It can mean I had, I would, or I should, depending on context:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/i'd

Wow, that's crazy and ambiguous. I've never heard of "I'd" as a contraction for "I should", how do you tell whether to expand it as that or "I would"?

I think it's archaic,

"I should think so"

Context.

"[H]ad much rather" is a bit archaic, but perfectly cromulent: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22had+much+rather%22 .

Based on my experience being in Germany recently, it's worse or about the same as Canada/US.

Can you expand on this more? I'm looking to learn about finance, but it all seems so... overly complicated. It's hard to digest information when the simple stuff is hidden behind tons of terminology. I will definitely look more into Matt Levine. Any other recommendations for how to learn more about finance in general?

I mean, it's only one example, but Lord of the Rings?

Do 'literature snob' kinds of people actually consider that to be good writing?

Nope.

I don't have anything to say, other than I really enjoyed your reply and think the debugging analogy is great!

> The spouses who believed they were in a monogamous marriage deserve a divorce and the chance to be with someone honest who cares about them.

I agree, but that's not for us to act upon.

The thing about rape is that the intent and the act are very much intertwined with the victim's feelings of it. If the victim does not appreciate whatever is going on, the onus is on the perpetrator to realize that and stop. Failure to do so is "the act" and the intent is.. well, the state of mind where you do not choose to find out/acquiesce to the other person's desires.

However, if the "victim" says there was no rape, and has never said so, then the whole premise, including both the intent and the act, is unseated.

Disclaimer: I am no lawyer, and do not know much about this specific case. These are just my intuitions about rape laws. I also believe that if the laws, in fact, are much different from these ideas in spirit, they are SORELY off-base.

In this case, the alleged victim when interviewed described events that could certainly constitute rape - for example waking up and finding Assange having unprotected sex with her.

However, that would only become a problem after centralization, correct? Otherwise, it would require a concerted effort by most/all miners to take the same approach, rather than competing for staying power etc.

A quick google informs me that punishment != negative reinforcement.

The terminology is a bit weird: Positive vs. negative means presenting a stimulus vs. removing it. Reinforcement means increasing the frequency of a reaction and punishment means decreasing it. You have to logically conclude, whether the presented or removed stimulus is nice or unpleasant. Here is an overview:

    positive reinforcement:  presenting nice stimulus to increase frequency of behavior
    negative reinforcement:  removing unpleasant stimulus to increase frequency of behavior
    positive punishment:  presenting unpleasant stimulus to decrease frequency of behavior
    negative punishment:  removing nice stimulus to decrease frequency of behavior

The great confusion stems from the fact that in common English language, with punishment we mean both increasing good behavior and reducing bad behavior, whilst in classical conditioning terms, punishment always refers to reducing the frequency of a certain behavior.

No, you're thinking of pokemon :)