Well, if states require voter-id with the current address on them, why require registration too?
Its not a bad idea. The problem is we Americans love to disenfranchise people, which is a $5 word for "stop citizens from voting". Depends on state, etc. Speaking very generically, felons often get a lifetime ban on voting (also usually firearms "right" is taken away, sometimes restricted to live in certain areas, etc).
The overly bureaucratic belief is only 100% accuracy is permissible so you can't just half ass this and get it 99.9% right. So you'd need all ID to contain/display a legally verifiable proof of prior felony conviction status. And this is complicated as heck because some states ban you for life, some until a certain number of years or until you petition the court and convince a judge assuming the wanna be voter cares that much. Then there's state line issues. Finally you've got the "scarlett A" issue where "normal ID" can't really contain felony status... too many places require ID but legally are not allowed to know felony status.
You could work around that Venn diagram problem by creating a two part voter ID... like you'd get your drivers license, then if you're allowed to vote you'd get another second ID card or more likely they'd just put you on a list... Oh wait we call that voter registration. Guess its gonna be awful hard to avoid voter registration.
Add the race card to the mix where certain races are about 100 times more likely, all things being equal other than criminal records, to be disenfranchised, and you've got a huge political football.
Finally a great way to get an extra felony conviction is to illegally vote, there's such a tasty and verified paper trail, so to protect the criminals, you want to make it "hard" to register and vote. Otherwise anyone who knows a felon can get them sent back to jail by merely registering in their name and voting for them (even optionally blowing the whistle on the victim). Trivializing the process of voter registration is intensely anti-(insert ethnic group with high felony conviction rates), another political football.
Another way to look at it, is the deluded hard core "everyone must vote, even if it means we must punish the disbelievers" types don't seem to understand that if voting were a effective agent of change 1) it would be made illegal 2) even if it were incredibly difficult people would INHERENTLY be hypermotivated to do it, positive feedback loop and all that. So being unable to vote because of inability to jump over the worlds shortest hurdle frankly doesn't matter.
I think every citizen has a RESPONSIBILITY to vote.
I don't think forcing people at gunpoint to throw a dart and select a random crook is the goal you were aiming for. Also voter intimidation for no candidate is only slightly less reprehensible than voter intimidation for a specific candidate.
Voting gives people a chance to feel that they have the power to make a difference in who makes decisions
Key word is "feel". No REAL impact. The aristocracy will select two of its own princes, as a prole you get to "feel" you can "make a difference" by selecting one crook or another. Maybe that'll "feeling" will stop you from rioting. If so its done its job of being the opiate of the masses.
You can probably learn a lot about your opposition by going to google and searching for "why I do not vote". A typical example and some tasty quotes, not the best, by far not the worst:
"The Constitution has no legitimate authority over me. I have never signed off on it." "I do not wish to endorse a system that has produced and continues to produce what I think are evil results" "I get no psychological satisfaction from identifying myself with a party or candidate."
Now watch the haters descend with idiotic sophistry. I wonder how many logical fallacies we can find to oppose my/this viewpoint. "he sucks" "you suck" "everyone should have to follow my irrational belief because I say so even if at the point of a gun", etc. A real logical argument would be nice but I'm not expecting very much.
It's the only way he'll stop posting so much crap!
Behave yourselves at/. camp or we're all going to get stuck having to sing the open source song around the campfire before lights out, or we'll have to go snipe hunting on the eco course, or even worse they'll start posting raspberry pi and ardweeeeeno stories again.
The concept of/. camp is much more appealing than/. BI, or/. jobs, or/. dating personals, or that other stuff. Its actually kind of fun to think about what/. camp would be like. Probably a hell of a lot like HOPE, which I haven't been to in years, but... wierder, if thats somehow possible. Like there would be a door labeled "free raspberry pi giveaway party inside" and you'd open it and instead of a party there would be a poster size goatse and then we'd all laugh at the people who fall for it and open the door. And everyone would fight to be first in line. And just like the 60s TV classic, we'd all be known as our numbers and the lower numbers would be more important.
Unfortunately in the real world we already live in "security camp for fascists"... treated like children, herded from one authoritarian safety conscious activity to another by upperclassmen. If I had to spend the rest of my time stuck in a camp, I would much rather prefer space camp.
locksmithing is going to be taught at Security Camp along with electronic/hacking-type security skills
How utterly uninspiring. I assumed by the title it was going to be like LARP or reality TV show or re-enactment of the Stanford prison experiment and got all excited, then the letdown. Well, it probably is a more productive way to spend your summer than reading/. and playing WoW and CoD all day. Probably.
At this point, I don't think there is much difference between this rental and a typical car rental...
However, I could trash the car of the supvr who fired me with this scheme, as opposed to generic Enterprise renta-car model.
Also I've heard in Vegas you can rent a Ferrari, but around here I've only seen the worlds most boring 4-door commuter cars, with the exception of a couple heavy duty trucks (but that's bordering on ripping off uhaul, not enterprise rentacar). Privately owned cars seem much more interesting.
"2) Social engineer the car to be a part of this "rental agreement"."
Uh-huh, because if you want to strip a car, you're not just going to smash the window and hotwire the car with the little box you bought off of e-bay in under 5 minutes. Riiiight.
Seems like a lot of risk to take on in public which you can avoid with just a little paper and social engineering.
This is sounding like why social engineer yourself past the front desk guard when you can just crash a car thru a ground floor window?
Now you could have fun by setting up your enemy as a new renter so as to trash their car.
Both are different algae species and/or the bacteria that accompany the algae decay so its not all that surprising. A surprise would be something totally different, like getting hit with "Tide with bleach alternative" or "2X Ultra Tide"
Even though this seems like a good thing, there is a corporation involved so I'm sure there is evil involved.
Gentlemen of Slashdot, affix your tinfoil hats and let's start dissecting this!
1) Find car you'd like to steal or strip. 2) Social engineer the car to be a part of this "rental agreement". 3) "rent" car using the usual fake ID stuff (or just tell them you're an illegal and they're not allowed to discriminate against you). 4) Drive to steel walled warehouse or just strip the parts you want, after all they have fake ID. 5) Profit!
I am virtually certain GM is not prepared for the security implications of this.
Another interesting topic is I rent the Home Depot truck when I'm transporting garden manure etc. I wonder how they handle borderline situations where its not illegal or wrong, but...
The last topic I've never been able to understand is there used to be intense publicity about civil forfeiture, where you'll lose your car non-judicially just because a cop wants it. Now this could happen to anyone walking down the street, but how do these rental deals handle having the cops steal a car from a renter?
McDonalds sells high-fat, high-sugar food, not rat poison.
Locally when McD abandoned the idea of following immigration laws when doing their hiring, they apparently also abandoned following food safety laws as my numerous negative digestive outcomes will attest. I no longer eat there, ever. I was dumb enough to keep trying, maybe I'm a slow learner, but I'll never eat at a McD again. Its not a racist/ethnic thing, a decade ago when they replaced all the white teenagers with welfare reform single moms from the hood, those folks followed both the employment and immigration laws and naturally they also followed the food safety laws, so I had no "negative digestive outcomes" and continued to purchase from McD. Its only when they went FULLY illegal, both in hiring practices and food safety regulations, that I stopped going there.
The part I don't get is I can pay $5 at McD and get something that tastes like grilled rat with bubbling e-coli sauce and a couple hours later spend hours in agony in the bathroom, or I can pay $7 at a only slightly more upscale fast food eatery and it tastes good and I never spend the evening worshipping at the throne of the porcelain goddess. I just don't get it on the demand side. If you're going to eat something "unhealthy" just pay 20% more for something equally unhealthy that is incredibly delicious that won't give you food poisoning. Maybe the only customers they have left all have iron stomachs. Or rather than not understanding the demand side perhaps I don't understand the supply side pricing strategies, I'm uninterested in paying $5 for ratmeat and agonizing food poisoning, I'd be fine paying perhaps 3 times for something good and safe at Culvers/etc but instead of charging me $15, which I'd willingly pay, they only charge like $7 for a decent lunch.
So, no, I would never eat at McD, and would consider forcing a kid to consume a ratburger resulting in a sleepless night of explosive vomiting and diarrhea to be "tantamount to child abuse". Its not a long term health thing or dietary thing at all, its a short term food poisoning and dehydration thing. Just like shoving castor oil down a kids throat for the LOLs is abuse.
Linus bitches and moans about the size of every release candidate. Better that broken stuff gets fixed now rather than with an ever-lengthenng string of point releases after the fact.
The kernel's always pushed the limits of memory, compilers... Here's a typical example from a little over 20 years ago from usenet
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Subject: Re: Help, can't compile 0.95a! Date: 3 Apr 92 21:27:41 GMT Organization: University of Helsinki
In article wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes: > > I have a 8 Meg system and also am having problems compiling fork.c. >I would have thought that would have been sufficient....
Ok, the problem isn't memory: it's gcc-1.40. For some strange reason the older gcc runs out of registers when optimizing some of the files in the linux source distribution, and dies. This one isn't the same bug as the "unknown insn" which was due to my hacks in the earlier 1.40 - this one seems to be a genuine gcc bug.
Linux 0.95a is compileable with the older gcc if you just add the flag "-fcombine-regs" to the command line. In fact, the only thing you need to do is to remove a "#" from the makefiles: the line
#GCC_OPT = -fcombine-regs
should be uncommented, and gcc-1.40 will have no problems compiling the source. This was documented in some of the release-notes for 0.95, but I guess I forgot it for 0.95a.
Why remove the flag in the first place I hear you say? Simply because gcc-2 doesn't understand -fcombine-regs, as it seems to do the optimizations even without asking. There are other things I had to change in the source to get gcc-2 to compile it, but this is the only problem that made the old gcc choke.
With the advent of an official gcc-2.1 (this weekend?), people might want to change to that one: note however that gcc-2.1 is about twice as big as 1.40, so it's going to be slower on machines that swap... People with just 2M of mem might not want to upgrade (*). I like the changes to 2.1: the code quality seems to be a lot better (esp floating point).
On a slightly related note: the as-binary in newgcc has been reported by several people to have problems. Getting as from the original gcc-distribution by me (gccbin.tar.Z) might be a good idea if you have problems with the newgcc version.
Linus
(*) Even with only 2M of mem, using gcc-2 has it's good points. The shared libraries should cut down on memory use as well as loading time and disk-space use. Shared libraries work even with 1.40 if you know how to build them, but 2.1 does it all automatically...
5. Five. 1 2 3 4 5. That would be "five". Given any arbitrary selection criteria, the membership count of the set of prisoners X in that selection criteria set are the natural numbers from 0 to 5 inclusive. Come on/. after you add UTF-8 how about MathML?
many of its participants have never used a computer
Why the vagueness? OK we're operating from five. Remember paper logic puzzles? I used to turn them into prolog statements and let the solver solve them. This was back when a XT with turbo prolog was cutting edge. But I digress. OK its/. logic puzzle time. Rule out 0 because they would have skipped this topic. Rule out 1 because they would have wrote "a" and rule out 5 because they would have written "all". We can rule out 2 because they would have written "a couple" unless they avoided that phrase WRT prison sex and so forth. Which is more, "many" or "several". I believe the informal ranking order is "many" is greater than "several" so of the remaining options 3 or 4, we can circle "4" as the answer.
Thats how I figured out exactly 4 inmates have never used a computer.
Since you're on/. and have a low ID, I'll guess you're
At least you didn't say "old"
Do you install unsigned software or buy from developers you've never heard of, have no reputation, and no contact info?
Science/engineering is different from fine arts, but I'm not sure it matters in this case. If you insist a newspaper journalist is like a scientist/engineer, then I'd respond that I read technical journal articles all the time, and my main criteria for selection is the synopsis, for all I know or care the contact info is falsified. If you insist a newspaper journalist is a fine artist, then I'd respond that I often listen to unknown musicians and pick up unknown paperback book authors.
(Tried to read LOTR book 1 but got bored during the initial 100 pages.)
I had the opposite experience where the movies were all about the tedious special effects instead of the story and I couldn't handle 12 hours of british accent without starting to speak that way myself. Also I got annoyed at the movie, wheres Tom Bombadil? My guess is to save dough they're also going to leave tons out of the hobbit... bye bye elves, etc.
Let me put in the "answers" you probably get from noob programmers. 1) I don't know what a WHERE clause is so I SELECT * and use if statements on each row of the gigs of results 2) I don't know what a index is 3) I don't know what a JOIN is so they wrote one in software 4)... I donno some workplaces need employee drug testing? 5) I don't have a real DEV box. Oh I've got a box that endusers can't reach full of non-production code, but I don't have a DEV box that I can test real code on real data. You could simulate a 20 TB prod by provisioning a 2 TB dev on a virtual image of only 1/10th "power", at least for linear scale problems (and the major problems are never linear scale anyway) 6) I don't know what a GROUP BY is
I've also done both DBA and code and I can now look back and laugh at my earliest coding. Every noob does stuff like this.
I have had developers with over 10 years experience (some up to 30 years)
The world is full, not just devs, but the whole world is full, of people who have 60 "first six months" of experience over and over and over. Some folks just never learn.
Typically Sql developpers tend to throw everything into the data base, then create marvelously large queries
Noobs model their reports and inevitably screw it up when they can't add new reports without changing their data model. When they use 50 JOINs they complain JOIN is slow because they've apparently never heard of indexes.
Intermediate folks model the underlying data, and can support both the current planned queries and any new future queries. When they use 50 JOINs its fast as heck because they know what a JOIN is, but they burn insane quantities of disk space (I remember one deployed piece of network monitoring gear that somehow burned about a meg of disk for every 100 bytes of connection data, but good lord every query was lightning fast)
Pros model both, separating the real-world-model data store from the report store. When they see 50 JOINs they yell at the noob programmers because they specifically created view tables and custom query tables solely so the noob programmers don't have to write 50 JOIN queries.
The article is pretty good at doing what it wanted to do. The problem is it's trying to do the wrong thing.
Its too basic. Its example is of "hello world" caliber. The problem with basing decision on "hello world" scale problems is real world problems don't scale equally in all languages. For example, you can't beat the simplicity and rapid development of "bash" when you want to do a "hello world", and java looks absolutely awful as a "hello world"... However most devs would agree, that in a gigantic zillion user system you're probably better off after X zillion lines of code with java than bash. What makes it worse, is one of the main arguments of nosql is its OK to make the devs suffer with an inherently featureless crude tool because its 100 times as fast... which only matters in absolutely huge implementations.
That said, ignoring the incorrect aim, its actually a pretty darn good article that hits all the major points and is reasonably well written.
One point he did miss is that database hardware performance is exploding as is clustering support. We ran multinational companies using "slow" SQL decades ago, and every year sql databases are more capable, but at least my userbase and dataset size is not increasing as quickly. Its the tired old anti-optimization argument from plain old coding, as applied to DBs. So SQL really does limit me to only maybe 100000 times the size I'm currently operating at, and at a conservative DB hardware capability growth rate of 10% per year and a realistic measured long term user growth rate of 0% I'll hit the performance barrier right about... never. Oh OK then. Well since my inherently relational problem space seems to easily fit the current and future capabilities of relational DBs, I think I'll stick with relational DBs and not waste effort, time, and money wedging that relational problem-space into a non-relational tool. Thats the most important reason not to do nosql.
There's a huge difference between running a story written that gives full byline credit to a real journalist who happens to work for the Associated Press and having a story credited to "James Albertson, Chicago Tribune" when it was actually written by Jayjay Alvarez in the Philippines, who has never even been to Chicago.
Like what? If its "huge", this should be an easy difference to point out, to elaborate upon, to provide examples...
One big problem you get is generational effects of the American educational system. So a guy who scored in the top 5% of international standardized tests in a foreign land can probably B.S. his way into a better article than a local who might have grown up where the story happened (as if that'll matter) but he probably scored in the bottom 10% so he's going to completely screw it up.
Hows that different from non-Hyperlocal newspapers?
Hyperlocal spam might be more interesting than non-hyperlocal spam. There's a Cabella's around 50 miles away, and I get spam for it, that spam is useless to me. Hyperlocal spam would be my neighborhood Gander Mountain, there's at least theoretically a chance I'd find that useful.
I'm not sure what the point is of a newspaper in 2012. My young son asked me about newspapers, and I explained it as "A tiny little part of the internet, printed out yesterday, and delivered to your house". He's completely uninterested. Everyone in my generation knows we're supposed to feel newspapers are important, maybe a sense of guilt at not subscribing. Rather like the donation campaigns for the Ballet at work, no one wants to go but we've all been socialized to believe its important. However, newspapers are so far off the modern cultural radar, that my kids don't even get the point. They're simply doomed. You know you're in big trouble when the conversation switches from "you're no longer relevant" to "what are you?"
Compressed air heats up and you need that heat to stay in the tank or you lose the energy.
Can you explain how that is a net loss, if all your power generation relies upon is the PSI?
Google for ideal gas law
PV=nRT, but V n and R are constant so pretty much P=T. So giving up T is the same thing conceptually as leaking out some air to lower the pressure. In fact, the P of a tank of gas is linear with the absolute temp.
You can also have a pretty good argument with thermodynamics laws. Lowering the temperature at the intake of a heat engine is never going to help.
Finally there's a decent conservation of energy argument where the energy you dump into a liter of gas partially makes it smaller volume/higher pressure but it also makes it hot, and that heat energy will leak away, and when it does you're not getting it back.
Those three arguments look different but are actually the same argument if you wanna do a large amount of physics and math to prove it. One looks at an instantaneous snapshot of an infinitesimal chunk of gas, one looks at energy flow rates, and another looks at where the total energy sloshes around in a closed system, but its all pretty much the same idea.
The standard/. car analogy fails miserably, because we install intercoolers after the compressor turbo because otherwise the intake air will be so hot it'll ping no matter how high the octane, and also cool air holds more burnable gasoline, so yes you do throw away X watts of heat but you gain 20X watts of burnable gasoline because cool air is denser so at a constant ratio of gas to air, more air mass means more gasoline mass means more power when it burns.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if states require voter-id with the current address on them, why require registration too?
Its not a bad idea. The problem is we Americans love to disenfranchise people, which is a $5 word for "stop citizens from voting". Depends on state, etc. Speaking very generically, felons often get a lifetime ban on voting (also usually firearms "right" is taken away, sometimes restricted to live in certain areas, etc).
The overly bureaucratic belief is only 100% accuracy is permissible so you can't just half ass this and get it 99.9% right. So you'd need all ID to contain/display a legally verifiable proof of prior felony conviction status. And this is complicated as heck because some states ban you for life, some until a certain number of years or until you petition the court and convince a judge assuming the wanna be voter cares that much. Then there's state line issues. Finally you've got the "scarlett A" issue where "normal ID" can't really contain felony status... too many places require ID but legally are not allowed to know felony status.
You could work around that Venn diagram problem by creating a two part voter ID... like you'd get your drivers license, then if you're allowed to vote you'd get another second ID card or more likely they'd just put you on a list... Oh wait we call that voter registration. Guess its gonna be awful hard to avoid voter registration.
Add the race card to the mix where certain races are about 100 times more likely, all things being equal other than criminal records, to be disenfranchised, and you've got a huge political football.
Finally a great way to get an extra felony conviction is to illegally vote, there's such a tasty and verified paper trail, so to protect the criminals, you want to make it "hard" to register and vote. Otherwise anyone who knows a felon can get them sent back to jail by merely registering in their name and voting for them (even optionally blowing the whistle on the victim). Trivializing the process of voter registration is intensely anti-(insert ethnic group with high felony conviction rates), another political football.
Another way to look at it, is the deluded hard core "everyone must vote, even if it means we must punish the disbelievers" types don't seem to understand that if voting were a effective agent of change 1) it would be made illegal 2) even if it were incredibly difficult people would INHERENTLY be hypermotivated to do it, positive feedback loop and all that. So being unable to vote because of inability to jump over the worlds shortest hurdle frankly doesn't matter.
I think every citizen has a RESPONSIBILITY to vote.
I don't think forcing people at gunpoint to throw a dart and select a random crook is the goal you were aiming for. Also voter intimidation for no candidate is only slightly less reprehensible than voter intimidation for a specific candidate.
Voting gives people a chance to feel that they have the power to make a difference in who makes decisions
Key word is "feel". No REAL impact. The aristocracy will select two of its own princes, as a prole you get to "feel" you can "make a difference" by selecting one crook or another. Maybe that'll "feeling" will stop you from rioting. If so its done its job of being the opiate of the masses.
You can probably learn a lot about your opposition by going to google and searching for "why I do not vote". A typical example and some tasty quotes, not the best, by far not the worst:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html
"The Constitution has no legitimate authority over me. I have never signed off on it."
"I do not wish to endorse a system that has produced and continues to produce what I think are evil results"
"I get no psychological satisfaction from identifying myself with a party or candidate."
Now watch the haters descend with idiotic sophistry. I wonder how many logical fallacies we can find to oppose my/this viewpoint. "he sucks" "you suck" "everyone should have to follow my irrational belief because I say so even if at the point of a gun", etc. A real logical argument would be nice but I'm not expecting very much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies
It's the only way he'll stop posting so much crap!
Behave yourselves at /. camp or we're all going to get stuck having to sing the open source song around the campfire before lights out, or we'll have to go snipe hunting on the eco course, or even worse they'll start posting raspberry pi and ardweeeeeno stories again.
The concept of /. camp is much more appealing than /. BI, or /. jobs, or /. dating personals, or that other stuff. Its actually kind of fun to think about what /. camp would be like. Probably a hell of a lot like HOPE, which I haven't been to in years, but ... wierder, if thats somehow possible. Like there would be a door labeled "free raspberry pi giveaway party inside" and you'd open it and instead of a party there would be a poster size goatse and then we'd all laugh at the people who fall for it and open the door. And everyone would fight to be first in line. And just like the 60s TV classic, we'd all be known as our numbers and the lower numbers would be more important.
Space camp for fascists!
Unfortunately in the real world we already live in "security camp for fascists"... treated like children, herded from one authoritarian safety conscious activity to another by upperclassmen. If I had to spend the rest of my time stuck in a camp, I would much rather prefer space camp.
locksmithing is going to be taught at Security Camp along with electronic/hacking-type security skills
How utterly uninspiring. I assumed by the title it was going to be like LARP or reality TV show or re-enactment of the Stanford prison experiment and got all excited, then the letdown. Well, it probably is a more productive way to spend your summer than reading /. and playing WoW and CoD all day. Probably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
At this point, I don't think there is much difference between this rental and a typical car rental...
However, I could trash the car of the supvr who fired me with this scheme, as opposed to generic Enterprise renta-car model.
Also I've heard in Vegas you can rent a Ferrari, but around here I've only seen the worlds most boring 4-door commuter cars, with the exception of a couple heavy duty trucks (but that's bordering on ripping off uhaul, not enterprise rentacar). Privately owned cars seem much more interesting.
"2) Social engineer the car to be a part of this "rental agreement"."
Uh-huh, because if you want to strip a car, you're not just going to smash the window and hotwire the car with the little box you bought off of e-bay in under 5 minutes. Riiiight.
Seems like a lot of risk to take on in public which you can avoid with just a little paper and social engineering.
This is sounding like why social engineer yourself past the front desk guard when you can just crash a car thru a ground floor window?
Now you could have fun by setting up your enemy as a new renter so as to trash their car.
First the red flood, now the brown tide...
Both are different algae species and/or the bacteria that accompany the algae decay so its not all that surprising.
A surprise would be something totally different, like getting hit with "Tide with bleach alternative" or "2X Ultra Tide"
Hmm so did he have "many" or "several" dubious statements in his post. I'm thinking exactly three, which would imply the word "several" ...
Newspapers - also usually quite good at attribution...
LOL OK "TheTerseOne" you have formal written permission to use my quote.
Even though this seems like a good thing, there is a corporation involved so I'm sure there is evil involved.
Gentlemen of Slashdot, affix your tinfoil hats and let's start dissecting this!
1) Find car you'd like to steal or strip.
2) Social engineer the car to be a part of this "rental agreement".
3) "rent" car using the usual fake ID stuff (or just tell them you're an illegal and they're not allowed to discriminate against you).
4) Drive to steel walled warehouse or just strip the parts you want, after all they have fake ID.
5) Profit!
I am virtually certain GM is not prepared for the security implications of this.
Another interesting topic is I rent the Home Depot truck when I'm transporting garden manure etc. I wonder how they handle borderline situations where its not illegal or wrong, but...
The last topic I've never been able to understand is there used to be intense publicity about civil forfeiture, where you'll lose your car non-judicially just because a cop wants it. Now this could happen to anyone walking down the street, but how do these rental deals handle having the cops steal a car from a renter?
McDonalds sells high-fat, high-sugar food, not rat poison.
Locally when McD abandoned the idea of following immigration laws when doing their hiring, they apparently also abandoned following food safety laws as my numerous negative digestive outcomes will attest. I no longer eat there, ever. I was dumb enough to keep trying, maybe I'm a slow learner, but I'll never eat at a McD again. Its not a racist/ethnic thing, a decade ago when they replaced all the white teenagers with welfare reform single moms from the hood, those folks followed both the employment and immigration laws and naturally they also followed the food safety laws, so I had no "negative digestive outcomes" and continued to purchase from McD. Its only when they went FULLY illegal, both in hiring practices and food safety regulations, that I stopped going there.
The part I don't get is I can pay $5 at McD and get something that tastes like grilled rat with bubbling e-coli sauce and a couple hours later spend hours in agony in the bathroom, or I can pay $7 at a only slightly more upscale fast food eatery and it tastes good and I never spend the evening worshipping at the throne of the porcelain goddess. I just don't get it on the demand side. If you're going to eat something "unhealthy" just pay 20% more for something equally unhealthy that is incredibly delicious that won't give you food poisoning. Maybe the only customers they have left all have iron stomachs. Or rather than not understanding the demand side perhaps I don't understand the supply side pricing strategies, I'm uninterested in paying $5 for ratmeat and agonizing food poisoning, I'd be fine paying perhaps 3 times for something good and safe at Culvers/etc but instead of charging me $15, which I'd willingly pay, they only charge like $7 for a decent lunch.
So, no, I would never eat at McD, and would consider forcing a kid to consume a ratburger resulting in a sleepless night of explosive vomiting and diarrhea to be "tantamount to child abuse". Its not a long term health thing or dietary thing at all, its a short term food poisoning and dehydration thing. Just like shoving castor oil down a kids throat for the LOLs is abuse.
Linus bitches and moans about the size of every release candidate. Better that broken stuff gets fixed now rather than with an ever-lengthenng string of point releases after the fact.
The kernel's always pushed the limits of memory, compilers... Here's a typical example from a little over 20 years ago from usenet
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Help, can't compile 0.95a!
Date: 3 Apr 92 21:27:41 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
In article wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu
(Bill Bogstad) writes:
>
> I have a 8 Meg system and also am having problems compiling fork.c.
>I would have thought that would have been sufficient....
Ok, the problem isn't memory: it's gcc-1.40. For some strange reason
the older gcc runs out of registers when optimizing some of the files in
the linux source distribution, and dies. This one isn't the same bug as
the "unknown insn" which was due to my hacks in the earlier 1.40 - this
one seems to be a genuine gcc bug.
Linux 0.95a is compileable with the older gcc if you just add the flag
"-fcombine-regs" to the command line. In fact, the only thing you need
to do is to remove a "#" from the makefiles: the line
#GCC_OPT = -fcombine-regs
should be uncommented, and gcc-1.40 will have no problems compiling the
source. This was documented in some of the release-notes for 0.95, but
I guess I forgot it for 0.95a.
Why remove the flag in the first place I hear you say? Simply because
gcc-2 doesn't understand -fcombine-regs, as it seems to do the
optimizations even without asking. There are other things I had to
change in the source to get gcc-2 to compile it, but this is the only
problem that made the old gcc choke.
With the advent of an official gcc-2.1 (this weekend?), people might
want to change to that one: note however that gcc-2.1 is about twice as
big as 1.40, so it's going to be slower on machines that swap... People
with just 2M of mem might not want to upgrade (*). I like the changes
to 2.1: the code quality seems to be a lot better (esp floating point).
On a slightly related note: the as-binary in newgcc has been reported by
several people to have problems. Getting as from the original
gcc-distribution by me (gccbin.tar.Z) might be a good idea if you have
problems with the newgcc version.
Linus
(*) Even with only 2M of mem, using gcc-2 has it's good points. The
shared libraries should cut down on memory use as well as loading time
and disk-space use. Shared libraries work even with 1.40 if you know how
to build them, but 2.1 does it all automatically...
helped five inmates learn
5. Five. 1 2 3 4 5. That would be "five". Given any arbitrary selection criteria, the membership count of the set of prisoners X in that selection criteria set are the natural numbers from 0 to 5 inclusive. Come on /. after you add UTF-8 how about MathML?
many of its participants have never used a computer
Why the vagueness? OK we're operating from five. Remember paper logic puzzles? I used to turn them into prolog statements and let the solver solve them. This was back when a XT with turbo prolog was cutting edge. But I digress. OK its /. logic puzzle time. Rule out 0 because they would have skipped this topic. Rule out 1 because they would have wrote "a" and rule out 5 because they would have written "all". We can rule out 2 because they would have written "a couple" unless they avoided that phrase WRT prison sex and so forth. Which is more, "many" or "several". I believe the informal ranking order is "many" is greater than "several" so of the remaining options 3 or 4, we can circle "4" as the answer.
Thats how I figured out exactly 4 inmates have never used a computer.
The tricky part about the future forward program is that many of its participants have never used a computer
This was not a problem in dotcom bubble 1.0, I'm not thinking it'll be a problem in dotcom bubble 2.0.
Since you're on /. and have a low ID, I'll guess you're
At least you didn't say "old"
Do you install unsigned software or buy from developers you've never heard of, have no reputation, and no contact info?
Science/engineering is different from fine arts, but I'm not sure it matters in this case. If you insist a newspaper journalist is like a scientist/engineer, then I'd respond that I read technical journal articles all the time, and my main criteria for selection is the synopsis, for all I know or care the contact info is falsified. If you insist a newspaper journalist is a fine artist, then I'd respond that I often listen to unknown musicians and pick up unknown paperback book authors.
The 200 was released in 1984 and was a clamshell, that's probably what is confusing the guy.
I suppose if you wanna get really picky and demand clamshell with LCD as opposed to plasma then the model 200 wins.
I think you'd find the range of a UV laser in the atmosphere to be pretty depressing. Also the deployment problem is focusing.
Its sorta like being able to set off a small pile of unconfined gunpowder in a lab vs having an actual deployment-ready cannon.
(Tried to read LOTR book 1 but got bored during the initial 100 pages.)
I had the opposite experience where the movies were all about the tedious special effects instead of the story and I couldn't handle 12 hours of british accent without starting to speak that way myself. Also I got annoyed at the movie, wheres Tom Bombadil? My guess is to save dough they're also going to leave tons out of the hobbit... bye bye elves, etc.
On the other hand I liked the books.
Let me put in the "answers" you probably get from noob programmers. ... I donno some workplaces need employee drug testing?
1) I don't know what a WHERE clause is so I SELECT * and use if statements on each row of the gigs of results
2) I don't know what a index is
3) I don't know what a JOIN is so they wrote one in software
4)
5) I don't have a real DEV box. Oh I've got a box that endusers can't reach full of non-production code, but I don't have a DEV box that I can test real code on real data. You could simulate a 20 TB prod by provisioning a 2 TB dev on a virtual image of only 1/10th "power", at least for linear scale problems (and the major problems are never linear scale anyway)
6) I don't know what a GROUP BY is
I've also done both DBA and code and I can now look back and laugh at my earliest coding. Every noob does stuff like this.
I have had developers with over 10 years experience (some up to 30 years)
The world is full, not just devs, but the whole world is full, of people who have 60 "first six months" of experience over and over and over. Some folks just never learn.
Typically Sql developpers tend to throw everything into the data base, then create marvelously large queries
Noobs model their reports and inevitably screw it up when they can't add new reports without changing their data model. When they use 50 JOINs they complain JOIN is slow because they've apparently never heard of indexes.
Intermediate folks model the underlying data, and can support both the current planned queries and any new future queries. When they use 50 JOINs its fast as heck because they know what a JOIN is, but they burn insane quantities of disk space (I remember one deployed piece of network monitoring gear that somehow burned about a meg of disk for every 100 bytes of connection data, but good lord every query was lightning fast)
Pros model both, separating the real-world-model data store from the report store. When they see 50 JOINs they yell at the noob programmers because they specifically created view tables and custom query tables solely so the noob programmers don't have to write 50 JOIN queries.
The article is pretty good at doing what it wanted to do. The problem is it's trying to do the wrong thing.
Its too basic. Its example is of "hello world" caliber. The problem with basing decision on "hello world" scale problems is real world problems don't scale equally in all languages. For example, you can't beat the simplicity and rapid development of "bash" when you want to do a "hello world", and java looks absolutely awful as a "hello world"... However most devs would agree, that in a gigantic zillion user system you're probably better off after X zillion lines of code with java than bash. What makes it worse, is one of the main arguments of nosql is its OK to make the devs suffer with an inherently featureless crude tool because its 100 times as fast... which only matters in absolutely huge implementations.
That said, ignoring the incorrect aim, its actually a pretty darn good article that hits all the major points and is reasonably well written.
One point he did miss is that database hardware performance is exploding as is clustering support. We ran multinational companies using "slow" SQL decades ago, and every year sql databases are more capable, but at least my userbase and dataset size is not increasing as quickly. Its the tired old anti-optimization argument from plain old coding, as applied to DBs. So SQL really does limit me to only maybe 100000 times the size I'm currently operating at, and at a conservative DB hardware capability growth rate of 10% per year and a realistic measured long term user growth rate of 0% I'll hit the performance barrier right about ... never. Oh OK then. Well since my inherently relational problem space seems to easily fit the current and future capabilities of relational DBs, I think I'll stick with relational DBs and not waste effort, time, and money wedging that relational problem-space into a non-relational tool. Thats the most important reason not to do nosql.
There's a huge difference between running a story written that gives full byline credit to a real journalist who happens to work for the Associated Press and having a story credited to "James Albertson, Chicago Tribune" when it was actually written by Jayjay Alvarez in the Philippines, who has never even been to Chicago.
Like what? If its "huge", this should be an easy difference to point out, to elaborate upon, to provide examples...
One big problem you get is generational effects of the American educational system. So a guy who scored in the top 5% of international standardized tests in a foreign land can probably B.S. his way into a better article than a local who might have grown up where the story happened (as if that'll matter) but he probably scored in the bottom 10% so he's going to completely screw it up.
Seems either pointless, boring, or hyper-gossipy.
Hows that different from non-Hyperlocal newspapers?
Hyperlocal spam might be more interesting than non-hyperlocal spam. There's a Cabella's around 50 miles away, and I get spam for it, that spam is useless to me. Hyperlocal spam would be my neighborhood Gander Mountain, there's at least theoretically a chance I'd find that useful.
I'm not sure what the point is of a newspaper in 2012. My young son asked me about newspapers, and I explained it as "A tiny little part of the internet, printed out yesterday, and delivered to your house". He's completely uninterested. Everyone in my generation knows we're supposed to feel newspapers are important, maybe a sense of guilt at not subscribing. Rather like the donation campaigns for the Ballet at work, no one wants to go but we've all been socialized to believe its important. However, newspapers are so far off the modern cultural radar, that my kids don't even get the point. They're simply doomed. You know you're in big trouble when the conversation switches from "you're no longer relevant" to "what are you?"
Can you explain how that is a net loss, if all your power generation relies upon is the PSI?
Google for ideal gas law
PV=nRT, but V n and R are constant so pretty much P=T. So giving up T is the same thing conceptually as leaking out some air to lower the pressure. In fact, the P of a tank of gas is linear with the absolute temp.
You can also have a pretty good argument with thermodynamics laws. Lowering the temperature at the intake of a heat engine is never going to help.
Finally there's a decent conservation of energy argument where the energy you dump into a liter of gas partially makes it smaller volume/higher pressure but it also makes it hot, and that heat energy will leak away, and when it does you're not getting it back.
Those three arguments look different but are actually the same argument if you wanna do a large amount of physics and math to prove it. One looks at an instantaneous snapshot of an infinitesimal chunk of gas, one looks at energy flow rates, and another looks at where the total energy sloshes around in a closed system, but its all pretty much the same idea.
The standard /. car analogy fails miserably, because we install intercoolers after the compressor turbo because otherwise the intake air will be so hot it'll ping no matter how high the octane, and also cool air holds more burnable gasoline, so yes you do throw away X watts of heat but you gain 20X watts of burnable gasoline because cool air is denser so at a constant ratio of gas to air, more air mass means more gasoline mass means more power when it burns.