Generally I think they make sense, and the length should vary by the crime.
But it is odd if the statute of limitations here was less than the 25 years that the victims were in prison for. Put it another way: if we accept that after time, people are rehabilitated even if they didn't get punished at all, why is it that in the US, people are locked up for decades?
I'm happily using visual studio (even the older 2012), virtual box (I think I had to upgrade for some reason, but that was when windows 10 had just come out). Don't know about android studio, but doing android development with eclipse is fine.
More generally, I found it smootger than upgrading from XP to 7 (which had some issues does to the 32/64 bit transition, and improved security model). The only issues I had with 10 were a couple of applications showing glory fonts, which were all fixed by upgrading the applications.
On licences, the only thing I'm unclear on is what happens if you upgrade a full retail version - do you then have a full retail version of 10 that can be installed on a new machine? I've seen conflicting sources saying opposite things. What I want to know is, if I upgrade a retail version to 10, how do I then move that installation to a brand new machine, without first installing 7 and then upgrading (given that 10 no longer has product keys, and instead recognises the hardware)? Has anyone actually managed to do this?
Hopefully I can reply to this thread before it gets closed too
If you want to make money selling overpriced applications, sure go with IOS - but does that revenue even include ad money (which tends to be better as well as more common on Android, due to being massively more popular)?
This is also missing a point: if you want maximum revenue, one shouldn't limit yourself to one platform anyway. But I think the OP is asking about his personal choice of a phone, with the possibility of getting into programming. For personal use there are other considerations for development choices. For starters you can only develop for IOS with Apple computers, so for personal use that's now dictating what computers you have. I also like the market with 85% share - whether that's seeing millions of downloads, or just being able to share with people and having most people be able to run it (rather than it being limited to only people with the same make of phone as you).
Lastly, one can just as well pluck up references that show it's actually Windows Phone that beats either Android or Iphone ( http://betanews.com/2016/02/29/windows-phone-developer-revenue/ ) (I suspect the issue is that despite fewer users than either, there are also fewer competing applications; plus maybe they spend more too.)
Programming choices may also depend on what you're used to: Ubuntu obviously seems more natural if you run Ubuntu on PCs anyway (and you probably need Ubuntu to develop with?); Windows Phone uses the same languages/tools as Windows 10 development, and uses tools like Visual Studio - and requires a Windows PC; Iphone development requires an Apple computer; Android is probably most flexible in that you can develop on Windows/OS X/Linux. But I guess it also depends on whether you want to try something completely new anyway.
Personally I prefer smartphones to feature phones, I've had Nexuses and found them great (currently with the Nexus 6). They've traditionally had a more developer-oriented focus. The Samsung Galaxy S series are traditionally the crown of smartphones, but if you want something not so expensive, the Nexuses tend to be better value too (especially the 5s), whilst still being decent.
If you want a smartphone, don't get a blackberry. They're basically circling the drain.
Blackberrys run Android now, so he get a phone with the keyboard he likes, whilst still running Android, and not being limited due to a platform dying.
Given that article 50 has a fixed 2 year time limit, it makes sense not to hit that button immediately - hitting that sooner doesn't speed up the negotiations, it just reduces the possible time for negotiations.
It would seem to make sense to figure out what the plan is before triggering article 50 - since leave campaigners don't seem to have a clue what the plan is, with opinions being divided, and the referendum itself posing no plan, no wonder it's chaos. Perhaps a strategy should have been planned before putting the question to the people.
Looks like Boris's proposal is "British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down." whilst people from the EU coming to the UK have to follow a points based immigration system.
The UK will still have access to the common market, whilst not paying in any money or following any of the EU rules.
Also he wants the moon on a stick, and to have his cake and eat it.
Other countries are going to want to keep trade open with them, they have the 5th largest world economy. Any country to deny trade with them simply because they are not a club member would be daft(as the English like to say). A set of trade regulations will be set up with everyone involved and life will continue as normal. They are not taking advantage of a system. Besides, the main issue was the rule of the people and losing their country to politicians who are not even of their kinship.
British people want Brits to make decisions for their country. Really not that crazy of a thought. Would you be ok with your next door neighbor regulating your daily routine? Telling you to turn your lights off at night or what color you can paint your house, which group of friends you can have over for a party or what television channels you can watch? These are completely arbitrary examples, but the point stands.
And how can people be surprised at delays and the fact that this is going to take time for Britain to mold their newly reformed political system into something tangible? Your are laughing at the Leave movement as nonsensical and with out plan, but governments do not form overnight, even if they have already be previously established in a different shape or form.
And we want to trade with the EU - you can't say that other countries would be willing to agreement with anything, whilst we agree with nothing. The other EU members know this. Expecting freedom of movement for British citizens, but not the same in reverse, is ridiculous. Yes, we'll get a "set of trade regulations", the question is what they are. No one is claiming there won't be any trade, the question is the terms of that trade - will it be free access to the common market, or tariffs.
A better analogy would be a group of neighbours coming together with an agreement on who's responsible for a shared fence, or say people in apartments having an agreement on how to pay repairs. Which law are you referring to that's analogous to the things you list? We do make our own decisions - that includes a decision to come to have some rules in agreement with other countries, for common trade. If you're American, I don't see you calling for your state to make its own laws, despite the federal Government having far more control. Do you like people telling you what colour you can paint your house?
This whole racists point of view on the argument just mystifies me. This is the same mentality a lot people are taking in the US as well, that if you have issues with immigrants, you are racist. I would argue that people don't give two thoughts to the color of your skin, people care about culture, values, ethics and any other number of defining moral characteristics. Very often, these things don't always align with the majority of the population. You are lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
I don't see anyone claiming being against immigration was racist. But there have been plenty of observed examples of racism in recent days since the vote (e.g., people telling people to "go home" based on their appearance even if they're British citizens who were born here).