The cheap desktop IDE/SATA drives of today are actually specified (and hopefully designed) to be powered up and down multiple times per day during their entire lifetime.
The data sheet on a brand new 750GB WD SATA drive says that it's rated for at least 50,000 power cycles. What's your idea of "multiple times per day"? In a low-duty fileserver where you transfer a file, then spin down; transfer then spin down; transfer then spin down 50 times a day, you're going to get about 3 years out of it. Laptop drives are far better, but you probably weren't planning to put those in your fileserver.
OK, I'm not going to list ever language I've ever used or otherwise enter a bragging contest, but please just take me at face value when I say I've been around the block a few times. To me, Ruby "feels" like it's trying to be clever. I hate clever, not at first - no, it's fun when you're writing it! - but a year later when I have to maintain something.
Put another way: my wife isn't a programmer but she can read a lot of my Python code. I'm perfectly at home with C, Perl, and various assemblers but I can't make heads or tails of Ruby. Yeah, I know that familiarity and experience goes a long way toward fixing that ill, but since I already have Python, I just haven't felt the need to make the effort to learn Ruby.
It's not a full time responsibility of somebody - it's one part of the job of a general asset coordinator. If it's done properly from the start, it takes very little time.
Actually, zero time for companies that get tired of screwing around with compliance management and upgrade to FOSS.
If companies just buy the software they intend to use, they don't have to worry about huge fines.
That's so completely untrue. It's not enough to show that you have the software. You must also be able to prove that you bought the software by keeping every receipt and invoice from every vendor. In many companies, this is the full-time responsibility of one or more employees. Use Windows? $50K a year just to have someone to prove you're allowed to. Fun, huh?
From the title, I thought it was going to be an exciting tale about a bunch of companies that robbed a warehouse full of software. Such a disappointment to find that it didn't involve stealing at all, but just some boring copyright violation.
I'm not saying that what you said, isnt true... but its not entirely true in all cases. Absolutely the iPod is a fashion statement, a trendy thing to own... but it won me over because of features.
Oh, I'd never claim otherwise. They're definitely good, just not (IMHO) so good that they'd outsell everything else on features alone. And as a counterexample, my wife wanted an iPod because she saw one in pink.
At the school I work for attending any party where there is an illegal activity and NOT reporting is also against the terms of the code.
But again, there was no proof that these kids did anything illegal. The pictures showed a kid holding a beer can. Now, we both know there is about a 99% chance that he was also drinking the beer that the can came with, but there's no proof of that and he could probably argue that it was an empty prop.
Legality isn't the issue, it's the terms of the code of conduct that they signed, and what they were caught doing was against the terms outlined in the code.
I only brought up legality in response to the OP. I agree with the rest, though, which is why I made the comment that this was stupid even if it turns out to be legal.
The consequences of this for long-term reliability remain to be seen.
No, they're pretty well known. The only remaining question is whether the miniscule lead reduction will offset the increased amount of electronic waste.
Copycat phones are showing up, they're stealing a lot of ideas from Apple, and they are adding more functionality faster than Apple is. Granted these copycat ui's arent as elaborate or graphical, but they a made by the known players in the cell industry... and they can move very fast.
They won't sell. If there's one thing Apple can do better than any other company in the world, it's making boring things seem sexy. There are any number of MP3 players better than an iPod (I love my Sansa e280), but they're not an iPod and therefore not objects of lust to the general public.
Anyone could make a phone with more features than Apple's, but I doubt that anyone else can convince the world that they must buy them by the millions.
Then, I added functionality to the class to take all of its data structures (list of channels, list of users, and even the TCP socket itself) and pack them up into a dict, then return the dict.
Kudos for a slick hack! But here's how I might approach that:
Create a class called "Settings" or similar. Change your bot class's __init__ method to accept a Settings object, like "def __init__(self, settings)". Then, change your code to refer to self.settings directly, such as replacing "self.socket" with "self.settings.socket". Once you do that, you can get rid of all the code that deals with saving and restore state, since all state will already be bundled into one convenient object.
Clearly someone hasnt been watching the endless american idol style programs.
In defense of American Idol (did I just say that?), the premise is that there are many talented people who haven't been "discovered" because of random chance. The idea isn't to take untalented hacks and train them to be talented, but to find the rare gem who would be famous if they weren't squirreled away on a farm or washing dishes somewhere. I think the idea is pretty sound regardless of what you might think of the implementation. And as far as the implementation, if 100 million people think that Joe Prettyboy is a good singer, then it's kind of hard to argue that he's not. You and I might prefer something a bit more niche, but you can't say that any of the Idol finalists are objectively bad.
Abortion Rights - No federal legislation banning abortion. Support/Oppose?
Umm, is that asking if I support "federal legislation" or support "no federal legislation"?
Also, the results are goofy. It indicated that I disagreed with my most closely matched candidate on almost everything, while more distant matches displayed fewer issues of disagreement.
The quiz is a nice idea, but the implementation isn't looking so hot.
This is basically proof that they went back on that code and they are being punished for it.
No. This is basically proof that they were holding (possibly empty) beer cans and tropical glasses with umbrellas and pieces of fruit in them. Neither of those activities are illegal for anyone, even if it's stupid to be seen doing so for whatever reason.
Just the fact that assignment by reference is the default, that building data structures deeply requires no line noise, makes the program design easy to get right the first time. No "oops, need another dollar sign there". No "how do I refer to a value in a hash of lists of hashes again?" You just do it.
Yes, yes, yes. That was the exact issue that made me come to love Python. It's not that I can't make complex structures in Perl, but that every time I wanted to do anything non-trivial I had to reach for the camel book. And heaven help you if you wanted to change a function to return a hash of list of hashes instead of a scalar, because then you'd have to change the calling code's semantics for storing the results. Hard? No. Annoyingly pointless? Oh, yeah.
I don't have anything against Perl. I just got tired of doing all the extra work that I had just assumed was a necessary evil until I saw otherwise.
It seems to me (as a secular outsider to the Republican Party) that the Republicans are using all of you.
Actually, religious influence is pretty far down the list of voting priorities for me. Besides, there are a lot of issues that aren't obviously blatantly religious to me but that get a lot of people worked up. For example, I'm about 90% pro marijuana legalization, and I'm darn sure that pot smoking isn't in the Bible.
If anything, I think Jesus is gonna be pretty mad that people are using his name to pass laws to their liking. Some people are going to be in for a hell of a surprise (heh) if they're standing outside the pearly gates and find out that He doesn't share their opinion of, say, gay marriage and doesn't appreciate having words put in his mouth.
Sorry about your flamebait mod, BTW. I wasn't offended by your comment to me, so I'm not sure why someone else got bent out of shape.
So what happens when they have a network failure for some other reason? Bad hardware, power outage, building fire, comet impact...
Intent is a big part of the law and always has been. If I accidentally run over you with my car, the punishment will be much less severe than if I was aiming at you.
Actually, you do. By the constitutional separation of state and federal powers, it's not the job (or right) of the federal government to step in uninvited to such situations. You can debate all day about the moral or ethical obligations in these cases - and we're probably not as far apart here as you might think - but the legal obligations are fairly clear.
Not to beat it into the ground but that's pretty damned rare and I salute you for having that opinion.
Oh, we're not that rare. It's just that we don't tend to run around kicking up a ruckus. "Religious Right" is a pretty broad brush, and I promise you that I disagree with many (most?) religious conservatives on a lot of issues.
I am a white conservative Christian Republican. Obama is none of those.
I just realized that I phrased that poorly. "Conservative Christian" was meant as a single term. I intended to say that Obama isn't a member of a conservative church, not that he isn't a Christian.
Seriously, do some research on the UCC. I'd take a moderate atheist over Obama given the views the church he's a member of espouses.
I'm quite familiar with the UCC ("Unitarians Considering Christ" in some parts of the northeast). I am also aware that churches within a given denomination can vary widely in beliefs, and that people within a given church can vary still more. In other words, the most liberal members of a denomination can have almost nothing in common with the most conservative members.
Again, I'm not pro-Obama. That doesn't mean that I want to see him dragged through the mud for stupid, irrelevant reasons. Disagree with his politics all you want and I'll probably be there next to you. Just don't keep making up goofy reasons to dislike him and expect everyone else to jump on board.
And I can't forgive him for trying to get into bed with the religious right.
I'm too lazy (and not interested enough) to look this up, but do you have an examples of that? I don't doubt you but that's not something I've heard much about. By all accounts I'm a member of the religious right, but honestly, a lot of them drive me completely bonkers.
And what's wrong with a personal injury lawyer?
Well, for me it's personal. My wife's a doctor and each year we cringe as her malpractice premiums take yet another huge jump. Beyond that, it's gotten to the point that a lot of doctors are afraid to practice rational medicine.
Suppose a patient has a 99.9% chance of having a benign, minor condition and a.1% chance of something more serious. Further suppose that the test to rule out that very rare condition is expensive and has its own complications. In today's environment, if you skip the test and the patient has the serious condition, you get sued and will lose. If you do the test and the patient has the lesser problem, then you just cost them $10,000 and they hate you. If you do the test and they suffer from complications of that test (reaction to contrast dye, anesthesia, or whatever) then you get sued for running an unnecessary test and will lose.
Honestly, it's paralyzing. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. And that is why I hate personal injury lawyers - they've effectively crippled an entire industry. The next time you get a chest X-ray because you went to the doctor for bronchitis, think of John Edwards pushing the button. In a lot of very real ways, he is.
Seriously. They spent more time talking about Hillary "tearing up" then they did talking about policy differences between the candidates.
I think they've been reporting on Hillary's tears because it's news. Her policies haven't changed in at least a month or so, but this just happened.
I do have to say that her emotional reaction should be a huge warning sign, though. How well would that go over during a meeting between Israel and Palestine? Remember, the President is the primary representative of the US to the world. I don't think that's the image we wish to convey.
Note that I'm not discounting the idea of a woman for president! I just think this is kind of an embarrassing demonstration of a stereotype that a lot of people were concerned about (see also Shannon Faulkner).
Slashdot Mirror
The data sheet on a brand new 750GB WD SATA drive says that it's rated for at least 50,000 power cycles. What's your idea of "multiple times per day"? In a low-duty fileserver where you transfer a file, then spin down; transfer then spin down; transfer then spin down 50 times a day, you're going to get about 3 years out of it. Laptop drives are far better, but you probably weren't planning to put those in your fileserver.
OK, I'm not going to list ever language I've ever used or otherwise enter a bragging contest, but please just take me at face value when I say I've been around the block a few times. To me, Ruby "feels" like it's trying to be clever. I hate clever, not at first - no, it's fun when you're writing it! - but a year later when I have to maintain something.
Put another way: my wife isn't a programmer but she can read a lot of my Python code. I'm perfectly at home with C, Perl, and various assemblers but I can't make heads or tails of Ruby. Yeah, I know that familiarity and experience goes a long way toward fixing that ill, but since I already have Python, I just haven't felt the need to make the effort to learn Ruby.
Actually, zero time for companies that get tired of screwing around with compliance management and upgrade to FOSS.
That's so completely untrue. It's not enough to show that you have the software. You must also be able to prove that you bought the software by keeping every receipt and invoice from every vendor. In many companies, this is the full-time responsibility of one or more employees. Use Windows? $50K a year just to have someone to prove you're allowed to. Fun, huh?
From the title, I thought it was going to be an exciting tale about a bunch of companies that robbed a warehouse full of software. Such a disappointment to find that it didn't involve stealing at all, but just some boring copyright violation.
Oh, I'd never claim otherwise. They're definitely good, just not (IMHO) so good that they'd outsell everything else on features alone. And as a counterexample, my wife wanted an iPod because she saw one in pink.
But that's just it. There wasn't any visible beer, just a can. A can looks nothing like beer.
Again, I'm not arguing that what they did wasn't stupid. It was.
But again, there was no proof that these kids did anything illegal. The pictures showed a kid holding a beer can. Now, we both know there is about a 99% chance that he was also drinking the beer that the can came with, but there's no proof of that and he could probably argue that it was an empty prop.
Legality isn't the issue, it's the terms of the code of conduct that they signed, and what they were caught doing was against the terms outlined in the code.I only brought up legality in response to the OP. I agree with the rest, though, which is why I made the comment that this was stupid even if it turns out to be legal.
No, they're pretty well known. The only remaining question is whether the miniscule lead reduction will offset the increased amount of electronic waste.
They won't sell. If there's one thing Apple can do better than any other company in the world, it's making boring things seem sexy. There are any number of MP3 players better than an iPod (I love my Sansa e280), but they're not an iPod and therefore not objects of lust to the general public.
Anyone could make a phone with more features than Apple's, but I doubt that anyone else can convince the world that they must buy them by the millions.
Kudos for a slick hack! But here's how I might approach that:
Create a class called "Settings" or similar. Change your bot class's __init__ method to accept a Settings object, like "def __init__(self, settings)". Then, change your code to refer to self.settings directly, such as replacing "self.socket" with "self.settings.socket". Once you do that, you can get rid of all the code that deals with saving and restore state, since all state will already be bundled into one convenient object.
In defense of American Idol (did I just say that?), the premise is that there are many talented people who haven't been "discovered" because of random chance. The idea isn't to take untalented hacks and train them to be talented, but to find the rare gem who would be famous if they weren't squirreled away on a farm or washing dishes somewhere. I think the idea is pretty sound regardless of what you might think of the implementation. And as far as the implementation, if 100 million people think that Joe Prettyboy is a good singer, then it's kind of hard to argue that he's not. You and I might prefer something a bit more niche, but you can't say that any of the Idol finalists are objectively bad.
By a fluke of Slashdot's discussion system, your post appeared as a reply to:
My coworkers are insane. Does your book cover that?We've all had bad experiences with C++, but I wouldn't call it insane.
From the quiz:
Abortion Rights - No federal legislation banning abortion. Support/Oppose?Umm, is that asking if I support "federal legislation" or support "no federal legislation"?
Also, the results are goofy. It indicated that I disagreed with my most closely matched candidate on almost everything, while more distant matches displayed fewer issues of disagreement.
The quiz is a nice idea, but the implementation isn't looking so hot.
No. This is basically proof that they were holding (possibly empty) beer cans and tropical glasses with umbrellas and pieces of fruit in them. Neither of those activities are illegal for anyone, even if it's stupid to be seen doing so for whatever reason.
That must be it.
Yes, yes, yes. That was the exact issue that made me come to love Python. It's not that I can't make complex structures in Perl, but that every time I wanted to do anything non-trivial I had to reach for the camel book. And heaven help you if you wanted to change a function to return a hash of list of hashes instead of a scalar, because then you'd have to change the calling code's semantics for storing the results. Hard? No. Annoyingly pointless? Oh, yeah.
I don't have anything against Perl. I just got tired of doing all the extra work that I had just assumed was a necessary evil until I saw otherwise.
Actually, religious influence is pretty far down the list of voting priorities for me. Besides, there are a lot of issues that aren't obviously blatantly religious to me but that get a lot of people worked up. For example, I'm about 90% pro marijuana legalization, and I'm darn sure that pot smoking isn't in the Bible.
If anything, I think Jesus is gonna be pretty mad that people are using his name to pass laws to their liking. Some people are going to be in for a hell of a surprise (heh) if they're standing outside the pearly gates and find out that He doesn't share their opinion of, say, gay marriage and doesn't appreciate having words put in his mouth.
Sorry about your flamebait mod, BTW. I wasn't offended by your comment to me, so I'm not sure why someone else got bent out of shape.
Intent is a big part of the law and always has been. If I accidentally run over you with my car, the punishment will be much less severe than if I was aiming at you.
Actually, you do. By the constitutional separation of state and federal powers, it's not the job (or right) of the federal government to step in uninvited to such situations. You can debate all day about the moral or ethical obligations in these cases - and we're probably not as far apart here as you might think - but the legal obligations are fairly clear.
Oh, we're not that rare. It's just that we don't tend to run around kicking up a ruckus. "Religious Right" is a pretty broad brush, and I promise you that I disagree with many (most?) religious conservatives on a lot of issues.
I just realized that I phrased that poorly. "Conservative Christian" was meant as a single term. I intended to say that Obama isn't a member of a conservative church, not that he isn't a Christian.
I'm quite familiar with the UCC ("Unitarians Considering Christ" in some parts of the northeast). I am also aware that churches within a given denomination can vary widely in beliefs, and that people within a given church can vary still more. In other words, the most liberal members of a denomination can have almost nothing in common with the most conservative members.
Again, I'm not pro-Obama. That doesn't mean that I want to see him dragged through the mud for stupid, irrelevant reasons. Disagree with his politics all you want and I'll probably be there next to you. Just don't keep making up goofy reasons to dislike him and expect everyone else to jump on board.
I'm too lazy (and not interested enough) to look this up, but do you have an examples of that? I don't doubt you but that's not something I've heard much about. By all accounts I'm a member of the religious right, but honestly, a lot of them drive me completely bonkers.
And what's wrong with a personal injury lawyer?Well, for me it's personal. My wife's a doctor and each year we cringe as her malpractice premiums take yet another huge jump. Beyond that, it's gotten to the point that a lot of doctors are afraid to practice rational medicine.
Suppose a patient has a 99.9% chance of having a benign, minor condition and a .1% chance of something more serious. Further suppose that the test to rule out that very rare condition is expensive and has its own complications. In today's environment, if you skip the test and the patient has the serious condition, you get sued and will lose. If you do the test and the patient has the lesser problem, then you just cost them $10,000 and they hate you. If you do the test and they suffer from complications of that test (reaction to contrast dye, anesthesia, or whatever) then you get sued for running an unnecessary test and will lose.
Honestly, it's paralyzing. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. And that is why I hate personal injury lawyers - they've effectively crippled an entire industry. The next time you get a chest X-ray because you went to the doctor for bronchitis, think of John Edwards pushing the button. In a lot of very real ways, he is.
I think they've been reporting on Hillary's tears because it's news. Her policies haven't changed in at least a month or so, but this just happened.
I do have to say that her emotional reaction should be a huge warning sign, though. How well would that go over during a meeting between Israel and Palestine? Remember, the President is the primary representative of the US to the world. I don't think that's the image we wish to convey.
Note that I'm not discounting the idea of a woman for president! I just think this is kind of an embarrassing demonstration of a stereotype that a lot of people were concerned about (see also Shannon Faulkner).