I read your longer (similar) post earlier, and while the argument sounds convincing, I would like to see some statistics about the execution being a major deterrent (in comparison to prison terms). I wonder if there are any papers that take into account the subcultures of an area (say state) with death penalty and compare the crime rate to a similar states (and so on). Could you link to one of these, or what is your argument based on?
Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.
I wonder. Are less similar crimes committed in states (or countries) with death penalty than in states (or countries) without? Related to this, United States has pretty hefty prison population, thus the country should be pretty much crime free because of all the deterrents....
Nope. With a resistive screen and a stylus you can actually select which pixel you are clicking. With capacitive screen and stylus, not so much... (but the movements relative to the original point are reasonably accurate).
The advantage of a capacitive screen is that you don't need a special technique to use it well, along with the multitouch, and scratch resistance. On a resistive screen you get accuracy (which allows clicking a specific link in a web browser without zooming in), and since you also have pressure sensitivity you can use it for drawing. And you can even implement hoovering.
And yes, my latest phones have been capacitive. Yet, the resistive screens had read advantages.
I believe that law enforcement catches as many criminals as it can afford to catch. There are probably millions of Americans who could feel a hand on their shoulder at any moment but the simple truth is catching a criminal creates a huge expense in many cases.
Considering the prison population in the USA in comparison to many other countries, the American law enforcement would seem to be rather well funded.
And if they were thinking about the consequences when they committed the crime in the first place... would they have?
And well... There's the problem. They were not thinking about the consequences. And harsher punishments don't make a difference. Punishment is a deterrent, but not one that scales well, if at all...
The 2010 OneNote is also pretty horrible (and since I have Office 2010 installed I'm mostly using it on the phone, and quite rarely the metro app, which works pretty well, but well.. I'm not a fan of the metro apps) The 2013 one, based on screenshots, looks more usable.
Since the items get synced there are some advantages when creating items on computer. Faster typing for one.
if you are young and reading this, know
HE'S LYING.
If you are young and modded the above funny, you're wrong.
Even if Apple can unlock that data and eventually does so, think about how that might look to some people, who would NOT want their heirs/family/descendants to have the means to rummage through their personal data. You see this happen all the time--families of the deceased try to weasel their way into secrets and intimate histories of those who died. If all it might take is some lawyers and potentially dubious documentation to get around a dead person's privacy, then I would think twice about leaving any personal data behind.
Perhaps stating in your will that the content of your devices is private and they are to be [emptied / erased / reset] would be appropriate then. (Compliance rate would probably be rather high if there was an exception, such as a external hd with family photos to be copied to interested family members.)
The issue is that the methodology for the ranking is questionable, and the methodology changes from year to year. The exact same drop occurred in 2005, 2011, 2014. The issue about press freedom not being perfect still exists, but the story that things have changed is a false narrative.
Could be false narrative. Could be accurate. Nevertheless the ranking (or rather the significance) is worth thinking about.
It's worse than that. When you vote for a third party, one of the two parties still wins, and very likely it's the one from the party that is least aligned with your principles.
In other words, the lesson you're teaching the two parties is that they should encourage a third party to emerge that aligns somewhat with their opponent's typical voters....
So the party that lost votes does not want them back, but instead will encourage a third party to emerge on opponent's side? Are you sure that they will do this, and neither of the parties would be interested in gobbling up those votes, especially if that piece of pie would keep increasing. Considering the system, I think that a vote to the third party would be the loudest way to be heard. Even if you subscribe to the theory that only one of the parties has members willing to vote for a third party (as advocated in the quotation, doesn't make sense otherwise).
Well, if you've already decided that you're an "average voter," then there's not much hope for you.
Most people are average voters... So are you advocating that all is lost?
BLISS is ignorance.
