In point of fact, nearly every mainstream Android device released over the past 3-4 years at least has received at least one major upgrade overs its lifetime and usually more than one. Sure, some of the cheaper ones may suffer the "no updates" fate, but that's one of the unseen prices you pay when you get a cheaper device. They're cheap *in part* because they don't receive updates. I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, but it's *generally* true.
If you say the murder rate would be decreasing even without carry, a notion I agree with, then clearly you're saying that carrying DOES NOT negatively contribute to the murder rate... to which I'd say what POSSIBLE justification could you have for having a problem with carrying? Are we really going to ban things for no other reason than they seem dangerous? 'cause I'll tell ya, them baseball bats I see on the fields during the summer, them things sure look dangerous to me, we'd better ban them too... oh, and let's not even talk about your table saws or claw hammers or motor vehicles!
If the murder rate is going down DESPITE carrying, then just leave carrying alone. Doesn't that simply make logical sense to you?
He was doing no such thing. Constitutional Carry is a term that is generally applied to any jurisdiction that allows carry without needing permission to do so (vis a vis, a permit). He didn't make up the term, he wasn't co-opting it, it's simply the accepted term for that arrangement.
Very good point, entirely correct. However... for an in-memory database I wonder if there's gains to be had? I'm not sure CPU-memory I/O is much of a bottleneck, though such DBs aren't suitable to every task of course.
...I actually agree with that she-bitch Feinstein that he shouldn't get clemency. However, that's where it ends for me. Not giving clemency is different than hunting down.
To me, leave the guy alone. Let him live out his life in whatever country he wants that isn't America, free from the threat of assassination or jail. The only caveat is he's lost his U.S. privileges. It's kinda like Wallace in Pulp Fiction: "You lost your L.A. privileges".
Here's my thing: he DID break the law. Now, me, I say he did it for the right reasons and I'm glad he did... but he still did leak classified information and that can't go unpunished. But, to me, the punishment of never being able to set foot in his home country again is plenty. I don't need him dead and I don't want him in jail. There's plenty of other nice countries out there Mr. Snowden- pick one and make it your home and enjoy the rest of your days. But you don't get to come back here either.
"There is no good reason to have facsimile hand grenades on a plane." Yikes... so now you want to make FACSIMILES verboten? Come on.
Clearly a *REAL, LIVE* grenade has no good reason to be on a plane (a civilian plane obviously we're talking about)... but a facsimile? A completely inert piece of metal that just HAPPENS to look like something dangerous?
Come. On. You've GOT to see that's ridiculous. Please, tell me you do.
That is all.
Of course, I meant LINUS in that title... my bad, mental typo obviously.
"Linux Torvalds says something AGAIN that would get him fired from VIRTUALLY ANY COMPANY ON EARTH, and Slashdot fanbois rush to SUCK HIS DICK so hard it breaks".
Look... Linus is a super-genius that has accomplished more in half a lifetime than most of us will accomplish in our ENTIRE lifetime (and this is coming from someone who has 7 published tech books and an 8th on the way- an accomplishment that itself dwarves most other peoples', yet is almost nothing next to what Linus has done)... he is virtually always right when he says something technical and he deserves to be listened to on any technical topic he chooses to speak. His name will echo through the halls of technology history for decades to come, and rightly so. He deserves every accolade he gets.
Yet, with all of that being true, he's a socially-inept bully, plain and simple. If only he could solve that problem with clever algorithms and architectural knowledge, he'd probably be up for sainthood already. Instead, he embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth in this way, and so do you if you defend him. Belittling people, even when they are completely, amazingly, HOPELESSLY wrong about something, is simply not acceptable.
Exactly, and I'm surprised people are arguing anything but this. Even for a report that you completely believe to be bogus, what time does it take to reply "hey, can I get more info?" Best case, it WAS bogus, and you never hear from the person again. You "wasted" all of 30 seconds. For a company like Facebook, that should be a trivial investment when the downside of an ACTUAL security problem is so bad. Assuming the report that they didn't reply in any way is accurate, then THIS is where Facebook fell down worst, and it's what is inexcusable.
You may have a point... as I said in the original post, I don't doubt that the ease of which guns can be used to kill, and the relative ease of availability of them, probably does have some impact on some murders being committed or not... get rid of guns entirely and I'd agree that at least SOME lives will be outright saved... not all gun deaths would suddenly become knife deaths, that seems obvious... So I think there's logic in your statement.
However, I have to disagree with the last sentence... we live in a violent society... whatever the underlying reasons, it's a true statement... yes, most of us frankly never encounter violence, thankfully, but it's there and all around us... given no other societal changes, would removing guns make confrontations less likely? I don't see how, in fact, it seems to me they'd be MORE likely... if I'm sure that guy I beat to the parking space at the grocery store doesn't have a gun then it seems I'd be MORE likely to do it and risk pissing him off because the worst that happens is a fist fight.
More importantly though, even if your assessment is correct, I'd suggest that you'd be putting lives at risk... it's undeniable that guns are pretty frequently used to save lives (it's a shame the biased media won't report on those incidents)... I'm not going to sit here and say that happens MORE than murder with a gun does, but it does happen, and even if it's only some fraction of murders with a gun, are those lives somehow less important? If I save my own life via self-defense with a gun, does that life saved somehow matter less than the guy around the block that had a fist fight and didn't die because the other guy didn't have a gun to shoot him with?
On balance, given an inherently violent society, and given the inherent right (responsibility, really) of every living being who wishes to remain living to defend themselves, I think having guns is better than not, although I'm totally willing to acknowledge that having guns sometimes is a contributing factor to bad things happening. They're a necessary evil, if you will.
You're right that suicides are usually lumped in with "gun crimes" because it makes the problem look much worse for those who have that agenda... but in this case, you're mistaken: table 20 is dealing with murders only... at least, that's what I take the column header that specifically says "murders" to mean. I 100% agree with your point, but in this case it's not a factor.
Would it surprise you to know that, well, you're wrong?
I'll save you time: while you would be correct to say that firearms are responsible for more murders than any other cause, the number of non-firearms murders is very nearly half that of firearms... roughly 8k to roughly 4k.
The point being: yes, granted, guns are used more often in murders... but it seems like those without guns are managing just fine without them too. Besides, I'm pretty sure those getting killed with fists and feet don't feel any better about it than those shot with a gun.
Now, a little thought experiment: if there were no guns, what do you think would happen? Would the TOTAL number of murders go down by roughly 8k? Or, would the number of murders not using guns GO UP? I hope you wouldn't try and say the former because if so, sir, you're retarded. Would non-firearms murders go up 8k? No, I very much doubt it... but the number WOULD go up.
And why is that? Simple: violent people are violent people. Yes, guns might make it easier for them to kill... but a good percentage of them are going to murder WITHOUT a gun just the same... and hey, to use the anti-gun argument against them: isn't ONE murder with a boxcutter too much? Better ban them! If we can save just ONE LIFE by banning baseball bats, shouldn't we?
I'm not saying that if we removed guns from the equation that we wouldn't save a few lives. I think we would. There's no doubt some murders that wouldn't occur at all if there were no guns. The problem is that guns UNDENIABLY save lives, nearly every day. Are those lives saved somehow less important than those saved if there were no guns? I'm not even claiming the number of lives saved by guns is greater than those taken by murder with guns (although I believe that's the case, but I don't have a reference so I won't claim it)... I'm just saying if it's all about saving lives (hint: IT'S NOT) then a life saved with a gun is just as valuable as one taken with a gun.
People who want to kill will, by and large, find a way. That's the bottom line and that's the fundamental problem in our society, the fact that people WANT to kill (putting self-defense aside of course). The fact that guns might make it easier is tangential to the root cause and while banning guns might save a few lives, the impact won't be nearly as large as you want to think it might be and we'll be talking about banning the NEXT inanimate object quickly. Stop trying to attack something that's a proximal cause AT BEST and get to the root of the problem. That's the way we might actually make a difference in this country. We don't have a "gun violence" problem, we have a VIOLENCE problem. Any time you see "gun violence", that just shows there's an agenda at play and that person actually cares very little for saving lives and is more interesting in exerting and extending control (Oh, did our president say that? Hmm, point proven!)
I too am a game developer... no, not professional as you are, but I've written almost a dozen games on a number of platforms over nearly 20 years, sold most of them and even had two nominated for some awards years ago. I won't put myself on the same level as you, but I do have some relevant experience.
I would agree if you said the "never" statement is hyperbole... but you wouldn't argue the underlying gist of it, would you? Certainly it's true that a game programmer will seek to MINIMIZE object allocations and deallocations as much as possible within the performance-critical sections of code, right? I think that was what he was getting at, even if he didn't say it very well. Yes, I'd agree, what he LITERALLY wrote is false... but I suspect it was just a case of being overzealous with word choice... get him in a quiet room and I bet he says "yeah, I didn't actually meant NEVER there".
Bottom line: just because you're using a GC'd language and you CAN ignore memory management, doesn't mean you SHOULD. That goes for JS, Java or any other GC'd language in existence.
I hate to go off on a tangent... but that won't stop me from doing so, because I think it's actually the core of the issue and is entirely non-technical:
This all goes back to the abysmal state of many (most?) "modern" developers.
If you grew you with computers at the time I did, the late 70's/early 80's, and you learned to program those early 8-bit home computers, you kinda take this stuff for granted (memory management I mean). You just inherently think differently than "modern" developers do. You see things at a much lower level... even when you're working at a high level of abstraction, your mind automatically goes lower... instantiating an object in Java? You're mind at some level is thinking about how memory is being allocated, how the object reference is being stored, etc. Hell, you even start to think about the messages the OS is passing around, how those messages must map to C functions, and how those functions ultimately resolve down to assembly.
I'm NOT saying you KNOW all those details... not really... you just know the concepts... and I'm certainly not saying such details are relevant most of the time because they're not... I'm just saying that's the way our brains work... we can "see" all the levels below the one we're actually working on in our minds' eye, if only in a conceptual sense, and it happens without trying.
I's because we generally started learning at those low levels and everything over the years has built up logically from there. Most of us started with BASIC but quickly jump to Assembly because that was the only way to achieve what we really wanted to (games, mostly). Once you're at that level, it's an entirely different mindset. Those of us that also had an electronics background go a step further because we even go below the Assembly level sometimes (and that wasn't all that uncommon back then... of course, the electronics were considerably simpler and easier to understand than they are now).
(to be fair, some of us that learned in the "ground-up" way sometimes have difficulty STAYING at a high level... we sometimes trip over discussions that are too abstract because our brains are searching for the details that aren't there, and really aren't even relevant... that's a whole other discussion, but it's a true phenomenon).
We're probably past the point of making developers better by and large... the time of kids starting close to "bare metal" and building from there is long gone in most cases... hell, how many modern developers have EVER done Assembly in their lives, outside of perhaps one class in school? So I guess the only real choice is we have to come up with a technological solution somehow, and we'll continue to have articles like this.