Mea Culpa. It may indeed well be that dot is used more commonly than the comma.
On the other hand, you seem to be the one having a problem with it - me, I'm fine with people using either. After all, in addition countries use other, special characters to separate hours and minutes and minutes and seconds (and separate again when minutes and seconds refer to angles, not time); or monetary units and subunits (and the special case of only an even number of units).
Most of the confusion, really, comes from the sometimes use of the comma as a thousands separator. Just use a space and all will be fine.
That's actually kinda funny, where I presently work, there's one guy in the office who's a total "segmentor." He gets the job done (as far as I know), he's a nice guy, causes no trouble, but socially he's totally aloof, doesn't even eat lunch with the rest of us.
Nope, he just sounds like a normal introvert. He may still think, eat and sleep work business, but he's not big on casual socializing.
The article's "segmentor" (I dislike the sound already) is someone who may be 110% gung-ho while at work, someone who bellows out the company anthem whenever he takes a dump - but leaves when work time ends and shuts work off completely the moment he comes home.
The division is easy, but too simplistic. I'm both: I do like to separate my work and my free time pretty cleanly. Because of that I actually appreciate my hour-long train commute as it creates a natural barrier and an external imposition to go to and from work at specified, reasonable hours.
At the same time I really, _really_ like my work, so I tend to mull things over on my off time, and idly reading up on background stuff I find interesting (and that incidentally is really helpful for work).
There is a real difference between wanting to be at work for long hours, and idly reflecting on interesting problems even when off duty.
Do you want the gain if that's what it is? because that's what the real gain is.
No, that's the gain of an overall physically active life. The gain you can get from bicycling to places rather than driving; of spending weekends walking around town, camera in hand rather than vegging out on a couch. The gain of eating well, and in moderation. There is no need whatsoever for actual sports to enter the picture.
It's been my experience that that's how a lot of the more "manly" men bond, by "giving each other shit." And you know what they say. "No pain, no gain."
If "manly men" bond by abusing people, count me out - I want nothing to do with it. I'll just be happy instead.
And I think you misunderstood my point. "No pain, no gain": I don't want the gain, whether the gain is running speed, ball-handling ability of some kind or expertise in lifting heavy objects only to immediately put them down again. I'm not interested in the gain. The gain is pointless, boring and uninteresting. I actively dislike pursuing the gain and accepting even the loss of otherwise productive time, never mind actual pain (which, as the name implies,hurts) is simply not an option.
There's nothing more encouraging than doing a couple more sit-ups than you ever did before.
That's the thing - for those of us that don't have a competitive streak and that do not find innate enjoyment in painful muscles, doing one sit-up is pointless, doing more is pointlessness multiplied, and actively trying to do more pointless sit-ups than you could do before looks like a sign of incipient OCD.
One part (not the biggest part, but one of them) of the problem with gym class is the implicit assumption that everybody is actually motivated (rather than turned off) by competition and improvement for its own sake, regardless of any outside point of the activity.
So, you want this basketball and throw it in the basket on our side of the court? Here, take it - I can just go get another ball of my own. No reason to fight over the same one.
Even if sports don't help children keep slim, it is proven that it helps adults (in addition to genetics and diet, of course). People who start out as active young children are probably more likely to stay active into adulthood, at least moreso than less active kids. So in that sense, by teaching kids to exercise and be fit, you will potentially increase adult fitness. This alone justifies fitness programs in school.
For a dumpy, awkward kid like myself, a school fitness program is an excellent way to guarantee a lifelong loathing of any kind of organized athletics. I guess if you're already fit, well-coordinated and into sports that it may be fun and motivating. For people like me gym class meant an hour of pain humiliation, ridicule and bullying - and that's just from the (no doubt) well-meaning teachers.
Kids that like athletics and take to it mostly would do sports by themselves anyhow. For kids that don't, school sports is a good way to ensure they never will.
Like you already have with "l", "I" and "1"; or "O" and "0"; or "V" and "U", depending on the particular font you happen to use?
Phishing attacks mostly works not because people can't see a minute difference between two lookalike letters; they work because as long as nothing is utterly obviously, grossly out of order people just assume they're in the right place. You can have domain names that aren't even close to the real one, and websites with only superficial similarities to the original and a lot of people will still be duped.
So you still need the old-style URLs or you'll need to explain how to get those umlauts etc to type in the url.
How often do you ever type in an URL in the first place? You get the link from another web site, from Google, in an email or wherever. And AFAIK, the fallback representation is no less readable and typeable than many current domain names.
Besides, if the website is already in the country's language, you won't be too likely to be interested in it anyway unless you know it (and, presumably, know how to type it).
The problem is that jimmy Wales has been going around touting wikipedia as a competitor to Britannica and other, more serious, encyclopedias. This just points out a major chink in wikipedia's armour: that it's largely predicated on unverified trust.
There is no problem with the standing of Wikipedia in the academic community. Nobody would find citing Wikipedia in a serious paper acceptable; this doesn't change it. The fallacy is is in the implicit assumption that something like Britannica would be.
Wikipedia, like Britannica, is great for quickly getting the basics on just about any subject (and Wikipedia more so than a standard encyclopedia due to its breadth). And neither Wikipedia nor Britannica has the depth or standing to be a first-class source to cite for a scholarly work. Neither is written to have such standing - and a good thing too; having every entry read like a journal paper would make them unusable for their real use of quick orientation to a subject.
I love the relative lack of configuration. I want to be doing my work, not spend my time tweaking how window borders should interact with each other.
Torvalds is a great coder - that does not make him good at usability. How his patches perform on a code level is really beside the point if they aren't actually good from an UI point of view (and no "this is great for how I work" is not a valid criterion).
I would normally agree with this sentiment, except in the context we have here. Cockfighting/dogfighting is against the law.
Is writing about it against the law, though? And if it is, should that not be an issue between the police and the publishers? If the magazines are legal to publish, Amazon has every right to sell them.
As for Amazon hanging up on them, well, you have the right to voice an objection but that doesn't mean they have to listen. If Amazon was deleting comments or otherwise preventing people from making their opinions known, that might be a case for freedom of speech...
Well, no. Amazon can within very broad limits decide what gets said and not on their site. "Free speech" is not a right you have on private property. They could pull most any kind of comments at impunity and your rights would pretty much extend to taking your comment business elsewehere.
Of course, the Human Society is claiming the material is illegal, and if that's true it adds a whole other aspect to the situation - but I don't know enough about whatever laws may apply so I can't comment on that.
More to the point, the Humane Society is not the arbiter of what is legal and not. And Amazon is not the publisher of the material. If the Humane Society has issues with the legality, they should get in contact with the police or a prosecutor, and address the magazine publishers, not Amazon.
They're just using harassment as a way to stop ideas they don't like - which, in the long run, probably harms their cause more than it helps. I'm very much against blood sport, but right now I feel like laying down a bet on a dogfight just to spite these hateful morons.
So some people are trying to silence magazines about a subject they object to, and Amazon refuses to be intimidated or allow them to intimidate others on their property. Sounds more like a good way to handle free speech to me.
I suspect the adult industry does decide the format war, and that the decision indirectly came before either format was even released. You can today get any kind of porn, in any kind of media (including, but not limited to, images, text, spoken word, interactive games and movies) online for low or no cost, quickly obviating the need for cassettes or magazines sent in plain envelopes.
I would say that this by itself makes for a steep hill for either format to climb to acceptance, and it may well be the straw that causes neither format to ever gain the critical mass of users needed for it to become ubiquitous.
You... *are* being sarcastic, right? On that first paragraph?
What gave it away? Hank, the cabbage-smelling insurance salesman?
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. More specifically, I'm a bit annoyed at the base premise taken in the discussion, that education and widening your horizons should be treated only as an economic means to some (unspecified) end, with no intrinsic value of its own. I'm a bit peeved with the implicit assumption that your job and your career would define who you are and how your life turns out in the end.
No, it's useless. So would any other degree, be it in engineering, health care, medieval Italian or croquet. You're damaged goods. At 39 your life is over and all you can do is coast in your current non-career until retirement when you and the missus move to Florida and you spend the last waning, bitter days playing bad golf with Hank, a former insurance salesman that smells of cooked cabbage and keeps droning on about the life insurance business.
On the other hand, if you forget the career thing for a moment, then yes, a degree in cs - or in medieval Italian for that matter - may very well be an excellent choice. You get to really dig in on something you're interested in, expand your horizons and meet and work with a (probably pretty diverse) group of people you would never had the opportunity to do otherwise. Is it something you yearn to be doing? Then do it. You may even pick up a story or two to shut up Hank.
Of course, the peer review doesn't actually cost them more than a little administration. The reviewers are all unpaid volunteers, and if there is an editorial board of any kind then so are they (it's happening on office time, of course, so more correct would be saying that the grant agencies are paying for the journal work). The submitters format and set the paper themselves and communication between everyone involved is usually by email or an automated website system. I'd say $1000 is probably overstating the cost per article by a factor of ten, and that's before you add the profits made from selling paper copies to libraries.
In fact, I'd say a better model is the one being tried in some quarters, with paid-only database access for six months, after which the papers become free. Need-always-current research libraries can pay to get the early scoop, the rest of us can rest on our heels for a bit (or just email the author directly if it's important).
"If you have already followed the release candidates, you know that XFCE, COMMA THE elasticity offputting nigirisushi SOFTWARE PACKAGE COMMA is really evolving."
Nope, can't see how it would help you. Perhaps try Google? Some people say it's really nifty for this kind of thing. Kids today, you know how they are.
Do you really think learning the language in 12-24 months is fast? I learned Russian well enough to read and discuss Crime and Punishment after 8 months at the Defense Language Institute when I was in the Army, and all we had was classroom instruction and textbooks. Achieving basic fluency after 12 months of immersion is only average for an adult, and downright pedestrian compared to how fast a child under 5 can pick it up.
His very point was 24 months isn't all that fast or unusual, as opposed to those people who seem to believe (or just take as a convenient excuse) that mastering a new language is more or less impossible after the end of adolescence.
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
You've shifted to a different question. Sure, if you're only dealing with Japanese, since the Japanese encodings handle Japanese just fine, there is indeed no incentive to shift to Unicode, but that is different from it being impossible or even all that difficult to use Unicode.
No, it's the same question: Why are Japanese opposed to using Unicode? And it's because it gives no benefits (as you say, you'd have to be choosing encoding and fonts in any case) and gives several disadvantages. That it has been positioned as the successor to the less than well-liked JIS standards would not exactly improve matters even if it had been useful in practice.
A parallel of sorts would be if the US English part of Unicode had conflated "n" and "ñ", saying that you just choose which one you want by selecting an English or Spanish font, and it's easy enough to switch encodings back and forth if you need to use both in the same document (and why would you ever want to do that?). You'd think the proposal would ever have got off the ground in that case?
Unicode has no policy of restricting encoding to characters currently in use or approved by a government.
So why not just fix the whole issue, instead of suggesting that people switch fonts to get the character they want? Give "bone" and all the other "unified" characters their own code points. Just add every old character in use by the Japanese language; the current list is fairly comprehensive, and so I can't imagine it adding more than a few hundred - certainly less than a thousand. Make the issue go away by actually addressing the grievances.
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
The fact that "bone" looks different in Chinese and Japanese is something that can be handled by font choice, as I said before. Personally I'd prefer separate encoding, but as I said, there is no evidence that this is such a big problem. If you really think that it is, explain why rather than just repeating this.
It's a problem in exactly the same way as using different codepages in DOS was a problem. The point of Unicode was to not conflate rendering and codepoints anymore. If all you're offering is the same situation but with longer encoding, then what's the point of switching to it for Japanese?
As I wrote there hasn't been one unified "government policy". Different ministries have dealt with things in different ways, with predictable confusion (a large part of this is probably a result of ministry turf wars). The JIS on one hand didn't even acknowledge the standard list taught in school, and the current "standard" list is today more of a recommendation; there is no longer a requirement that official documents restrict themselves to the standard list, and names do not need to be restricted to those on the name list today; names are decided on a case-by-case basis.
The actual result is that Japanese encodings in current use can deal with the characters used without resorting to switching fonts and other stuff you were trying to get away from with Unicode, whereas Unicode could not (I don't know how the situation is today, and it largely doesn't matter, with Unicode having become quite negatively viewed today).
Again, from the point of view of Japanese users, there is no incentive whatsoever to use Unicode - it doesn't improve one bit on the currently used encodings for Japanese - and plenty of reasons not to.
Slashdot Mirror
Mea Culpa. It may indeed well be that dot is used more commonly than the comma.
On the other hand, you seem to be the one having a problem with it - me, I'm fine with people using either. After all, in addition countries use other, special characters to separate hours and minutes and minutes and seconds (and separate again when minutes and seconds refer to angles, not time); or monetary units and subunits (and the special case of only an even number of units).
Most of the confusion, really, comes from the sometimes use of the comma as a thousands separator. Just use a space and all will be fine.
A lot more people use the comma than point. Feel free to change over anytime.
That's actually kinda funny, where I presently work, there's one guy in the office who's a total "segmentor." He gets the job done (as far as I know), he's a nice guy, causes no trouble, but socially he's totally aloof, doesn't even eat lunch with the rest of us.
Nope, he just sounds like a normal introvert. He may still think, eat and sleep work business, but he's not big on casual socializing.
The article's "segmentor" (I dislike the sound already) is someone who may be 110% gung-ho while at work, someone who bellows out the company anthem whenever he takes a dump - but leaves when work time ends and shuts work off completely the moment he comes home.
The division is easy, but too simplistic. I'm both: I do like to separate my work and my free time pretty cleanly. Because of that I actually appreciate my hour-long train commute as it creates a natural barrier and an external imposition to go to and from work at specified, reasonable hours.
At the same time I really, _really_ like my work, so I tend to mull things over on my off time, and idly reading up on background stuff I find interesting (and that incidentally is really helpful for work).
There is a real difference between wanting to be at work for long hours, and idly reflecting on interesting problems even when off duty.
Do you want the gain if that's what it is? because that's what the real gain is.
No, that's the gain of an overall physically active life. The gain you can get from bicycling to places rather than driving; of spending weekends walking around town, camera in hand rather than vegging out on a couch. The gain of eating well, and in moderation. There is no need whatsoever for actual sports to enter the picture.
It's been my experience that that's how a lot of the more "manly" men bond, by "giving each other shit." And you know what they say. "No pain, no gain."
If "manly men" bond by abusing people, count me out - I want nothing to do with it. I'll just be happy instead.
And I think you misunderstood my point. "No pain, no gain": I don't want the gain, whether the gain is running speed, ball-handling ability of some kind or expertise in lifting heavy objects only to immediately put them down again. I'm not interested in the gain. The gain is pointless, boring and uninteresting. I actively dislike pursuing the gain and accepting even the loss of otherwise productive time, never mind actual pain (which, as the name implies,hurts) is simply not an option.
There's nothing more encouraging than doing a couple more sit-ups than you ever did before.
That's the thing - for those of us that don't have a competitive streak and that do not find innate enjoyment in painful muscles, doing one sit-up is pointless, doing more is pointlessness multiplied, and actively trying to do more pointless sit-ups than you could do before looks like a sign of incipient OCD.
One part (not the biggest part, but one of them) of the problem with gym class is the implicit assumption that everybody is actually motivated (rather than turned off) by competition and improvement for its own sake, regardless of any outside point of the activity.
So, you want this basketball and throw it in the basket on our side of the court? Here, take it - I can just go get another ball of my own. No reason to fight over the same one.
Even if sports don't help children keep slim, it is proven that it helps adults (in addition to genetics and diet, of course). People who start out as active young children are probably more likely to stay active into adulthood, at least moreso than less active kids. So in that sense, by teaching kids to exercise and be fit, you will potentially increase adult fitness. This alone justifies fitness programs in school.
For a dumpy, awkward kid like myself, a school fitness program is an excellent way to guarantee a lifelong loathing of any kind of organized athletics. I guess if you're already fit, well-coordinated and into sports that it may be fun and motivating. For people like me gym class meant an hour of pain humiliation, ridicule and bullying - and that's just from the (no doubt) well-meaning teachers.
Kids that like athletics and take to it mostly would do sports by themselves anyhow. For kids that don't, school sports is a good way to ensure they never will.
Like you already have with "l", "I" and "1"; or "O" and "0"; or "V" and "U", depending on the particular font you happen to use?
Phishing attacks mostly works not because people can't see a minute difference between two lookalike letters; they work because as long as nothing is utterly obviously, grossly out of order people just assume they're in the right place. You can have domain names that aren't even close to the real one, and websites with only superficial similarities to the original and a lot of people will still be duped.
So you still need the old-style URLs or you'll need to explain how to get those umlauts etc to type in the url.
How often do you ever type in an URL in the first place? You get the link from another web site, from Google, in an email or wherever. And AFAIK, the fallback representation is no less readable and typeable than many current domain names.
Besides, if the website is already in the country's language, you won't be too likely to be interested in it anyway unless you know it (and, presumably, know how to type it).
The problem is that jimmy Wales has been going around touting wikipedia as a competitor to Britannica and other, more serious, encyclopedias. This just points out a major chink in wikipedia's armour: that it's largely predicated on unverified trust.
There is no problem with the standing of Wikipedia in the academic community. Nobody would find citing Wikipedia in a serious paper acceptable; this doesn't change it. The fallacy is is in the implicit assumption that something like Britannica would be.
Wikipedia, like Britannica, is great for quickly getting the basics on just about any subject (and Wikipedia more so than a standard encyclopedia due to its breadth). And neither Wikipedia nor Britannica has the depth or standing to be a first-class source to cite for a scholarly work. Neither is written to have such standing - and a good thing too; having every entry read like a journal paper would make them unusable for their real use of quick orientation to a subject.
I love the relative lack of configuration. I want to be doing my work, not spend my time tweaking how window borders should interact with each other.
Torvalds is a great coder - that does not make him good at usability. How his patches perform on a code level is really beside the point if they aren't actually good from an UI point of view (and no "this is great for how I work" is not a valid criterion).
I would normally agree with this sentiment, except in the context we have here. Cockfighting/dogfighting is against the law.
Is writing about it against the law, though? And if it is, should that not be an issue between the police and the publishers? If the magazines are legal to publish, Amazon has every right to sell them.
As for Amazon hanging up on them, well, you have the right to voice an objection but that doesn't mean they have to listen. If Amazon was deleting comments or otherwise preventing people from making their opinions known, that might be a case for freedom of speech...
Well, no. Amazon can within very broad limits decide what gets said and not on their site. "Free speech" is not a right you have on private property. They could pull most any kind of comments at impunity and your rights would pretty much extend to taking your comment business elsewehere.
Of course, the Human Society is claiming the material is illegal, and if that's true it adds a whole other aspect to the situation - but I don't know enough about whatever laws may apply so I can't comment on that.
More to the point, the Humane Society is not the arbiter of what is legal and not. And Amazon is not the publisher of the material. If the Humane Society has issues with the legality, they should get in contact with the police or a prosecutor, and address the magazine publishers, not Amazon.
They're just using harassment as a way to stop ideas they don't like - which, in the long run, probably harms their cause more than it helps. I'm very much against blood sport, but right now I feel like laying down a bet on a dogfight just to spite these hateful morons.
So some people are trying to silence magazines about a subject they object to, and Amazon refuses to be intimidated or allow them to intimidate others on their property. Sounds more like a good way to handle free speech to me.
I suspect the adult industry does decide the format war, and that the decision indirectly came before either format was even released. You can today get any kind of porn, in any kind of media (including, but not limited to, images, text, spoken word, interactive games and movies) online for low or no cost, quickly obviating the need for cassettes or magazines sent in plain envelopes.
I would say that this by itself makes for a steep hill for either format to climb to acceptance, and it may well be the straw that causes neither format to ever gain the critical mass of users needed for it to become ubiquitous.
What are you saying? We'll get clear, concise headlines that actually summarize the story? Oh, the horror, oh the humanity! Will the pain never end?!
You... *are* being sarcastic, right? On that first paragraph?
What gave it away? Hank, the cabbage-smelling insurance salesman?
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. More specifically, I'm a bit annoyed at the base premise taken in the discussion, that education and widening your horizons should be treated only as an economic means to some (unspecified) end, with no intrinsic value of its own. I'm a bit peeved with the implicit assumption that your job and your career would define who you are and how your life turns out in the end.
No, it's useless. So would any other degree, be it in engineering, health care, medieval Italian or croquet. You're damaged goods. At 39 your life is over and all you can do is coast in your current non-career until retirement when you and the missus move to Florida and you spend the last waning, bitter days playing bad golf with Hank, a former insurance salesman that smells of cooked cabbage and keeps droning on about the life insurance business.
On the other hand, if you forget the career thing for a moment, then yes, a degree in cs - or in medieval Italian for that matter - may very well be an excellent choice. You get to really dig in on something you're interested in, expand your horizons and meet and work with a (probably pretty diverse) group of people you would never had the opportunity to do otherwise. Is it something you yearn to be doing? Then do it. You may even pick up a story or two to shut up Hank.
Of course, the peer review doesn't actually cost them more than a little administration. The reviewers are all unpaid volunteers, and if there is an editorial board of any kind then so are they (it's happening on office time, of course, so more correct would be saying that the grant agencies are paying for the journal work). The submitters format and set the paper themselves and communication between everyone involved is usually by email or an automated website system. I'd say $1000 is probably overstating the cost per article by a factor of ten, and that's before you add the profits made from selling paper copies to libraries.
In fact, I'd say a better model is the one being tried in some quarters, with paid-only database access for six months, after which the papers become free. Need-always-current research libraries can pay to get the early scoop, the rest of us can rest on our heels for a bit (or just email the author directly if it's important).
They said "aiding regularity," not "forcibly exploding your colon out through your asshole."
Well, if it bursts out on the hour, every hour...
A couple of words? OK, I'll try:
"If you have already followed the release candidates, you know that XFCE, COMMA THE elasticity offputting nigirisushi SOFTWARE PACKAGE COMMA is really evolving."
Nope, can't see how it would help you. Perhaps try Google? Some people say it's really nifty for this kind of thing. Kids today, you know how they are.
Do you really think learning the language in 12-24 months is fast? I learned Russian well enough to read and discuss Crime and Punishment after 8 months at the Defense Language Institute when I was in the Army, and all we had was classroom instruction and textbooks. Achieving basic fluency after 12 months of immersion is only average for an adult, and downright pedestrian compared to how fast a child under 5 can pick it up.
His very point was 24 months isn't all that fast or unusual, as opposed to those people who seem to believe (or just take as a convenient excuse) that mastering a new language is more or less impossible after the end of adolescence.
You've shifted to a different question. Sure, if you're only dealing with Japanese, since the Japanese encodings handle Japanese just fine, there is indeed no incentive to shift to Unicode, but that is different from it being impossible or even all that difficult to use Unicode.
No, it's the same question: Why are Japanese opposed to using Unicode? And it's because it gives no benefits (as you say, you'd have to be choosing encoding and fonts in any case) and gives several disadvantages. That it has been positioned as the successor to the less than well-liked JIS standards would not exactly improve matters even if it had been useful in practice.
A parallel of sorts would be if the US English part of Unicode had conflated "n" and "ñ", saying that you just choose which one you want by selecting an English or Spanish font, and it's easy enough to switch encodings back and forth if you need to use both in the same document (and why would you ever want to do that?). You'd think the proposal would ever have got off the ground in that case?
Unicode has no policy of restricting encoding to characters currently in use or approved by a government.
So why not just fix the whole issue, instead of suggesting that people switch fonts to get the character they want? Give "bone" and all the other "unified" characters their own code points. Just add every old character in use by the Japanese language; the current list is fairly comprehensive, and so I can't imagine it adding more than a few hundred - certainly less than a thousand. Make the issue go away by actually addressing the grievances.
The fact that "bone" looks different in Chinese and Japanese is something that can be handled by font choice, as I said before. Personally I'd prefer separate encoding, but as I said, there is no evidence that this is such a big problem. If you really think that it is, explain why rather than just repeating this.
It's a problem in exactly the same way as using different codepages in DOS was a problem. The point of Unicode was to not conflate rendering and codepoints anymore. If all you're offering is the same situation but with longer encoding, then what's the point of switching to it for Japanese?
As I wrote there hasn't been one unified "government policy". Different ministries have dealt with things in different ways, with predictable confusion (a large part of this is probably a result of ministry turf wars). The JIS on one hand didn't even acknowledge the standard list taught in school, and the current "standard" list is today more of a recommendation; there is no longer a requirement that official documents restrict themselves to the standard list, and names do not need to be restricted to those on the name list today; names are decided on a case-by-case basis.
The actual result is that Japanese encodings in current use can deal with the characters used without resorting to switching fonts and other stuff you were trying to get away from with Unicode, whereas Unicode could not (I don't know how the situation is today, and it largely doesn't matter, with Unicode having become quite negatively viewed today).
Again, from the point of view of Japanese users, there is no incentive whatsoever to use Unicode - it doesn't improve one bit on the currently used encodings for Japanese - and plenty of reasons not to.