I think calling this process artificial springs from the same lack of understanding that leads people to make a magical distinction about what can be considered a chemical.
You got it completely backwards - there is no intelligent reason to admit to something that has no evidence. Anyone can make up a story about anything. A lack of belief in that story is not a failure of the listener, it's a failure of the storyteller to be compellingly convincing.
I think this is a matter of understanding the definitions. No one is saying that it takes the perfect storm of attributes to be successful, per se. The article is about people who are enormously successful. Your typical business owner making a good living isn't really what this is about.
No, actually, you're totally wrong. I'm not obliged to keep others alive just because you think it's right. You may want to oblige me, but you're going to need the force of government to do so, because I, right here, right now, abdicate that responsibility. I want nothing to do with it. You'll have to coerce me, because you sure haven't provided me with a reason to do it willingly.
Normalizing the database can create a situation where the NULL is unnecessary.
Not reallly. Suppose I'm going to do a mail out to my customers... so I need a table of addresses
select * from addresses inner join addressline2s on addresses.pkey = addressline2s.fkey
And what happens? I'm now missing all the addresses that don't have a line 2. Well that's worthless.
So you don't like the technique because you don't know the correct syntax for querying it? Out of all the possible objections, personal ignorance is probably the least likely to be a good argument.
Oh, don't be retarded. People die all the time. People are dying right now while I type this. Is it my responsibility to keep them alive? No. So what's the difference here?
Not a legal case, no. Particularly not an analysis posted on Slashdot, because they'll only accept stories that fit the "open source good, microsoft evil" bias.
I haven't read it, but I'm curious - how do you plan to solve the problem that some people are simply not good at heart and will commit violence simply to serve their own ends?
Nobody is paying me to point this out, and I'm not a particular fan of Microsoft in any way - but you very obviously don't know shit about security. Stop talking now if you want to avoid looking like an even bigger fool.
Only if you're trying to make the argument that humans guided the evolution of humans. It's about as logical an argument as I've ever heard from the ID crowd, but it's still pretty stupid.
Yeah, it has to be astroturfing. There's no way anyone in the world actually has a positive opinion about Windows 7, right? After all, you don't, and you're the arbiter of these things for all the world.
Yeah, and if restaurants interested in selling food aren't willing to pay for it, maybe restaurants aren't necessary.
It's not really a valid argument to say that people who run karaoke (and make money doing it) would prefer to not pay for their music, so they shouldn't have to. It's kinda ridiculous, in fact. Greed is never a good justification, even in opposition to the greed of others.
You don't have to be paranoid to see how stupid your idea is from a business perspective. Microsoft's mission isn't to impose your ethics on the general consumer - it's to sell product. Providing features that people want does that. When those features come with restrictions that a minority of people (who generally rage against Microsoft in the first place) don't want, why should they care? They still get to sell to the larger market.
You can talk all you want about lofty goals, but the real world demonstrates quite nicely that what they are doing works.
Slashdot Mirror
Awww, you're stalking me. I'm honored. Thank you.
I think calling this process artificial springs from the same lack of understanding that leads people to make a magical distinction about what can be considered a chemical.
You got it completely backwards - there is no intelligent reason to admit to something that has no evidence. Anyone can make up a story about anything. A lack of belief in that story is not a failure of the listener, it's a failure of the storyteller to be compellingly convincing.
Oh, it's definitely not important. In the grand scheme of things, it's nothing more than power politics.
Boy did you get that one right.
I think this is a matter of understanding the definitions. No one is saying that it takes the perfect storm of attributes to be successful, per se. The article is about people who are enormously successful. Your typical business owner making a good living isn't really what this is about.
Yeah, chasing karma, that's me.
I don't need to bother. I have more accounts than you'll ever realize.
No, actually, you're totally wrong. I'm not obliged to keep others alive just because you think it's right. You may want to oblige me, but you're going to need the force of government to do so, because I, right here, right now, abdicate that responsibility. I want nothing to do with it. You'll have to coerce me, because you sure haven't provided me with a reason to do it willingly.
So you don't like the technique because you don't know the correct syntax for querying it? Out of all the possible objections, personal ignorance is probably the least likely to be a good argument.
Ideally, people would realize that Slashdot caters to a US audience. Realistically, people will continue to complain into the void.
Finally? Have you not been paying attention for years?
Oh, don't be retarded. People die all the time. People are dying right now while I type this. Is it my responsibility to keep them alive? No. So what's the difference here?
It should be different to keep you alive? What's so special about you that I should have to pay for that?
Not a legal case, no. Particularly not an analysis posted on Slashdot, because they'll only accept stories that fit the "open source good, microsoft evil" bias.
I haven't read it, but I'm curious - how do you plan to solve the problem that some people are simply not good at heart and will commit violence simply to serve their own ends?
That's true, but making money > losing money, and Nintendo is on the winning side of that equation.
Nobody is paying me to point this out, and I'm not a particular fan of Microsoft in any way - but you very obviously don't know shit about security. Stop talking now if you want to avoid looking like an even bigger fool.
Dude, take your fucking meds. Please.
Only if you're trying to make the argument that humans guided the evolution of humans. It's about as logical an argument as I've ever heard from the ID crowd, but it's still pretty stupid.
So you admit have no idea what you're talking about and you're snarky anyway?
Slashdot is very much the website for you. Glad to have you around.
Yeah, it has to be astroturfing. There's no way anyone in the world actually has a positive opinion about Windows 7, right? After all, you don't, and you're the arbiter of these things for all the world.
Yeah, and if restaurants interested in selling food aren't willing to pay for it, maybe restaurants aren't necessary.
It's not really a valid argument to say that people who run karaoke (and make money doing it) would prefer to not pay for their music, so they shouldn't have to. It's kinda ridiculous, in fact. Greed is never a good justification, even in opposition to the greed of others.
You don't have to be paranoid to see how stupid your idea is from a business perspective. Microsoft's mission isn't to impose your ethics on the general consumer - it's to sell product. Providing features that people want does that. When those features come with restrictions that a minority of people (who generally rage against Microsoft in the first place) don't want, why should they care? They still get to sell to the larger market.
You can talk all you want about lofty goals, but the real world demonstrates quite nicely that what they are doing works.
Since the 'new releases' in the Mac world are equivalent to service packs in the Windows world, it actually holds true on both sides.
Note that I use both daily, so relax on whatever fanboy crap you're thinking of flinging me in response.
I did. He earned every dime.