The programmer that decides I'm going to refactor some working bit of code to make it smaller and faster without first having the working version saved in the main code repository is an idiot.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with refactoring code that is working to make it better, as long as you approach the task incrementally - don't try to do too much in one go, and test and retest each change to ensure that you haven't broken anything. If you do, revert and try to figure out what you did wrong. The time it will save you in the long run when the code is more readable will pay for the time spent refactoring it by more than an order of magnitude.
In less than 20 years the US has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".
The thing is, of course, that nearly everyone has something to hide, not because there is anything necesarily wrong, but because there are things that are private.
For example, what percentage of Americans wear clothes in public? Is there something wrong with all of these people's bodies that they feel they should conceal them from view?
The question is, of course, rhetorical... but I think it illustrates the point: having something to hide does not mean that anything is wrong.
My point is it doesn't matter to me what peon A or B is getting paid
Exactly.... you only don't care what peons are getting paid. You *DO* care what other people are getting paid when they are making more than you, while in your previous post you said that you don't care what other people make, which unless you want to suggest that executives are not people, is not true when you care what they make.
I've asked you a couple of times now if you want some bureaucrat making decisions about the release of your medical records based on their guess as to whether anyone would object to it.
And I already answered it.... if I were a dolphin, or any other kind of non-human, it wouldn't matter one iota how I might feel about it. I would have absolutely no rights.
So, the autopsy looks like a medical record, whether you want to call it that or not. Here's a request for that medical record under FOIA. Medical records are exempt from FOIA requests. Therefore, the answer is "no". The letter even quoted the section of the Executive Order specifying the reason. It takes no conspiracy theory to figure out why the answer was "no". That's the point I'm making. There's nothing "fishy" about this. The official policy of the state of New Jersey regarding release of medical records is spelled out; the bureaucrat followed that guidance, which came from a Governor before Christie.
Okay... so the reason is because the person who responded to the request didn't realize that the only thing that quialifies as a medical record under privacy laws are those that deal with *HUMAN* patients.
Animals have no rights under the law. Zero. None. Any we may coincidentally afford them are by virtue only of rights that are already granted to human individuals. Refusing a medical report of an animal alegedly under the jurisdiction of medical records being exempt from FOIA requests makes the person refusing the request look like a bloody moron because the purpose of the exemption is to protect *HUMAN* rights.
So it's my bad.... I should not have so easily attributed to malice what can just as readily be attributed to ignorance or incompetence.
The entire reason that medical records are kept confidential in the first place is because of the privacy rights of the patient.
A dolphin does not have, and never has had any privacy rights.
Technically, any records that are kept on the creature would not even qualify as "medical records" under the jurisdiction of patient confidentiality any more than a weather report would qualify as a medical report for the climate of the planet.
Canada was not the first country to get rid of the penny, but hey... if you want to keep spending tax dollars printing currency that costs several times more to make than its face value, that's your business.
Any automated loop would be a Bad Thing(tm). The correct thing to on any failure is to report the failure, not to simply try again... because there is no way for the computer to know that trying again is even what the person would want to do in the event of such a condition.
My point is not merely that someone wouldn't object, my point is that someone *COULDN'T* object, because unless the dolphin had human caregivers, there are no privacy rights to be respected. The *ONLY* reason medical records are kept confidential is because of the privacy rights granted to the patient. But animals have no such rights.
If I were a dolphin, or any other non-human creature, it wouldn't matter one iota whether I might object to the release of the records or not.
(pun partially intended.... yes, I know dophins are not fish).
There is absolutely *NO* privacy law anywhere that extends to the privacy of animals other than humans except to the extent that they may have human caregivers whose privacy is to be respected.
I am not ordinarily one to speculate on conspiracy theories, but something just doesn't seem right about this.
Perhaps it would be more correct to say then that at least ONE of those three things that I mentioned would happen.... What you suggest is actually a combination of both 1 and 2.
It will know that the processing was invalid because the second one tried to modify records would discover that another process had locked them. The update would fail, and it would be up to the user to either reissue or modify the query.
It occurs to me that "unlimited" can read one of two different ways, depending on whether the "limited" in the term is either being used as a verb or adjective.
If they are using the adjective form, then they can call something that they throttle "unlimited" without any realy conflict.... there even though they may be throttling the data speed, there is no predefined limit on the amount of data that they can receive, and so "unlimited" applies, as an adjective.
However, it does *NOT* apply if the term "limited" is being used as a verb, because in fact, by actively throttling the data speeds they are actively *LIMITING* the amount of data that a person can receive while they are throttling. There may still be limits imposed by physical infrastructure of the connection or the ability of the company to actually meet a demand, but these limits are passive ones. When they throttle they are making an active choice to deliberately "limit" the amount of data that the person can receive, and that is the very opposite of "unlimited".
MS originally said that the free upgrade to Windows 10 would be in place only for one year, and after that you'd have to pay.
Therefore one of three things is definitely going to happen after the end of July of this year: Either 1) MS will start trying to collect money for these forced updates (After the update starts, it will not complete until you pay for it, effectively placing the "update" on par with ransomware), an option which I expect may have very unfortunate legal ramifications for Microsoft; or 2) Windows 10 will be available for free indefinitely, meaning that the so-called 'free upgrade' period that they were talking about last July was just a scam to encourage those who would fall for it to get Windows 10 for free while they could; or else 3) these messages will finally stop after the first year is up.
The biggest problem that I could foresee with the approach that you've suggested, particularly for very large tables where updates are being done very frequently, is that you could rapidly run out of storage.
INSERT... ON DUPLICATE UPDATE will only trigger the update on what is otherwise an attempt to insert a record that will violate unique index or primary key constraints, while the above poster's solution will update any and all records that match the query, which is what UPSERT does when things match the query.
Sure it's possible.... in practice, the vectors for infection when one is behind a strict enough firewall (external to windows, not the built-in windows firewall) are restricted to either social engineering or else less educated users downloading and running software from locations that a more educated user would probably realize was dubious anyways. The only antivirus you need at that point is a user that knows how to not get infected while using the 'net, and perhaps a periodic manual scan or two every few months to make sure that nothing really did sneak past the primary lines of defense.
You'd be surprised at how much an award can raise morale.
So we are going to treat our soldiers like children now? Oh, you did your job! Good for you, here's a gold star!
At best it diminished the significance of being worthy of receiving a medal in the first place if they are going to give medals to people who don't do anything but the minimum that was expected of them.
Slashdot Mirror
The programmer that decides I'm going to refactor some working bit of code to make it smaller and faster without first having the working version saved in the main code repository is an idiot.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with refactoring code that is working to make it better, as long as you approach the task incrementally - don't try to do too much in one go, and test and retest each change to ensure that you haven't broken anything. If you do, revert and try to figure out what you did wrong. The time it will save you in the long run when the code is more readable will pay for the time spent refactoring it by more than an order of magnitude.
Reread the article... it says it will fine the *VENDOR* of the phone for selling it.
Presumably, this is a first step.... advocates of the bill will be pushing for nation-wide legislation, while also make them illegal to import.
The thing is, of course, that nearly everyone has something to hide, not because there is anything necesarily wrong, but because there are things that are private.
For example, what percentage of Americans wear clothes in public? Is there something wrong with all of these people's bodies that they feel they should conceal them from view?
The question is, of course, rhetorical... but I think it illustrates the point: having something to hide does not mean that anything is wrong.
Exactly.... you only don't care what peons are getting paid. You *DO* care what other people are getting paid when they are making more than you, while in your previous post you said that you don't care what other people make, which unless you want to suggest that executives are not people, is not true when you care what they make.
and:
Clearly you care enough about what others are getting paid to notice the salaries of people that may be getting paid more than you.
Had the thought that these executives might be doing things that are not part of your job simply not occurred to you?
And I already answered it.... if I were a dolphin, or any other kind of non-human, it wouldn't matter one iota how I might feel about it. I would have absolutely no rights.
Okay... so the reason is because the person who responded to the request didn't realize that the only thing that quialifies as a medical record under privacy laws are those that deal with *HUMAN* patients.
Animals have no rights under the law. Zero. None. Any we may coincidentally afford them are by virtue only of rights that are already granted to human individuals. Refusing a medical report of an animal alegedly under the jurisdiction of medical records being exempt from FOIA requests makes the person refusing the request look like a bloody moron because the purpose of the exemption is to protect *HUMAN* rights.
So it's my bad.... I should not have so easily attributed to malice what can just as readily be attributed to ignorance or incompetence.
The entire reason that medical records are kept confidential in the first place is because of the privacy rights of the patient.
A dolphin does not have, and never has had any privacy rights.
Technically, any records that are kept on the creature would not even qualify as "medical records" under the jurisdiction of patient confidentiality any more than a weather report would qualify as a medical report for the climate of the planet.
Canada was not the first country to get rid of the penny, but hey... if you want to keep spending tax dollars printing currency that costs several times more to make than its face value, that's your business.
Any automated loop would be a Bad Thing(tm). The correct thing to on any failure is to report the failure, not to simply try again... because there is no way for the computer to know that trying again is even what the person would want to do in the event of such a condition.
My point is not merely that someone wouldn't object, my point is that someone *COULDN'T* object, because unless the dolphin had human caregivers, there are no privacy rights to be respected. The *ONLY* reason medical records are kept confidential is because of the privacy rights granted to the patient. But animals have no such rights.
If I were a dolphin, or any other non-human creature, it wouldn't matter one iota whether I might object to the release of the records or not.
Who could file such a lawsuit? The dolphin's next of kin?
Not entirely true.... animals can have some rights to privacy when they have human caregivers.
(pun partially intended.... yes, I know dophins are not fish).
There is absolutely *NO* privacy law anywhere that extends to the privacy of animals other than humans except to the extent that they may have human caregivers whose privacy is to be respected.
I am not ordinarily one to speculate on conspiracy theories, but something just doesn't seem right about this.
Perhaps it would be more correct to say then that at least ONE of those three things that I mentioned would happen.... What you suggest is actually a combination of both 1 and 2.
It will know that the processing was invalid because the second one tried to modify records would discover that another process had locked them. The update would fail, and it would be up to the user to either reissue or modify the query.
It occurs to me that "unlimited" can read one of two different ways, depending on whether the "limited" in the term is either being used as a verb or adjective.
If they are using the adjective form, then they can call something that they throttle "unlimited" without any realy conflict.... there even though they may be throttling the data speed, there is no predefined limit on the amount of data that they can receive, and so "unlimited" applies, as an adjective.
However, it does *NOT* apply if the term "limited" is being used as a verb, because in fact, by actively throttling the data speeds they are actively *LIMITING* the amount of data that a person can receive while they are throttling. There may still be limits imposed by physical infrastructure of the connection or the ability of the company to actually meet a demand, but these limits are passive ones. When they throttle they are making an active choice to deliberately "limit" the amount of data that the person can receive, and that is the very opposite of "unlimited".
MS originally said that the free upgrade to Windows 10 would be in place only for one year, and after that you'd have to pay.
Therefore one of three things is definitely going to happen after the end of July of this year: Either 1) MS will start trying to collect money for these forced updates (After the update starts, it will not complete until you pay for it, effectively placing the "update" on par with ransomware), an option which I expect may have very unfortunate legal ramifications for Microsoft; or 2) Windows 10 will be available for free indefinitely, meaning that the so-called 'free upgrade' period that they were talking about last July was just a scam to encourage those who would fall for it to get Windows 10 for free while they could; or else 3) these messages will finally stop after the first year is up.
The biggest problem that I could foresee with the approach that you've suggested, particularly for very large tables where updates are being done very frequently, is that you could rapidly run out of storage.
INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE UPDATE will only trigger the update on what is otherwise an attempt to insert a record that will violate unique index or primary key constraints, while the above poster's solution will update any and all records that match the query, which is what UPSERT does when things match the query.
He's probably referring to schemaless data records.
Sure it's possible.... in practice, the vectors for infection when one is behind a strict enough firewall (external to windows, not the built-in windows firewall) are restricted to either social engineering or else less educated users downloading and running software from locations that a more educated user would probably realize was dubious anyways. The only antivirus you need at that point is a user that knows how to not get infected while using the 'net, and perhaps a periodic manual scan or two every few months to make sure that nothing really did sneak past the primary lines of defense.
[nt]
So we are going to treat our soldiers like children now? Oh, you did your job! Good for you, here's a gold star!
At best it diminished the significance of being worthy of receiving a medal in the first place if they are going to give medals to people who don't do anything but the minimum that was expected of them.
Sure, but why should just doing your job be deserving of a medal?