So your management has decided that they'd rather put the entire operation at risk rather than shell out $100k (give or take) for Oracle? Yikes. Time for you to get a new job - because when the shit hits the fan, they're not going to remember that it was management's decision not to (a) take things down to get good backups or (b) pay for a db that allows you to backup and keep your uptime. They're going to blame the DBA and say that it was your responsibility.
Good managers realize this sort of tradeoff before it's too late (penny wise). Bad managers realize it only after it's too late, and then pass the blame (pound foolish). Guess which kind you have.
No, if the restaurant needs more supplies, its supply chain software recognizes it and orders more automatically. The manager probably has to be aware of the system, but not necessarily know how to modify it. The people flipping burgers aren't aware of it. They flip burgers.
You really don't want more than 255 characters in a cell. Lots of the functions just don't work.
You also start running into very weird bugs (particularly when using VBA) when the workbook gets above a certain size. Things just stop working.
So you're saying that it would be doing poor people a favor if we made them pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, because that would "encourage" them to become rich? What kind of twisted logic is that? I would love to earn more money, even though my taxes would go up. So would almost all poor people out there.
Is this a joke? You admit to never really using python or ruby enough to know how productive they are then assert that java is extremely productive? Extremely productive compared to what, counting on your fingers?
Perhaps, as he says in his post, he's comparing it to C, C++ and/or C#. You know, those rarely-heard-of, under-radar-languages?
That's a regressive tax. Let me explain: Joe makes $5,000,000 per year. George makes $20,000 per year. Joe spends 1,000,000 on stuff, and invests 4,000,000. George spends every penny. If the tax rate is, say, 10%, then Joe pays $100,000 in taxes, or 2%. George pays 2,000 in taxes, or 10%. So the rich pay a lower actual tax rate.
Let me try to put it this way: imagine that you're Joe Average with IQ 100, and a high school education. But you didn't really pay much attention in high school. You've had lots of people telling you that "There's a god. Do what this book says. Believe what I say. This is the truth". And you've also had people (in biology class) telling you "Evolution happens. It's the truth. There's all this evidence blah blah blah. Believe what I say". If you weren't brought up to be a critical thinker (and admit it, you know that lots of people weren't brought up to be critical thinkers), those sound awfully similar. Joe Average thinks that the "blah blah blah" part in biology is (a) boring and (b)incomprehensible. Given this (assumption), is it so hard to believe that Joe Average thinks that the existence of god is a truth?
I realize that I'm simplifying things here, but I think that I'm getting the general idea of it right. The average slashdot user probably has an above-average IQ with above-average critical-thinking skills. Joe Average doesn't like to think too much.
That's the second comment of mine in this sub-thread that's been taken completely out of context. Please don't do that. Religious people don't see the difference between those. They just don't. Someone who fully believes in god and whatnot really believes that it's a fundamental truth. Just like you might think that it's a fundamental truth that people should be free to choose as they do. You and I may disagree, but guess what? It's all subjective. I'm going to teach my kids not to steal. But guess what? It's not a "truth" that one should not steal. Whether it's "right" or "wrong" to teach that sort of thing is subjective, just like it's subjective whether it's "right" or "wrong" to teach religion to one's kids.
Again, please don't take my comments out of context. I'm an atheist. I will not teach my kids to worship some being in the sky. But people who do believe that there is one really truly believe that it's a fundamental truth that there is one. And you're not helping the situation by refusing to try to see things from their perspective.
Way to take my comment out of context. Please re-read my comment. My statement was that "Others think that it's more important to learn that all morality comes from religion". You'll have to find one of those people and ask him/her.
Young kids don't understand the difference between "legal" and "moral". What you teach them is the difference between "right" and "wrong". If I were somebody who believes in a god (I'm not), I'm going to teach my kids that worshipping this god is "right". Just like I'm going to teach them that respecting others' right to hold opinions that I don't agree with is "right".
But that's a value judgement, isn't it? You think that it's more important to teach the golden rule. Others think that it's more important to learn that all morality comes from religion. What makes you right?
Have you raised a child? They don't magically learn things. You want your 9-month old to stop throwing food on the floor? You teach her not to. Is it brainwashing to tell her that people don't throw food on the floor? I mean, it's not a universal truth, so I must be brainwashing her to behave as I would like her to. Is conditioning her to have a "lovey" (a blanket/stuffed animal or such) that she loves and immediately calms her down no matter what the situation brainwashing (and thus child abuse according to you)?
You make it out to be black-and-white. It's not. I'm an atheist. Yet I believe that it's okay for parents to teach their kids about their religion.
Which is an entirely different issue from teaching about religion in school.
He waited carefully until Iraq was just about to have (in his opinion successful) elections before taking the blame for Iraq. It's a calculated risk that they're taking: if the Iraq election goes well, they expect people to forget about his admission of mistakes about a week after it was made, when he can continue to claim that things are going swimmingly and according to plan in Iraq.
What's your background? What's your basis for saying this? I know people who work in the pharmaceutical industry, and from talking with them, it's very clear that there's a large body of knowledge about how mouse models translate to human models for pharmaceutical treatment. Not that it's perfect, but your blanket statement needs some backup. I would, without other evidence, tend to trust that the researchers performing these experiments have some idea of what they hope to achieve (and a reasonable idea that it's possible to achieve) much more than I would believe some random person on the internet who states that it doesn't make sense....
Let's see. My parents (60-ish, I would describe them as novices - they can install simple software, but that's about it) have: cable modem, wi-fi, and currently use: 1 laptop and 1 desktop. I know that they still have 1 old laptop and 1 old desktop in their house. It's possible that they have computers even older than that, but they really do have 4 computers, wi-fi and cable modem. They barely know how to burn a cd, much less upload a movie.
now, if i had given 2 weeks in the middle of a 6-month project.......well, that seems like it would've been unprofessional.
Now, I'm not sure that I really agree with this. Really, if the company decided to cancel the project, do you think that they would have paid you for the duration of the 6 months, or would they have given you 2 weeks' of pay and sent you out the door?
Uhhhh, you're obviously looking at this from a "There is a god" angle. Why do we need an all-powerful force to complicate something so simple and elegant as evolution?
Really, so everything in the bible is true? I didn't realize that rabbits chew cud (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/14.html# 7). Damn, how could all of those biologists be so wrong for so long, when all they had to do was open their bible instead of actually, um, observing the rabbits? Man, I bet they feel stupid.
It's not actually entirely true that the stock market doesn't value companies that aren't growing so quickly. Many companies in mature industries pay reasonably large dividends. If a company is making good profits and as a result pays good dividends to its shareholders, the stock will do fine, and the investors will do fine. Daytraders don't like them, but many long-term investors do.
Actually, the question that you want to ask is "how much of a difference is 50%?", because a 9% profit margin is 50% larger than a 6% profit margin. That should give you an idea that this is a big difference (of course, as others point out, Dell's profit margin is based on much larger sales figures).
Bad example. Apple goes out of their way these days to make sure people realize that you can plug ANY mouse into a Mac (as long as the plug fits) and it will work.
getting further off-topic here.... If you're so offended by people pointing out (and being offended by) dupes, then perhaps you should just avoid threads with names like "It's dupe-a-licious".
For what it's worth, the reason that dupes bother me (though this thread is the first thread about dupes in which I've ever participated, so you picked an odd target for your rant) is: I read threads that I'm interested in (which is why I notice dupes, if I'm interested in a topic once, I'm probably still interested in it the next day or week). If I want to discuss the topic with others, it's awfully handy to have everybody who wants to discuss with me doing their discussion as responses to the same article. With dupes like this, if I truly want to get involved in the discussion, I might have to carry it out in two different places, with different participants, etc. And the discussion won't be quite as good. That's all.
Slashdot Mirror
So your management has decided that they'd rather put the entire operation at risk rather than shell out $100k (give or take) for Oracle? Yikes. Time for you to get a new job - because when the shit hits the fan, they're not going to remember that it was management's decision not to (a) take things down to get good backups or (b) pay for a db that allows you to backup and keep your uptime. They're going to blame the DBA and say that it was your responsibility.
Good managers realize this sort of tradeoff before it's too late (penny wise). Bad managers realize it only after it's too late, and then pass the blame (pound foolish). Guess which kind you have.
No, if the restaurant needs more supplies, its supply chain software recognizes it and orders more automatically. The manager probably has to be aware of the system, but not necessarily know how to modify it. The people flipping burgers aren't aware of it. They flip burgers.
You really don't want more than 255 characters in a cell. Lots of the functions just don't work. You also start running into very weird bugs (particularly when using VBA) when the workbook gets above a certain size. Things just stop working.
Perhaps you ought to read the comment to which I was responding.
So you're saying that it would be doing poor people a favor if we made them pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, because that would "encourage" them to become rich? What kind of twisted logic is that? I would love to earn more money, even though my taxes would go up. So would almost all poor people out there.
Is this a joke? You admit to never really using python or ruby enough to know how productive they are then assert that java is extremely productive? Extremely productive compared to what, counting on your fingers?
Perhaps, as he says in his post, he's comparing it to C, C++ and/or C#. You know, those rarely-heard-of, under-radar-languages?
That's a regressive tax. Let me explain: Joe makes $5,000,000 per year. George makes $20,000 per year. Joe spends 1,000,000 on stuff, and invests 4,000,000. George spends every penny. If the tax rate is, say, 10%, then Joe pays $100,000 in taxes, or 2%. George pays 2,000 in taxes, or 10%. So the rich pay a lower actual tax rate.
Let me try to put it this way: imagine that you're Joe Average with IQ 100, and a high school education. But you didn't really pay much attention in high school. You've had lots of people telling you that "There's a god. Do what this book says. Believe what I say. This is the truth". And you've also had people (in biology class) telling you "Evolution happens. It's the truth. There's all this evidence blah blah blah. Believe what I say". If you weren't brought up to be a critical thinker (and admit it, you know that lots of people weren't brought up to be critical thinkers), those sound awfully similar. Joe Average thinks that the "blah blah blah" part in biology is (a) boring and (b)incomprehensible. Given this (assumption), is it so hard to believe that Joe Average thinks that the existence of god is a truth?
I realize that I'm simplifying things here, but I think that I'm getting the general idea of it right. The average slashdot user probably has an above-average IQ with above-average critical-thinking skills. Joe Average doesn't like to think too much.
That's the second comment of mine in this sub-thread that's been taken completely out of context. Please don't do that. Religious people don't see the difference between those. They just don't. Someone who fully believes in god and whatnot really believes that it's a fundamental truth. Just like you might think that it's a fundamental truth that people should be free to choose as they do. You and I may disagree, but guess what? It's all subjective. I'm going to teach my kids not to steal. But guess what? It's not a "truth" that one should not steal. Whether it's "right" or "wrong" to teach that sort of thing is subjective, just like it's subjective whether it's "right" or "wrong" to teach religion to one's kids.
Again, please don't take my comments out of context. I'm an atheist. I will not teach my kids to worship some being in the sky. But people who do believe that there is one really truly believe that it's a fundamental truth that there is one. And you're not helping the situation by refusing to try to see things from their perspective.
Way to take my comment out of context. Please re-read my comment. My statement was that "Others think that it's more important to learn that all morality comes from religion". You'll have to find one of those people and ask him/her.
Young kids don't understand the difference between "legal" and "moral". What you teach them is the difference between "right" and "wrong". If I were somebody who believes in a god (I'm not), I'm going to teach my kids that worshipping this god is "right". Just like I'm going to teach them that respecting others' right to hold opinions that I don't agree with is "right".
But that's a value judgement, isn't it? You think that it's more important to teach the golden rule. Others think that it's more important to learn that all morality comes from religion. What makes you right?
So it's not okay to teach my kid that killing, stealing, etc are wrong?
Have you raised a child? They don't magically learn things. You want your 9-month old to stop throwing food on the floor? You teach her not to. Is it brainwashing to tell her that people don't throw food on the floor? I mean, it's not a universal truth, so I must be brainwashing her to behave as I would like her to. Is conditioning her to have a "lovey" (a blanket/stuffed animal or such) that she loves and immediately calms her down no matter what the situation brainwashing (and thus child abuse according to you)? You make it out to be black-and-white. It's not. I'm an atheist. Yet I believe that it's okay for parents to teach their kids about their religion. Which is an entirely different issue from teaching about religion in school.
He waited carefully until Iraq was just about to have (in his opinion successful) elections before taking the blame for Iraq. It's a calculated risk that they're taking: if the Iraq election goes well, they expect people to forget about his admission of mistakes about a week after it was made, when he can continue to claim that things are going swimmingly and according to plan in Iraq.
What's your background? What's your basis for saying this? I know people who work in the pharmaceutical industry, and from talking with them, it's very clear that there's a large body of knowledge about how mouse models translate to human models for pharmaceutical treatment. Not that it's perfect, but your blanket statement needs some backup. I would, without other evidence, tend to trust that the researchers performing these experiments have some idea of what they hope to achieve (and a reasonable idea that it's possible to achieve) much more than I would believe some random person on the internet who states that it doesn't make sense....
Let's see. My parents (60-ish, I would describe them as novices - they can install simple software, but that's about it) have: cable modem, wi-fi, and currently use: 1 laptop and 1 desktop. I know that they still have 1 old laptop and 1 old desktop in their house. It's possible that they have computers even older than that, but they really do have 4 computers, wi-fi and cable modem. They barely know how to burn a cd, much less upload a movie.
now, if i had given 2 weeks in the middle of a 6-month project.......well, that seems like it would've been unprofessional.
Now, I'm not sure that I really agree with this. Really, if the company decided to cancel the project, do you think that they would have paid you for the duration of the 6 months, or would they have given you 2 weeks' of pay and sent you out the door?
Uhhhh, you're obviously looking at this from a "There is a god" angle. Why do we need an all-powerful force to complicate something so simple and elegant as evolution?
Really, so everything in the bible is true? I didn't realize that rabbits chew cud (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/14.html# 7). Damn, how could all of those biologists be so wrong for so long, when all they had to do was open their bible instead of actually, um, observing the rabbits? Man, I bet they feel stupid.
Any modern OS can be made to look like any other OS so that's kind of canned
Maybe you should go work for Microsoft. They've been trying to copy Apple's look and feel since Windows 1.0 and haven't succeeded yet!
It's not actually entirely true that the stock market doesn't value companies that aren't growing so quickly. Many companies in mature industries pay reasonably large dividends. If a company is making good profits and as a result pays good dividends to its shareholders, the stock will do fine, and the investors will do fine. Daytraders don't like them, but many long-term investors do.
Actually, the question that you want to ask is "how much of a difference is 50%?", because a 9% profit margin is 50% larger than a 6% profit margin. That should give you an idea that this is a big difference (of course, as others point out, Dell's profit margin is based on much larger sales figures).
Bad example. Apple goes out of their way these days to make sure people realize that you can plug ANY mouse into a Mac (as long as the plug fits) and it will work.
getting further off-topic here.... If you're so offended by people pointing out (and being offended by) dupes, then perhaps you should just avoid threads with names like "It's dupe-a-licious".
For what it's worth, the reason that dupes bother me (though this thread is the first thread about dupes in which I've ever participated, so you picked an odd target for your rant) is: I read threads that I'm interested in (which is why I notice dupes, if I'm interested in a topic once, I'm probably still interested in it the next day or week). If I want to discuss the topic with others, it's awfully handy to have everybody who wants to discuss with me doing their discussion as responses to the same article. With dupes like this, if I truly want to get involved in the discussion, I might have to carry it out in two different places, with different participants, etc. And the discussion won't be quite as good. That's all.