Modern engines don't even require the "higher" octane rating, as they can compensate as required for slightly lower octane ratings.
Hmmmm...so who do I trust? Some dude on/. or the manufacturer of my car's engine? I'll go with the manufacturer on this one. Your engine is tuned for a particular octane. Running a higher octane than what's recommended buys you little if anything. I'm merely saying that the entire ethanol blah de blah bs is just that - BS. Ethanol is something to keep a small vocal minority (and farmers) happy. It's not cost-efficient, doesn't solve the environmental problems, nor anything else. In fact, large scale adoption may very well have worse environmental effects.
Octane ratings: I too found my turbo running better mileage on premium. So does my high-compression normally aspirated current vehicle. My truck and older vehicle gain nothing from higher octane than recommended. Which only goes to prove that you should run on the octane recommended.
That is true on the nuclear heat generation. However, utilizing solar, tidal, or wind, which are all extra planetary sources, causes no heat generation. (unless the solar power utilization results in greater energy absorbtion...)
Nuclear is still using "stored" power, thus can still have a net add to planetary heat. That is one of the most bizarre anti-nuclear statements that I have seen (and I've seen a lot). The heat added by nuclear power plants will be as significant to heating this planet as rubbing your hands together is significant in heating your house. It's merely a statement of fact. I didn't pose it as an anti-nuclear argument. I'm for nuclear power, but you do need to be aware that it is releasing stored power. As for rubbing your hands together, I'll take it a step further and say it's like heating a club with people. (FYI: this actually happens in the winter, clubs run their AC to keep their building cool. Humans produce over 300 BTU/hr. Stuff a couple hundred in a relatively small space and you have a pretty good heating system.)
You are living in a fairy land. When you can design a truck than can carry goods cross country that can plug into the grid or a ship that can carry goods across the oceans that you can plug into the grid I might start to agree with you. for trucks - electric trains - see Europe
...But you aren't going to mount a nuclear reactor in a truck (and probably not a commercial ship) nor can you use solar panels to power either. Thus you must have ridiculously powerful batteries or other energy storage devices that do not exist today. We use liquid energy storage not because it is cheaper than electricity (which it is not), but because it is transportable and usable in places the grid does not reach. I never said anything about about doing everything today. There's lots of things that can be done today, but aren't yet. Real electric car alternatives are possible (see Tesla for a reasonable high-end alternative). Solar power is a real alternative to fossil fuel generated power - but you can't charge generating fees on it. (See the recent improvements to solar cells that get up to 40% conversion rates)
None of these things are easy, but once done, they help significantly and keep on producing. For concentrating solar cell collectors, mirrors will have to be cleaned, and cells will need to be replaced as they wear out. But if we merely move over to ethanol, we're only delaying the conversion pain to later, and quite possibly causing a host of other issues in between.
This has nothing to do with enforcability of EULA's. This is a statement of what will happen with your computer if you install the software, much as installation of this software will give you access to keyboards and mice and a display such as on a monitor.
The only way around it is to remove bits of the software, like Windows Defender (sounds like a misnomer, more like "MS Monopoly Ensurer" to me) which are technically forbidden by the EULA. Now, recall that most that install this won't be savvy enough to disable/remove Windows Defender, or the other "services" that need removing, and you'll see why this is a Big Deal[TM].
Ethanol is being used to reduce emissions on that small fraction of badly running automobiles out there. It does not have any effect on modern engines except to lower their mileage. Modern engines don't even require the "higher" octane rating, as they can compensate as required for slightly lower octane ratings.
Ethanol actually reduces the specific energy of gasoline.
Lastly, ethanol's true cost is in growing and producing ethanol - namely, water use and the agricultural pollution.
Ethanol is not the answer. Neither is bio-diesel. Nothing that replaces the current liquid storage medium will be the answer. The true answer is either nuclear or solar (also nuclear:) or wind/tidal. The last 3 are all extra-planetary in their power source and thus not add to planetary heat as we're merely shifting energy from A to B: solar/wind are both driven by the sun, and tidal is mostly driven by the moon). Nuclear is still using "stored" power, thus can still have a net add to planetary heat.
Total crap. You may have changed your mind in the meantime. Besides, does anyone do anything other than sniping these days? Well, except for the artificially low bid you use as a placeholder bid?
You're actually supporting exactly what I've said. The current "best" spec for a TV replacement is H.264. It has certain bandwidth requirements that are currently not being met by our broadband providers. (There couldn't be a conflict of interest there, could there? Since they provide, or want to provide, TV broadcasts?)
The reason the spec is also important is that the spec provides the quality we'll be getting from TV. If you cannot equal or exceed that, then there's already a quality issue you'll need to overcome. Despite the fact that you can download just about anything (disregarding for the moment the questionalble illigality - in the US downloading isn't a crime, uploading is), the low quality of much of that downloadable content (mostly compression artifacts in the best, and downright flaws, skips, etc in the worst) still make me watch almost all my content via DVDs a la Netflix. The amateur produced mostly junk on youTube is barely watchable in that little 320x200 window, much less blown up on a 65" HDTV.
So once I can get equivalent quality content (both in picture/sound quality and production/content quality) from sources other than TV providers, I don't see anything replacing TV anytime soon. This includes downloading TV content from iTunes or the like. It's still TV.
I believe there's also connectivity software for Linux, BSD, etc.
So, if the real problem with the iPod is that the manufacturer only officially supports connectivity through braind-dead software, does that make the device defective?
IMHO, there's nothing wrong with the iPod's design. It's a fine piece of hardware that supports MP3s and AAC encoded music (a much better codec). The fact that it also supports FairPlay DRM is irrelevant to me, as I don't have a single piece of DRM infested media on any system I own.
Until our networks support both up and down speeds that allow for streaming h.264 full resolution content (the current MPEG4 HD streaming spec), we're still in the steam car engine era.
TV will change drastically, with more and more crappy youtube quality videos throughout. While there will be some stars in amateur hour, the bulk of decent TV will still be produced by professionals for at least the next 10 years. I'm not willing to make a prediction beyond that.
DRM is defective by design. The iPod is not, although the provided interface, iTunes, definitely has some limitations. Try ephpod for drag and drop support. There's a host of others as well, if you're willing to look for them.
If your iPod updates are a problem, I recall some other sites explaining how to load a "virgin" iPod source onto the iPod but don't have the link to that handy.
I've long been of the opinion that the human race is ultimately doomed to failure for one simple reason: Unlike EVERY other species on the planet, we allow our weak to survive and persist.. We don't just allow the weak to survive and persist, we actively work to ensure their survival and ability to procreate.
But, I'd argue that this isn't even the reason we're "doomed". I'd point to something else, if you're of this particular mental bent: look at birthrates among the intelligent, educated, well-off people in the "rich" countries. You'll note the major trend you'll see is very low or no births to these people. So the genetically "successful" for the human race are actively removing themselves from the gene pool, whether consciously or not is irrelevant. I myself am contributing to that trend by only having a single child. If humans were like other species, I would have 30+ kids. Of course, that would kill me.;)
One day we will absolutely be able to "clone Einstein". Now, the real question is, will we be able to subject the clone to all the hormonal and chemical processes that Einstein was subjected to during the entire span of his lifetime that produced his genius, and, more importantly, can we make him want to be interested in something we consider, or will later consider, useful?
In other words, cloning is merely making a genetic copy. To actually create a carbon copy, or even a copy with similar enough abilities, is more than merely cloning. (This is more along the lines of what you're suggesting.)
The potential for stupidity or intelligence certainly has hereditary components. Recent studies have shown that environment has the largest effect on expressing the potential intelligence, and in some cases might even increase that capacity. This does not debunk the fact that some people just have more innate intelligence (genetically based) but it doesn't guarantee that those fortunate people are "smarter" than anyone else. It's the same with athletics. Some people are just "gifted" with better physique. However, if they eat @ McDonalds everyday for 30 days and sit on their can watching TV (Thanks Spurlock!) vs someone not so gifted that goes out and trains for the ironman triatholon, who do you think will win a triatholon race between the two?
Innate abilities mean nothing if you don't work to express them.
Even if you have it in writing, this first taste of the job is already quite sour. If you do have it in writing, do you really want to work for this company?
If you don't have it in writing, talk to the person that extended you the original offer. Depending on what they do, you may or may not decide to take it/stay. Make sure whatever you agree to is in writing. Basically, any company that did something like this would be way in the hole and would have to work to keep any reasonable person.
If you haven't quit your old job, or you gave notice but haven't left and they're really sorry to see you go, indicate you might be interested in staying. This would involve playing the "what can you do for me" game. You certainly don't want to be honest about why you're reconsidering. Say something to your boss along the lines of "I would have liked to have seen project X to completion. It is going to be great!" or something like that. Perhaps they can sweeten your current job and you can both save face and your sanity by "accepting" the offer.
Yeah, that's the touchy thing about that. Then again, if sperm #2 had been a little faster, you wouldn't exist. Or, you'd exist, you'd just be different. They'd still have a child, it just wouldn't be "you".
So, I think that entire argument is a very hollow strawman.
Argh, I'm replying to an anon on a touchy subject....
The Nazis performed eugenics to an extreme degree. I think that eliminating "stupid" people (using an arbitrary definition of "stupid") by encouraging them to kill themselves would qualify as a moderate-to-extreme form of eugenics. Once they started incarcerating political prisoners, gypsys, and in general bad people in concentration camps in the early 30s, it quickly became easier in germany to add other groups the general population didn't like, such as anyone unable or unwilling to "contribute" or "fit in" to society. Don't forget that Germany, and in fact, most of Europe, were horribly xenophobic at the time. The concentration camps quickly devolved to slave camps and then execution camps, which is a perfect example of the "slippery slope" concept in action.
Eugenics is practiced with every prenatal screening, gene screening to discover genetic abnormalities prior to conception, and with almost every in-vitro process. Do you consider those "horrible"?
These are controversial ethical debates. Some people, especially the disabled community, do not believe that those who are born disabled should be screened out. Of course, the definition of "disability" and "disease" varies greatly.
I agree there's much debate on this topic. In a contrary view, there was a story in the insert in my Sunday paper this past weekend about a married dwarf couple wanting to ensure their child was born a dwarf. This would be intentionally producing a child with what is considered a genetic abnormality by, at a rough guess, 95+% of the population. Personally, I feel that intentionally disadvantaging a child in this manner, because they will be at a disadvantage in today's society, is not unlike unnecessarily amputating a new born's legs or arms at birth. The story also made mention of intentionally selecting deafness for a deaf couple. I feel the same way about that.
This is merely encouraging a subset to remove themselves from the gene pool.
Deliberately encouraging people to kill themselves would... land you in a fair bit of trouble, I think.
Or do you hold that the Darwin Awards website is an abomination as well?
More like insensitivity to loved ones.
Telling someone to "drop dead" if you will, is not punishable. As an example of how stupid our society has become as a whole, I was by pure happenstance viewing an ad on TV this morning. It was of the new Lexus IS, and they had one on a runway racing against an IS dropped from a helicopter across the drop target. The ground based IS squeaks right under the falling IS in classic thrilling escaped by a hair style.
What makes this germane to this discussion is the text that was apparently felt by someone that needed to be included in the ad. Underneath, it stated first off, "all ariel sequences were simulated", followed by "Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt."
Now, if you have to tell someone that measuring out 4000 feet on a runway and racing a car dropped from a helicopter @ 4000 feet is something you shouldn't attempt, I'd say that anyone so tempted should be allowed to go ahead and potentially remove themselves from the gene pool.
The Nazis practiced genocide and encouraged eugenics. The fact that the distasteful former has so completely colored the latter to the point of tainting its meaning is obvious in your case.
Eugenics is practiced with every prenatal screening, gene screening to discover genetic abnormalities prior to conception, and with almost every in-vitro process. Do you consider those "horrible"?
This is merely encouraging a subset to remove themselves from the gene pool. There's a major difference between showing someone cliff-diving and describing its wonders vs forcibly shoving someone off a cliff.
That's being a wise-ass for the sake of being a wise-ass. wise-ass? I think not - you explicitly stated servlets, not JSPs when in truth JSPs are for all intents and purposes servlets.
There is no way to predict _how_ a JSP will be compiled into a servlet (it's engine specific, after all), ergo no way to compare the outcome. For all I care the engine encodes a JSP to go to sleep for a second or so before it produces any output. Wouldn't violate the spec, but I wouldn't be able to tell. The end result is a class file on every single system I've worked on. The conjecture that spurious crap happens is an empty strawman at best. Some engines may be more efficient than others, but that's true of any set of compilers.
And I was trying for a bare-bones comparison, because anything beyond bare-bones is equally unpredictable; You're missing my point: the application server within which servlets run typically contain far more plumbing than Apache web servers. They were also designed for different tasks. You'll note that my originally statement was that your "'benchmark' wholly slanted to the 'lightness' of C++.". That statement is true, and even more true in light of the above sets of statements.
what do you want to test - database access ? How can you possibly tell what it is you're waiting for ? Well, in my experience, you're waiting for network latency, no matter what you program your client in. So you're admitting that the performance of your application layer is largely irrelevant? Then what's the argument about?
I want the bare-bones comparison precisely because it tells me what I can expect in terms of primary throughput from a webserver. which is irrelevant for an application layer. Let the webserver serve web pages, let the application tier do its job.
As for programmability (which, I suspect, is really your point) then I guess your conjecture is as good as mine. The fact that there are more java programmers out there, or that business people use java programmers more doesn't necessarily mean that java is better for the job; it might just mean that java is more comprehensible to stupid people. Perhaps C++ programmers are so set in their ways of making buggies.... (just in case you don't get the double entendre, as you seem to be intentionally dense, that's a direct reference to the buggy manufacturers in the early 1900s as those new-fangled motor vehicles started taking over. It's also a reference to how C/C++ programmers continually produce the same common bugs, over and over again in their code - buffer overflows, bad pointer math, etc. Not that Java programmers don't do their own versions of these things, they just get there faster.;)
But seriously - you're either an elitist snob C++ programmer or a troll - I don't really care to figure out which. I personally think C++ has grown into an abomination of its initial intent, which was a clean concise OO version C. Either way, I've met folks in both that are unfit for coding. It just so happens that in C/C++, those that are unfit are generally filtered out pretty quickly because continuous crashes are hard to hide. (Yes, Java is more forgiving.)
Meanwhile maybe I'll go checkout the latest releases of Smalltalk or Ruby, or perhaps even Eiffel.
If you read my post carefully, then you'll have noticed that I said 'servlet', not 'JSP'. The net result is indifferent after JSP compilation. JSPs are servlets. So once compiled, there is no difference between the two. You can, or could, precompile JSPs as well. (I haven't bothered with this feature since 2001, so don't know if it was dropped or still exists in new modern implementations. The QA regression run on a prod deployment also compiles all the JSPs.)
I was trying to make an orange vs. orange comparison here. and you failed. Here's why:
On the one hand you have precompiled... java-code embedded in the server, on the other hand you have an apache module written in C, embedded in the server. In the first case, a request will have to pass via an arbitrary native (JVM-) implementation of 'select', in the latter case you're dealing with one of the fastest webservers on the planet executing native code. If your reading comprehension were actually as high as you apparently think, you'd note that by implication I stated precisely that. "[T]ake a loaded dump truck on a racetrack" in reference to using a JSP/servlet for something as simple as a Hello World application. Just in case you're really dense, the container that runs servlets/JSPs usually have considerably more plumbing than Apache + module. I state usually because somewhere I'm willing to bet there's an "optimized" JSP/servlet server that may be much closer to the Apache configuration. Apache is bare-bones.
Regarding coding speed: Give me two equally skilled programmers, and tell them to hook up to a messaging queue, a couple of DBs, and throw in some business logic during the processing of your now somewhat complex "Hello World" app. If you want to make it more realistic, add in some transactional processing with writes to an external store. The Java guy will be at home while the code is tested and in production while the C++ guy is still working on getting the initial skeleton running. Note that in this scenario, which is a much closer semblance of reality in the business world, that the speed of the serving application becomes a miniscule portion of the total response time as the back-end systems and connections to them are your major bottlenecks. There is a reason companies have converted to Java. It wasn't because the development time went up.
And this is not conjecture about Java being the better choice for business programming of the sort outlined - I have seen it in RL with Perl, COBOL, C, and C++. Those languages have their places as well, but large scalable flexible business applications are not it.
BTW, you should note that I think Apache is a fine web server, and it fronts most of the web apps I have worked on and I use it personally.
While I like some of the Stone Roses work, anything that distorted isn't worth playing on "good" equipment. Another band would be Social Distortion. Mid range consumer audio is about all you'd want to play that on, not least for fear of actually doing some damage to your speakers. They also don't compress well in MP3 format, although AAC seems to handle it quite well.
I want to see a benchmark of a servlet pushing a simple http 'hello world' versus an apache module doing the same thing. And then with a thousand requests per second. I'm sure that you're sure that java will keep it up, it's just that I'm not so sure. Why would I feed a simple html "hello world" via a JSP? That's like taking a loaded dump truck on a racetrack. It's a "benchmark" wholly slanted to the "lightness" of C++.
As far as rates go, I'm not willing to take a stand on current possibilities, as the load tests I've done are on systems who's bottlenecks lie in relatively long term data retrieval and processing, not network I/O. In these scenarios Java easily meets or exceeds C++ in performance and coding time is considerably quicker under Java, as the potential for bugs is simply lower.
The blanket statement that A is better than B in all cases simply isn't true.
Fortunately for you, and perhaps us, Bush's strong-arm snapped in 2006 elections. We're just going to have to wait and see how long it takes for the tide to change. (Provided it does, the Democrats have at least one thing going for us voters - they're not unified in view)
I live in a large metropolitan area, and while they do "take requests", I have yet to see the results of any of those requests. For what it's worth, Westmalle, Chimay, Rochefort, and Maredsous are apparently all available in the US at the moment, Brugge Tripple and Orval Ale appear to be "banned" (some import issue) and St. Bernardus is hopefully merely out of stock. That's according to the beer import guy I talked to 2 weeks ago. About 6 months ago, Lindeman's lambics (a sour fruit added bacteria fermented beer) was banned in my state, at least, for a time. They're back now.
Slashdot Mirror
Octane ratings: I too found my turbo running better mileage on premium. So does my high-compression normally aspirated current vehicle. My truck and older vehicle gain nothing from higher octane than recommended. Which only goes to prove that you should run on the octane recommended.
That is true on the nuclear heat generation. However, utilizing solar, tidal, or wind, which are all extra planetary sources, causes no heat generation. (unless the solar power utilization results in greater energy absorbtion...)
Naive, naah. Does the gasoline burn more completely? Given what I've seen of emissions readings - no. (excepting older badly tuned cars, of course).
I'm not arguing petro/gas vs ethanol - it's a red herring. I'm arguing for alternatives to both of these.
As for nuclear - see this response.
That is one of the most bizarre anti-nuclear statements that I have seen (and I've seen a lot). The heat added by nuclear power plants will be as significant to heating this planet as rubbing your hands together is significant in heating your house. It's merely a statement of fact. I didn't pose it as an anti-nuclear argument. I'm for nuclear power, but you do need to be aware that it is releasing stored power. As for rubbing your hands together, I'll take it a step further and say it's like heating a club with people. (FYI: this actually happens in the winter, clubs run their AC to keep their building cool. Humans produce over 300 BTU/hr. Stuff a couple hundred in a relatively small space and you have a pretty good heating system.) You are living in a fairy land. When you can design a truck than can carry goods cross country that can plug into the grid or a ship that can carry goods across the oceans that you can plug into the grid I might start to agree with you. for trucks - electric trains - see Europe
...But you aren't going to mount a nuclear reactor in a truck (and probably not a commercial ship) nor can you use solar panels to power either. Thus you must have ridiculously powerful batteries or other energy storage devices that do not exist today. We use liquid energy storage not because it is cheaper than electricity (which it is not), but because it is transportable and usable in places the grid does not reach. I never said anything about about doing everything today. There's lots of things that can be done today, but aren't yet. Real electric car alternatives are possible (see Tesla for a reasonable high-end alternative). Solar power is a real alternative to fossil fuel generated power - but you can't charge generating fees on it. (See the recent improvements to solar cells that get up to 40% conversion rates)None of these things are easy, but once done, they help significantly and keep on producing. For concentrating solar cell collectors, mirrors will have to be cleaned, and cells will need to be replaced as they wear out. But if we merely move over to ethanol, we're only delaying the conversion pain to later, and quite possibly causing a host of other issues in between.
This has nothing to do with enforcability of EULA's. This is a statement of what will happen with your computer if you install the software, much as installation of this software will give you access to keyboards and mice and a display such as on a monitor.
The only way around it is to remove bits of the software, like Windows Defender (sounds like a misnomer, more like "MS Monopoly Ensurer" to me) which are technically forbidden by the EULA. Now, recall that most that install this won't be savvy enough to disable/remove Windows Defender, or the other "services" that need removing, and you'll see why this is a Big Deal[TM].
Wrong wrong wrong.
Ethanol is being used to reduce emissions on that small fraction of badly running automobiles out there. It does not have any effect on modern engines except to lower their mileage. Modern engines don't even require the "higher" octane rating, as they can compensate as required for slightly lower octane ratings.
Ethanol actually reduces the specific energy of gasoline.
Lastly, ethanol's true cost is in growing and producing ethanol - namely, water use and the agricultural pollution.
Ethanol is not the answer. Neither is bio-diesel. Nothing that replaces the current liquid storage medium will be the answer. The true answer is either nuclear or solar (also nuclear:) or wind/tidal. The last 3 are all extra-planetary in their power source and thus not add to planetary heat as we're merely shifting energy from A to B: solar/wind are both driven by the sun, and tidal is mostly driven by the moon). Nuclear is still using "stored" power, thus can still have a net add to planetary heat.
Total crap. You may have changed your mind in the meantime. Besides, does anyone do anything other than sniping these days? Well, except for the artificially low bid you use as a placeholder bid?
You're actually supporting exactly what I've said. The current "best" spec for a TV replacement is H.264. It has certain bandwidth requirements that are currently not being met by our broadband providers. (There couldn't be a conflict of interest there, could there? Since they provide, or want to provide, TV broadcasts?)
The reason the spec is also important is that the spec provides the quality we'll be getting from TV. If you cannot equal or exceed that, then there's already a quality issue you'll need to overcome. Despite the fact that you can download just about anything (disregarding for the moment the questionalble illigality - in the US downloading isn't a crime, uploading is), the low quality of much of that downloadable content (mostly compression artifacts in the best, and downright flaws, skips, etc in the worst) still make me watch almost all my content via DVDs a la Netflix. The amateur produced mostly junk on youTube is barely watchable in that little 320x200 window, much less blown up on a 65" HDTV.
So once I can get equivalent quality content (both in picture/sound quality and production/content quality) from sources other than TV providers, I don't see anything replacing TV anytime soon. This includes downloading TV content from iTunes or the like. It's still TV.
I believe there's also connectivity software for Linux, BSD, etc.
So, if the real problem with the iPod is that the manufacturer only officially supports connectivity through braind-dead software, does that make the device defective?
IMHO, there's nothing wrong with the iPod's design. It's a fine piece of hardware that supports MP3s and AAC encoded music (a much better codec). The fact that it also supports FairPlay DRM is irrelevant to me, as I don't have a single piece of DRM infested media on any system I own.
Until our networks support both up and down speeds that allow for streaming h.264 full resolution content (the current MPEG4 HD streaming spec), we're still in the steam car engine era.
TV will change drastically, with more and more crappy youtube quality videos throughout. While there will be some stars in amateur hour, the bulk of decent TV will still be produced by professionals for at least the next 10 years. I'm not willing to make a prediction beyond that.
DRM is defective by design. The iPod is not, although the provided interface, iTunes, definitely has some limitations. Try ephpod for drag and drop support. There's a host of others as well, if you're willing to look for them.
If your iPod updates are a problem, I recall some other sites explaining how to load a "virgin" iPod source onto the iPod but don't have the link to that handy.
But, I'd argue that this isn't even the reason we're "doomed". I'd point to something else, if you're of this particular mental bent: look at birthrates among the intelligent, educated, well-off people in the "rich" countries. You'll note the major trend you'll see is very low or no births to these people. So the genetically "successful" for the human race are actively removing themselves from the gene pool, whether consciously or not is irrelevant. I myself am contributing to that trend by only having a single child. If humans were like other species, I would have 30+ kids. Of course, that would kill me.
One day we will absolutely be able to "clone Einstein". Now, the real question is, will we be able to subject the clone to all the hormonal and chemical processes that Einstein was subjected to during the entire span of his lifetime that produced his genius, and, more importantly, can we make him want to be interested in something we consider, or will later consider, useful?
In other words, cloning is merely making a genetic copy. To actually create a carbon copy, or even a copy with similar enough abilities, is more than merely cloning. (This is more along the lines of what you're suggesting.)
The potential for stupidity or intelligence certainly has hereditary components. Recent studies have shown that environment has the largest effect on expressing the potential intelligence, and in some cases might even increase that capacity. This does not debunk the fact that some people just have more innate intelligence (genetically based) but it doesn't guarantee that those fortunate people are "smarter" than anyone else. It's the same with athletics. Some people are just "gifted" with better physique. However, if they eat @ McDonalds everyday for 30 days and sit on their can watching TV (Thanks Spurlock!) vs someone not so gifted that goes out and trains for the ironman triatholon, who do you think will win a triatholon race between the two?
Innate abilities mean nothing if you don't work to express them.
Even if you have it in writing, this first taste of the job is already quite sour. If you do have it in writing, do you really want to work for this company?
If you don't have it in writing, talk to the person that extended you the original offer. Depending on what they do, you may or may not decide to take it/stay. Make sure whatever you agree to is in writing. Basically, any company that did something like this would be way in the hole and would have to work to keep any reasonable person.
If you haven't quit your old job, or you gave notice but haven't left and they're really sorry to see you go, indicate you might be interested in staying. This would involve playing the "what can you do for me" game. You certainly don't want to be honest about why you're reconsidering. Say something to your boss along the lines of "I would have liked to have seen project X to completion. It is going to be great!" or something like that. Perhaps they can sweeten your current job and you can both save face and your sanity by "accepting" the offer.
Yeah, that's the touchy thing about that. Then again, if sperm #2 had been a little faster, you wouldn't exist. Or, you'd exist, you'd just be different. They'd still have a child, it just wouldn't be "you".
So, I think that entire argument is a very hollow strawman.
Eugenics is practiced with every prenatal screening, gene screening to discover genetic abnormalities prior to conception, and with almost every in-vitro process. Do you consider those "horrible"?
These are controversial ethical debates. Some people, especially the disabled community, do not believe that those who are born disabled should be screened out. Of course, the definition of "disability" and "disease" varies greatly.
I agree there's much debate on this topic. In a contrary view, there was a story in the insert in my Sunday paper this past weekend about a married dwarf couple wanting to ensure their child was born a dwarf. This would be intentionally producing a child with what is considered a genetic abnormality by, at a rough guess, 95+% of the population. Personally, I feel that intentionally disadvantaging a child in this manner, because they will be at a disadvantage in today's society, is not unlike unnecessarily amputating a new born's legs or arms at birth. The story also made mention of intentionally selecting deafness for a deaf couple. I feel the same way about that.This is merely encouraging a subset to remove themselves from the gene pool.
Deliberately encouraging people to kill themselves would... land you in a fair bit of trouble, I think.
Or do you hold that the Darwin Awards website is an abomination as well?
More like insensitivity to loved ones.
Telling someone to "drop dead" if you will, is not punishable. As an example of how stupid our society has become as a whole, I was by pure happenstance viewing an ad on TV this morning. It was of the new Lexus IS, and they had one on a runway racing against an IS dropped from a helicopter across the drop target. The ground based IS squeaks right under the falling IS in classic thrilling escaped by a hair style.What makes this germane to this discussion is the text that was apparently felt by someone that needed to be included in the ad. Underneath, it stated first off, "all ariel sequences were simulated", followed by "Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt."
Now, if you have to tell someone that measuring out 4000 feet on a runway and racing a car dropped from a helicopter @ 4000 feet is something you shouldn't attempt, I'd say that anyone so tempted should be allowed to go ahead and potentially remove themselves from the gene pool.
The Nazis practiced genocide and encouraged eugenics. The fact that the distasteful former has so completely colored the latter to the point of tainting its meaning is obvious in your case.
Eugenics is practiced with every prenatal screening, gene screening to discover genetic abnormalities prior to conception, and with almost every in-vitro process. Do you consider those "horrible"?
This is merely encouraging a subset to remove themselves from the gene pool. There's a major difference between showing someone cliff-diving and describing its wonders vs forcibly shoving someone off a cliff.
Or do you hold that the Darwin Awards website is an abomination as well?
That's being a wise-ass for the sake of being a wise-ass. wise-ass? I think not - you explicitly stated servlets, not JSPs when in truth JSPs are for all intents and purposes servlets. There is no way to predict _how_ a JSP will be compiled into a servlet (it's engine specific, after all), ergo no way to compare the outcome. For all I care the engine encodes a JSP to go to sleep for a second or so before it produces any output. Wouldn't violate the spec, but I wouldn't be able to tell. The end result is a class file on every single system I've worked on. The conjecture that spurious crap happens is an empty strawman at best. Some engines may be more efficient than others, but that's true of any set of compilers. And I was trying for a bare-bones comparison, because anything beyond bare-bones is equally unpredictable; You're missing my point: the application server within which servlets run typically contain far more plumbing than Apache web servers. They were also designed for different tasks. You'll note that my originally statement was that your "'benchmark' wholly slanted to the 'lightness' of C++.". That statement is true, and even more true in light of the above sets of statements. what do you want to test - database access ? How can you possibly tell what it is you're waiting for ? Well, in my experience, you're waiting for network latency, no matter what you program your client in. So you're admitting that the performance of your application layer is largely irrelevant? Then what's the argument about? I want the bare-bones comparison precisely because it tells me what I can expect in terms of primary throughput from a webserver. which is irrelevant for an application layer. Let the webserver serve web pages, let the application tier do its job. As for programmability (which, I suspect, is really your point) then I guess your conjecture is as good as mine. The fact that there are more java programmers out there, or that business people use java programmers more doesn't necessarily mean that java is better for the job; it might just mean that java is more comprehensible to stupid people. Perhaps C++ programmers are so set in their ways of making buggies.... (just in case you don't get the double entendre, as you seem to be intentionally dense, that's a direct reference to the buggy manufacturers in the early 1900s as those new-fangled motor vehicles started taking over. It's also a reference to how C/C++ programmers continually produce the same common bugs, over and over again in their code - buffer overflows, bad pointer math, etc. Not that Java programmers don't do their own versions of these things, they just get there faster.;)
But seriously - you're either an elitist snob C++ programmer or a troll - I don't really care to figure out which. I personally think C++ has grown into an abomination of its initial intent, which was a clean concise OO version C. Either way, I've met folks in both that are unfit for coding. It just so happens that in C/C++, those that are unfit are generally filtered out pretty quickly because continuous crashes are hard to hide. (Yes, Java is more forgiving.)
Meanwhile maybe I'll go checkout the latest releases of Smalltalk or Ruby, or perhaps even Eiffel.
You'd still have to find one. Same problem as with giant squids.
Regarding coding speed: Give me two equally skilled programmers, and tell them to hook up to a messaging queue, a couple of DBs, and throw in some business logic during the processing of your now somewhat complex "Hello World" app. If you want to make it more realistic, add in some transactional processing with writes to an external store. The Java guy will be at home while the code is tested and in production while the C++ guy is still working on getting the initial skeleton running. Note that in this scenario, which is a much closer semblance of reality in the business world, that the speed of the serving application becomes a miniscule portion of the total response time as the back-end systems and connections to them are your major bottlenecks. There is a reason companies have converted to Java. It wasn't because the development time went up.
And this is not conjecture about Java being the better choice for business programming of the sort outlined - I have seen it in RL with Perl, COBOL, C, and C++. Those languages have their places as well, but large scalable flexible business applications are not it.
BTW, you should note that I think Apache is a fine web server, and it fronts most of the web apps I have worked on and I use it personally.
While I like some of the Stone Roses work, anything that distorted isn't worth playing on "good" equipment. Another band would be Social Distortion. Mid range consumer audio is about all you'd want to play that on, not least for fear of actually doing some damage to your speakers. They also don't compress well in MP3 format, although AAC seems to handle it quite well.
As far as rates go, I'm not willing to take a stand on current possibilities, as the load tests I've done are on systems who's bottlenecks lie in relatively long term data retrieval and processing, not network I/O. In these scenarios Java easily meets or exceeds C++ in performance and coding time is considerably quicker under Java, as the potential for bugs is simply lower.
The blanket statement that A is better than B in all cases simply isn't true.
Fortunately for you, and perhaps us, Bush's strong-arm snapped in 2006 elections. We're just going to have to wait and see how long it takes for the tide to change. (Provided it does, the Democrats have at least one thing going for us voters - they're not unified in view)
It was the successor to wax tubes.
You're lucky, I'd love service like that!
I live in a large metropolitan area, and while they do "take requests", I have yet to see the results of any of those requests. For what it's worth, Westmalle, Chimay, Rochefort, and Maredsous are apparently all available in the US at the moment, Brugge Tripple and Orval Ale appear to be "banned" (some import issue) and St. Bernardus is hopefully merely out of stock. That's according to the beer import guy I talked to 2 weeks ago. About 6 months ago, Lindeman's lambics (a sour fruit added bacteria fermented beer) was banned in my state, at least, for a time. They're back now.