I must respectfully disagree with you on all points but one.
Beyond the fascist viewpoint, a sovereign state's worth is determined by its treatment of its people. A murderous despotic tyranny has very little value to begin with. Toss in twelve years of flouting the guidelines set by other nations, and you have at the most a zero sum. I consider any and all terrorist action gravy at this point.
Your second paragraph presumes the truth of the first, and thus, I must disagree again. Beyond this, it seems that you have it COMPLETELY backwards as far as coverage and the supposed patriotism of the protesters. I can respect others who have thought out their positions with rigour. What I can't respect are those who are venting their elitist anger at the "stupid" man in office into every single discussion. I have spoken with those who went to protests in Chicago. When asked why they disagree with this war, they resort to no blood for oil. I ask them if they know about France and Russia, and they moved onto soveriegnty. At this point, I ask them if we made a mistake removing the Nazi regime from power in 1945, after it had clearly been defeated. Surely we could have contained them at that point. After this, they generally get moody, and ask me why I care if they protest. The conversation usually ended when I said that I thought that most protesters are disingenuous, and I was hoping they would prove me wrong.
Your aim to have people empathize with the position of the Cold War opposition seems well-intended, but it doesn't go far enough. You are removing the context of the time. Would I rather have had a nuclear war with the U.S.S.R. than 9/11? No way in hell. Lesser of two evils chosen then, as now with our buddying up to Musharraf.
Finally, I agree with your last point. Vested interests play out for an unintuitively long time, and they have one hell of a range.
I responded because I thought your post was thoughtful, and you might provide a more genuine response than my coworkers.
Your argument is ad hominem in the beginning, and invalid in the end. Care to elucidate as to what turns an old argument "tired and cliched", and how such a transformation makes it invalid? I'm seriously curious, if you're up for it.
Oh, and if you could delineate the two strawmen, I would appreciate that as well.
Well, I would temper the claim that all wars ever fought have been about control of natural resources, but I definitely see your point. Sounds like a hedge then to start investing in FOO before the oil economy becomes a liability. The country that controls renewable and PORTABLE energy will be the country that controls. Makes me wonder if it shouldn't be a focal point of the government to remove the control other nations have over us regarding this.
Jesus fucking christ. Do some of your own homework, moron. Gah. Do a search on French oil companies and the deals they struck with Saddam that they hope stick around after the war. After you read up on that, do the same for Russian oil companies.(google it. I hope you don't need a google link.) After that, hopefully, you'll know who's really after all that oil(estimated to be grand total of 300 billion barrels, more than Saudi Arabia.)
I've heard this argument before. However, I've never heard a good answer to the follow-up: wouldn't whoever is locked out of the natural resources move onto another energy source, and thus move into the future ahead of those dependent on fossil fuels?
You don't read the WSJ. That's cool, it's not everyone's favorite reading. The other day, it had an article outlining how the terrorists that have been caught in recent days most likely committed identity theft in Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation. This kind of activity does NOT go unnoticed in a totalitarian regime. There's something there, but it most likely will remain hidden until we get ahold of Iraqi intelligence files.
Btw. If we have a local ally(Iraq) we won't need troups in the holy lands. This is assuredly connected to the recruiting efforts of Al-Qaeda.
The people who claim that this war will strengthen organizations such as Al-Qaeda are notoriously short-sighted(umm...Al-Qaeda, for example.) I don't put any stock in their portents.
As long as we're talking money...how much did 9/11 cost in the end? The low estimate I've heard bandied around is ~a trillion dollars. Hmm. A hundred billion, or a trillion(or more, considering). Rough choice. Then again...who's stupid idea was it to frame this choice in terms of dollars anyway?
Where I work, we have simple confidentiality policy. Large things are more valuable, and thus should be treated more carefully. A single user's order history? Confidential. Every user's order history? HIGHLY Confidential-don't print this, and don't store it on the network! This is a similar situation.
Having given it some thought, I just have to wonder why the airline just didn't block the scraper when they came to the site.
There is a fundamental distinction between programmatically scraping someone else's site and posting it as your own and an individual drawing down the website via a browser: fair use.
Provided fair use conditions are posted, I don't see where the scraper has a leg to stand on. If you are a competitor, you have different rules, as your intention and the actions that follow your intentions separate you from a normal consumer. To illustrate, it is fair use for me to go to the library and photocopy an article out of a journal and use it as source material for a paper. It is NOT fair use for me to photocopy the article and put it in my own magazine, publishing it as if it was mine, copyright and all.
That being said, I would be very interested in an informed reply from a lawyer that specializes in these matters.
You are going to be so disappointed when you grow up. You have none of the freedoms you've listed. Talk behind your back? How about going after your wife, crackhead? You can put that line about being among the 20-30 percent that make it on the dung heap as well. Your children will commit suicide/do drugs/have sex/have FORCED sex as often as others. I speak from my experience, and others. You have the freedom to know that the people who put themselves above you will screw up, and will hurt you.
You're full of crap, bud. Your strawman drunkard pervert is a very, very small minority. Keep trying.
As for not giving you a neurosis, I'd say it's given you a bit of an attitude, and a mind that's more closed than Fort Knox.
Regarding not hiding who you are...you haven't been paying attention to the problems with the clergy lately.
I get an email about Brother Jeb's activities. There's a site on there that I don't know. (Persian kittens? I didn't know he liked cats.) I visit it, and lo and behold, the next time someone looks at my list, I'm a big ol' dirty pervert! This sounds like ripe ground for a goats.ex prank. Just sayin'.
Name-calling? Hmm. Must be a language barrier dealy. In this context, "Dipshit" was supposed to convey that I don't appreciate you drawing up a defunct version of the argument to argue against. Boomer and Doofus were just kidding around. No malice intended.
Retrieving groupings of data is precisely where OODBMS's fall down. Any time you want a summary report of any kind, this database design hurts. For some things, this is no big deal, I guess. Then again, one of the primary reasons someone moves from flat files to a database is to be able to do these kinds of things. Frankly, I don't see what OODBMS design has over flat files containing XML.
Btw...care to back up what you are saying about CERN with a link? I'm genuinely curious what they have running.
I'm not a 14 year old troll. 14 year old trolls don't know shit about how a real place of employment works. (Yes, yes, point me to the UBERKIND who does, and I'll say that's the exception...blah blah.) I am an adult, and I was just KIDDING with my post.
I define "best" with a couple factors. The most important is the long-term maintenance cost versus the benefits drawn from an approach. The second most important is the footprint of the change, and what other systems, both legacy and future, are going to be impacted by this decision.
You are incorrect. Companies that are run by competent management do NOT simply look at the short term economical reasons. Don't believe everything you read on/. and don't believe the FUD put out by the 14 year old trolls.
Dammit man, I was just fucking around. I wasn't being serious, I was going for the funny! Ah well. Guess I'll get a little serious.
Removed features? So, car manufacturers in the early years removed the feature of horses in front of the carriage? Motorcycle manufacturers removed the oh so handy pedals found on (non-motorized) bicycles? There is no way to get home when your engine has gone kaputt!
Don't be a dipshit. I didn't specify obsolete, esoteric, idiomatic features of marginal utility, did I? I don't believe I spoke to the removal of antiquated and noxious features. No. I believe I was implying(hoping you would infer, maybe) that there was a removal of features which people FOUND KEENLY USEFUL.
Outrageous.
I agree. But let's continue.
Odbms-es and rdbms-es are two completely different pieces of cake. You are comparing apples to pears (both fruits)
In this instance, I was comparing the two data storage methods, and how the newer compared to the older. Fruit to fruit.
And you say that is not the case with an rdbms? I have run into some great examples of rdbms-es not living up to their expectations because of bad design. I'm sure these sorts of examples can be found on odbms-es as well. Your point?
Hey Boomer, let me throw this one slowly by you this time. When you create an object data storage method, you are either going to handroll all the queries ahead of time, or provide a method for querying your objects. If someone needs to query your objects, they are relegated to one of three options: tracking down the coder and altering the source(yuck), hand-rolling their own solutions with your API(ugh...blackbox...), or rolling around with your queries in the hopes they can pull out what they need. These all BITE if you didn't do the design right for them. The odds of this are HIGH.
If I sell lemons, and someone buys a lemon from me, because he wants something sweet and tasty, then he should not complain to me the fruit is sour. Again, odbms != rdbms.
Crappy metaphor. Not going to address this metaphor. Remember, a metaphor is NOT a proof, it is an illustration. Just because I don't address your illustration does NOT mean I'm avoiding your argument. That aside...
If someone is marketing a product as a replacement for another product(throw away your Oracle database, cuz its slooow!) they damn well better be able to live up to client expectations of the PREVIOUS product, nevermind the promises made about their new product being all shiny and better!
Ah, slashdot...
No. I do not work for Microsoft. I tend to choose the best (affordable) working software to fill my needs. And that is almost never stuff from Redmond.
Don't be doofus. This is where I think you should definitely have noticed that I was just fucking kidding around! Man'o'man. Btw. Your statements collide. If your company already has the Microsoft software, it's likely at least an OPTION if affordability is your concern. Then again, I've rarely seen affordable equated with best.
Then you haven't worked anywhere, really. Yeah yeah. I know. Counterpoint to your stance, not a one of the databases we have in production is under 100 GB. What's your point?
I didn't know Slashdot was participating in this research! I had no idea that slashbots were this advanced. I almost thought this was the result of individual thought.
Lisa Simpson, your discovery has finally found a practical method of application! Geeks of the world, unite to throw off your scent, so that the bullies only smell salad dressing, instead of your fear!
Unfortunately, the last twenty four of your posts have dealt with this subject. Given this, I can't read what you are referring to as the right posts.
There are several books on this subject. I've recently emmersed myself in the topic because a favorite nephew of mine has started to bully other children. Looking into it, his descent was very clearly marked: abusive household, lack of a male role model(I'm all he has, and I live an hour and ten minutes away with no traffic), and a sense of "might makes right" beaten into him by his peers and the coaching staff of his football team. Unfortunately, I've had very little luck enlightening him to the notion that unlike in games, in life people are social creatures, and that in the end both the bully and the victim are ostracized. In fact, it has been my experience that the bullies have had a much harder time of it once they reach an age where beating someone up means doing time, being a felon(hope you enjoyed voting while you were allowed to!), and never, EVER getting where they want. Truth told, I'd rather he'd be the one getting bullied-he'd stand a better chance of walking out of the circumstance no worse for the wear. Alas, I'm getting the blow-off.[[[sigh]]]
Anyway...
Your posts on this subject remind me of the "discussions" my sister-in-law has had with her friends and my wife. Oddly enough, she never really talks to me about these things. The obligatory high-school experience data comes into play here. I was highly religious, a nerd of the highest order, and a very, very good listener in high school. I looked like a dork, smelled like a dork, acted like a dork....BUT. After I got one on one face time with anyone, I usually had them spilling their doubts and fears, and walking away with a sense of relief. I only had to do this a couple times, early on in grade school, and I was left alone by the assholes. Why? I'm not sure why(never asked), but I have a feeling my friendships kept me out of trouble more often than I'll ever know. Oh, and during the first year of high school my older sister's stoner friends(she and they were seniors) would let me hang around them after school while we waited for the bus. I never did anything with them afterwards, but nothing ever happened. I know of incidents in my school, but I was never in that circumstance.
Here's a question for you. In grade school, my sister and I were the only white kids on the bus. Out of seventy two kids, seventy were black. For about six months during my sister's sixth grade, THE ENTIRE BUS would get off at our stop and beat the crap out of my sister. This continued(fucking ignorant busdriver) until my sister came home bleeding and my grandmother threatened to sue the school district. What on earth would possess an entire bus of kids to beat her up, and leave me alone? I never got that. (Once my sister turned into a stoner, she got left alone.) It was surreal. I was seven years old, and I was confused beyond description. See, I don't buy your description that people bring bullying on themselves. Sometimes, the circumstance, the mystifying circumstance, determines who gets it and who doesn't.
Given the financial straits most schools are in, a lawsuit sounds like a fairly effective tool to get the school to get on the stick. Suing for a half of next year's budget will likely get some action.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to say you aren't a lawyer. Keep looking. The answer isn't in your highschool civics book.
I must respectfully disagree with you on all points but one.
Beyond the fascist viewpoint, a sovereign state's worth is determined by its treatment of its people. A murderous despotic tyranny has very little value to begin with. Toss in twelve years of flouting the guidelines set by other nations, and you have at the most a zero sum. I consider any and all terrorist action gravy at this point.
Your second paragraph presumes the truth of the first, and thus, I must disagree again. Beyond this, it seems that you have it COMPLETELY backwards as far as coverage and the supposed patriotism of the protesters. I can respect others who have thought out their positions with rigour. What I can't respect are those who are venting their elitist anger at the "stupid" man in office into every single discussion. I have spoken with those who went to protests in Chicago. When asked why they disagree with this war, they resort to no blood for oil. I ask them if they know about France and Russia, and they moved onto soveriegnty. At this point, I ask them if we made a mistake removing the Nazi regime from power in 1945, after it had clearly been defeated. Surely we could have contained them at that point. After this, they generally get moody, and ask me why I care if they protest. The conversation usually ended when I said that I thought that most protesters are disingenuous, and I was hoping they would prove me wrong.
Your aim to have people empathize with the position of the Cold War opposition seems well-intended, but it doesn't go far enough. You are removing the context of the time. Would I rather have had a nuclear war with the U.S.S.R. than 9/11? No way in hell. Lesser of two evils chosen then, as now with our buddying up to Musharraf.
Finally, I agree with your last point. Vested interests play out for an unintuitively long time, and they have one hell of a range.
I responded because I thought your post was thoughtful, and you might provide a more genuine response than my coworkers.
Have a nice day.
No, they are not referring to that. Your stats are a week old. Try to keep up.
Your argument is ad hominem in the beginning, and invalid in the end. Care to elucidate as to what turns an old argument "tired and cliched", and how such a transformation makes it invalid? I'm seriously curious, if you're up for it.
Oh, and if you could delineate the two strawmen, I would appreciate that as well.
Keep up with the polls, Xerithane. Your information's dated to at least three or four days ago. Seriously, but sadly so.
Well, I would temper the claim that all wars ever fought have been about control of natural resources, but I definitely see your point. Sounds like a hedge then to start investing in FOO before the oil economy becomes a liability. The country that controls renewable and PORTABLE energy will be the country that controls. Makes me wonder if it shouldn't be a focal point of the government to remove the control other nations have over us regarding this.
Jesus fucking christ. Do some of your own homework, moron. Gah. Do a search on French oil companies and the deals they struck with Saddam that they hope stick around after the war. After you read up on that, do the same for Russian oil companies.(google it. I hope you don't need a google link.) After that, hopefully, you'll know who's really after all that oil(estimated to be grand total of 300 billion barrels, more than Saudi Arabia.)
I've heard this argument before. However, I've never heard a good answer to the follow-up: wouldn't whoever is locked out of the natural resources move onto another energy source, and thus move into the future ahead of those dependent on fossil fuels?
You don't read the WSJ. That's cool, it's not everyone's favorite reading. The other day, it had an article outlining how the terrorists that have been caught in recent days most likely committed identity theft in Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation. This kind of activity does NOT go unnoticed in a totalitarian regime. There's something there, but it most likely will remain hidden until we get ahold of Iraqi intelligence files.
Btw. If we have a local ally(Iraq) we won't need troups in the holy lands. This is assuredly connected to the recruiting efforts of Al-Qaeda.
The people who claim that this war will strengthen organizations such as Al-Qaeda are notoriously short-sighted(umm...Al-Qaeda, for example.) I don't put any stock in their portents.
Nice knee-jerk there, dummy. Did you happen to notice you're replying to a Finnish person?
Stupid ass.
As long as we're talking money...how much did 9/11 cost in the end? The low estimate I've heard bandied around is ~a trillion dollars. Hmm. A hundred billion, or a trillion(or more, considering). Rough choice. Then again...who's stupid idea was it to frame this choice in terms of dollars anyway?
Where I work, we have simple confidentiality policy. Large things are more valuable, and thus should be treated more carefully. A single user's order history? Confidential. Every user's order history? HIGHLY Confidential-don't print this, and don't store it on the network! This is a similar situation.
Having given it some thought, I just have to wonder why the airline just didn't block the scraper when they came to the site.
There is a fundamental distinction between programmatically scraping someone else's site and posting it as your own and an individual drawing down the website via a browser: fair use.
Provided fair use conditions are posted, I don't see where the scraper has a leg to stand on. If you are a competitor, you have different rules, as your intention and the actions that follow your intentions separate you from a normal consumer. To illustrate, it is fair use for me to go to the library and photocopy an article out of a journal and use it as source material for a paper. It is NOT fair use for me to photocopy the article and put it in my own magazine, publishing it as if it was mine, copyright and all.
That being said, I would be very interested in an informed reply from a lawyer that specializes in these matters.
You are going to be so disappointed when you grow up. You have none of the freedoms you've listed. Talk behind your back? How about going after your wife, crackhead? You can put that line about being among the 20-30 percent that make it on the dung heap as well. Your children will commit suicide/do drugs/have sex/have FORCED sex as often as others. I speak from my experience, and others. You have the freedom to know that the people who put themselves above you will screw up, and will hurt you.
You're full of crap, bud. Your strawman drunkard pervert is a very, very small minority. Keep trying.
As for not giving you a neurosis, I'd say it's given you a bit of an attitude, and a mind that's more closed than Fort Knox.
Regarding not hiding who you are...you haven't been paying attention to the problems with the clergy lately.
I get an email about Brother Jeb's activities. There's a site on there that I don't know. (Persian kittens? I didn't know he liked cats.) I visit it, and lo and behold, the next time someone looks at my list, I'm a big ol' dirty pervert! This sounds like ripe ground for a goats.ex prank. Just sayin'.
Name-calling? Hmm. Must be a language barrier dealy. In this context, "Dipshit" was supposed to convey that I don't appreciate you drawing up a defunct version of the argument to argue against. Boomer and Doofus were just kidding around. No malice intended.
/. and don't believe the FUD put out by the 14 year old trolls.
Retrieving groupings of data is precisely where OODBMS's fall down. Any time you want a summary report of any kind, this database design hurts. For some things, this is no big deal, I guess. Then again, one of the primary reasons someone moves from flat files to a database is to be able to do these kinds of things. Frankly, I don't see what OODBMS design has over flat files containing XML.
Btw...care to back up what you are saying about CERN with a link? I'm genuinely curious what they have running.
I'm not a 14 year old troll. 14 year old trolls don't know shit about how a real place of employment works. (Yes, yes, point me to the UBERKIND who does, and I'll say that's the exception...blah blah.) I am an adult, and I was just KIDDING with my post.
I define "best" with a couple factors. The most important is the long-term maintenance cost versus the benefits drawn from an approach. The second most important is the footprint of the change, and what other systems, both legacy and future, are going to be impacted by this decision. You are incorrect. Companies that are run by competent management do NOT simply look at the short term economical reasons. Don't believe everything you read on
Anyway...blah blah.
Dammit man, I was just fucking around. I wasn't being serious, I was going for the funny! Ah well. Guess I'll get a little serious.
Removed features? So, car manufacturers in the early years removed the feature of horses in front of the carriage? Motorcycle manufacturers removed the oh so handy pedals found on (non-motorized) bicycles? There is no way to get home when your engine has gone kaputt!
Don't be a dipshit. I didn't specify obsolete, esoteric, idiomatic features of marginal utility, did I? I don't believe I spoke to the removal of antiquated and noxious features. No. I believe I was implying(hoping you would infer, maybe) that there was a removal of features which people FOUND KEENLY USEFUL.
Outrageous.
I agree. But let's continue.
Odbms-es and rdbms-es are two completely different pieces of cake. You are comparing apples to pears (both fruits)
In this instance, I was comparing the two data storage methods, and how the newer compared to the older. Fruit to fruit.
And you say that is not the case with an rdbms? I have run into some great examples of rdbms-es not living up to their expectations because of bad design. I'm sure these sorts of examples can be found on odbms-es as well. Your point?
Hey Boomer, let me throw this one slowly by you this time. When you create an object data storage method, you are either going to handroll all the queries ahead of time, or provide a method for querying your objects. If someone needs to query your objects, they are relegated to one of three options: tracking down the coder and altering the source(yuck), hand-rolling their own solutions with your API(ugh...blackbox...), or rolling around with your queries in the hopes they can pull out what they need. These all BITE if you didn't do the design right for them. The odds of this are HIGH.
If I sell lemons, and someone buys a lemon from me, because he wants something sweet and tasty, then he should not complain to me the fruit is sour. Again, odbms != rdbms.
Crappy metaphor. Not going to address this metaphor. Remember, a metaphor is NOT a proof, it is an illustration. Just because I don't address your illustration does NOT mean I'm avoiding your argument. That aside...
If someone is marketing a product as a replacement for another product(throw away your Oracle database, cuz its slooow!) they damn well better be able to live up to client expectations of the PREVIOUS product, nevermind the promises made about their new product being all shiny and better!
Ah, slashdot... No. I do not work for Microsoft. I tend to choose the best (affordable) working software to fill my needs. And that is almost never stuff from Redmond.
Don't be doofus. This is where I think you should definitely have noticed that I was just fucking kidding around! Man'o'man. Btw. Your statements collide. If your company already has the Microsoft software, it's likely at least an OPTION if affordability is your concern. Then again, I've rarely seen affordable equated with best.
[shrug]
Sooo....
You have a new and better product. It has removed features that the likely clients have used extensively for years.
If someone tries to do something with your product that you didn't take into consideration at design time, it runs terribly slow.
If your client doesn't appreciate the product, it's the fault of the client, not your product.
You work for Microsoft. Don't you.
Then you haven't worked anywhere, really. Yeah yeah. I know. Counterpoint to your stance, not a one of the databases we have in production is under 100 GB. What's your point?
I didn't know Slashdot was participating in this research! I had no idea that slashbots were this advanced. I almost thought this was the result of individual thought.
Lisa Simpson, your discovery has finally found a practical method of application! Geeks of the world, unite to throw off your scent, so that the bullies only smell salad dressing, instead of your fear!
I'm guessing anyone who believes this also believes that stored proc's, triggers, and views are all toys. Stay away from my database!
Right. Like some troll wouldn't come on and mod up every crap hentai piece just to get your goat.
Unfortunately, the last twenty four of your posts have dealt with this subject. Given this, I can't read what you are referring to as the right posts.
There are several books on this subject. I've recently emmersed myself in the topic because a favorite nephew of mine has started to bully other children. Looking into it, his descent was very clearly marked: abusive household, lack of a male role model(I'm all he has, and I live an hour and ten minutes away with no traffic), and a sense of "might makes right" beaten into him by his peers and the coaching staff of his football team. Unfortunately, I've had very little luck enlightening him to the notion that unlike in games, in life people are social creatures, and that in the end both the bully and the victim are ostracized. In fact, it has been my experience that the bullies have had a much harder time of it once they reach an age where beating someone up means doing time, being a felon(hope you enjoyed voting while you were allowed to!), and never, EVER getting where they want. Truth told, I'd rather he'd be the one getting bullied-he'd stand a better chance of walking out of the circumstance no worse for the wear. Alas, I'm getting the blow-off.[[[sigh]]]
Anyway...
Your posts on this subject remind me of the "discussions" my sister-in-law has had with her friends and my wife. Oddly enough, she never really talks to me about these things. The obligatory high-school experience data comes into play here. I was highly religious, a nerd of the highest order, and a very, very good listener in high school. I looked like a dork, smelled like a dork, acted like a dork....BUT. After I got one on one face time with anyone, I usually had them spilling their doubts and fears, and walking away with a sense of relief. I only had to do this a couple times, early on in grade school, and I was left alone by the assholes. Why? I'm not sure why(never asked), but I have a feeling my friendships kept me out of trouble more often than I'll ever know. Oh, and during the first year of high school my older sister's stoner friends(she and they were seniors) would let me hang around them after school while we waited for the bus. I never did anything with them afterwards, but nothing ever happened. I know of incidents in my school, but I was never in that circumstance.
Here's a question for you. In grade school, my sister and I were the only white kids on the bus. Out of seventy two kids, seventy were black. For about six months during my sister's sixth grade, THE ENTIRE BUS would get off at our stop and beat the crap out of my sister. This continued(fucking ignorant busdriver) until my sister came home bleeding and my grandmother threatened to sue the school district. What on earth would possess an entire bus of kids to beat her up, and leave me alone? I never got that. (Once my sister turned into a stoner, she got left alone.) It was surreal. I was seven years old, and I was confused beyond description. See, I don't buy your description that people bring bullying on themselves. Sometimes, the circumstance, the mystifying circumstance, determines who gets it and who doesn't.
Given the financial straits most schools are in, a lawsuit sounds like a fairly effective tool to get the school to get on the stick. Suing for a half of next year's budget will likely get some action.