C'mon... if they're going to name something that, it should really be 450 feet long, shouldn't it?

It's too bad the creator had to ruin it by opening his mouth. Any 'Art' that makes it's statement with a bunch of words next to it generally isn't art. It's glued together junk that's not aesthetically appealing. This guy actually made something neat and arguably pretty, then made sure we all knew his talents started with, and ended with, this sort of work.

Also this is completely wrong:

Java 1 was released in 1996, C# 1 was released in 2002.

Of course Java was ahead of C# before C# was released. C# started out as a Java clone. Java was arguably ahead of C# for about two versions or so, although .NET learned some lessons from Java and implemented some things better (like events, properties, and generics).

C# 3+ leaped ahead by most measures with functional programming concepts such as lambdas and LINQ, as well as duck typing and more. Java has recently improved in many of these areas but I don't yet feel Java's implementation is superior.

On the other hand if you are really into functional programming, look at Scala for the JVM or F# for .NET. Those are both fantastic languages and I would personally choose them assuming my job allowed (which unfortunately it does not).

The customer, his doctors and insurance companies would be free to look at the FDA data and decide for themselves what to medicate with.

All this does is move liability for bad drugs to entities less able to defend against bogus claims. No doctor would prescribe anything with a scintilla of risk.

Not all 4 legged animals are dogs and I don't think that your reversal of the scenario proves the point.

Can a court really throw out a document, signed by a genuine cop authorizing the person to commit a crime? The cop knowingly signed the document. Isn't this more important than the beliefs of the thief? The thief could explain his belief as "I thought that I was authorized if any one of us was a cop". So, his belief is premised on a factual basis that happened to be unlikely, but true.

Niether your opinion, nor mine matters -- all that matters is what a competant court decides. I wonder if there are any cases where this has actually happened?

How do you think that people with no money will be able to make their own economy exactly?

Legally speaking, identity theft is the assumption of another person's identity for the purposes of defrauding either that individual or some agency.

It's my understanding that purpose, when used in legalese and referring to criminal activity, simply refers to any intent on the part of the perpetrator, or any intent that can reasonably be assumed, barring extenuating circumstances, and additionally may even include even entirely unintentional consequences that happen to arise or else are very likely to arise as a result of the activity.

Exactly what law is being broken when cops lie or create fake instagram accounts?

Having a habit of asking all of your criminal buddies to sign such a statement, and signing it yourself claiming that you are a cop, would tend to show that you know it's a sham.

But it's not a sham for the hypothetical real cop. The fact that all the documents signed by non-cops were sham documents isn't important.

Note: don't get your legal advice from /. -- it's likely to be wrong.

It doesn't matter if you "blame automation" or not... as smarter and smarter robots get made, we'd be talking about a future where as much as 80% of today's even very high skilled jobs, and essentially 100% of the low-skill ones, will be taken over by machines, leaving an unsustainable number of people unemployed, and with no ability to sustain themselves without resorting to crime, because the economy is not just going to magically disappear simply because it might seem that an advanced enough technology might make such a thing possible. This is a pretty damn large problem, and it's not going to go away just because automation has always ultimately resulted in more jobs in the past because we are talking about a completely different order of magnitude of scale here, and while we may be on the technological cusp of something like that happening within the next couple of decades, we are not anywhere *close* to being socially ready to accommodate that kind of change.

That's what I think people are really afraid of when it comes to very large scale automation of traditionally very high skill jobs, and not just the notion of losing their "precious capitalism", as was suggested above. And unfortunately, the people who have the greatest incentive to want to avoid it also have virtually no ability to influence such an outcome.

Fox News is not offering a different viewpoint, they're offering right-wing FUD.

I am not sure that it really is right wing, instead it is news through the lens of the super-rich.

Godel sez you're all fyucked-up. A computer sissyboi. A nerdling.  Compren'de ? Maths creating humans cannot be algorithmic devices. Period.  In any process, at each step of human intervention a novel motif may be introduced  of character utterly unpredictable by any machine or algorithm; or a machine defined motif may be **scotched**  even if (especially if!) never before seen by the human; call this error.making if you wish ."sticks & stones may break ..."  Anyrate it's fool-proof security provided by any human fool. That's why humans make more secure machine operators than any computer system. 

You accuse me of failing to see why an economy could become obsolete, but you appear to fail to see the all-too-probable scenario that it will not. In your hypothetical future, there may certainly not be any kind of real need for any kind of economy if everyone were willing to play by such rules, but you fail to illustrate exactly what would motivate the people with the most money and power to want to give that economy up in the first place.

It would be even safer to drive the speed limit (or even below it if you have a heavy load) and not trying to change lanes near the point of no return.

Never ran a red light where it wasn't my own fault.