I'm having hard time seeing how there is a greater chance of injury from picking non-resisting people up than from using pepper spray. Some of the people at UC Davis were coughing blood for an hour afterwards (internal bleeding, whee).

Well, I guess the standard police procedure for picking someone up might include smashing their head into the ground a few times or something. But assuming the police use no more violence than necessary (for reasonable definitions of necessary), I don't see just picking the people up and arresting them having greater chance of injury than pepper spray, which is guaranteed to cause injuries (just of varying severity - from irritation up to death in case of an unlucky asthmatic victim).

If you'd RTFA, you would have noticed that Amazon demands the lowest/equal it's ever been sold for. And then you get paid 20% of that.

Situationally advantageous is all that's really needed to make the change stick in an evolutionary branch.

Of course there's nothing in it that you can't do in C, seeing as both are Turing complete. But many of F#'s features are such that you'd need to reimplement major parts of F# to do the same thing in C. For example, the type system, pattern matching or partial function application. And you still wouldn't get them at language syntax level.

There are no optimizations in any HLL that can't be done in C, provided you reimplement the HLL's runtime in C. The point being that you're not going to be able to apply runtime optimization techniques without a high level runtime. At which point the question is, do you really want to code $HLL in C or in $HLL?

Language is indeed a part of culture - it shapes how a person thinks. It's pretty difficult to think about things you have no words for. On the other hand, writing is just a serialised form of a language and for most languages, does not contain different concepts than the aurally serialised form. So different written forms of a language would be mostly* equivalent.

*Things like artistic calligraphy and puns aren't likely to remain the same from one writing system to another, though.

Those people probably have never used a multiple workspace -capable window manager. The benefits only show when you've adjusted to having a large number of open windows being feasible. Once you do keep enough windows open that it's not sensible to keep them in a single workspace, you can organize them by purpose. For example, on my work computer my default configuration is email and browser in one workspace, IDE and other dev tools in another, testing environment in a third and a fourth workspace that gets used for whatever tasks I don't want cluttering up the other workspaces but aren't big enough things to create a new dedicated workspace for.

Now, I could make do without multiple workspaces, but then my single workspace would be somewhat cluttered and I'd have to close programs I'm not constantly using to keep it from getting really cluttered. And that adds overhead as I then have to reopen the programs and either wait for them to restore their state - if they even can - or manually set them back up.

It was named by a marketroid, as big business-related things usually are.

I see you are successfully ignoring the stealth aspect. Or maybe you think an employer has the right to spy on employees? (note spy vs monitor)

Because using the camera is in fact using the patent. Read the article for details of how this happens to be so.

One can write a Haskell version of factorial that looks pretty much the same as the F# version:

factorial :: Num a => a -> a
factorial n =
  case n of
    0 -> 1
    _ -> n * factorial (n - 1)

This contains similar pattern matching expression, even using the same match-anything-pattern-keyword '_' and some additional polymorphism syntax in the type signature. The type signature could be left out and what's shown is what the compiler would then automatically derive.

You are so incredibly wrong that it's not really possible to explain to you without taking a few books worth of words. But to start with everything you seem to know about molecular biology, radioactivity and nuclear waste is more or less wrong.

The warlord is dead! Long live the warlord!

You're working on biased data. All of the Roman stuff still standing is grossly overspecced. Everything they did not overspec has fallen apart by now. We could build to last as long if we wanted to, it is merely that we choose not to (because it would be more expensive - this may not be a good choice, but it would be difficult to convince the accountants of that). It is our knowledge of physics that lets us decide how sturdy we want to build.

Okular. Now mod parent down -1 Ignorant.