With a boiling point of 114C, I'd imagine the bulk of the hydrazine would be gone well before the thing hit the ground. This is about destroying whatever's on the satellite and showing off ASAT capability.
As for the PR damage of killing whoever comes across the fuel, after the whole Iraq war thing, I think it can be conclusively and uncontroversially stated that one thing the Bush administration doesn't give two shits about is bad PR.
Why? In what major Western Country can religion impose restrictions on free speech?
Every single time the FCC fines someone for showing tits or ass on TV, why do you think they do it? Cause the goddamn fundie Christians go nuts and barrage them with messages till they bow down before their will.
A schema is an unnecessary step though. Nothing is added to make that a needed step in this case (except in large scale implementations where it may an easier level of maintenance).
Which is fine, as far as it goes, I guess. If you don't need it, then it doesn't serve a purpose for you.
Not that I'm doing a bunch of cross database joins but I like to separate out my databases for future scalability on the network
See, but whereas before you were complaining about how schemas add an unnecessary layer of complexity, now you like to (entirely needlessly, from the description you give) add a whole lot of complexity by throwing in queries across database instances that you don't need yet?
So, do you not like unnecessary complexity, or do you just prefer adding really stupid forms of unnecessary complexity?
what do you mean by cross-database join?
on
PostgreSQL 8.3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Are you thinking like you'd do in SQL server (IIRC) or MySQL, where you have a db reference in the table list (i.e., SELECT * from db1.table1, db2.table2 WHERE [join clause])?
you'd probably just want to use a schema for that; the concept maps more or less the same way.
Wrong. The GPP did not make that assertion. The GPP asked if we could stipulate to that.
There is in fact a difference.
Also, you obviously don't understand what a positive assertion is. Asserting that something is the case is a positive assertion. Asserting that there is evidence to support that is also a positive assertion. The second of assertion becomes trivially true in the case that the first assertion is made without reference to supporting evidence.
* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
Sorry, but the burden of proof in on those making the positive assertion.
Apart form that, you don't appear to understand that a stipulation is a stipulation - an agreement on a state of affairs. It doesn't require logical support, merely the assent of the involved parties.
I know I shouldn't be, but I'm still mildly surprised by the sheer number of slashdotters with no class, and no ability to envision a view of the world or way of living other than their own.
When I said traditional way, I didn't mean in terms of the technology they live with, but in terms of the traditional ways in which people interact - culture. And I believe it was perfectly clean from what I wrote that's what I meant.
These kinds of taboos against men and women seeing one another, against talking about the dead, etc. are very common in the aboriginal cultures of Australia, and they take them very seriously. The Warlpiri language, for example, has a sort of sub-language called the avoidance register, used when people of certain familial relations need to talk to each other (a woman and son-in-law, for example) - the grammar's mostly the same, but the words are dramatically simplified, and often replaced with generic terms. And such phenomena occur in other cultural/language groups too - I believe there's something like it in Zulu.
It seems odd to you, but it's also how they want to live. They're free to leave where they live (and many do), and those that stay want to live the traditional way.
keep your hippie bullshit dreams to yourself and let people like me continue to innovate and actually make progress. we're the ones keeping you in all your gadgets and toys. we're the ones who keep your geek culture going. you just live in a fantasy land and have no ability to understand how interconnected all of this is.
Bullshit. You sit at home trolling people, and you can't program, and all you know how to do with a computer is to play games find and jerk off to porn. You've never in your life done anything interesting or useful, and you're not going to. And all your ranting isn't going to convince anyone otherwise, and for your sake, I hope you don't buy your own horseshit.
Companies that do this kind of bullshit should not only have their officers face legal action, but their corporate charter revoked and their assets liquidated.
A hardship for the shareholders? Maybe, but also, too fucking bad.
The Soviet Union had communism, not socialism. There was the word "socialist" in the name of the USSR, but to call it socialist on that basis is like saying the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was a democracy. Saying that communism has never been implemented is a lame attempt to disown the excesses of the Soviet Union.
The ideal Marxist state, however, has never been implemented. Though the Soviet Union was founded in the spirit of Marx's work, it was by no means the kind of state that Marx thought would necessarily appear. Marx's worker's state required an industrialized economy to arise (since this foster development of class consciousness among the proletariat), and there's no way you can fairly say that Russia was an industrial economy in 1917.
None of this is to endorse Marx's theories or the desirability of a Marxist state, merely to point out that one of his key stipulations didn't actually obtain in Russia at the time of the revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
The people filing this are phenomenal assholes.
Do they just have the ability to delete sales, or do they also have access to the details of who's been bidding, selling, and buying?
Yet another reason to not use EBay or PayPal.
Hah. Oh, that's funny. Or sad, depending on whether or not you actually believe it.
Seriously. The guy talks out his ass so much he'd be more profitably employed as a ventriloquist.
That was more than talking out of your ass, that was shouting out of your ass. Congratulations, sir or madame - spectacular.
You seem to be reading something completely not there into the grandparent post. He never mentions Vista
With a boiling point of 114C, I'd imagine the bulk of the hydrazine would be gone well before the thing hit the ground. This is about destroying whatever's on the satellite and showing off ASAT capability.
As for the PR damage of killing whoever comes across the fuel, after the whole Iraq war thing, I think it can be conclusively and uncontroversially stated that one thing the Bush administration doesn't give two shits about is bad PR.
Our (the US) government and its intelligence agencies are getting a little out of hand.
Ok, so first you say:
Which is fine, as far as it goes, I guess. If you don't need it, then it doesn't serve a purpose for you.
See, but whereas before you were complaining about how schemas add an unnecessary layer of complexity, now you like to (entirely needlessly, from the description you give) add a whole lot of complexity by throwing in queries across database instances that you don't need yet?
So, do you not like unnecessary complexity, or do you just prefer adding really stupid forms of unnecessary complexity?
Are you thinking like you'd do in SQL server (IIRC) or MySQL, where you have a db reference in the table list (i.e., SELECT * from db1.table1, db2.table2 WHERE [join clause])?
you'd probably just want to use a schema for that; the concept maps more or less the same way.
Like MySQL?
Fast is all that matters, you know.
Are you fucking serious?
http://svn.python.org/view/sandbox/trunk/2to3/
And, as others have stated, there'll be the 2.6 branch, which will be backwards compatible.
Or, in other words, the story is stupid and misleading.
Wrong. The GPP did not make that assertion. The GPP asked if we could stipulate to that.
There is in fact a difference.
Also, you obviously don't understand what a positive assertion is. Asserting that something is the case is a positive assertion. Asserting that there is evidence to support that is also a positive assertion. The second of assertion becomes trivially true in the case that the first assertion is made without reference to supporting evidence.
Sorry, but the burden of proof in on those making the positive assertion.
Apart form that, you don't appear to understand that a stipulation is a stipulation - an agreement on a state of affairs. It doesn't require logical support, merely the assent of the involved parties.
Interesting article.
I know I shouldn't be, but I'm still mildly surprised by the sheer number of slashdotters with no class, and no ability to envision a view of the world or way of living other than their own.
When I said traditional way, I didn't mean in terms of the technology they live with, but in terms of the traditional ways in which people interact - culture. And I believe it was perfectly clean from what I wrote that's what I meant.
Apparently you're an idiot, though.
These kinds of taboos against men and women seeing one another, against talking about the dead, etc. are very common in the aboriginal cultures of Australia, and they take them very seriously. The Warlpiri language, for example, has a sort of sub-language called the avoidance register, used when people of certain familial relations need to talk to each other (a woman and son-in-law, for example) - the grammar's mostly the same, but the words are dramatically simplified, and often replaced with generic terms. And such phenomena occur in other cultural/language groups too - I believe there's something like it in Zulu.
It seems odd to you, but it's also how they want to live. They're free to leave where they live (and many do), and those that stay want to live the traditional way.
Is Oracle big into the illegal downloads? When did that start?
Nice hack, I guess.
Bullshit. You sit at home trolling people, and you can't program, and all you know how to do with a computer is to play games find and jerk off to porn. You've never in your life done anything interesting or useful, and you're not going to. And all your ranting isn't going to convince anyone otherwise, and for your sake, I hope you don't buy your own horseshit.
Companies that do this kind of bullshit should not only have their officers face legal action, but their corporate charter revoked and their assets liquidated.
A hardship for the shareholders? Maybe, but also, too fucking bad.
The environment? Pah.
The Soviet Union had communism, not socialism. There was the word "socialist" in the name of the USSR, but to call it socialist on that basis is like saying the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was a democracy. Saying that communism has never been implemented is a lame attempt to disown the excesses of the Soviet Union.
The ideal Marxist state, however, has never been implemented. Though the Soviet Union was founded in the spirit of Marx's work, it was by no means the kind of state that Marx thought would necessarily appear. Marx's worker's state required an industrialized economy to arise (since this foster development of class consciousness among the proletariat), and there's no way you can fairly say that Russia was an industrial economy in 1917.
None of this is to endorse Marx's theories or the desirability of a Marxist state, merely to point out that one of his key stipulations didn't actually obtain in Russia at the time of the revolution.