I think there's some truth to what you're saying, but it's overly simplistic. Rights and technology are orthogonal. The record is hardly a progression of the powerful using new technologies to trample our rights; it's hardly the opposite either. Rights are demanded, and taken, by threat of loss of legitimacy for the powerful who refuse us those rights; they're lost when that threat is unsupportable. It may be that technology and disparity of power have advanced to the point that that threat is empty now, in which case your point is spot on. But I don't think we've reached that point. Yet.

I will say that the all is lost attitude isn't helping though.

And you wonder why I never call anymore.

Hell to the yes.

While I won't bother getting in the middle of the rest of the dispute, you're making a technical argument about a legal, non-technical distinction. I can see how you'd make that mistake, because the context also makes some technical claims. But let's be clear: in legal terms, "broadcast" (sending data over radio waves) is not the same as "broadcast" (making content available to an audience). Writing an email on the bus doesn't give the riders permission to read its contents, just as downloading a song does not constitute a public performance.

This is an important distinction.

Because you think that's the morally appropriate choice? Or for some other reason(s)?

Any person with sufficiently sensitive equipment can essentially intercept any transmission, and discover a whole lot that isn't an explicit transmission. By this logic, we cannot legally expect to defend any form of privacy once it is compromised. That certainly appears to be the realpolitik, but it doesn't have to be accepted or defended. It certainly isn't justified by the fact that sound and light waves can be perceived by ears and eyes.

You've more or less described almost every functional programming language. And many of them, quite old, are gaining in popularity well past their introduction, in no small part because functional programming turns out to be well suited for parallel computing (and therefore to distributed computing and multiple processor cores). It should not be surprising to hear more about languages like Erlang (1986) and Haskell (1990), or to see new functional languages introduced going forward.

I would have read the rest of your comment, but you're obviously playing a terrible game of telephone. Every language is parsed. Java is a compiled (not interpreted) language.

Turns out that's a reasonable expectation. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...

You can at least quit worrying about your numeric types if you use asm.js

Yeah good point that sounds trivial, like using a RumplestiltskinJS quadrilateral framework that all the cool kids are running.

Tell your wife the guy you argued with on the internet thinks she looks great, regardless of what you think.

LOL you think me getting bored while day drinking on a Saturday and shaming shame-mongers on a dumb website is outrage?

Shrug. More bored now. My poor liver.

I'm not going to bother defending my sense of humor, because that never works out for anyone. But I didn't even realize it was intended as such. All I saw was ignorance demanding insane barbie standards of people with male anatomies.

You're right, we should humiliate "ugly" people being themselves. It's "funny".

I'm sure your wife appreciated your insane presumption of entitlement to tell people how they should look.