So basically you are saying murder is OK. Wow. Innocent until proven guilty but that takes some really... interesting thinking to claim that murder is somehow forgivable.
There are two arguments for prisons: punitive and preventative.
Regarding the second, preventative, it is fairly clear that locking this woman away would not prevent any further crimes - she has not done anything in criminal (apparently) in over 30 years. There would be societal benefit to putting her away.
Further, if she IS innocent and wrongly charged (as she claims), then there's no reason to put her away at all. If she is guilty, she has proven that it was a mistake that she will not repeat, so no one is in danger because of her being free.
Regarding the first, purely punitive, then you are right, but I would argue that punitive prisons are a backwards notion that does not serve society in any way - this is essentially societal revenge, which does not sound like a reasonable way for society to exist. There is such a thing as forgive and forget - but ONLY if it is clear that the person will not do it again. People make mistakes, people can get crazy, and people can be wrongly tried. If it's clear that the person is no longer a threat to society, then (this is not a rhetorical question) what is the point of locking them up? Who does it benefit?
For the entirety of the space race, we have been using digital photography.
Wasn't it actually analog, electronic photography? Like they've had for video since at least the 1950s - this thing called television.:) Which definitely was _not_ digital photography.
When questioned by police, Rory says he and his sister went down to the basement as soon as they arrived at his grandmother's house, leaving his parents upstairs. A few minutes later, he heard them raising their voices and using "not nice words." He went back upstairs, but his father told him to go back to the basement. Rory turned and walked back downstairs. This was the last time he ever saw his mother.
and
After Nina disappeared, the Alameda County social services agency put Rory and Niorline in a foster home at the urging of police. Two weeks later, the county family court released them to Nina's mother, who took them to Russia for the holidays. It's now late January. They were supposed to return weeks ago. Instead, a letter arrived from a lawyer in Russia, explaining that the kids were terrified of the US and would not return.
as potentially implying a kidnapping conspiracy? particularly since they are now somewhat outside of the jurisdiction?... even if reiser is found innocent, what are the chances he can actually get his kids back? (not too familiar with international law in that respect)
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
does this study show what the lower-income earners are doing? are they buying _legitmate_ releases? or nothing at all, because even that would cost a lot?
this sounds like censoring.. if it isn't, can you please explain what you meant:
Well look around you, not everyone who has the ability to talk, should. If you look into recent history you will find that this is changing, as well it should. Not too long ago in Florida, a publisher was charged and found guilty to accessory to murder.
Sometimes I wonder if people read their own blogs. As a child of rape\ incest. I think that all moral adults should take a stand, not be so lazy and say "oh freedom of speech, blah blah blah, we can't take away their rights."
well, this could go the other way too.. by allowing anyone to speak, and encouraging it, we could have people create _awareness_ of problems so that children can know what is right and what is wrong - i believe it's true that in a lot of abuse cases in general, the victims don't feel they can do anything because they don't know that it is truly wrong, and that there is support out there. i think it's hard to argue that stifling that communication would be better than allowing it.
and i don't need to go down the dangerous path of censorship - other posters have done it better than me.. if we are only going to allow 'intelligent' people to speak, why not also only allow 'intelligent' people to vote? and who decides who is intelligent? the people in power?
it may be the case that a few sites are actually causing child abuse of varying kinds - just like it may be the case that a few violent movies and video games actually somehow cause violence. i don't know if i believe it's the case, but it's possible. but that argument has been made before - there was abuse, there was violence. and it is not clear to me that the benefits of freedom of speech (AWARENESS) could ever be less than the alleged problems. it may even help people to cope with their desires to do something bad, if they find the right outlet.
and, to digress a little, if the internet existed 50 years ago, might we be having these same discussions about homosexuals?
For the most part, this is a good thing, the freedom to associate with people that think like you and want to live life like you. But you should be aware what happens when you let your highly distilled social circles decide your social norms as opposed to checking out what your average neighbor and townsfolk are thinking about it.
i wonder what the average neighbor and townsfolk would think about, say, a young boy who thinks he might be gay.
Any of the states using a nuke will result in their elimination - deterance.
Perhaps, but it's been pointed out that in the 'era' of jihadists, suicide bombers, etc, that if you get destroyed in a noble war you will be greatly rewarded in heaven.
This is true, but there is no reason that the level of abstraction needs to be the same as it was 20 years ago. Once you are a hard-core programmer, you are free to learn the lower or higher level as you see fit/need to.
The "scripting" languages that serve as entry-level tools for today's aspiring programmers -- like Perl and Python -- don't make this experience accessible to students in the same way. BASIC was close enough to the algorithm that you could actually follow the reasoning of the machine as it made choices and followed logical pathways.
What the author describes here in the article is just the specific 'sweet-spot' that existed for him and many others 20 years ago, but it wasn't necessary. I'm sure 20 years ago people were complaining that learning this code was not right - you needed to know the actual machine code, or the layout of the processor internally, what registers mean, etc. There are always levels of abstraction, but attaching such and important meaning to "the way I learned things" when there really isn't one is kind of meaningless, I think.
ok, don't take this as flame-bait or anything, because i've often really wondered the answer to my question, which in this case is in response to:
"Don't go back to school, just program some games yourself!" That's hard to do when you've got a full-time job and a commute, so I decided going back to school was the best thing to do in my case.
School is expensive, but having a job that you love doing is worth any amount of money.
But isn't going to school and not having a job _more_ expensive than just quitting your job and coding up some games on your own? (Assuming no scholarship, obviously).
I've always considered anything done in public (i.e. within the reach of CCTV) to be in the public space and not protected from regular CCTV surveillence - I don't really care if some security guard sees me doing anything I'd be prepared to do in public.
I used to think this too - but it's similar to the "I don't mind if people search my bags, I'm not doing anything illegal".
The more obvious point is that there may eventually be introduced a law which makes something you do or want to do illegal (nazi style). The less obvious (and maybe more important) point is that there are things people do that aren't illegal, that they want to be discreet about - and I don't mean things like cheating on the wife. Maybe things like going to gay clubs (or any clubs). Private aspects of the life - which, yes, you had a chance of being discovered while doing, but that chance much increases with the coalescing of knowledge that's happening due to technology..
There are things that society or certain people wouldn't approve of that are entirely your business, but entirely learnable about you given enough surveillance.
how did they get around the fact that async designs require a LOT more logic than sync ones? (i ask you since you seem to know that "we really know how to make them [now]")....
The question we should ask here is what punishment is the most effective in preventing future acts, not what is 'fair' in relation to other crimes.
This doesn't really make any sense. This implies we should have the death penalty for every crime, no matter how small - because that would be the best preventative. Hey, even better - how about we kill your whole family too? No one would litter or double-park again!
Yeah but saying "to the nearest five" doesn't accurately describe what to do when the number ends in a 3 or 7 (in this case, round up for 3 and down for 7).
err, how do you figure that? 7 is closer to 5 than it is to 10. the equivelent to 3 in the next grouping is 3+5=8....
while i agree with some of your sentiment (being an ex-digital alpah group employee), i do have to question/point out some things:
Mercedes was supposed to be here by 1997
are you sure about that year? i know they had started designing it by then, but that seems a bit early for it to have actually ever been predicted to have come out, given the at least 4 year chip development cycle at intel.
Carly Fiona you mean Carly Fiorina?:)
The premise behind VLIW was that as chip says limits things you can do with hardware there needs to be a shift to software and leave the fast ram (cache) on the chip. Turns out huge improvements in fabrication made this argument false and somethings like branch predictions just can't be done in software. Fast dedicated hardware is faster than software. Who came up with this idea of moving optimization to software?
I honestly don't understand the first sentence at all, and have no idea what you mean by "huge improvements in fabrication made this argumen t false"...?
The main benefit the Intel designers saw in a VLIW-type architecture, as I understood it, were that they could explicitly easily state parallelizable instructions - thus giving more explicit instruction level parallelism to the processor. there was never any talk of doing branch prediction - or ANY optimizations - in software during runtime. All optimizations done in software for VLIW are done at compile time. In fact, that's the main argument against VLIW - is that we already do a lot of those optimizations anyway, and that modern compilers for superscalar processors output pseudo-VLIW code anyway, so perhaps there isn't much to be gained. Itanium obviously still does a lot of optimizations in the hardware, including branch prediction..
Looking forward to elaboration on what I didn't understand in your post, though, to help clear things up. It helps to get the sentence structure right;)
"Sales of Intel-based desktop PCs fell 22.3 percent during the fourth quarter, according to Current Analysis. As a result, sales of AMD-based desktops took the lead during the pivotal fourth-quarter holiday shopping season. AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."
This appears to apply to premade PCs only. I wonder how the statistics differ when you look at the raw number of processors purchased - I imagine that that market could be pretty different.
actually, it was 1982 (or 1983?) that they switched over from copper to zinc pennies (for the reason that the pennies were suddenly worth more than $.01 in copper).
and here's a tip on how to figure out if a given penny is copper or not. if it "dings", it's copper. if it doesn't "ding", it's zinc. an easy way to test this is to drop it, or if you can, spin it in the air (a coin flip). a copper penny will ring while it's spinning, a zinc one will not.
The difference between gigabit and gigabyte needs to be explained on Slashdot about as much as the difference between the Moon and the Sun needs to be explained to astronomers.
if you scroll down on that link, w3schools goes out of their way to say that these statistics may not be meaningful or representative of anything beyond their site. at the top they say so as well (regarding browser type).
never mind that there may be people running a legacy version of an OS that barely ever go online - i know many people like that. they wouldn't show up in browser-collected statistics. by using browser statistics you're already skewing the results.
2005 will be forever seen as the year in which the US government managed to keep unilateral control of the internet...
Yea, never mind things like the Tsunami or Katrina or in the U.S. all of the controversies in government... I'm sure when I'm 85 years old this is exactly what I'll remember about 2005.
Well, that may or may not be true. If it IS true that 2005 will be THE ONLY year that the US could have lost control of the internet and didn't, then that COULD (and could not) have more far-reaching effects into the future than these other things... If it does, then people will remember it more..:)
. But If you're going to make a blanket policy to protect one sex, then you should protect the other as well. Otherwise you say the "protected" sex is too weak to protect themselves and make decisions, while the "unprotected" gender isn't important enough to be protected.
Except that it's much more difficult/serious to donate ovaries.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two arguments for prisons: punitive and preventative.
Regarding the second, preventative, it is fairly clear that locking this woman away would not prevent any further crimes - she has not done anything in criminal (apparently) in over 30 years. There would be societal benefit to putting her away.
Further, if she IS innocent and wrongly charged (as she claims), then there's no reason to put her away at all. If she is guilty, she has proven that it was a mistake that she will not repeat, so no one is in danger because of her being free.
Regarding the first, purely punitive, then you are right, but I would argue that punitive prisons are a backwards notion that does not serve society in any way - this is essentially societal revenge, which does not sound like a reasonable way for society to exist. There is such a thing as forgive and forget - but ONLY if it is clear that the person will not do it again. People make mistakes, people can get crazy, and people can be wrongly tried. If it's clear that the person is no longer a threat to society, then (this is not a rhetorical question) what is the point of locking them up? Who does it benefit?
Wasn't it actually analog, electronic photography? Like they've had for video since at least the 1950s - this thing called television.
When questioned by police, Rory says he and his sister went down to the basement as soon as they arrived at his grandmother's house, leaving his parents upstairs. A few minutes later, he heard them raising their voices and using "not nice words." He went back upstairs, but his father told him to go back to the basement. Rory turned and walked back downstairs. This was the last time he ever saw his mother.
and
After Nina disappeared, the Alameda County social services agency put Rory and Niorline in a foster home at the urging of police. Two weeks later, the county family court released them to Nina's mother, who took them to Russia for the holidays. It's now late January. They were supposed to return weeks ago. Instead, a letter arrived from a lawyer in Russia, explaining that the kids were terrified of the US and would not return.
as potentially implying a kidnapping conspiracy? particularly since they are now somewhat outside of the jurisdiction?
once the privacy results are published, will i be able to google them?
does this study show what the lower-income earners are doing? are they buying _legitmate_ releases? or nothing at all, because even that would cost a lot?
this sounds like censoring.. if it isn't, can you please explain what you meant:
Well look around you, not everyone who has the ability to talk, should. If you look into recent history you will find that this is changing, as well it should. Not too long ago in Florida, a publisher was charged and found guilty to accessory to murder.
well, this could go the other way too.. by allowing anyone to speak, and encouraging it, we could have people create _awareness_ of problems so that children can know what is right and what is wrong - i believe it's true that in a lot of abuse cases in general, the victims don't feel they can do anything because they don't know that it is truly wrong, and that there is support out there. i think it's hard to argue that stifling that communication would be better than allowing it.
and i don't need to go down the dangerous path of censorship - other posters have done it better than me.. if we are only going to allow 'intelligent' people to speak, why not also only allow 'intelligent' people to vote? and who decides who is intelligent? the people in power?
it may be the case that a few sites are actually causing child abuse of varying kinds - just like it may be the case that a few violent movies and video games actually somehow cause violence. i don't know if i believe it's the case, but it's possible. but that argument has been made before - there was abuse, there was violence. and it is not clear to me that the benefits of freedom of speech (AWARENESS) could ever be less than the alleged problems. it may even help people to cope with their desires to do something bad, if they find the right outlet.
and, to digress a little, if the internet existed 50 years ago, might we be having these same discussions about homosexuals?
i wonder what the average neighbor and townsfolk would think about, say, a young boy who thinks he might be gay.
Perhaps, but it's been pointed out that in the 'era' of jihadists, suicide bombers, etc, that if you get destroyed in a noble war you will be greatly rewarded in heaven.
That doesn't sound like a deterrent to me...
Well, for one thing, cassettes and 8-tracks didn't sound better than vinyl.
(if anyone wants to argue that CDs don't either, that's already going on in this article - scroll down a bit)
The "scripting" languages that serve as entry-level tools for today's aspiring programmers -- like Perl and Python -- don't make this experience accessible to students in the same way. BASIC was close enough to the algorithm that you could actually follow the reasoning of the machine as it made choices and followed logical pathways.
What the author describes here in the article is just the specific 'sweet-spot' that existed for him and many others 20 years ago, but it wasn't necessary. I'm sure 20 years ago people were complaining that learning this code was not right - you needed to know the actual machine code, or the layout of the processor internally, what registers mean, etc. There are always levels of abstraction, but attaching such and important meaning to "the way I learned things" when there really isn't one is kind of meaningless, I think.
"Don't go back to school, just program some games yourself!" That's hard to do when you've got a full-time job and a commute, so I decided going back to school was the best thing to do in my case.
School is expensive, but having a job that you love doing is worth any amount of money.
But isn't going to school and not having a job _more_ expensive than just quitting your job and coding up some games on your own? (Assuming no scholarship, obviously).
I've always considered anything done in public (i.e. within the reach of CCTV) to be in the public space and not protected from regular CCTV surveillence - I don't really care if some security guard sees me doing anything I'd be prepared to do in public.
I used to think this too - but it's similar to the "I don't mind if people search my bags, I'm not doing anything illegal".
The more obvious point is that there may eventually be introduced a law which makes something you do or want to do illegal (nazi style).
The less obvious (and maybe more important) point is that there are things people do that aren't illegal, that they want to be discreet about - and I don't mean things like cheating on the wife. Maybe things like going to gay clubs (or any clubs). Private aspects of the life - which, yes, you had a chance of being discovered while doing, but that chance much increases with the coalescing of knowledge that's happening due to technology..
There are things that society or certain people wouldn't approve of that are entirely your business, but entirely learnable about you given enough surveillance.
how did they get around the fact that async designs require a LOT more logic than sync ones? (i ask you since you seem to know that "we really know how to make them [now]")....
This doesn't really make any sense. This implies we should have the death penalty for every crime, no matter how small - because that would be the best preventative. Hey, even better - how about we kill your whole family too? No one would litter or double-park again!
err, how do you figure that? 7 is closer to 5 than it is to 10. the equivelent to 3 in the next grouping is 3+5=8....
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
----- --------- ------
Mercedes was supposed to be here by 1997
are you sure about that year? i know they had started designing it by then, but that seems a bit early for it to have actually ever been predicted to have come out, given the at least 4 year chip development cycle at intel.
Carly Fiona :)
you mean Carly Fiorina?
The premise behind VLIW was that as chip says limits things you can do with hardware there needs to be a shift to software and leave the fast ram (cache) on the chip. Turns out huge improvements in fabrication made this argument false and somethings like branch predictions just can't be done in software. Fast dedicated hardware is faster than software. Who came up with this idea of moving optimization to software?
I honestly don't understand the first sentence at all, and have no idea what you mean by "huge improvements in fabrication made this argumen t false"...?
The main benefit the Intel designers saw in a VLIW-type architecture, as I understood it, were that they could explicitly easily state parallelizable instructions - thus giving more explicit instruction level parallelism to the processor. there was never any talk of doing branch prediction - or ANY optimizations - in software during runtime. All optimizations done in software for VLIW are done at compile time. In fact, that's the main argument against VLIW - is that we already do a lot of those optimizations anyway, and that modern compilers for superscalar processors output pseudo-VLIW code anyway, so perhaps there isn't much to be gained. Itanium obviously still does a lot of optimizations in the hardware, including branch prediction..
Looking forward to elaboration on what I didn't understand in your post, though, to help clear things up. It helps to get the sentence structure right ;)
This appears to apply to premade PCs only. I wonder how the statistics differ when you look at the raw number of processors purchased - I imagine that that market could be pretty different.
you could also just describe this as "rounding to the nearest five" :)
and here's a tip on how to figure out if a given penny is copper or not. if it "dings", it's copper. if it doesn't "ding", it's zinc. an easy way to test this is to drop it, or if you can, spin it in the air (a coin flip). a copper penny will ring while it's spinning, a zinc one will not.
one of them is closer - the brighter one.
never mind that there may be people running a legacy version of an OS that barely ever go online - i know many people like that. they wouldn't show up in browser-collected statistics. by using browser statistics you're already skewing the results.
hmm... could you explain why it is that you think ext3 is best for RAID?
Yea, never mind things like the Tsunami or Katrina or in the U.S. all of the controversies in government... I'm sure when I'm 85 years old this is exactly what I'll remember about 2005.
Well, that may or may not be true. If it IS true that 2005 will be THE ONLY year that the US could have lost control of the internet and didn't, then that COULD (and could not) have more far-reaching effects into the future than these other things... If it does, then people will remember it more.. :)
Except that it's much more difficult/serious to donate ovaries.