Indium and gallium containing raw materials exist abundantly worldwide. The metals industry has been investing in process improvements and capacity over the last few years to bring more indium and gallium to the market. This industry can and will continue to do so if the demand is there. As described, price volatility and short-term availability will continue intermittently due to numerous factors including the time lag required to install additional capacity, government regulation, and the lack of information suppliers receive about future demand. Overall, we anticipate adequate indium and gallium supply and continued price affordability for current and new applications.
Accept that wild-fires seem to be happening all the time and storms which use to happen only once every 10 or so years now happen every few years.
I have a mate who performs hydrological computer modelling for my local water company. Flooding in any one area is usually categorised as due to storms of a severity occuring either "once in few years", "once in 10 years", "once in 20 years" etc.
That's more the result of questionable land management practices than anything else. We keep trying the control the environment completely (no brush fires, no floods, etc.) and we always end up with unintended consequences.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against Man changing the environment to meet his needs; I'm just saying that Man needs to accept that sometimes sh*t happens, and deal with it.
The most inconvenient truth is that the earth temperature changes.
It appears that it has been both much warmer and much colder at different times in the past.
This time we're getting warmer, some people want to blame, some people want to do something.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this expected behaviour is really a problem. Sure we might be causing it this time, but it was probaly gonna do this anyway.
Yea verily!
I acknowledge that temperatures are changing. My question is harder: what is really causing the change, and what can we do to affect the system? So far everything I've heard has been of the "I've noticed this set of factors, and I guessing that if we stop doing X, we'll be OK" and I don't trust that. Making recommendations without complete knowledge (or at least more complete than we have today) could cause more problems than we already have.
Lets look at what a 5C temperature change will bring. My limited understanding is it will shift the type of vegetation/wildlife in each area and alter weather patterns. Is this really a problem?
It depends upon your perspective. If you make your living growing a specific crop in a specific location, it could make or break you. If you are worried about the possible extinction of a single species that only lives in a specific environment, you may care a lot. If you are worried about the value (or existance) of your beach-front property, you may be concerned. On the other hand, if you can take a longer view, one that understands that the planetary ecosphere has been evolving continuously for many millions of years, and will continue to do so for many millions of years to come, then it may not bother you quite so much.
I believe that humans have adapted to a lot of different environments over the years, and will continue to do so for many millenia to come, so while there may be some short-term pain, as a species, we'll continue to thrive, even if it does get a little warmer or a little colder.
Bought an HP printer for my wife's parents, checked the docs and bought some HP replacement cartridges to match so that when the initial half-size cartridges ran out, they could just swap in the full-size ones, no problem. Except that one of the cartridges that the flipping documentation says works in the printer, doesn't. $30-40 down the drain to buy a different replacement cartridge.
1. Patent the inks. 2. Patent a process to compare competing inks for patent violations. 3. Patent a process for extracting money from competitors for patent violations. 4. Piss off all of your customers. 5. Profit?
Re:DBA, please. "unique pluggable"?
on
Pro MySQL
·
· Score: 1
I was thinking about sub-queries, which the last time I checked, a significant part of the SQL standard, but not supported by some of the 'general purpose' table types.
Re:DBA, please. "unique pluggable"?
on
Pro MySQL
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I understand why MySQL supports so many different table engines. What I don't understand is why MySQL supports (or doesn't support) different SQL features for each engine. Why should I (as an application developer) need to know whether a table was built using MyISAM or InnoDB when I write MySQL queries? Oracle has a number of different ways to optimize tables and indexes, but all of those optimizations are transparent to the application code and queries (but not to overall application performancen at runtime). I've done application development on a dozen different relational databases over the last 20 years, and MySQL is the only database engine (since DBase, and DBase wasn't really an RDBMS) where the database didn't abstract these differences away from the developer.
To use your filesystem metaphor, all of the filesystem implementations use the same VFS API -- I don't have to recode my application because I'm using ReiserFS today, when I wrote it using ext3.
It all depends upon how you manage development. If you have a task that is going to require a significant ongoing effort (ie: more than a day or so) or that is going to require communication amongst multiple developers, or which will be undergoing lots of change (ie: you're doing research not development) then it makes sense to create a branch to manage the effort, and then merge the results of that effort back into the trunk when it's ready.
Note: I'm not defending automatic check-in, I'm suggesting that there are ways to manage development beyond single branch development, without requiring that every change to the system have its own private branch.
Subversion 1.1 (and later) has the ability to put a symlink under version control, via the usual svn add command.
Details: the Subversion repository has no internal concept of a symlink. It stores a "versioned symlink" as an ordinary file with an 'svn:special' property attached. The svn client (on unix) sees the property and translates the file into a symlink in the working copy. Win32 has no symlinks, so a win32 client won't do any such translation: the object appears as a normal file.
You should also read up on Subversion External Definitions -- it looks as though you misunderstood how they really work.
How long have you been using RTF? I saw my first copy of the RTF spec in 1993, and it was roughly 50 pages (most of it optional) at that point, and there were lots of grey areas then. The fact that you pointed to the "Word 2003: Rich Text Format (RTF) Specification, version 1.8" (now 211 pages) should give you a hint that RTF has been a moving target for a long time now. Another hint, from page 3 of your linked document...
RTF version 1.7 included many new control words introduced specifically for Microsoft Word for Windows 95 version 7.0, Microsoft Word 97 for Windows, Microsoft Word 98 for the Macintosh, Microsoft Word 2000 for Windows, and Microsoft Word 2002 for Windows, as well as other Microsoft products. Version 1.8 includes new command extensions specifically for use with new features available in Microsoft Word 2003.
A data format specification is only useful if the applications that implement it do so correctly. What the parent poster was trying to convey was how little respected the RTF specfication is, both in the FOSS community and by Microsoft. RTF, as a document specification, is almost as useful as CSV is for spreadsheets: it's a guideline, but the devil is in the details, and Microsoft doesn't publish the implementation details for its applications.
I just read the rules, and it talks about the contest being held in a "simulated lunar surface". Where are they planning on simulating 1/6G on Earth? Or are they intending that a craft designed for operating on the lunar surface should also be capable of operating on the Earth's surface too?
Not that I disagree with you, but in all of the US jurisdictions that I'm familiar with, you do not need ID to be a passenger in a car, a taxi, a bus, or a subway. On the other hand, for any commercial modes of transportation that cross state lines (ie: buses, trains, and airplanes), you'll need to show an ID to purchase a ticket. See a pattern here?
In your sig, "One Token Ring to Rule them All, One Search Engine to Find Them, One WAN to bring them in, and TCP/IP Bind them..." that should be "and DNS to Bind them..." since bind is the standard DNS implementation. But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Maybe there is no concrete API which they can document. I have worked on many systems which had so much legacy cruft that it was a miracle they worked at all, such as subroutines being called with different parameter lists which worked because they were only called under the right magical conditions.
No, if Microsoft fully documented their interfaces, they would no longer be free to change their interface behaviors anytime it suits them. (You can choose your own paranoia level as to WHY Microsoft changes their APIs and behaviors seemingly at random.) The EU is not doing Microsoft any favors by requiring documented APIs, nor will it be doing developers any favors by accepting 'licensed source code' as a substitute for documented interfaces. That is why Microsoft has been dragging their heels for years on this, and why Microsoft would prefer to just license the source code -- the next time they want to change their interfaces, all they have to do is re-release the code (sometime after the fact) and they've complied.
What any developer needs to interoperate with another system is a complete, published, supported interface, which is what the EU ordered Microsoft to deliver. Having the source code to the system may help you to debug your implementation, but in this case it comes at a very stiff cost: exposure to Microsoft's intellectual property. Once a developer looks at that source code, they are contaminated -- Microsoft can come back afterwards and accuse them of taking Microsoft's IP and using it without license. (This applies to commercial developers as well as FOSS developers, but the risk is higher for FOSS).
PJ has a much longer explanation of this over on Groklaw.
It's your life, your career, and your responsibility. You're not in grade school anymore, no one can make you do anything, and no one is going to take care of you if you fail to take care of yourself. Sure, it would be nice if your employer paid for training, and rewarded your initiative, but that's not the way the world works.
Example: I once had an employer who would purchase, for its senior employees, one book a month... on the condition that the book belonged to the employer. I worked very hard to get recognized as a senior employee, specifically to get that benefit... and never used it. By that time I realized that those books were the tools of my trade, and that I wanted to own my tools, instead of depending upon the whim of an employer. Instead I bought all of my tech books myself, and when I left the company, all those books went with me. If I had let the company buy the books, I might have read a few more books, but I would have had to re-buy them at the next job... without the subsidy. The company's supposed largess was just another way to tie its employees down.
Children wait for someone else to tell them what to do. Adults recognize that there are consequences to their actions, anticipate the future, and plan accordingly.
Be an adult -- take control of your career, and your life. Identify the skills you need to be worth more to *any* employer, and spend your own time and money to get the training. If your current company doesn't recognize your investment and initiative by jacking up your salary, find another company that will.
Slashdot Mirror
Next time you want to bitch about someone, try doing with a real user id, with a real resume of accomplishments.
Yes we can, because ... "English not only borrows words from other languages, it mugs other languages in dark alleys for their lexical treasure."
That's more the result of questionable land management practices than anything else. We keep trying the control the environment completely (no brush fires, no floods, etc.) and we always end up with unintended consequences.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against Man changing the environment to meet his needs; I'm just saying that Man needs to accept that sometimes sh*t happens, and deal with it.
Yea verily!
I acknowledge that temperatures are changing. My question is harder: what is really causing the change, and what can we do to affect the system? So far everything I've heard has been of the "I've noticed this set of factors, and I guessing that if we stop doing X, we'll be OK" and I don't trust that. Making recommendations without complete knowledge (or at least more complete than we have today) could cause more problems than we already have.
It depends upon your perspective. If you make your living growing a specific crop in a specific location, it could make or break you. If you are worried about the possible extinction of a single species that only lives in a specific environment, you may care a lot. If you are worried about the value (or existance) of your beach-front property, you may be concerned. On the other hand, if you can take a longer view, one that understands that the planetary ecosphere has been evolving continuously for many millions of years, and will continue to do so for many millions of years to come, then it may not bother you quite so much.
I believe that humans have adapted to a lot of different environments over the years, and will continue to do so for many millenia to come, so while there may be some short-term pain, as a species, we'll continue to thrive, even if it does get a little warmer or a little colder.
Bought an HP printer for my wife's parents, checked the docs and bought some HP replacement cartridges to match so that when the initial half-size cartridges ran out, they could just swap in the full-size ones, no problem. Except that one of the cartridges that the flipping documentation says works in the printer, doesn't. $30-40 down the drain to buy a different replacement cartridge.
The bastards probably killed Kenny, too!
1. Patent the inks.
2. Patent a process to compare competing inks for patent violations.
3. Patent a process for extracting money from competitors for patent violations.
4. Piss off all of your customers.
5. Profit?
I was thinking about sub-queries, which the last time I checked, a significant part of the SQL standard, but not supported by some of the 'general purpose' table types.
I understand why MySQL supports so many different table engines. What I don't understand is why MySQL supports (or doesn't support) different SQL features for each engine. Why should I (as an application developer) need to know whether a table was built using MyISAM or InnoDB when I write MySQL queries? Oracle has a number of different ways to optimize tables and indexes, but all of those optimizations are transparent to the application code and queries (but not to overall application performancen at runtime). I've done application development on a dozen different relational databases over the last 20 years, and MySQL is the only database engine (since DBase, and DBase wasn't really an RDBMS) where the database didn't abstract these differences away from the developer.
To use your filesystem metaphor, all of the filesystem implementations use the same VFS API -- I don't have to recode my application because I'm using ReiserFS today, when I wrote it using ext3.
Too late for me ... they removed the "disable auto update" functionality in one of the releases.
My wife's the real PVR user in the house, and with 80 hours of stuff buffered, boy is she going to be pissed.
As thou ask, so shalt thou receive.
It all depends upon how you manage development. If you have a task that is going to require a significant ongoing effort (ie: more than a day or so) or that is going to require communication amongst multiple developers, or which will be undergoing lots of change (ie: you're doing research not development) then it makes sense to create a branch to manage the effort, and then merge the results of that effort back into the trunk when it's ready.
Note: I'm not defending automatic check-in, I'm suggesting that there are ways to manage development beyond single branch development, without requiring that every change to the system have its own private branch.
Subversion FAQ about Symbolic Links:
You should also read up on Subversion External Definitions -- it looks as though you misunderstood how they really work.
A data format specification is only useful if the applications that implement it do so correctly. What the parent poster was trying to convey was how little respected the RTF specfication is, both in the FOSS community and by Microsoft. RTF, as a document specification, is almost as useful as CSV is for spreadsheets: it's a guideline, but the devil is in the details, and Microsoft doesn't publish the implementation details for its applications.
Uh ... Catholics can be geeks, too, you know.
(Not that *I* am, but I have geek friends who are Catholic.)
I just read the rules, and it talks about the contest being held in a "simulated lunar surface". Where are they planning on simulating 1/6G on Earth? Or are they intending that a craft designed for operating on the lunar surface should also be capable of operating on the Earth's surface too?
All it'll say is that the director might be "past their prime". And in his case, that prime would be "2" (only because 1 isn't prime).
It had to be said.
Not that I disagree with you, but in all of the US jurisdictions that I'm familiar with, you do not need ID to be a passenger in a car, a taxi, a bus, or a subway. On the other hand, for any commercial modes of transportation that cross state lines (ie: buses, trains, and airplanes), you'll need to show an ID to purchase a ticket. See a pattern here?
In your sig, "One Token Ring to Rule them All, One Search Engine to Find Them, One WAN to bring them in, and TCP/IP Bind them..." that should be "and DNS to Bind them..." since bind is the standard DNS implementation. But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
No, if Microsoft fully documented their interfaces, they would no longer be free to change their interface behaviors anytime it suits them. (You can choose your own paranoia level as to WHY Microsoft changes their APIs and behaviors seemingly at random.) The EU is not doing Microsoft any favors by requiring documented APIs, nor will it be doing developers any favors by accepting 'licensed source code' as a substitute for documented interfaces. That is why Microsoft has been dragging their heels for years on this, and why Microsoft would prefer to just license the source code -- the next time they want to change their interfaces, all they have to do is re-release the code (sometime after the fact) and they've complied.
What any developer needs to interoperate with another system is a complete, published, supported interface, which is what the EU ordered Microsoft to deliver. Having the source code to the system may help you to debug your implementation, but in this case it comes at a very stiff cost: exposure to Microsoft's intellectual property. Once a developer looks at that source code, they are contaminated -- Microsoft can come back afterwards and accuse them of taking Microsoft's IP and using it without license. (This applies to commercial developers as well as FOSS developers, but the risk is higher for FOSS).
PJ has a much longer explanation of this over on Groklaw.
It's your life, your career, and your responsibility. You're not in grade school anymore, no one can make you do anything, and no one is going to take care of you if you fail to take care of yourself. Sure, it would be nice if your employer paid for training, and rewarded your initiative, but that's not the way the world works.
... on the condition that the book belonged to the employer. I worked very hard to get recognized as a senior employee, specifically to get that benefit ... and never used it. By that time I realized that those books were the tools of my trade, and that I wanted to own my tools, instead of depending upon the whim of an employer. Instead I bought all of my tech books myself, and when I left the company, all those books went with me. If I had let the company buy the books, I might have read a few more books, but I would have had to re-buy them at the next job ... without the subsidy. The company's supposed largess was just another way to tie its employees down.
Example: I once had an employer who would purchase, for its senior employees, one book a month
Children wait for someone else to tell them what to do. Adults recognize that there are consequences to their actions, anticipate the future, and plan accordingly.
Be an adult -- take control of your career, and your life. Identify the skills you need to be worth more to *any* employer, and spend your own time and money to get the training. If your current company doesn't recognize your investment and initiative by jacking up your salary, find another company that will.
Yes, but its a very conservative cult.