If you're in a larger organization, you need a project manager who is powerful enough to tell 14 of the 15 managers with "top priority" projects to go to hell and get away with it.
The other thing you need to do is stop looking at priorities as categories, and instead think in terms of scheduling. If somebody wants to get their project done sooner, they have to move ahead in the scheduling, and the only way to move ahead in the scheduling is to negotiate with somebody who's project is scheduled before there's. For instance, assume developer A will be working on Foo, then Bar, then Baz, and developer B will be working on Fred, Barney, then Baz. If the person pushing Baz wants to get it done sooner, he has to convince the owners of Bar and Barney to move back in the line. Make the schedule very public, along with whatever changes occurred in the last week.
The point of doing that is it makes the shouting occur somewhere else, so you can get things done.
If you're referring to this, it's not in fact a dupe, because the other story is about the Canadians trying to do exactly the same thing as the UK is doing here,
So you know, the plow of the 18th century was not just a pointy stick, it was actually pretty good at its job, which was why it was used so widely. The biggest difference between that plow and the ones used today is that we now have a tractor in front pulling it instead of oxen or horses.
The farmers of yore might not have had the same understanding of agriculture as us modern folk, but they weren't stupid, and they would have abandoned tools that didn't help them grow more crop.
IBM has 3 reasonable purposes here: 1. They want SCO to have to get up in court and admit that they never had a leg to stand on, or a ruling from the bench to the same effect. This is in part to prevent any successor to SCO from pulling the same stunt. 2. To deter anyone else who's tempted to make similar claims from even trying it. 3. Buying them out would be a mercy killing. IBM has no reason to be merciful.
Yes: It's strengths are reliability and price point (free), but it's pretty fast, has clustering capabilities, and has been used for large-scale web applications.
Seriously, it's hard to go wrong with PostgreSql when you need a relational database. MongoDB, of course, is a very different animal intended for very different tasks.
Saying a politician murdered a prostitute? Not free speech.
Sort of. It's a civil matter of defamation, not a criminal charge, assuming that you believed that statement to be untrue.
It is, however, perfectly legal to broadcast something like "This network has found no evidence that Senator Jones killed a prostitute." even if the effect of saying such things is for most people to think that Jones killed a prostitute but was careful to hide all the evidence.
And whether they're a kook or not doesn't really matter much. If the far left kook thinks he can fly by flapping his arms, and the far right kook thinks the far left kook is full of crap, the far right kook isn't wrong. Ditto if the positions are reversed.
The truth or falsehood of a proposition has absolutely nothing to do with the political label slapped on those who publicize the proposition. That's one reason why I dislike, especially in political discussion, using "Republican", "Democrat", "conservative", "liberal" etc as reasons to discount a position.
I wonder if their end goal is a fascist state, or if they're simply trying to preserve their economic advantage.
Same thing really - eventually the economic advantage is enough that it causes the masses to resent the privileged class, who then must enlist the power of the state to enforce its economic advantage (or else the masses will simply use force to recover the wealth currently going to the privileged class). The state, in turn, must then ignore the will of the people in favor of the corporations, and eventually a nucleus of pliant politicians and corporate overlords is running everything.
How is the TSA screening not in violation of this. Being forced to go through machines that essentially strip you naked is well outside the bounds of 'reasonable' by the definition of anyone but a politician it seems.
Technically speaking, the reason it's not is that you consent to the search when you decide to go through the security checkpoint to get to your flight. So if you don't want to be searched, you should choose not to fly.
Also, aren't our elected representatives in Washington D.C. supposed to be advocating for what We the People want? And most polls on the subject suggest that well over 60% of Americans disapprove of the TSA.
Yes it is. Here's why: If the defender is looking for a particular kind of person, the attacker will simply go with somebody who doesn't match the profile.
Consider, for instance, the most notorious hijacking in the US up until September 2001: A non-descript white man wearing a dark suit and identifying himself as Mr Dan Cooper boarded a flight from Portland, OR to Seattle, WA in 1971. He then hijacked the flight, extorted $200,000 worth of ransom for the passengers, jumped out of the plane, and was never seen or heard from again. Should we, based on that, have profiled non-descript white guys wearing suits? After all, at the time Mr Cooper was one of 9 hijackers in the history of the US.
In addition, there's a needle-in-a-haystack within the population you're targeting. For instance, if you searched every Muslim who boarded a plane, you would find 1 person with Al Qaida associations for every ~500,000 innocent people you've harassed, and of those people you found with Al Qaida associations there's a good chance that you would find no evidence of actual criminal or terrorist activity (these people wouldn't be dumb enough to go through a security checkpoint with, say, a written and detailed plan for a terrorist attack).
This is a non-violence approach as best as Ghandi himself would have come up with. If the everyone opted for a pat down, then there would be massive queues as the TSA sods could not keep up with the folks in line, that gives them bad press - which is the last thing they want coming up to an election.
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
I studied classical music quite seriously in my college days, and still write and perform a fair amount of it.
My point was that popular music almost universally includes vocals as the musical focus, whereas classical music does not. Many casual listeners of most musical genres focus solely on the words because that's what they understand best, and because symphonies and sonatas and most classic dance pieces don't have words, there's nothing for these listeners to relate to. In addition, these listeners often speak or understand only English, which means that if they're listening to most of the vocal classical repertoire, they again don't understand the words and thus don't enjoy it.
But you also have to recruit a leader of such a group: Might I suggest the greatest name in German Baroque music - Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm?
There are plenty of others. Actually, Vivaldi really lends itself to rocking out - he's all about a pounding along to a strong beat. Although not quite as much of a star musician as Beethoven, what with his crazy hair, deafness, and syphilis.
For instance, there's absolutely no influence on Chuck Berry's Johnny B Goode (1958) or Elvis Presley's Heartbreak Hotel (1956) from Terry Riley's In C (1964) or Steve Reich's Come Out (1965). You're right that minimalism influenced a lot of later bands, but there's a clear tradition (as far as anyone can tell, developed mostly by African-Americans) in both rock and rap music stemming from blues that has little if anything to do with the minimalist composers.
The biggest barrier to classical music influencing kids is not the complexity of the emotional content, it's that there are frequently no words (which prevents a lot of people from thinking they understand it) and that popular culture has put a big effort into making it seem like classical music is only for dorks and old people. This is why I like introducing kids to heavy metal versions of Vivaldi.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the headline also suggests silver waves of growing antennas across the prairie, until somebody comes by with a combine harvester.
If you're in a larger organization, you need a project manager who is powerful enough to tell 14 of the 15 managers with "top priority" projects to go to hell and get away with it.
The other thing you need to do is stop looking at priorities as categories, and instead think in terms of scheduling. If somebody wants to get their project done sooner, they have to move ahead in the scheduling, and the only way to move ahead in the scheduling is to negotiate with somebody who's project is scheduled before there's. For instance, assume developer A will be working on Foo, then Bar, then Baz, and developer B will be working on Fred, Barney, then Baz. If the person pushing Baz wants to get it done sooner, he has to convince the owners of Bar and Barney to move back in the line. Make the schedule very public, along with whatever changes occurred in the last week.
The point of doing that is it makes the shouting occur somewhere else, so you can get things done.
By your logic, then, IE is the coolest magical product ever!
If you're referring to this, it's not in fact a dupe, because the other story is about the Canadians trying to do exactly the same thing as the UK is doing here,
So you know, the plow of the 18th century was not just a pointy stick, it was actually pretty good at its job, which was why it was used so widely. The biggest difference between that plow and the ones used today is that we now have a tractor in front pulling it instead of oxen or horses.
The farmers of yore might not have had the same understanding of agriculture as us modern folk, but they weren't stupid, and they would have abandoned tools that didn't help them grow more crop.
IBM has 3 reasonable purposes here:
1. They want SCO to have to get up in court and admit that they never had a leg to stand on, or a ruling from the bench to the same effect. This is in part to prevent any successor to SCO from pulling the same stunt.
2. To deter anyone else who's tempted to make similar claims from even trying it.
3. Buying them out would be a mercy killing. IBM has no reason to be merciful.
If it's the same as the last round, I'd say that we'd find the answer we were looking for in Redmond, WA.
And that's not just basic MS bashing - we have the memo.
Yes: It's strengths are reliability and price point (free), but it's pretty fast, has clustering capabilities, and has been used for large-scale web applications.
Seriously, it's hard to go wrong with PostgreSql when you need a relational database. MongoDB, of course, is a very different animal intended for very different tasks.
It looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Saying a politician murdered a prostitute? Not free speech.
Sort of. It's a civil matter of defamation, not a criminal charge, assuming that you believed that statement to be untrue.
It is, however, perfectly legal to broadcast something like "This network has found no evidence that Senator Jones killed a prostitute." even if the effect of saying such things is for most people to think that Jones killed a prostitute but was careful to hide all the evidence.
Ooh, a lesson on not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
David Bowie has a differing view on being afraid of Americans.
And whether they're a kook or not doesn't really matter much. If the far left kook thinks he can fly by flapping his arms, and the far right kook thinks the far left kook is full of crap, the far right kook isn't wrong. Ditto if the positions are reversed.
The truth or falsehood of a proposition has absolutely nothing to do with the political label slapped on those who publicize the proposition. That's one reason why I dislike, especially in political discussion, using "Republican", "Democrat", "conservative", "liberal" etc as reasons to discount a position.
I wonder if their end goal is a fascist state, or if they're simply trying to preserve their economic advantage.
Same thing really - eventually the economic advantage is enough that it causes the masses to resent the privileged class, who then must enlist the power of the state to enforce its economic advantage (or else the masses will simply use force to recover the wealth currently going to the privileged class). The state, in turn, must then ignore the will of the people in favor of the corporations, and eventually a nucleus of pliant politicians and corporate overlords is running everything.
Context matters people.
That's why just knowing the words and grammer isn't sufficient when learning a language.
How is the TSA screening not in violation of this. Being forced to go through machines that essentially strip you naked is well outside the bounds of 'reasonable' by the definition of anyone but a politician it seems.
Technically speaking, the reason it's not is that you consent to the search when you decide to go through the security checkpoint to get to your flight. So if you don't want to be searched, you should choose not to fly.
Also, aren't our elected representatives in Washington D.C. supposed to be advocating for what We the People want? And most polls on the subject suggest that well over 60% of Americans disapprove of the TSA.
Yes it is. Here's why: If the defender is looking for a particular kind of person, the attacker will simply go with somebody who doesn't match the profile.
Consider, for instance, the most notorious hijacking in the US up until September 2001: A non-descript white man wearing a dark suit and identifying himself as Mr Dan Cooper boarded a flight from Portland, OR to Seattle, WA in 1971. He then hijacked the flight, extorted $200,000 worth of ransom for the passengers, jumped out of the plane, and was never seen or heard from again. Should we, based on that, have profiled non-descript white guys wearing suits? After all, at the time Mr Cooper was one of 9 hijackers in the history of the US.
In addition, there's a needle-in-a-haystack within the population you're targeting. For instance, if you searched every Muslim who boarded a plane, you would find 1 person with Al Qaida associations for every ~500,000 innocent people you've harassed, and of those people you found with Al Qaida associations there's a good chance that you would find no evidence of actual criminal or terrorist activity (these people wouldn't be dumb enough to go through a security checkpoint with, say, a written and detailed plan for a terrorist attack).
This is a non-violence approach as best as Ghandi himself would have come up with. If the everyone opted for a pat down, then there would be massive queues as the TSA sods could not keep up with the folks in line, that gives them bad press - which is the last thing they want coming up to an election.
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
I studied classical music quite seriously in my college days, and still write and perform a fair amount of it.
My point was that popular music almost universally includes vocals as the musical focus, whereas classical music does not. Many casual listeners of most musical genres focus solely on the words because that's what they understand best, and because symphonies and sonatas and most classic dance pieces don't have words, there's nothing for these listeners to relate to. In addition, these listeners often speak or understand only English, which means that if they're listening to most of the vocal classical repertoire, they again don't understand the words and thus don't enjoy it.
But you also have to recruit a leader of such a group: Might I suggest the greatest name in German Baroque music - Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm?
No, we don't have to: let's go Chopin at the mall instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWx_GyTLGmQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdp2hEsc2kg
There are plenty of others. Actually, Vivaldi really lends itself to rocking out - he's all about a pounding along to a strong beat. Although not quite as much of a star musician as Beethoven, what with his crazy hair, deafness, and syphilis.
Your proposition is interesting, but wrong.
For instance, there's absolutely no influence on Chuck Berry's Johnny B Goode (1958) or Elvis Presley's Heartbreak Hotel (1956) from Terry Riley's In C (1964) or Steve Reich's Come Out (1965). You're right that minimalism influenced a lot of later bands, but there's a clear tradition (as far as anyone can tell, developed mostly by African-Americans) in both rock and rap music stemming from blues that has little if anything to do with the minimalist composers.
The biggest barrier to classical music influencing kids is not the complexity of the emotional content, it's that there are frequently no words (which prevents a lot of people from thinking they understand it) and that popular culture has put a big effort into making it seem like classical music is only for dorks and old people. This is why I like introducing kids to heavy metal versions of Vivaldi.
This sounds like a job for Donald Rumsfeld:
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.