Actually the real full name of bangkok is Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Yuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Phiman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit
Why? What do you gain by not letting someone enter a numeral as part of a name?
Need some names to be case sensitive, and others case insensitive? Sucks to be you.
This is more reasonable, since it would take some effort to accommodate (How do you determine which names are case sensitive? A flag just for that purpose? Ick.)
Have a 200 character name that doesn't fit in the 100 characters the designers thought no crazy person would ever have? Tough.
Dynamic memory allocation should be used as a matter of course for any strings whose sizes do not have a preset limit. In SQL, it should be ntext; though I dislike hard-coded limits on principle, one billion characters should be enough for anybody.
But assuming the worst and trying to design a system that'll allow people's names to be Chinese characters when you don't do business in China, have presence in China, or ever ever plan to? That's ridiculous,
Because that means you'll never do business with Chinese people. Ever. Or Japanese. Or Bulgarian. Or Russian. Or Arabic. Or... Proper Unicode handling is not that difficult and should be standard routine whenever your program handles strings. It enables your program to handle not just Chinese but *any* non-English character set. And you should NOT be assuming your program will handle only the English alphabet. See this.
People do weird things some times. Why did Nixon commit felonies in the 1972 race against McGovern (and thereby destroy his Presidency) when it was obvious to almost everyone that McGovern had no chance of winning anyways?
The problem I see with this being some kind of fraud - is what kind of idiot would choose, as their puppet, this person.
The kind of "idiot" who wants a Democratic candidate that's sure to lose. The people who are alleging fraud are claiming that this is a scheme to ensure that the Republican incumbent is re-elected.
To a large extent that's true, and why IBM didn't bother to protect their source code. It's significant that IBM started locking up their source code when Amdahl successfully braved the legal challenges to launch the first IBM mainframe clone in 1975. However, when the source code was free, the IBM user community bore a great resemblance to today's open source scene, with lots of patches and utilities written and improved by users, who traded them freely.
No. I'm saying that Enterprise level features like AD do.
AD? You mean Microsoft's bastardized version of LDAP that they mutilated enough to prevent it from interfacing well with anything non-Microsoft? Use OpenLDAP and discover what it's like to use a true standard.
Am I the first to say that dumbing down low level config is a bad idea?
Almost as bad an idea as the layers of complexity added that will dramatically increase the chance of a crippling bug. Which, in low level config, just might completely brick your computer.
In fact, tidal stresses will have reduced you to a fine red paste considerably before you even reach the event horizon. Cf Larry Niven's "Neutron Star"; while Niven's hero actually deals with a neutron star (as the story title implies) rather than a black hole, the same deal would exist with a black hole, only several orders of magnitude worse.
They increase in mass, yes but does their size increase?
The only meaningful answer to measuring the size of a black hole is the radius of its event horizon, which depends solely on its mass, growing larger as the black hole's mass increases.
No. Slavery is one of the most morally repugnant things I can think of. If it were made legal, I would support almost any measures to eradicate it. But the ultimate answer would remain to make illegal by re-amending the Constitution to make it illegal again, not to pretend it had been made illegal when it had not been. I am not in favor of completely eliminating the Federal government, just in favor of scaling it back. It seems to me that scaling it back to the powers actually legally granted it by the Constitution would be just about right.
the idea that the government created the greed in the hearts of bankers is obviously false, but it is more disturbing that so many people like yourself think that the banks needed government encouragements to act greedily
No, we simply don't believe that it was greedy bank behavior that cause the meltdown. It was government-provided immunity. Nobody had to care about the credit quality of mortgages--they were Fannie Mae insured!
you really believe that? you really believe a marketplace without regulation functions better?
I believe government regulations against fraud and mandating full disclosure are necessary. Attempting to choose what is good for us ranges from bad to disastrous, often because the regulators become pawns of the regulated.
You can make a very good case the meritocracies tend to turn into aristocracies; I think it's probably true. But that doesn't mean that meritocracy and aristocracy mean the same thing.
the problem with the "destroy government" crowd is that we need strong regulations for something like the economy to work. since 1994 when the republicans took over congress, we have systematically taken away governmental regulatory powers over the economy and wall street. the result is the financial meltdown in 2008.
Try again. The financial meltdown of 2008 was caused by the subprime mortgage disaster, which was directly *encouraged* by the Federal government through Fanny Mae and the "community reinvestment" requirements. If the Federal government had stayed out of it, it wouldn't have happened. Did you know that Fannie Mae got more Federal dollars in bailout costs than any bank, by far, and is currently demanding yet another large bailout tranch? Probably not; it's not a fact most people who are spinning this story want you to know. Democrats in Congress are in fact insisting that Fannie Mae must stay in business, to "protect the American homeowner."
So you'd be okay if the south brought back slavery?
No, because slavery is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. That's what we're talking about. The Federal government should be restricted to what is actually written in the Constitution. You really, really need something that's not in the Constitution? Amend it. That's what we did about slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? What do you gain by not letting someone enter a numeral as part of a name?
This is more reasonable, since it would take some effort to accommodate (How do you determine which names are case sensitive? A flag just for that purpose? Ick.)
Dynamic memory allocation should be used as a matter of course for any strings whose sizes do not have a preset limit. In SQL, it should be ntext; though I dislike hard-coded limits on principle, one billion characters should be enough for anybody.
Because that means you'll never do business with Chinese people. Ever. Or Japanese. Or Bulgarian. Or Russian. Or Arabic. Or... Proper Unicode handling is not that difficult and should be standard routine whenever your program handles strings. It enables your program to handle not just Chinese but *any* non-English character set. And you should NOT be assuming your program will handle only the English alphabet. See this.
I think that one over there is a boson's mate.
They're powered by the sun *and* destroy mutants!
People do weird things some times. Why did Nixon commit felonies in the 1972 race against McGovern (and thereby destroy his Presidency) when it was obvious to almost everyone that McGovern had no chance of winning anyways?
The kind of "idiot" who wants a Democratic candidate that's sure to lose. The people who are alleging fraud are claiming that this is a scheme to ensure that the Republican incumbent is re-elected.
Not that the US government pays property tax to DC on anything it owns, of course.
Go go Gadget Police State!
To a large extent that's true, and why IBM didn't bother to protect their source code. It's significant that IBM started locking up their source code when Amdahl successfully braved the legal challenges to launch the first IBM mainframe clone in 1975. However, when the source code was free, the IBM user community bore a great resemblance to today's open source scene, with lots of patches and utilities written and improved by users, who traded them freely.
Actually, IBM pretty much did. It wasn't until the late 1970s that they started copyrighting their code and restricting distribution of the source.
AD? You mean Microsoft's bastardized version of LDAP that they mutilated enough to prevent it from interfacing well with anything non-Microsoft? Use OpenLDAP and discover what it's like to use a true standard.
Almost as bad an idea as the layers of complexity added that will dramatically increase the chance of a crippling bug. Which, in low level config, just might completely brick your computer.
"Charging up!"
Now we know what power source the Tesla Troopers used.
In fact, tidal stresses will have reduced you to a fine red paste considerably before you even reach the event horizon. Cf Larry Niven's "Neutron Star"; while Niven's hero actually deals with a neutron star (as the story title implies) rather than a black hole, the same deal would exist with a black hole, only several orders of magnitude worse.
The only meaningful answer to measuring the size of a black hole is the radius of its event horizon, which depends solely on its mass, growing larger as the black hole's mass increases.
On the contrary, it seems to me to be very appropriate. Who else would want to use AOL?
I do. And so does anybody else who needs their Windows box to accept outside connections.
No. Slavery is one of the most morally repugnant things I can think of. If it were made legal, I would support almost any measures to eradicate it. But the ultimate answer would remain to make illegal by re-amending the Constitution to make it illegal again, not to pretend it had been made illegal when it had not been. I am not in favor of completely eliminating the Federal government, just in favor of scaling it back. It seems to me that scaling it back to the powers actually legally granted it by the Constitution would be just about right.
No, we simply don't believe that it was greedy bank behavior that cause the meltdown. It was government-provided immunity. Nobody had to care about the credit quality of mortgages--they were Fannie Mae insured!
I believe government regulations against fraud and mandating full disclosure are necessary. Attempting to choose what is good for us ranges from bad to disastrous, often because the regulators become pawns of the regulated.
You can make a very good case the meritocracies tend to turn into aristocracies; I think it's probably true. But that doesn't mean that meritocracy and aristocracy mean the same thing.
Try again. The financial meltdown of 2008 was caused by the subprime mortgage disaster, which was directly *encouraged* by the Federal government through Fanny Mae and the "community reinvestment" requirements. If the Federal government had stayed out of it, it wouldn't have happened. Did you know that Fannie Mae got more Federal dollars in bailout costs than any bank, by far, and is currently demanding yet another large bailout tranch? Probably not; it's not a fact most people who are spinning this story want you to know. Democrats in Congress are in fact insisting that Fannie Mae must stay in business, to "protect the American homeowner."
No, because slavery is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. That's what we're talking about. The Federal government should be restricted to what is actually written in the Constitution. You really, really need something that's not in the Constitution? Amend it. That's what we did about slavery.
Because it's always a good idea to restrict booze sales to be only to people who are driving!
No, aristocracy is rule by a hereditary caste. The word you're looking for is "meritocracy".
Which I, personally, hate to pieces.