This is a stupid thing to even argue about, but I've been using Java for a decade and have barely needed to do these things you mentioned. I suspect they're done so rarely that the collective time saved from not having to deal with mixed signed/unsigned types in APIs far outweighs the joys of having an extra bit. And when you need to, support for byte arrays is really very good.

It's not uncommon to point out that showing tits is ridiculously regarded as more of a problem that showing violence and gore, but the problem I would have with GTA V is not the tits, it's the sexualization of them. If I had kids, I wouldn't mind bringing them to a nude beach, but I wouldn't bring them to a strip club. As far as the sex and violence, whether they can distinguish between real life and fantasy is moot. Young kids barely even HAVE a "real life", so the values they're taking from media aren't going to be contrasted against any real experience, but taken as is. I'm just talking about kids 13 or younger.. once you're fourteen or so, you're probably old enough to handle an animated strip dance.

I think that odds are, as with any app-store model, you'll be able to access several repositories. One could be for open-source highly-scriptable applications, one could be for closed commercial stuff. The level of scriptability depends on who manages the app-store.

But right now this is all already possible on Android (the ability to script apps, and not tightly controlled by an omnipotent god), except I don't know what it takes to open an app store. An interpreted scripting language on an Android device would work, with all the manufacturer software replaced with utilties that have friendly APIs. Most of the remaining work would be up to the community.

So what percentage of street fights end with someone dying? 50%? 75%? probably less than .01%. When you're getting your ass kicked, it may *feel* like the other person is trying to kill you, but believe me it'll be okay.

Wrong, stand-your-ground was fundamental to the jury's eventual verdict:

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/15/2306631/zimmerman-juror-says-panel-considered-stand-your-ground-he-had-a-right-to-defend-himself/

And the only witness who said his head was being slammed repeatedly into the pavement was the guy on trial for 2nd degree murder. He had lesions on the back of his head but nothing serious. I don't believe Zimmerman, but I acknowledge he might be telling the truth and we'd never know. So should he spend time in jail? I don't know, it's a really complicated case, but i wish people would acknowledge for a second that GZ might be telling a lie to get out of a long prison sentence.

Yes, this seems like a doomed project iconsidering how fundamental the interpretation is, but I'm far from an expert. Ask any music scholar or casual listener like me which recording of the Goldberg Variations should be 'preserved indefinitely' and I don't think any would be able to settle for a single one. And collecting recordings from different orchestras and musicians is part of the fun.

But I'm not so naive as to think those who started this project as well as the contributers didn't already know this. So what possible benefits can be gained from having a set of particular recordings at a very high bitrate? And NO, I didn't read the article

He didn't, but the judge explained it to the jury, who were ordered to take it under consideration. One of the jurors came forward saying that without the law, it could've gone the other way.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/15/2306631/zimmerman-juror-says-panel-considered-stand-your-ground-he-had-a-right-to-defend-himself/

What's wrong with getting a hand gun? You're in favor of GZ but against the 2nd amendment?

Thank you. I'm surprised how many pussies there are on slashdot who can't understand that a fist fight doesn't mean you're going to die. Maybe they've got pent-up hostility about all the times they got pummeled in high school. Believe me, I was on the losing end too, but I wouldn't have wanted those people to die as a result.

The reaction from the police had much to do with race. Imagine they show up at the scene and there's a 27 yr old black guy with a gun and a dead 17 yr old white kid. Would they let him go without so much as a breathalizer? Just food for thought.

No, the court did not rule that. The jury took into account the stand-your-ground law. GZ didn't use SYG in his self-defence, but it was explained to the jury and was key in their decision. GZ only need to 'believe' his life was in danger. There did not have to be evidence of such. Based on the evidence alone, there was no justification for killing in self-defense. Under stand your ground, if someone punches you in the face, you can literally kill them (but only with a gun). Without stand your ground, killing him would have been considered too excessive.

Trayvon Martin was literally beating Zimmerman to death.

For the million and oneth time, there's no evidence TM was 'beating GZ to death'. GZ had minor scratches on the back of his head. His nose was broken. Same as a lot of fist fights.

For the millionth time, there's no proof or evidence that GZ's life was in danger. Review the court's findings. It's funny to see all these 'tough guys' support such a pussy. "Praising him only because of his color"?? You don't think there was anything else significant about this case? Take a step back and evaluate your position on this matter. Imagine how the same scenario would play out with a 27 yr old black guy and a 17 yr old white kid.

So if the white guy had a gun, why would any of this change? Is he going to be able to get the gun cocked and pointed at the black guy before the black guy can pull his trigger? Would he be stupid enough to try? I'm not against guns, but we're not all Clint Eastwood. If both people have a gun, then it's more likely that someone dies, and it'll almost always be the aggressor gets the first shot.

There's more to our government than just the president. Congress still has enormous influence and Americans have managed to elect some good congressmen. In fact, organizations like Wolf-Pac are pushing for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen's United by working entirely at the state level. Social policy changes are happening on the state level for more rapidly than at the national (gays, pot, abortion, guns, etc). So there's still a chance.