Allowing a religious extremist terrorist philosophy like zionism to succeed is always going to be a recepe for conflict.
If you're aiming for a quality flamebait, at least get your definitions right. Zionism was originally a secular ideology, and the majority still remains such. On the other hand, quite a few Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism [wikipedia.org] specifically on religious grounds.
I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that Jews must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist Zionist strains)?
Zionism is its original form as formulated by Theodor Herzl was pragmatic and not at all religious as it then turned out. He thought that the solution to the persecution of Jews in Europe was to form a homeland for them somewhere in the world. The keyword is "somewhere," some of the proposed homelands where in Madagaskar, Argentina and Siberia. None of those ideas had any traction because you can't just ask a scattered people to go to some random place on earth and start a new land. The idea is laughable.
It wasn't until they choose Palestine as the new homeland that they got support from the wider Jewish communities. Because the Torah says that is the Israelites home and Jews are the descendants of the Israelite tribes. At which point the ideology turned from "healthy nationalism" to a fundamentalist terrorist philosophy. "The Torah says the land is ours so it doesn't matter if we have to slaughter the existing inhabitants. The Torah gives us the right." The essence of Zionism is just as scary as Iran and they have abused Judaism in exactly the same way that Iran abuses Islam. The only difference is that the western world is much more forgiving of Israel than Iran which is why they can soften their extremist message. Israel is allowed to kill 1200 civilians in two weeks while Iran is boycotted. In both cases it is the fundamentalist crazies that are in control.
Well, smart ass. Then you suggest a better and fairer method for the President to gather opinions from the people. How unsurprising that you can't. People like you wouldn't be satisfied if he so rephrased this health care reform as an Ask Slashdot question. Because you don't want to be happy or see improvements happen. All you want to do is to find faults and rack down on other peoples ideas so that you can feel schadenfreude when they don't reach success. That's the reason why you can't acknowledge that Obama is a much better president than Bush was because that would distort your world view in which everything is dark and everyone is as cynical as yourself.
So if you cynically think that soliciting debate through youtube videos is a bad thing, then maybe you can suggest a better alternative? Has any other prime minister/president in any other country ever done something similar? Remember, it was only a year ago that Bush only held heavily moderated press conferences in which only selected journalists where allowed to ask any questions.
Also how quickly it is spent. If the businessman sits on his richness in the off-shore account until he dies and passes his fortune on to his offspring, then the money is effectively outside the economy for the duration.
That is essentially why tax cuts to rich people is a waste while it helps the economy if it is spent on poor people. Poor people don't save money, they buy stuff which creates jobs, rich people saves a larger share of the money.
The security offered by passwords are very weak anyway, especially when you factor in stupid users with easily guessable passwords. If you don't trust your co-workers, then replacing the password characters with stars in input boxes wont make any difference. If you forget to lock your computer while going to lunch what is stopping someone from stealing Firefox' password file and getting your login info to all sites you visit?
It has horrible performance over an extranet. It's a _network_ file system which means file system operations involve the network. For one network segment in a LAN using UDP it works decently, while still being an order of a magnitude slower than native file access. It is completely unsuitable for use over the internet though.
Thanks for posting that very interesting link. But did you read it yourself? The author himself explicitly states that the statistics does not indicate voting fraud. There is not enough information to decide either way.
Good advice, except nobody believes you because they always underestimate the difficulty in rewriting an old working system. There is always someone who believes he can write the system better than his predecessors and the cycle repeats itself.
In those cases I always try to get something up and running as soon as possible. Then building from there to avoid having to deal with comparisons between the old and new system. Usually the specification for the new system is "like the old one, except with these extra features" which most often is impossible to realize because you can't replicate all features of the old system. By getting the new one working asap avoids that and you get to know what features are really needed and which features the managers just ask for because they can. This of course requires that the system users are ok with it and that you can negotiate the features with them. E.g. rather change the union contracts to accommodate software changes, than change the software for the union contracts.
That said, in my experience 3 times out of 4 attempts, building a new system isn't worth it. Everyone always overestimate their ability and underestimate the work needed to replace the old one. Not that I would tell anyone that, there is good money to be made in rewriting perfectly functional code.:)
Maybe then your company should try off site hosting. Or ensure that it doesn't take your suppliers days to deliver spare parts. It takes ours hours from order to front door delivery, so it can't be impossible. Or use more easily replaceable commodity hardware. There are lots of possibilities.
Sometimes some technical ingenuity solves the problem. Ensure that the dialog box does not come up. Tell the guy who dislikes the new keyboard to a buy a new one. Make sure that the program users can't find have an icon on the desktop in the default user profile.
Don't you think you guys have a problem if it takes you days to replace a dead motherboard? At the co-location our company uses, we had a server fail on us which was fixed in a matter of hours. The server is hosted in the US so it wasn't even during their office hours.
In this case, I think your boss is right and you need to think harder. People are replacing motherboards with minimal downtime and it doesn't cost a fortune.
I think it's rather that it's hard for not disabled persons to identify the needs of disabled ones. For example, web developers spend a lot of time adding alt tags to image but has anyone confirmed that that enhances the browsing experience for blind people? It is also often the fact that usability features degrade accessibility. The mouse is great for non-professional computer users but is an accessibility nightmare.
Isn't the reason for that, at least partially, because the virus is expected to make a comeback in the autumn when the temperatures drop? Influenza viruses does not do to well in temperatures above 15C but spread much faster when it is just above 0C. At that point, the virus could very well mutate with a regular seasonal influenza virus and become just as deadly as the worst scenarios predict.
A gc (garbage collector) is what programmers use instead of manually handling memory. In non-gc languages such as C programmers have to spend a lot of time being careful not to inadvertently create memory leaks. So programming in languages with gc is generally faster than in those without.
The drawback is that memory is often handled less efficiently by the gc than by the programmer so the program becomes slower and uses more memory. However that depends on the quality of the gc. It is quite easy to write a gc, but that one probably will have awful performance. Writing a good is harder and takes more time. Writing one with performance that handles memory as good as a skilled programmer handling manual allocation is exceptionally hard and requires man-years in effort.
It's like a chess engine, most programmers can write one but if you want one that can match a human or even Big Blue then you need to spend some time on it. So from Oracles perspective, it very much makes sense to try and monetize their high performance gc even if it's a shitty move overall. Most chess players has no use for a chess engine stronger than grandmaster level. But there are professional players out there who has a genuine need for a more challenging chess engine and would pay good money for it. In a similar vein most Java programmers can live with the default gc, but some big enterprises will feel they need a better one and pay lotsa $$$ for it even if the performance gain is only 5-10%.
No, Marx' claim was that increased productivity would lead to the working class overtaking the production. Marx considered himself a scientist just as much as a philosopher. He noted that Capitalism in which the burgoese owns the means of production was more efficient than if the feudal lords owned it. Wage slavery was better than indentured service. In the US, the tension between the feudal system represented by the slave-based south states economy and the capitalistic north states lead to the civil war.
Britain became a super power in the 19th century for the same reason. Because they were the first to adopt capitalism and therefore could produce stuff more efficiently than with the countries it competed with.
Marx also postulated that there is another economic system, that was more efficient than capitalism, would overtake it someday. That system would be based on communal ownership of resources.
That is incorrect. Marx observed that rulers usually do not voluntarily give up their power, which would make a violent overthrow likely, as in the French Revolution. He also recognized that not all revolutions are violent like the English revolution which was peaceful. He never did advocate violence.
Your comparison is incorrect because that is not how shell people write software. In your example, make would be the last command in the bash history. The shell window would be the previous one to the editor which means that one alt-tab keypress is enough to switch to it. So the actual keypresses to save and compile the software would be: ctrl+s, alt-tab, up arrow (or ctrl+p) and enter. Yes, that is three keystrokes more than the IDE way in which you press F9 to save and compile the software. On the other hand, with the shell way you don't even have to move your fingers away from the home position on the keyboard.
Plus, the IDE indicated I had a syntax error as I was typing it, and the code completion prevented me from making another one; and when the class I was trying to instantiate didn't get colored as a 'type' by the syntax highlighter that I knew was correct I immediately knew I hadn't included it in this file. All that saved me a round trip or two through the build process.
That same code completion will also embed spelling mistakes in the API because programmers are to lazy to type out the method names and so wont notice when they contain spelling errors. The background compilation process takes resources and will (in all IDE:s I have tested) increase the IDE:s latency. If you type faster than the IDE can process your input, the syntax checking soon becomes more of an annoyance than an advantage.
And when the app compiled there was a compiler warning; in the IDE a double click on the warning took me right to the source line in the editor, so I could fix it, and rebuild. With bash I get to read the name of the file and linenumber that had the problem, alt-tab to the right editor window, manually jump to the line number, make the fix, save it, and then switch back to the terminal window and run the build script again.
Right, you have to double click on the warning. When I see the warning in the shell, I press alt-tab, C-x b, M-g, enter the line number and I'm right at the line that the compiler complained about. And I can do that much faster than it takes you to reach the mouse, scroll the IDE:s compiler output window and double-click on the warning.
I didn't say the IDE was more "powerful", I just said it was more efficient. And it is.
For newbies and people who cannot touch type, yes. For professional programmers, not so much.
Well, then wouldn't the same treatment be usable for basically any addiction? Such as smoking that also causes an endorphine release? The drug you are describing sound very much to good to be true.
From your own energy density numbers 45/26 = 1.73. So you'd need 73% more ethanol fuel to get the same mileage as from a unit of gasoline. However, while ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, it has a higher octane rating which means that there is less waste heat and that the engine can run more efficiently. The article is right, a 20-30% drop in mileage is likely.
It's a matter of principle. If you let people realize that corporate controlled cables is a bad idea, then it is not long before the public begins to question other corporate domains too. Corporate banks? How is that mortgage crisis working out? Corporate health care? Um.. yeah. Corporate railways? Works fantastically in Britain. Corporate auto manufacturers? Which has to be bailed out by the state when no one buys their products?
Slashdot Mirror
Allowing a religious extremist terrorist philosophy like zionism to succeed is always going to be a recepe for conflict. If you're aiming for a quality flamebait, at least get your definitions right. Zionism was originally a secular ideology, and the majority still remains such. On the other hand, quite a few Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism [wikipedia.org] specifically on religious grounds. I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that Jews must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist Zionist strains)?
Zionism is its original form as formulated by Theodor Herzl was pragmatic and not at all religious as it then turned out. He thought that the solution to the persecution of Jews in Europe was to form a homeland for them somewhere in the world. The keyword is "somewhere," some of the proposed homelands where in Madagaskar, Argentina and Siberia. None of those ideas had any traction because you can't just ask a scattered people to go to some random place on earth and start a new land. The idea is laughable.
It wasn't until they choose Palestine as the new homeland that they got support from the wider Jewish communities. Because the Torah says that is the Israelites home and Jews are the descendants of the Israelite tribes. At which point the ideology turned from "healthy nationalism" to a fundamentalist terrorist philosophy. "The Torah says the land is ours so it doesn't matter if we have to slaughter the existing inhabitants. The Torah gives us the right." The essence of Zionism is just as scary as Iran and they have abused Judaism in exactly the same way that Iran abuses Islam. The only difference is that the western world is much more forgiving of Israel than Iran which is why they can soften their extremist message. Israel is allowed to kill 1200 civilians in two weeks while Iran is boycotted. In both cases it is the fundamentalist crazies that are in control.
Well, smart ass. Then you suggest a better and fairer method for the President to gather opinions from the people. How unsurprising that you can't. People like you wouldn't be satisfied if he so rephrased this health care reform as an Ask Slashdot question. Because you don't want to be happy or see improvements happen. All you want to do is to find faults and rack down on other peoples ideas so that you can feel schadenfreude when they don't reach success. That's the reason why you can't acknowledge that Obama is a much better president than Bush was because that would distort your world view in which everything is dark and everyone is as cynical as yourself.
So if you cynically think that soliciting debate through youtube videos is a bad thing, then maybe you can suggest a better alternative? Has any other prime minister/president in any other country ever done something similar? Remember, it was only a year ago that Bush only held heavily moderated press conferences in which only selected journalists where allowed to ask any questions.
Also how quickly it is spent. If the businessman sits on his richness in the off-shore account until he dies and passes his fortune on to his offspring, then the money is effectively outside the economy for the duration.
That is essentially why tax cuts to rich people is a waste while it helps the economy if it is spent on poor people. Poor people don't save money, they buy stuff which creates jobs, rich people saves a larger share of the money.
The security offered by passwords are very weak anyway, especially when you factor in stupid users with easily guessable passwords. If you don't trust your co-workers, then replacing the password characters with stars in input boxes wont make any difference. If you forget to lock your computer while going to lunch what is stopping someone from stealing Firefox' password file and getting your login info to all sites you visit?
It has horrible performance over an extranet. It's a _network_ file system which means file system operations involve the network. For one network segment in a LAN using UDP it works decently, while still being an order of a magnitude slower than native file access. It is completely unsuitable for use over the internet though.
Thanks for posting that very interesting link. But did you read it yourself? The author himself explicitly states that the statistics does not indicate voting fraud. There is not enough information to decide either way.
So.. The therapy did not work?
Good advice, except nobody believes you because they always underestimate the difficulty in rewriting an old working system. There is always someone who believes he can write the system better than his predecessors and the cycle repeats itself.
In those cases I always try to get something up and running as soon as possible. Then building from there to avoid having to deal with comparisons between the old and new system. Usually the specification for the new system is "like the old one, except with these extra features" which most often is impossible to realize because you can't replicate all features of the old system. By getting the new one working asap avoids that and you get to know what features are really needed and which features the managers just ask for because they can. This of course requires that the system users are ok with it and that you can negotiate the features with them. E.g. rather change the union contracts to accommodate software changes, than change the software for the union contracts.
That said, in my experience 3 times out of 4 attempts, building a new system isn't worth it. Everyone always overestimate their ability and underestimate the work needed to replace the old one. Not that I would tell anyone that, there is good money to be made in rewriting perfectly functional code. :)
This decision doesn't only affect anti-piracy hunters. Virtually all web companies track user ip addresses for various purposes.
Maybe then your company should try off site hosting. Or ensure that it doesn't take your suppliers days to deliver spare parts. It takes ours hours from order to front door delivery, so it can't be impossible. Or use more easily replaceable commodity hardware. There are lots of possibilities.
Sometimes some technical ingenuity solves the problem. Ensure that the dialog box does not come up. Tell the guy who dislikes the new keyboard to a buy a new one. Make sure that the program users can't find have an icon on the desktop in the default user profile.
Don't you think you guys have a problem if it takes you days to replace a dead motherboard? At the co-location our company uses, we had a server fail on us which was fixed in a matter of hours. The server is hosted in the US so it wasn't even during their office hours.
In this case, I think your boss is right and you need to think harder. People are replacing motherboards with minimal downtime and it doesn't cost a fortune.
I think it's rather that it's hard for not disabled persons to identify the needs of disabled ones. For example, web developers spend a lot of time adding alt tags to image but has anyone confirmed that that enhances the browsing experience for blind people? It is also often the fact that usability features degrade accessibility. The mouse is great for non-professional computer users but is an accessibility nightmare.
Isn't the reason for that, at least partially, because the virus is expected to make a comeback in the autumn when the temperatures drop? Influenza viruses does not do to well in temperatures above 15C but spread much faster when it is just above 0C. At that point, the virus could very well mutate with a regular seasonal influenza virus and become just as deadly as the worst scenarios predict.
...
you EXTREMELY insensitive clod!
A gc (garbage collector) is what programmers use instead of manually handling memory. In non-gc languages such as C programmers have to spend a lot of time being careful not to inadvertently create memory leaks. So programming in languages with gc is generally faster than in those without.
The drawback is that memory is often handled less efficiently by the gc than by the programmer so the program becomes slower and uses more memory. However that depends on the quality of the gc. It is quite easy to write a gc, but that one probably will have awful performance. Writing a good is harder and takes more time. Writing one with performance that handles memory as good as a skilled programmer handling manual allocation is exceptionally hard and requires man-years in effort.
It's like a chess engine, most programmers can write one but if you want one that can match a human or even Big Blue then you need to spend some time on it. So from Oracles perspective, it very much makes sense to try and monetize their high performance gc even if it's a shitty move overall. Most chess players has no use for a chess engine stronger than grandmaster level. But there are professional players out there who has a genuine need for a more challenging chess engine and would pay good money for it. In a similar vein most Java programmers can live with the default gc, but some big enterprises will feel they need a better one and pay lotsa $$$ for it even if the performance gain is only 5-10%.
Um.. ohloh.net doesn't offer project hosting. It is a tool for analyzing statistics and creating reports about projects hosted on other sites.
No, Marx' claim was that increased productivity would lead to the working class overtaking the production. Marx considered himself a scientist just as much as a philosopher. He noted that Capitalism in which the burgoese owns the means of production was more efficient than if the feudal lords owned it. Wage slavery was better than indentured service. In the US, the tension between the feudal system represented by the slave-based south states economy and the capitalistic north states lead to the civil war.
Britain became a super power in the 19th century for the same reason. Because they were the first to adopt capitalism and therefore could produce stuff more efficiently than with the countries it competed with.
Marx also postulated that there is another economic system, that was more efficient than capitalism, would overtake it someday. That system would be based on communal ownership of resources.
That is incorrect. Marx observed that rulers usually do not voluntarily give up their power, which would make a violent overthrow likely, as in the French Revolution. He also recognized that not all revolutions are violent like the English revolution which was peaceful. He never did advocate violence.
Plus, the IDE indicated I had a syntax error as I was typing it, and the code completion prevented me from making another one; and when the class I was trying to instantiate didn't get colored as a 'type' by the syntax highlighter that I knew was correct I immediately knew I hadn't included it in this file. All that saved me a round trip or two through the build process.
That same code completion will also embed spelling mistakes in the API because programmers are to lazy to type out the method names and so wont notice when they contain spelling errors. The background compilation process takes resources and will (in all IDE:s I have tested) increase the IDE:s latency. If you type faster than the IDE can process your input, the syntax checking soon becomes more of an annoyance than an advantage.
And when the app compiled there was a compiler warning; in the IDE a double click on the warning took me right to the source line in the editor, so I could fix it, and rebuild. With bash I get to read the name of the file and linenumber that had the problem, alt-tab to the right editor window, manually jump to the line number, make the fix, save it, and then switch back to the terminal window and run the build script again.
Right, you have to double click on the warning. When I see the warning in the shell, I press alt-tab, C-x b, M-g, enter the line number and I'm right at the line that the compiler complained about. And I can do that much faster than it takes you to reach the mouse, scroll the IDE:s compiler output window and double-click on the warning.
I didn't say the IDE was more "powerful", I just said it was more efficient. And it is.
For newbies and people who cannot touch type, yes. For professional programmers, not so much.
Well, then wouldn't the same treatment be usable for basically any addiction? Such as smoking that also causes an endorphine release? The drug you are describing sound very much to good to be true.
From your own energy density numbers 45/26 = 1.73. So you'd need 73% more ethanol fuel to get the same mileage as from a unit of gasoline. However, while ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, it has a higher octane rating which means that there is less waste heat and that the engine can run more efficiently. The article is right, a 20-30% drop in mileage is likely.
terrible isn't it?
It's a matter of principle. If you let people realize that corporate controlled cables is a bad idea, then it is not long before the public begins to question other corporate domains too. Corporate banks? How is that mortgage crisis working out? Corporate health care? Um.. yeah. Corporate railways? Works fantastically in Britain. Corporate auto manufacturers? Which has to be bailed out by the state when no one buys their products?