You think they'll let you go back to analog? Sure, some people have analog because they're grandfathered in, but that doesn't mean the cable company is necessarily accepting new analog subscriptions. Well, I don't know what the situation will look like next year, but I know they are accepting new analog subscriptions right now. I had one for about 24 hours before I realized I could get basic digital for less.
Er... TiVo HD is $299. I got my Series2 DT there for $99, and I think I paid the same price for my first Series2. There were some rebates involved, but still, you can't get a CableCard-ready TiVo for anywhere near that price, AFAICT.
I only wanted analog cable, because I have two Series2 TiVos, but I ended up getting digital cable because it's cheaper and still includes all the analog channels. (It's a promotional price, but I'm still saving $12/mo for N months.)
When the promotion expires, the price is only $1/mo more than plain analog cable. At that point, I'll give back the cable box -- it isn't even hooked up, but Comcast insisted I take one -- and save a buck a month by going back to analog.
See, when you sign up for digital cable, you're doing them a favor. They want you to have digital cable so that (1) you'll be tempted to buy On Demand movies, (2) you'll have to pay them to lease that godawful box, (3) you'll be tempted to pay for one of their DVRs because third-party ones don't fully work with the box(*), and (4) once everyone is a digital subscriber, they can switch off the analog feeds to free up bandwidth and sell you more services.
(* Yes, there are DVRs that accept CableCards, but they're prohibitively expensive, you have to pay for the cards, and we've all heard how much trouble it is to get a CableCard installed correctly.)
You're sure not helping yourself. Anyone who's ever used a cable box knows how much they blow. Changing channels is slow; and if you use a cable box with your own DVR, you can only record one channel at a time, your recordings will have cable-box banners all over them, and you'll have the ghettoest house on the block with that little infrared "blaster" dangling around.
And what do you get in exchange for that hassle... marginally better picture quality? Maybe not even that, because you're just trading analog noise for MPEG artifacts and blocking. Even if you do get a better picture overall, how long will that stay exciting? A week? After that, you won't notice the picture quality, but you'll be dealing with the drawbacks of digital cable forever.
If you can find it in nature, it's natural. If you have to make it in a lab, it's not. In that case, orange juice is unnatural, because you don't just find juice in nature; you find oranges and then you make juice from them. Every cooked food is unnatural, because cooking changes it at a molecular level to be different from the way it was found in nature. Every condiment and sauce is unnatural, because the ingredients are processed or combined into a form that isn't found in nature. Even that "evergreen extract" is unnatural, by your logic, unless there's a clearing in the forest somewhere where bottles of it spontaneously pop out of the ground.
Well, you're right idiot, aren't you? By your stupid logic, orange juice is no more natural than diet cola. I'm just saying, there's no stark line between natural and unnatural substances. If you can squeeze and filter something and it's still "natural", then who's to say it isn't still "natural" after you combine it with something else and produce a chemical reaction? It's not like aspartame fell out of a black hole or something; the stuff it's made from is as organic as an orange.
Keep poisoining yourself, and keep mocking people who try to warn you. Uh huh. Keep making yourself look like a crackpot by calling things "toxins" and "poisons" without a shred of evidence. I guess someone has to keep buying all those colon cleansing kits and $50 bottles of organic salt; otherwise those snake-oil salesmen would turn to something even more harmful to society, like spamming.
Here's a fun assignment, go to your local drug store, and try to find cough syrup without artificial sweeteners. The only ones I can find are natural products, evergreen extracts. By "natural evergreen extract", do you mean a handful of pine needles? Because any processing that's done to it would make it unnatural, wouldn't it?
If your sensitivity to these toxins is low enough that you'll chock their side effects up to the disease you're fighting, you won't notice the difference, but if, like me, aspartame makes you fucking sick by itself, then the natural option is now the only option. The generic cough syrup in my cabinet is sweetened with glucose, corn syrup, and saccharin, none of which are "toxins" (despite some old, flawed research that led to a bad reputation for saccharin). And just because you're allergic to aspartame, that doesn't make it a "toxin" either.
Actually studies have shown that the opposite is true. It seems you forgot to cite these studies.
Using Black or White Willow bark is safe and has fewer side effects than Salicylic acid by a long shot. Er, salicylic acid is the active ingredient in willow bark. Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid, and its side effects are milder, which is why it was made in the first place and continues to be made today.
Many herbs will give you a warning sign such as an upset stomach or nausea when you are over the effective dose and approaching toxicity. Modern drugs have none of those failsafes. What is the evidence that these "failsafes", more commonly known as "unpleasant side effects", only kick in once you pass the effective dose? That's a pretty unlikely way for them to work, knowing exactly how much of the drug will be effective for everyone who takes it, don't you think?
In any case, if this is true, it should be simple enough to isolate the magical "failsafe ingredient" in herbs and then add it into medications.
Herbalism and natural remedies aren't suitable for everything, but some of them can help and have been proven to. Some of them are the source of things like aspirin. Agreed, but looking for something "natural" as an end in itself is foolish. If you want a natural headache cure, you can use salicylic acid from willow bark, but the side effects will be a lot milder if you process it into aspirin first. The people who go looking for "natural remedies" usually just suffer from the superstition that synthetic chemicals are automatically more dangerous than ground-up leaves.
Also, the term "natural" doesn't really have much meaning in this situation. At one end of the spectrum, you could say that everything is natural, since it's made from atoms that were found here on earth. At the other end, you could say it's only natural if you're taking a bite out of a plant or animal that you found in the wild, without even cooking it or washing off the natural dirt and bacteria. Most people draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the middle: some amount of processing is OK, but any more than that and it's suddenly "unnatural".
Even for homeopathy, I'd say that percentage is quite low. Maybe, but they're pretty visible. Go to Amazon's Askville and see how many of the health questions are looking for "natural or homeopathic remedies".
I assume you're thinking of the Halo 3 multiplayer beta. It's been said over and over that the rendering engine used in the beta is not the engine that will ship with Halo 3. That's a bizarre choice, completely changing out the rendering engine between beta and gold. I hope they did some damn good internal testing before unleashing the new one on their customers.
Considering that Halo 3 supports 4-player online co-op, I tend to doubt that the exact same netcode drives both games. Well, maybe this is a nitpick, but the actual networking code shouldn't have needed any changes for that. It's just a new game type, like CTF vs. deathmatch. The delivery and handling of packets, synchronization of game state, etc. are all the same for co-op and deathmatch; the only differences are the maps and the game logic on the host's end.
Speaking of online lag, I'm not sure what dedicated servers would solve. I could be mistaken, but usually lag in online games is due to the players' Internet connections to the host. Right, but that involves two separate tubes, the player's and the host's. The host of a Halo game is just another player, most likely on an asymmetric connection like cable/DSL with pitiful upstream bandwidth. That explains the 16 player cap: if you have only 384 kbps upstream (like so many Comcast customers), that's 24 kbps per player, which is about average for an FPS. It also means that if someone else in the house happens to be using a bit of bandwidth -- say, downloading a torrent -- then they'll ruin the game for everyone.
How about being able to use it to achieve a decent speed Internet connection while on the train? Check. It's called EVDO.
Compare prices with online shops while you're shopping (or check reviews of products you see on sale)? Check. It's called a mobile browser. The ones built into most phones are frustrating to use with full-scale web sites, but there are plenty of mobile-optimized sites, and you can always get a smartphone or an iPhone if you need a real browser.
Sit in the park and work because the weather's nice, and not have to go inside every time you want to look something up online? Check. Bluetooth or USB connects the phone to your laptop, or you can get a PC card... or one of those Dell laptops with EVDO built in.
I guess I rest my case, then. That page says there are 125 accredited MD programs in the US, and that the AMA is only a half-sponsor of the LCME anyway. They don't seem to have the power to restrict the supply of doctors, the results don't indicate that the supply is being successfully restricted, and even the idea that they're trying to restrict supply is just a conjecture.
The GMC is part of the UK government, so they are sort of accountable to somebody. I'm not aware of anyone that the AMA is accountable to. The AMA doesn't license doctors, though; they're a lobbying group. Licensing is done by state medical boards, whose makeup and accountability are presumably similar to the GMC. For example, California's medical board is made up of "12 physicians and 9 public members appointed by the Governor; 1 public member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly; and 1 public member appointed by the Senate Rules Committee".
Education is a public good and anybody can go to a public park. The only people who benefit from a Universal Service Fee are the people who live out in the boonies. Anyone can go to a public park, but anyone can move out into the boonies too. If you choose not to visit the parks you're paying for, that money doesn't benefit you any more than the USF benefits someone who chooses to live in the city.
The point is not that healthcare is regulated at all. The point is that it is regulated by CURRENT DOCTORS who have a strong incentive to keep supply low so that they will receive higher pay. The majority of the UK's General Medical Council members are doctors too. Again, I don't think this is something that really sets the US apart. And who better to judge the competence of a doctor than another doctor, anyway?
Should I have to pay for my (very far away) neighbor's phone? Or should he move closer to other people so it wouldn't cost so much? Well, considering that this actually happened, most people seem to agree that you should have to pay for your neighbor's phone, just like you also pay for his schools, libraries, parks, etc. (and he pays for yours). The whole "why should I have to spend a dime to help anyone else?" line of argument has not been very successful.
Please show me any any such comparisons. I would be very interested in a formal study comparing private/government efficiency. All anecdotal evidence I've heard, and my personal experience, is that government tends to be much less efficient than private industry. Health care is the one that comes to mind. Most western countries with national health care systems spend less of their GDP on health care, yet they cover more people, have lower infant mortality and longer lifespans, and overall, get a lot more for their money than we do. Even in the US, Medicare has much lower overhead than private insurers: something like 6% vs. 30%.
(I don't have citations off the top of my head. I suppose I could look them up if you want them, but they shouldn't be too hard to find.)
I see that you mentioned health care later in your post, but I don't think the factors you mentioned are enough to explain the sorry state of our system compared to others. We're hardly the only country that regulates doctors or allows malpractice suits.
Telecomm/utilities are a natural monopoly, so you do need some type of regulation to keep the customers from getting screwed by the local monopoly. It's not just about monopolies, it's about providing services even when there's no profit incentive. The problem with small communities that couldn't get phone service wasn't that it'd be too expensive to run multiple sets of wires for competing phone companies... it was too expensive to run even one set. Phone service could not be provided there at a price that would allow the phone company to turn a profit. Without government intervention, it simply wouldn't have been available there, but we the people decided telecom was important enough to subsidize.
So when you say "keep any more of their paycheck," do you must know mean whatever is left after taxes to be spent or saved as one chooses. Do you only mean what's saved? Do you mean what I have left after spending for the basic necessities? Somewhere between those two.
Suppose that Sven pays 2/3 of his income in taxes and gets free health care, free daycare and education for his kid, and "an efficient and respected state department which looks after consumer rights in cases like deceptive marketing and defective products" as the GGP mentioned.
Suppose also that Brad pays only 1/3 of his income in taxes, but then has to spend an additional 1/3 of his income paying for health insurance, day care, tuition, and the various costs of being deceived and scammed by companies because his consumer rights aren't being looked after.
My point is that Sven and Brad are in the same boat, so it's stupid to complain about the amount Sven pays in taxes. Sure, Brad could choose not to have health insurance or send his kid to college... but, like most people, he doesn't. And sure, Brad could receive more value for his money from the private sector... but real-world comparisons show that he probably doesn't.
The better question is whether the government can provide better service per dollar/euro than private industry. For rival/exclusive goods in competitive markets, I don't there there's anybody (reasonable) who would say government can do a better job. Well, that's a question, but not the only one. You might also ask whether the government can be more responsive to people's needs and desires than private industry. A private company will only do what can be done profitably, which is why it took government subsidies to provide phone and electrical service to rural areas that otherwise wouldn't be profitable. The government, however, does what voters ask for, even if it has to operate at a loss.
At least CompUSA has e-rebates that you can submit online just by typing in a few numbers from your receipt. I just sent in a couple Newegg rebates, and I had to print a copy of my multi-page invoice, cut out the bar codes, and even enclose the original packing list from the box. Good thing the two products came in separate boxes!
Is it true that Americans pay the same amount to private companies that people in other countries pay in taxes, and thus don't actually get to keep any more of their paychecks?
Mind linking to some? I couldn't find any. All I found was a coffee mug that said culture warrior. Oh, the hate! Here are several examples of hate speech found on Bill O'Reilly's site, collected according to the same standard that Papa Bear has used to condemn DailyKos. HTH.
Secondly, while I haven't tried VS2005 for C#, I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding the kind of features he's talking about [...] Will it do the following things that eclipse does: * Given a line of code with an undeclared identifier, give you a menu option to automatically declare that identifier?
No, but if the identifier is declared in a different namespace, it'll give you the option to import that namespace or qualify the identifier.
* When a method call doesn't match the types of existing versions of that method, does it automatically offer to create a new overload of the method with the types you specified, or add missing parameters to an existing overload?
Yes, the former.
* When cutting and pasting code, will it automatically add any namespace imports that are necessary to support that code?
Not automatically, but you can do it with a few clicks (see above).
* If code in a method can throw an exception that isn't handled, can it automatically add a declaration that the method will throw that exception? Automatically wrap the method in a try/catch block customized for the exception type?
Not applicable because methods don't have exception signatures in C#. Actually, VS supports J# too, but I'm not sure whether it has this feature there.
* Can it automatically generate interfaces with declarations that match selected methods from an existing class? Superclasses?
Interfaces, yes.
* Will it extract selected statements into a new method, automatically declaring any necessary parameters and determining the appropriate return value?
Yes.
I have heard people say that these features are available before, but they normally suggest you need additional plugins to achieve them (e.g. resharper). These features are all available with a default install of eclipse. Everything I mentioned comes with the default install of VS 2005 Standard Edition. Some of the ones it's lacking might be available with a plugin; I don't know, I've never tried Resharper or anything similar.
Let's see, you're asking someone to port an unreleased game from PPC to x86, without access to the source code, and you're offering about enough money for him to buy a copy of the original (which he'll need to perform the port), a case of beer, and a sandwich?
So you're the one who posts all those job listings on Rentacoder!
Adding a unique control scheme forces game studios that want to follow that same model to either port games to the Wii poorly, or port games from the Wii poorly. Counterexample: Scarface for Wii. The reworked controls don't always work well (careful not to sprain your wrist while beating up pedestrians), but overall, the ability to shoot anywhere on screen, even while driving, means the port is probably better than the originals.
Well, I agree. But you have to assume that if they are willing to go through the expense of buying censorware that they are paying attention to the brat in the first place and the kid isn't listening. If they weren't keeping an eye on them, they why would they care about censorware? Because censorware is a substitute for keeping an eye on kids -- that's the whole point! Instead of actually monitoring your kid's internet use with your own two eyes, asking him what he's been up to, and talking with him about what he should stay away from and (most importantly) why, you get a program to do it for you. Badly.
Also, the censorware in this case is provided free of charge from the government. You didn't think a parent actually spent $84 million of his own money on it, did you?;)
How do you know there is a difference with a kid in something like not listening and viewing porn on the Internet or playing with a gun they found in your room? Uh... you're asking how I know there's a difference between guns and porn? You must be joking. Any 16 year old knows guns can kill people and boobies can't.
I guess a question might be, if they fail to listen to you over viewing it and goto the point of subvert any efforts you might take to stop it, then why would you expect them to understand that No mean No when dealing with a real live girl? I mean after all, it is just a couple of boobies. Because anyone who isn't retarded can tell the difference between forcing yourself on a real live person against her will, and looking at a picture that some third party doesn't want you to. One is harmful to another human being. The other merely violates an arbitrary and pointless rule.
I know, because when time outs don't work and groundings to your room that has it's own TV, computer, games and all don't work, an ass beating for not listening should take care of the problem. It'll seem to take care of the problem, until they knife you in your sleep for being an abusive bastard. Or maybe they'll just keep it in the back of their head until the day comes to choose your nursing home.
Jesus, this isn't rocket science. Take the TV, computer, and games out of the room if you're sending the kid there as punishment. And if you're so concerned about his internet browsing, the computer should be in a more visible place anyway.
Yes, I suppose they have. But lets not let that allow us to look past the fact that there might be some truth in what they are saying. If there were any truth to it, it'd be reflected in crime statistics. And, unfortunately for their grasp on reality and their relevance to today's society, it isn't. The murder rate in the US in 2005 was as low as it's been since 1966.
I mean you seem to think every old person fears whatever change and are dogging on you because of your actions. I don't know where you came up with that. I haven't said a thing about my actions, or anyone "dogging" on me. You're the one who brought up seniors in the first place.
I'm just pointing out that seniors have always complained about the younger generation; when you were a kid, seniors then were complaining about your generation, just as Plato complained about the kids of his time. Those complaints don't prove anything, especially not a decline over time, because they're constantly there no matter what.
I'm betting that the only reason you find that wrong is because you on of the people who are doing things wrong all the time and don't want to be made to listen. Well, you're losing that bet. Would you rather send a check or PayPal?
I find it wrong because I believe in human rights and dignity. Inflicting pain on someone in order to enforce your will is wrong, period. It's especially wrong when they're smaller than you, dependent on you, and helpless to fight back. There's no excuse for that, and the kind of thugs who do such a thing should be stripped of parental rights and castrated to prevent them from harming any more children.
If your kids aren't listening to the point you have to consider that, you should be spanking them, taking the damn computer away and probably some other disciplinary actions. Or you could just be a real parent and keep an eye on them. Unfortunately, some people are just too weak or lazy to do that, so they take the coward's way out with punches, censorware, or what have you. Those people shouldn't have had kids in the first place if they're so unprepared to put a little effort into parenting.
It isn't about authority for authorities sake, it is about raising them the ways you think accomplished all that you are expected to turn out. Not doing drugs, alcohol, surfing to bad sites and all that can be part of it. but the bottom line is that when you are responsible for another persons actions, they better be doing what they are told or making an effort at it. You seem to think the relatively limited legal liability that parents have for their kids' actions makes those kids their chattel in all aspects of life, but I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. No one is going to die if a kid looks at boobies. It's not going to hurt him. Back in the day it was Playboys or naughty playing cards; now it's a web site.
There is no reason to be buying into a 84 billion dollar program in the first place just to see some punk break it. You had it right up to the word "just". There's no reason to be spending that kind of money on filtering software, period.
I have talked to senior who have been saying the same thing since they had kids but they also say it is worse now then back then. Oh boy. Newsflash! Senile codger complains that kids are worse now than they were back in the day! In other news, senile codger complains that today's music sounds like a bunch of noise. Funny how once you reach the age where your memory starts to go, the first thing to vanish is the reality of how life really was back in the "good old days".
Seriously, cranky old people have been saying that since the dawn of time. Just because that's how they perceive each new generation doesn't mean they're on to something. It just means fearing change is part of human nature (and gets worse as you grow older).
You used to tip your hat to a lady and take them off when going inside someone else's building. We don't do things like that anymore. That's rich, a complaint about manners coming from someone who's been advocating violence as a way to make others comply with his will. Personally, I'd rather see someone wear a hat indoors than see them beat up a child any day.
When is the last time you saw someone holding a door open for someone else that wasn't asked to. I saw that the last time I was at a store with a door that needed to be held open (which I admit is getting rarer). I don't know where you've been, but I see it all the time.
I was saying more people are getting murdered since time out was an accepted punishment as kids. Gosh, it's a shame the statistics don't back that up.
Slashdot Mirror
Er... TiVo HD is $299. I got my Series2 DT there for $99, and I think I paid the same price for my first Series2. There were some rebates involved, but still, you can't get a CableCard-ready TiVo for anywhere near that price, AFAICT.
I only wanted analog cable, because I have two Series2 TiVos, but I ended up getting digital cable because it's cheaper and still includes all the analog channels. (It's a promotional price, but I'm still saving $12/mo for N months.)
When the promotion expires, the price is only $1/mo more than plain analog cable. At that point, I'll give back the cable box -- it isn't even hooked up, but Comcast insisted I take one -- and save a buck a month by going back to analog.
See, when you sign up for digital cable, you're doing them a favor. They want you to have digital cable so that (1) you'll be tempted to buy On Demand movies, (2) you'll have to pay them to lease that godawful box, (3) you'll be tempted to pay for one of their DVRs because third-party ones don't fully work with the box(*), and (4) once everyone is a digital subscriber, they can switch off the analog feeds to free up bandwidth and sell you more services.
(* Yes, there are DVRs that accept CableCards, but they're prohibitively expensive, you have to pay for the cards, and we've all heard how much trouble it is to get a CableCard installed correctly.)
You're sure not helping yourself. Anyone who's ever used a cable box knows how much they blow. Changing channels is slow; and if you use a cable box with your own DVR, you can only record one channel at a time, your recordings will have cable-box banners all over them, and you'll have the ghettoest house on the block with that little infrared "blaster" dangling around.
And what do you get in exchange for that hassle... marginally better picture quality? Maybe not even that, because you're just trading analog noise for MPEG artifacts and blocking. Even if you do get a better picture overall, how long will that stay exciting? A week? After that, you won't notice the picture quality, but you'll be dealing with the drawbacks of digital cable forever.
In any case, if this is true, it should be simple enough to isolate the magical "failsafe ingredient" in herbs and then add it into medications.
Also, the term "natural" doesn't really have much meaning in this situation. At one end of the spectrum, you could say that everything is natural, since it's made from atoms that were found here on earth. At the other end, you could say it's only natural if you're taking a bite out of a plant or animal that you found in the wild, without even cooking it or washing off the natural dirt and bacteria. Most people draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the middle: some amount of processing is OK, but any more than that and it's suddenly "unnatural".
I guess I rest my case, then. That page says there are 125 accredited MD programs in the US, and that the AMA is only a half-sponsor of the LCME anyway. They don't seem to have the power to restrict the supply of doctors, the results don't indicate that the supply is being successfully restricted, and even the idea that they're trying to restrict supply is just a conjecture.
(I don't have citations off the top of my head. I suppose I could look them up if you want them, but they shouldn't be too hard to find.)
I see that you mentioned health care later in your post, but I don't think the factors you mentioned are enough to explain the sorry state of our system compared to others. We're hardly the only country that regulates doctors or allows malpractice suits. Telecomm/utilities are a natural monopoly, so you do need some type of regulation to keep the customers from getting screwed by the local monopoly. It's not just about monopolies, it's about providing services even when there's no profit incentive. The problem with small communities that couldn't get phone service wasn't that it'd be too expensive to run multiple sets of wires for competing phone companies... it was too expensive to run even one set. Phone service could not be provided there at a price that would allow the phone company to turn a profit. Without government intervention, it simply wouldn't have been available there, but we the people decided telecom was important enough to subsidize.
Suppose that Sven pays 2/3 of his income in taxes and gets free health care, free daycare and education for his kid, and "an efficient and respected state department which looks after consumer rights in cases like deceptive marketing and defective products" as the GGP mentioned.
Suppose also that Brad pays only 1/3 of his income in taxes, but then has to spend an additional 1/3 of his income paying for health insurance, day care, tuition, and the various costs of being deceived and scammed by companies because his consumer rights aren't being looked after.
My point is that Sven and Brad are in the same boat, so it's stupid to complain about the amount Sven pays in taxes. Sure, Brad could choose not to have health insurance or send his kid to college... but, like most people, he doesn't. And sure, Brad could receive more value for his money from the private sector... but real-world comparisons show that he probably doesn't. The better question is whether the government can provide better service per dollar/euro than private industry. For rival/exclusive goods in competitive markets, I don't there there's anybody (reasonable) who would say government can do a better job. Well, that's a question, but not the only one. You might also ask whether the government can be more responsive to people's needs and desires than private industry. A private company will only do what can be done profitably, which is why it took government subsidies to provide phone and electrical service to rural areas that otherwise wouldn't be profitable. The government, however, does what voters ask for, even if it has to operate at a loss.
So, by 2019, it'll be Christmas year-round? Yay!!
At least CompUSA has e-rebates that you can submit online just by typing in a few numbers from your receipt. I just sent in a couple Newegg rebates, and I had to print a copy of my multi-page invoice, cut out the bar codes, and even enclose the original packing list from the box. Good thing the two products came in separate boxes!
Is it true that Americans pay the same amount to private companies that people in other countries pay in taxes, and thus don't actually get to keep any more of their paychecks?
No, but if the identifier is declared in a different namespace, it'll give you the option to import that namespace or qualify the identifier.
* When a method call doesn't match the types of existing versions of that method, does it automatically offer to create a new overload of the method with the types you specified, or add missing parameters to an existing overload?
Yes, the former.
* When cutting and pasting code, will it automatically add any namespace imports that are necessary to support that code?
Not automatically, but you can do it with a few clicks (see above).
* If code in a method can throw an exception that isn't handled, can it automatically add a declaration that the method will throw that exception? Automatically wrap the method in a try/catch block customized for the exception type?
Not applicable because methods don't have exception signatures in C#. Actually, VS supports J# too, but I'm not sure whether it has this feature there.
* Can it automatically generate interfaces with declarations that match selected methods from an existing class? Superclasses?
Interfaces, yes.
* Will it extract selected statements into a new method, automatically declaring any necessary parameters and determining the appropriate return value?
Yes. I have heard people say that these features are available before, but they normally suggest you need additional plugins to achieve them (e.g. resharper). These features are all available with a default install of eclipse. Everything I mentioned comes with the default install of VS 2005 Standard Edition. Some of the ones it's lacking might be available with a plugin; I don't know, I've never tried Resharper or anything similar.
Let's see, you're asking someone to port an unreleased game from PPC to x86, without access to the source code, and you're offering about enough money for him to buy a copy of the original (which he'll need to perform the port), a case of beer, and a sandwich?
So you're the one who posts all those job listings on Rentacoder!
Also, the censorware in this case is provided free of charge from the government. You didn't think a parent actually spent $84 million of his own money on it, did you?
Jesus, this isn't rocket science. Take the TV, computer, and games out of the room if you're sending the kid there as punishment. And if you're so concerned about his internet browsing, the computer should be in a more visible place anyway. Yes, I suppose they have. But lets not let that allow us to look past the fact that there might be some truth in what they are saying. If there were any truth to it, it'd be reflected in crime statistics. And, unfortunately for their grasp on reality and their relevance to today's society, it isn't. The murder rate in the US in 2005 was as low as it's been since 1966. I mean you seem to think every old person fears whatever change and are dogging on you because of your actions. I don't know where you came up with that. I haven't said a thing about my actions, or anyone "dogging" on me. You're the one who brought up seniors in the first place.
I'm just pointing out that seniors have always complained about the younger generation; when you were a kid, seniors then were complaining about your generation, just as Plato complained about the kids of his time. Those complaints don't prove anything, especially not a decline over time, because they're constantly there no matter what. I'm betting that the only reason you find that wrong is because you on of the people who are doing things wrong all the time and don't want to be made to listen. Well, you're losing that bet. Would you rather send a check or PayPal?
I find it wrong because I believe in human rights and dignity. Inflicting pain on someone in order to enforce your will is wrong, period. It's especially wrong when they're smaller than you, dependent on you, and helpless to fight back. There's no excuse for that, and the kind of thugs who do such a thing should be stripped of parental rights and castrated to prevent them from harming any more children.
Seriously, cranky old people have been saying that since the dawn of time. Just because that's how they perceive each new generation doesn't mean they're on to something. It just means fearing change is part of human nature (and gets worse as you grow older). You used to tip your hat to a lady and take them off when going inside someone else's building. We don't do things like that anymore. That's rich, a complaint about manners coming from someone who's been advocating violence as a way to make others comply with his will. Personally, I'd rather see someone wear a hat indoors than see them beat up a child any day. When is the last time you saw someone holding a door open for someone else that wasn't asked to. I saw that the last time I was at a store with a door that needed to be held open (which I admit is getting rarer). I don't know where you've been, but I see it all the time. I was saying more people are getting murdered since time out was an accepted punishment as kids. Gosh, it's a shame the statistics don't back that up.