There are two meanings for "paper receipts": 1. paper ballot which is the actual ballot, kept by the county clerk / election officials; 2. paper receipt, kept by the voter, proving they've voted and indicating who they voted for.
The latter concept is VERY BAD. It would encourage the ability of someone to buy an election by paying money or favors to someone in exchange for their receipt proving they voted for someone in particular.
This is the reason we have secret ballots - to make vote-buying quite difficult if not impossible.
There seems to be (happily) no preclusion of printing bar codes indicating the choices underneath the names of the candidates. This should allow for rapid and accurate scanning and counting. Ballots can be verified by hand or other (possibly 3rd party) means to prove that the bar codes equal the name on the ballot.
This will speed up and make more accurate the counting vs. OCR of the candidates' names.
I used to work at a large bank (JPMC) and we had project with two large parts: 40K lines of Perl and another 25K lines of visual C#. I looked into merging these lines into a single machine.
My manager was... nontechnical (throat-clearing-noise) and I had some discretion over the way this project went.
I chose to not merge this stuff based on the fact that Visual Perl was a little too "out there" (unusual) and I knew I'd get looked at funny by the architecture review committee (you know, big corp == second guessing design decisions). So, I kept what we had.
I'm wondering... If you read in bed at night with very low light or with a dim flashlight, will your eyes go bad? Does your eyesight get worse if you do this? Is this an old wives' tale or is it true?
You're forgetting the famous health club business model:
- Sign up as many people as possible in January and Feburary when everyone's fat from Christmas and being inside all the time and bored with life; - Make things seem interesting for a while with 'fun' programs; - Gradually make things seem less interesting; - HOPE NO ONE SHOWS UP.
Health clubs make their money on people paying for a membership they rarely use, or at least start out using and then don't keep up with.
The MMPORG business model seems the same. They have less server cost if fewer people show up; They just want people to show up occassionally and keep paying their dues, guiltily or not.
I've RTFA (read the article) and looked carefully at the picture.
. Looks like a star field to me with a bunch of nebular (sp?) gas around it. It would really help if they had some kind of analysis, some additional picture with the stars in question circled or with arrows to them or something.
I've had 2 semesters of college astronomy. I understand some (rough concepts of) stellar dynamics. This article didn't go into the ways in which they determining what was going on. Does a star start fusion reactions only in the center of the star and this is hidden for some time? What does it look like then, a ball of glowing gas? How long does it take to be identifiable as a distinct object, where 'there's the star' and 'there's the edge of space' (plus or minus the coronasphere which flings off stuff like mad, IIRC).
if anyone knows how this stuff happens, in detail, can you give a pointer to it or explain here (a) what exactly does the process of stellar birth LOOK like, and (b) what did we discover about it recently...? And, Please, use all the technical terms that are appropriate, I'm both capable and interested and can look up terms later if need be... Thanks!!?!?!?!???
As a proud University of Kansas Jayhawk Alumni (1992 Bachelor of Science Computer Science) I have a perspective on this - Not all of Kansas is this conservative.
There are several isolated centers of liberalism (most notably NOT the oxymoronically named town of Liberal, KS) which include Lawrence, some of Topeka, the Kansas City suburbs, and parts of Wichita. However, the vast majority of the state is very Red.
This debate highlights several contrasts in Kansas culture. Many small towns resent the power that the bigger population centers hold over Kansas political power, and are more vehemently conservative because of it. They feel they must fight for their views to be heard.
Another factor here is the ever-more-computer-enhanced jerrymandered redistricting that has been taking place nationwide (most eggregiously in Texas 3+ years ago). As a result, since politicians are more secure in their political bases, they feel free to pander to their most vocal (and most extreme) constituents, since there is no need to appeal to the center. This also selects for more extreme views.
Lastly, this is a confusing trend in the light of the long Kansas tradition of progressive politics, starting wwwwwaaayy back with the Grange organization, which pushed for social-security-type platforms to support destitute farmers in the 1800's.
Even more confusing is the last-10-years trend towards confusing conservative social policies (less freedom for the individual to ensure compliance with moral laws) with conservative fiscal and governmental policies (more individual freedoms and less overall government interference). The freedom-to-farm act (an attempt to liberalize the agriculture market and reduce dependence that farmers don't want on subsidies) contrasts strongly with strong corporate farm interests that advocate for greater involvement, which also contrasts with traditional Republican less-government-is-better.
Also throw in there the strong German-American and now hispanic Catholic elements that, at the recently increasing behest of Rome, are catching on that Intelligent Design is contrary to scriptural meanings, that it confuses the spiritual (some would say 'religious mythical truths') and the scientific truths to the vast detriment of both.
All in all, things are a bit confused and I suspect that when the voters start pushing for actual policies to solve problems (during the next recession, let's say). I just don't know when they'll figure it out.
I've never been a fan of the join syntax. 'Inner' and 'outer' and 'left' and 'right' and 'full' joins? Let's for gosh sakes use the simple set-theory math terms we all understand.
Instead of:
select A.f1, b.f1, b.f2 from A join B on A.f1 = b.f1
do:
<B>select A.f1, b.f1, b.f2 from intersection join of A, B on A.F1 = B.F1 select A.f1, b.f1, b.f2 from union join of A, B on A.F1 = B.F1 select A.f1, b.f1, b.f2 from union minus intersection join of A, B on A.F1 = B.F1 select A.f1, b.f1, b.f2 from union minus A intersection join of A, B, C on A.F1 = B.F1 = C.F1 select A.f1, b.f1, b.f2 from union minus B intersection join of A, B, C on A.F1 = B.F1 = C.F1 select A.f1, b.f1, b.f2 from union A, B minus B intersection of A, B, C on A.F1 = B.F1 = C.F1</b>
Perhaps, instead of replacing SQL, let's just add a clause to the update statement (or insert statement):
insert into table tabname (field1, field2) values (1, 2) [ WITH UPDATE [ALL,FIRST,ADD,NONE] ON FIELD1=1 ];
Thus, if the row exists with field1=1, it will update that row to with value field2=2. If there are multiple rows where field1=1, define either update all of them (uses 'ALL'), update the first one found (uses 'FIRST'), insert one more (uses 'ADD'), or updates none of them (uses 'NONE').
Alternately, you could add this syntax to the UPDATE verb:
UPDATE TABLE tabname set field=1, field2=2 where field3=3 [ WITH [ NO ] INSERT ]
This would do the select for field3=3. If one or more records were found, update per request. If no records were found, insert a record with field1=1, field2=2 (field3 would be NULL since it's not specified in the 'set' subclause, only in the 'where' clause).
This solves your problem, provides two interesting methods.
In a short article, mentioning "Soyuz" and "1960's technology" in the same sentence has the effect of biasing the audience.
Original version: "Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s."
Alternatives:
* Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is a modern derivative of Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model undergoing refinement since the late 1960's. * Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a modern derivative of a model originally developed in the late 1960s. * Shenzhou VI is a modern and increasingly unique Chinese derivative of Russia's Soyuz spacecraft designs.
Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s. Liu Yu, commander in chief of the rocket system, said the rocket for Shenzhou VI was an improvement on the one used two years ago. "We have confidence in the quality of this rocket. We have the conditions and capability to fulfil this mission," Mr Liu told Xinhua.
Mr Yang's flight in 2003 made China only the third nation to put a human into space, after Russia and the United States. China has had a rocketry program since the 1950s, and Beijing fired its first satellite into orbit in 1970. China's space programme, which is closely linked to the military, is a matter of enormous national pride for the government. Chinese officials say they want to land an unmanned probe on the moon by 2010, and also build a space station.
I stand by my previous assessment. I acknowledge that some articles mention that Delta rockets are derived from 1950's American THOR IRBM military rockets (see: Delta_rocket on Wikipedia). However, most mention that this has been significantly improved in the intervening decades. This article has a subtle bias that I want to highlight; the idea that the Chinese (and even Russian) Soyuz-derived rockets are somehow outdated, backward, stone-age 1960's-era technology compared to U.S. and E.U. models (like, laughably, the Space Shuttle, designed in the very early 1970's for quasi-military missions).
Admittedly, some of the Chinese technology might seem backward. In the 1980's, they lauched a probe that had to re-enter Earth's atmosphere and needed a heat shield. They researched a bunch of different high tech materials, testing ablating rates, weight, cost, heat transfer, etc., and finally settled on Oak. Yes, a wooden heat shield. It apparently ablated at a known and reliable rate, was a good heat insulator, and had many other benefits, the very least of which was cost. I recognize engineering genius in this decision, but the reporting on it laughed and laughed about the low-tech, backwards-assed Chinese program. I disrespect reporting that presumes that high tech requires high cost; I also disrespect reporting that pretends that basic designs originating in the 1960's but refined constantly since then are somehow less than state of the art.
In programming, it's "On the shoulders of giants we climb"; this is true of many engineering disciplines and I want to highlight the sometimes subtle bias in science reporting presuming all-new == much-better.
Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s.
TFA (The F-ing Article) reads as if they are working with 1960-s era technology. I would suggest that this is biased reporting based on a premise that the Chinese technology is from the 1960's and they're using it now because that's the best they can do.
Instead, I would suggest that they are probably using a derivative of the Soyuz technology updated with modern materials and techniques. The U.S. is using Delta launch vehicles which had their roots in the 1960's as well, but we don't advertise that a rocket was a "Delta-IV, a model developed in the early 1960's" because most of the innards have been updated and redesigned with techniques and materials that are the latest in rocket design.
The Chinese program may not use as advanced a technology as the U.S. Delta and E.U.'s Ariane programs, but that doesn't mean the rocket was designed in the 1960's and they're stuck still using that level of ability.
Our small but growing startupis using Fogbugz, an excellent bug tracking tool. It is integrated with our subversion repository, and I have nothing but high praise for its ease of use and feature set.
Fogbugz easily solves this dilemma. To restate, the same bug is present in multiple revisions, and it must be fixed in each one.
One bug is created describing the problem. The bug's is marked as present in one of the revisions, and the text of the bug includes which branches/revisions it is present in. As each revision/branch is fixed, the bug is changed in the 'fix-for' to the next revision, and a comment added with info on the remaining branches to be fixed.
I would suggest to the Fogbugz development team (headed by Joel Spolsky) that it is possible to handle this even better by allowing multiple revisions to be selected for the 'FixFor' pulldown, and then thereafter allow these to be unchecked or added to as need be.
Otherwise, the existing Fogbugz will work just fine. I can't speak to Bugzilla, but it might have a technique as well.
I'm not ready to disqualify a supreme court nominee based on their having had as a client one of the richest corporations on the planet. She was head of the largest law firm in (Texas? Dallas?) and thus had available lawyers to devote to a case; Microsoft had money to pay them; that's normal.
I would object to this nominee based on her: * committing unethical acts while representing them; * arguing a totally untenable or specious position or otherwise demonstrating gross incompetence; * obviously agreeing with her client in her private speech (indicating a personal position, not a professional representation of her client's position), where that client's position was representative of unethical behavior or attitudes, etc.; * use of legal arguments based far outside of conventional legal mainstream thought (the Bork-Wacko factor).
It seems to me we should pay attention to ethics, competence, and political leanings that don't represent the broadly accepted norm, or if she's in the past said she will legislate from the bench (which I highly doubt given her lack of being a judge previously).
As Richard Feynman's brilliant analysis from 1986 clearly states, the shuttle's main engines were NOT designed properly and are doomed to be both expensive to maintain and markedly dangerous to use.
He has a wonderful explanation, in terms that non-engineers as well as engineers can understand, about how to build complex devices. Good engineering, he says, comes from dividing the task in to component parts, creating specifications for those parts, building samples, testing them to their limits, retesting them to various other limits, until you have a complete understanding of all the failure modes of that component, as well as the reliability of your manufacturing process for that component. Then, you assemble multiple components together and test that assembly together in all the modes you can conjure up, to create what I have always heard termed, "A Well-characterized System".
As he points out, the space shuttle main engines (SSME's), though complex and "groundbreaking" in the sense that they were very big and incorporating some (at the time) quite advanced technologies, they were NOT WELL CHARACTERIZED on a component basis. To my knowledge (although I'm not a NASA watcher with as much fervor as some) I don't believe the SSMEs have EVER BEEN analyzed and re-engineered to create characterizations of their failure points, reliability, etc.
The fact that NASA's next plan is to use them in the follow-on vehicles for heavy lift only testifies to NASA's complete lack of focus here. They should put out several contracts for heavy lift engines with well-characterized failure modes, with focuses on reusability, reliability, maintenance cost, and overall operating cost.
We're soon going to be stuck with the next-gen heavy lift using components of unknown reliability, which forces us to replace component parts ("tune-up" or "overhaul") the system too often and with too large an expense.
Feynman was right. Solve the root cause. Engineer these things with good methodologies. And don't tie us down to next-gen-of-schlock-engineering if we don't have to be. I congratulate the able engineers who worked on the SSME's, but I respect Feynman's analysis that correct procedures benefit lowering long-term costs and ensure safety of the admirable crews who pilot our national spacecraft.
Does anyone think it's mighty strange that the number of users here coincides EXACTLY at 1,000,000 with the number of people left homeless by Hurricane Katrina?!?!??!
News reports have cited a figure of exactly 1 million people left homeless. I suspect this is MORE than a coincidence! There have to be larger forces at work here!
Perhaps all those displaced people have become enthralled with this game and have been sucked up, TRON-like, into the depths of the online environment!!!!
I taught astronomy at KU as a discussion section leader in 1991. We used scantron machines. These were #2 pencil IBM-card (~3 inches wide by ~8 inches tall) sized.
The machines could NOT have been expensive. Using them was dead simple. We (the section leaders) wrote several tests, and rearranged each test to have different orderings for the choices. Thus, on test version A-1, I had answers (a) Sun, (b) Moon, (c) Earth, then on A-2 I had (a) Moon, (b) Sun, (c) Earth, etc. Then, we looked at their version of the test, and put in the right key.
This kept cheating to a minimum; at the least they had to memorize the answers instead of the answer key. And, memorizing the answers was kind of okay in a sense since they at least paid attention to the subject material.
I'd like to congratulate our muses, our modding overlords, our interesting crowd-drawing slashdotting crowds who, so far, have created 86 comments that are all modded at 1 or higher (no 0's, no -1's).
In the fine tradition of upsetting the applecart, I'd like to attribute this lack to: * the utter stupidity of Rush Limbaugh; * several really mundane things that John Kerry said once; * the fact that all (ethnic-group-here) people are different than me; * Microsoft being really suckky and underappreciated; * Linux being really suckky and no one being willing to defend it; * Not enough fans of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera" participating in this discussion; * A complete lack of PETA members willing to talk about their concerns over my diet;
Remember, people: Somewhere, somehow, a troll is crying.
Oops, should have spell checked myself, Sorry, that's "electromagnetism". At least I know when I'm wrong, though. Mostly. If you don't listen to my wife. Mostly.
Information flow (see: Steven Hawking's theories) cannot propogate at faster than the speed of light, or causality is violated and we have (dead virgins/future grandfathers) all over the place.
All 4 basic forces: electromagnatism, gravity, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear (not Nukular; bite me, George) forces propogate at the speed of light in their reference frame. If we switch frames we're not fooling anyone; if we preposition information we're not watching causality violations.
This kind of story is quite irritating, not due to the actual achievement involved (playing with light propogation is actually very cool geek-cred stuff), but the overhype and miscommunication to all the laypersons out there who just go, "Yup, that's an 'oops', they said it was a law and now it ain't. I guess evolution might not really be true, dad-gummit, I don't trust me none o' dem smarty pants anyway."
* I think we are agreeing on Iran being an area of concern. * It seems you believe that a precision bombing strike on Iran's Uranium refining facility would be a good proactive solution with minimal loss of Iranian lives; * I don't believe Iran would declare war on the U.S. in the event of such an airstrike, but it's possible (how would we respond if they managed to bomb a Fort Riley, Kansas? Would we declare war? Quite Probably.)
My point is this: The USA has far more to fear in the next decade(s) from FAILED nation states than from STRONG ones. (I'm quoting ForeignPolicy.com's article "The Failed States Index") http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=30 98. Iran can be seen as a quasi-successful state in that they have some functioning democratic institutions, basic rule of law, and some non-state-owned media. All the above are limited in power and scope, but the longer they persist, the more people get used to them and learn to work within them.
I'm really sorry, but: I must compliment you on your extraordinary ability to construct run-on sentences; it's difficult to follow you but I'll try...
Police, like tanks, are economically wasteful ONLY if everyone is honest. If there were no crime, it would be silly to have people enforcing laws. I agree with you that Police ARE essential, but would count their cost as basic infrastructure costs, like fire protection and insurance. Businesses crave predictable risks above most everything else.
Much of your comment is confusingly worded, but I think you're saying: * we should police the middle east or a 'mafia' will rise there; * this policing will pay off later with more stability and thus lower defense costs; * OPEC is fighting renewable energy.
You might want to consider the implications of bombing Iran before being cavalier about it. I understand your frustration over being unable to stop their nuclear ambitions and thinking unilateral action (as with Iraq) will solve this.
The situation is complex. Bombing another Islamic country, like Iran, will generate lots of hatred (as well as killing people there). Iranians are proud people, with a long, rich, powerful history, a strong desire to join the rest of the world in technological and socioeconomic advancements. Current economic and political power is concentrated in rigid, somewhat intractable religio-politico oligarchic structures. They have a huge generation gap (young=liberal, old=powerful=conservative). Educationally, the tradition is memorization (with much less critical thinking than is taught in the U.S.).
Bombing their reactor will do little to slow their progress. Bombing Germany in WWII only slightly slowed industrial output, it only decentralized it. The same will occur in Iran. Plus, we now have a proud nation that won't listen to us or our alies, they're put into a defensive posture, and must prove something to the world to save face.
Good foreign policy has both a carrot and a stick. Check out http://foreignpolicy.com/. Yes, the world is complex, and complexity is yucky, but there are ways to help the world be a better place without reflexively using the military (many leaders of which would wholeheartedly agree with that statement).
But war helps you get funding for things that would normally be hard to get.
The two great economic motivators, GREED and FEAR provide plenty of funding for long-shot ideas. Witness any number of dot-coms/dot-bombs.
we won't fund something that has no immediate benefit
Pure science research and development has been funded forever, from Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, etc. all getting stipends from the rich to pursue such things. Today, this continues with both public (governmental) and private financial support of pure-science research.
NOTE: If you are really just lamenting a lack of funding for science in your speciality (or your interest area, like space sciences), this is fixable with a POSTCARD* to your member of Congress or Senator.
* Postcards are great because they WILL be read by staffers; they're short and force you to condense your thoughts; they don't need to be opened so more people see the actual message; etc.
We all know that basic sciences R&D isn't funded as well as it should be, but it is competing with lots noise from 'mythos' vs. 'logos' confusers otherwise known as fundamentalists.
I remember reading this horrible idea when I was growing up, that during times of war, people have to get inventive to survive, and this inventiveness translates into technology that has civilian applications after the war. This sounds plausible but ignores the huge economic forces that shift during wartime, as well as the PAIN and DEATH of innocent adults and CHILDREN that war brings.
Be aware that pre-1930, the US government was very, very small. The depression and world war II changed that by decoupling the gold standard, vastly changing dynamics of monetary policy, credit creation, and other factors that combined to stimulate massive economic and thus technological growth at the time (DESPITE the war's wasting of the fruits of this growth).
However, the growth didn't come from the war. In fact, GDP can easily be shown to decline when population decreases (look at malaria- and AIDS-torn Africa). Perhaps the redistribution of wealth in war can in some small circumstances be good (where oligarchs are preventing growth) but this is a stretch. MOSTLY: * War is very destructive of capital goods and prevents spending newer, more productive capital goods; * War production is WASTED from an economic perspective (tanks are not useful for plowing fields for farming, for instance, and produce further economic good); * War consumes vast amounts of resources that could be used for productive ends like technological development.
The thought that war is good because it stimulates development is just not true. War redirects some funds towards development in novel areas, but wastes vast amounts of money/capital elsewhere. If you want tech development, fund it. Don't confuse the US's conversion from an agrarian economy to industrial giant at the time of a war with the war causing the shift.
This isn't to say that war isn't occassionally necesary to right a wrong. In my view, a large-scale fight can sometimes save lives by halting a low-scale conflict that would have continued for many years. But, technological advancement or economic growth should never be used as justification for actual warmaking because these arguments are specious and come from a small view of the overall economic effects.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two meanings for "paper receipts":
1. paper ballot which is the actual ballot, kept by the county clerk / election officials;
2. paper receipt, kept by the voter, proving they've voted and indicating who they voted for.
The latter concept is VERY BAD. It would encourage the ability of someone to buy an election by paying money or favors to someone in exchange for their receipt proving they voted for someone in particular.
This is the reason we have secret ballots - to make vote-buying quite difficult if not impossible.
There seems to be (happily) no preclusion of printing bar codes indicating the choices underneath the names of the candidates. This should allow for rapid and accurate scanning and counting. Ballots can be verified by hand or other (possibly 3rd party) means to prove that the bar codes equal the name on the ballot.
This will speed up and make more accurate the counting vs. OCR of the candidates' names.
I used to work at a large bank (JPMC) and we had project with two large parts: 40K lines of Perl and another 25K lines of visual C#. I looked into merging these lines into a single machine.
My manager was
I chose to not merge this stuff based on the fact that Visual Perl was a little too "out there" (unusual) and I knew I'd get looked at funny by the architecture review committee (you know, big corp == second guessing design decisions). So, I kept what we had.
I'm wondering... If you read in bed at night with very low light or with a dim flashlight, will your eyes go bad? Does your eyesight get worse if you do this? Is this an old wives' tale or is it true?
You're forgetting the famous health club business model:
- Sign up as many people as possible in January and Feburary when everyone's fat from Christmas and being inside all the time and bored with life;
- Make things seem interesting for a while with 'fun' programs;
- Gradually make things seem less interesting;
- HOPE NO ONE SHOWS UP.
Health clubs make their money on people paying for a membership they rarely use, or at least start out using and then don't keep up with.
The MMPORG business model seems the same. They have less server cost if fewer people show up; They just want people to show up occassionally and keep paying their dues, guiltily or not.
I've RTFA (read the article) and looked carefully at the picture.
. Looks like a star field to me with a bunch of nebular (sp?) gas around it. It would really help if they had some kind of analysis, some additional picture with the stars in question circled or with arrows to them or something.
I've had 2 semesters of college astronomy. I understand some (rough concepts of) stellar dynamics. This article didn't go into the ways in which they determining what was going on. Does a star start fusion reactions only in the center of the star and this is hidden for some time? What does it look like then, a ball of glowing gas? How long does it take to be identifiable as a distinct object, where 'there's the star' and 'there's the edge of space' (plus or minus the coronasphere which flings off stuff like mad, IIRC).
if anyone knows how this stuff happens, in detail, can you give a pointer to it or explain here (a) what exactly does the process of stellar birth LOOK like, and (b) what did we discover about it recently...? And, Please, use all the technical terms that are appropriate, I'm both capable and interested and can look up terms later if need be... Thanks!!?!?!?!???
As a proud University of Kansas Jayhawk Alumni (1992 Bachelor of Science Computer Science) I have a perspective on this - Not all of Kansas is this conservative.
There are several isolated centers of liberalism (most notably NOT the oxymoronically named town of Liberal, KS) which include Lawrence, some of Topeka, the Kansas City suburbs, and parts of Wichita. However, the vast majority of the state is very Red.
This debate highlights several contrasts in Kansas culture. Many small towns resent the power that the bigger population centers hold over Kansas political power, and are more vehemently conservative because of it. They feel they must fight for their views to be heard.
Another factor here is the ever-more-computer-enhanced jerrymandered redistricting that has been taking place nationwide (most eggregiously in Texas 3+ years ago). As a result, since politicians are more secure in their political bases, they feel free to pander to their most vocal (and most extreme) constituents, since there is no need to appeal to the center. This also selects for more extreme views.
Lastly, this is a confusing trend in the light of the long Kansas tradition of progressive politics, starting wwwwwaaayy back with the Grange organization, which pushed for social-security-type platforms to support destitute farmers in the 1800's.
Even more confusing is the last-10-years trend towards confusing conservative social policies (less freedom for the individual to ensure compliance with moral laws) with conservative fiscal and governmental policies (more individual freedoms and less overall government interference). The freedom-to-farm act (an attempt to liberalize the agriculture market and reduce dependence that farmers don't want on subsidies) contrasts strongly with strong corporate farm interests that advocate for greater involvement, which also contrasts with traditional Republican less-government-is-better.
Also throw in there the strong German-American and now hispanic Catholic elements that, at the recently increasing behest of Rome, are catching on that Intelligent Design is contrary to scriptural meanings, that it confuses the spiritual (some would say 'religious mythical truths') and the scientific truths to the vast detriment of both.
All in all, things are a bit confused and I suspect that when the voters start pushing for actual policies to solve problems (during the next recession, let's say). I just don't know when they'll figure it out.
I've never been a fan of the join syntax. 'Inner' and 'outer' and 'left' and 'right' and 'full' joins? Let's for gosh sakes use the simple set-theory math terms we all understand.
Instead of:
select A.f1, b.f1, b.f2 from A join B on A.f1 = b.f1
do:
Perhaps, instead of replacing SQL, let's just add a clause to the update statement (or insert statement):
insert into table tabname (field1, field2) values (1, 2) [ WITH UPDATE [ALL,FIRST,ADD,NONE] ON FIELD1=1 ];
Thus, if the row exists with field1=1, it will update that row to with value field2=2.
If there are multiple rows where field1=1, define either update all of them (uses 'ALL'), update the first one found (uses 'FIRST'), insert one more (uses 'ADD'), or updates none of them (uses 'NONE').
Alternately, you could add this syntax to the UPDATE verb:
UPDATE TABLE tabname set field=1, field2=2 where field3=3 [ WITH [ NO ] INSERT ]
This would do the select for field3=3. If one or more records were found, update per request. If no records were found, insert a record with field1=1, field2=2 (field3 would be NULL since it's not specified in the 'set' subclause, only in the 'where' clause).
This solves your problem, provides two interesting methods.
In a short article, mentioning "Soyuz" and "1960's technology" in the same sentence has the effect of biasing the audience.
Original version: "Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s."
Alternatives:
* Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is a modern derivative of Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model undergoing refinement since the late 1960's.
* Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a modern derivative of a model originally developed in the late 1960s.
* Shenzhou VI is a modern and increasingly unique Chinese derivative of Russia's Soyuz spacecraft designs.
Complete, relevent section of article reads:
Technical improvements:
Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s.
Liu Yu, commander in chief of the rocket system, said the rocket for Shenzhou VI was an improvement on the one used two years ago. "We have confidence in the quality of this rocket. We have the conditions and capability to fulfil this mission," Mr Liu told Xinhua.
Mr Yang's flight in 2003 made China only the third nation to put a human into space, after Russia and the United States. China has had a rocketry program since the 1950s, and Beijing fired its first satellite into orbit in 1970. China's space programme, which is closely linked to the military, is a matter of enormous national pride for the government. Chinese officials say they want to land an unmanned probe on the moon by 2010, and also build a space station.
I stand by my previous assessment. I acknowledge that some articles mention that Delta rockets are derived from 1950's American THOR IRBM military rockets (see: Delta_rocket on Wikipedia). However, most mention that this has been significantly improved in the intervening decades. This article has a subtle bias that I want to highlight; the idea that the Chinese (and even Russian) Soyuz-derived rockets are somehow outdated, backward, stone-age 1960's-era technology compared to U.S. and E.U. models (like, laughably, the Space Shuttle, designed in the very early 1970's for quasi-military missions).
Admittedly, some of the Chinese technology might seem backward. In the 1980's, they lauched a probe that had to re-enter Earth's atmosphere and needed a heat shield. They researched a bunch of different high tech materials, testing ablating rates, weight, cost, heat transfer, etc., and finally settled on Oak. Yes, a wooden heat shield. It apparently ablated at a known and reliable rate, was a good heat insulator, and had many other benefits, the very least of which was cost. I recognize engineering genius in this decision, but the reporting on it laughed and laughed about the low-tech, backwards-assed Chinese program. I disrespect reporting that presumes that high tech requires high cost; I also disrespect reporting that pretends that basic designs originating in the 1960's but refined constantly since then are somehow less than state of the art.
In programming, it's "On the shoulders of giants we climb"; this is true of many engineering disciplines and I want to highlight the sometimes subtle bias in science reporting presuming all-new == much-better.
From the Article:
Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s.
TFA (The F-ing Article) reads as if they are working with 1960-s era technology. I would suggest that this is biased reporting based on a premise that the Chinese technology is from the 1960's and they're using it now because that's the best they can do.
Instead, I would suggest that they are probably using a derivative of the Soyuz technology updated with modern materials and techniques. The U.S. is using Delta launch vehicles which had their roots in the 1960's as well, but we don't advertise that a rocket was a "Delta-IV, a model developed in the early 1960's" because most of the innards have been updated and redesigned with techniques and materials that are the latest in rocket design.
The Chinese program may not use as advanced a technology as the U.S. Delta and E.U.'s Ariane programs, but that doesn't mean the rocket was designed in the 1960's and they're stuck still using that level of ability.
Space reporting should not be politically biased.
- http://www.house.gov/pickering/Charles "Chip" Pickering, Mississippi's 3rd.
- http://www.house.gov/towns/index.shtmEdolphus TownsNew York's 10th (Brooklyn NY ).
- http://www.house.gov/ShimkusJohn Shimkus, Illinois 19th (Collinsville, IL).
- http://www.radanovich.house.gov/George Radanovich (California's Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, Stanislaus and Tuolumne Counties)
- http://www.house.gov/fergusonMike Ferguson, New Jersey's 7th (Warren, NJ)
- http://www.house.gov/blackburnMarsha Blackburn, Tennesee's 7th (Clarksville, TN)
- http://www.house.gov/bono/Mary Bono, California 45th (Palm Springs and East a bit)
- http://www.house.gov/gordon/Bart Gordon (Tennessee's 6th, middle of Tennessee except Nashville)
- http://www.house.gov/terryJoe Terry (unknown!?)
- http://www.house.gov/whitfieldEd Whitfield (Kentucky's 1st, Tompkinsville, KY)
- http://www.house.gov/rush/Bobby Rush, Illinois 1st (Chicago, IL)
- http://www.house.gov/fossellaVito Fossella New York's 13th (Staten Island and Brooklyn, NY)
- http://www.house.gov/engelElliot L. Engel New York (Bronx, Westchester, etc.)
- http://www.house.gov/shadeggJohn B. Shadegg, Arizona
- http://www.house.gov/wynnAlbert Russell Wynn, Maryland's 4th (Largo, Maryland)
- http://www.house.gov/doyleMichael F. Doyle, Pennsylvania's 14th
- http://www.house.gov/gonzalezCharles A. Gonzalez
- http://www.house.gov/bassCharles F. Bass
- http://www.house.gov/sullivanJohn Sullivan
- http://www.house.gov/palloneFrank Pallone, Jr.
These are the actual links to the congressional pages of these people.
Sorry I can't fininsh this, lunch break is over...
Our small but growing startup is using Fogbugz , an excellent bug tracking tool. It is integrated with our subversion repository, and I have nothing but high praise for its ease of use and feature set.
Fogbugz easily solves this dilemma. To restate, the same bug is present in multiple revisions, and it must be fixed in each one.
One bug is created describing the problem. The bug's is marked as present in one of the revisions, and the text of the bug includes which branches/revisions it is present in. As each revision/branch is fixed, the bug is changed in the 'fix-for' to the next revision, and a comment added with info on the remaining branches to be fixed.
I would suggest to the Fogbugz development team (headed by Joel Spolsky ) that it is possible to handle this even better by allowing multiple revisions to be selected for the 'FixFor' pulldown, and then thereafter allow these to be unchecked or added to as need be.
Otherwise, the existing Fogbugz will work just fine. I can't speak to Bugzilla, but it might have a technique as well.
I'm not ready to disqualify a supreme court nominee based on their having had as a client one of the richest corporations on the planet. She was head of the largest law firm in (Texas? Dallas?) and thus had available lawyers to devote to a case; Microsoft had money to pay them; that's normal.
I would object to this nominee based on her:
* committing unethical acts while representing them;
* arguing a totally untenable or specious position or otherwise demonstrating gross incompetence;
* obviously agreeing with her client in her private speech (indicating a personal position, not a professional representation of her client's position), where that client's position was representative of unethical behavior or attitudes, etc.;
* use of legal arguments based far outside of conventional legal mainstream thought (the Bork-Wacko factor).
It seems to me we should pay attention to ethics, competence, and political leanings that don't represent the broadly accepted norm, or if she's in the past said she will legislate from the bench (which I highly doubt given her lack of being a judge previously).
As Richard Feynman's brilliant analysis from 1986 clearly states, the shuttle's main engines were NOT designed properly and are doomed to be both expensive to maintain and markedly dangerous to use.
t ml
A link to his comments is at http://www.ralentz.com/old/space/feynman-report.h
He has a wonderful explanation, in terms that non-engineers as well as engineers can understand, about how to build complex devices. Good engineering, he says, comes from dividing the task in to component parts, creating specifications for those parts, building samples, testing them to their limits, retesting them to various other limits, until you have a complete understanding of all the failure modes of that component, as well as the reliability of your manufacturing process for that component. Then, you assemble multiple components together and test that assembly together in all the modes you can conjure up, to create what I have always heard termed, "A Well-characterized System".
As he points out, the space shuttle main engines (SSME's), though complex and "groundbreaking" in the sense that they were very big and incorporating some (at the time) quite advanced technologies, they were NOT WELL CHARACTERIZED on a component basis. To my knowledge (although I'm not a NASA watcher with as much fervor as some) I don't believe the SSMEs have EVER BEEN analyzed and re-engineered to create characterizations of their failure points, reliability, etc.
The fact that NASA's next plan is to use them in the follow-on vehicles for heavy lift only testifies to NASA's complete lack of focus here. They should put out several contracts for heavy lift engines with well-characterized failure modes, with focuses on reusability, reliability, maintenance cost, and overall operating cost.
We're soon going to be stuck with the next-gen heavy lift using components of unknown reliability, which forces us to replace component parts ("tune-up" or "overhaul") the system too often and with too large an expense.
Feynman was right. Solve the root cause. Engineer these things with good methodologies. And don't tie us down to next-gen-of-schlock-engineering if we don't have to be. I congratulate the able engineers who worked on the SSME's, but I respect Feynman's analysis that correct procedures benefit lowering long-term costs and ensure safety of the admirable crews who pilot our national spacecraft.
Does anyone think it's mighty strange that the number of users here coincides EXACTLY at 1,000,000 with the number of people left homeless by Hurricane Katrina?!?!??!
News reports have cited a figure of exactly 1 million people left homeless. I suspect this is MORE than a coincidence! There have to be larger forces at work here!
Perhaps all those displaced people have become enthralled with this game and have been sucked up, TRON-like, into the depths of the online environment!!!!
We're All Dooooooooooomd!
I taught astronomy at KU as a discussion section leader in 1991. We used scantron machines. These were #2 pencil IBM-card (~3 inches wide by ~8 inches tall) sized.
The machines could NOT have been expensive. Using them was dead simple. We (the section leaders) wrote several tests, and rearranged each test to have different orderings for the choices. Thus, on test version A-1, I had answers (a) Sun, (b) Moon, (c) Earth, then on A-2 I had (a) Moon, (b) Sun, (c) Earth, etc. Then, we looked at their version of the test, and put in the right key.
This kept cheating to a minimum; at the least they had to memorize the answers instead of the answer key. And, memorizing the answers was kind of okay in a sense since they at least paid attention to the subject material.
I'd like to congratulate our muses, our modding overlords, our interesting crowd-drawing slashdotting crowds who, so far, have created 86 comments that are all modded at 1 or higher (no 0's, no -1's).
In the fine tradition of upsetting the applecart, I'd like to attribute this lack to:
* the utter stupidity of Rush Limbaugh;
* several really mundane things that John Kerry said once;
* the fact that all (ethnic-group-here) people are different than me;
* Microsoft being really suckky and underappreciated;
* Linux being really suckky and no one being willing to defend it;
* Not enough fans of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera" participating in this discussion;
* A complete lack of PETA members willing to talk about their concerns over my diet;
Remember, people: Somewhere, somehow, a troll is crying.
-- Kevin
Oops, should have spell checked myself, Sorry, that's "electromagnetism". At least I know when I'm wrong, though. Mostly. If you don't listen to my wife. Mostly.
Mod parent UP.
Information flow (see: Steven Hawking's theories) cannot propogate at faster than the speed of light, or causality is violated and we have (dead virgins/future grandfathers) all over the place.
All 4 basic forces: electromagnatism, gravity, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear (not Nukular; bite me, George) forces propogate at the speed of light in their reference frame. If we switch frames we're not fooling anyone; if we preposition information we're not watching causality violations.
This kind of story is quite irritating, not due to the actual achievement involved (playing with light propogation is actually very cool geek-cred stuff), but the overhype and miscommunication to all the laypersons out there who just go, "Yup, that's an 'oops', they said it was a law and now it ain't. I guess evolution might not really be true, dad-gummit, I don't trust me none o' dem smarty pants anyway."
I agree about http://foreignpolicy.com/ not updating often enough, well said.
* I think we are agreeing on Iran being an area of concern.
* It seems you believe that a precision bombing strike on Iran's Uranium refining facility would be a good proactive solution with minimal loss of Iranian lives;
* I don't believe Iran would declare war on the U.S. in the event of such an airstrike, but it's possible (how would we respond if they managed to bomb a Fort Riley, Kansas? Would we declare war? Quite Probably.)
My point is this: The USA has far more to fear in the next decade(s) from FAILED nation states than from STRONG ones. (I'm quoting ForeignPolicy.com's article "The Failed States Index") http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3
I'm really sorry, but: I must compliment you on your extraordinary ability to construct run-on sentences; it's difficult to follow you but I'll try
Police, like tanks, are economically wasteful ONLY if everyone is honest. If there were no crime, it would be silly to have people enforcing laws. I agree with you that Police ARE essential, but would count their cost as basic infrastructure costs, like fire protection and insurance. Businesses crave predictable risks above most everything else.
Much of your comment is confusingly worded, but I think you're saying:
* we should police the middle east or a 'mafia' will rise there;
* this policing will pay off later with more stability and thus lower defense costs;
* OPEC is fighting renewable energy.
You might want to consider the implications of bombing Iran before being cavalier about it. I understand your frustration over being unable to stop their nuclear ambitions and thinking unilateral action (as with Iraq) will solve this.
The situation is complex. Bombing another Islamic country, like Iran, will generate lots of hatred (as well as killing people there). Iranians are proud people, with a long, rich, powerful history, a strong desire to join the rest of the world in technological and socioeconomic advancements. Current economic and political power is concentrated in rigid, somewhat intractable religio-politico oligarchic structures. They have a huge generation gap (young=liberal, old=powerful=conservative). Educationally, the tradition is memorization (with much less critical thinking than is taught in the U.S.).
Bombing their reactor will do little to slow their progress. Bombing Germany in WWII only slightly slowed industrial output, it only decentralized it. The same will occur in Iran. Plus, we now have a proud nation that won't listen to us or our alies, they're put into a defensive posture, and must prove something to the world to save face.
Good foreign policy has both a carrot and a stick. Check out http://foreignpolicy.com/. Yes, the world is complex, and complexity is yucky, but there are ways to help the world be a better place without reflexively using the military (many leaders of which would wholeheartedly agree with that statement).
But war helps you get funding for things that would normally be hard to get.
The two great economic motivators, GREED and FEAR provide plenty of funding for long-shot ideas. Witness any number of dot-coms/dot-bombs.
we won't fund something that has no immediate benefit
Pure science research and development has been funded forever, from Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, etc. all getting stipends from the rich to pursue such things. Today, this continues with both public (governmental) and private financial support of pure-science research.
NOTE: If you are really just lamenting a lack of funding for science in your speciality (or your interest area, like space sciences), this is fixable with a POSTCARD* to your member of Congress or Senator.
* Postcards are great because they WILL be read by staffers; they're short and force you to condense your thoughts; they don't need to be opened so more people see the actual message; etc.
We all know that basic sciences R&D isn't funded as well as it should be, but it is competing with lots noise from 'mythos' vs. 'logos' confusers otherwise known as fundamentalists.
I remember reading this horrible idea when I was growing up, that during times of war, people have to get inventive to survive, and this inventiveness translates into technology that has civilian applications after the war. This sounds plausible but ignores the huge economic forces that shift during wartime, as well as the PAIN and DEATH of innocent adults and CHILDREN that war brings.
Be aware that pre-1930, the US government was very, very small. The depression and world war II changed that by decoupling the gold standard, vastly changing dynamics of monetary policy, credit creation, and other factors that combined to stimulate massive economic and thus technological growth at the time (DESPITE the war's wasting of the fruits of this growth).
However, the growth didn't come from the war. In fact, GDP can easily be shown to decline when population decreases (look at malaria- and AIDS-torn Africa). Perhaps the redistribution of wealth in war can in some small circumstances be good (where oligarchs are preventing growth) but this is a stretch. MOSTLY:
* War is very destructive of capital goods and prevents spending newer, more productive capital goods;
* War production is WASTED from an economic perspective (tanks are not useful for plowing fields for farming, for instance, and produce further economic good);
* War consumes vast amounts of resources that could be used for productive ends like technological development.
The thought that war is good because it stimulates development is just not true. War redirects some funds towards development in novel areas, but wastes vast amounts of money/capital elsewhere. If you want tech development, fund it. Don't confuse the US's conversion from an agrarian economy to industrial giant at the time of a war with the war causing the shift.
This isn't to say that war isn't occassionally necesary to right a wrong. In my view, a large-scale fight can sometimes save lives by halting a low-scale conflict that would have continued for many years. But, technological advancement or economic growth should never be used as justification for actual warmaking because these arguments are specious and come from a small view of the overall economic effects.