performance data I could find was this - it does show that you will run into at least a few cases where the compiler is being quite dumb - good benchmarks are hard to come by, though. And yes, Clojure has the same problem, but hard data is even sparser for Clojure.
Am I the only one not terribly enamored with Scala? It's a massive language (have you seen the book?), but a lot of the syntax is somewhat redundant and doesn't seem to add that much. The type system is downright byzantine, and the Java interface is, let's say, somewhat inelegant. And the whole object-functional thing seems like a paradigm in search of an audience (maybe I'm just not getting it).
And you get to pay for all this with a huge performance hit.
I guess their "more is more" approach is mostly making Clojure look more attractive.
Sucks for those who bought Vista - service pack used to be free before.
How do you figure? Both 98 SE and XP cost money.
Ah yes, it's something that the US doesn't do well in, so it's a whole lot of inconsequential nothing. Way to keep the stereotype alive.
For the record, the winners of the ones held in Wisconsin (2003) and Mexico (2006) were from Korea and Poland, respectively.
I doubt many teachers would approve of having a kid postpone high school for something like this?
I've attended both American and Easter European high schools - trust me, you wouldn't be missing much by skipping a couple of years of the American ones.
This is why, despite my strong civil liberties leanings, I support a sex offenders register and other measures to keep an eye on them.
You're advocating punishing people for crimes hey might commit - I think you have a very confused notion of "strong civil liberties leanings".
How do you feel about probation then?
Probation is just a different type of sentence - it's no different from prison time in that it's imposed by a judge, after a conviction, on a case-by-case basis.
The problem with them whole "sex offender" thing is that it's an indiscriminate grab-bag of "evil boogeymen" for whom busybody politicians can dream up new restrictions at any time, just to show how much they are thinking of the children. It's political posturing at other people's expense.
(Not the OP, but thought I'd give it a try)
unless you remember that the people running these businesses are reasonably stupid
Are they? Like you said, the technology that renders their business model essentially obsolete has been around for more than a decade, yet they've managed to hold on to their (near) monopoly and have consistently made obscene amounts of money (while providing no tangible benefit to their consumers).
They can't really "change with the times" and embrace new distribution technologies - that would leave them open to competition they could never hope to survive. Their best bet is to throw around their financial and political weight to keep the barriers to entry high and marginalize new distribution methods as much as possible; it's probably a losing battle in the long run, but they can make it a long run indeed.
That says: you don't want to spend $15 - $20 for a complete CD / $9.99 per digital album download. You prefer to purchase individual tracks.
Personally, I've never really felt that way. If an artist can't manage an album that I would enjoy, I can't really see paying for any music from them, even if it is $1 for one song. What does it mean to like an artist, if you think they can only manage a couple of listenable songs every few years?
Maybe it's because I'm so used to listening to complete albums that I just haven't caught up with the way the kids today "consume" their music (get off my lawn, etc; but dammit - I'm not even 30 yet!)
One thing I definitely disagree with, though, is the whole "nobody makes good music anymore" assessment. Even with my (apparently archaic) purchasing strategy, I can still easily find one or two dozen releases per year that I am excited enough about to at least download for "evaluation" (I end up buying probably half of those).
(Having said all that, I really don't care about the various packaging accoutrements: 14 mp3s/oggs (and maybe a jpeg of the cover art) is just fine by me)
Some numbers have a Semitic context: 613, for example.
Small nitpick but they aren't 'murderers' when they were found innocent by a jury of their peers.
Huh? Maybe not legally, but we are not part of the legal system. A jury verdict isn't some kind of magical proclamation that overrides every person's opinion.
Unless you believe that every single jury out there is somehow infallible?
This is very reminiscent of lengthy, legally binding EULAs on software and webpages that the average consumer doesn't read or understand.
Hmm, never seen such a thing... though there are plenty of lengthy EULAs filled with wishful thinking, that the average consumer doesn't read or understand.
In science, if you say that anything has been "proven", you get laughed out of all respectable circles. Instead, you demonstrate a hypothesis by providing experimental evidence.
The term for these is "natural sciences", they are a subset of "science".