Overally, in any analyses involving a factor like pharmaceutical enhancements will be statistically confounded with time (and its elements).
?
Maybe it's just because I'm mildly stoned at the moment ( coming down from a doof - a couple of trips, and plenty of pot ), but... HUH?
Never mind. Trust me, as a long-time explorer of my inner mind via psychedelics, I assure you that I know what's affecting what. You can tell when you're tripping that it's excercising parts of your mind that just don't usually get worked that hard. But for a brief couple of hours, they sure get work-out. And each time you return back to 'that place', your mind is noticable more nimble and powerful.
I'm not really seeing the connection between your CT scan and my experience.
Of course it is impossible for you to run your life twice - once with and once without drugs - so we don't really know if it has had any affect on you at all.
That's pretty flawed logic. It's not necessary to live my life twice to judge the effects of one influence in my life. If it were, we'd never really learn anything, would we?
I sense that what you're trying to say here is "Yeah but you're just drug-fucked and not capable of self analysis". I disagree. Try some pot or some acid. It will be better than your CT scan, trust me.
It seems to slam short-term memory immediately after you've smoked it, but everything bounces back. I've maintained for years that my mind is more powerful thanks to the all the psychedelics I've had over the years. People will of course laugh at me, but I respectfully think I'm in the better position to be judging that. I've actually noticed a nice increase in performance, not to mention scope.
It seems that advances in technology and the economy haven't been matched by the necessary advances in consciousness. Of course there is an intentional dumbing down of the population to make all this go down easier, but you still have to lay some blame at the people's feet - considering they think we live in a 'democracy'.
So what are we supposed to do with despotic regimes that threaten world peace?
When one comes along, tell me about it. Until then, I believe you've been conned. The world is not overrun with bloody-thirsty despotic regimes that want to take away your freedom.
But what you could do in the meantime, as I indicated in my previous post, is to stop supporting these despotic regimes. Saddam was the US's biggest asset ( apart from Israel, of course ) until the 1st Gulf war. The US gave Saddam WOMD, and maps with areas already marked out on them so he could target his newly-acquired WOMD.
Bin Laden was also an important US asset when fighting the 'scurge' of the USSR. The US fed, armed and trained Bin Laden and his followers, who became Al Quaeda
You ask what you can do about threats to world peace. Well you tell me. How about not creating them in the 1st place?
We can't invade them because that would kill innocent people, and we can't not trade with them because, under your definitions, that would kill people as well... what are we supposed to do?
That's right. Really the only thing you can do is let the people of the country deal with the problem. Democracy isn't created by a foreign invasion and occupation - that's what creates terrorism... as I believe people are starting to wake up to. When a nation has had enough of the oppression that they live under, they will rise up and seize power for themselves. If you try to take it for them, before they're ready, you are only going to create a situation like Iraq. Is that what you want? Can you seriously look at the horrendous devastation, suffering, death, insecurity, and say that this is how it's supposed to go? This is the best it can go. It will go downhill from here. And I rejoice in the US's defeat - they'll think twice before trying the same thing again.
Ahh yes. What were they thinking?!? Clearly, 2/3rds of the Earth surface should remain completely unguarded. You're right, what humanity needs is a throwback to the old pirate days! Arr!
That's a particularly over-simplistic view of things. I don't even feel the need to respond to it. I don't think it was offered seriously.
Well I say, fuck the whales. People are morally worth more than animals--even the cute animals that environmentalists hypocritically embrace. Have you ever eaten meat? Have you ever used a leather product in any form? Have you ever used an animal product in any form? Have you ever indirectly killed an animal? Have you ever supported an industry that either directly or indirectly kills animals? Examples would include: agriculture (and yes, fucking organic foods count here--the harvesters kill animals quite frequently), electricity generation, textiles, chemical industry, and so on. More generally, have you ever directly or indirectly killed an animal? Have you ever stepped on a bug or run over one with a bike or car tire? Have you ever sat idly by while such transgressions are occurring in front of you?
Unless you can claim no to all of those answers, you're an aggressor as well.
That's also a very oversimplistic view. There is more than black and white. There is of course a need to kill other life forms for us to survive, and this is the way of things. But it's a moronic stretch to then say that all people who eat meat are aggressors in the same character as the military-industrial complex. What can I say? It's just moronically simplistic - and you sweep aside any attempt at discussing the ethical issues involved in acts of war against innocent by-standers by proclaiming us all sinners! If you're after a serious discussion - and I assume you are by the length of your post ( hence I'm responding to you ), then you will have to re-assess this stance.
In other words, "do everything *I* want, which includes as
It's not one or the other. What are these fine men doing on the ships in the 1st place? They're doing things like enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq, which killing MILLIONS of people. Or they're taking part in the illegal invasion & occupation of Iraq, etc, etc.
The Navy is not in existance to defend ordinary people. It's there to defend corporate interests - which includes attacking and invading other countries. THIS is why they need so much protection - because they go around pissing other people off. Then you bring innocent by-standers like whales into it, and claim you have a right to protect the rights of humans above animals when the humans are the aggressors.
and the BILLIONS of dollars it costs to replace the ship
Yes. Now you're getting closer to the truth. So close, you can almost see it:) I say fuck the BILLIONS of dollars, and fuck the navy too. The fact is that humanity doesn't need a navy. I'm sure most people, you included, think that the rest of the world is just dying to invade your country and set up an Islamic state, or however the latest scare-mongering goes ( it's hard to keep up ). But it's not going to happen, and if it does, you don't stop it with a navy. You arm the people. But the government would never allow that.
you'd chose option A, killing all the men, spilling all the oil and blowing the billions of dollars to save the whales that MIGHT be killed?
No. I'd choose:
Option C)
- Overthrow your neo-conservative government - Stop invading other countries - Stop pusing 'structural adjustment' programs on other countries that have devasting effects on millions of people - Stop supporting the illegitimate state of Israel - Stop funding terrorists - Stop supporting despots - Stop fucking with people generally
Do all of the above, and you'll find you won't need to spend more tax-payer money on war than you do on health, education, social services. Hell, you may even have the money left over to defend yourselves from natural distasters, such as Katrina, or the imminent bird flu threat.
I would start out by saying that all life has an equal right to survive. There are of course complications to this concept, such as the need to kill other lifeforms to eat - ie for survival.
But when you get arrogance arseholes such as those in the US government, pentagon, and the whole damned military-industrial complex proclaiming their right to explode weapons willy-nilly, at the expense of other large, intelligent animals, then I'd say that those arseholes just forfeited their right to life.
Why is it perfectly acceptable to kill ( and most likely torture ) large numbers of marine animals, but when someone stands up to it, they're an "eco terrorist". There are sure some eco terrorists around, but animal rights defenders aren't among them.
Your inflated opinion of your worth and your rights is a perfect example of what's wrong with mainstream western mentality.
It's all open-source, cross-platform goodness. It of course uses Gtk2 as the widget toolkit ( which is now a push-over to install on Windows thanks to a number of people providing single-click installers ).
Admittedly my project isn't quite as polished ( in terms of point-and-click setup of objects ) as TurboGears, but in my defense, there's only one of me, and I've only been programming in Perl for just over a year.
Probably > 50% troll here, but I'll ignore that and answer the minority portion: the idiot.
Reminds of the mutual fund manager who was part of this exchange at a conference:
Customer: Your XYZ fund has underperformed the market each year for the past 5 years.. why should I buy your managed fund? Why don't I just buy an S&P index fund and match the market?
You never went to this conference, did you? If you knew anything about the stock market, you'd know NOT to chase the fund that performed best last year. Chasing last year's winner will invariably send you bankrupt. In fact, you'd be far better off chasing the fund that underperformed, because statistically, you are simply more likely to get a better return by following them than by chasing last year's winner.
Not that this has anything to do with InnoDB or MySQL, of course. But it's nice of you to demonstrate your ingorance with something so off-topic and vile as the stock market.
What, exactly, is the point of a DBMS that doesn't guarantee (or try to guarantee) data integrity??
Why don't you remove your head from your arse and ask some people who use it? I will answer your question now. We use it because it's unbelievably fast. In cases where you want something unbelievably fast, an unbelievably fast solution sure makes sense. Your question makes as much sense as asking why people don't want supercharged V12s in their cars. Maybe you want one. Maybe you need one. Fine. But some people don't, and for them, the solution that suits their need doesn't include a supercharger or 12 cylinders.
None of this prevents me from using InnoDB in cases where it's required, or people who own Honda Civics from buying a Jaguar and bolting a supercharger on it. The point is that ( luckily ) not everyone is like you, and variety and choice are good things.
Which would you rather do? Buy a couple more boxes to spread out the load, or explain to your boss why the last 1,000,000 inserts are WRONG because of a crashed process a couple weeks ago inserting inconsistent data?
WTF are you talking about? I'm not inserting 1,000,000 records. That's the problem with your analysis: you only seem able to consider what's sitting right in front of you... and I'll assume you work for some spammer or porn outfit - or maybe that's just what you aspire to. Sorry buddy, databases are used for more than the textbook case of php shopping cart stuff wrapped up in transactional goodness. Understand?
Why put so much effort into a platform that is Microsoft's baby? Yes I realise that large parts of.NET are open standards. That doesn't detract from the fact that Microsoft could very well have more to benefit from Mono than Mono users / developers. It also doesn't preclude legal actions - particularly around future developments. What is stopping Microsoft from allowing Mono and other projects to flurish for a few years, and then coming out with.NET2 that includes proprietary stuff under a RAND license?
It is particulary naive ( and don't take this the wrong way - I'm not calling you naive ) to suggest that Microsoft will not take every action - both legal and illegal - to protect their markets and smash their competition. Or as Ballmer so elloquently put it:
I'm going to fucking kill [ insert competition here ]
And what's wrong with Java? Why not take all that talent and throw it at Java? Sun are already talking about open-sourcing Java. Surely investing in Java puts the open source world - not to mention everybody else - in a less precarious position that investing in Mono?
Remember - acting illegally won't necessarily get you into trouble. Similarly, acting legally won't necessarily keep you out of trouble. What matters is how much money you have, and how much political influence you have. On both counts, Mono has none. The flip-side to this, of course, is that Microsoft has both a nearly limitless source of funds, and similar political influence. The best plan when faced with this situation is to distance yourself from threats, not saddle up nice and close to them.
If the goal is to make it easier for.NET developers to jump ship, then I suppose that sounds OK... kinda. But it also makes it easier for Linux developers to write.NET stuff, and I don't feel so good about that.
If people want an open-source, cross-platform environment, then there are plenty to go around. I use Gtk2-Perl, and I've written a number of Perl modules to assist database developers to connect their DB backend with their GUI. See http://entropy.homelinux.org/axis_not_evil
Gtk2-Perl isn't the only option out there. For Gtk2 ( which runs on Linux, Windows, OS-X, and an impressive number of other platforms ), there are bindings for PHP, Python and Ruby. That covers what most people are recommending for RAD these days.
Then there's QT. I haven't had much to do with it, but there are bindings for all the above languages and more.
There's Java.
I don't see the point in mimicking.NET, especially when Microsoft have such a war-chest of lawyers. Why not concentrate on our technology, and if people want to move to it on it's merits, they will. It's much more likely they'll see the merits if we present them with our technology, rather than an imitation of Microsoft's.
And remember, as a wise man ( OK, it was Dubya, but anyway ) once said:
As for MySQL Administrator - I've been able to edit tables with primary keys without trouble - did one just now with version 1.1 as well. Perhaps you don't know how to update your applications just like you don't know how to update your client libs? Not sure what the problem is.
Oh if only it were that simple. Yes I do know what I'm doing. And no it's nothing to do with client libraries. The Administrator and Query Browser packages have their own client libraries included. I submitted a detailed bug report - months ago - and many people have posted 'me too' posts. I will send you a screenshot if you still think that I'm simply incompetent... but I assure you that I'm not. Seriously - Administrator doesn't recognize primary keys. Perhaps you are only using Windows, which doesn't seem to be affected?
You based your whole rant around something which was blatantly untrue. How does that feel?
Well... I admitted in my 1st post that I was stirring. However the part about it being blatantly untrue is... blatantly untrue.
It feels like I've hit a raw nerve with a MySQL newbie who can't handle their favourite project taking some honest criticism.
It feels like there are some pony-boys who have little to no experience with MySQL but are more than ready to stand up and talk about it because they want to fight the nasty trolls who attack all that is good. Read my post again. I use MySQL. But I use it because I'm comfortable with my ability to deal with it's problems. It's not ready for prime time. Cry over it, but deal with it.
It feels like you should check out the bug: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=11415 and try to reproduce it and fix it, if you're so fucking knowlegeable.
If feels like you've made a complete ass of yourself.
MySQL are finally bringing stored procedures, views and triggers to their database server. Cool. I've been using MySQL for 6 years now, and I've very happy with the version I'm currently running ( 4.0.25 ).
Having said that, anyone who says that MySQL are ready for 'prime time' are clearly deluded. You can have a database server with unbelievable speed, features, security and stability, and it doesn't mean a damned thing if you don't have client libraries ready.
MySQL's client libraries are appauling. MyODBC, their ODBC connector, has been one big fuckup after another for the past 2 years. It's a minefield of:
don't use this with that, and certainly don't download this one - we don't know what we were smoking when we released that
Rock up to a MySQL mailing list, and the most common questions is about client libraries and the 'new' authentication system. The problem is that this authentication system is no longer new - it's old. It's many years old. Why haven't the client libraries been updated? The error message suggests that users "upgrade their client libraries", but upgrade to WHAT? Perhaps the error should read:
You are using client libraries from last century. Perhaps you should match them with a server product from last century. Please don't use our newer server products until we have managed to release some client libraries to match
I for one would prefer to see some actual client-side support for 4.1.x before people start declaring 5.0.x 'ready for prime time'. You can't use 5.0.x features with 4.0.x libraries.
Has anyone checked out the GUI admin tools? These are also a long chain of distasters. MySQL seem to spend 18 months getting a GUI looking promising, if a little buggy, and then abandon the project. What happened to mysqlcc? What's happening with Administrator / Query Browser? Critical bugs reported months ago have gone completely untouched. For example, you can't edit tables with a primary key, because Administrator doesn't recognise the primary key, and strips it out of the table when you click 'apply'. Cool! Sounds ready for prime time to me! When will MySQL add support for primary keys to their products?
Yes, I'm stirring here. But none of the above is in the slightest untrue. MySQL have lost their focus. With so much attention being paid to a 5.0.x release, everything else is suffering badly.
I've read the exact opposite, from a number of different sources. Even the mainstream media admit that the National Guard were sent in with shoot-to-kill orders, and with restoring 'order' as their 1st priority.
I've read a number of blogs, for example, from people who say that they formed a group of around 200 people, and tried to make their way out of the city. They were met by the local police, who told them to go up onto an overpass. When they got there, the National Guard assumed they were an angry mob, and started shooting at them.
Then there's the countless claims that the black population are 'looting' - which is then used for justification for shooting to kill, of course.
I saw an interview with an officer just before the National Guard arrived, and he was saying stuff like "My boys are just back from Iraq, where they've been involved in particularly violent repression of local 'disturbances'. And yes, we're here on a shoot-to-kill policy, and there's no doubt that my boys are ready and up to it".
As for 'holding the city together'... I can tell from this statement that you are a right-winger. Everybody else tells it like it is. New Orleans was a attrocity. There's no point blaming FEMA, because their main problem is they hardly exist - their funding has all gone to the Dept of Homeland Security and the War on Terror (tm).
Taking pot shots at the Red Cross too, eh? And you say you're not a right-winger! Nice try, but no banana.
Clearly people need protection from the National Guard, who are on-duty with a shoot-to-kill policy. The right-wing will of course say that they are only shooting people who break the law, but sometimes laws must be broken in order to keep yourself and your family alive. It's also a little hypocritical of the current regime to lecture people on matters of law.
I reject outright that smoking pot affects your IQ in a negative way. In fact, I assert that it increases your intelligence. Whether that results in an increase in IQ points or not is a topic for another discussion. But the point remains that smoking pot stimulates you to think in different ways... and variety of thought processes and perspectives is particularly important in the intelligence of an individual. I would even say it's the most important.
Now, I have never seen a study released by an independant group of researchers that claims that smoking pot detracts from your intelligence. I have, however, seen many reports that state that right-wing propoganda is horribly destructive - not just to the IQ, but to civil liberties, and even the fates of whole nations ( Iraq comes to mind ).
Finally, I think that even if smoking pot does detract from an IQ 'score', then it's worth it if it allows people to see through the bullshit foaming from the mouths of the Christian fundamentalists and neo-conservatives pushing for an even more bloodthirsty execution of the war on drug users.
You must have missed the news over the past couple of days. Some UK forces were caught red-handed shooting up the place while dressed as locals. They were caught and imprisoned by Iraqi security forces. The UK knew exactly what they'd been doing ( because it was official policy ), so to avoid the horrible embarrasement of the UK soldiers admitting to the world what they were doing, the UK broke in and rescued the soldiers ( showing no respect for the local authorities ).
The neo-cons are the ones who believe that democracy can flourish in the Middle East, just so long as we overthrow the despots. I'm certainly not one of them.
No. The neo-cons aren't interested in democracy, apart from using it as an excuse for war. As for overthrowing despots, that's not really their goal either, as they are US-backed despots.
suggest knowledge to combat ignorance. You may also wish to give the Koran a read.
Thanks for the link. It didn't undermine anything I claimed, and the point remains that Mohammad taught and practiced democracy. Deal with it. Linking to wikopedia may be the current fad, but it doesn't automatically prove you're right, unless it actually supports your argument.
see. Which non-democratic nation would you like to live in then? Or does your utopia just exist in your head?
There are places better than where I live. New Zealand has a much better system, and a much better foreign policy as well. Venezuela is starting to look interesting too, even if Chavez came from the military. I'm not claiming there is a perfect democracy for us to all study. I'm just pointing out that your attacks on Muslims are completely unfounded and hypocritical. That quip about utopia oozes immaturity, by the way.
Oh, there was some historical democracy in the Muslim world? Go on, I'm dying to hear about it.
Good. If you're so interested, research it. I've already given you some starting points: Mohammed. There are other examples. Palestine is trying ( despite extreme external pressure ), Iran, Turkey ( though they're heading in the wrong direction ). Do some reading of your own. Don't just go to wikopedia. Do some real research. Try a book or 2. And don't be so fucking arrogant. It's very off-putting.
The US government have never been particularly concerned with the safety of their citizens. Look at New Oraq. How long did it take to get some troops in there? And what were they there for... rescuing people, or shooting the place up?
The 2 main motivating factors for the move to militarise space are:
- Markets for military-industrial complex
- Military domination of the world
It doesn't really matter whether there is anything to defend from, as point (1) is enough justification in itself.
The rules of war are changing. It doesn't make sense for people to try to compete directly with the US military-industrial complex... they'll clearly loose.
I'm no Muslim, but I know enough about the Muslim world to know that you're full of shit. The Prophet Mohammad taught and practiced democractic principles his whole life. The Muslum world had democracy until they fractured into a number of branches and started bickering amongst themselves.
Shit happens. Look at the US. You call that a democracy? I don't think so... not by a fucking long shot. Democracy isn't the act of turning out on voting day and putting a tick against one lowlife arsehole instead of another lowlife arsehole. The 2-party system that has permeated the so-called 'democratic' nations is a joke. And you're an idiot for criticising other people's state of affairs while living under such a 'democracy'.
You proabably would like to score some points off the fact that there hasn't been democracy recently in the Muslim world. But in fact that's due to imperial interference in the area. If the west would fuck off out of there for long enough for the people to kick out the US stooges and warlords, then perhaps a democratic process could begin.
That's a ridiculous argument. The stuff coming out of nuclear power plants is not as harmless as radium-dial wristwatches... which you 'claim' to have on your wrist.
The current issue of New Scientist describes a much more serious problem than you are willing to admit to:
Twenty year on, UN scientists are at last beginning to understand the aftermath of the world's worst-ever nuclear accident... Radiation has contaminated more than 200,000 square kilometres of land... ( and ) has triggered widespread mental health problems... These are the conclusions of the most authoritative study to date... compiled by the Chernobyl Forum, which involves more than 100 scientists, eight UN agencies and the governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine... A massive 14 billion billion becquerels of radioactivitiy escaped the reactor over the 10 days it burned... almost 600,000 people ( were ) contaminated by the accident... ( but ) there are no plans for disposing of the large amount of radioactive waste dumped in landfull sites around the 'sarcophagus' built over the damaged reactor in 1986, while the structure itself is at risk of collapsing and kicking up radioactive dust into the air
Of course we could just believe your statement that all is well because you have a wristwatch, but frankly the abovementioned study seems slightly more plausable.
And once again, declaring something 'safe' doesn't make it so. And pointing out that there are more dangerous materials around than radioactive material with a long half-life doesn't detract from the latter's dangers.
Or perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong by tracking down some radioactive material with a long half-life, and putting it in your pocket, or the pocket of your kid if you have one.
You see, there's safe, and there's dangerous ( and yes, then there's damned dangerous ). Radioactive material is not safe.
Declaring something safe isn't enough to make it so. You can reduce the risk of an accident, but can't rule it out completely. When an accident happens ( and it would be incredibly naive of you to suggest that it "just can't happen" ), the impact is devastating.
Sure, people are aware of the big ones like 3-mile and Chernobyl, but there are thousands of accidents that have already happened. It's quite common, for example, for a reactor to leak a couple of thousands of tons of irratiated water from the plant's cooling system. Or for waste to go 'missing'. Or for traffic accidents to occur in transporting fuel / waste. The list goes on and on. There are even accidents in the mining process that have a devastating effect on the ecosystem around the mine.
If the American public is afraid of the idea of nuclear power, then I may have to admit that they have more intelligence than I've been giving them credit for in recent years. It is right to be afraid of something with such potential for catastrophe. Radioactivity doesn't just dissipate back into the environment quickly like other pollutants. Some of the isotopes have a half-life of hundreds of thousands of years. That means that they half in radioactivity every couple of hundred thousand years.
Oh, sorry, I didn't read all your post. You say that the French are doing it, and to your knowledge, there have been no problems. Well clearly that changes everything. With that one reference to the French and their apparent 'lack of problems', you have convinced me that all my knowledge of radioactivity is completely invalid, because the French have proved it 'safe'. Cool.
Slashdot Mirror
29. I'm a self-tought programmer. Perl, PHP, VB. Projects: http://entropy.homelinux.org/axis_not_evil/
?
Maybe it's just because I'm mildly stoned at the moment ( coming down from a doof - a couple of trips, and plenty of pot ), but
Never mind. Trust me, as a long-time explorer of my inner mind via psychedelics, I assure you that I know what's affecting what. You can tell when you're tripping that it's excercising parts of your mind that just don't usually get worked that hard. But for a brief couple of hours, they sure get work-out. And each time you return back to 'that place', your mind is noticable more nimble and powerful.
That's pretty flawed logic. It's not necessary to live my life twice to judge the effects of one influence in my life. If it were, we'd never really learn anything, would we?
I sense that what you're trying to say here is "Yeah but you're just drug-fucked and not capable of self analysis". I disagree. Try some pot or some acid. It will be better than your CT scan, trust me.
It seems to slam short-term memory immediately after you've smoked it, but everything bounces back. I've maintained for years that my mind is more powerful thanks to the all the psychedelics I've had over the years. People will of course laugh at me, but I respectfully think I'm in the better position to be judging that. I've actually noticed a nice increase in performance, not to mention scope.
Agreed.
It seems that advances in technology and the economy haven't been matched by the necessary advances in consciousness. Of course there is an intentional dumbing down of the population to make all this go down easier, but you still have to lay some blame at the people's feet - considering they think we live in a 'democracy'.
When one comes along, tell me about it. Until then, I believe you've been conned. The world is not overrun with bloody-thirsty despotic regimes that want to take away your freedom.
But what you could do in the meantime, as I indicated in my previous post, is to stop supporting these despotic regimes. Saddam was the US's biggest asset ( apart from Israel, of course ) until the 1st Gulf war. The US gave Saddam WOMD, and maps with areas already marked out on them so he could target his newly-acquired WOMD.
Bin Laden was also an important US asset when fighting the 'scurge' of the USSR. The US fed, armed and trained Bin Laden and his followers, who became Al Quaeda
You ask what you can do about threats to world peace. Well you tell me. How about not creating them in the 1st place?
That's right. Really the only thing you can do is let the people of the country deal with the problem. Democracy isn't created by a foreign invasion and occupation - that's what creates terrorism ... as I believe people are starting to wake up to. When a nation has had enough of the oppression that they live under, they will rise up and seize power for themselves. If you try to take it for them, before they're ready, you are only going to create a situation like Iraq. Is that what you want? Can you seriously look at the horrendous devastation, suffering, death, insecurity, and say that this is how it's supposed to go? This is the best it can go. It will go downhill from here. And I rejoice in the US's defeat - they'll think twice before trying the same thing again.
That's a particularly over-simplistic view of things. I don't even feel the need to respond to it. I don't think it was offered seriously.
That's also a very oversimplistic view. There is more than black and white. There is of course a need to kill other life forms for us to survive, and this is the way of things. But it's a moronic stretch to then say that all people who eat meat are aggressors in the same character as the military-industrial complex. What can I say? It's just moronically simplistic - and you sweep aside any attempt at discussing the ethical issues involved in acts of war against innocent by-standers by proclaiming us all sinners! If you're after a serious discussion - and I assume you are by the length of your post ( hence I'm responding to you ), then you will have to re-assess this stance.
It's not one or the other. What are these fine men doing on the ships in the 1st place? They're doing things like enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq, which killing MILLIONS of people. Or they're taking part in the illegal invasion & occupation of Iraq, etc, etc.
The Navy is not in existance to defend ordinary people. It's there to defend corporate interests - which includes attacking and invading other countries. THIS is why they need so much protection - because they go around pissing other people off. Then you bring innocent by-standers like whales into it, and claim you have a right to protect the rights of humans above animals when the humans are the aggressors.
Yes. Now you're getting closer to the truth. So close, you can almost see it
No. I'd choose:
Option C)
- Overthrow your neo-conservative government
- Stop invading other countries
- Stop pusing 'structural adjustment' programs on other countries that have devasting effects on millions of people
- Stop supporting the illegitimate state of Israel
- Stop funding terrorists
- Stop supporting despots
- Stop fucking with people generally
Do all of the above, and you'll find you won't need to spend more tax-payer money on war than you do on health, education, social services. Hell, you may even have the money left over to defend yourselves from natural distasters, such as Katrina, or the imminent bird flu threat.
I would start out by saying that all life has an equal right to survive.
There are of course complications to this concept, such as the need to kill other lifeforms to eat - ie for survival.
But when you get arrogance arseholes such as those in the US government, pentagon, and the whole damned military-industrial complex proclaiming their right to explode weapons willy-nilly, at the expense of other large, intelligent animals, then I'd say that those arseholes just forfeited their right to life.
Why is it perfectly acceptable to kill ( and most likely torture ) large numbers of marine animals, but when someone stands up to it, they're an "eco terrorist". There are sure some eco terrorists around, but animal rights defenders aren't among them.
Your inflated opinion of your worth and your rights is a perfect example of what's wrong with mainstream western mentality.
Interesting. It's good to see a number of people taking on the project of providing RAD tools with database access.
I have a competing project: http://entropy.homelinux.org/axis_not_evil
It's a collection of Perl modules:
- Gtk2::Ex::DBI ( forms )
- Gtk2::Ex::Datasheet ( datasheets )
- PDF::ReportWriter ( reports )
It's all open-source, cross-platform goodness. It of course uses Gtk2 as the widget toolkit ( which is now a push-over to install on Windows thanks to a number of people providing single-click installers ).
Admittedly my project isn't quite as polished ( in terms of point-and-click setup of objects ) as TurboGears, but in my defense, there's only one of me, and I've only been programming in Perl for just over a year.
You never went to this conference, did you? If you knew anything about the stock market, you'd know NOT to chase the fund that performed best last year. Chasing last year's winner will invariably send you bankrupt. In fact, you'd be far better off chasing the fund that underperformed, because statistically, you are simply more likely to get a better return by following them than by chasing last year's winner.
Not that this has anything to do with InnoDB or MySQL, of course. But it's nice of you to demonstrate your ingorance with something so off-topic and vile as the stock market.
Why don't you remove your head from your arse and ask some people who use it? I will answer your question now. We use it because it's unbelievably fast. In cases where you want something unbelievably fast, an unbelievably fast solution sure makes sense. Your question makes as much sense as asking why people don't want supercharged V12s in their cars. Maybe you want one. Maybe you need one. Fine. But some people don't, and for them, the solution that suits their need doesn't include a supercharger or 12 cylinders.
None of this prevents me from using InnoDB in cases where it's required, or people who own Honda Civics from buying a Jaguar and bolting a supercharger on it. The point is that ( luckily ) not everyone is like you, and variety and choice are good things.
WTF are you talking about? I'm not inserting 1,000,000 records. That's the problem with your analysis: you only seem able to consider what's sitting right in front of you
Why put so much effort into a platform that is Microsoft's baby? Yes I realise that large parts of
It is particulary naive ( and don't take this the wrong way - I'm not calling you naive ) to suggest that Microsoft will not take every action - both legal and illegal - to protect their markets and smash their competition. Or as Ballmer so elloquently put it:
And what's wrong with Java? Why not take all that talent and throw it at Java? Sun are already talking about open-sourcing Java. Surely investing in Java puts the open source world - not to mention everybody else - in a less precarious position that investing in Mono?
Remember - acting illegally won't necessarily get you into trouble. Similarly, acting legally won't necessarily keep you out of trouble. What matters is how much money you have, and how much political influence you have. On both counts, Mono has none. The flip-side to this, of course, is that Microsoft has both a nearly limitless source of funds, and similar political influence. The best plan when faced with this situation is to distance yourself from threats, not saddle up nice and close to them.
If people want an open-source, cross-platform environment, then there are plenty to go around. I use Gtk2-Perl, and I've written a number of Perl modules to assist database developers to connect their DB backend with their GUI. See http://entropy.homelinux.org/axis_not_evil
Gtk2-Perl isn't the only option out there. For Gtk2 ( which runs on Linux, Windows, OS-X, and an impressive number of other platforms ), there are bindings for PHP, Python and Ruby. That covers what most people are recommending for RAD these days.
Then there's QT. I haven't had much to do with it, but there are bindings for all the above languages and more.
There's Java.
I don't see the point in mimicking
And remember, as a wise man ( OK, it was Dubya, but anyway ) once said:
Oh if only it were that simple. Yes I do know what I'm doing. And no it's nothing to do with client libraries. The Administrator and Query Browser packages have their own client libraries included. I submitted a detailed bug report - months ago - and many people have posted 'me too' posts. I will send you a screenshot if you still think that I'm simply incompetent
Well
It feels like I've hit a raw nerve with a MySQL newbie who can't handle their favourite project taking some honest criticism.
It feels like there are some pony-boys who have little to no experience with MySQL but are more than ready to stand up and talk about it because they want to fight the nasty trolls who attack all that is good. Read my post again. I use MySQL. But I use it because I'm comfortable with my ability to deal with it's problems. It's not ready for prime time. Cry over it, but deal with it.
It feels like you should check out the bug: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=11415 and try to reproduce it and fix it, if you're so fucking knowlegeable.
If feels like you've made a complete ass of yourself.
How does that feel?
Having said that, anyone who says that MySQL are ready for 'prime time' are clearly deluded. You can have a database server with unbelievable speed, features, security and stability, and it doesn't mean a damned thing if you don't have client libraries ready.
MySQL's client libraries are appauling. MyODBC, their ODBC connector, has been one big fuckup after another for the past 2 years. It's a minefield of:
Rock up to a MySQL mailing list, and the most common questions is about client libraries and the 'new' authentication system. The problem is that this authentication system is no longer new - it's old. It's many years old. Why haven't the client libraries been updated? The error message suggests that users "upgrade their client libraries", but upgrade to WHAT? Perhaps the error should read:
I for one would prefer to see some actual client-side support for 4.1.x before people start declaring 5.0.x 'ready for prime time'. You can't use 5.0.x features with 4.0.x libraries.
Has anyone checked out the GUI admin tools? These are also a long chain of distasters. MySQL seem to spend 18 months getting a GUI looking promising, if a little buggy, and then abandon the project. What happened to mysqlcc? What's happening with Administrator / Query Browser? Critical bugs reported months ago have gone completely untouched. For example, you can't edit tables with a primary key, because Administrator doesn't recognise the primary key, and strips it out of the table when you click 'apply'. Cool! Sounds ready for prime time to me! When will MySQL add support for primary keys to their products?
Yes, I'm stirring here. But none of the above is in the slightest untrue. MySQL have lost their focus. With so much attention being paid to a 5.0.x release, everything else is suffering badly.
I've read the exact opposite, from a number of different sources. Even the mainstream media admit that the National Guard were sent in with shoot-to-kill orders, and with restoring 'order' as their 1st priority.
... I can tell from this statement that you are a right-winger. Everybody else tells it like it is. New Orleans was a attrocity. There's no point blaming FEMA, because their main problem is they hardly exist - their funding has all gone to the Dept of Homeland Security and the War on Terror (tm).
I've read a number of blogs, for example, from people who say that they formed a group of around 200 people, and tried to make their way out of the city. They were met by the local police, who told them to go up onto an overpass. When they got there, the National Guard assumed they were an angry mob, and started shooting at them.
Then there's the countless claims that the black population are 'looting' - which is then used for justification for shooting to kill, of course.
I saw an interview with an officer just before the National Guard arrived, and he was saying stuff like "My boys are just back from Iraq, where they've been involved in particularly violent repression of local 'disturbances'. And yes, we're here on a shoot-to-kill policy, and there's no doubt that my boys are ready and up to it".
As for 'holding the city together'
Taking pot shots at the Red Cross too, eh? And you say you're not a right-winger! Nice try, but no banana.
Clearly people need protection from the National Guard, who are on-duty with a shoot-to-kill policy. The right-wing will of course say that they are only shooting people who break the law, but sometimes laws must be broken in order to keep yourself and your family alive. It's also a little hypocritical of the current regime to lecture people on matters of law.
I reject outright that smoking pot affects your IQ in a negative way. In fact, I assert that it increases your intelligence. Whether that results in an increase in IQ points or not is a topic for another discussion. But the point remains that smoking pot stimulates you to think in different ways ... and variety of thought processes and perspectives is particularly important in the intelligence of an individual. I would even say it's the most important.
Now, I have never seen a study released by an independant group of researchers that claims that smoking pot detracts from your intelligence. I have, however, seen many reports that state that right-wing propoganda is horribly destructive - not just to the IQ, but to civil liberties, and even the fates of whole nations ( Iraq comes to mind ).
Finally, I think that even if smoking pot does detract from an IQ 'score', then it's worth it if it allows people to see through the bullshit foaming from the mouths of the Christian fundamentalists and neo-conservatives pushing for an even more bloodthirsty execution of the war on drug users.
Troll moderation? Oh please! No please! Don't mod me down. Anything but that!
...
Idiots: left, right and centre today
You must have missed the news over the past couple of days. Some UK forces were caught red-handed shooting up the place while dressed as locals. They were caught and imprisoned by Iraqi security forces. The UK knew exactly what they'd been doing ( because it was official policy ), so to avoid the horrible embarrasement of the UK soldiers admitting to the world what they were doing, the UK broke in and rescued the soldiers ( showing no respect for the local authorities ).
No. The neo-cons aren't interested in democracy, apart from using it as an excuse for war. As for overthrowing despots, that's not really their goal either, as they are US-backed despots.
Thanks for the link. It didn't undermine anything I claimed, and the point remains that Mohammad taught and practiced democracy. Deal with it. Linking to wikopedia may be the current fad, but it doesn't automatically prove you're right, unless it actually supports your argument.
There are places better than where I live. New Zealand has a much better system, and a much better foreign policy as well. Venezuela is starting to look interesting too, even if Chavez came from the military. I'm not claiming there is a perfect democracy for us to all study. I'm just pointing out that your attacks on Muslims are completely unfounded and hypocritical. That quip about utopia oozes immaturity, by the way.
Good. If you're so interested, research it. I've already given you some starting points: Mohammed. There are other examples. Palestine is trying ( despite extreme external pressure ), Iran, Turkey ( though they're heading in the wrong direction ). Do some reading of your own. Don't just go to wikopedia. Do some real research. Try a book or 2. And don't be so fucking arrogant. It's very off-putting.
The US government have never been particularly concerned with the safety of their citizens. Look at New Oraq. How long did it take to get some troops in there? And what were they there for ... rescuing people, or shooting the place up?
The 2 main motivating factors for the move to militarise space are:
- Markets for military-industrial complex
- Military domination of the world
It doesn't really matter whether there is anything to defend from, as point (1) is enough justification in itself.
The rules of war are changing. It doesn't make sense for people to try to compete directly with the US military-industrial complex ... they'll clearly loose.
Stupid fucking neo-con.
... not by a fucking long shot. Democracy isn't the act of turning out on voting day and putting a tick against one lowlife arsehole instead of another lowlife arsehole. The 2-party system that has permeated the so-called 'democratic' nations is a joke. And you're an idiot for criticising other people's state of affairs while living under such a 'democracy'.
I'm no Muslim, but I know enough about the Muslim world to know that you're full of shit. The Prophet Mohammad taught and practiced democractic principles his whole life. The Muslum world had democracy until they fractured into a number of branches and started bickering amongst themselves.
Shit happens. Look at the US. You call that a democracy? I don't think so
You proabably would like to score some points off the fact that there hasn't been democracy recently in the Muslim world. But in fact that's due to imperial interference in the area. If the west would fuck off out of there for long enough for the people to kick out the US stooges and warlords, then perhaps a democratic process could begin.
The current issue of New Scientist describes a much more serious problem than you are willing to admit to:
Of course we could just believe your statement that all is well because you have a wristwatch, but frankly the abovementioned study seems slightly more plausable.
And once again, declaring something 'safe' doesn't make it so. And pointing out that there are more dangerous materials around than radioactive material with a long half-life doesn't detract from the latter's dangers.
Or perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong by tracking down some radioactive material with a long half-life, and putting it in your pocket, or the pocket of your kid if you have one.
You see, there's safe, and there's dangerous ( and yes, then there's damned dangerous ). Radioactive material is not safe.
Declaring something safe isn't enough to make it so. You can reduce the risk of an accident, but can't rule it out completely. When an accident happens ( and it would be incredibly naive of you to suggest that it "just can't happen" ), the impact is devastating.
Sure, people are aware of the big ones like 3-mile and Chernobyl, but there are thousands of accidents that have already happened. It's quite common, for example, for a reactor to leak a couple of thousands of tons of irratiated water from the plant's cooling system. Or for waste to go 'missing'. Or for traffic accidents to occur in transporting fuel / waste. The list goes on and on. There are even accidents in the mining process that have a devastating effect on the ecosystem around the mine.
If the American public is afraid of the idea of nuclear power, then I may have to admit that they have more intelligence than I've been giving them credit for in recent years. It is right to be afraid of something with such potential for catastrophe. Radioactivity doesn't just dissipate back into the environment quickly like other pollutants. Some of the isotopes have a half-life of hundreds of thousands of years. That means that they half in radioactivity every couple of hundred thousand years.
Oh, sorry, I didn't read all your post. You say that the French are doing it, and to your knowledge, there have been no problems. Well clearly that changes everything. With that one reference to the French and their apparent 'lack of problems', you have convinced me that all my knowledge of radioactivity is completely invalid, because the French have proved it 'safe'. Cool.