If we are interested in curtailing re-offense and encouraging re-integration after prison, I don't think that disenfranchisement is particularly productive. There is considerable doubt over deterrent effect of the death penalty - I suspect that the deterrenc effect of disenfranchisement is pretty small.
Exactly. Here in Sweden you can even vote when in prison. I don't see the point of excluding present or ex convicts from the voting ranks. You could even argue that, if you have such a large fraction of your population in prison that they become a political factor as a group, then maybe fresh blood in the legislative chamber would do you good...
Functional Languages are really cool in theory. However I find that for Real World development. Your code is often too tight for proper maintenance. Where Procedural and OOP is much better at fixing issues.
That's not the experience we had at Ericsson.
I can't help but think that you haven't really been involved in designing, building, fielding, and maintaining large systems based on FP. I have. With Erlang in particular we saw a four to ten fold increase in productivity.
And "too dense to fix" didn't even show up on the radar as a problem. Not by a long shot. Quite the opposite in fact, not having to wade through page after page of boiler plate (that could still trip you up, mind you) does wonders for focusing the mind on what the real problem actually was. As a colleague of mine was fond of putting it "After a day with Erlang I feel like I've solved business/domain problems, rather than 'doing programming'.
And good/competent, to half decent programmers could be retrained in a matter of days. The ones that couldn't, we didn't want anyway. And you shouldn't either.
Artillery ranges on the other hand, spread the metal further and thinner.
Yes, but that metal is mostly soft steel, that isn't that problematic from an environmental standpoint. OTOH it isn't that lucrative to collect either.
Fun fact, the difference between a live and training artillery shell is only the heat treatment of the shell itself. The hardened shell of a live shell burst into approx 50000 sharp fragments (155mm shell), while the soft training version bursts into dozens/hundreds of large dull fragments. (This according Bofors). Notably, the type and amount of explosive is the same in both versions.
So medium is now a small?
No, they've regressed to the mean.
So how would you propose to get the electricity to these remote regions.
The same way we do in Sweden. Build a line. Even though we have (close to) the least population density in Europe, all our rail is still electrified. And the mining operation, and esp. the rail to take away the ore was the driver. (We're still suffering from the technological choices made way back when, as they're not compatible with the rest of the grid).
Now, that wouldn't be a problem as our uranium is more centrally located, and Norwegian Thorium is the same. (They also have more electricity).
And that's just using conventional technology. Remember we're talking nuclear here. There's absolutely nothing stopping the siting of a small reactor so close to the mine that transmission won't be a problem. In fact "Blykalla" is developing a reactor that would be very suitable for such a use case, even if the use case they're aiming for is slightly different. Still very remote though.
As for the rest, if you call IPCC biased, I can't help you.
Nope. It's used by the greens in the European parliament. Big difference.
And "stormsmith" in any of its guises is not without problems and criticism. That it's been "peer reviewed" (and given that it hasn't been published I used that term loosely), doesn't mean "correct", it means "not obviously flawed" (but even that's debatable).
Witness instead the IPCC figures. They also state that which "stormsmith" doesn't, namely that you don't get much CO2 from nuclear LCAs unless you assume that the mining and especially the enrichment centrifuges run on coal powered electricity. Now, that may be "true" today, depending on the energy mix, but since nuclear power produce electricity, and there's nothing stopping the use of nuclear electricity in either mining or enrichment, that's a bit disingenuous. By that token wind and solar emit quite a bit of CO2 as well.
So that's a crap analysis, basing any decisions on that sort of reasoning would preclude increasing nuclear in the energy mix, even though that would substantially decrease the CO2 load from nuclear. (Same with "concrete". The reason that's CO2 intensive is heating. There's nothing in principle stopping that heat coming from nuclear or other sources as well. In fact we ran a nuclear reactor for district heating in Sweden for many years, with zero electric output).
The IPCC accepted data on this subject from Vattenfall, a company with heavy investments in Nuclear power.
Yes, it wouldn't make sense to accept data on this subject from someone who didn't run any nuclear power plants, as they then wouldn't have any data to share, now would it?!
Yes, Vattenfall, which is wholly owned by the Swedish government, owns and operates nuclear power (four sites), but they also owns and operates hydroelectric plants, coal fired plants, wind parks, bio powered plants etc. That's why they're a good company to ask, as while they have nuclear in the mix, it's not dominant by any measure, like it would be if you asked the French for example.
Yes, there's always the risk of bias, but if you exclude everyone with any connection to anything, you'll also exclude anyone who actually has any experience at all. You can't have it both ways. If you want the data, you have to talk to the people who have the data, and those are going to be the ones who actually run/use the things you are asking about. No way around that.
No, that's true. Volvo (and SAAB) picked the low hanging fruit earlier, but most others have more or less caught up. If for the fact that much of safety standards have been mandated by law in many/most countries these days. (Which is something that Volvo engineers complain about; "You can either do well in the EuroNCAP tests, or on the road, but not both...")
So they're increasingly trying to solve more niche cases; saving the life of the pedestrian you hit, for example. Or I remember when they looked at saving the unborn fetus in a collision (turns out you can't)...
But their main problem now is actually erroneous usage. They lament the fact that whatever they do they cannot make americans to put their children facing the right way, i.e. backwards. You keep insisting on turning them around, much, much too soon (they should stay facing backwards until 4-5 years of age. I.e. until their ear line is above the top of the seat). To the detriment of their safety. But no amount of work seems to be able to change that. So what can they do?
The signs are mostly a gimmick. The important part is to identify other vehicles to avoid dazzling them while keeping everything else well lit by main beams.
Hundreds of millions of people with reduced night vision that cannot (or should not) drive at night will be able to do it safely.
Like every country, the US has issues which contributes to violence, etc. To assert that US gun culture is not a significant factor in gun-related violence seems rather ignorant.
Not if you actually study the statistics. Legally owned guns aren't used in crime either in the US (with liberal gun laws) nor Sweden (with very strict gun laws), but if I, for example, correlate the number of firearms related deaths with the number of known (criminal) gang members, I easily get very close.
We're in a recent spat of shootings here in Sweden at the moment, and like the US it's all perpetrated by criminal gang members (the rest are an anomaly). It's just that we have fewer gang members...
So the deciding factor is how easy it is for criminals to acquire guns. (Far too easy with the EU's open borders is the answer in Sweden at the moment.)
...and damned if she's not making as much as an associate professor.
Well, judging by the contents of my (virtual) salary envelope they're probably underpaying her then...
Just saying that "associate professor" may not be setting the bar very high when it comes to payment for services rendered. (Depending on lots, and lots of factors of course, including field and where in the world etc., to on a more serious note).
Me, I wish I'd learned HVAC. People will always need ducts in their houses, and heat and cooling. And there's very little math, which is good.
I remember when I was a PhD student doing "the grind" and how we all used to say that we should have gone in to fine carpentry instead. However, even though I'm not precisely over the hill just yet, and having gone back and forth between academia and industry a couple of times, I've come to the conclusion that while the grass often looks decidedly greener from this side the fence, I almost never actually is, once you've crossed. So even though a man can (and must) dream, little is usually lost in not acting on them.
I was mostly referring to things like i/o architecture, channels, memory and i/o virtualization, nested virtualization, resource management and allocation.
In short, almost anything BUT the CPU.
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein