Except that the faster algorthm is a memory hog, and takes an extra week because it is thrashing physical storage across the network trying to access those three billion multimedia records.
I've seen some really horrendous code using "advanced" algorithms in my time, and it has usually come from the computer science types that have the mindset that they don't need to know what the underlying hardware is capable of. The hardware and algorithms are, always have been, and always will be very tightly coupled.
Not only that, on my welding tanks there is no way to connect my acetylene hose to the oxygen tank. The threads are reversed between the two. Having oxygen and liquid IV hoses using the same type of connector, in the same size of clear tube is just plain STUPID. You can't plug an ethernet cable into your telephone port. And your telephone won't take a fiber or USB cable. Hell, you have multiple type of fiber connectors just to distinguish the various types of cable. Nurses are called upon to constantly change connections around. Much more than any IT admin would ever consider doing. The current system is just begging for mistakes to happen.
Good point, icebike. Incinerators are just special burners built to cleanly burn things that shouldn't be burned. Note that I said, "segregate [the trash] into various flammable materials and ship it to the local coal fired power plant."
Why do we build a specialized burner, when there are burners already available that ingest a huge amount of toxic crap and spew it all over the place? Outlaw inks or coatings that will produce toxic byproducts, pull the flammable stuff out, and use it to reduce the amount of coal we're using. Not a perfect solution, but it's got to be better than the way incinerators and cardboard recycling are done now (for the reasons you state).
Except engines don't have parts actively sabotaging each other for personal gain.
Yes they do. The rings will rip the cylinder walls apart if the oil doesn't get in the way. The oil is there to keep the parts from touching, just like government is supposed to intervene in many situations.
Come to think of it, maybe you're right. You should drain all that excess oil that sits in your oil pan like lazy govt employees and only keep what your engine currently needs in it's oil passages and filter. 2 quarts total should do it. (or 1/4 quart if a motorcycle)
The engine will operate perfectly fine, for a while. A secondary duty of oil is to carry away sludge and acids which form as a result of combustion. Congress mandated 6,000 miles between oil changes, and one of the responses from engine engineers was to increase the size of the oil pan. My analogy doesn't really cover this aspect of oil/government. I don't see how there is any correlation. I was speaking about the type of oil. Use 90wt gear oil and the engine will be destroyed. Use lightweight mineral oil and the engine will be destroyed. There is a balance to be obtained, and I think the current governmental situation is far from optimum.
Or the majority of the GOP representatives who believe the health care bill included mass euthanasia?
oooh! Good propaganda there, jeff4747.
I didn't hear anyone making claims of mass euthanasia. What I heard is that some people read that there would be panels set up do determine what health care a patient would need, and that these panels would be able to decide that a person would not receive any health care, based on unspecified criteria, of course. Denying the health care would amount to a death sentence for some. Hence, the propagandist term "death panel". A bit over the top, but a fair reading of what the legislation prescribed.
But, mass euthanasia is just ridiculous. To claim that, we'd have to show that the legislation specifically set up methods that would actively kill sick people. I don't think anyone claimed that. But, I am open to correction if you have some evidence to the contrary.
Maybe it is because the receptionist and the truck driver have enough sense to realize that if the taxes get raised on the rich enough, then the rich won't be able to employ them any longer.
Government is like oil in an engine. The oil adds drag to the moving parts, making the engine less efficient; but, the engine will tear itself apart if the oil is completely removed. We've seen the move to lighter oils for high reving engines over the last few years, precisely because the lighter oils are more efficient. When government get to thick, it has the potential to drag everything to a halt.
That's not liberal vs conservative. It is statist vs libertarian.
I couldn't tell the difference between McCain and Obama, because I've given up on the liberal-vs-conservative scale. For every question in every debate, Obama and McCain had the same answer to every question, "I'll fix the problem with more government."
Government is a necessary part of every functioning society, but as in everything else there must be balance.
Where do you live? In Wake County, the COUNTY runs the schools and allocates funds. It doesn't matter what the property tax is in your part of town, and all the property taxes are mixed together and then doled out where necessary.
If you want to speak of a vicious cycle, how about "Bad schools have bad students, which tend to drive away all but the worst of teachers, which produces bad students."
Do you really think that you need salaries in the millions, with benefits of even greater value to attract enough people capable of running a large company? Is the labor pool really as small as they'd like you to believe?
It would seem that the answer from Ben-and-Jerry's Ice Cream would be "YES".
They tried lowballing for a cheap CEO, and then had to go back into the market and spend more.
Here's a clue. If Company A has a thousand employees, it can ignore each individual. If the thousand employees speak with one voice, there is at least partial equality of power between the two negotiating parties.
Here's a better clue. If there is only one union, they can shut down Company A in favor of Company B. When we have multiple Union A and Unition B competing for the business of Company A, THEN I will concede that you're clue makes any sense at all.
Is it OK for the CEO's to march in front of the corporate headquarters and not let other CEO's apply for the job?
The problem isn't with collective bargaining. The problem is with collective bargaining while intimidating or even outlawing competitive collective bargaining. Where is the competing union bargaining for the jobs.
And an employer is an employer. You get paid with my tax money, and you expect to have unsupervised control of my children. Now, shut up and get back to work.
Furthermore, while a gay person might have Barney Franks to go to, you, as a white male, can go to 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House to find someone white. An only slightly smaller fraction of that would be white and male. So no, you're not being prosecuted or mistreated. You're still part of the group in power.
Really? And not having a wad of cash in order to make a campaign contribution, just exactly how much of an audience to you think I will get from the 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House?
And what does OJ have to do with anything? He was tried for murder, and got off because one of the investigators forgot that he had use the word nigger as an actor in a documentary movie about racism. He was then sued in civil court because it was so damn obvious that he had murdered his ex-wife. I went to a majority black college, and had a professor rant at me in front of the classroom about how the "whoring bitch" (his words) deserved to have her head cut off. When I reported the intimidation to the civil rights office of the college, I was told that some of the faculty got a pass on this sort of thing because they had been around so long and had marched with Martin Luther King. A white professor would have been looking for a job the next day. Hell, if you're a white talk show host, where you JOB is to be inflammatory, you can't even say the word nigger in the context of asking why is it OK for only one group of people to use the word nigger. Where was the white power structure when Dr. Laura needed them?
If you're rich, there may be some power structure to support you if you don't step out of line; otherwise, forget it. You're on your own.
A notable example of this was the Democratic rally riots in the 60's, where the only thing that was shown on TV was the police beating on college students. The footage of rock throwing, spitting and taunting insults being thrown at the police were suspiciously absent. Not that it excuses the police brutality, but it is a completely different narrative. "I was sitting there, innocently minding my own business when the mean policeman started beating me with a club" is a completely different story than "I was pitching rocks at that fat-ass, when he started chasing me down."
So instead of segregating and then burying the trash, why not segregate it into various flammable materials and ship it to the local coal fired power plant. Outlaw the various chemicals in the packaging that makes the combustion produce toxic gases* so that the trash burns cleaner that the coal.
I look at my kitchen trash all the time and think, "What a waste!" Orange juice is shipped in wax coated cardboard. Cardboard boxes for cereal, pizza, and half of the stuff that goes in the freezer. Nearly every food product has a flammable plastic bag in there somewhere. Is there any food product that ships without a flammable container?
But our garbage disposals have been outlawed, so we dump leftovers on top of all this flammable material. The incinerators I've seen just take bags of household trash and end up losing money. Would they be more efficient if the trash was pre-segregated and did not have flame quenching moldy green beans mixed in with flammable cardboards and plastics.
*Does it make sense to sell those plastics to consumers anyway? Makes a house fire that much more dangerous.
My comment does explain this case. The defendant obviously had enough money to support the appeals process. The original court gave SUMMARY JUDGEMENT. Without the financial ability to keep fighting, the administration can do whatever is damn well pleases.
How about the movie "Babel"? A little boy masturbating? A teenage girl showing her "hairy monster"? A full frontal nudity of a teenage girl, and depictions of her having sex with an adult?
Their excuse being that the girl was of age. But how does that jive with people being arrested for cartoon depictions of child sex?
(In the UK when anyone questioned immigration policy they were publically branded "racist" by the Labour party and prevented it from being debated. It was a legitimate concern)
That's funny. In the US, all you have to do is question anything our President does and you'll get labeled a racist by the Democrats. We always have to do everyone else one better.
they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography
Why are they emphasizing the child porn? After the scenes of incestuous child masturbation, full-frontal nudity of a teenage girl, and the close-up of a girl's "hairy monster" that came from the movie "Babel", they could have just left out the "and" statement.
There is a very thick history of the so-called "justice" system colluding with the so-called "education" system. Basically, the law has handed the children over to administrators, and whatever the administrators claim the children do is taken as the gospel truth. Do a review of case history. One case after another has administrators claiming they can do whatever they please, and the courts agreeing with them. Only people with enough money to pursue cases through years of appeals can get it recognized by higher courts that minors do in fact have a right to due process.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the faster algorthm is a memory hog, and takes an extra week because it is thrashing physical storage across the network trying to access those three billion multimedia records.
I've seen some really horrendous code using "advanced" algorithms in my time, and it has usually come from the computer science types that have the mindset that they don't need to know what the underlying hardware is capable of. The hardware and algorithms are, always have been, and always will be very tightly coupled.
Not only that, on my welding tanks there is no way to connect my acetylene hose to the oxygen tank. The threads are reversed between the two. Having oxygen and liquid IV hoses using the same type of connector, in the same size of clear tube is just plain STUPID. You can't plug an ethernet cable into your telephone port. And your telephone won't take a fiber or USB cable. Hell, you have multiple type of fiber connectors just to distinguish the various types of cable. Nurses are called upon to constantly change connections around. Much more than any IT admin would ever consider doing. The current system is just begging for mistakes to happen.
Good point, icebike. Incinerators are just special burners built to cleanly burn things that shouldn't be burned. Note that I said, "segregate [the trash] into various flammable materials and ship it to the local coal fired power plant."
Why do we build a specialized burner, when there are burners already available that ingest a huge amount of toxic crap and spew it all over the place? Outlaw inks or coatings that will produce toxic byproducts, pull the flammable stuff out, and use it to reduce the amount of coal we're using. Not a perfect solution, but it's got to be better than the way incinerators and cardboard recycling are done now (for the reasons you state).
Except engines don't have parts actively sabotaging each other for personal gain.
Yes they do. The rings will rip the cylinder walls apart if the oil doesn't get in the way. The oil is there to keep the parts from touching, just like government is supposed to intervene in many situations.
Come to think of it, maybe you're right. You should drain all that excess oil that sits in your oil pan like lazy govt employees and only keep what your engine currently needs in it's oil passages and filter. 2 quarts total should do it. (or 1/4 quart if a motorcycle)
The engine will operate perfectly fine, for a while. A secondary duty of oil is to carry away sludge and acids which form as a result of combustion. Congress mandated 6,000 miles between oil changes, and one of the responses from engine engineers was to increase the size of the oil pan. My analogy doesn't really cover this aspect of oil/government. I don't see how there is any correlation. I was speaking about the type of oil. Use 90wt gear oil and the engine will be destroyed. Use lightweight mineral oil and the engine will be destroyed. There is a balance to be obtained, and I think the current governmental situation is far from optimum.
Why would they need to pay bloggers, when they have the likes of Dan Rather milling up false documents to cast a bad light on their competition?
At one time, the GOP was sane. It started going off the rails in 1994 and it keeps getting worse. I miss having a sane opposition.
I just made the link here. 1994. Wasn't that when Hillary started going off about the "vast right wing conspiracy" that was out to get her and Bill?
Or the majority of the GOP representatives who believe the health care bill included mass euthanasia?
oooh! Good propaganda there, jeff4747.
I didn't hear anyone making claims of mass euthanasia. What I heard is that some people read that there would be panels set up do determine what health care a patient would need, and that these panels would be able to decide that a person would not receive any health care, based on unspecified criteria, of course. Denying the health care would amount to a death sentence for some. Hence, the propagandist term "death panel". A bit over the top, but a fair reading of what the legislation prescribed.
But, mass euthanasia is just ridiculous. To claim that, we'd have to show that the legislation specifically set up methods that would actively kill sick people. I don't think anyone claimed that. But, I am open to correction if you have some evidence to the contrary.
Maybe it is because the receptionist and the truck driver have enough sense to realize that if the taxes get raised on the rich enough, then the rich won't be able to employ them any longer.
Government is like oil in an engine. The oil adds drag to the moving parts, making the engine less efficient; but, the engine will tear itself apart if the oil is completely removed. We've seen the move to lighter oils for high reving engines over the last few years, precisely because the lighter oils are more efficient. When government get to thick, it has the potential to drag everything to a halt.
That's not liberal vs conservative. It is statist vs libertarian.
I couldn't tell the difference between McCain and Obama, because I've given up on the liberal-vs-conservative scale. For every question in every debate, Obama and McCain had the same answer to every question, "I'll fix the problem with more government."
Government is a necessary part of every functioning society, but as in everything else there must be balance.
Where do you live? In Wake County, the COUNTY runs the schools and allocates funds. It doesn't matter what the property tax is in your part of town, and all the property taxes are mixed together and then doled out where necessary.
If you want to speak of a vicious cycle, how about "Bad schools have bad students, which tend to drive away all but the worst of teachers, which produces bad students."
Do you really think that you need salaries in the millions, with benefits of even greater value to attract enough people capable of running a large company? Is the labor pool really as small as they'd like you to believe?
It would seem that the answer from Ben-and-Jerry's Ice Cream would be "YES".
They tried lowballing for a cheap CEO, and then had to go back into the market and spend more.
Here's a clue. If Company A has a thousand employees, it can ignore each individual. If the thousand employees speak with one voice, there is at least partial equality of power between the two negotiating parties.
Here's a better clue. If there is only one union, they can shut down Company A in favor of Company B. When we have multiple Union A and Unition B competing for the business of Company A, THEN I will concede that you're clue makes any sense at all.
Maybe I borrowed $20k on the car, but now I want to pay them $12k. Are they going to go for that you think?
Have you no idea what bankruptcy court does?
Is it OK for the CEO's to march in front of the corporate headquarters and not let other CEO's apply for the job?
The problem isn't with collective bargaining. The problem is with collective bargaining while intimidating or even outlawing competitive collective bargaining. Where is the competing union bargaining for the jobs.
And an employer is an employer. You get paid with my tax money, and you expect to have unsupervised control of my children. Now, shut up and get back to work.
Furthermore, while a gay person might have Barney Franks to go to, you, as a white male, can go to 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House to find someone white. An only slightly smaller fraction of that would be white and male. So no, you're not being prosecuted or mistreated. You're still part of the group in power.
Really? And not having a wad of cash in order to make a campaign contribution, just exactly how much of an audience to you think I will get from the 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House?
And what does OJ have to do with anything? He was tried for murder, and got off because one of the investigators forgot that he had use the word nigger as an actor in a documentary movie about racism. He was then sued in civil court because it was so damn obvious that he had murdered his ex-wife. I went to a majority black college, and had a professor rant at me in front of the classroom about how the "whoring bitch" (his words) deserved to have her head cut off. When I reported the intimidation to the civil rights office of the college, I was told that some of the faculty got a pass on this sort of thing because they had been around so long and had marched with Martin Luther King. A white professor would have been looking for a job the next day. Hell, if you're a white talk show host, where you JOB is to be inflammatory, you can't even say the word nigger in the context of asking why is it OK for only one group of people to use the word nigger. Where was the white power structure when Dr. Laura needed them?
If you're rich, there may be some power structure to support you if you don't step out of line; otherwise, forget it. You're on your own.
A notable example of this was the Democratic rally riots in the 60's, where the only thing that was shown on TV was the police beating on college students. The footage of rock throwing, spitting and taunting insults being thrown at the police were suspiciously absent. Not that it excuses the police brutality, but it is a completely different narrative. "I was sitting there, innocently minding my own business when the mean policeman started beating me with a club" is a completely different story than "I was pitching rocks at that fat-ass, when he started chasing me down."
So instead of segregating and then burying the trash, why not segregate it into various flammable materials and ship it to the local coal fired power plant. Outlaw the various chemicals in the packaging that makes the combustion produce toxic gases* so that the trash burns cleaner that the coal.
I look at my kitchen trash all the time and think, "What a waste!" Orange juice is shipped in wax coated cardboard. Cardboard boxes for cereal, pizza, and half of the stuff that goes in the freezer. Nearly every food product has a flammable plastic bag in there somewhere. Is there any food product that ships without a flammable container?
But our garbage disposals have been outlawed, so we dump leftovers on top of all this flammable material. The incinerators I've seen just take bags of household trash and end up losing money. Would they be more efficient if the trash was pre-segregated and did not have flame quenching moldy green beans mixed in with flammable cardboards and plastics.
*Does it make sense to sell those plastics to consumers anyway? Makes a house fire that much more dangerous.
However, on rehearing before the entire court, the court of appeals held that Ms. Redding's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated.
My comment does explain this case. The defendant obviously had enough money to support the appeals process. The original court gave SUMMARY JUDGEMENT. Without the financial ability to keep fighting, the administration can do whatever is damn well pleases.
How about the movie "Babel"? A little boy masturbating? A teenage girl showing her "hairy monster"? A full frontal nudity of a teenage girl, and depictions of her having sex with an adult?
Their excuse being that the girl was of age. But how does that jive with people being arrested for cartoon depictions of child sex?
(In the UK when anyone questioned immigration policy they were publically branded "racist" by the Labour party and prevented it from being debated. It was a legitimate concern)
That's funny. In the US, all you have to do is question anything our President does and you'll get labeled a racist by the Democrats. We always have to do everyone else one better.
Have you seen the movie "Babel"? RIAA is actually a distributor of child porn.
Wouldn't want people watching the movie "Babel" without paying, now would we?
they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography
Why are they emphasizing the child porn? After the scenes of incestuous child masturbation, full-frontal nudity of a teenage girl, and the close-up of a girl's "hairy monster" that came from the movie "Babel", they could have just left out the "and" statement.
There is a very thick history of the so-called "justice" system colluding with the so-called "education" system. Basically, the law has handed the children over to administrators, and whatever the administrators claim the children do is taken as the gospel truth. Do a review of case history. One case after another has administrators claiming they can do whatever they please, and the courts agreeing with them. Only people with enough money to pursue cases through years of appeals can get it recognized by higher courts that minors do in fact have a right to due process.