"The team says that an exposure to the plasma of only about 12 seconds reduces the incidence of bacteria, >>viruses, and fungi on hands by a factor of a million"
If the affiliate id is in the bookmarked url, it will still work.
Plus, presumably not only the affiliate would get something, hopefully I would also get a rebate, which motivates me to use the bookmark with the affiliate id in it.
"The free-for-all mode has kind of a similar feel to something like Mario Kart where you just happen to have four people over and you want to sit down and play a quick match in your favorite level"
Four people over plus I also want to play...that means five controllers, right? Thought Nintendo only supported four...
I think easyTree is not arguing that we should "compassionately" make bad loans, but rather that we show compassion to people who have been tricked into taking them. Yes, if you must use such a word, because they may have been to "stupid" to know better.
To adjust your example: You are in the situation you describe, and not easyTree but some corporation shows up and offers you that loan since it has figured out how to make a buck, unlikely as it seems, by giving you a loan you could never possibly repay. Now, it is quite possible you are in the situation you are in to begin with because you are not exactly a financial wizard. For much the same reason, you accept the loan. Using your terminology, the long and short of it here is that you take this new loan because you continue to be "stupid".
You inevitably enter even further into economic disaster due to accepting this new loan (but the corp that in effect managed to trick you into it makes its profit). It is at this point that easyTree suggests that we show some compassion towards you on human grounds - despite how it is perhaps clear to everyone but (the hypothetical) you (I guess you are not really in the debt you describe?) that less stupidity on your part could have prevented this particular downfall. What would being "compassionate" at this point entail, if it is not about giving you another bad loan (as you interpreted easyTree in your post)? Well, a starting point could be to not call people who make mistakes "stupid" and use that as an excuse not to care.
"(When you achieve consciousness you'll realize there's a difference between compassion and stupidity.)"
Right. The point is that one can actually show compassion for people one decides are more stupid than oneself, rather than just dismissing their poor fortunes as the predictable result of their stupidity.
(How I was able to mess up? I started commenting on the right one, noticed I wasn't logged in, did Ctrl-C on the stuff I had written, logged in, went back, clicked on the wrong comment, Ctrl-V and Preview + Submit. Now I will go have some morning coffee and all will be better...)
I will not dispute your assessment regarding the moral constitution of banking industry representatives. But when you say regulators actually promote the scheme in question, then I have to wonder if they are not vastly more to blame?
"In these examinations there, is in fact, an "interests the reader" criterion"
Error! The comma, should you necessarily use it in that sentence (you really shouldn't), would only encapsulate "in fact".
So, should the content of your comment be ignored because there was an error in the form? To me, that would be unthinkably rude. Just to point out errors borders on rude, unless you have reason to believe that the error was not just a mistake (as yours obviously was) and that the writer would appreciate the help. So in this case, I was rude. I did it to demonstrate my point and I beg your pardon.
Not being privy to the specifics of their instructions myself, I have nonetheless met my share of language teachers who claimed that they were (sometimes) in the position of having to grade on form over content. To me, that's fine: they want to be able to grade my grammar and rather than having me do something as mindbogglingly boring as demonstrate my competence over meaningless sentences, they allow me to show my grammar by writing something more interesting. As long as the context is clearly "and this is all just to grade your grammar" I wouldn't expect to be saved by my amazing content.
What surprises me, though, is someone who would want to promote that perspective generally. Surely, in real life the motivation to improve your form is to better communicate your content? Then if we in real life proceed to state that the content is of no importance, why would form matter?
Um, you should google that. Current consensus, I believe, is that his German was fine and that the donut in question isn't even called a Berliner in Berlin.
Optimistic Concurrency is certainly the way to go, and if you can't put version columns in your database (perhaps you have a grumpy DBA) then the approach using original values lets you use Optimistic Concurrency without modifying the DB schema.
Furthermore, it can help increase throughput: Sometimes an analysis of the domain shows that for some records, fields - or groups of fields - could be changed independently. In such a case, including only the values that had actually changed (or the values from a group where one or more values had changed) in the Optimistic Concurrency part of the Where clause (described in detail by the parent poster) could allow for two users to update the same record at the same time, as long as they only edit different fields, without getting a conflict. You can see which values have actually changed before inclusion in the SQL by comparing them to the original values.
Finally, keeping the original values around in the client (web server) layer, which this approach requires, is useful for the times when conflicts do occur - at this time, you can present not just the new value that is currently in the database but also the original value that the user started with in the conflict resolution form.
All this malicious user would accomplish would be to bypass the locking mechanism - that is, save his changes even though someone else has updated the same document with changes unseen to the "malicious user".
"Damn, apparently there's a conflict in my commit....but not to worry, I won't have to resort to inspecting the changes and merge - I'll just rerun the hash-algo on the other user's changes and use that hash, allowing me to save _without actually looking at the other user's changes_!!"
You could, of course, achieve the same malicious results by refreshing but _not look_ at the other user's changes and just commit your version as the good one, not caring about any merge...
"they claim that a proper spine realignment will cure AIDS or cancer"
OK, that answers a question I posed upwards in this page (why people call chiropractors fraudsters, when cracking joints can obviously relive pain, and I had not med a chiropractor claiming to do more than relive that pain)...but, do they claim this stuff "officially", like on a web page, or is it something they try to convince people of during treatment? It seems to me that starting to claim stuff like that would undermine your potential for a legitimate business....wouldn't at least some chiropractors object??
I thought it was more like: if we happen to get interesting enough anecdotal evidence for Y following X more often than pure chance would suggest, we do a statistically valid measurement to see if such a correlation indeed exists. Should a correlation be shown, and it is a relevant one, a model might be devised that matches the observed correlation to conveniently make predictions according to it.
Then some poor layman foolishly goes on to speculate around causation, at which point they get tagged with "correlationisnotcausation".
"That's correct -- all of those are insufficient to show causality."
What _does_ sufficiently show causality? A correlation? A correlation plus a just-so story? Those two plus some elements of the just-so story followed by actual observation of them? Wish I knew, so if you do, don't hold back...
I've never understood why chiropractors are thrown in with the rest of the obvious frauds you list (and that list could be made longer..) but I have come to suspect that perhaps many chiropractors are lying and claiming to cure all sorts of ills.
I went to a chiropractor for several years, twice a month. He never claimed anything along the lines of curing different ills, he just cracked the stuff I couldn't crack myself.
Now, some people crack their own fingers from time to time, some don't. Those of us who do usually receive little sympathy from those who don't - rather we'll get disgusted looks and completely made up assertions that it would somehow be bad for you (if someone has a link to correct me, please go on, but I have never seen anything to substantiate this idea). Then some of us, to even greater dismay of those who don't, crack our necks as well. Unless you ever crack your fingers, neck or something, I can understand why you would view even a chiropractor such as mine (who doesn't claim to heal cancer) with skepticism. I get a feeling for your perspective from your looks of horror when I crack my fingers. But for anyone who agrees with me that a place that needs cracking is worse than an itch - it can turn quite painful after a while - and that getting it to crack can help relax your muscles and make some related pain go away...would you consider a chiropractor who doesn't say he'll do anything more then help you crack stuff to be a useless waste of money? Or even somehow a fraud? Not rhetorical questions.I've been curious about this for years.
Am I right to begin with in my suspicion that the reason chiropractors provoke anger and become labeled as frauds is that some of them claim to cure a bunch of ills that they realistically couldn't?
In "Virolution", Frank Ryan suggests that we could define a virus as a life form if we include its standard environment - that is, the host - into the picture of the "virus organism".
In a quiz game, the loop might go: Computer asks me what is 2 + 3, I spend 10 minutes thinking and googling, then select answer "5" and hit the button. At this point I notice that when hitting the right arrow on my controller to select answer "5", it takes a good 2 seconds before the cursor on screen moves rightwards to my selection. In the total 5 min 2 sec loop, there were only 2 crucial seconds that annoyed me, and that's basically what is being focused on here.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFS:
"The team says that an exposure to the plasma of only about 12 seconds reduces the incidence of bacteria, >>viruses, and fungi on hands by a factor of a million"
"The result sets are independent of each other."
Yes, that's why he could just multiply them like that.
Thank you, I was beginning to wonder if no-one would point this out.
"He had a special word for the needy..."
"Yes, Shower of Bastards, he used to call them!"
(Fathers Ted and Dougal reminisce over Father Jack)
What if the problem of software mainteinance could be broken down into sub problems, each of which having an algorithmic solution?
That axe analogy is golden.
Why would you complain about a restaurant's food, if you don't even want to eat there?
Your analogy was good, it just worked against you on closer inspection, emphasizing the problem with your point.
If the affiliate id is in the bookmarked url, it will still work.
Plus, presumably not only the affiliate would get something, hopefully I would also get a rebate, which motivates me to use the bookmark with the affiliate id in it.
"The free-for-all mode has kind of a similar feel to something like Mario Kart where you just happen to have four people over and you want to sit down and play a quick match in your favorite level"
Four people over plus I also want to play...that means five controllers, right? Thought Nintendo only supported four...
Perhaps they meant "have three people over".
I think easyTree is not arguing that we should "compassionately" make bad loans, but rather that we show compassion to people who have been tricked into taking them. Yes, if you must use such a word, because they may have been to "stupid" to know better.
To adjust your example: You are in the situation you describe, and not easyTree but some corporation shows up and offers you that loan since it has figured out how to make a buck, unlikely as it seems, by giving you a loan you could never possibly repay. Now, it is quite possible you are in the situation you are in to begin with because you are not exactly a financial wizard. For much the same reason, you accept the loan. Using your terminology, the long and short of it here is that you take this new loan because you continue to be "stupid".
You inevitably enter even further into economic disaster due to accepting this new loan (but the corp that in effect managed to trick you into it makes its profit). It is at this point that easyTree suggests that we show some compassion towards you on human grounds - despite how it is perhaps clear to everyone but (the hypothetical) you (I guess you are not really in the debt you describe?) that less stupidity on your part could have prevented this particular downfall. What would being "compassionate" at this point entail, if it is not about giving you another bad loan (as you interpreted easyTree in your post)? Well, a starting point could be to not call people who make mistakes "stupid" and use that as an excuse not to care.
"(When you achieve consciousness you'll realize there's a difference between compassion and stupidity.)"
Right. The point is that one can actually show compassion for people one decides are more stupid than oneself, rather than just dismissing their poor fortunes as the predictable result of their stupidity.
Damn, I meant to reply to this comment:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1383471&cid=29551455
(How I was able to mess up? I started commenting on the right one, noticed I wasn't logged in, did Ctrl-C on the stuff I had written, logged in, went back, clicked on the wrong comment, Ctrl-V and Preview + Submit. Now I will go have some morning coffee and all will be better...)
I will not dispute your assessment regarding the moral constitution of banking industry representatives. But when you say regulators actually promote the scheme in question, then I have to wonder if they are not vastly more to blame?
"In these examinations there, is in fact, an "interests the reader" criterion"
Error! The comma, should you necessarily use it in that sentence (you really shouldn't), would only encapsulate "in fact".
So, should the content of your comment be ignored because there was an error in the form? To me, that would be unthinkably rude. Just to point out errors borders on rude, unless you have reason to believe that the error was not just a mistake (as yours obviously was) and that the writer would appreciate the help. So in this case, I was rude. I did it to demonstrate my point and I beg your pardon.
Not being privy to the specifics of their instructions myself, I have nonetheless met my share of language teachers who claimed that they were (sometimes) in the position of having to grade on form over content. To me, that's fine: they want to be able to grade my grammar and rather than having me do something as mindbogglingly boring as demonstrate my competence over meaningless sentences, they allow me to show my grammar by writing something more interesting. As long as the context is clearly "and this is all just to grade your grammar" I wouldn't expect to be saved by my amazing content.
What surprises me, though, is someone who would want to promote that perspective generally. Surely, in real life the motivation to improve your form is to better communicate your content? Then if we in real life proceed to state that the content is of no importance, why would form matter?
Um, you should google that. Current consensus, I believe, is that his German was fine and that the donut in question isn't even called a Berliner in Berlin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner
+1
Optimistic Concurrency is certainly the way to go, and if you can't put version columns in your database (perhaps you have a grumpy DBA) then the approach using original values lets you use Optimistic Concurrency without modifying the DB schema.
Furthermore, it can help increase throughput: Sometimes an analysis of the domain shows that for some records, fields - or groups of fields - could be changed independently. In such a case, including only the values that had actually changed (or the values from a group where one or more values had changed) in the Optimistic Concurrency part of the Where clause (described in detail by the parent poster) could allow for two users to update the same record at the same time, as long as they only edit different fields, without getting a conflict. You can see which values have actually changed before inclusion in the SQL by comparing them to the original values.
Finally, keeping the original values around in the client (web server) layer, which this approach requires, is useful for the times when conflicts do occur - at this time, you can present not just the new value that is currently in the database but also the original value that the user started with in the conflict resolution form.
All this malicious user would accomplish would be to bypass the locking mechanism - that is, save his changes even though someone else has updated the same document with changes unseen to the "malicious user".
"Damn, apparently there's a conflict in my commit....but not to worry, I won't have to resort to inspecting the changes and merge - I'll just rerun the hash-algo on the other user's changes and use that hash, allowing me to save _without actually looking at the other user's changes_!!"
You could, of course, achieve the same malicious results by refreshing but _not look_ at the other user's changes and just commit your version as the good one, not caring about any merge...
Modded troll? Parent is on topic and pretty insightful IMHO...
"they claim that a proper spine realignment will cure AIDS or cancer"
OK, that answers a question I posed upwards in this page (why people call chiropractors fraudsters, when cracking joints can obviously relive pain, and I had not med a chiropractor claiming to do more than relive that pain)...but, do they claim this stuff "officially", like on a web page, or is it something they try to convince people of during treatment? It seems to me that starting to claim stuff like that would undermine your potential for a legitimate business....wouldn't at least some chiropractors object??
I thought it was more like: if we happen to get interesting enough anecdotal evidence for Y following X more often than pure chance would suggest, we do a statistically valid measurement to see if such a correlation indeed exists. Should a correlation be shown, and it is a relevant one, a model might be devised that matches the observed correlation to conveniently make predictions according to it.
Then some poor layman foolishly goes on to speculate around causation, at which point they get tagged with "correlationisnotcausation".
"That's correct -- all of those are insufficient to show causality."
What _does_ sufficiently show causality? A correlation? A correlation plus a just-so story? Those two plus some elements of the just-so story followed by actual observation of them? Wish I knew, so if you do, don't hold back...
I've never understood why chiropractors are thrown in with the rest of the obvious frauds you list (and that list could be made longer..) but I have come to suspect that perhaps many chiropractors are lying and claiming to cure all sorts of ills.
I went to a chiropractor for several years, twice a month. He never claimed anything along the lines of curing different ills, he just cracked the stuff I couldn't crack myself.
Now, some people crack their own fingers from time to time, some don't. Those of us who do usually receive little sympathy from those who don't - rather we'll get disgusted looks and completely made up assertions that it would somehow be bad for you (if someone has a link to correct me, please go on, but I have never seen anything to substantiate this idea). Then some of us, to even greater dismay of those who don't, crack our necks as well. Unless you ever crack your fingers, neck or something, I can understand why you would view even a chiropractor such as mine (who doesn't claim to heal cancer) with skepticism. I get a feeling for your perspective from your looks of horror when I crack my fingers. But for anyone who agrees with me that a place that needs cracking is worse than an itch - it can turn quite painful after a while - and that getting it to crack can help relax your muscles and make some related pain go away...would you consider a chiropractor who doesn't say he'll do anything more then help you crack stuff to be a useless waste of money? Or even somehow a fraud? Not rhetorical questions.I've been curious about this for years.
Am I right to begin with in my suspicion that the reason chiropractors provoke anger and become labeled as frauds is that some of them claim to cure a bunch of ills that they realistically couldn't?
But with that aid they _can_ reproduce...and they don't need their own metabolism, because they parasitically use that of their hosts.
In "Virolution", Frank Ryan suggests that we could define a virus as a life form if we include its standard environment - that is, the host - into the picture of the "virus organism".
What utility?
In a quiz game, the loop might go: Computer asks me what is 2 + 3, I spend 10 minutes thinking and googling, then select answer "5" and hit the button. At this point I notice that when hitting the right arrow on my controller to select answer "5", it takes a good 2 seconds before the cursor on screen moves rightwards to my selection. In the total 5 min 2 sec loop, there were only 2 crucial seconds that annoyed me, and that's basically what is being focused on here.