It's fine to write queries like where lower(colum_name) but if you have already witten a hundred queries that say where column_name =searchstring then what do you do?
Try reverting to SQL standards? What you seem to be indicating that is that you are expecting that your data is "dirty" and that no one has checked it for entry and data code consistency. There are many situations where permitting that kind of inconsistency and masking it could lead to all sorts of problems, everything from inaccurate scientific analytical results to problems with the IRS depending on the data.
What you can't do is take GPLed software, and sell it under terms that strip the receiver of their rights under the GPL.
. . . Or terms that strip other authors that contributed to your code of their rights either. This is generally actualy complaint against the GPL, "if it's free why do I have to give you credit?" The point is, it is not "free," it's open.
Also, as far as making money goes, Red Hat, SuSE(Novel), Mandriva and other releases show perfectly well that money CAN be made selling opensourced code, as long as the seller does not get overly greedy. No commercial linux release could survive otherwise. The perfect counter example is Caldera, a release that got greedy - no look at them.
I'd think a foreign government would have to be bloody daft to accept any sort of tech built in the US where any sensitive communication is going to take place.
I don't think so. Vodafone is headquartered in Newbury, UK. So, Mr. Bond, don't bother to dissemble. And BTW, what WERE you doing with those communications? I thought of handicapping a book on the selection process.
The idea is an oxymoron. Anything can be turned into political grist. Nor is it rational to suggest that the New Deal or the Great Society are more readily considered objectively now than in the past. The nearest thing to neutral would be for professors to present various views with their supporting evidence and criticisms of other views. That isn't likely any morfe than you would expect a Creationist to actually be knowledgeable about the real theory(ies) of evolution, rather than the 19th century pastiche of a straw man they prefer to take potshots at, or liberal, green offering data that questions the reality of global warming. Reality never has and never will fall neatly into some politcal party's, scientific theory's, or religious sect's ideas of what is permissible and what is forbidden.
Just a guess mind you, but since the area is about 5,000 full moons, you just might suspect the width of the object was about 80 full moons, assuming of course the area is approximately circular. That would make it about 40 degrees across.
I hear SUSE doesn't even have a partition screen (unless you hit the advanced or expert button) - all Linux distro's should.
That's correct. It will automatically repartition and resize your windows partitions, then install. Personally, I have a different setup and have to use the avanced choices, but then, I don't run windows on the same system. I would not run linux on the same system as windows unless I install Windows first, then linux. Otherwise Windows is liable to eat the linux partition or otherwise make it unavailable.
For a real computer innocent no OS will be easy to install. Too many of us adovate types forget we are a) experienced and more importantly b) habituated to a particular OS. Most of the "ease" we perceive is simply our own knowledge and experience, regardless of whether it is windows or linux we are used to. It has little to do with the OS in question. Having started out with windows (through ME) before switching to linux, I can say that there was a definite learning curve. Having to maintain an XP system for some uses these days, the learning curve is about the same and the paranoia and costs, much greater. Linux's advantage is that it really is more secure inherently and doesn't come down with trojans authored by the Russian mafia and script kiddies. I expect that could change and may be doing so.
How about doing a review from the perspective of someone who has never used a computer before - then lets see which one is easier to use (hint: the answer will be Windows XP by a massive margin).
There are some exceptions, but by and large, Linux these days is far, far easier. There are two major aspects that makes this true. First, is the driver issue. Generally, if Linux can run it, the driver will arrive with the install CDs. There are some exceptions, nVidia drivers for instance have to be acquired after the install, and the system will then inform you the pristine OS kernel has become polluted by a proprietary bit of code. If you use a Canon printer you are probably SOL. Canon keeps the interface information close to the gravy stains, so linux support for Canon printers is generally pretty poor, but with HP and Epson available, who cares? With Windows you will need CD after CD for the drivers alone, and you'll have to reboot after installing each and every one. Linux is simply far easier here.
The other aspect is applications. Windows of course comes with a few wimpy but useful apps, and they expect that you will have and install your own industrial strengths applications as needed. This has it's pros and cons. A linux distribution on the other hand may have over a thousand apps accompanying it; everything from games, CAD and OO to little utilities like convert. This too has its pros and cons.
You can do almost anything right out of the box with a linux distribution. The gotcha is that you need to be able to identify and locate the utilities and apps you need on the CD or DVDs, and the descriptions available are pretty opaque. With Windows and its discrete applications and utilities, picking and choosing is much easier, but you will probably need to reboot after installing, which is just silly. All in all, the only way to make linux simpler would be to provide a better catalog of the available applications and their uses. With windows, the first thing is to get rid of multiple required reboots and separate drivers.
except to a bunch of useless bureaucrats that want to dip into the money flow - your pocket. These guys seem to have been taking lessons from patent holding companies that lack research staff, facilities, and products.
If you dig into the history of it, the "empiricist" approach to reality was an attempt to sort out "nature" from the "irreducible" acts of a deity. This wasn't creationism in the modern sense, but instead an attempt to understand how to sort out the "noise" of nature from the "signal" of a hypothetical creator or designer. Deism would have tended to support such an idea since it doesn't dictate some specific deity as THE deity and doesn't support the idea of any particular creator. Supposing that you could separate out a "signal" there is nothing that would then allow you to state that the signal belongs to Jahweh as opposed to Shiva, or some other creator-type. Supposing that someone actually DID sort out such a signal, the next battle would be between the religionists over whose was the right one - more or less a return to the status quo ante the Enlightenment. The very existence of such as debate is obviously due to poor design, probably one of Slartybartfast's assistants.
Of course success would be dependent upon some natural property that really was "irreducible" and would also necessarily include an explanation of why the crappy "design" of the human foot really was the best of all possible designs. Since nothing in nature so far is "irreducible," and a blind drunk could design a better foot, the whole ID concept already appears to have been falsified. I have seen arguments that certain properties of critters such as rotifers are "irreducible," but the error there is self-evident. If it is composed of chemical compounds, it is not irreducible.
What is at issue is a matter of derivation. Our perceptions are filtered subset of the potential stimuli that our sensory system pass along. A study of neurology reveals that a large portion of the "events" that could stimulate us never make it past preliminary filters that are in place to insure that we only percieve what you might say is "important." Presumably this is evolutionarily defined so that we see the predators creeping up rather than being distracted by other less significant stimuli. Our understanding of reality is thus biased. It is derived from what we have evolved to understand as important.
That, however, does not mean that our perceptions establish or in someway "define" reality out side of our consciousness. Our perceptions don't establish natural law. You can step in front of a fast freight or jump off of a tall building and establish just why we have these biases. Our perceptions highlight important parts of the present reality to our awareness. If we ignore those aspects of reality our survival is at risk. Inertia and gravity operate whether we believe in them or not. So does chemistry as evidenced by those who every year MISTAKENLY percieve a toxic fungus as an edible mushroom.
Peter Korn's piece is interesting. But . . . he's talking about OpenOffice.org. Massachussets' proposal was to use the Open Document Format as a menas of insuring access to public documents and data in a fashion that was not dependent upon the goodwill of some single company or companies. It is fairly easy to see how, given the broad history of computer use and data formats in the US, that one could confuse and argument by a responsible government agency for a "standard" with advocacy for a certain piece of software, but. . .
That simply is not what the disucssion and recommendations were about. They were about insuring long term (decades, centuries, not months) accessibility to DATA. Microsoft could quite easily support ODF, probably more cheaply than repeatedly altering the format in which their software stores OUR documents. But Microsoft, and presumably Sun as well, are concerned with cash-flow, markets. If YOUR data is not in a proprietary format, then you can't be coerced into using proprietary software to access YOUR data. You can't be coerced into software "upgrades" to fix broken programming and thus insuring the company cashflow simply to access YOUR data.
The ability to access public data is as important to handicapped citizens as it is to the rest of us, whose handicaps are less self-evident. It would wise for the advocates of "accessibility" to keeps this in mind, and to view not only access but handicaps in a less one-dimensional manner.
Open Document format is a standard and can be freely implemented by anyone. It can hardly get more accessible than that. Open source software has some problems with accessibility, largely because the developers of the hardware used by the "handicapped" do not thoroughly document things like driver interfaces, thus limiting their own customers' access rights. Confusing software and standards is an MS tactic and generally serves as a means of limiting a user's choices.
Second, it is SuSE linux in my experience, not Windows that automatically looks for devices for the disabled upon installation.
In backward parts of the planet like the US our clocks only have half the hours on them 1-12. In order to communicate the time fully you have to code it "AM" or "PM" otherwise a date at 1 O'Clock could be ambiguous leaving one to wonder whether to interrupt an afternoon siesta or a night's sleep. The AM and PM thus are an essential part of the encoding that we USians have to use to tell time. In a rational region like Europe where hours are 1-24 that isn't a problem. That is also a reason why time in the US is "baroque."
Accurate longitudinal fixes are based upon the time differential between where you stand and a meridian of known location and time (e.g. the Greenwich meridian). UTC not only tells you what time it is, it also lets you calculate precisely where you stand (or float or fly). One second of time at the equartor amounts to roughly 1450 feet (442 meters). Geography - and your property bounaries - are linked to time.
... Patent terms in the US were 14 years from issue, then 17 years from issue, then 20 years from filing. No renewals; in fact, you generally have to pay up periodically just to get the full, single, term.
Patents could be renewed during the 19th century for repeated terms of seven years for a fee at each renewal. If you look at the patent dates on various objects manufactured then you will often see a "pat." date, frequently followed by additional dates at seven year intervals. I originally thought the patent term was seven years because of this.
I can't offer any information about the actual patent. However, there was some talk about a court decision in the early '90s. I had just purchased a new 1991 vehicle and within about two years at the most, talk was going around that the big auto-manufacturers were going to have to pay royalties on the intermittent wiper action. I noted this because shortly after I bought my vehicle some deffective attmpted to steal it, breaking the steering column cowling and hot-wiring the horn. Evidently he didn't notice the lock was in the dashboard. When the car was repaired, they had used a slightly more costly set of switches in the cowling and I then had intermittent wipers without knowing it. I turned them on accidentally and thought the repair was faulty for about 10 minutes.
Microsoft isn't pushing their OS for its easy install. You never hear about OS X's install.
That's because compared to most linuxes, XP isn't easy to install. It's a pain in the ass. The only driver I ever need to install seperately with SuSE is the driver for my Nvidia GeForce and even that is semiautomated in SuSE. With MS every fiddly bit of crap that is attached needs it's own driver and most of them will just run under Linux. This is the main change in SuSE 9.3 that I don't like. Something about the hardware recognition is now broken and CDs and DVDs need considerable help to get them mounted.
No one really ``requires'' Word - you can't tell one hard copy from another . . .
So innocent and trusting. You realize don't you that professors want your papers electronicaly so that if there is anythiong of worth, they can cut and paste it more easily. Students are assigned papers so that professors can mine their brains. Where's the tin foil...
Slashdot Mirror
Every time a plant goes critical we get another wildlife refuge!
It's fine to write queries like where lower(colum_name) but if you have already witten a hundred queries that say where column_name =searchstring then what do you do?
Try reverting to SQL standards? What you seem to be indicating that is that you are expecting that your data is "dirty" and that no one has checked it for entry and data code consistency. There are many situations where permitting that kind of inconsistency and masking it could lead to all sorts of problems, everything from inaccurate scientific analytical results to problems with the IRS depending on the data.
What you can't do is take GPLed software, and sell it under terms that strip the receiver of their rights under the GPL.
. . . Or terms that strip other authors that contributed to your code of their rights either. This is generally actualy complaint against the GPL, "if it's free why do I have to give you credit?" The point is, it is not "free," it's open.
Also, as far as making money goes, Red Hat, SuSE(Novel), Mandriva and other releases show perfectly well that money CAN be made selling opensourced code, as long as the seller does not get overly greedy. No commercial linux release could survive otherwise. The perfect counter example is Caldera, a release that got greedy - no look at them.
n/t
I'd think a foreign government would have to be bloody daft to accept any sort of tech built in the US where any sensitive communication is going to take place. I don't think so. Vodafone is headquartered in Newbury, UK. So, Mr. Bond, don't bother to dissemble. And BTW, what WERE you doing with those communications? I thought of handicapping a book on the selection process.
The idea is an oxymoron. Anything can be turned into political grist. Nor is it rational to suggest that the New Deal or the Great Society are more readily considered objectively now than in the past. The nearest thing to neutral would be for professors to present various views with their supporting evidence and criticisms of other views. That isn't likely any morfe than you would expect a Creationist to actually be knowledgeable about the real theory(ies) of evolution, rather than the 19th century pastiche of a straw man they prefer to take potshots at, or liberal, green offering data that questions the reality of global warming. Reality never has and never will fall neatly into some politcal party's, scientific theory's, or religious sect's ideas of what is permissible and what is forbidden.
...
Just a guess mind you, but since the area is about 5,000 full moons, you just might suspect the width of the object was about 80 full moons, assuming of course the area is approximately circular. That would make it about 40 degrees across.
I hear SUSE doesn't even have a partition screen (unless you hit the advanced or expert button) - all Linux distro's should.
That's correct. It will automatically repartition and resize your windows partitions, then install. Personally, I have a different setup and have to use the avanced choices, but then, I don't run windows on the same system. I would not run linux on the same system as windows unless I install Windows first, then linux. Otherwise Windows is liable to eat the linux partition or otherwise make it unavailable.
For a real computer innocent no OS will be easy to install. Too many of us adovate types forget we are a) experienced and more importantly b) habituated to a particular OS. Most of the "ease" we perceive is simply our own knowledge and experience, regardless of whether it is windows or linux we are used to. It has little to do with the OS in question. Having started out with windows (through ME) before switching to linux, I can say that there was a definite learning curve. Having to maintain an XP system for some uses these days, the learning curve is about the same and the paranoia and costs, much greater. Linux's advantage is that it really is more secure inherently and doesn't come down with trojans authored by the Russian mafia and script kiddies. I expect that could change and may be doing so.
How about doing a review from the perspective of someone who has never used a computer before - then lets see which one is easier to use (hint: the answer will be Windows XP by a massive margin).
There are some exceptions, but by and large, Linux these days is far, far easier. There are two major aspects that makes this true. First, is the driver issue. Generally, if Linux can run it, the driver will arrive with the install CDs. There are some exceptions, nVidia drivers for instance have to be acquired after the install, and the system will then inform you the pristine OS kernel has become polluted by a proprietary bit of code. If you use a Canon printer you are probably SOL. Canon keeps the interface information close to the gravy stains, so linux support for Canon printers is generally pretty poor, but with HP and Epson available, who cares? With Windows you will need CD after CD for the drivers alone, and you'll have to reboot after installing each and every one. Linux is simply far easier here.
The other aspect is applications. Windows of course comes with a few wimpy but useful apps, and they expect that you will have and install your own industrial strengths applications as needed. This has it's pros and cons. A linux distribution on the other hand may have over a thousand apps accompanying it; everything from games, CAD and OO to little utilities like convert. This too has its pros and cons.
You can do almost anything right out of the box with a linux distribution. The gotcha is that you need to be able to identify and locate the utilities and apps you need on the CD or DVDs, and the descriptions available are pretty opaque. With Windows and its discrete applications and utilities, picking and choosing is much easier, but you will probably need to reboot after installing, which is just silly. All in all, the only way to make linux simpler would be to provide a better catalog of the available applications and their uses. With windows, the first thing is to get rid of multiple required reboots and separate drivers.
except to a bunch of useless bureaucrats that want to dip into the money flow - your pocket. These guys seem to have been taking lessons from patent holding companies that lack research staff, facilities, and products.
If you dig into the history of it, the "empiricist" approach to reality was an attempt to sort out "nature" from the "irreducible" acts of a deity. This wasn't creationism in the modern sense, but instead an attempt to understand how to sort out the "noise" of nature from the "signal" of a hypothetical creator or designer. Deism would have tended to support such an idea since it doesn't dictate some specific deity as THE deity and doesn't support the idea of any particular creator. Supposing that you could separate out a "signal" there is nothing that would then allow you to state that the signal belongs to Jahweh as opposed to Shiva, or some other creator-type. Supposing that someone actually DID sort out such a signal, the next battle would be between the religionists over whose was the right one - more or less a return to the status quo ante the Enlightenment. The very existence of such as debate is obviously due to poor design, probably one of Slartybartfast's assistants.
Of course success would be dependent upon some natural property that really was "irreducible" and would also necessarily include an explanation of why the crappy "design" of the human foot really was the best of all possible designs. Since nothing in nature so far is "irreducible," and a blind drunk could design a better foot, the whole ID concept already appears to have been falsified. I have seen arguments that certain properties of critters such as rotifers are "irreducible," but the error there is self-evident. If it is composed of chemical compounds, it is not irreducible.
That, my friend, is obsession, not introversion.
What is at issue is a matter of derivation. Our perceptions are filtered subset of the potential stimuli that our sensory system pass along. A study of neurology reveals that a large portion of the "events" that could stimulate us never make it past preliminary filters that are in place to insure that we only percieve what you might say is "important." Presumably this is evolutionarily defined so that we see the predators creeping up rather than being distracted by other less significant stimuli. Our understanding of reality is thus biased. It is derived from what we have evolved to understand as important.
That, however, does not mean that our perceptions establish or in someway "define" reality out side of our consciousness. Our perceptions don't establish natural law. You can step in front of a fast freight or jump off of a tall building and establish just why we have these biases. Our perceptions highlight important parts of the present reality to our awareness. If we ignore those aspects of reality our survival is at risk. Inertia and gravity operate whether we believe in them or not. So does chemistry as evidenced by those who every year MISTAKENLY percieve a toxic fungus as an edible mushroom.
Perhaps the problem is the S/N of the internet iteself. Perhaps ISPs should refuse to carry it.
There's a thought!
Seriously now, you just posted this on the web - and as someone will no doubt point out - on /. Holding "noise" against USENET is absurd.
Peter Korn's piece is interesting. But . . . he's talking about OpenOffice.org. Massachussets' proposal was to use the Open Document Format as a menas of insuring access to public documents and data in a fashion that was not dependent upon the goodwill of some single company or companies. It is fairly easy to see how, given the broad history of computer use and data formats in the US, that one could confuse and argument by a responsible government agency for a "standard" with advocacy for a certain piece of software, but. . .
That simply is not what the disucssion and recommendations were about. They were about insuring long term (decades, centuries, not months) accessibility to DATA. Microsoft could quite easily support ODF, probably more cheaply than repeatedly altering the format in which their software stores OUR documents. But Microsoft, and presumably Sun as well, are concerned with cash-flow, markets. If YOUR data is not in a proprietary format, then you can't be coerced into using proprietary software to access YOUR data. You can't be coerced into software "upgrades" to fix broken programming and thus insuring the company cashflow simply to access YOUR data.
The ability to access public data is as important to handicapped citizens as it is to the rest of us, whose handicaps are less self-evident. It would wise for the advocates of "accessibility" to keeps this in mind, and to view not only access but handicaps in a less one-dimensional manner.
Second, it is SuSE linux in my experience, not Windows that automatically looks for devices for the disabled upon installation.
In backward parts of the planet like the US our clocks only have half the hours on them 1-12. In order to communicate the time fully you have to code it "AM" or "PM" otherwise a date at 1 O'Clock could be ambiguous leaving one to wonder whether to interrupt an afternoon siesta or a night's sleep. The AM and PM thus are an essential part of the encoding that we USians have to use to tell time. In a rational region like Europe where hours are 1-24 that isn't a problem. That is also a reason why time in the US is "baroque."
Accurate longitudinal fixes are based upon the time differential between where you stand and a meridian of known location and time (e.g. the Greenwich meridian). UTC not only tells you what time it is, it also lets you calculate precisely where you stand (or float or fly). One second of time at the equartor amounts to roughly 1450 feet (442 meters). Geography - and your property bounaries - are linked to time.
Are you leaving out the AM/PM code on purpose? There's no complete sense of the fullness of the "baroque" adjective until you include that.
Patents could be renewed during the 19th century for repeated terms of seven years for a fee at each renewal. If you look at the patent dates on various objects manufactured then you will often see a "pat." date, frequently followed by additional dates at seven year intervals. I originally thought the patent term was seven years because of this.
I can't offer any information about the actual patent. However, there was some talk about a court decision in the early '90s. I had just purchased a new 1991 vehicle and within about two years at the most, talk was going around that the big auto-manufacturers were going to have to pay royalties on the intermittent wiper action. I noted this because shortly after I bought my vehicle some deffective attmpted to steal it, breaking the steering column cowling and hot-wiring the horn. Evidently he didn't notice the lock was in the dashboard. When the car was repaired, they had used a slightly more costly set of switches in the cowling and I then had intermittent wipers without knowing it. I turned them on accidentally and thought the repair was faulty for about 10 minutes.
Microsoft isn't pushing their OS for its easy install. You never hear about OS X's install.
That's because compared to most linuxes, XP isn't easy to install. It's a pain in the ass. The only driver I ever need to install seperately with SuSE is the driver for my Nvidia GeForce and even that is semiautomated in SuSE. With MS every fiddly bit of crap that is attached needs it's own driver and most of them will just run under Linux. This is the main change in SuSE 9.3 that I don't like. Something about the hardware recognition is now broken and CDs and DVDs need considerable help to get them mounted.
No one really ``requires'' Word - you can't tell one hard copy from another . . .
So innocent and trusting. You realize don't you that professors want your papers electronicaly so that if there is anythiong of worth, they can cut and paste it more easily. Students are assigned papers so that professors can mine their brains. Where's the tin foil...