I'm as much of a tree-hugger as the next guy, but I really don't like Compact Flourescent bulbs. Theoretically, if you're worried about energy use, they're a good idea. But I think in practically, they're a bad idea, because of the mercury content.
Compact fluorescents give out crappy light, and nobody really wants crappy light in their home. It's the wrong color, wrong intensity, etc. Once LEDs become widely available, we'll all be throwing out the compacts, and replacing them with LEDs that give off light that we like. Those compacts have mercury in them, and all that mercury will be going straight into the landfills and our drinking water. The compacts have a life of 10 or so years; but we won't be using them that long, once LEDs come along. So the long-term money saving aspect will be a waste. Also, I can't count the number of lamps and light-bulbs I smashed as a kid. Do you want your little ones smashing up these compacts and getting a good dose of mercury vapors?
I say just hold off until LEDs really become affordable. Don't put any more mercury into our environment; especially not your home.
I think it's a matter of personal preference. I'm in the minority, and I guess it's for that reason that I hate being told that the other way is a standard. To me, the stand-alone brace seems to indicate that it's a stand-alone bit of code. But it's not; it's entirely dependent on the preceding else for its meaning and function. To me; it's less readable. It would be like having a comma or period dangling on a new line in a book. But it back up on the line where it belongs.
Without a doubt. However, hunter/gatherers still need a certain ability to count -- for instance, does my tribe have more fighters than the enemy tribe right in front of me? Or, are all my children here or is one missing?
That's an interesting point. I think it comes down to "what do you consider numbers and counting?"
If you had two children, you don't need to count to know if they are missing, you just need to do a roll call. Is Sam here? Is Stacey here? If not, we have a problem. You could do the same for "their warriors versus our warriors": They have Nema, Imsho, and Ashe. We have Aita and Shemshe. Aita can kill Nema, and Shemshe can kill Imsho, but that leaves Ashe. Or, if they're on a battle field, you just size up the group. Is their group larger than our group ( Is our 'super-animal' bigger than their 'super-animal' ) ?
Is that counting? I don't know. You could look at in the the perspective of counting ( i.e., how do you solve this problem using numbers and arithmetic? ) , but I'm not sure they're necessarily required to solve the problem. There could be other ways.
Now I'd like to disagree with just the bit of your statement that I've quoted. By definition, a "well designed" web application can never *require* MySQL 5.x.
Well, I think that's kind of silly. The whole reason of using a later version is to take advantage of features that aren't available in earlier versions. That means that you don't have to code those features into the app -- for instance, you don't have to write a complex query into your app; you can just select from a view in MySQL*. But if you're going to allow usage of earlier versions, you will have to write that complex query in code anyway.
If you're going that far, why not just write a complete, self-contained storage back-end into your web-app, so you don't have to require MySQL at all?
* I'm not sure that views aren't supported in 4.x, I was just using a good example.
I remember reading the latest SCO headlines when I was in the college computer labs back in 2003. I thought, "It's amazing that this has gone on so long... surely it will end soon." Five years later, it seems like lifetimes ago. Now, I doubt that this will ever end.
You might consider driver initialization, software initialization, network delays, waiting for user interaction, etc.
Wouldn't you only have to do this once? Initialize drivers and all that? After all, when you turn the computer 'off', the memory stays. No need to load anything on boot, because it's already there in memory.
Looks like its time to form a new political party.
A third party cannot win in the current American system, because of the 'winner take all' rules.
If you're serious about getting new parties on the ballot, work on getting instant run-off balloting, or some other voting method. The third parties will then create themselves.
It tells me that both Clinton and Kerry have established enough of a power base that they can act more or less independently, and perhaps do what's right. Meanwhile, the new kid on the block, Obama, could easily lose his presidential bid if he looks 'weak on terror'.
You make no sense. Do you know what transparency means?
We don't want a transparent vote. We want a secret ballot. I don't want my boss or my wife knowing who I vote for. That's what we have now, and that's how it should stay.
However, we do want transparency in the votes and contributions of our elected officials. I think you're confusing the meaning of the word transparent.
A living person is better than a dead person any day
The Darwin Awards suggest otherwise...
Hey, both Hans and Nina have successfully procreated, two or three times (I don't know how many kids there are). That means that they were both winners in the evolutionary sense. (Unless the kids aren't his.) Their genes will march on!
Completely a bullshit fabrication. The ebay seller that "TRIED" to auction his vote was canceled, even if he did successfully sell his vote, nobody could validate it.
What are you talking about? Nobody can sell their vote today, because we have a secret ballot -- you can't be sure that you're getting what you pay for. If we had a verification system like the parent was talking about, you could sell you vote because you could then prove to someone else how you voted.
The only reason the ebay guy got caught was because he offered his vote very publically -- on ebay. If he had offered his vote in private, would we have ever heard about it? No. If a party operative came into a poor neighboorhood and offered $100 bills for particular votes, do you think anybody would have any motivation to inform the authorities?
Yeah, but it's not a one time thing. Part of the problem with Schizophrenics is not necessarily that they hear voices, but that these voices are shouting obscenities, insults, and general gutter talk 24/7. Lots of people hear voices, check out any New Age conference. You will meet all kinds of people that 'talk' with 'Angels' or 'Helping Spirits'. Those people hear good, positive messages from their voices. "Don't worry, everything will be okay" "God is Love" "It will all work out for the best" etc. etc.
So you hear a voice one time that tells you to rob a bank. Big deal -- ignore it. But now you hear a voice that is constantly telling you that you're no good, you're a failure, kill yourself, everybody hates you secretly, etc. etc. That would drive you insane in a few days.
But I have to wonder, is it really all that different to paper voting? If someone wants to rig an election, they'll do it no matter what system you use.
Yes, it's almost completely different to rig a paper election.
Say you want to stuff ballots. First of all, you need to print extra ballots to stuff in the box. Then, you need people to fill them out. You need them to fill them out within a short amount of time, and have them all look a little different, in case there is an investigation later. ( i.e. you can't have 1,000 ballots with the same handwriting). That creates a pool of co-conspirators and witnesses, since you need a threshold of manpower to commit this crime, possibly exposing themselves to witnesses, and getting it all done one or a few days before election day.
Say you want to throw a few ballots in the river. Well, those poll workers know that they turned in several boxes for their district, and why aren't they included in the official re-count? Now the ballot boxes washed up on shore. Who threw them in the river? Were there any witnesses? Who had custody last of these boxes at the polling station?
Now say you want to electronically hack a voting machine system, with built-in modems or internet connections. These machines all phone home, or receive a special 'call', and within moments, one person ( perhaps sitting in the white house ) flips a 49-51% election, with no records whatsoever of the change.
Then you supply a website were the voter enters the long number and it shows me my vote.
I don't understand precisely what you're saying, but if you can look up your vote after the election, then you're subject to intimidation ( Boss: "So you took off early to vote yesterday? Step in to my office and let's have a look..." ), or you can sell your vote ( "See Mr. Quimby? I voted for your brother. Now will you give me that raise?" ). So, if you can look up your vote in any manner after the election, it's not a secret ballot.
That doesn't make sense. The system is broken, he says, and then he says he is "optimistic". Is optimism the right word for a system that is not working, even after all these years? Should we be optimistic when a broken system is less obviously broken?
This is classic Geek thinking. Yes, the system as it is is broken. But now, the users are aware. I remember after the Florida recounts of 2000, everyone was clamoring for electronic voting machines, so we never have to deal with this kind of election dispute again. A few uberGeeks raised concerns on the internet, and nobody but slashdot readers paid any heed. Now, after shenanigans all over the place with this crazy voting machines, nobody is clamoring for voting machines. In fact, they're clamoring for *paper trails*.
Whatever happens in the near future with voting machines, the public is going to be much more critical of their acceptance, and vigilance in their monitoring.
Microsoft management, however, did make me wince, with their corporate slogans and monkey dances.
So is that really attributable to Ballmer? AFAICT, there was only one "monkey dance" event. Did Ballmer write or approve all the slogans, and every other vice president just looked at him, grinned, and nodded vigorously?
Or is it just that the most public face of MS' management is Ballmer, so you used him to sum up the whole management culture?
You think Microsoft is managed by a single person, Steve Ballmer? I really don't know, but I was guessing that there were hundreds, probably 200-300 upper management folks at Microsoft. All with different personalities, agendas, management philosophies, all contributing to the corporate culture at Microsoft.
Unless every boss that was above AC was mind-controlled by Ballmer, and therefore any problems that AC had with the guy telling him what to do was a direct result of Ballmer. It's easy to say, "Oh boy, I can't believe what Fred's asking me to do this week, that Ballmer really must be cracking the whip!". But really its Fred and his bosses, and has little to do with Ballmer.
Is upper management at Microsoft composed solely of Ballmer? I was guessing, for a company of Microsoft's size, upper management would number in the 100-300 person range. All of those individual's personalities and philosophies influence upper management, and thus, the whole company.
Was this anonymous slashdot poster so high up that he actually worked with Ballmer, or the people that Ballmer hired? Or was he a little lower in the food chain, where he was probably insulated from Ballmer's antics by dozens of personalities?
AC didn't say that his manager was Ballmer. He referenced "management", which implies the company-wide management of the company.
AC: "In terms of management... Ballmer makes me wince"
Why is he referencing Ballmer directly after management? If he said, "In terms of management... I don't like the Honda philosophy much" wouldn't you conclude that 'management' was implementing Honda management style?
And yes, I would assume that the upper-management of the company is important. They often do help set a tone for the culture of the company in general, but also the poster seemed concerned with "where the company is going", and upper management sure has something to do with that.
Yes, upper management does set the tone. I'd imagine at Microsoft, 'upper management' is a few hundred people. But he's couched that entire group all as a clone of Ballmer. Has Ballmer actually created dozens of proteges in upper management, or is he just pinning his dislike of upper management on a single famous jerk?
You worked for Microsoft and your manager was Ballmer? I'm skeptical. Are you trying to say that Ballmer's personality set the tone for the management culture at Microsoft?
Actually, we have better statistics than that. Say, from the Egyptians, we have plenty of records left of when someone died. You know, plaques, inscriptions, etc. So you have a somewhat random sample, and the ages at which they died. Only the "elite" would have been buried with such a marker. What you have is a sampling of the wealthiest Egyptians. Probably something like 95-99% of the other Egyptians were poor farmers and were buried without a marker, or with a marker not made of stone, and therefore one that didn't last to the present day. And, they were probably buried in a grave that itself wouldn't last until today.
Good point. I misexpressed the original idea, however; the originator was creating a scale of human evolution, and he was basing it on fuel sources. ( Come to think of it, he probably was an anthropologist. ) Time was, our only fuel source was food, then came burnable plants, then animal and plant oils, then underground oil, the nuclear fuel, etc. The next stage, in his mind, was mining stars ( and gas giants, as you point out ) directly for their fuel, as they are the ultimate source, anyway.
All things considered, we don't have any evidence for the Christian or Jewish or Muslim god, or the Hindu/Buddhist gods, or any supernatural events. To be fair, we do have evidence, plenty of evidence, for Hindu gods, if you were to ask a Hindu Theologian. Have you ever seen a painting of Krishna, or a statue of Ganesh? Those are manifestations of the gods. Whatever the process is that allows you to perceive Krishna in a painting, a statue, or in dirty window streaks, is the same process to which Krishna owes his existence. The gods are real because we perceive them; but they aren't *really real* -- the world of the senses, the world of perception, what we normally call 'reality' is not really real. Not according to Hinduism. 'Reality' is an illusion, the Divine Dream of Indra, called "Maya". It's a phantasmagoric hologram, an unreal Matrix which we inhabit.
So, in fact, the gods are an illusion, just like cars, houses, your parents, yourself, and all the rest of what you perceive to be real. The real reality is the Brahman, or the indescribable, non-dual, eternal non-being.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm as much of a tree-hugger as the next guy, but I really don't like Compact Flourescent bulbs. Theoretically, if you're worried about energy use, they're a good idea. But I think in practically, they're a bad idea, because of the mercury content.
Compact fluorescents give out crappy light, and nobody really wants crappy light in their home. It's the wrong color, wrong intensity, etc. Once LEDs become widely available, we'll all be throwing out the compacts, and replacing them with LEDs that give off light that we like. Those compacts have mercury in them, and all that mercury will be going straight into the landfills and our drinking water. The compacts have a life of 10 or so years; but we won't be using them that long, once LEDs come along. So the long-term money saving aspect will be a waste.
Also, I can't count the number of lamps and light-bulbs I smashed as a kid. Do you want your little ones smashing up these compacts and getting a good dose of mercury vapors?
I say just hold off until LEDs really become affordable. Don't put any more mercury into our environment; especially not your home.
I think it's a matter of personal preference. I'm in the minority, and I guess it's for that reason that I hate being told that the other way is a standard. To me, the stand-alone brace seems to indicate that it's a stand-alone bit of code. But it's not; it's entirely dependent on the preceding else for its meaning and function. To me; it's less readable. It would be like having a comma or period dangling on a new line in a book. But it back up on the line where it belongs.
Without a doubt. However, hunter/gatherers still need a certain ability to count -- for instance, does my tribe have more fighters than the enemy tribe right in front of me? Or, are all my children here or is one missing?
That's an interesting point. I think it comes down to "what do you consider numbers and counting?"
If you had two children, you don't need to count to know if they are missing, you just need to do a roll call. Is Sam here? Is Stacey here? If not, we have a problem. You could do the same for "their warriors versus our warriors": They have Nema, Imsho, and Ashe. We have Aita and Shemshe. Aita can kill Nema, and Shemshe can kill Imsho, but that leaves Ashe.
Or, if they're on a battle field, you just size up the group. Is their group larger than our group ( Is our 'super-animal' bigger than their 'super-animal' ) ?
Is that counting? I don't know. You could look at in the the perspective of counting ( i.e., how do you solve this problem using numbers and arithmetic? ) , but I'm not sure they're necessarily required to solve the problem. There could be other ways.
Now I'd like to disagree with just the bit of your statement that I've quoted. By definition, a "well designed" web application can never *require* MySQL 5.x.
Well, I think that's kind of silly. The whole reason of using a later version is to take advantage of features that aren't available in earlier versions. That means that you don't have to code those features into the app -- for instance, you don't have to write a complex query into your app; you can just select from a view in MySQL*. But if you're going to allow usage of earlier versions, you will have to write that complex query in code anyway.
If you're going that far, why not just write a complete, self-contained storage back-end into your web-app, so you don't have to require MySQL at all?
* I'm not sure that views aren't supported in 4.x, I was just using a good example.
I remember reading the latest SCO headlines when I was in the college computer labs back in 2003. I thought, "It's amazing that this has gone on so long... surely it will end soon." Five years later, it seems like lifetimes ago. Now, I doubt that this will ever end.
You might consider driver initialization, software initialization, network delays, waiting for user interaction, etc.
Wouldn't you only have to do this once? Initialize drivers and all that? After all, when you turn the computer 'off', the memory stays. No need to load anything on boot, because it's already there in memory.
Looks like its time to form a new political party.
A third party cannot win in the current American system, because of the 'winner take all' rules.
If you're serious about getting new parties on the ballot, work on getting instant run-off balloting, or some other voting method. The third parties will then create themselves.
It tells me that both Clinton and Kerry have established enough of a power base that they can act more or less independently, and perhaps do what's right. Meanwhile, the new kid on the block, Obama, could easily lose his presidential bid if he looks 'weak on terror'.
Maybe this is why Congress has a below 10% approval rating? The lowest of any US government institution, EVER?
Congress always has an approval rating under 20%. Meanwhile, the average congressperson's approval rating is 56%.
When people are polled about their feelings about congress, they must be thinking of the person in congress they hate the most.
You make no sense. Do you know what transparency means?
We don't want a transparent vote. We want a secret ballot. I don't want my boss or my wife knowing who I vote for. That's what we have now, and that's how it should stay.
However, we do want transparency in the votes and contributions of our elected officials. I think you're confusing the meaning of the word transparent.
A living person is better than a dead person any day
The Darwin Awards suggest otherwise...
Hey, both Hans and Nina have successfully procreated, two or three times (I don't know how many kids there are). That means that they were both winners in the evolutionary sense. (Unless the kids aren't his.) Their genes will march on!
Completely a bullshit fabrication. The ebay seller that "TRIED" to auction his vote was canceled, even if he did successfully sell his vote, nobody could validate it.
What are you talking about? Nobody can sell their vote today, because we have a secret ballot -- you can't be sure that you're getting what you pay for. If we had a verification system like the parent was talking about, you could sell you vote because you could then prove to someone else how you voted.
The only reason the ebay guy got caught was because he offered his vote very publically -- on ebay. If he had offered his vote in private, would we have ever heard about it? No. If a party operative came into a poor neighboorhood and offered $100 bills for particular votes, do you think anybody would have any motivation to inform the authorities?
I'd say that was a "bad" voice. :)
Yeah, but it's not a one time thing. Part of the problem with Schizophrenics is not necessarily that they hear voices, but that these voices are shouting obscenities, insults, and general gutter talk 24/7. Lots of people hear voices, check out any New Age conference. You will meet all kinds of people that 'talk' with 'Angels' or 'Helping Spirits'. Those people hear good, positive messages from their voices. "Don't worry, everything will be okay" "God is Love" "It will all work out for the best" etc. etc.
So you hear a voice one time that tells you to rob a bank. Big deal -- ignore it. But now you hear a voice that is constantly telling you that you're no good, you're a failure, kill yourself, everybody hates you secretly, etc. etc. That would drive you insane in a few days.
But I have to wonder, is it really all that different to paper voting? If someone wants to rig an election, they'll do it no matter what system you use.
Yes, it's almost completely different to rig a paper election.
Say you want to stuff ballots. First of all, you need to print extra ballots to stuff in the box. Then, you need people to fill them out. You need them to fill them out within a short amount of time, and have them all look a little different, in case there is an investigation later. ( i.e. you can't have 1,000 ballots with the same handwriting). That creates a pool of co-conspirators and witnesses, since you need a threshold of manpower to commit this crime, possibly exposing themselves to witnesses, and getting it all done one or a few days before election day.
Say you want to throw a few ballots in the river. Well, those poll workers know that they turned in several boxes for their district, and why aren't they included in the official re-count? Now the ballot boxes washed up on shore. Who threw them in the river? Were there any witnesses? Who had custody last of these boxes at the polling station?
Now say you want to electronically hack a voting machine system, with built-in modems or internet connections. These machines all phone home, or receive a special 'call', and within moments, one person ( perhaps sitting in the white house ) flips a 49-51% election, with no records whatsoever of the change.
Then you supply a website were the voter enters the long number and it shows me my vote.
I don't understand precisely what you're saying, but if you can look up your vote after the election, then you're subject to intimidation ( Boss: "So you took off early to vote yesterday? Step in to my office and let's have a look..." ), or you can sell your vote ( "See Mr. Quimby? I voted for your brother. Now will you give me that raise?" ). So, if you can look up your vote in any manner after the election, it's not a secret ballot.
That doesn't make sense. The system is broken, he says, and then he says he is "optimistic". Is optimism the right word for a system that is not working, even after all these years? Should we be optimistic when a broken system is less obviously broken?
This is classic Geek thinking. Yes, the system as it is is broken. But now, the users are aware. I remember after the Florida recounts of 2000, everyone was clamoring for electronic voting machines, so we never have to deal with this kind of election dispute again. A few uberGeeks raised concerns on the internet, and nobody but slashdot readers paid any heed. Now, after shenanigans all over the place with this crazy voting machines, nobody is clamoring for voting machines. In fact, they're clamoring for *paper trails*.
Whatever happens in the near future with voting machines, the public is going to be much more critical of their acceptance, and vigilance in their monitoring.
Microsoft management, however, did make me wince, with their corporate slogans and monkey dances.
So is that really attributable to Ballmer? AFAICT, there was only one "monkey dance" event. Did Ballmer write or approve all the slogans, and every other vice president just looked at him, grinned, and nodded vigorously?
Or is it just that the most public face of MS' management is Ballmer, so you used him to sum up the whole management culture?
You think Microsoft is managed by a single person, Steve Ballmer? I really don't know, but I was guessing that there were hundreds, probably 200-300 upper management folks at Microsoft. All with different personalities, agendas, management philosophies, all contributing to the corporate culture at Microsoft.
Unless every boss that was above AC was mind-controlled by Ballmer, and therefore any problems that AC had with the guy telling him what to do was a direct result of Ballmer. It's easy to say, "Oh boy, I can't believe what Fred's asking me to do this week, that Ballmer really must be cracking the whip!". But really its Fred and his bosses, and has little to do with Ballmer.
Is upper management at Microsoft composed solely of Ballmer? I was guessing, for a company of Microsoft's size, upper management would number in the 100-300 person range. All of those individual's personalities and philosophies influence upper management, and thus, the whole company.
Was this anonymous slashdot poster so high up that he actually worked with Ballmer, or the people that Ballmer hired? Or was he a little lower in the food chain, where he was probably insulated from Ballmer's antics by dozens of personalities?
AC didn't say that his manager was Ballmer. He referenced "management", which implies the company-wide management of the company.
AC: "In terms of management... Ballmer makes me wince"
Why is he referencing Ballmer directly after management? If he said, "In terms of management... I don't like the Honda philosophy much" wouldn't you conclude that 'management' was implementing Honda management style?
And yes, I would assume that the upper-management of the company is important. They often do help set a tone for the culture of the company in general, but also the poster seemed concerned with "where the company is going", and upper management sure has something to do with that.
Yes, upper management does set the tone. I'd imagine at Microsoft, 'upper management' is a few hundred people. But he's couched that entire group all as a clone of Ballmer. Has Ballmer actually created dozens of proteges in upper management, or is he just pinning his dislike of upper management on a single famous jerk?
In terms of management... Ballmer makes me wince
You worked for Microsoft and your manager was Ballmer? I'm skeptical. Are you trying to say that Ballmer's personality set the tone for the management culture at Microsoft?
Good point. I misexpressed the original idea, however; the originator was creating a scale of human evolution, and he was basing it on fuel sources. ( Come to think of it, he probably was an anthropologist. ) Time was, our only fuel source was food, then came burnable plants, then animal and plant oils, then underground oil, the nuclear fuel, etc. The next stage, in his mind, was mining stars ( and gas giants, as you point out ) directly for their fuel, as they are the ultimate source, anyway.
So, in fact, the gods are an illusion, just like cars, houses, your parents, yourself, and all the rest of what you perceive to be real. The real reality is the Brahman, or the indescribable, non-dual, eternal non-being.