yes, I do agree on that last point. I still see similarities of the IPO with madoff and ponzi's deal though since you as the original seller know there is no value to the company, really because the business model is dead in the water (For lots of reasons.) So the only way it is any good to anyone on the stock market is if the price is above zero, and for each guy selling it, it gets a little closer to zero every day, without possibility of going up because the model doesn't support a higher price nor dividends. There is nothing on the horizon for them that can pump up the price short of people (new suckers) thinking they'll get to flip it to someone else. This is very much like a ponzi scheme. perhaps the fault doesn't lie entirely in the company, but also with everyone else who made an IPO on a sham operation possible.
no. it means you pay out the early suckers with new suckers money. that is the definition of a ponzi scheme. when you run out of new suckers the whole thing breaks down.
not only that, but the deals at groupon started out to be so extreme like 45% off something, or 50% off something else... there isn't a whole lot of places you can take that except lower. when you start replacing all of your 45% deals with 10% off deals, people who would have been excited about using groupon before stop checking the site, rinse lather repeat.
in this case it doesn't. capital gains are a speculative variable and are only realized when you SELL. groupon isn't paying dividends, so effectively, it doesn't make any money for it's "investors." People are essentially only able to bet on the share price going up or down, which has at this point nothing to do with the company itself other than they (the company) inspire people to run away at breakneck speeds.
they only floated 5% of the company shares. principals all had a nice ejection seat. the stock price goes up on the first day because everyone wanted to borrow it so they could short it. the IPO underwriters make a fee on the offering, the principals cash out, some early bird flippers turn a profit on people looking to supply the borrow or cover their shorts, and they exit too. who's left? the market bagholders who get excited about 'new technology booms' from watching CNBC over their orange juice. it's basically a ponzi scheme. I hope they drown in it.
maybe not, but if he were trying to make a buck on all of this, it's a damned good start for him. he could now write a book that his former enemies would buy and scour.
Oh come on. lets be fair. If it turns psycho, it has a 25% chance of it becoming a CEO. Either way, they sure as shit know how to make a lot of people a ton of money. Isn't that what we hire CEO's for? Even the psycho ones?
still have to have technology to stay relevant with the going fare these days... I would be more likely to hire someone who has 'grown up' on a computer than some jackass who can use an pencil to write his name fasterner n'a mutherfukr. starting them in the classrooms is the BASELINE, not the 'improvement' these days.
Right... just like everyone who lives in germany is a... godwin be damned. After all are they not free to move to another country where they don't carry that damned banner? Don't be an idiot.
router acls? that's quite a lot different from what most people use as a firewall. They use things like checkpoint and a linux box with a bunch of iptables scripts. Router acls, I agree, are a poor choice of a firewall....
I know how to do CTEs, sorting, paging, all of that stuff. That is not the issue. The issue is there is no benefit to having this all in stored procs other than the fact that you get to lock down by execute permission only. IF that is your goal in life, then fine, do it. But there is a lot of benefit to be had by using dynamic SQL generation, so long as you are protecting against injection. There is no need to throw everything in a proc, especially read only queries using strongly typed parameterized statements. I generally do all update or insert code in procs, and I will do complicated queries I construct with Lambdas using LINQ. This is so much faster to develop, doesn't litter my code with SQL, and look, it's just about as secure as your way. I don't understand what the huge deal is with everyone saying 'must stored procedure!' I have been doing this for 15 years, I'm not an idiot, I have seen the shift in opinion from one way of doing this to the other more than once. It's just stupid to say that you have to always do stored procs. My complexity examples were just that, examples. Maybe not the greatest examples, but I was trying to illustrate that if you have to change just one little thing, like maybe I use conditions 1 and 12, and next time I use 25,26, and 27, it's ridiculous to put that all in a proc, when i'm just doing some filtering. The reason I throw up the idea of the server side paging is because the typical solution is to draw it all back and filter client side, which i hate, but throwing that on an already complicated multiple parameter proc just makes it that much moreso. i wasn't implying that I, you, or anyone, doesn't know HOW, I'm saying that the idea that you MUST do it in a proc is ridiculous.
What are you talking about? Tell me how you would be so flexible as to encapsulate 100 optional ways of filtering your rows, with a user driven query interface to report on your data, optionally sorting on columns in both directions, while paging it server side without writing a combinatorial number of stored procs or one with 1000 parameters. Huh? I'm waiting. Stored procs have a place, they're fine, and I'm not opposed to them. But they are not a religious relic. They are just what they are, an option. If someone can compromise your app and get at your db info, and you take refuge in the fact that at least your stored procs can only be run (which are the way your database is modified to begin with from your app,) then you have spent too much time worrying about that and too little worrying about securing your web app. Security chaining can be considered a HOLE in security because it only checks the right to run the proc, which may have side effects galore. What happens if you can run your proc and change yourself to be an administrator? where is your precious security chaining there? Get over it. Say I have a report, where I want to maybe sometimes filter based on the date, and then sort based on the last name, and then i want to limit them based on some other thing. But the next time I run it, I just want to sort descending on the date with a larger page size. Do I write a proc with 15 parameters? And in that proc do I do a bunch of if blocks? God help the guy who maintains your apps.
yes, technically you can do that, and I have done that before, but depending on the kind of variation you want, it's more difficult. Also some dbms will let you parameterize where clauses, and some will let you do a limited 'case' statement on them, and still others won't at all.
In a query builder pattern you can append nodes (which can be strongly typed to check that it's not injecting things) to be converted to query strings after you're done, but in a stored proc its a load of IF blocks or case statements that are tough to maintain and the query will have a tendency to be non-deterministic anyway. Stored procs as security construct are ok for CRUD, but they're not actually safer than doing it the way I suggest. It's just a different, and in my opinion, more difficult to implement and maintain, way.
Stored procedures are not the cure-all for everything. They are good if you have only a few ways of doing things, but it's ridiculous to write a different stored proc for every single column that you want to sort by. Its stupid to write a new stored proc for every possible way of varying the query. Yes they do guaruntee some kind of type checking and parsing compliance, but you can do that with a prepared statement as well. Dynamic SQL is a lot more flexible, especially when the number of stored procs would be combinatorial in number. You just have to be smart, and know what to do. Try converting your values to the types you want. Make your own parser if there is no other way, but for example, in the.NET world you can use ADO.NET with the typed parameters on text queries and it's every bit as safe and efficient as a stored proc. I'm not sure how well or not this translates to PHP and MySQL but I think the db module has most of the same stuff, if I recall correctly.
The ones they have in PA are a standard 400 feet tall. I didnt know that they were making smaller ones. In fact they have a windmill factory about 45 minutes from my house, and it cranks out the gigantic blades by the truck load. They're multiplying. I say fine, build wind farms, but don't expect it to replace the supply of coal plants anytime in the near future. I'm betting solar or fuel-recycling nuke plants are the eventual victory over energy. (with solar still requiring significant advances, and nukes requiring significant education -- people are still worried they blow up like nuclear bombs.)
Well I guess that's YOUR theory. heh. Just because it seems complicated, and we don't know the reason, doesn't imply that "someone else out there does know it, or they wouldn't have done it that way.":D
just exactly what is the problem here? Consumers didn't invent the technology, but if consumers don't buy it it's bad for those who did. There is no 'inherent interest of the consumers here.' They didn't have a right to 'buy and use this cell phone' before it was invented, so now, all of the sudden when some smart guy invents it, they suddenly gain the right to have it how they like it regardless of what the guys who invented and brought it to market want to do with it? Consumers are essential to making successful businesses, but business can screw themselves over if they like by making whatever contracts they want.
Anti-trust is not defined. What is "anti-competative?" You'll know it when you see it? So.. you don't know if you've committed a crime until after you have, and the jury hands down an indictment? Hmm... I'm pretty sure that you can't have anti-trust over a particular MODEL of phone, when everyone and their uncle has some kind of smart phone somewhere.
Consumers put fuel into the engines of the companies that make things by buying them, so it's wise for companies to consider the interests of those buying their stuff. But there is no law (nor should there be) against being stupid and making stupid business decisions (locking out a portion of the market you might have had based on exclusivity deals.)
Look at the iPhone... they asked verizon first if they wanted to invest... and they said no. AT&T paid money to enable the very thing to come to market at all. Without that, apple's brilliant design would be sitting on a hard drive somewhere.
I'm a little skeptical how a protein, made of molecules that are subject to the same destructive radiation particles as any other molecules are can protect someone from something smaller than a molecule, and somehow render random molecular damage 'benign.' It's like saying they can make a pill that will prevent knife damage. Seriously, radiation damage is PHYSICAL DAMAGE, not some chemical signal to block the receptors of. I call immediate bullshit.
they probably just have long dhcp leases. When they renew, they stay with the same address unless it's taken (in the off chance someone else renewed within your window, which is low, if the window is long,) and the leases work by MAC. Occasionally they'll change, and if you change a device out, the mac is all new. They could have various reasons for clearing out the leases or whatever too. I doubt they would really put so much effort into trying to keep an address with a person, when it's pretty simple to track it down, and not so simple to reserve them so often.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, I do agree on that last point. I still see similarities of the IPO with madoff and ponzi's deal though since you as the original seller know there is no value to the company, really because the business model is dead in the water (For lots of reasons.) So the only way it is any good to anyone on the stock market is if the price is above zero, and for each guy selling it, it gets a little closer to zero every day, without possibility of going up because the model doesn't support a higher price nor dividends. There is nothing on the horizon for them that can pump up the price short of people (new suckers) thinking they'll get to flip it to someone else. This is very much like a ponzi scheme. perhaps the fault doesn't lie entirely in the company, but also with everyone else who made an IPO on a sham operation possible.
no. it means you pay out the early suckers with new suckers money. that is the definition of a ponzi scheme. when you run out of new suckers the whole thing breaks down.
not only that, but the deals at groupon started out to be so extreme like 45% off something, or 50% off something else... there isn't a whole lot of places you can take that except lower. when you start replacing all of your 45% deals with 10% off deals, people who would have been excited about using groupon before stop checking the site, rinse lather repeat.
in this case it doesn't. capital gains are a speculative variable and are only realized when you SELL. groupon isn't paying dividends, so effectively, it doesn't make any money for it's "investors." People are essentially only able to bet on the share price going up or down, which has at this point nothing to do with the company itself other than they (the company) inspire people to run away at breakneck speeds.
they only floated 5% of the company shares. principals all had a nice ejection seat. the stock price goes up on the first day because everyone wanted to borrow it so they could short it. the IPO underwriters make a fee on the offering, the principals cash out, some early bird flippers turn a profit on people looking to supply the borrow or cover their shorts, and they exit too. who's left? the market bagholders who get excited about 'new technology booms' from watching CNBC over their orange juice. it's basically a ponzi scheme. I hope they drown in it.
maybe not, but if he were trying to make a buck on all of this, it's a damned good start for him. he could now write a book that his former enemies would buy and scour.
I thought this was a joke when I first read it. Apparently it's been on the books a few months though.
That would be a socialist dictatorship. By definition of socialism: "State owns the means of production."
Oh come on. lets be fair. If it turns psycho, it has a 25% chance of it becoming a CEO. Either way, they sure as shit know how to make a lot of people a ton of money. Isn't that what we hire CEO's for? Even the psycho ones?
still have to have technology to stay relevant with the going fare these days... I would be more likely to hire someone who has 'grown up' on a computer than some jackass who can use an pencil to write his name fasterner n'a mutherfukr. starting them in the classrooms is the BASELINE, not the 'improvement' these days.
Right... just like everyone who lives in germany is a... godwin be damned. After all are they not free to move to another country where they don't carry that damned banner? Don't be an idiot.
Just like on CSI. Those cops are AWESOME! They can do just about everything, all in the same lab too.
router acls? that's quite a lot different from what most people use as a firewall. They use things like checkpoint and a linux box with a bunch of iptables scripts. Router acls, I agree, are a poor choice of a firewall....
I know how to do CTEs, sorting, paging, all of that stuff. That is not the issue. The issue is there is no benefit to having this all in stored procs other than the fact that you get to lock down by execute permission only. IF that is your goal in life, then fine, do it. But there is a lot of benefit to be had by using dynamic SQL generation, so long as you are protecting against injection. There is no need to throw everything in a proc, especially read only queries using strongly typed parameterized statements. I generally do all update or insert code in procs, and I will do complicated queries I construct with Lambdas using LINQ. This is so much faster to develop, doesn't litter my code with SQL, and look, it's just about as secure as your way. I don't understand what the huge deal is with everyone saying 'must stored procedure!' I have been doing this for 15 years, I'm not an idiot, I have seen the shift in opinion from one way of doing this to the other more than once. It's just stupid to say that you have to always do stored procs. My complexity examples were just that, examples. Maybe not the greatest examples, but I was trying to illustrate that if you have to change just one little thing, like maybe I use conditions 1 and 12, and next time I use 25,26, and 27, it's ridiculous to put that all in a proc, when i'm just doing some filtering. The reason I throw up the idea of the server side paging is because the typical solution is to draw it all back and filter client side, which i hate, but throwing that on an already complicated multiple parameter proc just makes it that much moreso. i wasn't implying that I, you, or anyone, doesn't know HOW, I'm saying that the idea that you MUST do it in a proc is ridiculous.
What are you talking about? Tell me how you would be so flexible as to encapsulate 100 optional ways of filtering your rows, with a user driven query interface to report on your data, optionally sorting on columns in both directions, while paging it server side without writing a combinatorial number of stored procs or one with 1000 parameters. Huh? I'm waiting. Stored procs have a place, they're fine, and I'm not opposed to them. But they are not a religious relic. They are just what they are, an option. If someone can compromise your app and get at your db info, and you take refuge in the fact that at least your stored procs can only be run (which are the way your database is modified to begin with from your app,) then you have spent too much time worrying about that and too little worrying about securing your web app. Security chaining can be considered a HOLE in security because it only checks the right to run the proc, which may have side effects galore. What happens if you can run your proc and change yourself to be an administrator? where is your precious security chaining there? Get over it. Say I have a report, where I want to maybe sometimes filter based on the date, and then sort based on the last name, and then i want to limit them based on some other thing. But the next time I run it, I just want to sort descending on the date with a larger page size. Do I write a proc with 15 parameters? And in that proc do I do a bunch of if blocks? God help the guy who maintains your apps.
I mean 'order by clauses' not where clauses.
yes, technically you can do that, and I have done that before, but depending on the kind of variation you want, it's more difficult. Also some dbms will let you parameterize where clauses, and some will let you do a limited 'case' statement on them, and still others won't at all.
In a query builder pattern you can append nodes (which can be strongly typed to check that it's not injecting things) to be converted to query strings after you're done, but in a stored proc its a load of IF blocks or case statements that are tough to maintain and the query will have a tendency to be non-deterministic anyway. Stored procs as security construct are ok for CRUD, but they're not actually safer than doing it the way I suggest. It's just a different, and in my opinion, more difficult to implement and maintain, way.
Stored procedures are not the cure-all for everything. They are good if you have only a few ways of doing things, but it's ridiculous to write a different stored proc for every single column that you want to sort by. Its stupid to write a new stored proc for every possible way of varying the query. Yes they do guaruntee some kind of type checking and parsing compliance, but you can do that with a prepared statement as well. Dynamic SQL is a lot more flexible, especially when the number of stored procs would be combinatorial in number. You just have to be smart, and know what to do. Try converting your values to the types you want. Make your own parser if there is no other way, but for example, in the .NET world you can use ADO.NET with the typed parameters on text queries and it's every bit as safe and efficient as a stored proc. I'm not sure how well or not this translates to PHP and MySQL but I think the db module has most of the same stuff, if I recall correctly.
This seems like the equivalent of saying 'If you are allowed to install software on your PC you might bring down your ISP's entire network."
They'll have to invent a new HTTP error code: 603 - Calm Weather
The ones they have in PA are a standard 400 feet tall. I didnt know that they were making smaller ones. In fact they have a windmill factory about 45 minutes from my house, and it cranks out the gigantic blades by the truck load. They're multiplying. I say fine, build wind farms, but don't expect it to replace the supply of coal plants anytime in the near future. I'm betting solar or fuel-recycling nuke plants are the eventual victory over energy. (with solar still requiring significant advances, and nukes requiring significant education -- people are still worried they blow up like nuclear bombs.)
Well I guess that's YOUR theory. heh. Just because it seems complicated, and we don't know the reason, doesn't imply that "someone else out there does know it, or they wouldn't have done it that way." :D
just exactly what is the problem here? Consumers didn't invent the technology, but if consumers don't buy it it's bad for those who did. There is no 'inherent interest of the consumers here.' They didn't have a right to 'buy and use this cell phone' before it was invented, so now, all of the sudden when some smart guy invents it, they suddenly gain the right to have it how they like it regardless of what the guys who invented and brought it to market want to do with it? Consumers are essential to making successful businesses, but business can screw themselves over if they like by making whatever contracts they want. Anti-trust is not defined. What is "anti-competative?" You'll know it when you see it? So.. you don't know if you've committed a crime until after you have, and the jury hands down an indictment? Hmm... I'm pretty sure that you can't have anti-trust over a particular MODEL of phone, when everyone and their uncle has some kind of smart phone somewhere. Consumers put fuel into the engines of the companies that make things by buying them, so it's wise for companies to consider the interests of those buying their stuff. But there is no law (nor should there be) against being stupid and making stupid business decisions (locking out a portion of the market you might have had based on exclusivity deals.) Look at the iPhone... they asked verizon first if they wanted to invest... and they said no. AT&T paid money to enable the very thing to come to market at all. Without that, apple's brilliant design would be sitting on a hard drive somewhere.
I'm a little skeptical how a protein, made of molecules that are subject to the same destructive radiation particles as any other molecules are can protect someone from something smaller than a molecule, and somehow render random molecular damage 'benign.' It's like saying they can make a pill that will prevent knife damage. Seriously, radiation damage is PHYSICAL DAMAGE, not some chemical signal to block the receptors of. I call immediate bullshit.
they probably just have long dhcp leases. When they renew, they stay with the same address unless it's taken (in the off chance someone else renewed within your window, which is low, if the window is long,) and the leases work by MAC. Occasionally they'll change, and if you change a device out, the mac is all new. They could have various reasons for clearing out the leases or whatever too. I doubt they would really put so much effort into trying to keep an address with a person, when it's pretty simple to track it down, and not so simple to reserve them so often.