There are virtually no languages that are syntax constrained. For everyone other than a handful of freaks (savants), people will master the syntax long before running out of brainpower for the logic.
How many times have you seen a syntax cheat sheet inside of a 1000 page logic (programming) book? Now how many times have you seen a logic (programming) cheat sheet inside a 1000 page syntax book?
(Take a bow if you answered postscript before reading this far.)
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
So, this is a fancy RFID tag then? Basically, you wave your radio-barcode through the induction field and the payment terminal then goes online using the ring's serial number instead of your credit card number?
Sadly, this is the new NASA SOP. I'm a bit surprised that Myhrvold hasn't been revealed to be in the pocket of big oil yet. That's usually what happens when people point out data corruption and dodgy statistics of NASA "research".
You may indeed be too old, since you appear to have memories of things that never happened. For example, no states enacted 3-strikes laws in the 80s. Which means, of course, that none came during the Reagan era, nor even during his Vice President's single term as President.
On the other hand, 24 states enacted such laws during Bill Clinton's Presidency, in the '90s.
"Tough on crime" actually correlates with lower sentences, not higher. In typical liberal fashion, you are blaming the opposition for the results of your own policies. (And I apologize if you are not actually liberal, but merely using their tactics. I'm too busy to check your post history tonight.)
Lower sentences also correlate with pro-active policing, and by policing, I mean the whole operation, from cops to prosecutors to judges to jailers.
Imagine a hypothetical statistical quantity, c, which isn't measured directly, but correlates well with criminality, police involvement, prosecution, etc. This is similar to g which isn't measured directly, but correlates well with IQ tests, education success, job success, etc.
c has some sort of distribution, probably similar to a normal distribution, with a big hump in the middle and small tails on each side. The big hump is normal people, the left tail is saints, and the right tail is cold blooded, casual multiple murderers.
The crime debate can be summarized as where to put the c threshold for police involvement (and remember, I mean the whole justice system, not merely physical policemen). To the right, and only the most serious crimes are prosecuted. To the left, and more minor infractions are too. The "tough on crime" guys want it a little to the left of where it is now, the liberals want it a little to the right.
By pushing the c threshold to the right, only the most serious offenders get into the system. Thus, higher sentences, worse conditions (who cares how murderers in cages live?), more recidivism upon release.
Also note that this is a totally static analysis. A person turning to crime has a much better chance of straightening out if they encounter serious pushback from the justice system early on, when their crimes are still minor. A guy can come back from a year in prison for grand theft auto, or attempted robbery. Not so much after 20 years for home invasion with rape and/or murder.
If you want to see this in action, check on any state or major city that has been under Democrat rule for more than a few decades. Hilariously, those are the same places where other Democrats are wagging their fingers because their prisons are nearly all black men. I leave the racial mystery as an exercise for the reader to solve. I'll give you a hint that it is the same reason why the Fields Medal is so biased.
You might want to look up "recidivism" in a dictionary, and then maybe some research into the "recidivism rate", which is not zero.
In a universe that contains "recidivism", but does not contain "zombie crime spree", execution must, by the definitions of the words involved, deter and prevent crime.
Wait, isn't this exactly what Herrnstein and Murray concluded back in 1994, shortly before they were publicly executed by savage academics who proudly signaled their virtue by proclaiming that they hadn't and never would read the book because they already "knew" it was wrong?
You don't settle criminal complaints. If you convince a prosecutor that a crime committed and they file charges, the case becomes The State vs. The Defendant, because The State (aka the people at large) have an interest in law and order.
If you want to call it back at that point, the best you can do is recant your old testimony or try to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the case.
It is time for you to grow up, Bruce. We've all seen the what happens when a group of people decide to "maximize liberty for everyone" at gunpoint.
Do you not remember the Soviet gulags and pogroms? Holodomor in the Ukraine? Rape and slaughter behind the Iron Curtain from one end of Eastern Europe to the other? Butchery in Vietnam, Cambodia and Korea? Mao's Great Leap into mass graves?
Liberty for Me is liberty for everyone, because everyone is Me to someone. Liberty for Everyone is slavery and slaughter, 100% of the time, without fail or exception, because everyone is no-one to the guys holding the guns.
Cigarettes make absolutely lousy ignition sources. You can flick lit cigarettes into a bucket of gasoline all day without ever getting a flame. You can use a puddle of gasoline to put your cigarette out if you want to. People used to smoke and even light their cigarettes while filling the car, even more so before the vapor blocking (and then vapor capturing) hoods on the nozzles.
Static discharge is a much bigger danger, and even that isn't very dangerous.
People fill their cars from portable gas cans every day and no one notices. Farmers, road crews and construction workers fill their equipment from bulk tanks every day, and they don't blow up. Start looking at work trucks on the highway near you. Some of those things just behind the cab that look like toolboxes are actually fuel carriers, and a good chunk of those carriers are full of gasoline.
After opening the links in the story in new tabs to read before commenting, I noticed something disturbing. The real questions we all need to be asking are, "Who the hell decided that browsers should support animated favicons? Were they not alive during the MARQUEE tag era?"
I only remember reading one story there, The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect by Richard Williams. I'm sure there were others down the years, but this is the one that stands out. If you have hazy memories of reading that story many years ago, it was probably on kuro5hin.
It was pretty good. I just checked, and it is available elsewhere now.
Unless you actually intended that someone steal your car, like if you left it out on the street in front of a bank with the keys in it so that an accomplice could use it as a getaway car after a robbery, you won't be liable for anything the criminal does with it.
Your insurance company might not pay out for the theft, if you didn't take steps to secure it, but that isn't the same thing at all.
For what it is worth, I support responsible gun ownership, and when I meet new gun owners, I give them tips on how to secure them. I've even helped a few strangers anchor their lockers and safes, and I've installed more than a few secure boxes in cars.
I do not support a government burden to do any of these things. And I absolutely despise people that attempt to burden gun ownership through cumulative regulation.
Using private security means that they can say no if the job is too dangerous, or quote a higher rate. If they only have squirt guns, they'll just stuff the guy in a concrete bunker and lock the door from the outside.
It wasn't really that serious of an idea, but I wouldn't want to disarm the guys in the Secret Service.
So, what you are saying is that your car has the same hydraulic braking system that every car for the last like 80 years has? And that an electronic failure or EMP would have absolutely no effect on your ability to stop your car? And that your first post in this thread was null and void?
P.S. There is no car that has ever existed anywhere on the planet with a factory installed engine that could overpower the factory installed hydraulic brakes. If you push both pedals on any car, you might piss off the transmission, but you won't go anywhere.
It would be simple to make a constitutional amendment that specifies that former Presidents can only be guarded by private bodyguards armed according to the most restrictive gun control bill or regulation signed by that president, or, if that president doesn't sign any, by the most restrictive law in effect on his last day in office that wasn't passed by overriding his veto.
That would mean semi automatic pistols and hunting rifles for Bill Clinton. Add semi automatic black rifles and normal sized magazines for Bush and Obama.
One of the signs of the end in Rome was that the stakes in politics became so high. Someone losing their office could expect to be prosecuted by their successor for crimes imaginary or real, stripped of their assets and possibly even their life, making it vital that they stay in power by all means possible.
I don't want the US to take even a baby step in that direction, and a prosecution of Hillary, or even Bill, will certainly be interpreted in that way, if it comes after January 20th. I think Ford knew this, and had it firmly in mind when he pardoned Nixon.
On the other hand, I also don't want to live in a country where the rich and powerful are seen as immune to justice for even blatant and well documented crimes and corruptions.
Personally, I blame the trend towards light triggers.
Older handguns had heavy triggers, like 15 pound pull, which is beyond the capability of any child too young to learn gun safety. That wasn't an accident, or the result of primitive manufacturing techniques, it was a safety feature.
There is a video on the internet of a guy in an eastern bloc country handing his service pistol to a kid at a wedding reception. It takes the kid several minutes to get enough of his fingers from both hands onto the trigger to set it off.
Now go buy a modern handgun, and it'll come with a trigger that is way too light to be safe anywhere outside of a controlled shooting range. Then hop on youtube and start watching videos on how to modify or replace the trigger to reduce the pull even further.
The end result is a trigger that is easy for a child to pull, easy to trip with a snag, easy to pull when stressed, easy to pull sympathetically when you do something with your off hand, and easy to pull if your finger sneaks inside the guard while drawing.
The otherization of gunowners has suppressed the gun culture, even here in the US. New and potential gun owners have a hard time finding mentors, so they never learn to shoot properly. Obama's war on ammo has additionally made it near impossible for most people to practice sufficiently. He's also created an environment that is driving millions of people each year to buy their first gun. If these people can't get instruction, they won't know what they are doing and every time they go to shoot, they'll jerk the trigger and pull the shot. A lighter trigger means they need less jerk, which means they'll pull less and have a better chance to hit the paper. This pushes the market towards lighter and lighter triggers.
A handgun trigger for carrying should have a smooth motion, break cleanly at the end, and have a heavy pull. Shooters should be instructed, in person, to maintain sight alignment throughout the pull, never to pre-tension the trigger, and to ride the trigger forward to the reset point after the shot. They should then practice on their own until they can get the first shot off quickly and accurately.
Which other rights do you support letting these "professionals" veto? Free speech? Voting? Security against unwarranted search and seizure? Fair trial?
We learned that you ghouls have no shame and that there is absolutely no tragedy that you are unwilling to gleefully spin to your political aims. That count?
That must be a California thing. Around here, iodine tincture is readily available in drug stores, Walmart, etc. Don't know about KI tablets or water purification tablets, since I've never bothered looking, but those are both readily available on the internet. I imagine they could have sold out during the panic, but if I ordered today, Amazon could get me either by tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
There are virtually no languages that are syntax constrained. For everyone other than a handful of freaks (savants), people will master the syntax long before running out of brainpower for the logic.
How many times have you seen a syntax cheat sheet inside of a 1000 page logic (programming) book? Now how many times have you seen a logic (programming) cheat sheet inside a 1000 page syntax book?
(Take a bow if you answered postscript before reading this far.)
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
So, this is a fancy RFID tag then? Basically, you wave your radio-barcode through the induction field and the payment terminal then goes online using the ring's serial number instead of your credit card number?
Ooh, future.
Sadly, this is the new NASA SOP. I'm a bit surprised that Myhrvold hasn't been revealed to be in the pocket of big oil yet. That's usually what happens when people point out data corruption and dodgy statistics of NASA "research".
You may indeed be too old, since you appear to have memories of things that never happened. For example, no states enacted 3-strikes laws in the 80s. Which means, of course, that none came during the Reagan era, nor even during his Vice President's single term as President.
On the other hand, 24 states enacted such laws during Bill Clinton's Presidency, in the '90s.
Erm...
"Tough on crime" actually correlates with lower sentences, not higher. In typical liberal fashion, you are blaming the opposition for the results of your own policies. (And I apologize if you are not actually liberal, but merely using their tactics. I'm too busy to check your post history tonight.)
Lower sentences also correlate with pro-active policing, and by policing, I mean the whole operation, from cops to prosecutors to judges to jailers.
Imagine a hypothetical statistical quantity, c, which isn't measured directly, but correlates well with criminality, police involvement, prosecution, etc. This is similar to g which isn't measured directly, but correlates well with IQ tests, education success, job success, etc.
c has some sort of distribution, probably similar to a normal distribution, with a big hump in the middle and small tails on each side. The big hump is normal people, the left tail is saints, and the right tail is cold blooded, casual multiple murderers.
The crime debate can be summarized as where to put the c threshold for police involvement (and remember, I mean the whole justice system, not merely physical policemen). To the right, and only the most serious crimes are prosecuted. To the left, and more minor infractions are too. The "tough on crime" guys want it a little to the left of where it is now, the liberals want it a little to the right.
By pushing the c threshold to the right, only the most serious offenders get into the system. Thus, higher sentences, worse conditions (who cares how murderers in cages live?), more recidivism upon release.
Also note that this is a totally static analysis. A person turning to crime has a much better chance of straightening out if they encounter serious pushback from the justice system early on, when their crimes are still minor. A guy can come back from a year in prison for grand theft auto, or attempted robbery. Not so much after 20 years for home invasion with rape and/or murder.
If you want to see this in action, check on any state or major city that has been under Democrat rule for more than a few decades. Hilariously, those are the same places where other Democrats are wagging their fingers because their prisons are nearly all black men. I leave the racial mystery as an exercise for the reader to solve. I'll give you a hint that it is the same reason why the Fields Medal is so biased.
You might want to look up "recidivism" in a dictionary, and then maybe some research into the "recidivism rate", which is not zero.
In a universe that contains "recidivism", but does not contain "zombie crime spree", execution must, by the definitions of the words involved, deter and prevent crime.
Q.E.D.
Wait, isn't this exactly what Herrnstein and Murray concluded back in 1994, shortly before they were publicly executed by savage academics who proudly signaled their virtue by proclaiming that they hadn't and never would read the book because they already "knew" it was wrong?
Ahh, yes, the "We didn't mean any of these other words, let the Federal government run amok" clause.
You don't settle criminal complaints. If you convince a prosecutor that a crime committed and they file charges, the case becomes The State vs. The Defendant, because The State (aka the people at large) have an interest in law and order.
If you want to call it back at that point, the best you can do is recant your old testimony or try to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the case.
That set you off, but "crunch large amounts of data" didn't?
It is time for you to grow up, Bruce. We've all seen the what happens when a group of people decide to "maximize liberty for everyone" at gunpoint.
Do you not remember the Soviet gulags and pogroms? Holodomor in the Ukraine? Rape and slaughter behind the Iron Curtain from one end of Eastern Europe to the other? Butchery in Vietnam, Cambodia and Korea? Mao's Great Leap into mass graves?
Liberty for Me is liberty for everyone, because everyone is Me to someone. Liberty for Everyone is slavery and slaughter, 100% of the time, without fail or exception, because everyone is no-one to the guys holding the guns.
You were never a teen-aged boy, were you?
Cigarettes make absolutely lousy ignition sources. You can flick lit cigarettes into a bucket of gasoline all day without ever getting a flame. You can use a puddle of gasoline to put your cigarette out if you want to. People used to smoke and even light their cigarettes while filling the car, even more so before the vapor blocking (and then vapor capturing) hoods on the nozzles.
Static discharge is a much bigger danger, and even that isn't very dangerous.
People fill their cars from portable gas cans every day and no one notices. Farmers, road crews and construction workers fill their equipment from bulk tanks every day, and they don't blow up. Start looking at work trucks on the highway near you. Some of those things just behind the cab that look like toolboxes are actually fuel carriers, and a good chunk of those carriers are full of gasoline.
After opening the links in the story in new tabs to read before commenting, I noticed something disturbing. The real questions we all need to be asking are, "Who the hell decided that browsers should support animated favicons? Were they not alive during the MARQUEE tag era?"
I only remember reading one story there, The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect by Richard Williams. I'm sure there were others down the years, but this is the one that stands out. If you have hazy memories of reading that story many years ago, it was probably on kuro5hin.
It was pretty good. I just checked, and it is available elsewhere now.
Unless you actually intended that someone steal your car, like if you left it out on the street in front of a bank with the keys in it so that an accomplice could use it as a getaway car after a robbery, you won't be liable for anything the criminal does with it.
Your insurance company might not pay out for the theft, if you didn't take steps to secure it, but that isn't the same thing at all.
For what it is worth, I support responsible gun ownership, and when I meet new gun owners, I give them tips on how to secure them. I've even helped a few strangers anchor their lockers and safes, and I've installed more than a few secure boxes in cars.
I do not support a government burden to do any of these things. And I absolutely despise people that attempt to burden gun ownership through cumulative regulation.
Using private security means that they can say no if the job is too dangerous, or quote a higher rate. If they only have squirt guns, they'll just stuff the guy in a concrete bunker and lock the door from the outside.
It wasn't really that serious of an idea, but I wouldn't want to disarm the guys in the Secret Service.
So, what you are saying is that your car has the same hydraulic braking system that every car for the last like 80 years has? And that an electronic failure or EMP would have absolutely no effect on your ability to stop your car? And that your first post in this thread was null and void?
P.S. There is no car that has ever existed anywhere on the planet with a factory installed engine that could overpower the factory installed hydraulic brakes. If you push both pedals on any car, you might piss off the transmission, but you won't go anywhere.
Was this before or after he invented the carburetor that runs on water?
It would be simple to make a constitutional amendment that specifies that former Presidents can only be guarded by private bodyguards armed according to the most restrictive gun control bill or regulation signed by that president, or, if that president doesn't sign any, by the most restrictive law in effect on his last day in office that wasn't passed by overriding his veto.
That would mean semi automatic pistols and hunting rifles for Bill Clinton. Add semi automatic black rifles and normal sized magazines for Bush and Obama.
One of the signs of the end in Rome was that the stakes in politics became so high. Someone losing their office could expect to be prosecuted by their successor for crimes imaginary or real, stripped of their assets and possibly even their life, making it vital that they stay in power by all means possible.
I don't want the US to take even a baby step in that direction, and a prosecution of Hillary, or even Bill, will certainly be interpreted in that way, if it comes after January 20th. I think Ford knew this, and had it firmly in mind when he pardoned Nixon.
On the other hand, I also don't want to live in a country where the rich and powerful are seen as immune to justice for even blatant and well documented crimes and corruptions.
I don't envy Trump having to navigate that mess.
Personally, I blame the trend towards light triggers.
Older handguns had heavy triggers, like 15 pound pull, which is beyond the capability of any child too young to learn gun safety. That wasn't an accident, or the result of primitive manufacturing techniques, it was a safety feature.
There is a video on the internet of a guy in an eastern bloc country handing his service pistol to a kid at a wedding reception. It takes the kid several minutes to get enough of his fingers from both hands onto the trigger to set it off.
Now go buy a modern handgun, and it'll come with a trigger that is way too light to be safe anywhere outside of a controlled shooting range. Then hop on youtube and start watching videos on how to modify or replace the trigger to reduce the pull even further.
The end result is a trigger that is easy for a child to pull, easy to trip with a snag, easy to pull when stressed, easy to pull sympathetically when you do something with your off hand, and easy to pull if your finger sneaks inside the guard while drawing.
The otherization of gunowners has suppressed the gun culture, even here in the US. New and potential gun owners have a hard time finding mentors, so they never learn to shoot properly. Obama's war on ammo has additionally made it near impossible for most people to practice sufficiently. He's also created an environment that is driving millions of people each year to buy their first gun. If these people can't get instruction, they won't know what they are doing and every time they go to shoot, they'll jerk the trigger and pull the shot. A lighter trigger means they need less jerk, which means they'll pull less and have a better chance to hit the paper. This pushes the market towards lighter and lighter triggers.
A handgun trigger for carrying should have a smooth motion, break cleanly at the end, and have a heavy pull. Shooters should be instructed, in person, to maintain sight alignment throughout the pull, never to pre-tension the trigger, and to ride the trigger forward to the reset point after the shot. They should then practice on their own until they can get the first shot off quickly and accurately.
Which other rights do you support letting these "professionals" veto? Free speech? Voting? Security against unwarranted search and seizure? Fair trial?
We learned that you ghouls have no shame and that there is absolutely no tragedy that you are unwilling to gleefully spin to your political aims. That count?
That must be a California thing. Around here, iodine tincture is readily available in drug stores, Walmart, etc. Don't know about KI tablets or water purification tablets, since I've never bothered looking, but those are both readily available on the internet. I imagine they could have sold out during the panic, but if I ordered today, Amazon could get me either by tomorrow.