That begs the question. C# isn't really challenging to pick up. It's on par with Java, though since it's inherently a more modern and full featured language (fact, not opinion) it is somewhat more complex to learn. If it takes you a week to pick up Java, it might take you 1.5 weeks to pick up C#. You'll more than make up that week due to the crazy sweet.NET runtime libraries. Not that Java is any slouch, either - I'm constantly surprised how quickly the Java people are able to move the Java environment along.
Wow, it's easy to cite all the "evidence", despite the fact that there was conflicting evidence and nobody really knew for sure. If I make a guess that some guy gesticulating wildly with a knife is about to murder someone and I shoot him, then turns out he's an actor I guess I'm just cool as can be, right? I mean, shit, it sure _looked_ like he was going to kill someone!
Sorry. History doesn't care if your inept idiocy was caused by faulty intelligence. At best Bush is a moron who selectively chose intelligence that suited his agenda. At worst, he's a liar and has done more damage to this country than any other president in history through lies, malice, and corruption.
Yeah, but I'm talking mainstream and general purpose CPUs. In other words, the target hardware for software which sells more than 10,000 copies. Quad core is rolling into the mainstream this year, and it'll advance from there. We'll start seeing 8 core CPUs late this year, moving to mainstream in a year or so after.
His premise is flawed. People using email, running a web browser, etc... hit CPU speed saturation some time ago. A 500MHz CPU can adequately serve their needs. So they are not at issue here. What's at issue is next generation shit like AI, high quality voice recognition, advanced ray tracing/radiosity/whatever graphics, face/gesture recognition, etc... I don't think anyone sees us needing 1000 cores in the next few years.
My guess is 4 cores in 2008, 4 cores in 2009, moving to 8 cores through 2010. We may move to a new uber-core model once the software catches up, more like 6-8 years than 2-4. I'm positive we won't "max out" at 64 cores, because we're going to hit a per-core speed limit much more quickly than we hit a number-of-cores limit.
I'm sure they worked all the anti-DRM nuts into a froth with this nonsense, but it's just complete bullshit. Rebooting TVs? What the hell are they talking about? It's a bunch of scary bullshit that's just not real. It's like that NZ moron who ran around screaming about Vista's DRM. Now to this day if you talk to people who should know better they'll swear up and down Vista's DRM is causing them no end of problems, but when pressed they just say they saw someone on some Video forum talking about it - they can't really say exactly how it's affected them outside the realm of copyrighted materials they bought which are explicitly DRM protected.
The DRM scare bores the piss out of me, it's meaningless. If I don't like the terms of a DRM product, I don't buy it. Problem solved. I've never had any of these make-believe "TV reboots" with my 60" 2 year old HDTV, or problems playing HD-DVD or BluRay (thank you AnyDVD) or anything of the like. It's just a non issue that gets dweebs all riled up for no good reason.
Has this ever been tested in a blind study? Vodka dweebs always claim the expensive stuff is so much better and they have a much less hangover the next day. This is retarded for at least a few reasons. First, it's the alcohol that gives you the hangover, dummy. Second, what kind of crap do you think is in e.g. coffee, tea, sodas, etc..? When I go on a binder with those I don't wake up the next day with a horrible hangover.
Face it - if you're a vodka snob and claim you get less of a hangover with expensive vodka, you're just as much of an idiot as the "green marker", "Monster Cable" crowd.
You are exactly right. I'm actually a little stunned when I read this ridiculous crap about Reiser maybe being innocent. People have actually resorted to "if there is no body, you must acquit!". Granted, it doesn't rhyme as well as Cochran made his, but it's just about as silly.
In the OJ case, they basically just ignored the evidence and pretended it wasn't there. In this case, people are at least trying to make it seem like they're impartial but it's quite clear they aren't. If this case were about some random man killing his wife they'd be explaining that circumstantial evidence isn't "bad" evidence, and that in this case it's been used effectively to eliminate all rational explanations other than his having murdered his wife. It's the process of elimination. Like DNA. They may not tell you "this DNA matches exactly this person", but instead "the likelihood of this DNA belonging to someone other than the suspect is 1 in 6 billion". Gee, maybe it's not his!!! Oh, but he was known to be within 20 feet of the spot, and all this other evidence points to him.
In this case, they're doing the opposite. They have an emotional need (for some reason) to think Reiser is just a misunderstood malcontent dweeb like they are. So they are manufacturing doubt and pretending circumstantial evidence is "bad" evidence. There's huge bias here, some psychologist could write his dissertation on this whole situation using SlashDot as a case study.
God, what's wrong with you people? Why are you defending this murderer? There seem to be two extremes. There are the Joe Average jurors who are dumb as dirt and let people like OJ out, or who don't understand the case and just decide on "feeling".
Then there are the middle tier people like the Reiser defenders who think they're very smart and find numerous nitpick after nitpick to try to convince themselves they're being fair, impartial, and rational when in fact they're doing no such thing.
There is plenty of evidence that he did it to convict him. You people will probably still try to claim he's innocent if/when he does lead them to the body and confess, or you'll use some pathetic "but based on the evidence at hand in the trial, he could have been innocent!" argument. It's just silly.
He did it. There is evidence he did it, tons of it. "Circumstantial" evidence isn't a bad kind of evidence, like many of you seem to think. You start with a premise, and you narrow down all the possible causes of that premise until you're left with only one explanation that fits the case beyond a reasonable doubt. e.g. person missing, blood found, odd behavior, attempts to hide evidence, etc... Each and every item that points towards Reiser to the exclusion of other explanations for her being missing builds the case until it reaches the threshold beyond which a reasonable person would not be able escape the conclusion that he murdered her to the the exclusion of all other resonable explanations.
This isn't the god damned Star Trek holodeck with Sherlock Homes and Mr. Watson finding a smoking gun and a body hidden in the basement, you pathetic dweebs. This is real life and except in the case of the 105IQ set killing someone you're not going to find a whole mess of incontrovertible hard evidence for a murder like this.
Our sentences are capricious and wildly fluctuating. That said, they're usually too short. You can beat the piss out of an 80 year old woman and half kill her and spend a year or two in prison, but go out and do some drugs and spend 10 years in prison.
As for loose ends, there are seldom cases without loose ends. He obviously did it, and he should be in prison for life. If there were no loose ends he should be executed. Vicious scum like that should never be loosed in society again. People who severely neglect or abuse children should also be in prison for life. Let out the non-violent offenders much more quickly and spend the resources on housing murderous POS's like Reiser.
Hopefully he does get passed around the prison block like a used condom, he deserves it not only for what he did to his wife but for the legacy he's left his children. He deserves to be brutalized to no end.
I wish you "you must have a body and a murder weapon to prove murder" people would crawl back under a rock somewhere. You need neither. Contrary to the popular use of "circumstantial evidence", it allows one to reduce probabilities that someone didn't commit a murder to a low enough number to say it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". For example [not specifically Reiser case, but similar example]:
Person X's wife goes missing. Big swath of cleaned up blood found in bathroom (luminol). OK, maybe she cut herself. But she's missing..hmm. OK, then we have a life insurance policy taken out by husband 2 months before. OK, nothing illegal about that.. but...hmmmmm. Then, turns out husband has no alibi. Well, OK, he wouldn't have an alibi (or need one) if she's only missing. but...hmmmmmmm. Oh, and also - he has been having an affair with another woman and has huge gambling debts. Neither proves he murdered anyone, but...hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, also it turns out she never mentioned leaving to any friends, and nobody has seen her for months. Oh, and the husband put in new carpet 5 days after she went missing. Well, surely nothing wrong with someone wanting to put in new carpet right/ but....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
But wait, no murder weapon! No body! Shit, he must be innocent!!!! Give me a break, and please find an excuse to get out of jury duty if ever called, because you aren't fit to serve.
Looks like I won't have to be eating a shit sandwhich [can't find post]. I said I would if she was found alive in Russia when many of you nerds kept claiming she might be alive still. Seriously, I can't believe you people actually thought he was innocent. They should do a study on you all to see what motivated you all, psychologically, to cling to hope he was innocent when it was obvious he wasn't. Theoretically you're all smarter than an average jury member, but thank God you weren't on that jury.
Motley crue is terrible. I think I heard that song on Sirius, and it's just laughable crap. That kind of music wasn't even that good in the 80's, not it just sounds like someone's goofing on them by writing a "world's most crapulific song" parody of what a Motley crue song might sound like now.
So nobody wants to listen to the music. But people who play to a game like that don't care if the music is horribly terrible, so they downloaded it.
New rule: If your song gets downloaded more as part of a music game than by people wanting to listen to the song, your song sucks.
Nowhere does he say there will be no "MinWin". It's entirely possible Vista compatibility will be built on top of MinWin. Not sure what the basis for the article summary is.
My views on morality are separate from my views on what society should restrict at gunpoint. Quite simply, society's laws should be based around force, theft, fraud (not deception), or child neglect. There was no force here. There was no theft. And there was no fraud (as the mother in question didn't gain any material goods from the girl). She's not the deceased child's mother, so it's not neglect.
I think the mother is a disgusting low life pig. I think lots of people are disgusting low life pigs. I'm not going to advocate taking away their freedoms unless they commit a crime of force, theft, fraud, or neglect. Then, if anything, I think this weak society is entirely too soft on real criminals. You can have 3 children and abuse and neglect them their entire lives and barring extreme circumstances the worse that will happen is you'll lose the kids, but can then go on and spit out 3 more. In a just society child neglect of any sort would be punished with years in prison. We do lip service to caring about children. Then a case like this comes up and it hits the media so we immediately try to make someone pay. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
What we have here is a bunch of riled up idiots with pitchforks. That piece of shit mother is already paying the price for her stupidity, her life is ruined now, she'll be forever hated and scorned.
You caused a death by paying your taxes. You are causing a death right now by not sending all your extra money to hungry people in Africa. You could cause a death in traffic tomorrow by doing any of a number of things from small mistakes to actually driving properly and confusing some idiot on the roadway. You could cause a death by giving the wrong person a dirty look tomorrow.
So your premise is fundamentally flawed. It is not inherently wrong to cause a death. It is inherently wrong to perpetrate a death intentionally or through gross physical negligence (think drunk driving, shooting a gun off in the air and it killing someone on landing, etc..). In all cases, you're directly causing the death directly by a short, direct, predictable physical chain of events.
Most people don't have the emotional maturity to accept what you're saying. The fact is that this is a horrible reality and bad things happen. They can't accept that and apply reason to decide what should be a crime and what shouldn't, and instead try to make up ridiculous laws or use bad faith to prosecute incorrectly under other laws. In short, we live in a society of emotionally (and largely intellectually) immature people.
The correct price for this person to pay is the social price she is already paying. Her life is ruined, that's the "justice" we as a society can inflict without resorting to irrational laws or restrictions on freedom of speech. She's a pariah in her own town, and she will be hated the rest of her life. Shun her, shun her!
Bullshit. If you've never misrepresented yourself to gain entry to a computer network you're not a nerd and what are you doing here. As for stealing a candy bar and the clerk getting hit by a truck, you're full of shit. If that's murder then we have some serious retards in our legal system. What if you steal the candy bar and the store clerk goes on a berserk rampage and runs over 10 people with his car trying to run you down, is that murder (on your part), too? Give me a fucking break, you'd have to be a mentally retarded idiot (yes, both) to believe that.
Any definition for murder other than the death of someone directly, by physical means, by an intentional course of action by another is just the pathetic attempt by an emotionally immature society to try to blame someone when, in fact, "bad shit happens". Even murder for hire should be a separate charge, though probably it should carry the same penalty.
The other problem with this would be selective prosecution and potentially cruel and unusual punishment. They could conceivably put her in prison for, say, 20 years. This isn't an unreasonable expectation in this case, either, since I'm sure the judge will want to throw the book at this scum.
Two problems. First, it's hard to explain how she's going to prison for 20 years but they're not even investigating the thousands and thousands of other people lying about their accounts and breaking the TOS of MySpace. More importantly, you could stab a 70 year old lady 7 times and then go on a high speed chase at 100 miles per hour through a city and cause $1 million dollars in damage and spend less than 20 years in prison. You could get drunk off your gourd and drive out and get in a wreck, killing a family of 5 in a minivan and spend less than 20 years in prison. 20 years in prison for "being mean" is cruel and unusual by any kind of rational standard.
Interesting. How did she cause her death? Did she help with the rope? Did she kick out the chair? Oh, I see, she said some mean stuff. She could have done the same thing to 100 other girls, and 99 of them wouldn't have killed themselves. The fact is that being the final straw that broke the camel's back isn't a crime. Maybe her parents should be charged, all her friends, everyone who didn't help her?
Absolute bullshit. By this laughable interpretation of murder, if someone stops abruptly at a red light and the person behind them is fiddling with his radio and rams into the person and dies, it's...murder! You chose to stop abruptly at that red light and someone died! Or if you sell a set of kitchen knives to someone and they slit their wrists...it's murder! You heartless knive salesman!
You're all disappointing me. Bad things happen. Grow up and face this fact, you don't have to go blame some woman and charge her with murder because she's a stupid, immature piece of shit who picks on little girls on MySpace. The problem with "crimes" like this is that the decision to make the "bad mother" a criminal was entirely in the hands of someone else.
You keep bringing up doctrine and policy. Religion is about holy books and the Word Of God. The Mormom Word Of God is inherently racist. That's my point. Not that all Mormons (and probably very few) are racist, in fact they're generally good people.
You can deny it all you want. Just like God changed his mind about polygamy, apparently, now you're claiming Mormons are changing their mind about racism. Is it a religion, or shared fiction you get to make up as you go? Don't worry - Christians do the same thing, pick and choose from their supposedly holy beliefs to "adapt to society".
You miss the point. If a corporation as an entity didn't own a copyright, the people within the company who wrote the material would own the copyright. Copyright ownership by a corporation makes things much simpler. But if the concept of corporate-assignable copyright went away, real, breathing, copyright-holding human beings still produced the material and would have ownership.
So really people, individuals, didn't write this? Some entity known as a corporation (or other legal entity) wrote the documents? That's...interesting. I was unaware of any type of being unable to write a document other than a human being.
People wrote this. People own it. People have copyright protection. If you don't believe in "corporate rights" it doesn't help your (or WikiLeaks') argument - get rid of the corporation (or other legal entity), and some people wrote the document, they have copyright protection.
Slashdot Mirror
That begs the question. C# isn't really challenging to pick up. It's on par with Java, though since it's inherently a more modern and full featured language (fact, not opinion) it is somewhat more complex to learn. If it takes you a week to pick up Java, it might take you 1.5 weeks to pick up C#. You'll more than make up that week due to the crazy sweet .NET runtime libraries. Not that Java is any slouch, either - I'm constantly surprised how quickly the Java people are able to move the Java environment along.
Sorry. History doesn't care if your inept idiocy was caused by faulty intelligence. At best Bush is a moron who selectively chose intelligence that suited his agenda. At worst, he's a liar and has done more damage to this country than any other president in history through lies, malice, and corruption.
Dual socket machines will never be mainstream.
My guess is 4 cores in 2008, 4 cores in 2009, moving to 8 cores through 2010. We may move to a new uber-core model once the software catches up, more like 6-8 years than 2-4. I'm positive we won't "max out" at 64 cores, because we're going to hit a per-core speed limit much more quickly than we hit a number-of-cores limit.
The DRM scare bores the piss out of me, it's meaningless. If I don't like the terms of a DRM product, I don't buy it. Problem solved. I've never had any of these make-believe "TV reboots" with my 60" 2 year old HDTV, or problems playing HD-DVD or BluRay (thank you AnyDVD) or anything of the like. It's just a non issue that gets dweebs all riled up for no good reason.
Face it - if you're a vodka snob and claim you get less of a hangover with expensive vodka, you're just as much of an idiot as the "green marker", "Monster Cable" crowd.
In the OJ case, they basically just ignored the evidence and pretended it wasn't there. In this case, people are at least trying to make it seem like they're impartial but it's quite clear they aren't. If this case were about some random man killing his wife they'd be explaining that circumstantial evidence isn't "bad" evidence, and that in this case it's been used effectively to eliminate all rational explanations other than his having murdered his wife. It's the process of elimination. Like DNA. They may not tell you "this DNA matches exactly this person", but instead "the likelihood of this DNA belonging to someone other than the suspect is 1 in 6 billion". Gee, maybe it's not his!!! Oh, but he was known to be within 20 feet of the spot, and all this other evidence points to him.
In this case, they're doing the opposite. They have an emotional need (for some reason) to think Reiser is just a misunderstood malcontent dweeb like they are. So they are manufacturing doubt and pretending circumstantial evidence is "bad" evidence. There's huge bias here, some psychologist could write his dissertation on this whole situation using SlashDot as a case study.
Then there are the middle tier people like the Reiser defenders who think they're very smart and find numerous nitpick after nitpick to try to convince themselves they're being fair, impartial, and rational when in fact they're doing no such thing.
There is plenty of evidence that he did it to convict him. You people will probably still try to claim he's innocent if/when he does lead them to the body and confess, or you'll use some pathetic "but based on the evidence at hand in the trial, he could have been innocent!" argument. It's just silly.
He did it. There is evidence he did it, tons of it. "Circumstantial" evidence isn't a bad kind of evidence, like many of you seem to think. You start with a premise, and you narrow down all the possible causes of that premise until you're left with only one explanation that fits the case beyond a reasonable doubt. e.g. person missing, blood found, odd behavior, attempts to hide evidence, etc... Each and every item that points towards Reiser to the exclusion of other explanations for her being missing builds the case until it reaches the threshold beyond which a reasonable person would not be able escape the conclusion that he murdered her to the the exclusion of all other resonable explanations.
This isn't the god damned Star Trek holodeck with Sherlock Homes and Mr. Watson finding a smoking gun and a body hidden in the basement, you pathetic dweebs. This is real life and except in the case of the 105IQ set killing someone you're not going to find a whole mess of incontrovertible hard evidence for a murder like this.
As for loose ends, there are seldom cases without loose ends. He obviously did it, and he should be in prison for life. If there were no loose ends he should be executed. Vicious scum like that should never be loosed in society again. People who severely neglect or abuse children should also be in prison for life. Let out the non-violent offenders much more quickly and spend the resources on housing murderous POS's like Reiser.
Hopefully he does get passed around the prison block like a used condom, he deserves it not only for what he did to his wife but for the legacy he's left his children. He deserves to be brutalized to no end.
Person X's wife goes missing. Big swath of cleaned up blood found in bathroom (luminol). OK, maybe she cut herself. But she's missing..hmm. OK, then we have a life insurance policy taken out by husband 2 months before. OK, nothing illegal about that.. but...hmmmmm. Then, turns out husband has no alibi. Well, OK, he wouldn't have an alibi (or need one) if she's only missing. but...hmmmmmmm. Oh, and also - he has been having an affair with another woman and has huge gambling debts. Neither proves he murdered anyone, but...hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, also it turns out she never mentioned leaving to any friends, and nobody has seen her for months. Oh, and the husband put in new carpet 5 days after she went missing. Well, surely nothing wrong with someone wanting to put in new carpet right/ but....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
But wait, no murder weapon! No body! Shit, he must be innocent!!!! Give me a break, and please find an excuse to get out of jury duty if ever called, because you aren't fit to serve.
Looks like I won't have to be eating a shit sandwhich [can't find post]. I said I would if she was found alive in Russia when many of you nerds kept claiming she might be alive still. Seriously, I can't believe you people actually thought he was innocent. They should do a study on you all to see what motivated you all, psychologically, to cling to hope he was innocent when it was obvious he wasn't. Theoretically you're all smarter than an average jury member, but thank God you weren't on that jury.
So nobody wants to listen to the music. But people who play to a game like that don't care if the music is horribly terrible, so they downloaded it.
New rule: If your song gets downloaded more as part of a music game than by people wanting to listen to the song, your song sucks.
Did I mention the song is just horrible?
Nowhere does he say there will be no "MinWin". It's entirely possible Vista compatibility will be built on top of MinWin. Not sure what the basis for the article summary is.
Nah. This is what you want, Neutron bomb is for pansies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb
I think the mother is a disgusting low life pig. I think lots of people are disgusting low life pigs. I'm not going to advocate taking away their freedoms unless they commit a crime of force, theft, fraud, or neglect. Then, if anything, I think this weak society is entirely too soft on real criminals. You can have 3 children and abuse and neglect them their entire lives and barring extreme circumstances the worse that will happen is you'll lose the kids, but can then go on and spit out 3 more. In a just society child neglect of any sort would be punished with years in prison. We do lip service to caring about children. Then a case like this comes up and it hits the media so we immediately try to make someone pay. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
What we have here is a bunch of riled up idiots with pitchforks. That piece of shit mother is already paying the price for her stupidity, her life is ruined now, she'll be forever hated and scorned.
So your premise is fundamentally flawed. It is not inherently wrong to cause a death. It is inherently wrong to perpetrate a death intentionally or through gross physical negligence (think drunk driving, shooting a gun off in the air and it killing someone on landing, etc..). In all cases, you're directly causing the death directly by a short, direct, predictable physical chain of events.
The correct price for this person to pay is the social price she is already paying. Her life is ruined, that's the "justice" we as a society can inflict without resorting to irrational laws or restrictions on freedom of speech. She's a pariah in her own town, and she will be hated the rest of her life. Shun her, shun her!
Any definition for murder other than the death of someone directly, by physical means, by an intentional course of action by another is just the pathetic attempt by an emotionally immature society to try to blame someone when, in fact, "bad shit happens". Even murder for hire should be a separate charge, though probably it should carry the same penalty.
Two problems. First, it's hard to explain how she's going to prison for 20 years but they're not even investigating the thousands and thousands of other people lying about their accounts and breaking the TOS of MySpace. More importantly, you could stab a 70 year old lady 7 times and then go on a high speed chase at 100 miles per hour through a city and cause $1 million dollars in damage and spend less than 20 years in prison. You could get drunk off your gourd and drive out and get in a wreck, killing a family of 5 in a minivan and spend less than 20 years in prison. 20 years in prison for "being mean" is cruel and unusual by any kind of rational standard.
Interesting. How did she cause her death? Did she help with the rope? Did she kick out the chair? Oh, I see, she said some mean stuff. She could have done the same thing to 100 other girls, and 99 of them wouldn't have killed themselves. The fact is that being the final straw that broke the camel's back isn't a crime. Maybe her parents should be charged, all her friends, everyone who didn't help her?
You're all disappointing me. Bad things happen. Grow up and face this fact, you don't have to go blame some woman and charge her with murder because she's a stupid, immature piece of shit who picks on little girls on MySpace. The problem with "crimes" like this is that the decision to make the "bad mother" a criminal was entirely in the hands of someone else.
You keep bringing up doctrine and policy. Religion is about holy books and the Word Of God. The Mormom Word Of God is inherently racist. That's my point. Not that all Mormons (and probably very few) are racist, in fact they're generally good people.
You can deny it all you want. Just like God changed his mind about polygamy, apparently, now you're claiming Mormons are changing their mind about racism. Is it a religion, or shared fiction you get to make up as you go? Don't worry - Christians do the same thing, pick and choose from their supposedly holy beliefs to "adapt to society".
You miss the point. If a corporation as an entity didn't own a copyright, the people within the company who wrote the material would own the copyright. Copyright ownership by a corporation makes things much simpler. But if the concept of corporate-assignable copyright went away, real, breathing, copyright-holding human beings still produced the material and would have ownership.
People wrote this. People own it. People have copyright protection. If you don't believe in "corporate rights" it doesn't help your (or WikiLeaks') argument - get rid of the corporation (or other legal entity), and some people wrote the document, they have copyright protection.