What's a "legitimate video?" Pixar can make almost anything believable, nevermind a silly silver disc flying around in the sky (trivial to make on a home PC with 3dsmax.) What's a "verifiable record?" Many people from all different backgrounds claim to have seen these things. For every backwoods yokel, I can point to an army general or air force pilot.
If this is a real phenomenon (I am not going to speculate on its origins,) what possible evidence would you expect to see that we don't already have tons of now? Say there are flying discs that we didn't make flying around performing impossible feats in the air that the government, for whatever reason, doesn't want you to know about. All you would get are third party accounts, video tapes, and similar things which are out there if you look for more than 2 minutes instead of just saying "bah, couldn't be" and deciding not to. The first website that comes to mind is The Disclosure Project, but there are plenty of books and websites with similar stuff. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it's out there.
So mulitple pilots chasing strange things in the air which register on multiple radars is undoubtedly an error of judgement by all those people?
Could be. But it's obtuse to assume so. Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be there.
Say this phenomenon of silver discs performing aerodynamic feats un-doable by any aircraft were real -- what evidence would it take for you to conclude this is what is happening, and it isn't merely a fault of human judgement? It seems like no evidence would be sufficient for you if this phenomenon alone were actually occuring.
You misunderstood my original point. These weren't just blips on the radar, they were blips on the radar correllated with pilots seeing silver discs out their cockpit and chasing them.
I hate it when obviously faked UFOs are publicized and then thouroughly debunked. This leads people to assume that all UFO reports are obviously faked and there are no reports which are unexplainable.
There are, its a real phenomenon, and nobody knows what they are. 95% of the cases may be solar flares and whatnot, but there are cases where trained pilots chase things which show up on radar going at supersonic speeds making hairpin turns. There are UFO sightings with craft doing these things recorded by witnesses over large areas from many different perspectives.
They could all be fake. But this doesn't mean they do not warrant investigation. A few shitty UFO pictures which can be duplicated easily doesn't make the interesting accounts and evidence any less interesting.
First off, guessing about human based intent to a being which could very well be omnipotent and all-powerful (for all intents and purposes) is foolish and likely to get you laughed out of here faster than Godwin's Law.
Second, the point of the argument is 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 1,000,000, it matter not. For if there is one unexplained incident, it becomes a valid subject for intense research and investigation. The only argument you have to stand on is the fact that this decrease in unexplained phenomenon over the years implies that eventually all will be explained, but I beg to differ since a phenomenon such as crop circles and bringing extraterrestrial ability into the picture prevents such as an assumption from being valid. You can make no assumptions regarding aliens, even one such as "aliens would not make one crop circle every 1000 years."
It could very well be the case there is only one crop circle ever made since the year 1000 which was actually made by alien life. You cannot discount this possibility, especially in the face of a large, countable number of unexplainable crop circles. You can speculate, but you cannot discount the possibility.
For every 100 cropcircles, there is 1 which is not obviously made with human boards pushing down on wheat/straw/whatever. These cropcircles have the wheat bent at 90 degrees and interleaved upon one another. This is something that, even with the most advanced equipment, is pretty much impossible to do, and is the reason crop circles are truly interesting phenomenon.
Just like for every 100 guys who throw a plate into the air and take a picture, there is one who actually saw something unexplainable. Separating the signal from the noise, and realizing that there is in fact actual signal amongst the noise, is the first step towards understanding what it means to be a true skeptic and a rational, open-minded, thinker. Doubting for the sheer sake of doubt and assuming something to be false without any proof is ignorance and is a bastardization of what it means to be a skeptic and a scientist.
Hrm - I've had my blah desktop for a few weeks now. I can't get blahblahs for it. They don't make blahblahs specifically, and the blah requires that I have blah of blah source on my drive. Yes, I could put it on, but haven't the time right now. Oh, wouldn't it be great for a blah version of a program IN ADDITION TO blah, so that those of us more interested in being productive than 'freedom' could just get work done?
In order to demonstrate why Linux will never be on the desktop, I've transformed your post into how it will be seen by a non-computer literate person. With this in mind, consider the fact that you are addressing a faily common technical problem.
That's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. Saying that the e-tailer industry "prides itself" upon a lack of taxes (something out of their control) and that taxing them would be unethical since it infringes upon the foundation of their "business model" is absurd.
Face it, a lack of taxes on Internet sales comes off as a temporary "loophole" in the tax system. Having a business model based exclusively on tax laws which are likely to be modified in the near future is on par with one for selling dog food over the Internet.
I'm sure Enron "prided itself" on it's backwards bookkeeping too. Not a perfect analogy, but applicable nontheless.
Microsoft doesn't care about piracy by college students. We can DOWNLOAD any Microsoft software we want (CS majors at Cornell) from the network after we sign a form saying we're using it for non-commercial purposes. If we don't want to use a CDR, 9 times out of 10 a CS student can ask the MS rep on campus for a copy of whatever CD or whatever MS press book they want.
It's unfortunate that all software is not available in this manner -- if it were, I'd be much more prone to supporting the notion that all piracy is bad.
Sure moderators, rate me as being a troll. I obviously am just making my opinion up to stir up a flamewar. I couldn't possibly think that MySQL is a piece of shit, oh no sir.
Yeah too bad the one day the power goes out your entire database's integrity is compromised. This is something you won't notice until 6 months from now when you get key collisions and joins stop working.
MySQL is another one of those poorly implemented technologies that somehow get widespread adoption and spread poor programming/design practices like wildfire. MySQL is to bad database design as QWERTY is to carpal tunnel syndrome and IE is to shitty, non-compliant HTML.
If you have only known and used MySQL, you do not understand the real motivation for using a RDBMS.
You don't "know databases" if you think that many of the things you listed belong in the middle tier. If you "knew databases," you'd know that it's the job of the database to perform the final check on data integrity before ANYTHING goes into the database -- the middle tier should do business logic checking as necessary, but definitely not something so low level as foreign keys. Also, what if you have many middle tiers from many different places, and what if you screw up in your middle tier? You won't actually know that the data is screwed until a real problem crops up or you notice the table mysteriously growing.
I'd hate to see how ugly your middle tier is when it has to do like 10 DELETE statements since there is no cascading and 5 SELECTS before an INSERT to double check the fields which normally would be foreign keys. In fact, I'd bet that you probably don't do the checking in the middle tier, since that would be retarded and you just bank on the data being consistent, even if somehow your variable with the ID gets corrupted or someone else comes in and tweaks your code.
Statement A: MySQL should not be used for large apps because of its lack of serious features.
Statement B: MySQL should only be used for apps which require speedy query execution with lots of data.
Statement C: The speedy execution benefit seen in MySQL is only really seen if you have lots of data or lots of queries. If you have lots of data or lots of queries, you're not implementing a small app.
B + C = MySQL should only be used for large apps. which is in conflict with A, so we conclude that it's a contradiction and you should never use MySQL.
Now, instead of calling me a troll, explain why I'm wrong and why MySQL fanboys on Slashdot have any argument whatsoever for people to use software which causes bugs and bloated software and fails to prevent data corruption.
Don't use MySQL if you need a full featured DB, because it lacks many things you need for data integrity. Only use MySQL for small apps. These features were left out so MySQL would be a few nanoseconds faster when scaled to Slashdot sized apps.
But, as stated, people should be using MySQL only for small applications, so speed should not be an issue.
So, in conclusion, you are all retarded and it never makes any sense to use MySQL. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
What's a "legitimate video?" Pixar can make almost anything believable, nevermind a silly silver disc flying around in the sky (trivial to make on a home PC with 3dsmax.) What's a "verifiable record?" Many people from all different backgrounds claim to have seen these things. For every backwoods yokel, I can point to an army general or air force pilot.
If this is a real phenomenon (I am not going to speculate on its origins,) what possible evidence would you expect to see that we don't already have tons of now? Say there are flying discs that we didn't make flying around performing impossible feats in the air that the government, for whatever reason, doesn't want you to know about. All you would get are third party accounts, video tapes, and similar things which are out there if you look for more than 2 minutes instead of just saying "bah, couldn't be" and deciding not to. The first website that comes to mind is The Disclosure Project, but there are plenty of books and websites with similar stuff. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it's out there.
So mulitple pilots chasing strange things in the air which register on multiple radars is undoubtedly an error of judgement by all those people?
Could be. But it's obtuse to assume so. Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be there.
Say this phenomenon of silver discs performing aerodynamic feats un-doable by any aircraft were real -- what evidence would it take for you to conclude this is what is happening, and it isn't merely a fault of human judgement? It seems like no evidence would be sufficient for you if this phenomenon alone were actually occuring.
You misunderstood my original point. These weren't just blips on the radar, they were blips on the radar correllated with pilots seeing silver discs out their cockpit and chasing them.
I hate it when obviously faked UFOs are publicized and then thouroughly debunked. This leads people to assume that all UFO reports are obviously faked and there are no reports which are unexplainable.
There are, its a real phenomenon, and nobody knows what they are. 95% of the cases may be solar flares and whatnot, but there are cases where trained pilots chase things which show up on radar going at supersonic speeds making hairpin turns. There are UFO sightings with craft doing these things recorded by witnesses over large areas from many different perspectives.
They could all be fake. But this doesn't mean they do not warrant investigation. A few shitty UFO pictures which can be duplicated easily doesn't make the interesting accounts and evidence any less interesting.
First off, guessing about human based intent to a being which could very well be omnipotent and all-powerful (for all intents and purposes) is foolish and likely to get you laughed out of here faster than Godwin's Law.
Second, the point of the argument is 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 1,000,000, it matter not. For if there is one unexplained incident, it becomes a valid subject for intense research and investigation. The only argument you have to stand on is the fact that this decrease in unexplained phenomenon over the years implies that eventually all will be explained, but I beg to differ since a phenomenon such as crop circles and bringing extraterrestrial ability into the picture prevents such as an assumption from being valid. You can make no assumptions regarding aliens, even one such as "aliens would not make one crop circle every 1000 years."
It could very well be the case there is only one crop circle ever made since the year 1000 which was actually made by alien life. You cannot discount this possibility, especially in the face of a large, countable number of unexplainable crop circles. You can speculate, but you cannot discount the possibility.
For every 100 cropcircles, there is 1 which is not obviously made with human boards pushing down on wheat/straw/whatever. These cropcircles have the wheat bent at 90 degrees and interleaved upon one another. This is something that, even with the most advanced equipment, is pretty much impossible to do, and is the reason crop circles are truly interesting phenomenon.
Just like for every 100 guys who throw a plate into the air and take a picture, there is one who actually saw something unexplainable. Separating the signal from the noise, and realizing that there is in fact actual signal amongst the noise, is the first step towards understanding what it means to be a true skeptic and a rational, open-minded, thinker. Doubting for the sheer sake of doubt and assuming something to be false without any proof is ignorance and is a bastardization of what it means to be a skeptic and a scientist.
On Slashdot, all technological advancement is irresponsible, dangerous, and should be avoided unless it involves Open Source software.
Hrm - I've had my blah desktop for a few weeks now. I can't get blah blahs for it. They don't make blah blahs specifically, and the blah requires that I have blah of blah source on my drive. Yes, I could put it on, but haven't the time right now. Oh, wouldn't it be great for a blah version of a program IN ADDITION TO blah, so that those of us more interested in being productive than 'freedom' could just get work done?
In order to demonstrate why Linux will never be on the desktop, I've transformed your post into how it will be seen by a non-computer literate person. With this in mind, consider the fact that you are addressing a faily common technical problem.
119 baby
Heading 182.20
Pitch -1.72
three force bars
That's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. Saying that the e-tailer industry "prides itself" upon a lack of taxes (something out of their control) and that taxing them would be unethical since it infringes upon the foundation of their "business model" is absurd.
Face it, a lack of taxes on Internet sales comes off as a temporary "loophole" in the tax system. Having a business model based exclusively on tax laws which are likely to be modified in the near future is on par with one for selling dog food over the Internet.
I'm sure Enron "prided itself" on it's backwards bookkeeping too. Not a perfect analogy, but applicable nontheless.
Funny, judging by the weight of "A New Kind of Science", I'd expect it to be the other way around.
Microsoft doesn't care about piracy by college students. We can DOWNLOAD any Microsoft software we want (CS majors at Cornell) from the network after we sign a form saying we're using it for non-commercial purposes. If we don't want to use a CDR, 9 times out of 10 a CS student can ask the MS rep on campus for a copy of whatever CD or whatever MS press book they want.
It's unfortunate that all software is not available in this manner -- if it were, I'd be much more prone to supporting the notion that all piracy is bad.
Sure moderators, rate me as being a troll. I obviously am just making my opinion up to stir up a flamewar. I couldn't possibly think that MySQL is a piece of shit, oh no sir.
MySQL is a rusty old Chevy with a 70s rocket engine (with a penguin decal) strapped to the hood aimed at a brick wall.
Yeah too bad the one day the power goes out your entire database's integrity is compromised. This is something you won't notice until 6 months from now when you get key collisions and joins stop working.
MySQL is another one of those poorly implemented technologies that somehow get widespread adoption and spread poor programming/design practices like wildfire. MySQL is to bad database design as QWERTY is to carpal tunnel syndrome and IE is to shitty, non-compliant HTML.
If you have only known and used MySQL, you do not understand the real motivation for using a RDBMS.
How are you losing privacy by registering with them? They know nothing about you, really, since they're not tracking any information about you.
You could argue about giving them your e-mail address, but you're a fucking idiot if you give them something other than a Hotmail or Yahoo addy.
I find your ideas interesting, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Lets not forget the company I work for, Cyracle, which provides what LivePerson does but better and cheaper :)
</shameless plug>
They'd have to host the images somewhere. Once they do that, the cost will skyrocket and it won't be worth it.
You don't "know databases" if you think that many of the things you listed belong in the middle tier. If you "knew databases," you'd know that it's the job of the database to perform the final check on data integrity before ANYTHING goes into the database -- the middle tier should do business logic checking as necessary, but definitely not something so low level as foreign keys. Also, what if you have many middle tiers from many different places, and what if you screw up in your middle tier? You won't actually know that the data is screwed until a real problem crops up or you notice the table mysteriously growing.
I'd hate to see how ugly your middle tier is when it has to do like 10 DELETE statements since there is no cascading and 5 SELECTS before an INSERT to double check the fields which normally would be foreign keys. In fact, I'd bet that you probably don't do the checking in the middle tier, since that would be retarded and you just bank on the data being consistent, even if somehow your variable with the ID gets corrupted or someone else comes in and tweaks your code.
Or, you're a troll.
Good job refuting my point:
Statement A: MySQL should not be used for large apps because of its lack of serious features.
Statement B: MySQL should only be used for apps which require speedy query execution with lots of data.
Statement C: The speedy execution benefit seen in MySQL is only really seen if you have lots of data or lots of queries. If you have lots of data or lots of queries, you're not implementing a small app.
B + C = MySQL should only be used for large apps.
which is in conflict with A, so we conclude that it's a contradiction and you should never use MySQL.
Now, instead of calling me a troll, explain why I'm wrong and why MySQL fanboys on Slashdot have any argument whatsoever for people to use software which causes bugs and bloated software and fails to prevent data corruption.
This is retarded.
Don't use MySQL if you need a full featured DB, because it lacks many things you need for data integrity. Only use MySQL for small apps. These features were left out so MySQL would be a few nanoseconds faster when scaled to Slashdot sized apps.
But, as stated, people should be using MySQL only for small applications, so speed should not be an issue.
So, in conclusion, you are all retarded and it never makes any sense to use MySQL. End of story.
Yet another "Slashdot Environmentalist" who whines as technology progresses and yearns for the days of punchcards. Truly amazing.
Well at least we know the robots will never have sex and be able to reproduce to take over the world.