You're argument is flawed in so many different ways.
Firstly, quoting things out of context is an old, old trick; so I won't give it much weight. In any case, you don't seem to understand what even the part you've quoted actually says.
It does *not* say the essential aim of the prison system is rehabilitation. It says that a prison system should include treatment. The primary aim of that treatment is to reform and rehabilitate (eg sedating them simply so they don't cause a nuisance in prison probably wouldn't be OK).
Secondly, what does which treaties my country may or may not have signed up to have to do with my opinion? I don't have to agree with what my country may have committed itself to. I may even choose to campaign against it. Fortunately there is no discrepancy between what I've said and the covenant, at least not the part you uncomprehendingly deployed agsinst me. You'll notice rehabiliation made my top 4 list so treating criminals in or out of prison is ok by mean: it's just not the primary reason for it.
Ah the old "let's stereotype them, assign them some characteristics we can easily attack and then ATTACK!" ploy.
Might work in playground arguments, doesn't work with adults.
Firstly, I'm not an American, although I congratulate you on stereotyping 300,000,000 people all in one go.
Secondly, what has the crime rate in Canada got to do with anything? We have lower crime where I live than you have. Again: what's that got to do with anything?
Thirdly: so he re-ordered my list: he still agreed with my top 4 reasons. The fact that he's got the order wrong is a minor details.
Revenge is "getting your own back". Personally I have no problem with judges being allowed to take into account the opinions of the victims in setting a punishment if the judge thinks it's appropriate.
Punishment is saying: look you broke the rules, and you have to be taught you can't do that so we're going to restrict your liberty in someway (prison, probation, whatever) or make you suffer a financial penalty (fine you, confiscate some of of your property etc).
I've written job advert's (I'm a tecchie with 16+ years experience in assembler, c++, c and java; I also taught OO for a couple of years at Rational.) and generally I'm not looking for one person, and even if I am I'm probably not looking for one set of skills: often it's a case that I'd like someone with some combination of the listed skills plus at least some idea what the others are even if they aren't expert. Obviously there are some key skills: for example if I'm looking to recruit someone to work on a system written in Java running on Oracle then I'd probably advertise Java as a must-have, Oracle as pretty important: but I'd also consider someone with experience of another mainstream relational database: so they get listed as well. It's even possible I'd consider someone with no Java skills but a ton of Oracle: because I might be able to move other people around (for example I may currently have my top Java guy baby sitting the Oracle database: if I hire the Oracle expert my Java expert can go fulltime Java and I'm in the same position as if I'd hired another Java/Oracle hybrid). It's impossible to write an ad that defines all the combinations I'd consider: at least partly because until I see the CV I don't know whether I'd consider it. Newly minted CS graduates aside: most people applying for IT positions are unique in their combination of technical skills and personal attributes.
Conversely: when I read a job listing I don't automatically skip over it if it asks for skills I don't have: for example I *know* what DSDM is but I am not expert in it: however I am an expert in RUP and I know that's similar enough to give me some credibility. What's the worse the advertiser can do? Not reply- frustrating but hardly life threatening. And at best they might consider me anyway because I have skills they didn't emphasise or didn't even occur to them as being important. (I know of jobs where they didn't even bother advertising for the skill they really wanted because: a- they didn't expect to find anyone with it and b- they didn't necessarily want to put people off if they weren't necessarily expert in that area).
If you're going to be punished the same for a lesser crime as a greater one, why not commit the greater one? Especially if, by committing the greater one you might get away with both.
Do I need to repeat this again using shorter words?
Have you heard the expression: "you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"?
Translating this into modern terms: You've just crash into another car whilst drink driving. The other driver has just got of his car and is standing in front of your car yelling at you. A conviction for drink driving will see you in jail for 10 years. The punishment for causing death by dangerous driving (the worst you'd get as long as they can't prove it was deliberate) is 10 years in jail: but there's a chance, with no witnesses left alive, that you'd get away with it. Did I mention he's standing in front of your car and your engine is still running?
It isn't some silly liberal sentimentality that says the punishment should fit the crime, and this isn't the only argument for it: it's just the one most appropriate to refute your absurd assertions.
Whilst I agree 9 years for a first offence of spamming (assuming no fraud/attempted fraud) is over the top.
However, a sentence serves 4 purposes: First and foremost it's about punishment. Second it's about convincing the victims and society they've been punished: so they don't feel the need to take the law into their own hands, and so that they can move on. Thirdly it's about proecting society: both the individuals and the collective group. And fourth, by a big margin, it's about rehabilitation.
A proportionate punishment would be to ban them (temporarly on a first offence, permanently for subsequent offences) from: access to the internet, being directors or shareholders involved in any way with a companies that do any business using the 'net. Confiscation of all equipment used in their spamming, confiscation of all the proceeds of their criminal acts plus a fine based on the volume and type of spam. Eg sending out spam with intent to defraud is more serious then spamming to advertise an on-line pharmacy. Making lots of money (regardless of whether it was fraudulent or not) from your spams also multiplies the fine.
Make the punishment fit the crime. 9 years in jail is ridiculous. 9 years in jail following mutliple convictions and re-offending: sure. But on a first offence?!? Nah that's just politicians willy waving.
All true and at the same time completely missing the point.
Even the Sony Picturebook, which (closed) is about the same size, is awkward to use one handed. This thing is a tablet computer done right. Status poseurs aside: people who have need a tablet computer would find a normal laptop far too heavy and awkward (clam shell is no good for holding in one hand and driving the other; neither is a keyboard).
So would I. But we're not the target market. It's aimed at people that need more than a PDA but need something considerably smaller than a laptop.
Try using any laptop one-handed (laptop in one hand, use the other hand to drive) for any extended period of time.
Think people doing stock control; data capture; viewing electronic documents (blueprints at a building site say) and you'll probably get more of an idea what this is about.
Re:Anyone owns smth similar?
on
Sony U750P Handtop
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Simple: it's a general purpose PC, not a PDA or a Smartphone; nor is it an mp3 or movie player: although it *can* do everything those devices can do (except make calls).
Sure there's some crossover (the closest was the Zarus but not really). The Sony has the hardware you'd expect in a "proper" PC eg a hard disk and a lot of memory (no PDA or Smartphone I know of comes with half a gig of main memory).
So it's aimed at people who want to do more than you can do on a PDA/Smartphone but want something smaller than a laptop.
The reason the price is so high is a) the market is small and b) miniturisation costs money.
Re:Cool... Drool... XMas present, anybody?
on
Sony U750P Handtop
·
· Score: 1
This is the Rolls Royc of iPods..
I agreed with everything you said until I came to this bit. Muppet. This is a hand held computer an iPod is a great mp3 player.
In essence it's a DRM flag that says "don't allow this broadcast to be copied, recorded or anything else". So you can't record it to video tape or on your Tivo or any other device. Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.
This card ignores that flag...
(As an aside: for a long, long time I bemoaned the fact that we in the UK had no written constituiton and was jealous that the US did. And then you got Dubyah. Twice. And I rejoiced that we have an unelected head of state and no written constitution that politicians can ignore whenever they pack enough like minded jurists into the supreme court. But then I remembered we've got Blair and no limitation on how often he can be re-elected...)
Uhm. Every file system in OSX is "mounted", so I'm not sure what your point is.
Also: we're talking about a desktop system here: how many desktops have terabytes of data: or were you just trolling?
As to the network scenario: why would you build a separate index on each machine covering the entire network: that would be arse-achingly stupid. Use the searchlight database on the machine where the data is held. Pretty obvious really.
The radical difference is that Spotlight generates the metadata itself rather than you having to tag stuff yourself. It has content handlers to intelligently tag all kinds of different "stuff" so it "knows" what a Word document is and what a web page is and what a.png file is etc etc.
Yeah problem with this kind of question is it depends on a lot of assumptions.
I'd been programming 8 bit processors in small hand held devices (Psion Organiser II) where memory is at a huge premium: particularly as I'd been writing some device drivers where literally every byte is precious: every byte I use is one less for the application software and the user.
So I went for an interview with another software shop and was told: "Write me an algorithm to reverse the order of bits in a byte". So I wrote one that did the job perfectly: rotating bytes into a register (ror) and then rotating them back out again the other way (rol).
Problem was the solution he wanted involved using lookup tables and he stopped the interview there and then.
I wrote a solution that was incredibly memory efficient. What he said he wanted (after I gave my solution!) was one that was fast (although I'd dispute a lookup to eternal memory is actually any faster than my register based solution). What he *actually* wanted of course was one like he'd have written.
I was pissed off at the time but soon came to the conclusion it was a lucky escape.
Really. Funny last time I checked Stallman created, from scratch, the entire notion of "Free Software" and all the fundamental tools to support it. Without him you wouln't have **GNU**/Linux because they whole intellectual infrastructure to allow it to be developed wouldn't exist. Not to mention the fact that you also wouldn't have all the tools that have allowed it to be written. Or did you perhaps think that gcc et al just sprang from the aether fully formed?
If anyone is riding on anyone's coat tails it's Linus riding on Stallman's.
*shrug* my PowerMac came with a 9800Pro. Perhaps you should have specced your machine properly for its purpose?
In any case, when my brother in law and nephew come round to play Warcraft3 we use my Powerbook and my wife's G4 iMac (as well as my PowerMac) and whilst the iMac chugs a little the rest work just fine. (You see I paid a little extra to boost the PowerBook's graphics memory: just because a PC user starts buying Macs isn't an excuse to leave your brain switched off).
Slashdot Mirror
You're argument is flawed in so many different ways.
Firstly, quoting things out of context is an old, old trick; so I won't give it much weight. In any case, you don't seem to understand what even the part you've quoted actually says.
It does *not* say the essential aim of the prison system is rehabilitation. It says that a prison system should include treatment. The primary aim of that treatment is to reform and rehabilitate (eg sedating them simply so they don't cause a nuisance in prison probably wouldn't be OK).
Secondly, what does which treaties my country may or may not have signed up to have to do with my opinion? I don't have to agree with what my country may have committed itself to. I may even choose to campaign against it. Fortunately there is no discrepancy between what I've said and the covenant, at least not the part you uncomprehendingly deployed agsinst me. You'll notice rehabiliation made my top 4 list so treating criminals in or out of prison is ok by mean: it's just not the primary reason for it.
Ah the old "let's stereotype them, assign them some characteristics we can easily attack and then ATTACK!" ploy.
Might work in playground arguments, doesn't work with adults.
Firstly, I'm not an American, although I congratulate you on stereotyping 300,000,000 people all in one go.
Secondly, what has the crime rate in Canada got to do with anything? We have lower crime where I live than you have. Again: what's that got to do with anything?
Thirdly: so he re-ordered my list: he still agreed with my top 4 reasons. The fact that he's got the order wrong is a minor details.
So your point was?
I don't think it's unimportant: it made my top 4 didn't it? I just think the other factors are more important.
Revenge is not the same as punishment.
Revenge is "getting your own back". Personally I have no problem with judges being allowed to take into account the opinions of the victims in setting a punishment if the judge thinks it's appropriate.
Punishment is saying: look you broke the rules, and you have to be taught you can't do that so we're going to restrict your liberty in someway (prison, probation, whatever) or make you suffer a financial penalty (fine you, confiscate some of of your property etc).
That's because you don't understand job advert's.
I've written job advert's (I'm a tecchie with 16+ years experience in assembler, c++, c and java; I also taught OO for a couple of years at Rational.) and generally I'm not looking for one person, and even if I am I'm probably not looking for one set of skills: often it's a case that I'd like someone with some combination of the listed skills plus at least some idea what the others are even if they aren't expert. Obviously there are some key skills: for example if I'm looking to recruit someone to work on a system written in Java running on Oracle then I'd probably advertise Java as a must-have, Oracle as pretty important: but I'd also consider someone with experience of another mainstream relational database: so they get listed as well. It's even possible I'd consider someone with no Java skills but a ton of Oracle: because I might be able to move other people around (for example I may currently have my top Java guy baby sitting the Oracle database: if I hire the Oracle expert my Java expert can go fulltime Java and I'm in the same position as if I'd hired another Java/Oracle hybrid). It's impossible to write an ad that defines all the combinations I'd consider: at least partly because until I see the CV I don't know whether I'd consider it. Newly minted CS graduates aside: most people applying for IT positions are unique in their combination of technical skills and personal attributes.
Conversely: when I read a job listing I don't automatically skip over it if it asks for skills I don't have: for example I *know* what DSDM is but I am not expert in it: however I am an expert in RUP and I know that's similar enough to give me some credibility. What's the worse the advertiser can do? Not reply- frustrating but hardly life threatening. And at best they might consider me anyway because I have skills they didn't emphasise or didn't even occur to them as being important. (I know of jobs where they didn't even bother advertising for the skill they really wanted because: a- they didn't expect to find anyone with it and b- they didn't necessarily want to put people off if they weren't necessarily expert in that area).
Good lord.
OK here's the Noddy version.
If you're going to be punished the same for a lesser crime as a greater one, why not commit the greater one? Especially if, by committing the greater one you might get away with both.
Do I need to repeat this again using shorter words?
Have you heard the expression: "you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"?
Translating this into modern terms: You've just crash into another car whilst drink driving. The other driver has just got of his car and is standing in front of your car yelling at you. A conviction for drink driving will see you in jail for 10 years. The punishment for causing death by dangerous driving (the worst you'd get as long as they can't prove it was deliberate) is 10 years in jail: but there's a chance, with no witnesses left alive, that you'd get away with it. Did I mention he's standing in front of your car and your engine is still running?
It isn't some silly liberal sentimentality that says the punishment should fit the crime, and this isn't the only argument for it: it's just the one most appropriate to refute your absurd assertions.
I call bullshit.
Whilst I agree 9 years for a first offence of spamming (assuming no fraud/attempted fraud) is over the top.
However, a sentence serves 4 purposes: First and foremost it's about punishment. Second it's about convincing the victims and society they've been punished: so they don't feel the need to take the law into their own hands, and so that they can move on. Thirdly it's about proecting society: both the individuals and the collective group. And fourth, by a big margin, it's about rehabilitation.
A proportionate punishment would be to ban them (temporarly on a first offence, permanently for subsequent offences) from: access to the internet, being directors or shareholders involved in any way with a companies that do any business using the 'net. Confiscation of all equipment used in their spamming, confiscation of all the proceeds of their criminal acts plus a fine based on the volume and type of spam. Eg sending out spam with intent to defraud is more serious then spamming to advertise an on-line pharmacy. Making lots of money (regardless of whether it was fraudulent or not) from your spams also multiplies the fine.
Make the punishment fit the crime. 9 years in jail is ridiculous. 9 years in jail following mutliple convictions and re-offending: sure. But on a first offence?!? Nah that's just politicians willy waving.
Agreed: although I was looking for WiFi.
I would have thought something like this would have come with BT to replace a physical dock and WiFi for network access.
All true and at the same time completely missing the point.
Even the Sony Picturebook, which (closed) is about the same size, is awkward to use one handed. This thing is a tablet computer done right. Status poseurs aside: people who have need a tablet computer would find a normal laptop far too heavy and awkward (clam shell is no good for holding in one hand and driving the other; neither is a keyboard).
So would I. But we're not the target market. It's aimed at people that need more than a PDA but need something considerably smaller than a laptop.
Try using any laptop one-handed (laptop in one hand, use the other hand to drive) for any extended period of time.
Think people doing stock control; data capture; viewing electronic documents (blueprints at a building site say) and you'll probably get more of an idea what this is about.
Simple: it's a general purpose PC, not a PDA or a Smartphone; nor is it an mp3 or movie player: although it *can* do everything those devices can do (except make calls).
Sure there's some crossover (the closest was the Zarus but not really). The Sony has the hardware you'd expect in a "proper" PC eg a hard disk and a lot of memory (no PDA or Smartphone I know of comes with half a gig of main memory).
So it's aimed at people who want to do more than you can do on a PDA/Smartphone but want something smaller than a laptop.
The reason the price is so high is a) the market is small and b) miniturisation costs money.
"Pom" or "Pommie" as in "You Pommie bastard" or "You whinging Poms" are colloquial Aussie for us Brits.
You guys elected a President who puts tax cuts for the rich and the rights of corporations to make profit before everything else, what did you expect?
In essence it's a DRM flag that says "don't allow this broadcast to be copied, recorded or anything else". So you can't record it to video tape or on your Tivo or any other device. Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.
This card ignores that flag...
(As an aside: for a long, long time I bemoaned the fact that we in the UK had no written constituiton and was jealous that the US did. And then you got Dubyah. Twice. And I rejoiced that we have an unelected head of state and no written constitution that politicians can ignore whenever they pack enough like minded jurists into the supreme court. But then I remembered we've got Blair and no limitation on how often he can be re-elected...)
Uhm. Every file system in OSX is "mounted", so I'm not sure what your point is.
Also: we're talking about a desktop system here: how many desktops have terabytes of data: or were you just trolling?
As to the network scenario: why would you build a separate index on each machine covering the entire network: that would be arse-achingly stupid. Use the searchlight database on the machine where the data is held. Pretty obvious really.
The radical difference is that Spotlight generates the metadata itself rather than you having to tag stuff yourself. It has content handlers to intelligently tag all kinds of different "stuff" so it "knows" what a Word document is and what a web page is and what a .png file is etc etc.
Yeah problem with this kind of question is it depends on a lot of assumptions.
I'd been programming 8 bit processors in small hand held devices (Psion Organiser II) where memory is at a huge premium: particularly as I'd been writing some device drivers where literally every byte is precious: every byte I use is one less for the application software and the user.
So I went for an interview with another software shop and was told: "Write me an algorithm to reverse the order of bits in a byte". So I wrote one that did the job perfectly: rotating bytes into a register (ror) and then rotating them back out again the other way (rol).
Problem was the solution he wanted involved using lookup tables and he stopped the interview there and then.
I wrote a solution that was incredibly memory efficient. What he said he wanted (after I gave my solution!) was one that was fast (although I'd dispute a lookup to eternal memory is actually any faster than my register based solution). What he *actually* wanted of course was one like he'd have written.
I was pissed off at the time but soon came to the conclusion it was a lucky escape.
Hehe thanks for that: it re-assured me that I'm not the only one to have worked with monkeys.
Sure: myList.add(anItem); Next.
Really. Funny last time I checked Stallman created, from scratch, the entire notion of "Free Software" and all the fundamental tools to support it. Without him you wouln't have **GNU**/Linux because they whole intellectual infrastructure to allow it to be developed wouldn't exist. Not to mention the fact that you also wouldn't have all the tools that have allowed it to be written. Or did you perhaps think that gcc et al just sprang from the aether fully formed?
If anyone is riding on anyone's coat tails it's Linus riding on Stallman's.
*shrug* my PowerMac came with a 9800Pro. Perhaps you should have specced your machine properly for its purpose?
In any case, when my brother in law and nephew come round to play Warcraft3 we use my Powerbook and my wife's G4 iMac (as well as my PowerMac) and whilst the iMac chugs a little the rest work just fine. (You see I paid a little extra to boost the PowerBook's graphics memory: just because a PC user starts buying Macs isn't an excuse to leave your brain switched off).
You're completely and utterly ignorant.
Whilst you can run X under OSX, and it does quite a nice job of it these days, the real OSX GUI is Aqua which is super fast.
Really, the difference between OSX and Linux is as big as the difference between Linux and Windows.