I'm throwing my 2 cents in, although I haven't built a large scale app with either, I did do a full evaluation of both before my latest large app and I decided on neither one. There were many reasons but every time I wanted to do anything that was remotely non-trivial both fell apart. Although most of that had to do with the MVC pattern more than the actual framework (but the two are tied intricately) In the process of evaluating these two frameworks I found KnockoutJS and I chose it for my large project that is one year into development. After one year with it I love it more now then when I first started. It's not perfect but it is a really well thought out framework, it does lack some documentation, ko.utils I'm looking at you. But it's documentation is vastly superior to the other two frameworks, at least it was a year ago. It's very stable and I prefer the team's approach. The two binding and subscription model is great for solving some intricate problems. It's easily extensible with custom bindings and unlike angular doesn't favour bad coding habits that lock you in to the framework, I forget the name now but their custom HTML tags (I think they call them directives) is nothing but bad news and vendor lock in.
That's pretty much the same conclusion I came to. Wake me up once ember-data is stable and can support things like range queries and pagination, and just generally dealing with a small subset of data.
I don't get this line of thinking. Do you know there are programs written on system/36 machines from the early eighties still in production today on ibm iSeries machines? And even older software/systems in place that are older then that. Business requirements don't change hourly/weekly/monthly. If the business requirement that existed at that point in time, that the software solution put in place at that time met those requirements why would a business be compelled to change if those requirements have not changed and the solution met those needs? I've been a developer a really long time, 25+ years professionally. Businesses demand stability, this absolutely absurd idea that software that is only a few years old must be thrown out and some new flashy unproven shit put in its place is mind boggling. The last job I put a bid on, one of the requirements was that the software in initial form be supported for a minimum of 10 years. And in my experience that is a short life span.
just wanted to say that if alcohol is related to 31% of the deaths in driving crashes. Then being sober accounts for 69% of the deaths therefore it is safer to be drunk then to be sober. Woohoo!
I agree and perhaps handing a coder some code and asking the coder what's going is maybe a better test of their skills then asking them to code on the spot.
That's true, however asking someone on the spot to write a function that requires domain specific knowledge isn't a good solution. What are you in fact testing, do they know how to code or do they know how to calculate the area of a circle. I can code but I'd fail horribly on the area of the circle thing simply because I haven't done anything like that since grade school math class probably 30 years ago.
So his comment is valid in that coders should code but his example of how to tell if someone can code I think is flawed.
But you could make possession of stolen property (the bike) a major crime with prison and financial punishment and you weaken the demand side of things.
Then using RFID or similar technology, you could embed a RFID tag somewhere in the frame. Then allow someone to report a stolen bike with a police report, very similar to a stolen vehicle report and then using remote scanners you could scan for stolen bikes very easily. All it takes is fear of a stolen bike to scare away potential buyers.
But you could make possession of stolen property (the bike) a major crime with prison and financial punishment and you weaken the demand side of things.
In legal terms, you'd have a problem with proportionality—that is, the idea that the punishment needs to fit the crime. This is partially a problem with fairness and partially a problem with incentives: if you give someone the same punishment for, say, stealing a bike and for beating someone up, then if you want to steal someone's bike you might as well beat them up to steal the bike.
If you follow this logic, you eventually get to something like 18th C England, where a LOT of stuff was punishable by death, which led to large problems with murder: if you're going to be killed for stealing, you might as well kill someone, then steal, since you've just eliminated the witness.
Your example doesn't apply because death is the ceiling. It's impossible to kill someone twice, so ultimately it makes no difference to the criminal.
However, if the criminal gets 5 years for stealing a bike, and 10 years for beating someone up, the criminal might be swayed by 5 years vs 15 years.
I can see the situation where the criminal thinks "I'm already probably going to jail, might as well decrease my chances as much as possible" by beating someone up. I think most bike crimes occur when the owner isn't around though.
You are not taking into account concurrent sentencing. So if the punishment for stealing a bike was 5, and if assault was also 5, the guy would only serve 5. Theoretically at least.
The US already proportionally has the most prisoners out of any country in the world, and I'm wary of any solution that includes making that problem worse. That kind of thing has giant socioeconomic costs and, looking at the crime rates, doesn't seem to work at making the country safer. I just don't think that finding yet another reason to put a whole bunch of people in prison (average cost per month between $2000 and $4000 at a quick google) over a bike worth $1000 is really going to make anything better in the long run.
I don't think you can measure the worth of a bicycle so simply. For many people, $1000 represents a very significant sum of money and their bicycle is their means of transportation. The theft of a bicycle can be a very life disrupting event.
Now, obviously we should not start hanging bike thieves (as tempting as that may seem) but I definitely think this is not a crime to take lightly at all.
Whether or not the decline in violent crime justifies the rise in imprisonment and the decline in prison standards, or whether there might be other ways to achieve the same declines are different questions. But the United States has become significantly safer over the last ten, twenty and fifty years.
Criminologists aren't anywhere close to a consensus on the causes of the crime rate reduction of the last few decades. Many theories have been offered, from decreased crack use, to fewer unwanted children resulting from legalized abortions, to your suggestion of harsher sentencing.
Yes, Harsher sentencing may have something to do with it, but it could just as well have increased our crime rate and been counteracted by one of the other factors.
There is no scientific consensus to support your claim.
The real answer to your first sentence is clearly "people need to commit less crime". I would suggest there's a lot of evidence showing that the threat of prison isn't deterring crime at least amongst some demographics. Do you really think greater risk of prison is going to stop bike theft by crackheads? Or homeless? Or the poor?
It's quite possible that fixing some of the social problems would be a way more powerful motivator to stop bike theft then increasing enforcement/punishment alone. Possibly way more cost effective too.
What I'm questioning is your proposed method of achieving that - putting more people in prison - is it likely to help?
Does anybody seriously think that the threat of prison is deterring people from committing drug-related crime? Do you suppose a typical homeless person considers risking being put in jail for stealing to eat to be a significantly worse option than sleeping hungry and cold under a freeway overpass?
Wikipedia has some quite alarming numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St... - one in every 31 adults, one in every 11 African-Americans " behind bars, or being monitored (probation and parole)". Surely that's pretty clear evidence that the problems leading people into committing crimes are significantly more powerful than the deterrent of prison time?
No it's not unreasonable to want that, but it's probably a bit ridiculous to believe it will ever happen. And it's definitely ridiculous to believe we're going to get there by just locking more people up.
America has 5% of the world's population, but nearly 25% of the world's prisoners--do you really think we need to increase that. Over 3% of adults are under some kind of correctional supervision--where do we stop?
tl;dr: In the U.S. in only 20% of murder cases the perpetrator is found and convicted of murder, compared with (allegedly) 90% in Japan. At the same time, even if all non-violent offenders (that includes all drug offenses) were released from prisons in the U.S. tomorrow, the U.S. would still have double the incarceration rate of Western Europe.
Going from 7 times Europe's rate to double Europe's rate is still pretty significant.
On your second link, the first half is reasonable, but the second half utterly misses the point. The reason why the police wait in 'The Wire' and in real life is because they're gathering evidence. If they don't have enough evidence, the case won't stick. Similarly, they're trying to catch the kingpins. If you catch the front-line dudes you can fill your prisons with them, but there will always be more (in places where it's bad, like where the Wire is set).
It's weird that given the US already has such an immense problem with overincarceration that you think the solution is to lock people up over even more trivial issues. Where are those people going to be stored? Given the already clogged courts, aren't you going to have to abandon due process in order to get so many through?
You still haven't shown that overincarceration is actually a problem in any meaningful sense. The solution could just as easily be to open more courts.
There already is too little money for courts (and the prisons the subsequent influx of prisoners are going to need), so where is it going to come from?
It's pointless, really, because if you honestly don't think that overincarceration is 'actually a problem', then you're so one-eyed that nothing I say will sway you.
There are stories all the time about prisons being run for profit. If the prison industry is profitable, perhaps it can be made profitable enough to pay for more courts as well. More prisons would of course be a net gain rather than a loss.
Who is it that you think pays for the prisons that are profitable? Who is their customer?
I mean, you're saying here that somehow the state would get more money back from the private prisons than they paid them, so they could spend this surplus on courts?
I don't give a damn about statistics. I want to be able to live anywhere in the US safely.
Would you allow your 6yo to walk alone at night through any city in the US?
I think you should be able to. I think a person should be able to live anywhere in the US without encountering violence on a daily basis, without hearing gunshots every night.
Because that isn't true, I think there is too much crime.
There is a solution. A totalitarian police state with no privacy and draconian punishments.
Increased incarceration and police powers reach an eventual point of diminishing returns.
Do you know what the likelihood of a 6 year old being abducted or killed by a stranger are? Do a google search and you'll probably be surprised by how uncommon it is. Fewer children are abducted in the classic "stranger danger" manner (unknown attacker as opposed to a friend or family member) than are struck by lightning each year.
If we can save 10 6 year olds per year, is it worth incarcerating 100 extra people, 1000, 10,000...1,000,000? At what point does the increased risk of snaring innocent people, and the financial cost outweigh the small gains in "safety"?
This is a surprising stance to encounter on HN. The article I linked to asserted that although crime in NYC has gone drastically down, incarceration rates have not gone up. I found that interesting, do you?
Elsewhere in this thread you suggest executing bike thieves as they commit theft, and although I'm not sure you were entirely serious, I'm afraid we're going to agree on much about this issue.
Can you make an RFID tag that you can embed in the bike such that it's easy to scan at a small distance, but also hard for the thieves to fry it or remove it? Because in order to be successful it would be to be standardized and if standardized the thieves would fry it if easy.
Goes down the seat tube and is a one-way insert only. Cannot be pulled back out, and is too large to push down and get out of the bottom bracket shell.
I actually have those installed in all my bikes.
Far simpler though: Every one of my bikes is littered with very small notes saying "If this bike was not brought into the shop by David Kitchen it is stolen, please call 07740949xxx".
Those notes are in the stem, under the bar tape, under the rim tape, in the bottom bracket shell, in the seat tube, in the seat post. Everywhere you can hide a small note whilst building the bike that will be found when servicing the bike.
I printed them on plastic using a Dymo machine, they weigh nothing... and if my bikes were stolen then one day they will arrive in a bike store for a service, and be returned to me.
http://Taggle.com.au (I'm an investor) has a small device that allows remote tracking of assets like bicycles for years without an external power supply. The tiny devices broadcast a low powered wide spectrum ping every 20 mins to 1 hour and very smart receivers triangulate to provide coordinates. The transmitters can also send data, generally a meter reading or if a secure element is broken.
Taggle Systems are focussing first on remote reading of water meters and other water utility use cases, but once networks are in place then tracking bikes will be doable.
When you strip away years of familiarity and conditioning to accept the standard box model, it's hard not to conclude that it's completely unintuitive and back-asswards!
But having to use the app to manage files, is a whole new paradigm that someone has to learn which is exactly what people are trying to avoid in the first place. So either teach one paradigm to a new user and stick to it (aka using the file system) or application specific paradigm (aka use iphoto to manage photos, itunes for music files, etc). So depending on how good you are at controlling the application usage from one app to another you end up having to learn each applications way of doing things instead of learning one way of doing things and using that throughout.
As a developer and previous life as IT support I fully support the teaching the file system paradigm because it works better overall.
All of the tag resorting you are doing within iphoto can and is done rather easily within the file system as well so what has that added other then more complexity?
