If you highlight the DoJ "Spirit of Justice" statue in a redacted PDF, and do a copy and paste into Photoshop, you get the entire statue, breasts and all. They haven't been removed- they've still been in the file all along.
Nasty evil boobies! Now we'll never get into heaven!
I get it now, so when the vote is close, then we care that people get votes. But if it's not so close, then we don't care who's disenfranchised. Got it.
No we always care when voters are disenfranchised. But when the disenfranchisement throws an election we care more.
You also assume that the people voting for bush were just as incompetant as the people voting for gore.
Given the large numbers of people involved, statistically that is a reasonable assumption. I suppose that there's a slight possibility that you're right, that all the people incapable of interpreting the ballot correctly happened to be Gore voters. The possibility of that happening by chance is what, 2^3000 or 2^4000 to one?
I have a competing theory. Voting booth incompetency is unrelated to political affiliation, equal numbers of Bush and Gore voters were misinterpreting the ballot structure, and we did not observe large numbers of disenfranchised Bush voters simply because misinterpreting the ballot didn't get in the way of voting for Bush. The ballot wasn't measuring incompetent Bush voters. That's the null hypothesis. It has the benefit of being simple and it successfully explains why Gore lost so many votes compared to Bush.
Your theory, on the other hand, leaves you with some explaining to do. All Bush voters were on the ball that night and this only happened to Gore voters because that's who all the stupid people were? There wasn't a single stupid Bush voter out there? Come on.
Is it not possible that the bush voters actualy read the damn ballot?
"The Bush voters"? They didn't all act in unison. They entered the voting booth one by one. Some of them read the ballot, some of them didn't. Some Gore voters read the ballot, some didn't. The votes for those four groups went to Bush, Bush, Gore, and Buchanan respectively.
It was pure and simple stupidity on the part of the voter, and failure to vote properly is a failure to vote. No one is to blame but the voter for not reading things clearly. They caused their own vote not to be counted.
I think the voter is to blame but should not get all the blame. Many people dropped the ball here. They wanted to make the print larger and easier for little old ladies to read, and they came up with a bad user interface. The people who approved the ballot from both parties were simply looking for print in large type. These are the same idiots who will approve touch screen voting because of the pretty lights. I hope you aren't intent on blaming the voters when that one turns into a fiasco as well.
Yes, idiots don't get their votes counted if they are confused and too stupid to ask for help. Every voting location must have someone on hand to assist voters who are confused. If they were confused they should have asked for assistance.
Yeah, they should have. Except- -They did not realize they were confused, or they would not have voted for Buchanan and left the booth thinking they just voted for Gore. -You are still missing the point. This is not about what the voters should have done, it is about the ballot introducing a systematic bias in favor of one candidate. Please stop pretending to be stupid. If this had happened to Bush and not Gore, I'm sure you would be able to get your feeble mind around this concept.
As for their algorithm, it's their own damn fault for not reading the ballot instructions. If I go to a voting booth and put cigarete burns through the names of all the candidates except one, my vote doesn't count. The ballot clearly indicates that if you want to vote for gore, you punch the hole that the arrow NEXT TO GORE's NAME points to.
And this is relevant how? Of the people who can't follow directions, all the ones who voted for Bush had their votes count. I have nothing against throwing away the votes of people who can't follow directions, as long as we aren't discriminating by the candidate they voted for. Please stop pretending that Bush voters are magically immune to stupidity. They aren't.
And if this was so confusing, it still doesn't explain why this is the first time in the history of using that ballot inf florida that there was a major problem.
Because most elections do not come down to razor thin margins of hundreds of votes, so usually nobody cares about an error of a few thousand. This was the first time that an error of that small magnitude actually threw a presidential election.
So then if this ballot was so confusing, tell me, why didn't the DNC, who had the liberty to review and request changes to the ballot approve the ballot?
The DNC is not staffed by user interface experts. Surely they, like you, assumed that since they as individuals understood how the ballot worked, that everyone entering the booth would get it also. It probably never occurred to them that anyone would make this mistake.
This was not a confusing ballot, the voters were idiots.
Yes, they were idiots. But this was a confusing ballot. You seem to be implying that it's OK for idiots to not have their votes counted as long as they're voting for Gore. There are idiots in every county, and ballots need to be designed to be idiot proof. I am not arguing that the voters weren't idiots. I'm saying that among the idiot voting bloc the ballot is heavily predisposed to whoever is in the top hole position. That was Bush.
A certain number of people will look at the names on this ballot, see their guy at position N in the left hand list, look for the Nth hole, and punch it. Of the people who applied that algorithm, those that intended to vote for Gore voted for Buchanan. They punched the incorrect hole. Those that intended to vote for Bush voted for Bush. They punched the correct hole by accident and Bush walked off with his fair share of the idiot vote. Pointing out that these people are all idiots misses the point. If Bush and Gore lost similar numbers of votes to the idiocy it wouldn't be an issue, but it is because it affected the outcome for all of us (idiots and non-idiots alike) by throwing the presidency to Bush.
Are you actually suggesting that DOJ was planning this move all along and was just waiting for the right moment ?
Yeah.
Do you fucking even realize that great majority of DOJ decision making personel was hired during Clinton years ?
Oh, gee, that makes it OK. Anyone who was hired to work in the Department of Justice between 1992 and 2000 is a flaming leftist political hack. And poor John Ashcroft is just being pushed around by all these freedom hating lefties who work for him. Oy gevalt.
If most americans had half a brain... we wouldn't be in this situation. Shrub used the "fear card" America gave him after 9/11/01 to rip up parts of our constitution. IANAL, but how codified law can supplant the Law of the Land doesn't make sense to me. Anyone else?
It's a valid question and I hope whoever moderated this "Troll" gets metamodded to hell. Do you guys see "Shrub" and automatically select "Troll" from the dropdown? There is nothing trollish about asking a serious question that needs to be asked. A number of constitutional rights have just been undermined by a statute. WTF?
It doesn't strike anyone as unusual how quickly the PATRIOT Act trotted up to the plate before the hysteria was even over? This was a blatant abuse of the public trust. It had nothing to do with 9/11 (like something else going on right now that I can think of) and was clearly a DoJ wishlist that had been piling up waiting for a moment of national hysteria with a Congress and Senate very politically desirous to be seen "doing something".
This is the moment where we are waking up and finding ourselves in bed with tyranny. Time to ask ourselves what the hell we were thinking!
Wait, remind be again which group of people had a bunch of voters too stupid to properly understand a ballot that had been availible for review for months and had been used in previous elections
The issue was confusion in the user interface between butterfly slots two and three (Gore and Buchanan). Bush, as the lucky occupant of name one and slot one, was unaffected, and lost no votes to the confusion even if ten times as many stupid people favored him as a candidate. In general, stupid people that night were far more likely to have their votes counted correctly if they voted for Bush.
I guess you think voter disenfranchisement is fine and dandy as long as it works in your favor.
The shielding that we've got is pretty thick, but no match for the massive amount of neutrinos and other charged particles that we are bombarded by.
If you line your hat with tinfoil the neutrinos won't be able to get through. I cannot afford to have leptonic emissions interrupting my precious bodily functions, especially when I am doing something important that requires mental acuity like programming emergency controller routines to run in nuclear facilities. So I'd say go with the hat, it's a lifesaver.
Except it doesn't work at nighttime, when the sun is beneath the earth and the little neutral bastards are streaming up at me from the ground. Luckily I hit on the idea of putting a thick layer of tinfoil in my shoe soles and that makes them bounce back into the ground.
Laugh if you want but I have had no problems with neutrinos since I started doing this. I'm thinking of selling neutrino shielding kits on Ebay.
To say that stereochemistry is limited to 2-handedness is a ridiculous oversimplification of reality. If I'm not mistaken, C6-H12-O6 "glucose"; has D-glucose has 4 chiral carbon atoms (2^4 = 16 possible stereoisomers) - I believe only one of which is able to provide calories.
It isn't as neat as that.
In general N chiral carbons means 2^N possible configurations. Half of these are mirror images (enantiomers) of each other. That means there are 2^(N-1) distinct epimers. These are distinct chemicals in their own right. They don't just taste different and rotate light backwards. They have different melting points, solubilities, IR spectra, etc.
So glucose, with its 4 chiral carbons, is a member of a family of eight related epimers. Any two of the 8 will differ from each other in that between 1 to 3 (1 to N-1) carbons have flipped chirality, making them diastereomers of each other- some carbons are flipped, some aren't. And each has a D and an L form.
The 8 epimers of glucose (including glucose itself) have names: allose, altrose, glucose, mannose, gulose, idose, galactose, and talose. Collectively they are referred to as aldohexoses. As far as I know, most are digestible and taste more or less sweet. Gulose is nonfermentable. Galactose is less sweet than glucose but certainly has calories since it's a component of lactose. Finding information on what the rare ones taste like is difficult. They don't appear in many cookbooks and the people who work with them don't seem to be terribly interested in telling us what they taste like.
I DO disagree with EVERY frickin app wanting to park itself in the tray.
I went to a bioinformatics conference a few months ago. These biologists would come up and plug their laptops into the projector so they could do their Powerpoint presentations. And it was amazing. ALL of them had tray icons spanning more than halfway across the screen! I completely stopped paying attention to one guy- it was more interesting to count how many spyware icons I could recognize in his tray. And they kept apologizing to the audience because their laptops were slow!
Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete. Reports and records of all kinds, newspapers, books, pamphlets, films, sound tracks, photographs- all had to be rectified at lightning speed. Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in existence anywhere. The work was overwhelming, all the more so because the processes that it involved could not be called by their true names. Everyone in the Records Department worked eighteen hours in the twenty-four, with two three-hour snatches of sleep. Mattresses were brought up from the cellars and pitched all over the corridors; meals consisted of sandwiches and Victory Coffee wheeled round on trolleys by attendants from the canteen. Each time that Winston broke off for one of his spells of sleep he tried to leave his desk clear of work, and each time that he crawled back sticky-eyed and aching, it was to find that another shower of paper cylinders had covered the desk like a snowdrift, half burying the speakwrite and overflowing onto the floor, so that the first job was always to stack them into a neat-enough pile to give him room to work. What was worst of all was that the work was by no means purely mechanical. Often it was enough merely to substitute one name for another, but any detailed report of events demanded care and imagination. Even the geographical knowledge that one needed in transferring the war from one part of the world to another was considerable.
This was written in 1948. Things have really progressed!
Does it tell you when NOT to use EJB?
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's gotten to the point where people don't think you're doing "J2EE" if they don't see EJBs being used. If you don't need transaction isolation over a distributed system, EJB is overkill.
The infrastructure for those systems are hard to write. The whole point of EJB is to have as much underlying general purpose infrastructure as possible already written for you, so you can plug your ad-hoc business logic on top. This puts development of these systems in the reach of a greater number of developers. But if you can write it yourself, you'll be better off. You'll be in control of more of the code, and won't spend your time messing with tuning parameters and configuration files for someone else's code. One exception is a distributed transactional system where it simply gets to be too much for you to reach your deadline. The other is a system that might be integrated into a larger system like that, that is already based on EJB. (Or the customer might be requesting EJB, maybe for a good reason.)
I sat in on an interview once where we were explaining the architecture of a server product we sell, and the first thing out of the interviewee's mouth was "You don't use EJB? Oh I'm surprised- you should really be using EJB!" That killed the interview right there.
We're going to hear a lot of people calling to make these devices illegal- except in the hands of qualified emergency response personnel. We must resist them. Traffic light control is yet another prime target for deregulation and privatization, and keeping these wonderful devices out of the hands of ordinary citizens restricts our liberty to control intersections that we've paid for with our tax dollars.
Competition and free markets make everything better. They work great for companies, which is a strong indicator that they improve everything else, too- like public schools, the electrical power grid, and traffic lights at intersections. Why should emergency response vehicles receive a government-granted monopoly on the control of traffic lights? This is just old-fashioned, socialist thinking. If I want to turn my light green and yours red, and I'm willing to pay money for the privilege, why shouldn't I get the right of way? I've got more discretionary income, which means my time is probably more important than yours anyway. Government should not be standing on our necks and telling us who can and can't control traffic lights. The "invisible hand" can do a better job of guiding traffic through intersections anyway!
I can hear the socialists whining even now. "But what about the poor ambulance and police cars?" they'll say. They're so addicted to government regulation they don't realize how wonderful things would be if it were every man for himself. Hey, why should the government have a monopoly on ambulance service and law enforcement? My Expedition has plenty of room in the back for a heart attack victim or a criminal. If I'm willing to pay the money I should be able to offer a competing emergency response service as I sail through an endless sea of green lights and yap on my cellphone. To argue otherwise is socialist, and we've learned from the fall of the Soviet Union that socialism doesn't work, people.
OK, so it's a cheap shot at you guys. I can't resist- it's so much fun, and you make it so easy!
OK, point taken- although my point was that the default remote administration mechanisms supplied by the OS are not what AOL is using. They're running their own code to do this.
In fact I think AOL might disable RPC in their next update.
Yeah, but the idea of your ISP fuX0ring your computer isn't so cool. But at the point where you use an OS that *lets* your ISP do that shit, AOL isn't the greater evil.
The OS doesn't "let" AOL shut off the service. It's not like Windows is opening a port that listens for remote configuration requests. (Although I think XP has some stupid features like that, they're probably not turned on by default and in any case that's not the mechanism AOL is using.)
As an AOL user you installed AOL's crap on your computer and signed the EULA. AOL software periodically calls home to the mother ship to ask for updates to itself. AOL decided to send one containing code that shuts off the Messenger service. You ran their executable when you booted Windows, so this is running with your permission and your privileges. (Presumably on a typical home system you are logged in as a user with sufficient privileges for disabling services.)
In theory something like that could be constructed for any operating system. No OS is immune to Trojans.
I was typing an email in LookOut 2003 today and typed a smiley face like ":)". It automatically turned it into a smiley-face character. Oy Gevalt.
I'd say the biggest improvement is that HTML emails don't automatically load images. A little "x" icon appears in place of the image, along with a tiny message "click to view- not loaded to protect your privacy" or something like that. In LookOut 2000, you had to unplug your ethernet cable before reading something that might be spam.
People are so crippled by the more expensive == better heuristic they don't notice when the rug is being pulled out from under them. Electronic voting should be unconstitutional.
Who moderated this statement as "Flamebait"? It's absolutely true and I hope you get metamodded to hell.
Newer does not always equal better. Touch screen voting is not even a solution looking for a problem. It's a problem posing as a solution looking for a problem. It's so absurd. Advances in technology are not automatically a good idea. They should solve more problems than they create.
Is there really a need for computerization here? People who would scoff at the idea of robotic prostitutes will blindly accept the idea of computerized voting simply because it gets computers involved in the election process. Why is this automatically considered a good thing? People see pretty colored lights and they think it means their vote is safe and secure. It doesn't. It merely implies that the votes can be tallied more quickly than before- at the cost of a greater risk of fraud. But elections are held in November. Elected officials take office in January. This gives us two months to count votes, which means we should be optimizing for accuracy, simplicity, reliability, and verifiability. Not convenience. Not speed. Computers should stay the hell away. People perceive this strange need to make elections "modern" to avoid disenfranchising voters, and it makes no sense.
Is it such a hardship to live in a country that counts its votes slowly? What was wrong with punched cards? They actually performed very well in Florida, which was an extreme test of any electoral system- to a resolution of a few hundred votes. Most elections don't fall that close to a tie. And you certainly didn't need to worry that someone stole your vote. Touch screens are devices for disenfranchising voters. The original poster was right. Electronic voting should be unconstitutional.
Some things do not need to be optimized for speed and efficiency above all other concerns. Sex is one of them. Elections are another.
Why is it when I click on your site I get an "unhelpful error message"? ("Alert- www.linux-screws.com could not be found. Please check the name and try again.")
You had a very nice search page there a week or two ago.
Competition and free markets make everything better. They work great for companies, so they must improve electrical power delivery too. Public utilities are an old-fashioned idea and should be abolished to create a free-market long distance energy trading utopia. We will all save money and cash in on our dividends. The same goes for public schools. Kids get smarter when their schools have to compete for them. Deregulation makes food taste better, roads safer, and can increase your penis size by 3 to 6 inches.
The collapse of the Soviet Union just proves that I am right. Anyone who doesn't share my mindless ideological fanaticism for deregulation is by definition a socialist and we all know how that turned out, people!
Slashdot Mirror
As Cat Schwartz knows, Photoshop sometimes leaves extra stuff behind, like your breasts.
If you highlight the DoJ "Spirit of Justice" statue in a redacted PDF, and do a copy and paste into Photoshop, you get the entire statue, breasts and all. They haven't been removed- they've still been in the file all along.
Nasty evil boobies! Now we'll never get into heaven!
First of all sorry for being rude to you earlier.
I get it now, so when the vote is close, then we care that people get votes. But if it's not so close, then we don't care who's disenfranchised. Got it.
No we always care when voters are disenfranchised. But when the disenfranchisement throws an election we care more.
You also assume that the people voting for bush were just as incompetant as the people voting for gore.
Given the large numbers of people involved, statistically that is a reasonable assumption. I suppose that there's a slight possibility that you're right, that all the people incapable of interpreting the ballot correctly happened to be Gore voters. The possibility of that happening by chance is what, 2^3000 or 2^4000 to one?
I have a competing theory. Voting booth incompetency is unrelated to political affiliation, equal numbers of Bush and Gore voters were misinterpreting the ballot structure, and we did not observe large numbers of disenfranchised Bush voters simply because misinterpreting the ballot didn't get in the way of voting for Bush. The ballot wasn't measuring incompetent Bush voters. That's the null hypothesis. It has the benefit of being simple and it successfully explains why Gore lost so many votes compared to Bush.
Your theory, on the other hand, leaves you with some explaining to do. All Bush voters were on the ball that night and this only happened to Gore voters because that's who all the stupid people were? There wasn't a single stupid Bush voter out there? Come on.
Is it not possible that the bush voters actualy read the damn ballot?
"The Bush voters"? They didn't all act in unison. They entered the voting booth one by one. Some of them read the ballot, some of them didn't. Some Gore voters read the ballot, some didn't. The votes for those four groups went to Bush, Bush, Gore, and Buchanan respectively.
It was pure and simple stupidity on the part of the voter, and failure to vote properly is a failure to vote. No one is to blame but the voter for not reading things clearly. They caused their own vote not to be counted.
I think the voter is to blame but should not get all the blame. Many people dropped the ball here. They wanted to make the print larger and easier for little old ladies to read, and they came up with a bad user interface. The people who approved the ballot from both parties were simply looking for print in large type. These are the same idiots who will approve touch screen voting because of the pretty lights. I hope you aren't intent on blaming the voters when that one turns into a fiasco as well.
Yes, idiots don't get their votes counted if they are confused and too stupid to ask for help. Every voting location must have someone on hand to assist voters who are confused. If they were confused they should have asked for assistance.
Yeah, they should have. Except-
-They did not realize they were confused, or they would not have voted for Buchanan and left the booth thinking they just voted for Gore.
-You are still missing the point. This is not about what the voters should have done, it is about the ballot introducing a systematic bias in favor of one candidate. Please stop pretending to be stupid. If this had happened to Bush and not Gore, I'm sure you would be able to get your feeble mind around this concept.
As for their algorithm, it's their own damn fault for not reading the ballot instructions. If I go to a voting booth and put cigarete burns through the names of all the candidates except one, my vote doesn't count. The ballot clearly indicates that if you want to vote for gore, you punch the hole that the arrow NEXT TO GORE's NAME points to.
And this is relevant how? Of the people who can't follow directions, all the ones who voted for Bush had their votes count. I have nothing against throwing away the votes of people who can't follow directions, as long as we aren't discriminating by the candidate they voted for. Please stop pretending that Bush voters are magically immune to stupidity. They aren't.
And if this was so confusing, it still doesn't explain why this is the first time in the history of using that ballot inf florida that there was a major problem.
Because most elections do not come down to razor thin margins of hundreds of votes, so usually nobody cares about an error of a few thousand. This was the first time that an error of that small magnitude actually threw a presidential election.
And when someone uses this feature
What, you mean it won't be turned on automatically?
I can't wait for the articles to come out. "Find out if you're running a blog!"
So then if this ballot was so confusing, tell me, why didn't the DNC, who had the liberty to review and request changes to the ballot approve the ballot?
The DNC is not staffed by user interface experts. Surely they, like you, assumed that since they as individuals understood how the ballot worked, that everyone entering the booth would get it also. It probably never occurred to them that anyone would make this mistake.
This was not a confusing ballot, the voters were idiots.
Yes, they were idiots. But this was a confusing ballot. You seem to be implying that it's OK for idiots to not have their votes counted as long as they're voting for Gore. There are idiots in every county, and ballots need to be designed to be idiot proof. I am not arguing that the voters weren't idiots. I'm saying that among the idiot voting bloc the ballot is heavily predisposed to whoever is in the top hole position. That was Bush.
A certain number of people will look at the names on this ballot, see their guy at position N in the left hand list, look for the Nth hole, and punch it. Of the people who applied that algorithm, those that intended to vote for Gore voted for Buchanan. They punched the incorrect hole. Those that intended to vote for Bush voted for Bush. They punched the correct hole by accident and Bush walked off with his fair share of the idiot vote. Pointing out that these people are all idiots misses the point. If Bush and Gore lost similar numbers of votes to the idiocy it wouldn't be an issue, but it is because it affected the outcome for all of us (idiots and non-idiots alike) by throwing the presidency to Bush.
Are you actually suggesting that DOJ was planning this move all along and was just waiting for the right moment ?
Yeah.
Do you fucking even realize that great majority of DOJ decision making personel was hired during Clinton years ?
Oh, gee, that makes it OK. Anyone who was hired to work in the Department of Justice between 1992 and 2000 is a flaming leftist political hack. And poor John Ashcroft is just being pushed around by all these freedom hating lefties who work for him. Oy gevalt.
If most americans had half a brain... we wouldn't be in this situation. Shrub used the "fear card" America gave him after 9/11/01 to rip up parts of our constitution. IANAL, but how codified law can supplant the Law of the Land doesn't make sense to me. Anyone else?
It's a valid question and I hope whoever moderated this "Troll" gets metamodded to hell. Do you guys see "Shrub" and automatically select "Troll" from the dropdown? There is nothing trollish about asking a serious question that needs to be asked. A number of constitutional rights have just been undermined by a statute. WTF?
It doesn't strike anyone as unusual how quickly the PATRIOT Act trotted up to the plate before the hysteria was even over? This was a blatant abuse of the public trust. It had nothing to do with 9/11 (like something else going on right now that I can think of) and was clearly a DoJ wishlist that had been piling up waiting for a moment of national hysteria with a Congress and Senate very politically desirous to be seen "doing something".
This is the moment where we are waking up and finding ourselves in bed with tyranny. Time to ask ourselves what the hell we were thinking!
Wait, remind be again which group of people had a bunch of voters too stupid to properly understand a ballot that had been availible for review for months and had been used in previous elections
The issue was confusion in the user interface between butterfly slots two and three (Gore and Buchanan). Bush, as the lucky occupant of name one and slot one, was unaffected, and lost no votes to the confusion even if ten times as many stupid people favored him as a candidate. In general, stupid people that night were far more likely to have their votes counted correctly if they voted for Bush.
I guess you think voter disenfranchisement is fine and dandy as long as it works in your favor.
The shielding that we've got is pretty thick, but no match for the massive amount of neutrinos and other charged particles that we are bombarded by.
If you line your hat with tinfoil the neutrinos won't be able to get through. I cannot afford to have leptonic emissions interrupting my precious bodily functions, especially when I am doing something important that requires mental acuity like programming emergency controller routines to run in nuclear facilities. So I'd say go with the hat, it's a lifesaver.
Except it doesn't work at nighttime, when the sun is beneath the earth and the little neutral bastards are streaming up at me from the ground. Luckily I hit on the idea of putting a thick layer of tinfoil in my shoe soles and that makes them bounce back into the ground.
Laugh if you want but I have had no problems with neutrinos since I started doing this. I'm thinking of selling neutrino shielding kits on Ebay.
To say that stereochemistry is limited to 2-handedness is a ridiculous oversimplification of reality. If I'm not mistaken, C6-H12-O6 "glucose"; has D-glucose has 4 chiral carbon atoms (2^4 = 16 possible stereoisomers) - I believe only one of which is able to provide calories.
It isn't as neat as that.
In general N chiral carbons means 2^N possible configurations. Half of these are mirror images (enantiomers) of each other. That means there are 2^(N-1) distinct epimers. These are distinct chemicals in their own right. They don't just taste different and rotate light backwards. They have different melting points, solubilities, IR spectra, etc.
So glucose, with its 4 chiral carbons, is a member of a family of eight related epimers. Any two of the 8 will differ from each other in that between 1 to 3 (1 to N-1) carbons have flipped chirality, making them diastereomers of each other- some carbons are flipped, some aren't. And each has a D and an L form.
The 8 epimers of glucose (including glucose itself) have names: allose, altrose, glucose, mannose, gulose, idose, galactose, and talose. Collectively they are referred to as aldohexoses. As far as I know, most are digestible and taste more or less sweet. Gulose is nonfermentable. Galactose is less sweet than glucose but certainly has calories since it's a component of lactose. Finding information on what the rare ones taste like is difficult. They don't appear in many cookbooks and the people who work with them don't seem to be terribly interested in telling us what they taste like.
I DO disagree with EVERY frickin app wanting to park itself in the tray.
I went to a bioinformatics conference a few months ago. These biologists would come up and plug their laptops into the projector so they could do their Powerpoint presentations. And it was amazing. ALL of them had tray icons spanning more than halfway across the screen! I completely stopped paying attention to one guy- it was more interesting to count how many spyware icons I could recognize in his tray. And they kept apologizing to the audience because their laptops were slow!
# robots.txt for http://www.ingsoc.gov/
/cgi-bin /search /query.html /help /appointments/eurasia /appointments/eastasia /ask/images/eurasia /ask/images/eastasia /deptofhomeland/analysis/eurasia /deptofhomeland/analysis/eastasia /deptofhomeland/eurasia /deptofhomeland/eastasia /economy/eurasia /economy/eastasia /goodbye/eurasia /goodbye/eastasia /government/handbook/eurasia /government/handbook/eastasia /government/images/eurasia /government/images/eastasia /government/eurasia /government/eastasia
User-agent: *
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
And now, an offering for the lameness filter...
Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete. Reports and records of all kinds, newspapers, books, pamphlets, films, sound tracks, photographs- all had to be rectified at lightning speed. Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in existence anywhere. The work was overwhelming, all the more so because the processes that it involved could not be called by their true names. Everyone in the Records Department worked eighteen hours in the twenty-four, with two three-hour snatches of sleep. Mattresses were brought up from the cellars and pitched all over the corridors; meals consisted of sandwiches and Victory Coffee wheeled round on trolleys by attendants from the canteen. Each time that Winston broke off for one of his spells of sleep he tried to leave his desk clear of work, and each time that he crawled back sticky-eyed and aching, it was to find that another shower of paper cylinders had covered the desk like a snowdrift, half burying the speakwrite and overflowing onto the floor, so that the first job was always to stack them into a neat-enough pile to give him room to work. What was worst of all was that the work was by no means purely mechanical. Often it was enough merely to substitute one name for another, but any detailed report of events demanded care and imagination. Even the geographical knowledge that one needed in transferring the war from one part of the world to another was considerable.
This was written in 1948. Things have really progressed!
It's gotten to the point where people don't think you're doing "J2EE" if they don't see EJBs being used. If you don't need transaction isolation over a distributed system, EJB is overkill.
The infrastructure for those systems are hard to write. The whole point of EJB is to have as much underlying general purpose infrastructure as possible already written for you, so you can plug your ad-hoc business logic on top. This puts development of these systems in the reach of a greater number of developers. But if you can write it yourself, you'll be better off. You'll be in control of more of the code, and won't spend your time messing with tuning parameters and configuration files for someone else's code. One exception is a distributed transactional system where it simply gets to be too much for you to reach your deadline. The other is a system that might be integrated into a larger system like that, that is already based on EJB. (Or the customer might be requesting EJB, maybe for a good reason.)
I sat in on an interview once where we were explaining the architecture of a server product we sell, and the first thing out of the interviewee's mouth was "You don't use EJB? Oh I'm surprised- you should really be using EJB!" That killed the interview right there.
Who's "you guys"? Non ultra-left wing socialists?
Oh that's right... I forgot to include the phrase "ultra-left wing". Oh well, maybe next time!
We're going to hear a lot of people calling to make these devices illegal- except in the hands of qualified emergency response personnel. We must resist them. Traffic light control is yet another prime target for deregulation and privatization, and keeping these wonderful devices out of the hands of ordinary citizens restricts our liberty to control intersections that we've paid for with our tax dollars.
Competition and free markets make everything better. They work great for companies, which is a strong indicator that they improve everything else, too- like public schools, the electrical power grid, and traffic lights at intersections. Why should emergency response vehicles receive a government-granted monopoly on the control of traffic lights? This is just old-fashioned, socialist thinking. If I want to turn my light green and yours red, and I'm willing to pay money for the privilege, why shouldn't I get the right of way? I've got more discretionary income, which means my time is probably more important than yours anyway. Government should not be standing on our necks and telling us who can and can't control traffic lights. The "invisible hand" can do a better job of guiding traffic through intersections anyway!
I can hear the socialists whining even now. "But what about the poor ambulance and police cars?" they'll say. They're so addicted to government regulation they don't realize how wonderful things would be if it were every man for himself. Hey, why should the government have a monopoly on ambulance service and law enforcement? My Expedition has plenty of room in the back for a heart attack victim or a criminal. If I'm willing to pay the money I should be able to offer a competing emergency response service as I sail through an endless sea of green lights and yap on my cellphone. To argue otherwise is socialist, and we've learned from the fall of the Soviet Union that socialism doesn't work, people.
OK, so it's a cheap shot at you guys. I can't resist- it's so much fun, and you make it so easy!
OK, point taken- although my point was that the default remote administration mechanisms supplied by the OS are not what AOL is using. They're running their own code to do this.
In fact I think AOL might disable RPC in their next update.
Yeah, but the idea of your ISP fuX0ring your computer isn't so cool. But at the point where you use an OS that *lets* your ISP do that shit, AOL isn't the greater evil.
The OS doesn't "let" AOL shut off the service. It's not like Windows is opening a port that listens for remote configuration requests. (Although I think XP has some stupid features like that, they're probably not turned on by default and in any case that's not the mechanism AOL is using.)
As an AOL user you installed AOL's crap on your computer and signed the EULA. AOL software periodically calls home to the mother ship to ask for updates to itself. AOL decided to send one containing code that shuts off the Messenger service. You ran their executable when you booted Windows, so this is running with your permission and your privileges. (Presumably on a typical home system you are logged in as a user with sufficient privileges for disabling services.)
In theory something like that could be constructed for any operating system. No OS is immune to Trojans.
dunno about you, but i'd rather not have any html mail at all(and quite frankly all of the html mail that isn't readable in plain text is spam).
Oh I agree totally. 99% of the HTML email I get is spam.
There are a few people I work with who send email as HTML, and without exception they are nitwits.
I was typing an email in LookOut 2003 today and typed a smiley face like ":)". It automatically turned it into a smiley-face character. Oy Gevalt.
I'd say the biggest improvement is that HTML emails don't automatically load images. A little "x" icon appears in place of the image, along with a tiny message "click to view- not loaded to protect your privacy" or something like that. In LookOut 2000, you had to unplug your ethernet cable before reading something that might be spam.
> Electronic voting should be unconstitutional.
On what grounds?
One man one vote. That should be grounds enough.
Should we all pull of our wooden sabots and toss them into the machines?
YES. That is a much better system than the one we will be using.
Maybe you would prefer to blow a kiss into an Access table but some of us would like to know that our votes will be counted.
People are so crippled by the more expensive == better heuristic they don't notice when the rug is being pulled out from under them. Electronic voting should be unconstitutional.
Who moderated this statement as "Flamebait"? It's absolutely true and I hope you get metamodded to hell.
Newer does not always equal better. Touch screen voting is not even a solution looking for a problem. It's a problem posing as a solution looking for a problem. It's so absurd. Advances in technology are not automatically a good idea. They should solve more problems than they create.
Is there really a need for computerization here? People who would scoff at the idea of robotic prostitutes will blindly accept the idea of computerized voting simply because it gets computers involved in the election process. Why is this automatically considered a good thing? People see pretty colored lights and they think it means their vote is safe and secure. It doesn't. It merely implies that the votes can be tallied more quickly than before- at the cost of a greater risk of fraud. But elections are held in November. Elected officials take office in January. This gives us two months to count votes, which means we should be optimizing for accuracy, simplicity, reliability, and verifiability. Not convenience. Not speed. Computers should stay the hell away. People perceive this strange need to make elections "modern" to avoid disenfranchising voters, and it makes no sense.
Is it such a hardship to live in a country that counts its votes slowly? What was wrong with punched cards? They actually performed very well in Florida, which was an extreme test of any electoral system- to a resolution of a few hundred votes. Most elections don't fall that close to a tie. And you certainly didn't need to worry that someone stole your vote. Touch screens are devices for disenfranchising voters. The original poster was right. Electronic voting should be unconstitutional.
Some things do not need to be optimized for speed and efficiency above all other concerns. Sex is one of them. Elections are another.
Why is it when I click on your site I get an "unhelpful error message"? ("Alert- www.linux-screws.com could not be found. Please check the name and try again.")
You had a very nice search page there a week or two ago.
"Pen computer"!?! How does it work? I want one!
Competition and free markets make everything better. They work great for companies, so they must improve electrical power delivery too. Public utilities are an old-fashioned idea and should be abolished to create a free-market long distance energy trading utopia. We will all save money and cash in on our dividends. The same goes for public schools. Kids get smarter when their schools have to compete for them. Deregulation makes food taste better, roads safer, and can increase your penis size by 3 to 6 inches.
The collapse of the Soviet Union just proves that I am right. Anyone who doesn't share my mindless ideological fanaticism for deregulation is by definition a socialist and we all know how that turned out, people!
The publishing of opinions is generally considered freedom of the press isn't it?
You haven't been keeping up with case law. The DeCSS case established that copyright protection trumps free speech.