Regarding your Pareto principle, the actual statistic is 90% of users only use 10% of the feature on aggregate. The problem is that every individual in the 90% uses a different 10%. Microsoft telemetry backs this up
I don't believe it for a minute. In my experience users of a application such as Word tend to take on new features in a pretty similar progression.
For sure I know Microsoft have CLAIMED everyone needs a different 20% (or 10%). But I think that's just marketing for the overblown apps they have, set against the simpler rivals.
Actually laymen tend to think carbon fibre is very cool. It actually gets used in a lot of gift products that have little or no justification for it's combination of lightness and strength. E.g. Carbon fibre lighters, pens, smartphone cases.
The nonsense is you believing that the supply over all unskilled work, globally, has to be reduced. It's like you've never heard of the term "oversupply". In the work market it's called "unemployment".
The reason I might have read it elsewhere, and not what you wrote, is that this is the way it works, therefore it's written about. You don't even have an argument for your drivel. And it's certainly not been written about by anyone else.
I'd say a minority are about that. The majority look to be about keeping them safe, informed and giving them a sense of closure. All of which they deserve, and are not to do with vengeance, but simply to help them move on with their lives.
You talk about about the totalitarian regime in the North, conveniently ignoring the US interference in the south, including US backed coups, and US backed fraudulent elections. There was nothing more democratic about the south. It was a US puppet, every bit as totalitarian as the north.
This idea that the US intervention in foreign countries is about bringing democracy is nonsense.
Then you wander into a Godwin's law issue, equating a side convenient to your beliefs with the nazis.
At the time of WWII, the US still tried to keep out of foreign wars. They only got involved when they themselves were attacked. And then finally came to the aid of an ally that had been invaded (the UK).
By the time of Vietnam, the US was meddling in foreign affairs, and actively creating proxy wars to attack the notion of communism.
The US participation in the two wars is not comparable, nor are very different opponents of those two wars in any way comparable.
The problem though is that the elegant code was significantly slower by far, using the compilers and processors at that time. DD was indeed faster.
Right. But the request was for elegant code, not optimised code.
Switch fall through is a good thing in many cases. Sure it freaks out the code purists who vastly prefer fully structured code and who will intentionally add lots of state variables merely to avoid a sinful "break" or early "return".
Hey your welcome to your opinion. But switch fall through certainly isn't elegant.
It would be it it primarily was about victim's having a say in sentencing. And maybe it is in the hands of cable news pundits. But it looks to me like the law includes a few valuable rights for vitims that are not about vengeance. This from Wiki:
"Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 The Crime Victims' Rights Act, part of the Justice for All Act of 2004, enumerates the rights afforded to victims in federal criminal cases. The Act grants victims the following rights:[14] The right to protection from the accused, The right to notification, The right not to be excluded from proceedings, The right to speak at criminal justice proceedings, The right to consult with the prosecuting attorney, The right to restitution, The right to a proceedings free from unreasonable delay, The right to be treated with fairness, and respect for the victims' dignity and privacy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
Certainly when I've been a victim of crime in the UK, I've been appalled at the way I haven't been informed of court dates and outcomes. It's only fair a victim should know what happened in the court case.
Supply and demand only work if the supply goes away if the demand does, and the other way round.
I'm afraid you don't understand supply and demand. If demand falls you end up with oversupply initially, which lowers the price. Suppliers either suffer through what they believe is a temporary lack of demand, go bankrupt, or change to supplying another thing. All these things also happen in the low wage labour market. Burger flippers can also do any other form of unskilled labour. There's always a good supply for unskilled labour of any kind, so the wages are low.
The only thing that stops labour being a perfect supply and demand situation, is that workers generally won't accept variable pay. It's OK to pay them more, but cutting wages inevitably leads to problems.
But the market wages are set by long term expectations of supply and demand of labour.
The belief in "the market" is religion here, and has no resemblance to observable facts.
You seem to mistake me for someone who worships the market. You couldn't be more wrong. I think the market stinks. But it is the reason for the gross differences in wages. Low paid jobs aren't low paid because the people in them don't care. Though the reverse is often true.
but there are plenty of circumstances where it's a good idea to have a group of cases that all do the same thing
That doesn't require fall through. Consider Pascal:
case i of
0 : Write('zero');
1 : Write('one');
2 : Write('two');
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10: Write('?') end;
Real structure. No fall through. Neater. Less bug prone.
or where you want to do case A and B's actions for case B, etc.
Did you mean case A and B's actions for case A? Because assuming the implication that case A comes before case B, that's what fall through in the C language gives you. It doesn't give you what you wrote you want.
Far better to be explicit and put the common code into a method of it's own, and call it explicitly from the cases you need, and in the place in the code you need it. Not only is that far more readable than C fall through, far less bug prone, but also is far more flexible in what you can achieve.
Indeed. And when I was at university, reduction of the ability of a criminal to commit further crime by physically locking him up in prison was a part of deterrence.
Open University A102. Crime and Punishment module.
On the other hand there was plenty of denial by others in the USA at the time about the war crimes that the US military were committing on the Vietnamese, both soldiers and civilians. However, those comments are conveniently forgotten in the mists of time.
There were a lot of war crimes on both sides that weren't generally known at the time. In these days of the internet and even even international TV and easy telephony, it's easy to forget how little was known about what was happening in foreign wars.
All in all, I can't say that the US comes out of the balance smelling any sweeter than the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong.
You apparently are out of touch with reality my friend. There are plenty of studies that show exactly what I just said
Your right wing political views are not "reality". And asserting that there are "plenty of studies" does not make it so.
, but they are not even really necessary to understand that an incarcerated or a dead criminal cannot commit crimes against society.
I've already pointed out to you that there is no dispute about the deterrence (including isolation) aspects of punishment. The ideological difference is on the retribution/rehabilitation axis.
Trouble is that outside of your right wing fevered rants, you cannot execute or give life imprisonment to those who have committed less than the most serious offences. Therefore you have to give thought to what happens when burglars and muggers finish their sentences and go back onto the street.
For sure, recidivism of ex-cons is high. And the number of prisoners that actively want to improve their minds is probably a minority. But those aren't the relevant issues. The question is: for those that do want books, which will produce the lower recidivism rate: letting them have the books, or denying them the books.
I'm afraid you are wrong. There's no such thing in criminology as "insulation", you're making it up as you go along.
Meanwhile: "Incapacitation is considered by some to be a subset of specific deterrence. Incapacitation aims to prevent future crimes not by rehabilitating the individual but rather from taking away his ability to commit such acts. Under this theory, criminals are put in jail not so that they will learn the consequence of their actions but rather so that while they are there, they will be unable to engage in crime." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
It's not "big bulky packages", it's any packages. And it's part of a raft of prison rule changes under the heading of privileges. So the minister's claim that it's about hidden drugs is simply untrue.
Yes, I'm sure in a place where criminals are using cigarettes as currency, the ownership of Kindle's would be highly respected. No chance of thefts and the ensuing violence there.
Slashdot Mirror
Your doubts don't count for much given that Microsoft has also released MS Office for Android already. Check out the tabs for the platforms supported.
http://office.microsoft.com/en...
I'm afraid you're just demonstrating that you're a student with no real business experience.
Regarding your Pareto principle, the actual statistic is 90% of users only use 10% of the feature on aggregate. The problem is that every individual in the 90% uses a different 10%. Microsoft telemetry backs this up
I don't believe it for a minute. In my experience users of a application such as Word tend to take on new features in a pretty similar progression.
For sure I know Microsoft have CLAIMED everyone needs a different 20% (or 10%). But I think that's just marketing for the overblown apps they have, set against the simpler rivals.
Actually laymen tend to think carbon fibre is very cool. It actually gets used in a lot of gift products that have little or no justification for it's combination of lightness and strength. E.g. Carbon fibre lighters, pens, smartphone cases.
The nonsense is you believing that the supply over all unskilled work, globally, has to be reduced. It's like you've never heard of the term "oversupply". In the work market it's called "unemployment".
The reason I might have read it elsewhere, and not what you wrote, is that this is the way it works, therefore it's written about. You don't even have an argument for your drivel. And it's certainly not been written about by anyone else.
Civilised society doesn't work like that.
The law doesn't work like that. But as individuals it's absolutely fine for us to be happy when something bad happens to a malicious prick.
I'd say a minority are about that. The majority look to be about keeping them safe, informed and giving them a sense of closure. All of which they deserve, and are not to do with vengeance, but simply to help them move on with their lives.
You talk about about the totalitarian regime in the North, conveniently ignoring the US interference in the south, including US backed coups, and US backed fraudulent elections. There was nothing more democratic about the south. It was a US puppet, every bit as totalitarian as the north.
This idea that the US intervention in foreign countries is about bringing democracy is nonsense.
Then you wander into a Godwin's law issue, equating a side convenient to your beliefs with the nazis.
At the time of WWII, the US still tried to keep out of foreign wars. They only got involved when they themselves were attacked. And then finally came to the aid of an ally that had been invaded (the UK).
By the time of Vietnam, the US was meddling in foreign affairs, and actively creating proxy wars to attack the notion of communism.
The US participation in the two wars is not comparable, nor are very different opponents of those two wars in any way comparable.
The problem though is that the elegant code was significantly slower by far, using the compilers and processors at that time. DD was indeed faster.
Right. But the request was for elegant code, not optimised code.
Switch fall through is a good thing in many cases. Sure it freaks out the code purists who vastly prefer fully structured code and who will intentionally add lots of state variables merely to avoid a sinful "break" or early "return".
Hey your welcome to your opinion. But switch fall through certainly isn't elegant.
It would be it it primarily was about victim's having a say in sentencing. And maybe it is in the hands of cable news pundits. But it looks to me like the law includes a few valuable rights for vitims that are not about vengeance. This from Wiki:
"Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004
The Crime Victims' Rights Act, part of the Justice for All Act of 2004, enumerates the rights afforded to victims in federal criminal cases. The Act grants victims the following rights:[14]
The right to protection from the accused,
The right to notification,
The right not to be excluded from proceedings,
The right to speak at criminal justice proceedings,
The right to consult with the prosecuting attorney,
The right to restitution,
The right to a proceedings free from unreasonable delay,
The right to be treated with fairness, and respect for the victims' dignity and privacy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
Certainly when I've been a victim of crime in the UK, I've been appalled at the way I haven't been informed of court dates and outcomes. It's only fair a victim should know what happened in the court case.
Supply and demand only work if the supply goes away if the demand does, and the other way round.
I'm afraid you don't understand supply and demand. If demand falls you end up with oversupply initially, which lowers the price. Suppliers either suffer through what they believe is a temporary lack of demand, go bankrupt, or change to supplying another thing. All these things also happen in the low wage labour market. Burger flippers can also do any other form of unskilled labour. There's always a good supply for unskilled labour of any kind, so the wages are low.
The only thing that stops labour being a perfect supply and demand situation, is that workers generally won't accept variable pay. It's OK to pay them more, but cutting wages inevitably leads to problems.
But the market wages are set by long term expectations of supply and demand of labour.
The belief in "the market" is religion here, and has no resemblance to observable facts.
You seem to mistake me for someone who worships the market. You couldn't be more wrong. I think the market stinks. But it is the reason for the gross differences in wages. Low paid jobs aren't low paid because the people in them don't care. Though the reverse is often true.
Again, your claim of "Bull" was to my point that nuclear energy kills through pollution. I never said it was more fatal than coal.
Your "bull" was just plain wrong. You're arguing a point I never made.
but there are plenty of circumstances where it's a good idea to have a group of cases that all do the same thing
That doesn't require fall through. Consider Pascal:
case i of
0 : Write('zero');
1 : Write('one');
2 : Write('two');
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10: Write('?')
end;
Real structure. No fall through. Neater. Less bug prone.
or where you want to do case A and B's actions for case B, etc.
Did you mean case A and B's actions for case A? Because assuming the implication that case A comes before case B, that's what fall through in the C language gives you. It doesn't give you what you wrote you want.
Far better to be explicit and put the common code into a method of it's own, and call it explicitly from the cases you need, and in the place in the code you need it. Not only is that far more readable than C fall through, far less bug prone, but also is far more flexible in what you can achieve.
Indeed. And when I was at university, reduction of the ability of a criminal to commit further crime by physically locking him up in prison was a part of deterrence.
Open University A102. Crime and Punishment module.
Well, yes, those were probably wrong.
On the other hand there was plenty of denial by others in the USA at the time about the war crimes that the US military were committing on the Vietnamese, both soldiers and civilians. However, those comments are conveniently forgotten in the mists of time.
There were a lot of war crimes on both sides that weren't generally known at the time. In these days of the internet and even even international TV and easy telephony, it's easy to forget how little was known about what was happening in foreign wars.
All in all, I can't say that the US comes out of the balance smelling any sweeter than the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong.
And you've now crossed the line into a level of childishness that's not worth pursuing.
You apparently are out of touch with reality my friend. There are plenty of studies that show exactly what I just said
Your right wing political views are not "reality". And asserting that there are "plenty of studies" does not make it so.
, but they are not even really necessary to understand that an incarcerated or a dead criminal cannot commit crimes against society.
I've already pointed out to you that there is no dispute about the deterrence (including isolation) aspects of punishment. The ideological difference is on the retribution/rehabilitation axis.
Trouble is that outside of your right wing fevered rants, you cannot execute or give life imprisonment to those who have committed less than the most serious offences. Therefore you have to give thought to what happens when burglars and muggers finish their sentences and go back onto the street.
I'm sorry my use of technical terms doesn't match your colloquial making-it-up-as-you-go-along expectations.
You've based it on nothing but your feelings and the norms of your politics. Not one iota of evidence informs your point of view.
Some, including the people who wrote my university textbook.
Obviously you are part of these "some" unenlightened people who like to borrow meanings and give them to words that never had those extra meanings. ;)
No, that would be your entirely invented criminology term of "insulation".
For sure, recidivism of ex-cons is high. And the number of prisoners that actively want to improve their minds is probably a minority. But those aren't the relevant issues. The question is: for those that do want books, which will produce the lower recidivism rate: letting them have the books, or denying them the books.
And your point of view is exactly what one would expect from someone on the far right. As I mentioned earlier.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
It's an emotional and political view, not one based on evidence of most effective results.
I'm afraid you are wrong. There's no such thing in criminology as "insulation", you're making it up as you go along.
Meanwhile:
"Incapacitation is considered by some to be a subset of specific deterrence. Incapacitation aims to prevent future crimes not by rehabilitating the individual but rather from taking away his ability to commit such acts. Under this theory, criminals are put in jail not so that they will learn the consequence of their actions but rather so that while they are there, they will be unable to engage in crime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
It's not "big bulky packages", it's any packages. And it's part of a raft of prison rule changes under the heading of privileges. So the minister's claim that it's about hidden drugs is simply untrue.
Yes, I'm sure in a place where criminals are using cigarettes as currency, the ownership of Kindle's would be highly respected. No chance of thefts and the ensuing violence there.