Oh, don't fret, little GOP sheeple. He's just flip-flopping to get more power. He'll rip off the Democratic disguise soon enough to reveal his true elitist colors right after the election.
OH COME ON! That's not flamebait -- that's funny as hell. When did the Snuffleupagus become a moderator? Should he have instead said, "Oh come on, what, are you green or something?" But then that would have offended Kermit, and blue would have pissed off the Cookie Monster and Grover... You guys really need to grow a sense of humor.
Well, several independent recounts show that Bush really won
Except that those recounts are by organizations with questionable ties to the GOP, and other nonpartisan groups show that Gore won by a slim margin. And all that assumes that the voters were allowed to vote -- in several counties in southern Florida, there was blatant voter fraud, with people taken off the rolls and denied the ability to vote because a felon list from TEXAS was used to ban people in highly pro-Gore districts from voting.
And, what do you think of Obama? Do you think he is a militant black Islamic fundamentalist, and quite possibly a closeted gay? Is he preparing to wreak terroristic actions on his own country when he takes office?
ROTFLOL!!! Okay, I hadn't heard the "closeted gay" thing yet. Is that what Faux News is spouting now? That's rich...
I voted for him and I'm doing better than I was 8 years ago.
Then you, sir, are in the minority. Because the economy is in the toilet, we have lost thousands of jobs that have yet to be recovered, and hundreds of billions of dollars that could go to social services or even -- gasp! -- tax cuts for the poor and middle class, have been sucked out of our coffers and thrown at no-bid contracts given to companies that have ties to Bush and Cheney.
A taxpayer who votes for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
A citizen who expects a functioning government voting for John McCain is like a passenger on a plane being piloted by Pee Wee Herman.
Or how about this:
A parent who expects their children to grow up in a world in which the United States has good schools, funded social net programs, a functional military capable of defending our country, a thriving economy, clean air, abundant clean power, strong relations with the major powers in the world, an effective plan for reducing terrorism that doesn't involve invading random countries based on lies, that votes for John McCain is an example of an evolutionary dead end.
Whew... that was fun... kind of cleansing, really... but not as much as watching McSame lose in November. Now *that's* going to be delicious!
I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't heard: The Bush family's fortune is in oil. They have oil contacts up the ying yang, and ties to various corporations that have profited enormously through the Iraq occupation. Cheney also has oil and contractor connections. Both parties are on public record as having profited from the rise of those companies they are associated with. Are you so naive as to think that his family hasn't made money off war profiteering?
So ask yourself, are you just making shit up to sooth your guilty conscience over the fact that you voted for this asshole, knowing now the way you would have known in 2004 if you'd only paid attention to the news and had a memory more than 5 minutes long that he was a liar and a murderer by proxy?
It's like reading news about dogs that perform brain surgery or reading a mainstream-media news article about how something that we geeks think is weird and wonderful is old news to Joe Public.
You hit it on the head. He's an elitist, and he sees the average American as a resource, not entirely unlike cattle, to be kept fed and reasonably happy, so long as they can be used profitably. I guarantee you that his lies to get us into Iraq and the way he's used our military as a tool to enrich himself is no more than a reflection of this mindset.
modes, views, triggers, prepared statements, stored procedures, query cache, data conversion inserts, access control lists and some data types
Views: Most commercial grade systems use them to denormalize collections of data for frequent data transformations and easy reporting. In my experience they're not needed on smaller, simpler, or less normalized databases, but on very complex databases they're essential.
Stored procedures: Typically used to push the business rules for pure data manipulation into the server where they can be executed more efficiently. Again, smaller system don't need them, larger systems will scale better with the ability to put the processing where it can be done the quickest.
Query cache: I can't imagine why you'd throw out the execution plans for frequently used queries. This is simply a performance issue, and high concurrency systems will drag without caching.
And so on. And there's no support for a Windows version. In every instance, including the statement from the FAQ, "'This is not a SQL compliant relational...' Very true, and we do not aim to be that," it's obvious this isn't intended to be a commercial grade, common OS, broadly used, SQL compliant database engine. It's a hobby engine. While the author of the article lauds InnoDB, I honestly believe that the mindset is to produce a database engine microkernel, a la Linux, that will result in an organic, evolutionary model of distros, with various versions and feature sets arising with the fittest surviving.
Which just means I'll be using MySQL.
Sorry, but my software is database-agnostic, insofar as it expects SQL-92 compliance. I have no use for an extreme low end, non-scaleable out of the box, handicapped database engine. Why would I? MySQL gives me everything I need for doing any application I can come up with, and with the correct configuration it body-slams its best competitors.
That's an interesting take on it. It kind of implies, if that's your worry, that you've been doing something dumb online. I try to avoid putting anything at all on the 'net that might embarrass me or those I care about later.
Kucinich was right there. All the Democratic Party had to do was get behind him. They didn't, opting instead for history, for inspiration, for "change." The proof will be in the pudding, or more to the point, the proof of whether Obama brought change will be in the history books, but for now the Democratic Party wasn't solely interested in spine and principles. Since just about anyone is going to have more of these qualities than the current administration, it's not a stretch to say that, regardless of his reasons for his vote, Obama still has than Bush.
Amen. Law enforcement had all the 4th amendment bending "tools" they could have asked for before 9/11 in the original FISA act. They do *not* need more ways to violate our rights.
Before anyone gets mad about Obama's lack of a vote, check his record so far (he supported the three attempts to strip immunity out of this bill that failed), go back and actually read the amendment, and then check this video:
The part you'll be most interested in starts around 5:20. In it, Olbermann reports on the legal opinions of John Dean and others that reviewed the FISA reform bill and found that, while it protected the telcos against civil litigation (no class action suits), it doesn't protect them against federal suits. So basically, the telcos are still subject to criminal investigation, as is Bush himself.
I'm maintaining a wait-and-see position. Keep in mind that Obama, when asked about the current administration, said he was keeping open his option to investigate them when he's in office. I think he's keeping his cards close to his vest for now.
I beg to differ. The president most assuredly is guilty of high crimes, and the Congressmen that pass a bill to grant immunity to the president for violating his oath of office have themselves violated the Constitution and therefore their oaths of office by way of primary action and complicity. They will have raised the president above the law, assumed themselves above the law by granting such, and by doing so will have betrayed the American government and the people from which it derives its powers. That, sir, is treason.
It took over 200 years, but the Tories may be about to finally win the war...
The web is a transport, not the application itself. Stateless is implied in the transport. The disconnect between the View and the Controller should be a stateless one; I can't imagine why you'd want it otherwise.
As for compiling and constructing, I beg to differ. I've always done my MVC using J2EE (Struts, Hibernate, etc., running inside Tomcat) and stateful web applications are what I assume I'm going to be making. There's one compile, when I compile the Java. Construction occurs as I use classes. I can cache high-use objects in session. With today's languages, tools, and iron, performance becomes a matter of hardware so long as the software is optimized enough.
I'm just not seeing the "piss poor" problems you're seeing.
"The decoupling of presentation from logic is one of the best paradigms you can use for any application."
Agreed. 100%.
Me too, but the web is *not* innately MVC. It's innately a scripted view, and that's it. The model and controller don't exist unless implemented, and I guarantee you that with just a little Javascript and some Java classes, I can either implement a slick MVC architecture or avoid MVC almost entirely.
I still haven't seen an informative argument on what's wrong with Rails in this thread. I have, on the other hand, heard from several different developers that Rails tends to tie the hands of the developer, that it's not applicable to complex problem domains.
The Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 states: (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Oh, well, that clears things right up. So, from my perspective, and contingently responding as well to another post higher up:
UK law sucks. US First Amendment rocks.
There, fixed that for you.
Okay, seriously, unless I say something that is directly threatening, incites violence, causes a panic in a dangerous context, or is libelous or slanderous, I can say pretty much whatever I want. And if a picture isn't deemed obscene or prurient, threatening, etc., I can display whatever graphic I want. I can call the president godawful names (and often do). I could print those insults on a billboard next to a busy highway (oh, wouldn't I love to) and I can accompany it with interesting graphics (let your imagination run amok).
And I can call the "church" of Scientology a cult to my heart's desire, and they can't do one damned thing about it. In fact, I think I'll go pay for an ad in my local paper saying exactly that. Full page. I'll get it printed on tee shirts and sell them on eBay.
Cults like Scientology have too much power and protections as it is. With all due respect, why can't the UK parliament pass laws allowing people to express their opinions about such things publicly?
I remember interviewing at Shared Medical Systems, which was the Microsoft of healthcare software at the time back in 1988, and being a bit surprised that their software was written in VAX Basic. It wasn't until I got into the code that I realized just what could be accomplished using Basic and system calls. You could generate reasonably efficient, commercial grade software running on VAX VMS.
More so than the 2004 election in which news reports circulated of George Bush ordering Constitution-violating wiretaps, Bush's administration lying to Congress about the case for war in Iraq, and the GOP "swift boating" John Kerry? More than when a man that sells our natural resources to the highest bidder was touting his environmental record? More than when a man that claimed to be waging a war on terror left the head terrorist running around the border of Pakistan and turned our forces instead against a sovereign nation that did not threaten us in the least? More than when a man who joined the Air National Guard and then didn't show up for duty in order to avoid Viet Nam slandered a decorated war hero?
And yet that poor excuse for a man "won" re-election?
No way.
Dude, I lost my faith in politics in 2004. What few tatters of faith I managed to gather about me in 2006 were burnt to ashes when Nancy Pelosi announced that impeachment was "off the table." The only faith I have now is in knowing with certainty that Obama is the most inspirational leader to run for president in my lifetime, in knowing that, if America got smart just once and put him into office this country might stand a chance of regaining its power, its dignity, its international standing, and its moral imperative. I have faith that if Obama gets the presidency, he will turn this nation around 180 degrees. I have faith that he will really fight terrorism using whatever means are available to him without murdering innocent people, by proxy, based on lies. I have faith that he will turn the economy around, restore funding to our schools, and make serious inroads to correcting the financial slide of Social Security, Medicaid, and other social net programs. I have faith that he will finally put to rest the notion that only a rich white man can gain the highest office in the country.
But I have no faith that any of this will actually come to pass. I'll believe it when I see him take the oath of office. Then, and only then, will I finally regain my faith in politics.
to you the war was unnecessary. to some it was and is important. question for thought.. what was the last terrorist activity that actually completed in the continental US? keeps the focus over there, as well as numerous other reasons.
You idiot. There were no WMDs. In the 65,000 documents the CIA had on Iraq prior to the invasion and in the 600,000+ documents confiscated from Iraqi government office after the invasion, there was not one single connection between Iraqi and Al Qaeda. We stopped chasing Osama bin Laden and invaded a sovereign nation for no good damned reason, leading to the unjustified deaths of nearly 4000 soldiers and over 650,000 Iraqis. Several terrorist attacks have been stopped worldwide using the police, not armies. Al Qaeda couldn't care less about Iraq except as a staging and training area. They have no borders. If, as it seems, you're implying that using our Army as a decoys, putting our soldiers in harm's way to draw fire, is a valid use of our military forces, then you sir are a jackass.
The war against Iraq was based on lies. Get over it. You voted for Bush and he used you. If you feel bad, take a nap, but don't continue to foist your ignorance on others.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, don't fret, little GOP sheeple. He's just flip-flopping to get more power. He'll rip off the Democratic disguise soon enough to reveal his true elitist colors right after the election.
OH COME ON! That's not flamebait -- that's funny as hell. When did the Snuffleupagus become a moderator? Should he have instead said, "Oh come on, what, are you green or something?" But then that would have offended Kermit, and blue would have pissed off the Cookie Monster and Grover... You guys really need to grow a sense of humor.
You must be new to Earth.
Bush is Satan.
Bush stole the office of President aided by an out of control NeoCon GOP.
There. Fixed that for you.
Well, several independent recounts show that Bush really won
Except that those recounts are by organizations with questionable ties to the GOP, and other nonpartisan groups show that Gore won by a slim margin. And all that assumes that the voters were allowed to vote -- in several counties in southern Florida, there was blatant voter fraud, with people taken off the rolls and denied the ability to vote because a felon list from TEXAS was used to ban people in highly pro-Gore districts from voting.
http://views.tgrigsby.com/
And, what do you think of Obama? Do you think he is a militant black Islamic fundamentalist, and quite possibly a closeted gay? Is he preparing to wreak terroristic actions on his own country when he takes office?
ROTFLOL!!! Okay, I hadn't heard the "closeted gay" thing yet. Is that what Faux News is spouting now? That's rich...
http://views.tgrigsby.com/
I voted for him and I'm doing better than I was 8 years ago.
Then you, sir, are in the minority. Because the economy is in the toilet, we have lost thousands of jobs that have yet to be recovered, and hundreds of billions of dollars that could go to social services or even -- gasp! -- tax cuts for the poor and middle class, have been sucked out of our coffers and thrown at no-bid contracts given to companies that have ties to Bush and Cheney.
http://views.tgrigsby.com/
A taxpayer who votes for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
A citizen who expects a functioning government voting for John McCain is like a passenger on a plane being piloted by Pee Wee Herman.
Or how about this:
A parent who expects their children to grow up in a world in which the United States has good schools, funded social net programs, a functional military capable of defending our country, a thriving economy, clean air, abundant clean power, strong relations with the major powers in the world, an effective plan for reducing terrorism that doesn't involve invading random countries based on lies, that votes for John McCain is an example of an evolutionary dead end.
Whew... that was fun... kind of cleansing, really... but not as much as watching McSame lose in November. Now *that's* going to be delicious!
http://views.tgrigsby.com/
I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't heard: The Bush family's fortune is in oil. They have oil contacts up the ying yang, and ties to various corporations that have profited enormously through the Iraq occupation. Cheney also has oil and contractor connections. Both parties are on public record as having profited from the rise of those companies they are associated with. Are you so naive as to think that his family hasn't made money off war profiteering?
So ask yourself, are you just making shit up to sooth your guilty conscience over the fact that you voted for this asshole, knowing now the way you would have known in 2004 if you'd only paid attention to the news and had a memory more than 5 minutes long that he was a liar and a murderer by proxy?
http://views.tgrigsby.com/
It's like reading news about dogs that perform brain surgery or reading a mainstream-media news article about how something that we geeks think is weird and wonderful is old news to Joe Public.
There. Fixed that for you.
You hit it on the head. He's an elitist, and he sees the average American as a resource, not entirely unlike cattle, to be kept fed and reasonably happy, so long as they can be used profitably. I guarantee you that his lies to get us into Iraq and the way he's used our military as a tool to enrich himself is no more than a reflection of this mindset.
modes, views, triggers, prepared statements, stored procedures, query cache, data conversion inserts, access control lists and some data types
Views: Most commercial grade systems use them to denormalize collections of data for frequent data transformations and easy reporting. In my experience they're not needed on smaller, simpler, or less normalized databases, but on very complex databases they're essential.
Stored procedures: Typically used to push the business rules for pure data manipulation into the server where they can be executed more efficiently. Again, smaller system don't need them, larger systems will scale better with the ability to put the processing where it can be done the quickest.
Query cache: I can't imagine why you'd throw out the execution plans for frequently used queries. This is simply a performance issue, and high concurrency systems will drag without caching.
And so on. And there's no support for a Windows version. In every instance, including the statement from the FAQ, "'This is not a SQL compliant relational...' Very true, and we do not aim to be that," it's obvious this isn't intended to be a commercial grade, common OS, broadly used, SQL compliant database engine. It's a hobby engine. While the author of the article lauds InnoDB, I honestly believe that the mindset is to produce a database engine microkernel, a la Linux, that will result in an organic, evolutionary model of distros, with various versions and feature sets arising with the fittest surviving.
Which just means I'll be using MySQL.
Sorry, but my software is database-agnostic, insofar as it expects SQL-92 compliance. I have no use for an extreme low end, non-scaleable out of the box, handicapped database engine. Why would I? MySQL gives me everything I need for doing any application I can come up with, and with the correct configuration it body-slams its best competitors.
Thanks, but no thanks.
That's an interesting take on it. It kind of implies, if that's your worry, that you've been doing something dumb online. I try to avoid putting anything at all on the 'net that might embarrass me or those I care about later.
Kucinich was right there. All the Democratic Party had to do was get behind him. They didn't, opting instead for history, for inspiration, for "change." The proof will be in the pudding, or more to the point, the proof of whether Obama brought change will be in the history books, but for now the Democratic Party wasn't solely interested in spine and principles. Since just about anyone is going to have more of these qualities than the current administration, it's not a stretch to say that, regardless of his reasons for his vote, Obama still has than Bush.
Amen. Law enforcement had all the 4th amendment bending "tools" they could have asked for before 9/11 in the original FISA act. They do *not* need more ways to violate our rights.
Before anyone gets mad about Obama's lack of a vote, check his record so far (he supported the three attempts to strip immunity out of this bill that failed), go back and actually read the amendment, and then check this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBj42uOUc9E
The part you'll be most interested in starts around 5:20. In it, Olbermann reports on the legal opinions of John Dean and others that reviewed the FISA reform bill and found that, while it protected the telcos against civil litigation (no class action suits), it doesn't protect them against federal suits. So basically, the telcos are still subject to criminal investigation, as is Bush himself.
I'm maintaining a wait-and-see position. Keep in mind that Obama, when asked about the current administration, said he was keeping open his option to investigate them when he's in office. I think he's keeping his cards close to his vest for now.
I've also "ego-surfed" (a new term to me) using my given name.
I've also heard it called a "vanity search".
Oh come on. Like there aren't mothers surfing for pr0n too. Puh-leeze...
I beg to differ. The president most assuredly is guilty of high crimes, and the Congressmen that pass a bill to grant immunity to the president for violating his oath of office have themselves violated the Constitution and therefore their oaths of office by way of primary action and complicity. They will have raised the president above the law, assumed themselves above the law by granting such, and by doing so will have betrayed the American government and the people from which it derives its powers. That, sir, is treason.
It took over 200 years, but the Tories may be about to finally win the war...
Out of curiosity, if you're not for either one, who are you most against?
Because the web, like he said, is stateless.
The web is a transport, not the application itself. Stateless is implied in the transport. The disconnect between the View and the Controller should be a stateless one; I can't imagine why you'd want it otherwise.
As for compiling and constructing, I beg to differ. I've always done my MVC using J2EE (Struts, Hibernate, etc., running inside Tomcat) and stateful web applications are what I assume I'm going to be making. There's one compile, when I compile the Java. Construction occurs as I use classes. I can cache high-use objects in session. With today's languages, tools, and iron, performance becomes a matter of hardware so long as the software is optimized enough.
I'm just not seeing the "piss poor" problems you're seeing.
"The decoupling of presentation from logic is one of the best paradigms you can use for any application."
Agreed. 100%.
Me too, but the web is *not* innately MVC. It's innately a scripted view, and that's it. The model and controller don't exist unless implemented, and I guarantee you that with just a little Javascript and some Java classes, I can either implement a slick MVC architecture or avoid MVC almost entirely.
I still haven't seen an informative argument on what's wrong with Rails in this thread. I have, on the other hand, heard from several different developers that Rails tends to tie the hands of the developer, that it's not applicable to complex problem domains.
The Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Oh, well, that clears things right up. So, from my perspective, and contingently responding as well to another post higher up:
UK law sucks.
US First Amendment rocks.
There, fixed that for you.
Okay, seriously, unless I say something that is directly threatening, incites violence, causes a panic in a dangerous context, or is libelous or slanderous, I can say pretty much whatever I want. And if a picture isn't deemed obscene or prurient, threatening, etc., I can display whatever graphic I want. I can call the president godawful names (and often do). I could print those insults on a billboard next to a busy highway (oh, wouldn't I love to) and I can accompany it with interesting graphics (let your imagination run amok).
And I can call the "church" of Scientology a cult to my heart's desire, and they can't do one damned thing about it. In fact, I think I'll go pay for an ad in my local paper saying exactly that. Full page. I'll get it printed on tee shirts and sell them on eBay.
Cults like Scientology have too much power and protections as it is. With all due respect, why can't the UK parliament pass laws allowing people to express their opinions about such things publicly?
I remember interviewing at Shared Medical Systems, which was the Microsoft of healthcare software at the time back in 1988, and being a bit surprised that their software was written in VAX Basic. It wasn't until I got into the code that I realized just what could be accomplished using Basic and system calls. You could generate reasonably efficient, commercial grade software running on VAX VMS.
More so than the 2004 election in which news reports circulated of George Bush ordering Constitution-violating wiretaps, Bush's administration lying to Congress about the case for war in Iraq, and the GOP "swift boating" John Kerry? More than when a man that sells our natural resources to the highest bidder was touting his environmental record? More than when a man that claimed to be waging a war on terror left the head terrorist running around the border of Pakistan and turned our forces instead against a sovereign nation that did not threaten us in the least? More than when a man who joined the Air National Guard and then didn't show up for duty in order to avoid Viet Nam slandered a decorated war hero?
And yet that poor excuse for a man "won" re-election?
No way.
Dude, I lost my faith in politics in 2004. What few tatters of faith I managed to gather about me in 2006 were burnt to ashes when Nancy Pelosi announced that impeachment was "off the table." The only faith I have now is in knowing with certainty that Obama is the most inspirational leader to run for president in my lifetime, in knowing that, if America got smart just once and put him into office this country might stand a chance of regaining its power, its dignity, its international standing, and its moral imperative. I have faith that if Obama gets the presidency, he will turn this nation around 180 degrees. I have faith that he will really fight terrorism using whatever means are available to him without murdering innocent people, by proxy, based on lies. I have faith that he will turn the economy around, restore funding to our schools, and make serious inroads to correcting the financial slide of Social Security, Medicaid, and other social net programs. I have faith that he will finally put to rest the notion that only a rich white man can gain the highest office in the country.
But I have no faith that any of this will actually come to pass. I'll believe it when I see him take the oath of office. Then, and only then, will I finally regain my faith in politics.
to you the war was unnecessary. to some it was and is important. question for thought.. what was the last terrorist activity that actually completed in the continental US? keeps the focus over there, as well as numerous other reasons.
You idiot. There were no WMDs. In the 65,000 documents the CIA had on Iraq prior to the invasion and in the 600,000+ documents confiscated from Iraqi government office after the invasion, there was not one single connection between Iraqi and Al Qaeda. We stopped chasing Osama bin Laden and invaded a sovereign nation for no good damned reason, leading to the unjustified deaths of nearly 4000 soldiers and over 650,000 Iraqis. Several terrorist attacks have been stopped worldwide using the police, not armies. Al Qaeda couldn't care less about Iraq except as a staging and training area. They have no borders. If, as it seems, you're implying that using our Army as a decoys, putting our soldiers in harm's way to draw fire, is a valid use of our military forces, then you sir are a jackass.
The war against Iraq was based on lies. Get over it. You voted for Bush and he used you. If you feel bad, take a nap, but don't continue to foist your ignorance on others.
Try a dose of reality: views.tgrigsby.com.