Alot of what has happened to Java is feature creep and bloat. I think that Ruby is likely to suffer the same fate at some point. Lean and Mean will always be faster than Big and Powerful. Comparing Ruby and Java is like comparing MySQL and Oracle. Of course MySQL is faster than Oracle for many things. Just as when Oracle was the upstart and THEY were faster than all the Old guys on the block.
Java is an old man in todays hyper-development environment. Teh old man still has a few tricks up his sleeve though, and he can get the job done. He's just not the upstart he was in his youth.
CS is CS -- there's more to development than language. In 10 years Ruby will be supplanted as well -- and we'll be talking about the NEXT great language.
Face it brother developers, in this profession, we cannot sit around and become complacent. Learning a new language is somethign you should do joyfully. All my pay work in still in Java, and I don't anticipate that changing -- but I thinkI am going ot move some of my pet projects to RoR -- just to see what it's like.
Something critical like...Wikipedia? Wikipedia's flight from Hurricane Charley was well documented, including their use of mysqldump in disaster preparations.
I just finished the Using and Managing mysql course in Boston. VERY much worth it btw if you're like me -- A developer and not a true DBA who supports the Database because there's noone else.
It's astonishing how far mysql has come. I'd been using 3.23 since before the dawn of time. Like most users of my ilk, I'd hacked alot of "databasish" functions together at the application level. My dilemma now is throwing away all that work to migrate to something I know is better. But there's no doubt that replication, triggers etc are all worth it.
The *best* thing that I got out of the class though, was to talk freely with the MySQL guys about their reality of trying to make a living with a "mostly" free product. They convinced me to buy a membership in MySQL Network which is essentially support that I probably won't use. This upgrade they are turning out though is good enough to make me WANT to pay (once).
If you look around, you'll find plenty of what interests you available as a podcast.
Should you not find what you're looking for, with any luck we'll see YOUR podcast up there soon too.
I actually know some very bright people who were at Grinnell, so I know it's not an academic wasteland. But that line was so funny, and the study did come out of Iowa. I know that Gateway is huge there. Ummm....did I just ruin my point that Iowa is not full of idiots by mentioning that Gateway is big there?
Either way, I mean no TRUE disrespect towards Iowa. I mean, what about Iowa is there to dislike?
Ok, after having ready Kimberly's questionnaire, and seeing this beauty of of a question:
10. How often do you block out disturbing thoughts about your life with soothing thoughts of the Internet?
Man, even if you answered "once" to that, that's just over the edge, and you're right, you do need professional help.
Call me an insensitive clod, but it is funny though. "Damn, I blew all my rent at the casino, and now I'm screwed. Wait, let me distract myself by thinking about the internet. The sleek, sexy, soothing internet."
We don't know if you benefit from being in this study. However, we hope that in the future society may benefit from this study by gaining a greater understanding of the relationship between social needs and MMORPG use.
The word "addiction" in this context is merely used to make geeks look more pathetic. This study is not meant to "help" anyone, because the MMORPGers don't have a problem. This is just some supposed "normie" pointing out what they perceive to be abnormal behavior. I guess that might pass for science in Iowa.
Internet addiction is a made up/hyped up thing so Frauds can scam money from the gullible.
Heck, you can record all the streams you want with Replay-Radio. It was good enough that I bought it. Then I was finally convinced to shell out $10/month for a subscription to Rhapsody. Now I can record everything I want from Rhapsody. And I was a HARD CORE file sharer before. So there is indeed a price-point at which I'm willing to pay for music.
Ever since the demise of Anyday, my first start-up, I've been pretty happy with Yahoo's calendar -- but I've also come to realize that there's not much money in online calendaring.
I agree with you -- we have to get to the point that we have real justifiable faith in the voting machines -- and I don't think that's impossible.
Industrial Strength software/hardware exists. Good testing procedures exist. Electronic cash registers are pretty reliable. ATM's are too. If you trust an ATM with your money -- couldn't we trust it with votes?
Machines LOST votes? I assume you mean this which I think could just as easily happen with paper ballots if people ran out of them. And for that matter, I'm sure you remember the "found" ballot boxes. Paper is certainly not any more immune to idiots than machines.
but wasn't the point of the article that it was an open source? More than that -- you're implying that whomever was in charge wouldn't run test scenarios to ensure the machine was accurate?
but this is open source code -- and we're probably not even going to be talking about a complicated machine here to record votes. In fact the simple the machine, the better. I bet several/.ers could build a VERY good voting machine with a breadboard and a few gates. One that would be VERY accurate and very simple, and very easy to test to show that is has not been tampered with.
We're not just trying to stop people from cheating -- people are idiots and will cheat at ANYTHING. We're trying to catch the cheaters and ensure impartiality. It's hard to test a piece of paper that is not signed to see if it is legitimate, but it's EASY to test a machine to see if it's performing correctly.
Why would no one be the wiser? We're talking about a computer here, not a black box. You'd load the software on a fresh machine the day before hand -- you'd run test before/during/after to ensure the software/hardware remains untampered with, and afterwards you'd test a few more times.
Every hack you've ever heard of has been discovered -- that's why you've heard of it. Let the machine be examined by people to decide if it's "untampered" and then let the impartial machine count the votes. As opposed to letting people decide if the votes themselves are valid. If we can prove the machine to be impartial and accurate -- then let it be.
Florida was definitely crazy -- but for me, I thought that once it was in the hands of the "counters" it was now a matter of who THEY wanted to win. The fact that they *could* block or approve a ballot meant that we were now suffering at the impartiality of people. And I don't trust the impartiality of people. At least with an open source machine, the code and the machine can be examined for proof of it's impartiality.
What's to prevent one counter from blocking/approving ballots according to personal preference. The arguement that the other counters stop him is not valid, because he could be "the other" counter who stops legitimate votes for a canidate he opposes.
...The Count Every Vote Act of 2005 will provide a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast in electronic voting machines and ensures access to voter verification for all citizens, including language minority voters, illiterate voters and voters with disabilities. The bill mandates that this ballot be the official ballot for purposes of a recount.
Why should the manual count paper of paper ballots be the official recount. Why would there be a recount of a machine tabulated vote? Does someone think the machine miscounted? And why why why do people keep thinking that a hand count done by humans would be more accurate than a machine count?
That was the limit the US agreed to. The US had said that if the limit was the same for every country per capita, then they would signed. But Kyoto exempted too many.
I appreciate the polite tone we've both been taking here -- I think this is real dialog.
Maybe you can enlighten me how Kyoto is not fair.
My definition of fair, is that the exact same standard is applied to everyone. If I have to do some arduous task, and you don't -- then that's not fair. Applying a different standard to people because they are rich,poor,white,black,muslim,christian,gay,straigh t etc is just wrong. Fair to everyone means EVERYONE has the same rights and restrictions. I know each nation agreed to it's own target emissions, but allow some nations a free walk is just not fair -- set a target for them, even if it's unrealistic -- set it a mile high in the sky. But set a target. Once there is a target for everyone, then the treaty will be fair.
Slashdot Mirror
Java is an old man in todays hyper-development environment. Teh old man still has a few tricks up his sleeve though, and he can get the job done. He's just not the upstart he was in his youth.
CS is CS -- there's more to development than language. In 10 years Ruby will be supplanted as well -- and we'll be talking about the NEXT great language.
Face it brother developers, in this profession, we cannot sit around and become complacent. Learning a new language is somethign you should do joyfully. All my pay work in still in Java, and I don't anticipate that changing -- but I thinkI am going ot move some of my pet projects to RoR -- just to see what it's like.
Something critical like...Wikipedia? Wikipedia's flight from Hurricane Charley was well documented, including their use of mysqldump in disaster preparations.
Yes. http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/ansi-diff-foreig n-keys.html has all you ever want to know about foreign keys and mysql
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/replication.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/mysql-cluster-ov erview.html
It's astonishing how far mysql has come. I'd been using 3.23 since before the dawn of time. Like most users of my ilk, I'd hacked alot of "databasish" functions together at the application level. My dilemma now is throwing away all that work to migrate to something I know is better. But there's no doubt that replication, triggers etc are all worth it.
The *best* thing that I got out of the class though, was to talk freely with the MySQL guys about their reality of trying to make a living with a "mostly" free product. They convinced me to buy a membership in MySQL Network which is essentially support that I probably won't use. This upgrade they are turning out though is good enough to make me WANT to pay (once).
I'd get to decide what projects Peter Jackson takes next
Here's a good source of podcasts
If you look around, you'll find plenty of what interests you available as a podcast. Should you not find what you're looking for, with any luck we'll see YOUR podcast up there soon too.
Intellij is SO good. You're really missing out if you haven't tried it yet.
Either way, I mean no TRUE disrespect towards Iowa. I mean, what about Iowa is there to dislike?
For what it's worth, the "normie" comment was a Family Guy reference, although I may be over-estimating it's viewing audience.
10. How often do you block out disturbing thoughts about your life with soothing thoughts of the Internet?
Man, even if you answered "once" to that, that's just over the edge, and you're right, you do need professional help.
Call me an insensitive clod, but it is funny though. "Damn, I blew all my rent at the casino, and now I'm screwed. Wait, let me distract myself by thinking about the internet. The sleek, sexy, soothing internet."
Internet addiction is a made up/hyped up thing so Frauds can scam money from the gullible.
Heck, you can record all the streams you want with Replay-Radio. It was good enough that I bought it. Then I was finally convinced to shell out $10/month for a subscription to Rhapsody. Now I can record everything I want from Rhapsody. And I was a HARD CORE file sharer before. So there is indeed a price-point at which I'm willing to pay for music.
Ever since the demise of Anyday, my first start-up, I've been pretty happy with Yahoo's calendar -- but I've also come to realize that there's not much money in online calendaring.
My direct line computation is that a manual recount by humans has no value -- slightly different.
Industrial Strength software/hardware exists. Good testing procedures exist. Electronic cash registers are pretty reliable. ATM's are too. If you trust an ATM with your money -- couldn't we trust it with votes?
Machines LOST votes? I assume you mean this which I think could just as easily happen with paper ballots if people ran out of them. And for that matter, I'm sure you remember the "found" ballot boxes. Paper is certainly not any more immune to idiots than machines.
but wasn't the point of the article that it was an open source? More than that -- you're implying that whomever was in charge wouldn't run test scenarios to ensure the machine was accurate?
We're not just trying to stop people from cheating -- people are idiots and will cheat at ANYTHING. We're trying to catch the cheaters and ensure impartiality. It's hard to test a piece of paper that is not signed to see if it is legitimate, but it's EASY to test a machine to see if it's performing correctly.
Every hack you've ever heard of has been discovered -- that's why you've heard of it. Let the machine be examined by people to decide if it's "untampered" and then let the impartial machine count the votes. As opposed to letting people decide if the votes themselves are valid. If we can prove the machine to be impartial and accurate -- then let it be.
What's to prevent one counter from blocking/approving ballots according to personal preference. The arguement that the other counters stop him is not valid, because he could be "the other" counter who stops legitimate votes for a canidate he opposes.
Why should the manual count paper of paper ballots be the official recount. Why would there be a recount of a machine tabulated vote? Does someone think the machine miscounted? And why why why do people keep thinking that a hand count done by humans would be more accurate than a machine count?
That was the limit the US agreed to. The US had said that if the limit was the same for every country per capita, then they would signed. But Kyoto exempted too many.
Maybe you can enlighten me how Kyoto is not fair.
My definition of fair, is that the exact same standard is applied to everyone. If I have to do some arduous task, and you don't -- then that's not fair. Applying a different standard to people because they are rich,poor,white,black,muslim,christian,gay,straigh t etc is just wrong. Fair to everyone means EVERYONE has the same rights and restrictions. I know each nation agreed to it's own target emissions, but allow some nations a free walk is just not fair -- set a target for them, even if it's unrealistic -- set it a mile high in the sky. But set a target. Once there is a target for everyone, then the treaty will be fair.
I'm really having a hard time following you here -- I thought the point of the treaty is that NOONE would produce as much as the US is producing now?