I immediately throw out all the resumes written on non-standard-sized paper, and set the ones written on funny-colored paper aside. If I can't find the guy/gal I need in the regular-colored paper, I might look at the funny-colored ones, if I have time. But probably not.
If you think you need a gimmick to make your resume look special, you don't want to work here.
If you write-in a real candidate (not Mickey Mouse, but rather someone who could at least theoretically do the job, like John McCain, Howard Dean, or my mom) you notify the powers-that-be that you are both dissatisfied and politically aware, and that none of the nominated candidates or parties are representing your needs.
The parties will see this as a failure of their machines, and if any significant number of people do this (say, great than.05 percent) they will try to find ways to identify and satisfy the needs of these potential votes in their favor.
Remember, the goal is to get elected, and they are not going to rule out *any* means of gaining votes. They will even go so far as to promote justice and fair play if necessary (they'd rather not, obviously, but if that's what it takes...).
If you don't vote, you are sending an entirely different message; one that sounds like this to the parties: "BAAAA! BAAA! I'm a SHEEP! You can FUCK ME UP THE ASS and I won't do anything at all to stop you!!" They want you to quit voting, because it makes their job easier!
You seem reasonably intelligent, think about it. If you were a greedy, immoral, power-hungry plutocrat, would you pay more attention to those who vote against you or those who don't vote? Why would you care what Verizon does as long as you get your 3 girls and a cheesesteak every day?
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" -- Neil Peart, in Rush's "Freewill".
Heh, exactly. #1 complaint I've always heard about Macs? "Oh, you have to drag the disk to the Trash to eject it, that's not intuitive."
Not only is it not intuitive, it's counter-intuitive. Can you comprehend the difference?
Only stupid and careless people can figure out the mac interface by themselves - intelligent, careful people won't perform certain experiments. Example: Nobody with any sense will ever drag a mounted network drive to the trash can, because that would erase their network drive. So they won't figure out how to unmount network drives by themselves.
Saying RTFM is disingenuous - the manual has several obviously wrong things in it, like typos for example, and mislabeled illustrations, so anyone who was willing to risk their network drives because the manual says it's OK is either stupid or very inexperienced.
I actually like macs (I own a couple) but I've never liked the GUI. MacOS X is a huge improvement since I can modify the GUI or just use the command line.
The antique, hacked-up, unsupported version of OpenLDAP that Red Hat ships definitely sucks.
The current OpenLDAP offering is too difficult to set up and configure for anyone but serious computer scientists. But that was true of X-windows not too long ago... now it's nearly useable!
Saying OpenLDAP sucks is painting with too broad a brush. There are several extremely large implementations that perform extremely well and are rock-solid reliable; Stanford comes to mind.
...let us take note of someone who is absolutely central to the concept of an encyclopedia but who is hardly acknowledged at all by the Wikipedians. I mean, of course, the user. As in the reader. The person who comes to Wikipedia in search of accurate information.
Methinks this gentleman is overly impressed with his own works. I go to Wikipedia for information, sure, but I don't suppose it is any more accurate than the Britannica - both are rife with errors of fact and presentation, naturally.
Anyone who treats any single information source as the canonical reference for all things is a fool.
This memo describes a protocol suite which supports an infinite number of monkeys that sit at an infinite number of typewriters in order to determine when they have either produced the entire works of William Shakespeare or a good television show. The suite includes communications and control protocols for monkeys and the organizations that interact with them.
Solved problem! Note this is clearly stated in the Wikipediaarticle on this very subject, but apparently the Britannica is insufficient. So, in this case at least, Britannica is sadly deficient compared to Wikipedia.
One of Feynman's discoveries, when he was investigating the California textbook situation, was that the "experts" were not reading the books given them to review.
Myself, I never saw a textbook that didn't have glaring errors of fact in it until I reached college age.
Feynman believed textbook review was corrupt and driven by publishers not by educators. He presented pretty good evidence to support his argument, too.
You will allways be able to know when you send your mail through their system, at least as long as all Gmail email addresses ends with @gmail.com, or somebody rederects their mail.
Correct, but people who don't have Gmail accounts cannot be expected to know that their mail is subject to machine analysis - they haven't necessarily had the opportunity to read the license agreement since they aren't subscribers.
Gmail subscribers have only themselves to blame if they didn't bother reading the terms of use when then clicked the "agree" button. But people sending email to a gmail subscriber cannot be expected to research every domain's policies; and in fact the email engines used by less computer-literate people (such as your Grandma with the AOL account) often hide the domain by default, and display only the personal name field.
Not very. Google has the processing power to do whatever they want to with your communications, but they already have other uses for it so they aren't going to bother.
But, how valuable is a list of names and IP addresses of people who use hard encryption on their mail?
That I don't know; but you could ask John "God appointed me to read your files" Ashcroft or Alberto "Torture Boy" Gonzales.... I'm sure one of them has a good idea of the going price for these types of things.
is the same as it has always been. They are algorithmically analysing your entire email corpus (well, that was sent or received with Gmail, anyway) and correlating the data to determine trends, demographics, etc.
It's not like they are hiding this; it's part of the agreement you make to get free email. They have built a pipe through which a huge portion of the world's information flow can pass, and they are using it to learn things about the world and about the structure and hierarchy of human relationships.
The data is saleable, but they can profit from it without ever selling it, or ever letting any human agents access information that uniquely identifies YOU.
Remember, they sell advertising. At a premium price. All marketing and advertising agencies do data gathering, and Gmail is how Google is doing it.
It's a straight-up, informed-consent deal (at least for Gmail account holders- the issues get stickier if you send mail to Gmail because you never clicked through a use agreement) and if you don't want their robots reading your email you shouldn't use the service.
I wish that you might show more respect, to cultures that are different from your own. It is possible to know love, but also to know modesty and propriety as well.
Absolutely! We must respect intolerant cultures explicitly! So, there should be no pictures of humans, ever, because the holy books of many people state that this is sinful (examples: the Bible and the Qu'ran). There should also be no statuary or graven images since they are also sinful in the eyes of many cultures, so 3-dimensionl imaging must not be used for anything. And of course women's voices may never be heard outside quarters specifically designated for women, so only recognizably male voices may be used in audio applications, and speech may not be synthesized as this is an affront to God's creation, only humans are given the right to speak as the designated lords of creation. Further, no system may be turned on or off on any holy day, such as Sunday or Saturday, and obviously this must be enforced by hardware since Man is sinful and must not be led into temptation.
Yes, you are nearly right.
on
Rob Pike Responds
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Novell NDS pioneered the functional and useful PC implementation of this idea with NDS, which was created by hacking the bejabbers out of a genealogical database created by the Mormons (AKA the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
NDS inherited limitations from the Mormon theology (for example: the concept of multiple roots is anathema in a genealogical database designed to relate all the descendants of Adam. Thus NDS could not handle multiple roots and separate trees had to be merged in order to inhabit the same database).
The pioneering theoretical work was the X500 project, but the programmers on that project were such an arrogant bunch of egotists that they pissed off nearly everyone they came into contact with (for example, with their annoying insistence that only X500 could be called "the Directory" (capital D) and that all the world's existing documentation must be revised to remove references to directories (small d) where the word "folder" could be used instead.
Although the X500 project did produce a software implementation, nearly everyone hated it (although mostly because so many people had been thoroughly antagonized by the attitudes of the X500 gurus) and thought it was too bloated. LDAP was born, in reaction to this situation, as a means of communicating directory information from any arbitrary database - it let you do the important parts of X500 without having to run their code.
Active Directory, Microsoft's entry, is a poor stepchild of NDS that uses LDAP (with purposely arcane schema) and incorporates MIT's Kerberos (a good thing) and embodies Microsoft's policy of "embrace and extend" (a bad thing). It is in many ways an inefficient and poorly structured system, but it functions reasonably well in an all-MS environment.
So, yes, you can do this rather nicely and efficiently under Novell (in which case you have to fight the battle of Microsoft compatibility since Novell is permanently locked in a death struggle with MS's server group) or very sloppily and inefficiently under Microsoft (see Andrew Tridgell's many commentaries on the shortcomings of the CIFS and SMB pseudo-standards).
You can use OpenLDAP and Samba to get pretty much what you are talking about without using either MS or Novell in the server room. MS still rules the desktop, though, because they have the lusr mindshare (it's cheaper to hire people who already know MS than train people to use something else).
Once my curiosity was sated it sat unpowered in the basement... until the day it fell over and nearly killed me! Then the pieces went back to the recyling bin they came from, wi' a curse.
I doubt the recyclers will get a lot of useful parts out of a huge pile of dented Pentium-233s with (probably crashed) 500MB hard drives, but you never know.
I think it'd be overly optimistic to build a good cluster without building a low-cost one first.
Yeah, you need to do extra paperwork in such situations, so it might be less work to just up-rev.
I frequently hack infrastructure software (like sendmail, bind and apache) to report incorrect version numbers, because that way the crackers always start out by trying attacks that don't work and are easily detected.
Every time I see some buffoon trying an old sendmail trick I blackhole their IP at the edge router. I hope to eventually set up a tarpit and mire the losers in that, but for now I just discard their packets.
I have to have all this documented because the auditors always telnet to port 25 and write down whatever they see, so they get all excited and think they've found a security hole... it's funny to watch their faces when I produce the documentation of the real versions of the software, and they realize they've been had!
How did that Limbaughian claptrap get modded "informative"?
Its well known that Kerry is a UN supporter. When he says Global Test - he means asking the UN permission and obeying their decision.
C'mon, get real. You want us to accept your interpretation of what Kerry said based on your own paranoid anti-UN conspiracy theories? Let's use this on Bush, and see how it plays:
Its well known that George W. Bush believes that Jehovah is a real and active power in the physical world. When the President says "God speaks through me" - he means that every night while praying he has epileptic seizures and speaks in tongues. Karl Rove interprets the President's delpic utterances and this is how all policy is created.
or how about this one:
It is well known that Bush is a Texas supporter. When he says "Evil-doers" he means those citizens of the USA that live east of the Mississippi - the damn Eastern carpetbaggers!
By putting the biases of the Dems into George's mouth, I can do the same thing you did when you put the biases of the paleo-cons in the mouth of Kerry. Anybody else want to try? It's fun!
LDAP is not a database. SQL is not a database. One is an access protocol, the other is a query language. They serve different needs, but neither one actually specifies anything about underlying database.
LDAP stands for Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. Unsuprisingly, it's a PROTOCOL.
SQL stands for Structured Query Language. Unsuprisingly, it's a QUERY LANGUAGE.
Nearly any database could certainly support both. Neither makes any definition of storage method; LDAP is concerned with communication in a particular format, SQL is concerned with proper specification of a database query.
In practice, data accessed through SQL (which is anything but lightweight) is usually held in large, complex, general-purpose databases. Data accessed through LDAP is usually held in tight, fast, specialized datastructures.
LDAP databases should be optimized for speed of retrieval, since the ratio of writes to reads is very very low. SQL databases do not generally make such assumptions.
What they WANT is nothing that is practical or good for them, at least until they are teenagers (then, they still don't want healthy practical things, but there is no longer any point in trying to fight the tide).
What you need is things they don't INSTANTANEOUSLY DESTROY. That's the parent's guideline, take it from me.
For example, in the "kids bathroom" of the DUH there is a sink cantilevered out from the wall. BRZZZT! No fly zone!!
If you actually construct this thing with a support system that will prevent kiddies from ripping it off the wall (something involving huge stainless steel beams and multi-ton weights, I think) when they and their little friends start doing the mambo on the countertop, then somebody will split his little forehead open when chasing his (shorter) sister through the room and not ducking fast enough. If you pad the edge, it will get ripped apart the first time said little sister passes through the room carrying a cat frantic to escape the Tea Party of Doom. The cat will be leaving gouges a quarter inch deep in the mouldings, so you can kiss your padded bolster goodbye.
The towel rack off the front of the sink, that's a GREAT idea, though. It'll soak up at least a tenth of the fifty gallons of water any four-year old spills while "washing his hands".
Have to split, so I can't give you the lengthy reply you deserve. But: a 2000 mile thick rock with even distribution of materials could easily require lifting more mining/refining/etc crap than you'd ever need to build a fleet in space. And if you are going to do it with von neumann machines, it'll take longer than getting resources from the belt given present technologies. AFAIK there are no currently known mineral concentrations on the moon (probably small ones at major asteroid impacts) so it would not be wise to assume they exist.
As for the earth/lunar L4 and L5 points, nothing there but some dust and the odd missing bolt or wrench from the space race. Earth/solar better, but still nothing you could really build with. Probably valuable to sell to hyper-rich geeks, but that's it. I was planning on lifting everything, and figuring it would cost less than lifting mohole machines and silicon factories to the moon.
Um, as far as local masses, I wasn't counting planets as the only useable gravitational mass available in the asteroid belt. For example, a very very tiny push on a nice chunk of nickel-iron could send it on a multi-pass slingshot around Ceres, out to a decel pass by earth or luna (better put some attitude controls on that rock just in case) and thence gracefully into earth/lunar L5. I don't actually remember how to use planets for decel, though, and I gotta go so I can't look it up right now... something about leading the orbit. See what I mean about relative orbital position and speed not really being as important as what's in the neighborhood? Ceres is pretty big as I recall.
Thanks for the engaging conversation. Sorry about the disorganized reply.
Slashdot Mirror
I immediately throw out all the resumes written on non-standard-sized paper, and set the ones written on funny-colored paper aside. If I can't find the guy/gal I need in the regular-colored paper, I might look at the funny-colored ones, if I have time. But probably not.
If you think you need a gimmick to make your resume look special, you don't want to work here.
All the more reason to have tsunami warnings.
It stands for KROEBER. She's Dr. Alfred Kroeber's daughter. Remember Ishi, last of the Yahi?
Do a google search if you don't track science or history.
These are pirates you gormless idiot.
You are talking about petty thievery.
If you can't tell the difference, maybe you should just shut up and stop making a fool of yourself in public.
If you write-in a real candidate (not Mickey Mouse, but rather someone who could at least theoretically do the job, like John McCain, Howard Dean, or my mom) you notify the powers-that-be that you are both dissatisfied and politically aware, and that none of the nominated candidates or parties are representing your needs.
.05 percent) they will try to find ways to identify and satisfy the needs of these potential votes in their favor.
The parties will see this as a failure of their machines, and if any significant number of people do this (say, great than
Remember, the goal is to get elected, and they are not going to rule out *any* means of gaining votes. They will even go so far as to promote justice and fair play if necessary (they'd rather not, obviously, but if that's what it takes...).
If you don't vote, you are sending an entirely different message; one that sounds like this to the parties: "BAAAA! BAAA! I'm a SHEEP! You can FUCK ME UP THE ASS and I won't do anything at all to stop you!!" They want you to quit voting, because it makes their job easier!
You seem reasonably intelligent, think about it. If you were a greedy, immoral, power-hungry plutocrat, would you pay more attention to those who vote against you or those who don't vote? Why would you care what Verizon does as long as you get your 3 girls and a cheesesteak every day?
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" -- Neil Peart, in Rush's "Freewill".
Only stupid and careless people can figure out the mac interface by themselves - intelligent, careful people won't perform certain experiments. Example: Nobody with any sense will ever drag a mounted network drive to the trash can, because that would erase their network drive. So they won't figure out how to unmount network drives by themselves.
Saying RTFM is disingenuous - the manual has several obviously wrong things in it, like typos for example, and mislabeled illustrations, so anyone who was willing to risk their network drives because the manual says it's OK is either stupid or very inexperienced.
I actually like macs (I own a couple) but I've never liked the GUI. MacOS X is a huge improvement since I can modify the GUI or just use the command line.
The antique, hacked-up, unsupported version of OpenLDAP that Red Hat ships definitely sucks.
The current OpenLDAP offering is too difficult to set up and configure for anyone but serious computer scientists. But that was true of X-windows not too long ago... now it's nearly useable!
Saying OpenLDAP sucks is painting with too broad a brush. There are several extremely large implementations that perform extremely well and are rock-solid reliable; Stanford comes to mind.
Anyone who treats any single information source as the canonical reference for all things is a fool.
One of Feynman's discoveries, when he was investigating the California textbook situation, was that the "experts" were not reading the books given them to review.
Myself, I never saw a textbook that didn't have glaring errors of fact in it until I reached college age.
Feynman believed textbook review was corrupt and driven by publishers not by educators. He presented pretty good evidence to support his argument, too.
Gmail subscribers have only themselves to blame if they didn't bother reading the terms of use when then clicked the "agree" button. But people sending email to a gmail subscriber cannot be expected to research every domain's policies; and in fact the email engines used by less computer-literate people (such as your Grandma with the AOL account) often hide the domain by default, and display only the personal name field.
But, how valuable is a list of names and IP addresses of people who use hard encryption on their mail?
That I don't know; but you could ask John "God appointed me to read your files" Ashcroft or Alberto "Torture Boy" Gonzales.... I'm sure one of them has a good idea of the going price for these types of things.
is the same as it has always been. They are algorithmically analysing your entire email corpus (well, that was sent or received with Gmail, anyway) and correlating the data to determine trends, demographics, etc.
It's not like they are hiding this; it's part of the agreement you make to get free email. They have built a pipe through which a huge portion of the world's information flow can pass, and they are using it to learn things about the world and about the structure and hierarchy of human relationships.
The data is saleable, but they can profit from it without ever selling it, or ever letting any human agents access information that uniquely identifies YOU.
Remember, they sell advertising. At a premium price. All marketing and advertising agencies do data gathering, and Gmail is how Google is doing it.
It's a straight-up, informed-consent deal (at least for Gmail account holders- the issues get stickier if you send mail to Gmail because you never clicked through a use agreement) and if you don't want their robots reading your email you shouldn't use the service.
What's a guy who knows how to use "bated" properly doing on slashdot?
Usually when someone attempts that idiom he ends up sounding like he's been eating cat food.
Well, that huge run-on sentence reassures me a little, I guess... wouldn't want this place to get all literate-like.
Novell NDS pioneered the functional and useful PC implementation of this idea with NDS, which was created by hacking the bejabbers out of a genealogical database created by the Mormons (AKA the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
NDS inherited limitations from the Mormon theology (for example: the concept of multiple roots is anathema in a genealogical database designed to relate all the descendants of Adam. Thus NDS could not handle multiple roots and separate trees had to be merged in order to inhabit the same database).
The pioneering theoretical work was the X500 project, but the programmers on that project were such an arrogant bunch of egotists that they pissed off nearly everyone they came into contact with (for example, with their annoying insistence that only X500 could be called "the Directory" (capital D) and that all the world's existing documentation must be revised to remove references to directories (small d) where the word "folder" could be used instead.
Although the X500 project did produce a software implementation, nearly everyone hated it (although mostly because so many people had been thoroughly antagonized by the attitudes of the X500 gurus) and thought it was too bloated. LDAP was born, in reaction to this situation, as a means of communicating directory information from any arbitrary database - it let you do the important parts of X500 without having to run their code.
Active Directory, Microsoft's entry, is a poor stepchild of NDS that uses LDAP (with purposely arcane schema) and incorporates MIT's Kerberos (a good thing) and embodies Microsoft's policy of "embrace and extend" (a bad thing). It is in many ways an inefficient and poorly structured system, but it functions reasonably well in an all-MS environment.
So, yes, you can do this rather nicely and efficiently under Novell (in which case you have to fight the battle of Microsoft compatibility since Novell is permanently locked in a death struggle with MS's server group) or very sloppily and inefficiently under Microsoft (see Andrew Tridgell's many commentaries on the shortcomings of the CIFS and SMB pseudo-standards).
You can use OpenLDAP and Samba to get pretty much what you are talking about without using either MS or Novell in the server room. MS still rules the desktop, though, because they have the lusr mindshare (it's cheaper to hire people who already know MS than train people to use something else).
I can make an MP3 player smaller than this!
Most people don't realize this.
Or, wait, did you think you were being ironic?
That would be funny!
I built my Beowulf so I could learn how to do it.
Once my curiosity was sated it sat unpowered in the basement... until the day it fell over and nearly killed me! Then the pieces went back to the recyling bin they came from, wi' a curse.
I doubt the recyclers will get a lot of useful parts out of a huge pile of dented Pentium-233s with (probably crashed) 500MB hard drives, but you never know.
I think it'd be overly optimistic to build a good cluster without building a low-cost one first.
Yeah, you need to do extra paperwork in such situations, so it might be less work to just up-rev.
I frequently hack infrastructure software (like sendmail, bind and apache) to report incorrect version numbers, because that way the crackers always start out by trying attacks that don't work and are easily detected.
Every time I see some buffoon trying an old sendmail trick I blackhole their IP at the edge router. I hope to eventually set up a tarpit and mire the losers in that, but for now I just discard their packets.
I have to have all this documented because the auditors always telnet to port 25 and write down whatever they see, so they get all excited and think they've found a security hole... it's funny to watch their faces when I produce the documentation of the real versions of the software, and they realize they've been had!
How did that Limbaughian claptrap get modded "informative"?
Its well known that Kerry is a UN supporter. When he says Global Test - he means asking the UN permission and obeying their decision.
C'mon, get real. You want us to accept your interpretation of what Kerry said based on your own paranoid anti-UN conspiracy theories? Let's use this on Bush, and see how it plays:
Its well known that George W. Bush believes that Jehovah is a real and active power in the physical world. When the President says "God speaks through me" - he means that every night while praying he has epileptic seizures and speaks in tongues. Karl Rove interprets the President's delpic utterances and this is how all policy is created.
or how about this one:
It is well known that Bush is a Texas supporter. When he says "Evil-doers" he means those citizens of the USA that live east of the Mississippi - the damn Eastern carpetbaggers!
By putting the biases of the Dems into George's mouth, I can do the same thing you did when you put the biases of the paleo-cons in the mouth of Kerry. Anybody else want to try? It's fun!
LDAP is not a database. SQL is not a database. One is an access protocol, the other is a query language. They serve different needs, but neither one actually specifies anything about underlying database.
LDAP stands for Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. Unsuprisingly, it's a PROTOCOL.
SQL stands for Structured Query Language. Unsuprisingly, it's a QUERY LANGUAGE.
Nearly any database could certainly support both. Neither makes any definition of storage method; LDAP is concerned with communication in a particular format, SQL is concerned with proper specification of a database query.
In practice, data accessed through SQL (which is anything but lightweight) is usually held in large, complex, general-purpose databases. Data accessed through LDAP is usually held in tight, fast, specialized datastructures.
LDAP databases should be optimized for speed of retrieval, since the ratio of writes to reads is very very low. SQL databases do not generally make such assumptions.
Clear?
I assume you don't have kids?
What they WANT is nothing that is practical or good for them, at least until they are teenagers (then, they still don't want healthy practical things, but there is no longer any point in trying to fight the tide).
What you need is things they don't INSTANTANEOUSLY DESTROY. That's the parent's guideline, take it from me.
For example, in the "kids bathroom" of the DUH there is a sink cantilevered out from the wall. BRZZZT! No fly zone!!
If you actually construct this thing with a support system that will prevent kiddies from ripping it off the wall (something involving huge stainless steel beams and multi-ton weights, I think) when they and their little friends start doing the mambo on the countertop, then somebody will split his little forehead open when chasing his (shorter) sister through the room and not ducking fast enough. If you pad the edge, it will get ripped apart the first time said little sister passes through the room carrying a cat frantic to escape the Tea Party of Doom. The cat will be leaving gouges a quarter inch deep in the mouldings, so you can kiss your padded bolster goodbye.
The towel rack off the front of the sink, that's a GREAT idea, though. It'll soak up at least a tenth of the fifty gallons of water any four-year old spills while "washing his hands".
Wow! I can run all my old PDP-11/24 binaries on the Nixdorf mainframe now! I need this software!!!!
Have to split, so I can't give you the lengthy reply you deserve. But: a 2000 mile thick rock with even distribution of materials could easily require lifting more mining/refining/etc crap than you'd ever need to build a fleet in space. And if you are going to do it with von neumann machines, it'll take longer than getting resources from the belt given present technologies. AFAIK there are no currently known mineral concentrations on the moon (probably small ones at major asteroid impacts) so it would not be wise to assume they exist.
As for the earth/lunar L4 and L5 points, nothing there but some dust and the odd missing bolt or wrench from the space race. Earth/solar better, but still nothing you could really build with. Probably valuable to sell to hyper-rich geeks, but that's it. I was planning on lifting everything, and figuring it would cost less than lifting mohole machines and silicon factories to the moon.
Um, as far as local masses, I wasn't counting planets as the only useable gravitational mass available in the asteroid belt. For example, a very very tiny push on a nice chunk of nickel-iron could send it on a multi-pass slingshot around Ceres, out to a decel pass by earth or luna (better put some attitude controls on that rock just in case) and thence gracefully into earth/lunar L5. I don't actually remember how to use planets for decel, though, and I gotta go so I can't look it up right now... something about leading the orbit. See what I mean about relative orbital position and speed not really being as important as what's in the neighborhood? Ceres is pretty big as I recall.
Thanks for the engaging conversation. Sorry about the disorganized reply.