You know, that new default is not really an improvement. The behavior every other database has in the same situation: generate an error and roll back your transaction.
You can set SQL modes, such as STRICT_ALL_TABLES, that will cause MySQL to reject invalid data instead of truncating it.
Did you read through the docs you linked? Using STRICT_ALL_TABLES will cause MySQL to reject some invalid data, but will let other data get through. From your link:
Strict mode disallows invalid date values such as '2004-04-31'. It does not disallow dates with zero parts such as '2004-04-00' or "zero" dates. To disallow these as well, enable the NO_ZERO_IN_DATE and NO_ZERO_DATE SQL modes in addition to strict mode.
More generally, the tangle of interacting configs needed to make MySQL behave in a still only approximately sane way gives the lie to the myth about it being so easy to set up and use.
So before we even get into the answer, lets beat up on how crappy the question is.
Not quite. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion, it can happen that you can't possibly know whether the question is "crappy" until you ask it and work through the answers you get. Faced with a technical term that you do not understand, but which, in fact, is irrelevant, you must first come understand the term to some degree before you can tell it is in fact irrelevant.
So called "nerds" can be pretty bad at picking up when somebody is playing dumb. Especially since they commonly believe that they're oh so much smarter than the non-nerds they talk with, which means that, of course, if the non-nerd says they don't know X, it's because they're too stupid to know. Because of this, it's trivially easy to troll nerds.
I'll say something more: I suspect the right conclusion that the judge should reach in this case is that the precise meaning of the term "web site" is probably irrelevant to deciding the case. What will really matter is which parties have what kind of control over the content that gets displayed to users over the internet, and what rights or obligations various forms of such control entails.
But, if you don't know what the term "web site" means in the first place, you can't reach that conclusion until you understand how the parties to the case are using it. And to do that, you need to ask very fundamental questions of them.
Will any precise definition of the word "web site" actually help to decide the merits of this case? I suspect the best conclusion that the judge could reach is that the really important questions are which parties have control over which individual pieces of content, and what responsibilities does such control entail.
That is, I think that the correct conclusion that the judge hopefully will arrive, by questioning people about the term "web site," is that despite the fact that the parties to the case use it in their filings, it is in fact irrelevant to the case. But before you can figure out that the term "web site" is irrelevant, you have to understand it better.
Nearly every reply I see here falls into one of two categories:
"Wow, what a stupid judge! He doesn't know what a website is, like we teh smaert peoples do!!!"
"No, the guy is wise to admit his limitation, and ask us, the smaert peoples who know what a website is, to tell him."
The tacit assumption is that it's perfectly clear what a "web site" is.
Now, of course, I'm going to call that assumption into question. What is a web site? How do you tell where one web site ends, and where another starts? Is Geocities a web site? Is it rather a collection of web sites? Is it both, simultaneously? How does this decision interact with other legal reasoning that may be relevant to the case? What criteria ought to be applied in the kind of case he's handling?
The judge's supposed "admission" of "ignorance" could, for all that we know from TFA, not be because the judge has no concept of what a website is; it could be because his concept of what a website is is good enough for using, um, web sites, but not good enough for deciding this particular case.
You assume that we can attribute a focused, clear "intent" to the writers of a law in the aggregate, despite the fact that laws are in practice compromises between many interests. You seem to further imply that we should regard the "intent" of a law as a factor that ought to determine its interpretation.
Both of these assumptions are questionable. Laws are texts negotiated and written by the power brokers of a place and time, and then interpreted and reinterpreted by people in many other places and times, using spatially and temporally local standards that are constantly negotiated and renegotiated by the power brokers of the place and time. The law without this social use is just a dead letter.
Your contention that the amendment has a clear intent that we should respect is a strategy in this game, not some truth about the law itself. Of course, the strategy works by presenting itself as a truth about the law itself.
If the MP3s are coming straight from the record label, maybe they could be encoded straight from the master mix, rather than a down-sampled 24-bit, 44.1kHz CD. My understanding is that CDs go up to 20 kHz (which is pretty close to the highest pitch humans can hear), but that the bit-depth is somewhat course at that range.
Is there an audio engineer around who can explain if there's much to be gained this way?
I suspect you're asking the wrong question of the wrong people. What you want to know is whether we can produce a better sounding lossy-compressed file by using a digital source with better quality. That question is really a question about whether the psychoacoustic models used in lossy audio encoding can make use of the extra information in a source file with more than 44.1/16 to produce a better-sounding compressed file at that rate and bit depth.
That doesn't sound like a question for an audio engineer, it sounds like a question for somebody who works with psychoacoustic models.
The problem is that your "taking responsibility for your self-defense" is riddled with wishful thinking:
You assume that intruders or attackers will decide to act without first securing a decisive advantage, like surprise, firepower or numbers.
You assume that you will correctly judge the situation when you conclude there is an intruder, and that you will judge it so soon enough to act on it.
You assume that the fact that you're committed to using your weapon responsibly won't put you at a disadvantage against somebody who isn't.
You assume that your attempt to defend yourself and your family with a gun won't put you all in even more danger.
You assume that you're going to be there at all. You stress that robbers make sure the police isn't nearby when they commit a crime; well, guess what, they also like to make sure you are not there when they do so.
Yes, getting robbed by attackers at your own house while you're there is nasty and scary; I've had it happen to me. But I find that people who think they're going to come out ahead if thery have a gun and use it to defend themselves are living out a fantasy that makes them feel safer, when it is not at all clear that it does.
Do you really think they have a way of taking written text and figuring out its syntax automatically? And an uncontroversial model of how syntax and prosody interact?
Maybe I'm bucking the trend so far, but I found the reformatted versions harder to read than normal text. You're right about their bad comparison - but comparing their "poetic" formatting against normal text on a webpage (not their example) makes me think that ther technique makes it harder to read.
The fact that you associate the way it's formatted with a completely different kind of written genre (poetry) is a potential confounding factor here. It's possible that your difficulty reading this text (which I share) is just due to unfamiliarity.
Of course, we should all keep in mind that the folks showing us this are trying to sell it to us.
The spectrum of legislation runs between the following extremes:
There is a crime of "rape," defined (roughly) as a man using force, the threat thereof, or deception, to have penetrative sex with a woman of good morals that is not his. (Yes, this implies that a wife can't bring charges against his husband of rape; and of course, promiscuous women don't have good morals...)
There is a crime of "sexual assault," defined as rape traditionally was defined, but eliminating the obectionable pieces thereof (the man vs. woman assumption, the wife and "good morals" defenses, the requirement of penetration by the penis)
The distinction you're reporting between "rape" and "sexual assault" in some jurisdictions is simply a jurisdiction that, for whatever political reasons, has not fully switched from (1) to (2). If you look through the responses to this post, you'll find other examples: e.g., apparently in Indiana, man can't "rape" another man (which presumably means that the actions in question would be prosecuted under a different charge, either sodomy or sexual assault).
If you live in one of these jurisdictions, really, you should ask your legislators to stop making silly distinctions and just toss out the "rape" laws, frankly.
Yeah, for some value of "fixed" which entails that the legislatures can change the "fixed" definition. This only reinforces GP's point: the meaning of a word lies in its use, and the law tries to specify how to the word is going to be used in criminal procedures.
For the record: criminal codes, over the last 3 decades of the 20th century, moved roughly from defining a crime of "rape" as a man having forcible sex with a woman not his own with force or the threat thereof, into defining a crime of "sexual assault" that purged out the elements of (a) a man doing it to a woman, (b) the idea in the older formulations that a man cannot by definition rape his own wife. Indiana's language with "opposite sex" indicates that they've moved in this direction, but not completely.
Because of the rest of the description wherein he believed that other people downloading movies somewhere were clogging the pipes and kept his "internet" (email) from arriving on time.
But this is not a problem with the metaphor itself; it's a problem with his argument, which abused the metaphor in a subtle, technical way he did not understand. The thing GP is getting at is that the guy's abuse of the metaphor is being spun as a choice of an intrinsically bad metaphor.
If some of the people using a tube for sending stuff increase the volume that they send through it, the level of service will decrease for other users; the capacity of the tube is finite. The guy's error is on the details of how the service deteriorates. In the case of a water utility, presumably, too many users means that you either get a decrease in pressure for each user on average, or you run out of water supply quickly (which of course, itself leads to a water pressure of 0). In the case of the internet, more traffic means a decrease in the bandwidth or latency that individual users get on average. He clearly doesn't understand those concepts, and he clearly doesn't understand that their impact on email delivery speed is very small compared to the scale he put it at.
The Nokia phone post-processes the image to boost contrast and saturation a lot more than the DSLR does in its default settings.
This only proves two things.
on
Beginning Ruby
·
· Score: 1
You are good at making up contrived examples that people will either (a) face infrequently, or (b) face only if they work on some particular problem area, but are irrelevant in others.
You either work in a problem area where you've had to learn these tricks of the trade because you keep running into them, or you're one of those damnable creatures: the premature optimizer.
That is an indicative plural. Subjunctives are ungrammatical in that context; people don't say things like *How long until he act stupid? (I'm using the '*' to indicate ungrammaticality, as is conventional in linguistics.)
Nouns like company or committee are called "collective nouns" in many grammars. Since they denote collections of entities, it is very common for them to trigger either singular or plural agreement (which is, furthermore, subject to significant dialectal variation).
Depending on the content of the sentence, however, sometimes the plural agreement is impossible: The committee was/*were dissolved. In this sentence, the predication can only be (easily) construed as being about the committee itself, as opposed to its members.
And there's some truth behind what Dr. Phil said. A violent person when exposed to violent media will tend to act...wait for it...more violently! Wow, what a novel concept. [...] If you are a violent, aggressive person and spend all your time listening to, watching, and playing violent entertainment, you are encouraging yourself to become more violent.
You frame your statements so as to imply that people's propensities to violence are independent of the violent media they are exposed to. I.e., the way you put it, a person who was already violent before they were exposed to violent media will afterwards act more violently.
This simply begs the question, because it assumes that the violent media in question played no role in making this person violent.
All discussion of weapon furniture is completely irrelevant to the principle at hand, which is enshrined in the Second Amendment.
Well, if it's irrelevant, don't distract us with rants about the furniture of guns. Don't tell us how the AWB banned guns that supposedly just look "scary." Don't point out that the AWB didn't ban some guns with the same receivers as some banned guns, with the insinuation that the furniture of a gun is irrelevant to its intended use.
BTW, according to the constitution, it's the courts interpret the laws, not you. You're certainly entitled to promote your views of how the second amendment should be interpreted, but what it actually "means," for better or worse, is what the courts determine it does. You can make claims about what the it "means" until you're blue in the face; the law is still the law (again, for better or worse).
Slashdot Mirror
You know, that new default is not really an improvement. The behavior every other database has in the same situation: generate an error and roll back your transaction.
Did you read through the docs you linked? Using STRICT_ALL_TABLES will cause MySQL to reject some invalid data, but will let other data get through. From your link:
More generally, the tangle of interacting configs needed to make MySQL behave in a still only approximately sane way gives the lie to the myth about it being so easy to set up and use.
Not quite. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion, it can happen that you can't possibly know whether the question is "crappy" until you ask it and work through the answers you get. Faced with a technical term that you do not understand, but which, in fact, is irrelevant, you must first come understand the term to some degree before you can tell it is in fact irrelevant.
Yeah, I'm with you.
I'll say something more: I suspect the right conclusion that the judge should reach in this case is that the precise meaning of the term "web site" is probably irrelevant to deciding the case. What will really matter is which parties have what kind of control over the content that gets displayed to users over the internet, and what rights or obligations various forms of such control entails.
But, if you don't know what the term "web site" means in the first place, you can't reach that conclusion until you understand how the parties to the case are using it. And to do that, you need to ask very fundamental questions of them.
Will any precise definition of the word "web site" actually help to decide the merits of this case? I suspect the best conclusion that the judge could reach is that the really important questions are which parties have control over which individual pieces of content, and what responsibilities does such control entail.
That is, I think that the correct conclusion that the judge hopefully will arrive, by questioning people about the term "web site," is that despite the fact that the parties to the case use it in their filings, it is in fact irrelevant to the case. But before you can figure out that the term "web site" is irrelevant, you have to understand it better.
Nearly every reply I see here falls into one of two categories:
- "Wow, what a stupid judge! He doesn't know what a website is, like we teh smaert peoples do!!!"
- "No, the guy is wise to admit his limitation, and ask us, the smaert peoples who know what a website is, to tell him."
The tacit assumption is that it's perfectly clear what a "web site" is.Now, of course, I'm going to call that assumption into question. What is a web site? How do you tell where one web site ends, and where another starts? Is Geocities a web site? Is it rather a collection of web sites? Is it both, simultaneously? How does this decision interact with other legal reasoning that may be relevant to the case? What criteria ought to be applied in the kind of case he's handling?
The judge's supposed "admission" of "ignorance" could, for all that we know from TFA, not be because the judge has no concept of what a website is; it could be because his concept of what a website is is good enough for using, um, web sites, but not good enough for deciding this particular case.
You assume that we can attribute a focused, clear "intent" to the writers of a law in the aggregate, despite the fact that laws are in practice compromises between many interests. You seem to further imply that we should regard the "intent" of a law as a factor that ought to determine its interpretation.
Both of these assumptions are questionable. Laws are texts negotiated and written by the power brokers of a place and time, and then interpreted and reinterpreted by people in many other places and times, using spatially and temporally local standards that are constantly negotiated and renegotiated by the power brokers of the place and time. The law without this social use is just a dead letter.
Your contention that the amendment has a clear intent that we should respect is a strategy in this game, not some truth about the law itself. Of course, the strategy works by presenting itself as a truth about the law itself.
I suspect you're asking the wrong question of the wrong people. What you want to know is whether we can produce a better sounding lossy-compressed file by using a digital source with better quality. That question is really a question about whether the psychoacoustic models used in lossy audio encoding can make use of the extra information in a source file with more than 44.1/16 to produce a better-sounding compressed file at that rate and bit depth.
That doesn't sound like a question for an audio engineer, it sounds like a question for somebody who works with psychoacoustic models.
Your expectation is that more cooks will help the broth. It's only because of that expectation that you're confused.
Same in the California Bay Area. At least in San Mateo Country.
Yes, getting robbed by attackers at your own house while you're there is nasty and scary; I've had it happen to me. But I find that people who think they're going to come out ahead if thery have a gun and use it to defend themselves are living out a fantasy that makes them feel safer, when it is not at all clear that it does.
Do you really think they have a way of taking written text and figuring out its syntax automatically? And an uncontroversial model of how syntax and prosody interact?
The fact that you associate the way it's formatted with a completely different kind of written genre (poetry) is a potential confounding factor here. It's possible that your difficulty reading this text (which I share) is just due to unfamiliarity.
Of course, we should all keep in mind that the folks showing us this are trying to sell it to us.
The warm fuzzy feeling you get from a study whose results you do like.
- There is a crime of "rape," defined (roughly) as a man using force, the threat thereof, or deception, to have penetrative sex with a woman of good morals that is not his. (Yes, this implies that a wife can't bring charges against his husband of rape; and of course, promiscuous women don't have good morals...)
- There is a crime of "sexual assault," defined as rape traditionally was defined, but eliminating the obectionable pieces thereof (the man vs. woman assumption, the wife and "good morals" defenses, the requirement of penetration by the penis)
The distinction you're reporting between "rape" and "sexual assault" in some jurisdictions is simply a jurisdiction that, for whatever political reasons, has not fully switched from (1) to (2). If you look through the responses to this post, you'll find other examples: e.g., apparently in Indiana, man can't "rape" another man (which presumably means that the actions in question would be prosecuted under a different charge, either sodomy or sexual assault).If you live in one of these jurisdictions, really, you should ask your legislators to stop making silly distinctions and just toss out the "rape" laws, frankly.
Is sodomy a crime in Indiana?
Yeah, for some value of "fixed" which entails that the legislatures can change the "fixed" definition. This only reinforces GP's point: the meaning of a word lies in its use, and the law tries to specify how to the word is going to be used in criminal procedures.
For the record: criminal codes, over the last 3 decades of the 20th century, moved roughly from defining a crime of "rape" as a man having forcible sex with a woman not his own with force or the threat thereof, into defining a crime of "sexual assault" that purged out the elements of (a) a man doing it to a woman, (b) the idea in the older formulations that a man cannot by definition rape his own wife. Indiana's language with "opposite sex" indicates that they've moved in this direction, but not completely.
But this is not a problem with the metaphor itself; it's a problem with his argument, which abused the metaphor in a subtle, technical way he did not understand. The thing GP is getting at is that the guy's abuse of the metaphor is being spun as a choice of an intrinsically bad metaphor.
If some of the people using a tube for sending stuff increase the volume that they send through it, the level of service will decrease for other users; the capacity of the tube is finite. The guy's error is on the details of how the service deteriorates. In the case of a water utility, presumably, too many users means that you either get a decrease in pressure for each user on average, or you run out of water supply quickly (which of course, itself leads to a water pressure of 0). In the case of the internet, more traffic means a decrease in the bandwidth or latency that individual users get on average. He clearly doesn't understand those concepts, and he clearly doesn't understand that their impact on email delivery speed is very small compared to the scale he put it at.
The Nokia phone post-processes the image to boost contrast and saturation a lot more than the DSLR does in its default settings.
That is an indicative plural. Subjunctives are ungrammatical in that context; people don't say things like *How long until he act stupid? (I'm using the '*' to indicate ungrammaticality, as is conventional in linguistics.)
Nouns like company or committee are called "collective nouns" in many grammars. Since they denote collections of entities, it is very common for them to trigger either singular or plural agreement (which is, furthermore, subject to significant dialectal variation).
Depending on the content of the sentence, however, sometimes the plural agreement is impossible: The committee was/*were dissolved. In this sentence, the predication can only be (easily) construed as being about the committee itself, as opposed to its members.
This is precisely the point of contention, so you beg the question when you baldly assert it.
You frame your statements so as to imply that people's propensities to violence are independent of the violent media they are exposed to. I.e., the way you put it, a person who was already violent before they were exposed to violent media will afterwards act more violently.
This simply begs the question, because it assumes that the violent media in question played no role in making this person violent.
Well, if it's irrelevant, don't distract us with rants about the furniture of guns. Don't tell us how the AWB banned guns that supposedly just look "scary." Don't point out that the AWB didn't ban some guns with the same receivers as some banned guns, with the insinuation that the furniture of a gun is irrelevant to its intended use.
BTW, according to the constitution, it's the courts interpret the laws, not you. You're certainly entitled to promote your views of how the second amendment should be interpreted, but what it actually "means," for better or worse, is what the courts determine it does. You can make claims about what the it "means" until you're blue in the face; the law is still the law (again, for better or worse).