Man, who invented these conventions for SQL? Why use all caps for the SQL keywords AND for all of your db construct names? Makes no sense. The dbs I use are quite happy to accept "select... from..." - why do we pesist in the excessive capitalization?
This set of circumstances approximates well to "never".
Only for incorrect values of "never".
Your analysis of the zip-code issue is great, but not really the point. There are problem domains where storage efficiency of some data is of the upmost importance. In these domains, the cost of re-engineering is likely to be either a) acceptable or b) unavoidable if assumptions about the form and content of data like zip-codes change. There are other domains where a) and b) apply but in which storage is not so important.
The year 2k problem was costly, but that does not mean that every choice in the latter half of last century to use a 2 digit year was incorrect. Where is your analysis of the cost of putting full 4 year dates in every application written in the 20th century? Be sure to include all applications that were ephemeral and didn't make it to the 21st century. Be sure to include the cost for expanded storage and decreased performance for all of the applications.
That is the kind of analysis you need to use words like "never".
P.S. - here's a hint: Don't pretend to lecture if all you know is hard and fast rules. That kind of knowledge makes you a reference manual, not an engineer.
There are many instances when using 4 bytes to store a zip in an int would be preferrable to storing it in 5 (or more!) in a char[5] or string. In these instances you might lose even more space due to packing of the odd sided char array.
And, for that Security Clearance, if you are honest and forth-coming about the arrest and other such stuff, it won't prevent you from being cleared. What was your point again?
I've seen this claim about recumbant a few times. Can you explain why, after riding for years and in numerous supported and unsupported group rides where there are many serious recumbant cyclers, I've never seen one recumbant biker climb a hill at a speed comparable to what a road biker can climb the hill? Not one time. Seriously. I've been passed by the recumbants on the flats (though truthfully, it is much rarer than one would think), but I have never ever been passed by a bent on a climb and in every case dropped the bent on the climb like it was standing still. Again, these are serious rides, centuries and longer, with many serious recumbants, some with farings and other high tech bikes.
Explain please?
Also, I've seen the claim that the recumbant is a better climber because you can generate more than your own body weight in force on the pedals. This seems logical, but in real climbs of any appreciable length, this doesn't matter - you don't generate your full weigth of force on the road bike for the sustained effort, so why would you need more?
Well, really the answer to the Big Bang and/or the origins of the Universe (if that even makes sense) is "we don't know". Also, "we may never know". (But also, we can perhaps learn some things). If you want to posit a god or gods or other entities to replace either of these answers, feel free, you'll not be the first, and you really don't need to concern yourself with the Big Bang, either. Once you say "divine intervention", you can say anything you please; evidence not required. Some would argue that if you introduce a god or gods, you should be required to explain the origin of that god or those gods, too. For how can a required causitive agent not also be subject to the rules of causality? I disagree, people who use 'divine intervention' are definitively adbandoning the rules of reason, evidence, logic, and observation. How can you make those people apply reason to an unreasonable proposition?
IANAP, though I have a BS in physics. IIUC, the phrase "before the big bang" is meaningless. Some things in physics are very counter to our normal perception of how the world works. Some of these things are very well supported by experiment and observation (see relativity, QM), but naturally, probing the begininning of time, if there is one, is difficult to do with absolute clarity.
Hawking's A Brief History of Time offers IMO accessible explanatation as to why the question you ask is not answered, though even this explanation might not be acceptible to you.
About two years ago, I was called up to the VPs office to trouble shoot his computer. Before going up, I called to ask what the trouble was. Someone answered the phone, but I couldn't make out what he was saying, just some garbled yelling and screaming. So I go up, and what do you know, the VP has his computer shoved all the way up his ass. The power cord and network cord dangled from his sphincter, there is a box shaped lump in his abdomen, and I could tell the thing was running because of the slight humming coming from the guy's belly. The CD-ROM tray is poking out of his mouth, and he's cooking down the keyboard over a propane blowtorch in preparation of injecting it straight into his eyeball. Well, I got everything extracted, replaced, and put back into working order, but before leaving, I couldn't help ask the VP what he was trying to do (and risk my job with the question). The VP only replied: "I thought it was a Mac."
What, are you from the recumbent publicity council?;)
I'd buy a bent if I lived somwhere flat. As is, I like to climb, and I like to climb fast, that means upgright for me. Also, the though of being that low in city traffic seems pretty scary, but perhaps one gets used to it?
Since you seem to be in tune with the recumbant advocacy movment, do you know of any recumbant recruiting days - activities where you can show up and try one out, get the indoctrination, try the kookaid, first one's free, join the cult, yada yadya yada. Seattle area please.p
Hmmm, I fininally broke down and got one a couple weeks ago - never had one before. I promised my wife I would carry one on my bicycle rides after I had a crash and limped home bloody and bruised. Otherwise I don't really use it - strive to keep it that way.
Yes. It's clearly different because it's not the same thing. There are dozens of possible meaningful differences with respect to the level resulting driver impairment. Next question.
LOL, they're both audio source so they must be the same!!! There are no mental, behavioural, or psychological differences between the two activities!!1 God, you're stupid.
There are many reasons why the distraction of talking to a person in a car is different that the distraction of talking to someone on a phone while driving (see other replies).
The big one, I believe the most important one, is a question of bandwidth and mental processing. It is much easier to understand someone who you are physically with than it is to understand someone who you are speaking with on the phone. Your brain is processing a very reduced amount of information over the phone: reduced bandwidth of audio information, no audio spatial cues, added noise over the carrier (harder to separate from your brain than live noise sources), clipping, compression artifacts, latency, and other noticiable or even unnoticiable glitches in the sound quality of the cell phone conversation. Beyond the audio, there are visual components to a conversation that you can get while talking to someone sitting next to you, even if you are not directly looking at them. These visual components are of course missing in the cell phone conversation.
All of this adds up to deficit of information - this requires more concentration and brain power to interpret the diminished and noisy information. Think about it this way, when you have a conversation, your brain is constantly in doubt to some level about the meaning of what you are hearing. Sometime you are aware of this doubt, sometimes not. As you go along, you build up context and clues, added information clarifies, and the ambiguities resolve to some extent. This all happens at many levels, micro and macro layers of information - from the identity of words to the ideas expressed. So you are constantly in a state of hypothesis building, or model building, with respect to the conversation. Your brain keeps more than one hypothesis active while it resolves ambiguity and processes information. Backtracking occurs. Stuff we don't even understand goes on. All of this takes brain power. If you have less information, your brain has to keep more hypotheses active and has to work harder to create a consistent model of what the converstion is about.
This extra concetration comes at a price, the cell phone user become less aware of his surroundings and even his motor skills. This is obvious in myself and people I see around me every day on cell phones, whether they are driving, just walking around, or even sitting down. I can't believe this effect is in question by people at all - it's so clear. Just pay attention for a little bit.
How often does this happen? Never, as far as I can tell. Maybe it's the EULAs or disclaimers that come with commercial software, or maybe it's the 900-lb gorilla effect (Oracle, Microsoft, and others), or maybe the threat of litigation is silently applied in back rooms and I am simply ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
How is the parent post "Insightful"? Where are the specific complaints? What is confusing? Even the current version?
Stop the presses, armchair chemist poo-poos academic research. Slashdotter to be consulted before all new federal grants.
Man, who invented these conventions for SQL? Why use all caps for the SQL keywords AND for all of your db construct names? Makes no sense. The dbs I use are quite happy to accept "select ... from ..." - why do we pesist in the excessive capitalization?
Only for incorrect values of "never".
Your analysis of the zip-code issue is great, but not really the point. There are problem domains where storage efficiency of some data is of the upmost importance. In these domains, the cost of re-engineering is likely to be either a) acceptable or b) unavoidable if assumptions about the form and content of data like zip-codes change. There are other domains where a) and b) apply but in which storage is not so important.
The year 2k problem was costly, but that does not mean that every choice in the latter half of last century to use a 2 digit year was incorrect. Where is your analysis of the cost of putting full 4 year dates in every application written in the 20th century? Be sure to include all applications that were ephemeral and didn't make it to the 21st century. Be sure to include the cost for expanded storage and decreased performance for all of the applications.
That is the kind of analysis you need to use words like "never".
P.S. - here's a hint: Don't pretend to lecture if all you know is hard and fast rules. That kind of knowledge makes you a reference manual, not an engineer.
There are many instances when using 4 bytes to store a zip in an int would be preferrable to storing it in 5 (or more!) in a char[5] or string. In these instances you might lose even more space due to packing of the odd sided char array.
Pretty much, yeah.
80 grit sandpaper from your local hardware works fine as well. Try it, you'll be surprised!
Check again.
What kind of drugs are you on?
And, for that Security Clearance, if you are honest and forth-coming about the arrest and other such stuff, it won't prevent you from being cleared. What was your point again?
I've seen this claim about recumbant a few times. Can you explain why, after riding for years and in numerous supported and unsupported group rides where there are many serious recumbant cyclers, I've never seen one recumbant biker climb a hill at a speed comparable to what a road biker can climb the hill? Not one time. Seriously. I've been passed by the recumbants on the flats (though truthfully, it is much rarer than one would think), but I have never ever been passed by a bent on a climb and in every case dropped the bent on the climb like it was standing still. Again, these are serious rides, centuries and longer, with many serious recumbants, some with farings and other high tech bikes.
Explain please?
Also, I've seen the claim that the recumbant is a better climber because you can generate more than your own body weight in force on the pedals. This seems logical, but in real climbs of any appreciable length, this doesn't matter - you don't generate your full weigth of force on the road bike for the sustained effort, so why would you need more?
Hawking's A Brief History of Time offers IMO accessible explanatation as to why the question you ask is not answered, though even this explanation might not be acceptible to you.
True story.
I'd buy a bent if I lived somwhere flat. As is, I like to climb, and I like to climb fast, that means upgright for me. Also, the though of being that low in city traffic seems pretty scary, but perhaps one gets used to it?
Since you seem to be in tune with the recumbant advocacy movment, do you know of any recumbant recruiting days - activities where you can show up and try one out, get the indoctrination, try the kookaid, first one's free, join the cult, yada yadya yada. Seattle area please.p
The Department of Defense does run separate geographically-disperse, isolated networks. WTF right back at you.
Hmmm, I fininally broke down and got one a couple weeks ago - never had one before. I promised my wife I would carry one on my bicycle rides after I had a crash and limped home bloody and bruised. Otherwise I don't really use it - strive to keep it that way.
Yes. It's clearly different because it's not the same thing. There are dozens of possible meaningful differences with respect to the level resulting driver impairment. Next question.
Ha - man you have issues. Thanks for the laugh, though.
LOL, they're both audio source so they must be the same!!! There are no mental, behavioural, or psychological differences between the two activities!!1 God, you're stupid.
The big one, I believe the most important one, is a question of bandwidth and mental processing. It is much easier to understand someone who you are physically with than it is to understand someone who you are speaking with on the phone. Your brain is processing a very reduced amount of information over the phone: reduced bandwidth of audio information, no audio spatial cues, added noise over the carrier (harder to separate from your brain than live noise sources), clipping, compression artifacts, latency, and other noticiable or even unnoticiable glitches in the sound quality of the cell phone conversation. Beyond the audio, there are visual components to a conversation that you can get while talking to someone sitting next to you, even if you are not directly looking at them. These visual components are of course missing in the cell phone conversation.
All of this adds up to deficit of information - this requires more concentration and brain power to interpret the diminished and noisy information. Think about it this way, when you have a conversation, your brain is constantly in doubt to some level about the meaning of what you are hearing. Sometime you are aware of this doubt, sometimes not. As you go along, you build up context and clues, added information clarifies, and the ambiguities resolve to some extent. This all happens at many levels, micro and macro layers of information - from the identity of words to the ideas expressed. So you are constantly in a state of hypothesis building, or model building, with respect to the conversation. Your brain keeps more than one hypothesis active while it resolves ambiguity and processes information. Backtracking occurs. Stuff we don't even understand goes on. All of this takes brain power. If you have less information, your brain has to keep more hypotheses active and has to work harder to create a consistent model of what the converstion is about.
This extra concetration comes at a price, the cell phone user become less aware of his surroundings and even his motor skills. This is obvious in myself and people I see around me every day on cell phones, whether they are driving, just walking around, or even sitting down. I can't believe this effect is in question by people at all - it's so clear. Just pay attention for a little bit.
Lighting strike do no always seriously or permanently maim. We'd all rather you died too, if it makes you feel any better.
Why would sterilization prevent someone from beating up another?
Why do you hate the French so much? What have they done to you lately?