When I play Q3A with friends or at the office, I tend to self-handicap by using inferior weapons or not exploiting blatant errors on their part. This works fairly well, and if I do it right they usually don't notice that it's purposeful.
Nothing's worse than being trounced and then finding out that your opponent was holding back.;)
Ah too late, but in case you drift back here. I didn't mean to say Brits sound like they say "pint" when they are actualling saying "point." I meant that Brits often talk about drinking pints, and thus it almost makes sense to "miss the entire pint.";)
Show me evidence to suggest that legalizing drugs *in the United States* will solve more problems than it will create
It's not so much that legalizing marijuana and other soft drugs will solve problems, for it's the criminalization itself that causes the problems in the first place. By creating a black market for drugs, you increase their price, paving the way for organized crime. As well, normally law-abiding citizens lose respect for the law when they feel laws are unjust. Finally, kids see it as taboo and do it solely due to that perception.
International criminal cartels produce the drugs while the DEA attempts to fight them. CIA has been found many times to play on both sides.
Organized crime and gangs use violence to protect their markets.
Users steal to pay the inflated price.
Police waste time enforcing victimless crime laws rather than fighting real crime.
Sales and income tax revenue is lost.
All of those would for the most part disappear with decriminalization. And the cost? It's not proven that use will increase, but even if it doubles there would be far fewer problems.
3. Vote your conscience, get the same shit, since either Bush or Kerry will win.
Possibly true, but keep in mind that your vote determines other things as well: ballot access, campaign funding and opinion.
If you're in a swing state, by all means vote Kerry as I feel he will be marginally less evil than Bush. If you aren't, however, then voting for Bush or Kerry is truly wasting your vote as you're boosting either one.
Instead, voting for your preferred candidate will improve that party's access for the next election and for local elections. It may not get your candidate elected this time around, but it will make it easier next time.
Actually, I like it better as "pint." It makes you sound like a Brit (not that that is all that exciting). I think I'm going to start it in conversation.
So if you have a channel secure enough to send the one time pad, you may as well sen[d] the message instead.
You're forgetting about time. It may be the case that you have a secure channel for the OTP now that won't be available when you need to send the message.
For example, you can exchange huge sets of pads face-to-face that can later be used to send messages over insecure channels.
a morning show guy here in LA put it very succinctly, stating that while we americans are all bent out of shape about prison abuse in iraq and who did what 35 years ago in vietnam, qaida has probably got guys with camcorders and digicams snapping recon shots and timing elevators in buildings.
I know Matthew replied to this already, but I'd like to expand on it. As has been said before, "Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it."
Al Qaeda is doing what they do precisely because U.S. administrations have instituted horrible foreign policy (some call it terrorism) at the expense of many, many people the world over. Why? The main goal continues to be ensuring U.S. corporations have access to markets and resources.
If we continue to ignore what has been done or brush it off as less important than worrying about what terrorists might be doing right now, we'll never stop the activities that are sewing the seeds for terrorism in the first place. We're trying to treat the symptom rather than the sickness.
I understand that it can be hard to learn about and accept the horrors past and current administrations have wrought. But if we don't, we'll never have peace and freedom from fear. But as your mother probably said when you were sick as a child, "I know it's bitter, but you'll feel better after you drink it."
I don't like the idea of being . . . reached at any time.
This is a constant complaint given to cell phones -- usually from random people but even sometimes from my friends. And the thing is, I still don't get it. I understand the sentiment of not wanting to be reachable 24x7; what I don't get is how having a cell phone makes you so reachable.
You can always turn your cell phone to vibrate mode, or simply turn it off. Bingo, you are now unreachable, yet you maintain the ability to connect with people if you so choose. Problem solved.
Does your work insist you keep it on and be reachable at all hours? No problem. When it rings, check the caller ID. Is it work? No? Don't answer the freakin' phone! Once again, problem solved.
The mere knowledge that someone is calling you does not somehow commit you to speaking with them. Everyone has voicemail and email. Unless it's an emergency -- and then you should have a signal worked out with those that you care about -- it's okay to ignore the phone entirely.
I just spoke with a Chinese friend of mine, and while not scientific, his perception is that the majority of the Chinese population, which speaking a regional dialect as their native tongue, would like speak the national language, Mandarin.
So it would seem that Chinese would be the language spoken by the most people. However, I would put forth that it is definitely not the language spoken by most people online -- not yet at least.
I can only assume that the numbers you give are, as one of this post's siblings shows, for native speakers -- not number of people that actually speak the language. I assume that because there are 290+ million people in the United States, yet most of Europe and Canada and a lot of people in Latin America and Asia can also speak English. 322 million seems awefully low.
While a useful statistic, it's not as applicable to choosing which language should be the universal language of international communications as is the number of people that can speak the language at all.
Interestingly, at least to me:), I see this as somewhat related to instant runoff voting. If only 14% of the voting people would choose person A (and that's too close for them to win), but 75% would choose A over everyone else except their preferred candidate, then A should win.
Similarly, while only roughly 5% speak English as their first language, someone else posted that 16% can speak English it. I actually find that figure low, but there are a lot of rural communities that have no need to learn English so I'll accept it at face value. If that's significatnly higher than the next language, then it makes sense to choose it.
I wholeheartedly agree. The argument carries a sickening sense of entitlement.
Jamieson added, "The end of the sound recording copyright on the explosion of British popular music in the late '50s and '60s, not just the Beatles, but many other British artists, is only a short period away."
It's as if he believes the Beatles were thinking, "If I didn't expect the government to extend copyright terms by 2010, I'd seriously rethink my career."
The premise of copyrights encouraging innovation and creativity is completely at odds with retroactive extension. And 70 years past the death of the artist is simply insanity. I don't expect my employer to continue paying my salary to my hairs after I die. Of course, it's no surprise that the corporate holders of copyrights (e.g. Disney through Sonny Bono) are the ones raising the stink.
On the other hand, I'd really like to see Elvis earn enough money for a flight back from Alpha Centauri.
China or India could possibly submarine this argument, but I do believe that both of those countries have quite a few regional dialects to keep it valid in that neither has one language that the whole population speaks. I have nothing with which to back this up, however.
Given that caveat, I would say that more people on Earth speak English than any other language. If the goal of the site is to create the largest international audience possible and help them to converse with each other, then English is the best choice.
And before you start claiming this is American imperialism (of which there is plenty already), you can thank the good ol' English from England for it.:)
While drilling one of the many holes, the Mole will uncover a crystalline life form that lives in the underground Martian water table. The salt-based life will attempt to communicate with it with flashy lights, but of course the NASA "scientists" will be oblivious to the obviously higher form of intelligence -- besides, they've got a schedule to meet. In a desperate attempt to save their unique species from extinction, the life forms will seize control of the Mole and proceed to attack and destroy the other Mars Rovers using its drill.
Finally, Beagle II will appear from out of nowhere, disable the Mole, negotiate a peace treaty with the new life, and usher in a new era of human-alien cooperation.
[PZ] I've met many people who have a hard time communicating in English yet have a surprisingly deep understanding of the issues.
And you would know that how?
In the case of Spanish speakers, I converse with them in Spanish. In the case of some of my friends' parents, they translate for me. Many that I've met can speak English passably but still have a hard time reading it.
How do all these people you know who can't read or understand English gain this deep understanding of American political issues when they can't understand a candidate's speech or read the party's platform in the original language?
This seems like you're claiming that if you don't read something in its original language, there is no way to understand it through translation. Is this indeed your argument?
One way to learn about the issues is to talk about them within your community. In fact, I'd argue this is preferable to hearing some soundbite on TV and being "sold" a viewpoint by a PR firm.
Anyone unwilling to meet the requirements, understand, or educate themselves on the issues should not vote, English-speaking or not.
I am not aware of any requirement to be able to read English to vote, and as already pointed out there is no similar requirement to be a citizen. Therefore, you'd rather have native English speakers who don't care to learn about the issues vote and have non-English speakers who have educated themselves about the issues stay home.
Those other coutries generally have ballots in a single language and don't pander to people unwilling to meet the process half way.
And some of those other countries have ballots in five or more languages. My point is that the important thing is being informed about the issues first. If there is a significant population that would be excluded due to language, and the cost isn't prohibitive, then they should be accomodated if we truly want a democracy.
One of the requirements for citizenship is a working knowledge of English.
This is not true. Almost anyone born in the United States is a citizen (children of foreign heads of state are exempted). From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services page on Citizenship:
A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection.
Note the lack of a language requirement.
There is no reason to provide voting materials in any other language.
All citizens have the right to vote. Not all citizens speak or read English (some cannot see at all; should we eliminate braille ballots too?). How do you rectify those other than forcing everyone to learn to read English, use translators or publish ballots in multiple formats?
I'm always willing to be enlightened.
My view is that a good first step to becoming enlightened is to do things for the good of others without requiring someone to pass a law first.
If a person does not have a working understanding of English, they should not be voting in this country, since they will not have an understanding of the issues and do not have a willingness to assimilate.
This is an utterly absurd generalization. I've met many people who have a hard time communicating in English yet have a surprisingly deep understanding of the issues. On the other hand I've met many native English speakers that have no clue about political issues, let alone desire to learn. Keep in mind that other countries tend to have vastly higher voter turnouts than the U.S.
I don't pay taxes to enhance the comfort level of people who might prefer voting in other languages.
I don't pay taxes to make bigots and simpletons feel comfortable either, yet that's where my taxes go. Our tax system works that way; change it or get used to it. Free speech works the same way.
Emmigrate to France, tell them you want a ballot in English, and see what happens.
French-bashing aside, why should we model ourselves after the French?
Thank you for the link and correction. Well, that does suck. I was hoping that Sony's offering would not be more limiting than Apple's. This combined with the huge difference between their music stores pretty much seals Sony's fate in this arena for a while.
There's still the non-compete agreement. Even if he wrote new code for Google, if he truly had an agreement not to do this, then he has broken a contract and can be sued.
Whether or not that should pass on to Google given that there's no way for them to have known about the agreement without Orkut telling them is another matter.
Now that I think of it, I suppose that first normal form wouldn't be violated as long as you ALWAYS separated out the nullable field. Considering the complexity this adds, it's difficult to say whether it is worth it or not.
Exactly! I've always been in the position of needing to get stuff done, and that has meant focusing on implementation at some point. While some people get all weird with NULL values, I simply look at it as a workable solution.
I would never fully normalize to the point above, but the discussion is helpful in clarifying the logical design. Who knows, maybe we'll get a "truly" relational DBMS someday. Until then, I'll keep the NULL, thanks!;)
You can't get rid of NULLs and maintain Normal Form. The two are simply at odds with one another.
No, they are not, but the way to rectify them is a bit extreme. Keep in mind that -- as Date says again and again -- there is a difference between the logical model and the physical model. I'll summarize the example he used: a EMP_SALARY table.
Let's start simple:
EMP SALARY --------------- Alice 100,000 Bob NULL Chris NULL
[Sorry, ecode doesn't seem to want to do vertical alignment.]
Now, what do those two NULLs mean; do they carry value? If Bob is unemployed, we could write 0, but then it could be confused with unemployed and employed for no pay. Perhaps we don't know how much money Chris makes, but we do know that he makes some money.
You could fix this by adding a TYPE enumeration column that would take on values like EMPLOYED, UNEMPLOYED and UNKNOWN, but you'll still need the NULL value for the UNEMPLOYED and UNKNOWN cases.
This last part can be solved by logically segregating the table above (sans TYPE column) into three tables (one per type). Both the UNEMPLOYED and UNKNOWN_EMPLOYMENT tables would lack the SALARY column -- they would have only the EMP_ID as there's no more information to add. All rows in the EMPLOYED table would have a known salary.
NULLs have been removed and the design is further normalized -- some would say to the extreme.
Now, how you would model that physically without using NULL and still managing some level of performance I do not know. But that at least explains the reasoning behind NULL not being necessary.
As for myself, after nearly fifteen years of database design and implementation, I'm quite satisfied with using NULL where appropriate. I've never been befuddled by it nor sidelined by its behavior with respect to logical operators. Learn the rules and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing's worse than being trounced and then finding out that your opponent was holding back. ;)
Ah too late, but in case you drift back here. I didn't mean to say Brits sound like they say "pint" when they are actualling saying "point." I meant that Brits often talk about drinking pints, and thus it almost makes sense to "miss the entire pint." ;)
It's not so much that legalizing marijuana and other soft drugs will solve problems, for it's the criminalization itself that causes the problems in the first place. By creating a black market for drugs, you increase their price, paving the way for organized crime. As well, normally law-abiding citizens lose respect for the law when they feel laws are unjust. Finally, kids see it as taboo and do it solely due to that perception.
All of those would for the most part disappear with decriminalization. And the cost? It's not proven that use will increase, but even if it doubles there would be far fewer problems.
Possibly true, but keep in mind that your vote determines other things as well: ballot access, campaign funding and opinion.
If you're in a swing state, by all means vote Kerry as I feel he will be marginally less evil than Bush. If you aren't, however, then voting for Bush or Kerry is truly wasting your vote as you're boosting either one.
Instead, voting for your preferred candidate will improve that party's access for the next election and for local elections. It may not get your candidate elected this time around, but it will make it easier next time.
And just as suddenly running a developer mailing list is no longer possible without outside funding. *Poof!*
Actually, I like it better as "pint." It makes you sound like a Brit (not that that is all that exciting). I think I'm going to start it in conversation.
You're forgetting about time. It may be the case that you have a secure channel for the OTP now that won't be available when you need to send the message.
For example, you can exchange huge sets of pads face-to-face that can later be used to send messages over insecure channels.
I know Matthew replied to this already, but I'd like to expand on it. As has been said before, "Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it."
Al Qaeda is doing what they do precisely because U.S. administrations have instituted horrible foreign policy (some call it terrorism) at the expense of many, many people the world over. Why? The main goal continues to be ensuring U.S. corporations have access to markets and resources.
If we continue to ignore what has been done or brush it off as less important than worrying about what terrorists might be doing right now, we'll never stop the activities that are sewing the seeds for terrorism in the first place. We're trying to treat the symptom rather than the sickness.
I understand that it can be hard to learn about and accept the horrors past and current administrations have wrought. But if we don't, we'll never have peace and freedom from fear. But as your mother probably said when you were sick as a child, "I know it's bitter, but you'll feel better after you drink it."
So take your medicine, citizen! :)
This is a constant complaint given to cell phones -- usually from random people but even sometimes from my friends. And the thing is, I still don't get it. I understand the sentiment of not wanting to be reachable 24x7; what I don't get is how having a cell phone makes you so reachable.
You can always turn your cell phone to vibrate mode, or simply turn it off. Bingo, you are now unreachable, yet you maintain the ability to connect with people if you so choose. Problem solved.
Does your work insist you keep it on and be reachable at all hours? No problem. When it rings, check the caller ID. Is it work? No? Don't answer the freakin' phone! Once again, problem solved.
The mere knowledge that someone is calling you does not somehow commit you to speaking with them. Everyone has voicemail and email. Unless it's an emergency -- and then you should have a signal worked out with those that you care about -- it's okay to ignore the phone entirely.
So it would seem that Chinese would be the language spoken by the most people. However, I would put forth that it is definitely not the language spoken by most people online -- not yet at least.
Looks like I've got another language to learn! :)
While a useful statistic, it's not as applicable to choosing which language should be the universal language of international communications as is the number of people that can speak the language at all.
Interestingly, at least to me :), I see this as somewhat related to instant runoff voting. If only 14% of the voting people would choose person A (and that's too close for them to win), but 75% would choose A over everyone else except their preferred candidate, then A should win.
Similarly, while only roughly 5% speak English as their first language, someone else posted that 16% can speak English it. I actually find that figure low, but there are a lot of rural communities that have no need to learn English so I'll accept it at face value. If that's significatnly higher than the next language, then it makes sense to choose it.
It's as if he believes the Beatles were thinking, "If I didn't expect the government to extend copyright terms by 2010, I'd seriously rethink my career."
The premise of copyrights encouraging innovation and creativity is completely at odds with retroactive extension. And 70 years past the death of the artist is simply insanity. I don't expect my employer to continue paying my salary to my hairs after I die. Of course, it's no surprise that the corporate holders of copyrights (e.g. Disney through Sonny Bono) are the ones raising the stink.
On the other hand, I'd really like to see Elvis earn enough money for a flight back from Alpha Centauri.
Or they're laughing because you swallowed the "smart" and "handsome" bit. :P
That's pretty much the root of every human-related problem I've ever encountered.
Looks like English is that "half" language. ;)
Given that caveat, I would say that more people on Earth speak English than any other language. If the goal of the site is to create the largest international audience possible and help them to converse with each other, then English is the best choice.
And before you start claiming this is American imperialism (of which there is plenty already), you can thank the good ol' English from England for it. :)
I think the moderators themselves need a systems upgrade.
Finally, Beagle II will appear from out of nowhere, disable the Mole, negotiate a peace treaty with the new life, and usher in a new era of human-alien cooperation.
In the case of Spanish speakers, I converse with them in Spanish. In the case of some of my friends' parents, they translate for me. Many that I've met can speak English passably but still have a hard time reading it.
This seems like you're claiming that if you don't read something in its original language, there is no way to understand it through translation. Is this indeed your argument?
One way to learn about the issues is to talk about them within your community. In fact, I'd argue this is preferable to hearing some soundbite on TV and being "sold" a viewpoint by a PR firm.
I am not aware of any requirement to be able to read English to vote, and as already pointed out there is no similar requirement to be a citizen. Therefore, you'd rather have native English speakers who don't care to learn about the issues vote and have non-English speakers who have educated themselves about the issues stay home.
And some of those other countries have ballots in five or more languages. My point is that the important thing is being informed about the issues first. If there is a significant population that would be excluded due to language, and the cost isn't prohibitive, then they should be accomodated if we truly want a democracy.
This is not true. Almost anyone born in the United States is a citizen (children of foreign heads of state are exempted). From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services page on Citizenship:
Note the lack of a language requirement.
All citizens have the right to vote. Not all citizens speak or read English (some cannot see at all; should we eliminate braille ballots too?). How do you rectify those other than forcing everyone to learn to read English, use translators or publish ballots in multiple formats?
My view is that a good first step to becoming enlightened is to do things for the good of others without requiring someone to pass a law first.
This is an utterly absurd generalization. I've met many people who have a hard time communicating in English yet have a surprisingly deep understanding of the issues. On the other hand I've met many native English speakers that have no clue about political issues, let alone desire to learn. Keep in mind that other countries tend to have vastly higher voter turnouts than the U.S.
I don't pay taxes to make bigots and simpletons feel comfortable either, yet that's where my taxes go. Our tax system works that way; change it or get used to it. Free speech works the same way.
French-bashing aside, why should we model ourselves after the French?
Thank you for the link and correction. Well, that does suck. I was hoping that Sony's offering would not be more limiting than Apple's. This combined with the huge difference between their music stores pretty much seals Sony's fate in this arena for a while.
Apple's players transcode other formats -- mp3 included -- to AAC.*
From that, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the iPod supports mp3 while Sony's players do not?
* I don't have an iPod, but this is my understanding. If it is not correct, please point me to a link. Thanks!
Whether or not that should pass on to Google given that there's no way for them to have known about the agreement without Orkut telling them is another matter.
Exactly! I've always been in the position of needing to get stuff done, and that has meant focusing on implementation at some point. While some people get all weird with NULL values, I simply look at it as a workable solution.
I would never fully normalize to the point above, but the discussion is helpful in clarifying the logical design. Who knows, maybe we'll get a "truly" relational DBMS someday. Until then, I'll keep the NULL, thanks! ;)
No, they are not, but the way to rectify them is a bit extreme. Keep in mind that -- as Date says again and again -- there is a difference between the logical model and the physical model. I'll summarize the example he used: a EMP_SALARY table.
Let's start simple:
[Sorry, ecode doesn't seem to want to do vertical alignment.]
Now, what do those two NULLs mean; do they carry value? If Bob is unemployed, we could write 0, but then it could be confused with unemployed and employed for no pay. Perhaps we don't know how much money Chris makes, but we do know that he makes some money.
You could fix this by adding a TYPE enumeration column that would take on values like EMPLOYED, UNEMPLOYED and UNKNOWN, but you'll still need the NULL value for the UNEMPLOYED and UNKNOWN cases.
This last part can be solved by logically segregating the table above (sans TYPE column) into three tables (one per type). Both the UNEMPLOYED and UNKNOWN_EMPLOYMENT tables would lack the SALARY column -- they would have only the EMP_ID as there's no more information to add. All rows in the EMPLOYED table would have a known salary.
NULLs have been removed and the design is further normalized -- some would say to the extreme.
Now, how you would model that physically without using NULL and still managing some level of performance I do not know. But that at least explains the reasoning behind NULL not being necessary.
As for myself, after nearly fifteen years of database design and implementation, I'm quite satisfied with using NULL where appropriate. I've never been befuddled by it nor sidelined by its behavior with respect to logical operators. Learn the rules and move on.