Let's a hope a scientist or two was accidentally left behind in the generator room. This planet really could use some new super heroes right about now!
Why would size be a changeable property in the first place? In geometry, objects certainly don't change size once they exist. If yours do, you're doing some kind of animation, and probably have no use for squares anyway.
Perhaps the pattern missing here is Complete Construction. If some property is unchangeable, it should be set at construction time, and never be changed. The class interface needs to reflect this, so in this case we would have a Square constructor taking one argument, a Rectangle constructor taking two arguments, and no setSize() method.
Inheritance is overused by people who don't know what they're doing, but the same can be said about the inheritance backlash. I meet many developers who avoid inheritance, but few who can explain why and when.
The perpetrators of the London bombings, the Madrid bombing, the Istanbul bombing, the Bali bombing, and the 9/11 attacks aren't interested in "humanitarian work" or in "progress". They are interested in defeating the West and putting it under fundamentalist Islamic rule. They have never made any secret of it.
Where do you get that from?
The statements I've seen from Bin Laden has only dealt with the (perceieved) need to repel Jewish and Christian invaders of Muslim lands, such as Palestine, Chechnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and others.
That world view and agenda has a lot of problems of course, but it's very far from any desire to rule America, that you claim they have "never made any secret of". So where are the public and unambigous statements to that effect?
The point you're missing is that government can hand out other punsihments than jailtime. In this case the punishment is a few years jail time, and life time of reporting where you live. So when they get out of jail, they have in fact not been deemed punished/rehabilitated, their punishment has just entered it's second stage.
I assume you're OK with life time jail sentences, so a weaker punishment like this should not offend you from any humanitarian standpoint. Just realize it is a life long sentence, but of something milder than jail.
I don't know where you get your hierarchy of rights that tells you privacy is more fundamental than travel. I would certainly prefer reporting where I am to not being allowed to travel. The thing that offends me is that felons lose their right to vote. Now that's a fundamental right that politicians should not be allowed to selectively take away from their voters.
Having said all that it may surprise you to learn that I don't like this system one bit. I think we agree that the punishment is often way out of proportion to the crime. Maybe it reflects an American sexual neurosis more than any quest for justice.
Their set of rights is smaller than yours or mine. Why? They'd done the time.
and then you answer it yourself:
Their rights and liberty have been deprived as punishment.
But then you go on like you have no idea what you just said. It makes my head hurt!
The basic idea is that when you violate the rights of others, you forfeit your own. Both locking people up and forcing them to publish where they live are violations of the rights of free people. You seem to accept one, but not the other. I see no principled reason for the distinction.
I moved to the US 10 years ago, and haven't had any difficulty either. But I do have to spend more brainpower and time on the task here than in my native Sweden.
I'm old enough to remember the time before remote controls. I never had any problem controlling my tv or stereo back then, but that doesn't mean remote controls are useless.
The batteries get all their energy from the gasoline engine.
So if these batteries are 3 times better, it means the regular batteries throw away at least 2/3 of that energy. That seems impossible in several different ways.
You assume that they sell AACs ripped from CDs. But they are actually made from the master recordings. The CD transfers are limited by their 16 bit limit. The AAC transfers have other limitations, but AFAIK it's perfectly possible that they actually sound better than CDs.
And even if the CD versions are actually better, which I admit is likely, the real question is how significant it is. To call it "mediocre", it can't be a small difference.
All I wonder is if someone has done a somewhat serious investigation of it. I've seen a *lot* of people claim that the quality is bad, but I've *never* seen any listening facts to back it up.
Just out of curiosity, if someone provided you with some "documantation", would iTunes music suddenly sound not-as good as CD?
This is a very strange thing to ask. I hear what I hear.
First of all, this is at +2 while I'm at -1 Troll??
Yes. The act of lossy compression throws away some of the music.
So does the transfer from master tapes to CD format. The question is if the transfer from master tapes to iTunes format lose more, and if it is enough to make it a significant impacy on audible sound quality.
Any documentation of this would have to involve actual listening by people.
I never claimed there was no difference, only that I can't hear one. I'd be interested to know if there's been some serious listening testing and what its results were. I've seen a lot of these claims, and they've never ever had any facts to back them up.
All hail the power of no-nothing.
I tend to check my spelling when I accuse others of ignorance. I find it just gets less ironically embarrasing that way.
...and another was the reappearance of Steve Jobs, who clearly favoured an OS based upon NeXT's OS, whether for technical reasons or personal vanity and vindication.
Actually Jobs came into Apple as part of the deal to buy NeXT, so he really had no say about whether Apple should buy Be or NeXT.
After that he and the NeXT people proceeded to quickly take over the entire company astonishingly fast, but that's an other story.
I think everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, my biggest annoyance with the whole Evolution vs. Creation argument is that there is no definitive way to prove it - at least not definitive enough for me.
But there is never a way to prove a scientific theory. All you can ever say is that it explains all your relevant data well. And Evolution meets this test.
What you can do with a scientific theory is to disprove it. Evolution can be disproved, but creationism can't.
That's actually a large part of the attraction. The O.C. is a soap opera on steroids. You get all the cliches of the genre, but done very smartly and 4 times as fast. What a traditional soap opera drags out for half a season, the O.C. fits in three episodes, with a twist, and with room to spare.
One fairly serious human limitation is the speed of nerve signals. There's about a 100 ms lag between the brain and the hand, longer for the feet.
Not that that's not adequate for everyday life, but if the nerves could somehow be rewired to use this channel instead, reaction times could be seriously lowered with very interesting consequences in several different fields, such as sport, combat, driving or any other physical activity where speed matters.
I realize this will not happen tomorrow, but OTOH I can't think of any fundamental reason that it's impossible.
A big reason it got expensive is that nuclear power has to be thousands of times more safe than other power production, due to the widespread fear of anything "nuclear". At comparable security levels, nuclear power is cheaper than pretty much anything.
Most fascinating to me is that the extreme security measures are then taken as a sign of how dangerous the technology is, and used to spread more fear. It's the perfect circular argument.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same in all stories. Maybe the moderation system has been retuned, so there are much fewer moderators, or sumtin.
Let's a hope a scientist or two was accidentally left behind in the generator room. This planet really could use some new super heroes right about now!
Why would size be a changeable property in the first place? In geometry, objects certainly don't change size once they exist. If yours do, you're doing some kind of animation, and probably have no use for squares anyway.
Perhaps the pattern missing here is Complete Construction. If some property is unchangeable, it should be set at construction time, and never be changed. The class interface needs to reflect this, so in this case we would have a Square constructor taking one argument, a Rectangle constructor taking two arguments, and no setSize() method.
Inheritance is overused by people who don't know what they're doing, but the same can be said about the inheritance backlash. I meet many developers who avoid inheritance, but few who can explain why and when.
It's just Big Boned!
Macintel?
The perpetrators of the London bombings, the Madrid bombing, the Istanbul bombing, the Bali bombing, and the 9/11 attacks aren't interested in "humanitarian work" or in "progress". They are interested in defeating the West and putting it under fundamentalist Islamic rule. They have never made any secret of it.
Where do you get that from?
The statements I've seen from Bin Laden has only dealt with the (perceieved) need to repel Jewish and Christian invaders of Muslim lands, such as Palestine, Chechnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and others.
That world view and agenda has a lot of problems of course, but it's very far from any desire to rule America, that you claim they have "never made any secret of". So where are the public and unambigous statements to that effect?
The point you're missing is that government can hand out other punsihments than jailtime. In this case the punishment is a few years jail time, and life time of reporting where you live. So when they get out of jail, they have in fact not been deemed punished/rehabilitated, their punishment has just entered it's second stage.
I assume you're OK with life time jail sentences, so a weaker punishment like this should not offend you from any humanitarian standpoint. Just realize it is a life long sentence, but of something milder than jail.
I don't know where you get your hierarchy of rights that tells you privacy is more fundamental than travel. I would certainly prefer reporting where I am to not being allowed to travel. The thing that offends me is that felons lose their right to vote. Now that's a fundamental right that politicians should not be allowed to selectively take away from their voters.
Having said all that it may surprise you to learn that I don't like this system one bit. I think we agree that the punishment is often way out of proportion to the crime. Maybe it reflects an American sexual neurosis more than any quest for justice.
OK, first you ask the question...
Their set of rights is smaller than yours or mine. Why? They'd done the time.
and then you answer it yourself:
Their rights and liberty have been deprived as punishment.
But then you go on like you have no idea what you just said. It makes my head hurt!
The basic idea is that when you violate the rights of others, you forfeit your own. Both locking people up and forcing them to publish where they live are violations of the rights of free people. You seem to accept one, but not the other. I see no principled reason for the distinction.
Commenting on this part only.
Elin Nordegren, to whom Tiger Woods is married, would never have ended up with a guy like Tiger if he had not been worth $500 million+.
I disagree. Being the best golfer in the world is a huge chick magnet, whether it pays millions or not.
Frome the article; Sagitaron representative Tom Zarek, played by Richard Hatch
Is that that Richard Hatch?? Fat naked gay survivor winner Richard Hatch?
I moved to the US 10 years ago, and haven't had any difficulty either. But I do have to spend more brainpower and time on the task here than in my native Sweden.
I'm old enough to remember the time before remote controls. I never had any problem controlling my tv or stereo back then, but that doesn't mean remote controls are useless.
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who do not have it"
George Bernard Shaw.
The batteries get all their energy from the gasoline engine.
So if these batteries are 3 times better, it means the regular batteries throw away at least 2/3 of that energy. That seems impossible in several different ways.
That's a good point, and *if* the sound is markedly worse, that is true.
I see a lot of people claiming it is, including you, but I've yet to see any supporting evidence.
You assume that they sell AACs ripped from CDs. But they are actually made from the master recordings. The CD transfers are limited by their 16 bit limit. The AAC transfers have other limitations, but AFAIK it's perfectly possible that they actually sound better than CDs.
And even if the CD versions are actually better, which I admit is likely, the real question is how significant it is. To call it "mediocre", it can't be a small difference.
All I wonder is if someone has done a somewhat serious investigation of it. I've seen a *lot* of people claim that the quality is bad, but I've *never* seen any listening facts to back it up.
Just out of curiosity, if someone provided you with some "documantation", would iTunes music suddenly sound not-as good as CD?
This is a very strange thing to ask. I hear what I hear.
First of all, this is at +2 while I'm at -1 Troll??
Yes. The act of lossy compression throws away some of the music.
So does the transfer from master tapes to CD format. The question is if the transfer from master tapes to iTunes format lose more, and if it is enough to make it a significant impacy on audible sound quality.
Any documentation of this would have to involve actual listening by people.
I never claimed there was no difference, only that I can't hear one. I'd be interested to know if there's been some serious listening testing and what its results were. I've seen a lot of these claims, and they've never ever had any facts to back them up.
All hail the power of no-nothing.
I tend to check my spelling when I accuse others of ignorance. I find it just gets less ironically embarrasing that way.
But you can do anything with iTunes music that you can do with a CD.
You can very easily burn an actual CD from it, which works like any other CD.
Do you have any documantation of the "mediocre quality" claim? It sounds just as good as CD to me.
They can either lose money, or they can give us what we want. Its their choice.
The key word here is "giving". They'll hardly make money doing that either.
...and another was the reappearance of Steve Jobs, who clearly favoured an OS based upon NeXT's OS, whether for technical reasons or personal vanity and vindication.
Actually Jobs came into Apple as part of the deal to buy NeXT, so he really had no say about whether Apple should buy Be or NeXT.
After that he and the NeXT people proceeded to quickly take over the entire company astonishingly fast, but that's an other story.
I think everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, my biggest annoyance with the whole Evolution vs. Creation argument is that there is no definitive way to prove it - at least not definitive enough for me.
But there is never a way to prove a scientific theory. All you can ever say is that it explains all your relevant data well. And Evolution meets this test.
What you can do with a scientific theory is to disprove it. Evolution can be disproved, but creationism can't.
That's actually a large part of the attraction. The O.C. is a soap opera on steroids. You get all the cliches of the genre, but done very smartly and 4 times as fast. What a traditional soap opera drags out for half a season, the O.C. fits in three episodes, with a twist, and with room to spare.
I actually met the guy who did the Picasso painting on the WHO head quarters in Geneva. And he was not Picasso.
As it turned out, Picasso could and did provide him with a detailed explanation of what to paint.
I realize this has no real bearing on your actual point, but still...
One fairly serious human limitation is the speed of nerve signals. There's about a 100 ms lag between the brain and the hand, longer for the feet.
Not that that's not adequate for everyday life, but if the nerves could somehow be rewired to use this channel instead, reaction times could be seriously lowered with very interesting consequences in several different fields, such as sport, combat, driving or any other physical activity where speed matters.
I realize this will not happen tomorrow, but OTOH I can't think of any fundamental reason that it's impossible.
Most unexpected!
A big reason it got expensive is that nuclear power has to be thousands of times more safe than other power production, due to the widespread fear of anything "nuclear". At comparable security levels, nuclear power is cheaper than pretty much anything.
Most fascinating to me is that the extreme security measures are then taken as a sign of how dangerous the technology is, and used to spread more fear. It's the perfect circular argument.
...as if millions of slashdotters all posted the same joke about the Royal Navy's web server going down. I fear something terrible has happened.