Hopefully if you are in science, you are doing what you do for reasons other than financial gain.
Oh please. If a man's kids have holes in their shoes, rags on their bodies and nothing in their tummies, is it OK because the man is too busy doing SCIENCE??
Sure science has to get done somehow. But if fewer people had this "I'm only in it for the science not the money" attitude, then market forces would drive the salaries for researchers up to a decent level. This whole "I'm not in it for the money" ideal is the cause of poverty.
To go from an air conditioned lab to unclogging shitters is not my idea of job satisfaction.
A plumber with a 10 years experience in the UK can make GBP 60k/year. That's USD 114k/year. And there isn't a way to outsource unblocking drains to India!
Why's it so lucrative? 'Cos our fucking idiot Prime Minister has decided that there's no pride to be taken in honest trades like plumbing, electrical work, construction, etc, and that it's far better to go to a made-up university to get a worthless degree in a made-up subject. So all these poor kids are plunging themselves into debt to get BAs in Media Studies, finding themselves utterly unqualified for anything but McJobs, and no-one's training to become a tradesman, so supply and demand drives the rates through the roof. You can run from a free market, see, but you can't hide.
I work in IT in banking, and half the people in the office spend all day browsing the City & Guilds website and daydreaming...
how many would fight tooth and nail to implement measures that would ensure that they got a piece of the pie?
You raise an interesting point: the only way an entrenched technology can fight innovation is if its supporters can get a government to intervene on its behalf. If government can be kept from interfering in the market, the best (in terms of cost/benefit ratio) technology will always win in the end.
He's widely ignored, because many concepts he's tried to champion have not just failed, they've imploded before they even left the launch pad. The whole thin-client netpc is a great example.
Bill Gates is villified on Slashdot for quashing innovation under a juggernaut of mediocrity, and now Ellison is demonized for daring to take a few risks with his business.
Let me clue you in: one time, Ellison tried a crazy idea, everyone in the existing database industry thought he was fucking crazy. That crazy idea was called the relational database. Sure IBM did a lot of the groundwork in their labs, but they thought RDBMS was an academic curiousity, nothing more. Ellison put his own cash on the line and took a RISK. Yeah, he's a little smug, but why the hell not, he's earned it. How many industries have you started?
Damn, it's a shame Slashbots are too busy guzzling Cheetos in their parents' basements to run the industry, who knows where we'd be by now?
The citizens of the U.S. have decided that the public has an interest in seeing healthy competition, and has enacted laws that govern how companies compete. Those laws are designed to reign in monopolies when they've crossed the line.
You're missing a subtle point in antitrust law. It is retrospective. That is, once you are declared a monopoly, you can be punished for things that were perfectly legal when you actually did them. The law doesn't say "you may no longer do X" it says "you should never have done X" - and there is no way for a company to tell in advance of doing "X" if a judge will subsequently make that decision. Antitrust law moves the goalposts.
Let me give you an example. Wearing red shirts on Tuesdays is for some reason declared illegal from 24th February 2004. Being a law-abiding citizen, you're careful not to wear a red shirt on a Tuesday. One day you are dragged into court and the prosecutor says "your honour, we have here a photo of the defendant wearing a red shirt on the 5th January 1988". "Guilty!" says the judge.
If there are to be laws, then they must be clear upfront, "you may not do X but you may do Y". Antitrust law as it stands is a carte blanche for the government to pick on any company that gets too big for no other reason than it is too big.
If you can't see that unbridled capitalism is not only not good for the public, but ultimately self-destructive, as one company gobbles up its smaller competitors until there is no competition whatsoev
Historically, the only true monopolies are the ones supported by governments, i.e. the ones it is illegal to compete with. It's not illegal to compete with Microsoft - in fact, anyone who sits at a Linux box or a Mac typing "Microsoft is a monopoly" needs to get their dictionary out, since "mono" means "one".
Tar will just choke at that point and you lost everything past the read error. bunzip2 was able to recover the data past the error, but tar can't use the data.
I've been there with.tar.gz and now.cpio.bz2 is my archiving technique of choice, with a block size of 100k you get (slightly) less compression but (slightly) more resilience.
I do know some that do it on purpose in production though, such as using MyISAM for auditing information, which should always be there, even if a transaction fails.
We can do this in Oracle too, using a trigger with an autonomous transaction. A developer, especially on a large project, shouldn't have to know or care anything about physical storage.
MySQL is a fine substitute for the ODBC CSV driver... but Firebird, SAP/DB and Postgres cost the same and are decades ahead in functionality.
Same for us, actually. There's really nothing compelling in Solaris 9 for us, but 10 gives us Dtrace and a path to containers. FWIW, we're a hardcore OLTP shop and the x86 box - let alone the x86 OS - that can handle our I/O hasn't been built yet and I doubt it ever will be.
From what I've read, it's exactly what I want (and have been advocating.) My money was on PicoGUI, but hey - competition is good.
Ah, you kids. Sun did this years ago, with NeWS, Network-extensible Window System. It used DPF and rendered widgets locally. It never caught on because what wins in the mass market is the lowest common denominator, which was X. Sure, it sucked, and everyone hated it, but it was as vendor- and architecture-neutral as windowing systems got, so every Unix vendor picked it up. For the same reasons, the Y project will never be anything more than an academic curiousity.
So don't give me the "users don't want to personalize".
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. They can do as they please with their own toys and gadgets. But ask anyone who's ever supported anything, whether answering the phone at the helpdesk or writing code that relies on certain other code being present, and they'll tell you allowing the end user the ability personalize anything more than strictly necessary is a recipe for disaster.
A desktop PC for most people is a work tool, nothing more, nothing less. The ability to personalize it is just a distraction. And worse, if it's too personalized, the regular user won't be able to use a different one, and other users will not be able to use it.
They kindof have us over a barrel there, and not everyone can afford the extra expense of buying labeled and certified "organic" grown foods.
I'm always interested in human behavior, and I like to watch people in my local Safeway. You might be surprised how many people buy the cheapest generic-brand foods they can, then spend loads on cigarettes and lottery tickets. I wrote a JE on it a little while ago.
The very existance of Asda and Iceland, and the continuing popularity of McDonalds and KFC, demonstrates that a significant proportion of the UK food-buying public simply doesn't care what they eat.
Remember, if you want to understand people, ignore what they say and pay attention to what they do.
Yes the anti-GM at all costs people are small and vocal but the "please label what I'm about to eat crowd" are pretty mainstream.
The SAY they want food labelled, but they still BUY unlabelled food. A corporation only cares (or even knows) what you DO, not what you SAY.
I challenge everyone who says they're anti-GM to reflect that in their buying behaviour. 'Cos if they won't, then that demonstrates what they really believe.
When customers stop buying it, corporations will stop selling it. The anti-GM camp is vocal, but small. The majority of consumers just want vast amounts of cheap food and aren't too bothered how or where it comes from. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is just how it is.
if the code was open from the start, how long would this flaw have lasted?
Umm, probably about as long as the flaws in sendmail and bind?
Open source is not a panacea, those two packages alone have accounted for more Internet carnage than any bug in an MS product. And they were open source, full of bugs, and no-one fixed them.
See, this "many eyes" argument only works if many eyes are looking at the code, whereas in practice everyone assumes that everyone else is, so they don't need to worry about it.
It is also worth noting that the source of the leak was traced to a Linux box at a company called MainSoft, who licensed the code to write their cross-platform toolkit MainWin.
In my book on MFC and ATL (which I bought in the mid-late 90s sometime, so it's probably an earlier version) there is a sample app that's almost indistinguishable from Wordpad... it's only about 50 lines of code, everything is done in the libraries. For example, the editing area is just an instantiation of the rich text control that is available to any Windows application. The code to notepad.exe is probably about the same.
One night the audience gets excited at one part of the show...
I very strongly doubt that one audience for a mass-market show like Les Mis (which I have seen, in case accuses me of snobbery) is significantly different from any other audience in terms of how it reacts. That is after all the talent of producers and directors from Mackintosh to Spielberg; they are able to both predict and shape how an average audience will react. Sure the real connoisseurs of theatre or film are going to react in more complex ways, but that's irrelevant since they aren't the intended audience anyway. Who cares how one person willing to pay $500 for a ticket reacts when you could easily get a thousand willing to pay $50?
Anyway, all this talk of "real music" is nonsense. Are you less of a traveller because you fly to your destination rather than walking? Are you more naked because your clothes were made by a machine?
It's a wholly different business model. In most jobs, the vast majority of the workers are paid within a standard deviation or two of the mean wage for the job. Few of them are very poor, few of them are very wealthy. Most technical jobs are like this, in fact most of all jobs. But the risk/reward calculation in music (in fact, all art) is completely different. Such people have a high probability of poverty, but a small chance at stunning wealth. And no-one pointed a gun at them and told them to be musicians (or whatever) they chose their own risk/reward profile.
So, don't waste your time feeling sorry for them any more than you waste your time envying members of boy-bands.
Every single character is a total stereotypes. We have a tough as nails, always in trouble ace pilot, a father and son who don't talk anymore, an acerbic commander who doesn't take stick from anyone, and a cowardly scientist who refuses to take responsibility for his actions
Yeah, and while our heroes are good ol' poker-playin' whiskey-sippin' American pilots, the villain of the piece is a foppish Brit. Probably because we're the one group in the world who won't threaten to sue over defamation, we're too polite. Still, Americans shouldn't be so surprised when they get less than unconditional support from this side of the pond these days...
do you seriously expect them to say that, "No, we won't take those jobs"? Competition is good for the world as a whole. Jobs will always be redistributed - that's how the world has worked for the past century and even before that
Aye, you're right. However, India is a leading member of the G23, the nations that walked out of the WTO summit at Cancun, as is South Korea, another nation that plays a double game. Both are examples of countries that want the short-term benefits of globalization but aren't willing to pay the short-term price. They're undeveloped countries when it suits (i.e. asking for handouts from the West) and developed when it suits (i.e. competing for jobs). Eventually, the mainstream of the Western public will notice this.
The way I see it, it can be a self-proclaimed moral policeman, or it can be a power-hungry country that screws the whole world up, but it can't be both.
Very true. And that's why, for example, when the US doesn't toe the free-trade line it preaches, the WTO chastises it. India, on the other hand, does get away with duplicity.
If there ever was leaked data about the locations of those ships, it can still probably be found somewhere, and if that information hasn't changed since it was taken off the web, it's still a problem.
The funny thing about ships is that wherever they were in '96 they probably aren't there now. They aren't like bridges or power stations...
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully if you are in science, you are doing what you do for reasons other than financial gain.
Oh please. If a man's kids have holes in their shoes, rags on their bodies and nothing in their tummies, is it OK because the man is too busy doing SCIENCE??
Sure science has to get done somehow. But if fewer people had this "I'm only in it for the science not the money" attitude, then market forces would drive the salaries for researchers up to a decent level. This whole "I'm not in it for the money" ideal is the cause of poverty.
To go from an air conditioned lab to unclogging shitters is not my idea of job satisfaction.
A plumber with a 10 years experience in the UK can make GBP 60k/year. That's USD 114k/year. And there isn't a way to outsource unblocking drains to India!
Why's it so lucrative? 'Cos our fucking idiot Prime Minister has decided that there's no pride to be taken in honest trades like plumbing, electrical work, construction, etc, and that it's far better to go to a made-up university to get a worthless degree in a made-up subject. So all these poor kids are plunging themselves into debt to get BAs in Media Studies, finding themselves utterly unqualified for anything but McJobs, and no-one's training to become a tradesman, so supply and demand drives the rates through the roof. You can run from a free market, see, but you can't hide.
I work in IT in banking, and half the people in the office spend all day browsing the City & Guilds website and daydreaming...
how many would fight tooth and nail to implement measures that would ensure that they got a piece of the pie?
You raise an interesting point: the only way an entrenched technology can fight innovation is if its supporters can get a government to intervene on its behalf. If government can be kept from interfering in the market, the best (in terms of cost/benefit ratio) technology will always win in the end.
He's widely ignored, because many concepts he's tried to champion have not just failed, they've imploded before they even left the launch pad. The whole thin-client netpc is a great example.
Bill Gates is villified on Slashdot for quashing innovation under a juggernaut of mediocrity, and now Ellison is demonized for daring to take a few risks with his business.
Let me clue you in: one time, Ellison tried a crazy idea, everyone in the existing database industry thought he was fucking crazy. That crazy idea was called the relational database. Sure IBM did a lot of the groundwork in their labs, but they thought RDBMS was an academic curiousity, nothing more. Ellison put his own cash on the line and took a RISK. Yeah, he's a little smug, but why the hell not, he's earned it. How many industries have you started?
Damn, it's a shame Slashbots are too busy guzzling Cheetos in their parents' basements to run the industry, who knows where we'd be by now?
The citizens of the U.S. have decided that the public has an interest in seeing healthy competition, and has enacted laws that govern how companies compete. Those laws are designed to reign in monopolies when they've crossed the line.
You're missing a subtle point in antitrust law. It is retrospective. That is, once you are declared a monopoly, you can be punished for things that were perfectly legal when you actually did them. The law doesn't say "you may no longer do X" it says "you should never have done X" - and there is no way for a company to tell in advance of doing "X" if a judge will subsequently make that decision. Antitrust law moves the goalposts.
Let me give you an example. Wearing red shirts on Tuesdays is for some reason declared illegal from 24th February 2004. Being a law-abiding citizen, you're careful not to wear a red shirt on a Tuesday. One day you are dragged into court and the prosecutor says "your honour, we have here a photo of the defendant wearing a red shirt on the 5th January 1988". "Guilty!" says the judge.
If there are to be laws, then they must be clear upfront, "you may not do X but you may do Y". Antitrust law as it stands is a carte blanche for the government to pick on any company that gets too big for no other reason than it is too big.
If you can't see that unbridled capitalism is not only not good for the public, but ultimately self-destructive, as one company gobbles up its smaller competitors until there is no competition whatsoev
Historically, the only true monopolies are the ones supported by governments, i.e. the ones it is illegal to compete with. It's not illegal to compete with Microsoft - in fact, anyone who sits at a Linux box or a Mac typing "Microsoft is a monopoly" needs to get their dictionary out, since "mono" means "one".
Tar will just choke at that point and you lost everything past the read error. bunzip2 was able to recover the data past the error, but tar can't use the data.
.tar.gz and now .cpio.bz2 is my archiving technique of choice, with a block size of 100k you get (slightly) less compression but (slightly) more resilience.
I've been there with
I do know some that do it on purpose in production though, such as using MyISAM for auditing information, which should always be there, even if a transaction fails.
We can do this in Oracle too, using a trigger with an autonomous transaction. A developer, especially on a large project, shouldn't have to know or care anything about physical storage.
MySQL is a fine substitute for the ODBC CSV driver... but Firebird, SAP/DB and Postgres cost the same and are decades ahead in functionality.
It is worth noting that MySQL with InnoDB has supported SAVEPOINT's now for a few versions.
What happens in MySQL if you rollback a transaction that spans InnoDB and MyISAM tables?
(This is a rhetorical question).
We'll mostly skip Solaris 9, actually.
Same for us, actually. There's really nothing compelling in Solaris 9 for us, but 10 gives us Dtrace and a path to containers. FWIW, we're a hardcore OLTP shop and the x86 box - let alone the x86 OS - that can handle our I/O hasn't been built yet and I doubt it ever will be.
From what I've read, it's exactly what I want (and have been advocating.) My money was on PicoGUI, but hey - competition is good.
Ah, you kids. Sun did this years ago, with NeWS, Network-extensible Window System. It used DPF and rendered widgets locally. It never caught on because what wins in the mass market is the lowest common denominator, which was X. Sure, it sucked, and everyone hated it, but it was as vendor- and architecture-neutral as windowing systems got, so every Unix vendor picked it up. For the same reasons, the Y project will never be anything more than an academic curiousity.
So don't give me the "users don't want to personalize".
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. They can do as they please with their own toys and gadgets. But ask anyone who's ever supported anything, whether answering the phone at the helpdesk or writing code that relies on certain other code being present, and they'll tell you allowing the end user the ability personalize anything more than strictly necessary is a recipe for disaster.
A desktop PC for most people is a work tool, nothing more, nothing less. The ability to personalize it is just a distraction. And worse, if it's too personalized, the regular user won't be able to use a different one, and other users will not be able to use it.
They kindof have us over a barrel there, and not everyone can afford the extra expense of buying labeled and certified "organic" grown foods.
I'm always interested in human behavior, and I like to watch people in my local Safeway. You might be surprised how many people buy the cheapest generic-brand foods they can, then spend loads on cigarettes and lottery tickets. I wrote a JE on it a little while ago.
You're form the UK and say this?
The very existance of Asda and Iceland, and the continuing popularity of McDonalds and KFC, demonstrates that a significant proportion of the UK food-buying public simply doesn't care what they eat.
Remember, if you want to understand people, ignore what they say and pay attention to what they do.
Yes the anti-GM at all costs people are small and vocal but the "please label what I'm about to eat crowd" are pretty mainstream.
The SAY they want food labelled, but they still BUY unlabelled food. A corporation only cares (or even knows) what you DO, not what you SAY.
I challenge everyone who says they're anti-GM to reflect that in their buying behaviour. 'Cos if they won't, then that demonstrates what they really believe.
Just where do you draw the line?
When customers stop buying it, corporations will stop selling it. The anti-GM camp is vocal, but small. The majority of consumers just want vast amounts of cheap food and aren't too bothered how or where it comes from. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is just how it is.
if the code was open from the start, how long would this flaw have lasted?
Umm, probably about as long as the flaws in sendmail and bind?
Open source is not a panacea, those two packages alone have accounted for more Internet carnage than any bug in an MS product. And they were open source, full of bugs, and no-one fixed them.
See, this "many eyes" argument only works if many eyes are looking at the code, whereas in practice everyone assumes that everyone else is, so they don't need to worry about it.
It is also worth noting that the source of the leak was traced to a Linux box at a company called MainSoft, who licensed the code to write their cross-platform toolkit MainWin.
I can finally get Notepad on my Gentoo box.
In my book on MFC and ATL (which I bought in the mid-late 90s sometime, so it's probably an earlier version) there is a sample app that's almost indistinguishable from Wordpad... it's only about 50 lines of code, everything is done in the libraries. For example, the editing area is just an instantiation of the rich text control that is available to any Windows application. The code to notepad.exe is probably about the same.
One night the audience gets excited at one part of the show...
I very strongly doubt that one audience for a mass-market show like Les Mis (which I have seen, in case accuses me of snobbery) is significantly different from any other audience in terms of how it reacts. That is after all the talent of producers and directors from Mackintosh to Spielberg; they are able to both predict and shape how an average audience will react. Sure the real connoisseurs of theatre or film are going to react in more complex ways, but that's irrelevant since they aren't the intended audience anyway. Who cares how one person willing to pay $500 for a ticket reacts when you could easily get a thousand willing to pay $50?
Anyway, all this talk of "real music" is nonsense. Are you less of a traveller because you fly to your destination rather than walking? Are you more naked because your clothes were made by a machine?
I mean what happened to cultural society?
It's a wholly different business model. In most jobs, the vast majority of the workers are paid within a standard deviation or two of the mean wage for the job. Few of them are very poor, few of them are very wealthy. Most technical jobs are like this, in fact most of all jobs. But the risk/reward calculation in music (in fact, all art) is completely different. Such people have a high probability of poverty, but a small chance at stunning wealth. And no-one pointed a gun at them and told them to be musicians (or whatever) they chose their own risk/reward profile.
So, don't waste your time feeling sorry for them any more than you waste your time envying members of boy-bands.
I'd watch the series for more Grace Park
Is she related at all to Linda Park, who plays the comms officer in Enterprise?
Every single character is a total stereotypes. We have a tough as nails, always in trouble ace pilot, a father and son who don't talk anymore, an acerbic commander who doesn't take stick from anyone, and a cowardly scientist who refuses to take responsibility for his actions
Yeah, and while our heroes are good ol' poker-playin' whiskey-sippin' American pilots, the villain of the piece is a foppish Brit. Probably because we're the one group in the world who won't threaten to sue over defamation, we're too polite. Still, Americans shouldn't be so surprised when they get less than unconditional support from this side of the pond these days...
took a week to setup and 2 hours a day to update
:-)
No wonder, with half a meg of memory
do you seriously expect them to say that, "No, we won't take those jobs"? Competition is good for the world as a whole. Jobs will always be redistributed - that's how the world has worked for the past century and even before that
Aye, you're right. However, India is a leading member of the G23, the nations that walked out of the WTO summit at Cancun, as is South Korea, another nation that plays a double game. Both are examples of countries that want the short-term benefits of globalization but aren't willing to pay the short-term price. They're undeveloped countries when it suits (i.e. asking for handouts from the West) and developed when it suits (i.e. competing for jobs). Eventually, the mainstream of the Western public will notice this.
The way I see it, it can be a self-proclaimed moral policeman, or it can be a power-hungry country that screws the whole world up, but it can't be both.
Very true. And that's why, for example, when the US doesn't toe the free-trade line it preaches, the WTO chastises it. India, on the other hand, does get away with duplicity.
If there ever was leaked data about the locations of those ships, it can still probably be found somewhere, and if that information hasn't changed since it was taken off the web, it's still a problem.
The funny thing about ships is that wherever they were in '96 they probably aren't there now. They aren't like bridges or power stations...