Sounds like "testing in production". That's one way to measure, of course. We've all had to use brute force and/or bang on random parts to get the job done.
You didn't actually mention if you'd run an EXPLAIN against it. You can often run an EXPLAIN faster than the actual query will run, although that's not something I'd "know", if you know what I mean. One of the most useful things you can get out of it is whether or not you need to adjust your indexes.
Without a doubt, there is a LOT of unscientificness going on in the field of psychology. Look at the satanic ritual abuse situation of the 80s for an obvious example, especially when you realize that even today there are still psychologists treating patients for this 'malady.'
Psychology is like quantum physics, except that not only does observing something change the behavior, but the degree and kind of change is likewise unpredictable. Isaac Asimov understood that decades ago. "Psycohistory" depended on A) large populations, to smooth out personal variances and B) keeping most of the mechanism out of sight so that people wouldn't factor the predicted results into their behavior.
A lot of what's wrong with mental health in general is that we're still chipping flints. As new studies come out and new medications are developed, we progress, but there's a LOT of work before it becomes a cookbook procedure. In the mean time, psychology experiences fads where each new methodology is applied indiscriminately to as many people as possible like the small child with a hammer.
Rather like the trail of tarnished Silver Bullets that we see in the more "scientific" art of software development.
JOIN vs sub-query? I don't know what DB or problem sets you are working with, but if it were MySQL, for instance, MyISAM just seems to run many sub-queries much faster than similar JOIN logic.
In any case, reducing working sets (when there's not a simple index mapping) can be very important for getting any kind of performance. sub-query shines for that, (perhaps in a JOIN at times) JOIN by itself doesn't.
Expecting a certain slant on which is better (JOIN vs sub-query) just smacks of personal bias. (unless perhaps they've re-written the same sub-logic 10 times and aren't receiving serious performance gain)
I don't "know". I measure. That's what EXPLAIN is for. Mileage may vary depending on (database) driver and road conditions. Prematurely optimizing based on assumed behavior is one of the things that separate the cheap help from the gurus.
Withholding food and water that are delivered by feeding tube or the like is legal. Most of us do not receive nutrition via a plastic hose into our stomachs.
Assisted suicide is not legal, your doctor cannot give you enough morphine to kill you.
Refusing extraordinary care may still leave you dying over a period of months or years. Ever see end stage bone cancer? Not fun.
Considering the case of Terry Schiavo, I'm not so sure that's true in Florida.
Adams was too kind, if he wanted those twerps to die quickly. If his dad's got to die slowly, if Schiavo has to live undead, then they deserve no less. Besides, "Die Quickly" (unless you have a job) is already the Republican answer to ObamaCare, so what would be the point?
As it happens, I know someone whose dad was going through much the same kind of hell. He got the cops called on him and demanded that they shoot him on the spot. Fortunately, he only had to endure a few more months.
There are a lot of news sites I avoid for PRECISELY that reason.
Normally, I just want a quick read of the news. THEN, I'll consider the singing birds and the dancing flowers. That's true EVEN on a TV site. Nothing turns me off faster than a loud multimedia site that starts playing before the page is even done rendering whether I want it to or not and regardless of what those near me are doing.
The Internet is not television. There are times and places where I don't want a lot of uncontrolled noise popping out of my speakers. And there is a time when lots of pictures and stuff are important and a time when just a quick synopsis will do (at least to begin with).
The posited advantage of an hereditary monarchy is not so much that the new is the son of the old ruler, it's that he is raised from birth to rule adn the responsibilities that this entails. This can be a better idea than having someone with a sufficiently big ego to decide that they ought to be in power. The first problem is that you don't have a good fallback - if the next in line to the throne is a poor choice then ideally you'd have a dozen other candidates to pick from. The second is that monarchies traditionally don't provide a good way of deselecting the ruler. Perhaps the biggest selling point of democracy is that you get to have a revolution and overthrow the government every few years, without anyone having to die.
We haven't abandoned that concept. That's what political dynasties are about. And in some ways, they're an improvement, since at least you get choices rather than having whichever person in a single family got dibs.
Speaking of monarchy, I laugh at the Tea Party's claim that this country was founded on Conservative Principles. Back then, a true Conservative (Tory) knew that only (Christian) God could ensure good governance and His divinely-appointed King was the only one who could do it properly.
But then again, the original Tea Party wasn't about dodging taxes, either. Just about who got a say in assessing and spending them.
In some respects, I'd be kinder than that. In some respects, less.
The stock market isn't really glorified loansharking, it's a casino. The loansharking occurs when the stock is initially issued. Except that A) you are actually supposed to by (speculatively) buying a piece of a moneymaking machine - an ongoing process. Loan sharks offer the illusion that some day the payments will end. And B) when you don't get your money from a stock investment, you can't kneecap the buggers.
Where we went wrong was when the ongoing trading of securities became more important - and more lucrative - than the underlying investment itself. This caused businesses to warp themselves in the pursuit of ever-inflating stock prices at the expense of whatever the business was originally intended to do.
The fact that the shareholders still hold shares indicates that the majority of them did, in fact, not care enough to move their investments elsewhere. Or if they did, others thought Home Depot was a good opportunity, in spite of the $200M pay off. The point is, bad management kills organizations. Can a corporation make ridiculous decisions? Of course. But the market is not very forgiving; too much of this and the company will go under; therefore, it is in the corporation's best interest to not do things like this. The trouble is, people have a tendency of looking at a corporation in a vacuum, devoid of other investment opportunities. It is a very truncated perspective.
The bulk of the shareholders for most corporations are not individuals. They are either part of a small group of cronies and/or relatives or the shares are held in large blocks by investment funds and similar institutions. And almost never is the actual determination of executive compensation determined directly by this skewed form of democracy. At best there's a compensation committee.
There's no direct linear correlation between compensation and performance. Anything but, considering that some people rake in more for failure than most of us will receive in a lifetime of success. In any event, once you reach a certain level, you're playing for points, not essential income. So if there's an even-handed set of rules limiting upsides, it just adds a certain extra challenge to the game, that's all.
I have nothing personal against becoming obscenely wealthy (donations gladly accepted). As long as it isn't at the expense of others. But when some people's incomes shoot exponentially higher while the majority see a net loss through multiple boom-and-bust cycles, then something's wrong.
There are many stupid ways we fiddle while Rome burns, but the pro/con solar energy thing is one of the stupidest. The GOP is supposed to be pro-business. But apparently only when the business is hydrocarbon-based. They're supposed to be pro-efficiency, but they deliberately set obstacles in place. They're only pro-energy if it comes from a Party-approved source.
There was never any reason that industry had to be measured by the effluents it produced. We just couldn't do any better at the time. It's one thing to be conservative. It's another to be obstinately ossified.
So far, nobody has been able to tell me where David Blackmon got his facts wrong.
Every time I do my taxes I have to stumble over all the loopholes for oil companies that complicate my calculations. Worse, some of my investments are in energy-industry companies and I not only have to stumble around them, but though them. Even with tax software, I no longer can really be sure I've done my taxes right - credits and deductions pop up in nooks and crannies all over the place.
The loss of effective antibiotics is a genuinely 'catastrophic global threat'; terrorism is a largely imaginary risk for most people with considerably less chance of negatively affecting their life than going near a road. If terrorism was a single fire ant on your leg then widespread drug resistant bacterias would be a pissed off Hippo stomping you into the ground.
Do we blame politicians for not treating this as important and instead pissing billions away on 'the war on terror' or do we blame ourselves for being so ignorant that we (on average) don't care about this major issue but throw our support behind whoever promises to spend most on protecting us from often imaginary bogeymen.
Never underestimate the capacity of the human race to obsess on trivialities at the expense of their overall welfare.
The market is partially causing this; in India there are antibiotics plants that spew waste into gutters and that waste has plenty of punch to make the local bacteria resistant. Also in India (and other places where drugs are available without prescription) it's not uncommon that people treat infections with a single pill because they don't know any better.
What we need to do is educate people on how antibiotics work and stop unnecessary usage of antibiotics right now. It's counterproductive to feed lifestock antibiotics by the bulk when the problems are treatable otherwise (I'm looking at you corn subsidies and packed to brim handling facilities among other things). Also would be really interesting to see what happened if we phased out some of our antibiotics for a decade; would the resistance still be there in enough scale?
Well, in China and India, lots of stuff gets spewed into the gutters. And rivers. Not that the USA has a sterling record in that department.
Speaking of which. The USA hardly has a pristine environment even now. Even when direct effluents are missing, the lakes, waters, and streams of the USA - including groundwater - contain numerous antibiotics in various degrees of metabolism just because kidneys don't screen them all.
As I said, I did this for a living. So unless you are doing likewise or can point me to relevant Windows documentation indicating that they have dropped this practice, I'm going to have to disagree. Excepting cases where the printer driver renders to a metafile format, which was added at a later date to facilitate printing on network printers, the GDI system would typically render display pages in reference to the selected printer driver which, in turn typically employed the video driver as a graphics accelerator.
Originally, the "printer driver" was technically a print renderer more than a true driver. Then some genius noted that most printers were pretty much alike except for the command and escape codes and constructed a table-driven "universal" driver.
The reason for using the printer driver as the reference for on-screen typesetting was to reinforce the WYSIWYG behavior of the document composition, since the resolutions and capabilities of the video driver and printer driver generally differ and the ultimate goal was to get something that printed well.
Almost all current printers are raster devices and thus ultimately all printed text has to be rendered into pixel patterns. This can be done in one of 3 ways:
1. By having the application or a font-rendering subsystem construct a brute-force bitmap image of the text and use the driver's bit-blit rendering. This is bandwidth-intensive on most devices. 2. By invoking a hardware font built into the printer (fairly uncommon these days). That is, print a text string. 3. By downloading a software font into the printer and invoking it as though it were a hardware font (print a string).
Doing typesetting in complete ignorance of the target printer and its capabilities can give sub-optimal output. Even the smartest fonts like to know such things as pixel densities, whether variable-size pixels are an option, and similar refinements. This not only allows more precise determination of letter and word size, but also impacts kerning and micro-justification.
This sort of functionality does date way back, but removing it would degrade the flexibility of the the page-formatting process and for all Microsoft's sins, I can't see them doing that.
So in short, if you're going to be rude, I want tangible proof.
Really, can I download all the management tools that Amazon uses in AWS? If you tell me that I can use Xen and other OSS code that Amazon uses will only tell me you don't get what I am talking about
A lot of those tools are just shell scripts of middling complexity. Likewise with the web admin apps. It's not trivial, but I could whip out some PHP to drive the shell scripts in - well, not an hour, but probably less than a week for the most important functions.
Then again, I'm used to administering Xen from its primitives, so for me that's mostly just automating stuff I've done many times before.
The idea of having a concrete and photographically provable identity is less than a century old. There was a time when leaving town, changing your name, and never speaking to anyone you knew again would effectively erase you(fame or infamy aside).
Nowadays, you need paperwork proving who you are to move into a new place. And those with the will can identify you uniquely by your genes.
Hey! Stop talking about my ancestors like that!
Heck, these days you cannot even travel from one US state to another without papers unless you like being limited in your choices for mode of transportation.
Serfs did not, and there are other exceptions, but I posit that these are but motes in the eye of the vastness of the history of human civilization.
Posit all you like, but the majority of the population was agricultural up until about 1900. More enlightened parts of Europe might have freed the peasants from the land fairly early, but places like Russia had not.
Then there were slaves. Who I am reliably informed were fairly numerous up to the later half of the 19th Century.
I don't put too much faith in firewalls. I know too many ways around them. Besides, the more recent TurboTax releases get very cranky when blocked from their mommy.
If you plug in a stock micro USB connector, even if it's jacked into a 2A power converter, the Nook will say "Not Charging". But come back in an hour or 2 and it will be back up to full power.
Interesting. I (or my wife) will have to try this; thanks for your observations.
I'm going to up the time estimate, though. Overnight will do it. I was too lazy last night and it looks closer to 4 hours to get full charge.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like "testing in production". That's one way to measure, of course. We've all had to use brute force and/or bang on random parts to get the job done.
You didn't actually mention if you'd run an EXPLAIN against it. You can often run an EXPLAIN faster than the actual query will run, although that's not something I'd "know", if you know what I mean. One of the most useful things you can get out of it is whether or not you need to adjust your indexes.
This is Slashdot, not a meeting with your boss. There's no need to watch our language.
Does your fucking boss know your fucking username? Don't develop fucking habits that might fucking slip out when you don't fucking want them to!
Without a doubt, there is a LOT of unscientificness going on in the field of psychology. Look at the satanic ritual abuse situation of the 80s for an obvious example, especially when you realize that even today there are still psychologists treating patients for this 'malady.'
Another example is the DSM, which is a joke from a scientific perspective (though this is perhaps an indication of the difficulty of the field of psychology as much as anything).
Psychology is like quantum physics, except that not only does observing something change the behavior, but the degree and kind of change is likewise unpredictable. Isaac Asimov understood that decades ago. "Psycohistory" depended on A) large populations, to smooth out personal variances and B) keeping most of the mechanism out of sight so that people wouldn't factor the predicted results into their behavior.
A lot of what's wrong with mental health in general is that we're still chipping flints. As new studies come out and new medications are developed, we progress, but there's a LOT of work before it becomes a cookbook procedure. In the mean time, psychology experiences fads where each new methodology is applied indiscriminately to as many people as possible like the small child with a hammer.
Rather like the trail of tarnished Silver Bullets that we see in the more "scientific" art of software development.
I don't understand how this happens. Are these people not social?
Well, if they're programmers...
No, you seem to have a problem with profanity in a public forum.
Please let's keep it clean here.
I see no convincing argument for this. Your prudishness is your issue, not Seumas's.
The convincing argument is that you should never talk dirtier than the boss. He/she might not say anything - except in terms of the next raise.
Fortunately, in my experience, it's hard to talk dirtier than most bosses.
JOIN vs sub-query? I don't know what DB or problem sets you are working with, but if it were MySQL, for instance, MyISAM just seems to run many sub-queries much faster than similar JOIN logic.
In any case, reducing working sets (when there's not a simple index mapping) can be very important for getting any kind of performance. sub-query shines for that, (perhaps in a JOIN at times) JOIN by itself doesn't.
Expecting a certain slant on which is better (JOIN vs sub-query) just smacks of personal bias. (unless perhaps they've re-written the same sub-logic 10 times and aren't receiving serious performance gain)
I don't "know". I measure. That's what EXPLAIN is for. Mileage may vary depending on (database) driver and road conditions. Prematurely optimizing based on assumed behavior is one of the things that separate the cheap help from the gurus.
I'm thinking a programmer who doesn't know if-then-else may not be awesome.
Is width greater than? It was greater then.
The ability to rapidly produce a flashy UI trumps functional code any day.
Withholding food and water that are delivered by feeding tube or the like is legal. Most of us do not receive nutrition via a plastic hose into our stomachs.
Assisted suicide is not legal, your doctor cannot give you enough morphine to kill you.
Refusing extraordinary care may still leave you dying over a period of months or years. Ever see end stage bone cancer? Not fun.
Considering the case of Terry Schiavo, I'm not so sure that's true in Florida.
Adams was too kind, if he wanted those twerps to die quickly. If his dad's got to die slowly, if Schiavo has to live undead, then they deserve no less. Besides, "Die Quickly" (unless you have a job) is already the Republican answer to ObamaCare, so what would be the point?
As it happens, I know someone whose dad was going through much the same kind of hell. He got the cops called on him and demanded that they shoot him on the spot. Fortunately, he only had to endure a few more months.
There are a lot of news sites I avoid for PRECISELY that reason.
Normally, I just want a quick read of the news. THEN, I'll consider the singing birds and the dancing flowers. That's true EVEN on a TV site. Nothing turns me off faster than a loud multimedia site that starts playing before the page is even done rendering whether I want it to or not and regardless of what those near me are doing.
The Internet is not television. There are times and places where I don't want a lot of uncontrolled noise popping out of my speakers. And there is a time when lots of pictures and stuff are important and a time when just a quick synopsis will do (at least to begin with).
The posited advantage of an hereditary monarchy is not so much that the new is the son of the old ruler, it's that he is raised from birth to rule adn the responsibilities that this entails. This can be a better idea than having someone with a sufficiently big ego to decide that they ought to be in power. The first problem is that you don't have a good fallback - if the next in line to the throne is a poor choice then ideally you'd have a dozen other candidates to pick from. The second is that monarchies traditionally don't provide a good way of deselecting the ruler. Perhaps the biggest selling point of democracy is that you get to have a revolution and overthrow the government every few years, without anyone having to die.
We haven't abandoned that concept. That's what political dynasties are about. And in some ways, they're an improvement, since at least you get choices rather than having whichever person in a single family got dibs.
Speaking of monarchy, I laugh at the Tea Party's claim that this country was founded on Conservative Principles. Back then, a true Conservative (Tory) knew that only (Christian) God could ensure good governance and His divinely-appointed King was the only one who could do it properly.
But then again, the original Tea Party wasn't about dodging taxes, either. Just about who got a say in assessing and spending them.
In some respects, I'd be kinder than that. In some respects, less.
The stock market isn't really glorified loansharking, it's a casino. The loansharking occurs when the stock is initially issued. Except that A) you are actually supposed to by (speculatively) buying a piece of a moneymaking machine - an ongoing process. Loan sharks offer the illusion that some day the payments will end. And B) when you don't get your money from a stock investment, you can't kneecap the buggers.
Where we went wrong was when the ongoing trading of securities became more important - and more lucrative - than the underlying investment itself. This caused businesses to warp themselves in the pursuit of ever-inflating stock prices at the expense of whatever the business was originally intended to do.
The fact that the shareholders still hold shares indicates that the majority of them did, in fact, not care enough to move their investments elsewhere. Or if they did, others thought Home Depot was a good opportunity, in spite of the $200M pay off. The point is, bad management kills organizations. Can a corporation make ridiculous decisions? Of course. But the market is not very forgiving; too much of this and the company will go under; therefore, it is in the corporation's best interest to not do things like this. The trouble is, people have a tendency of looking at a corporation in a vacuum, devoid of other investment opportunities. It is a very truncated perspective.
The bulk of the shareholders for most corporations are not individuals. They are either part of a small group of cronies and/or relatives or the shares are held in large blocks by investment funds and similar institutions. And almost never is the actual determination of executive compensation determined directly by this skewed form of democracy. At best there's a compensation committee.
There's no direct linear correlation between compensation and performance. Anything but, considering that some people rake in more for failure than most of us will receive in a lifetime of success. In any event, once you reach a certain level, you're playing for points, not essential income. So if there's an even-handed set of rules limiting upsides, it just adds a certain extra challenge to the game, that's all.
I have nothing personal against becoming obscenely wealthy (donations gladly accepted). As long as it isn't at the expense of others. But when some people's incomes shoot exponentially higher while the majority see a net loss through multiple boom-and-bust cycles, then something's wrong.
wow first it's the unions that are shutting them down and now a software update? I wonder what will happen next.
Unionized software.
Ironic, isn't it? Silicon Valley commutes wrecked due to bad IT practices!
There are many stupid ways we fiddle while Rome burns, but the pro/con solar energy thing is one of the stupidest. The GOP is supposed to be pro-business. But apparently only when the business is hydrocarbon-based. They're supposed to be pro-efficiency, but they deliberately set obstacles in place. They're only pro-energy if it comes from a Party-approved source.
There was never any reason that industry had to be measured by the effluents it produced. We just couldn't do any better at the time. It's one thing to be conservative. It's another to be obstinately ossified.
If you want to assert that oil companies are subsidized, you must first offer some valid and specific criticism of this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-gas-tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil
So far, nobody has been able to tell me where David Blackmon got his facts wrong.
Every time I do my taxes I have to stumble over all the loopholes for oil companies that complicate my calculations. Worse, some of my investments are in energy-industry companies and I not only have to stumble around them, but though them. Even with tax software, I no longer can really be sure I've done my taxes right - credits and deductions pop up in nooks and crannies all over the place.
Yeah, I remember when we used to burn sand....
Oh well, I'll eat their share of the beef, it all works out.
They think they can dent global warming by going vegetarian? A lot of greenhouse gasses come from cows burping and farting. Make them go vegetarian!
The loss of effective antibiotics is a genuinely 'catastrophic global threat'; terrorism is a largely imaginary risk for most people with considerably less chance of negatively affecting their life than going near a road. If terrorism was a single fire ant on your leg then widespread drug resistant bacterias would be a pissed off Hippo stomping you into the ground.
Do we blame politicians for not treating this as important and instead pissing billions away on 'the war on terror' or do we blame ourselves for being so ignorant that we (on average) don't care about this major issue but throw our support behind whoever promises to spend most on protecting us from often imaginary bogeymen.
Never underestimate the capacity of the human race to obsess on trivialities at the expense of their overall welfare.
The market is partially causing this; in India there are antibiotics plants that spew waste into gutters and that waste has plenty of punch to make the local bacteria resistant. Also in India (and other places where drugs are available without prescription) it's not uncommon that people treat infections with a single pill because they don't know any better.
What we need to do is educate people on how antibiotics work and stop unnecessary usage of antibiotics right now. It's counterproductive to feed lifestock antibiotics by the bulk when the problems are treatable otherwise (I'm looking at you corn subsidies and packed to brim handling facilities among other things). Also would be really interesting to see what happened if we phased out some of our antibiotics for a decade; would the resistance still be there in enough scale?
Well, in China and India, lots of stuff gets spewed into the gutters. And rivers. Not that the USA has a sterling record in that department.
Speaking of which. The USA hardly has a pristine environment even now. Even when direct effluents are missing, the lakes, waters, and streams of the USA - including groundwater - contain numerous antibiotics in various degrees of metabolism just because kidneys don't screen them all.
As I said, I did this for a living. So unless you are doing likewise or can point me to relevant Windows documentation indicating that they have dropped this practice, I'm going to have to disagree. Excepting cases where the printer driver renders to a metafile format, which was added at a later date to facilitate printing on network printers, the GDI system would typically render display pages in reference to the selected printer driver which, in turn typically employed the video driver as a graphics accelerator.
Originally, the "printer driver" was technically a print renderer more than a true driver. Then some genius noted that most printers were pretty much alike except for the command and escape codes and constructed a table-driven "universal" driver.
The reason for using the printer driver as the reference for on-screen typesetting was to reinforce the WYSIWYG behavior of the document composition, since the resolutions and capabilities of the video driver and printer driver generally differ and the ultimate goal was to get something that printed well.
Almost all current printers are raster devices and thus ultimately all printed text has to be rendered into pixel patterns. This can be done in one of 3 ways:
1. By having the application or a font-rendering subsystem construct a brute-force bitmap image of the text and use the driver's bit-blit rendering. This is bandwidth-intensive on most devices.
2. By invoking a hardware font built into the printer (fairly uncommon these days). That is, print a text string.
3. By downloading a software font into the printer and invoking it as though it were a hardware font (print a string).
Doing typesetting in complete ignorance of the target printer and its capabilities can give sub-optimal output. Even the smartest fonts like to know such things as pixel densities, whether variable-size pixels are an option, and similar refinements. This not only allows more precise determination of letter and word size, but also impacts kerning and micro-justification.
This sort of functionality does date way back, but removing it would degrade the flexibility of the the page-formatting process and for all Microsoft's sins, I can't see them doing that.
So in short, if you're going to be rude, I want tangible proof.
If Gartner predicted the Sun was coming up tomorrow, I'd be wondering who paid them to say it, and what the angle was.
And ... once again we see the need for a mod of "Sad, but true".
Really, can I download all the management tools that Amazon uses in AWS? If you tell me that I can use Xen and other OSS code that Amazon uses will only tell me you don't get what I am talking about
A lot of those tools are just shell scripts of middling complexity. Likewise with the web admin apps. It's not trivial, but I could whip out some PHP to drive the shell scripts in - well, not an hour, but probably less than a week for the most important functions.
Then again, I'm used to administering Xen from its primitives, so for me that's mostly just automating stuff I've done many times before.
The idea of having a concrete and photographically provable identity is less than a century old. There was a time when leaving town, changing your name, and never speaking to anyone you knew again would effectively erase you(fame or infamy aside).
Nowadays, you need paperwork proving who you are to move into a new place. And those with the will can identify you uniquely by your genes.
Hey! Stop talking about my ancestors like that!
Heck, these days you cannot even travel from one US state to another without papers unless you like being limited in your choices for mode of transportation.
Serfs did not, and there are other exceptions, but I posit that these are but motes in the eye of the vastness of the history of human civilization.
Posit all you like, but the majority of the population was agricultural up until about 1900. More enlightened parts of Europe might have freed the peasants from the land fairly early, but places like Russia had not.
Then there were slaves. Who I am reliably informed were fairly numerous up to the later half of the 19th Century.
I don't put too much faith in firewalls. I know too many ways around them. Besides, the more recent TurboTax releases get very cranky when blocked from their mommy.
Interesting. I (or my wife) will have to try this; thanks for your observations.
I'm going to up the time estimate, though. Overnight will do it. I was too lazy last night and it looks closer to 4 hours to get full charge.