At least with fruit the plant does "want" you to eat it;).
In contrast think about a "US breakfast" of fried slice belly of pig, aborted chicken embryos, mashed grass seeds digested by yeast and toasted. Now add cheese, yoghurt, waffles/pancakes and honey:).
I think it's a good idea for people to know what they are eating. That way they'd at least regularly realize that some poor animal died so they could have fried chicken etc.
Doesn't have to be that big. Put space station at one end of many tethers (for redundancy), put weight at the other end (weight could be power plant or other stuff), spin them.
They might as well work on this first before doing stupid stuff like going to Mars. Once you have space stations which people can actually live on, going to Mars or elsewhere is much easier.
And in fact, once they have such space stations, going to Mars might actually be not as interesting as starting space colonies among the asteroid belt (for easier access to raw materials).
Given the high demand and inequality, dropping the cost won't drop the rent, nor solve the "homeless" problem.
With cheaper houses the landlords will just pocket the profit and continue to kick out the ones who can't pay the higher rents.
What you need is a safety-net for those who lose in the game of Capitalism and Monopoly. Unfortunately many countries cannot afford to pay for that safety-net.
Because postgresql rolls back the transaction when there are errors (e.g. failed insert).
Yes you can use savepoints but you now need to write extra code: 1) to handle the savepoint. 2) to correctly distinguish between "retryable" errors and "nonretryable" errors. 3) to retry transactions.
More code to debug, test, document and support.
In contrast, the "lock table, insert if row does not exist, update if it exists" and rollback everything if "stuff happens" seems simpler to do correctly.
You SHOULD still use unique keys to enforce data integrity (it is good to be paranoid when it comes to databases), but it's better to avoid handling fallout as the norm.
Try it in two different transactions and you'll find it does NOT work. e.g. -- Do following in psql #1 begin; INSERT INTO (col1) foo SELECT * FROM (VALUES (1),(2),(3)) AS newdata(col1) WHERE col1 NOT IN (SELECT col1 FROM foo); -- then this in psql #2 begin; INSERT INTO (col1) foo SELECT * FROM (VALUES (1),(2),(3)) AS newdata(col1) WHERE col1 NOT IN (SELECT col1 FROM foo); commit; -- Then go back to psql #1 commit;
The way to do this without having to rollback is to use locks (postgresql allows locks that don't block all selects).
Some are funny not because they make fun of something/anything, but because you suddenly "get it" and see things differently.
Those that don't get it, won't find it funny. Whether you laugh at them (those who don't get it) or not, does not have to be related to why the joke in itself is funny or not.
It's better to pretend that humans are special, and so even their fetuses get special treatment.
That way there's a higher chance that the future posthumans and AIs continue believing that humans are special for at least a few extra years or even decades.
If you make it too easy to kill "half-baked humans", won't it also become easier to justify killing all the "half-baked" slashdotters here?
So we have to draw an arbitrary line (or more) on when a half-baked "cake" can legally be considered "cake" or "precake". Wherever you choose to draw it, It'll be a stupid arbitrary line, but given the numbers of people who want the right to abort it'll be even stupider to not draw a line somewhere.
For similar reasons I think human-animal hybrids (and "Strong AIs") are currently a stupid idea. Because if people can't even get this sorted out, imagine the problems determining when the hybrids/AIs/cyborgs are legally human.
Better to wait till Society is ready to deal with it.
Sure he could be wrong and you could be right, but I'd prefer to believe Warren Buffet about this sort of stuff.
Of course, if you're not employed or earning very little, you'd be paying less tax than Warren Buffet. But I'm assuming the "us" means the average slashdotter.
1) You miss the point. The background might be blurred, but that's when I am not looking at it (e.g. not interested). BUT if I choose to look at it, it stops being blurred. At what is "background" depends on what/where I choose to look.
My complaint is about the situation where movie directors artificially and unnecessarily make bits of the picture out of focus. Sometimes there are technological limitations, but often nowadays most of the scene is rendered and then artificially blurred (e.g. Avatar). Sometimes it's part of the story, or for good effect, in which case I don't mind.
It hurts my eyes when it's overdone.
2) I know they are not the same, I'm just complaining about them all. I wrote: "out of focus or motion blurred". I dislike both effects. And I also dislike lower frame rates (which is another separate thing - the low-frame-rate frames could be perfectly sharp and in focus).
Movies happen at a motion blurred 24 fps AND I think that sucks. On the "big screen" I can visibly see the stuff "rippling" down at 24 fps especially on scenery pans.
The 24 fps rate is not because the human eye can't see faster than that (it can), it's a compromise due to technology limitations nearly 100 years ago.
Except for "special effects" I prefer that the stuff be updated much faster and let our eyes do the motion blurring. And I don't really like blurred special effects.
I dislike movie scenes where stuff is out of focus or motion blurred just because the director thinks it's cool.
When I watch the real world, everything that I look at usually is in focus - because my eyes will focus on it. In many of the movies the directors like blurry stuff and as a result I get eye strain when my eyes try to focus on the parts of the movie that are blurry .
When you look at a fast moving object it's sharp (unless it's moving so fast that your eyes can't track it).
Thanks. How do you deal with stuff like different versions/releases of Suse, OpenSUSE, different versions of Redhat, Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, Fedora, etc.
Do you find that in practice they tend to be backward compatible within the distro? So you just build for the oldest supported distro (with latest backported patches of libs if possible - ugh) and it works on the new distros?
Or do you find you end up having to build for each distro version? If so it probably means that we might not bother with supporting "Linux" - too much work for too little benefit. Either that or customers have to build and install the https stuff themselves (or do without https).
I'll probably have to test for myself, but it's often good to know what others have done instead of reinventing the wheel or making the same mistakes all over again:).
Slashdot Mirror
At least with fruit the plant does "want" you to eat it ;).
:).
In contrast think about a "US breakfast" of
fried slice belly of pig, aborted chicken embryos, mashed grass seeds digested by yeast and toasted. Now add cheese, yoghurt, waffles/pancakes and honey
I think it's a good idea for people to know what they are eating. That way they'd at least regularly realize that some poor animal died so they could have fried chicken etc.
Given enough radiation almost anything will be hot.
Doesn't have to be that big. Put space station at one end of many tethers (for redundancy), put weight at the other end (weight could be power plant or other stuff), spin them.
They might as well work on this first before doing stupid stuff like going to Mars. Once you have space stations which people can actually live on, going to Mars or elsewhere is much easier.
And in fact, once they have such space stations, going to Mars might actually be not as interesting as starting space colonies among the asteroid belt (for easier access to raw materials).
That's just bullshit to justify/rationalize what they are doing.
Believe all that as much as you believe a financial analyst on why today's market went up/down.
There are now a lot more patents preventing lots of people from doing stuff without cross-licensing agreements or court cases.
A lot of smart folk who want to make money have gone into investment banking instead.
Also many smart people who want to make cool stuff are not doing it in aerospace. There are many other fields.
So anyone can sign those java libraries and have them work without problems?
Sounds strange to me. What if someone signs a trojaned libary?
If the squid is prepared well it might make for a nice breakfast.
Hence my proposal: http://slashdot.org/~TheLink/journal/208853
But I know it's very unlikely to be implemented.
Ironically the US Gov appears to be running huge Ponzi schemes themselves.
:).
The only difference is they can actually create the money out of thin air
UEFI Secure Boot will be "Required for Windows 8 client".
If that's true wouldn't that mean that millions of people today won't be able to upgrade to Windows 8 unless they buy new hardware?
That'll be a pretty stupid move by Microsoft.
I've got grub, windows 7 SP1, and ubuntu on a dell laptop.
So maybe you're doing something wrong.
Given the high demand and inequality, dropping the cost won't drop the rent, nor solve the "homeless" problem.
With cheaper houses the landlords will just pocket the profit and continue to kick out the ones who can't pay the higher rents.
What you need is a safety-net for those who lose in the game of Capitalism and Monopoly. Unfortunately many countries cannot afford to pay for that safety-net.
Because postgresql rolls back the transaction when there are errors (e.g. failed insert).
Yes you can use savepoints but you now need to write extra code:
1) to handle the savepoint.
2) to correctly distinguish between "retryable" errors and "nonretryable" errors.
3) to retry transactions.
More code to debug, test, document and support.
In contrast, the "lock table, insert if row does not exist, update if it exists" and rollback everything if "stuff happens" seems simpler to do correctly.
You SHOULD still use unique keys to enforce data integrity (it is good to be paranoid when it comes to databases), but it's better to avoid handling fallout as the norm.
Try it in two different transactions and you'll find it does NOT work.
e.g.
-- Do following in psql #1
begin;
INSERT INTO (col1) foo SELECT * FROM (VALUES (1),(2),(3)) AS newdata(col1) WHERE col1 NOT IN (SELECT col1 FROM foo);
-- then this in psql #2
begin;
INSERT INTO (col1) foo SELECT * FROM (VALUES (1),(2),(3)) AS newdata(col1) WHERE col1 NOT IN (SELECT col1 FROM foo);
commit;
-- Then go back to psql #1
commit;
The way to do this without having to rollback is to use locks (postgresql allows locks that don't block all selects).
Some are funny not because they make fun of something/anything, but because you suddenly "get it" and see things differently.
Those that don't get it, won't find it funny. Whether you laugh at them (those who don't get it) or not, does not have to be related to why the joke in itself is funny or not.
Variable-length instructions are also kind of annoying.
Annoying to some, but useful in practice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#Thumb-2
Yeah, look at all those people replying to my post without even reading anything :).
I linked to that exact url, and the idiots replying with crap get modded up.
Doh, the Best Health Care System(for the rich) isn't the best at everything?
It's better to pretend that humans are special, and so even their fetuses get special treatment.
That way there's a higher chance that the future posthumans and AIs continue believing that humans are special for at least a few extra years or even decades.
If you make it too easy to kill "half-baked humans", won't it also become easier to justify killing all the "half-baked" slashdotters here?
So we have to draw an arbitrary line (or more) on when a half-baked "cake" can legally be considered "cake" or "precake". Wherever you choose to draw it, It'll be a stupid arbitrary line, but given the numbers of people who want the right to abort it'll be even stupider to not draw a line somewhere.
For similar reasons I think human-animal hybrids (and "Strong AIs") are currently a stupid idea. Because if people can't even get this sorted out, imagine the problems determining when the hybrids/AIs/cyborgs are legally human.
Better to wait till Society is ready to deal with it.
Then you're actually in favor of a tax decrease for the wealthy. With our current tiered system, they pay a higher percentage than us.
No they don't, according to Warren Buffet: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
Sure he could be wrong and you could be right, but I'd prefer to believe Warren Buffet about this sort of stuff.
Of course, if you're not employed or earning very little, you'd be paying less tax than Warren Buffet. But I'm assuming the "us" means the average slashdotter.
But chasing the evil parasitic rich to other countries with higher taxes might actually help your country ;).
Think about it - evil rich guy says, "if you raise taxes I'm going to take my ball and go screw up a different country".
Note: I'm not saying all or even most rich people are evil OK?
Maybe they do and that's why Slashdot doesn't support Unicode ;).
1) You miss the point. The background might be blurred, but that's when I am not looking at it (e.g. not interested). BUT if I choose to look at it, it stops being blurred. At what is "background" depends on what/where I choose to look.
My complaint is about the situation where movie directors artificially and unnecessarily make bits of the picture out of focus. Sometimes there are technological limitations, but often nowadays most of the scene is rendered and then artificially blurred (e.g. Avatar). Sometimes it's part of the story, or for good effect, in which case I don't mind.
It hurts my eyes when it's overdone.
2) I know they are not the same, I'm just complaining about them all. I wrote: "out of focus or motion blurred". I dislike both effects. And I also dislike lower frame rates (which is another separate thing - the low-frame-rate frames could be perfectly sharp and in focus).
Movies happen at a motion blurred 24 fps AND I think that sucks. On the "big screen" I can visibly see the stuff "rippling" down at 24 fps especially on scenery pans.
The 24 fps rate is not because the human eye can't see faster than that (it can), it's a compromise due to technology limitations nearly 100 years ago.
Except for "special effects" I prefer that the stuff be updated much faster and let our eyes do the motion blurring. And I don't really like blurred special effects.
I dislike movie scenes where stuff is out of focus or motion blurred just because the director thinks it's cool.
When I watch the real world, everything that I look at usually is in focus - because my eyes will focus on it. In many of the movies the directors like blurry stuff and as a result I get eye strain when my eyes try to focus on the parts of the movie that are blurry .
When you look at a fast moving object it's sharp (unless it's moving so fast that your eyes can't track it).
Thanks. How do you deal with stuff like different versions/releases of Suse, OpenSUSE, different versions of Redhat, Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, Fedora, etc.
:).
Do you find that in practice they tend to be backward compatible within the distro? So you just build for the oldest supported distro (with latest backported patches of libs if possible - ugh) and it works on the new distros?
Or do you find you end up having to build for each distro version? If so it probably means that we might not bother with supporting "Linux" - too much work for too little benefit. Either that or customers have to build and install the https stuff themselves (or do without https).
I'll probably have to test for myself, but it's often good to know what others have done instead of reinventing the wheel or making the same mistakes all over again