Few SQL client libraries support passing a 1-column table as a parameter, yet that's exactly what you need to do when using SQL's operator IN . So instead, I made a function that escapes such 1-column tables using the quoting rules of SQL, and I tested it thoroughly.
Don't do that. Construct the parameterized query dynamically (that is, insert as many "?," as needed), then bind the parameters.
I've run into the same problem and it really is a serious deficiency in client libs, but it's not a reason to use manual quoting.
In the first case nothing has changed and in the second case one of GR's core assumptions has been dismantled so GR cannot be a fundamental theory since there is a phenomenon which it cannot explain. Hence QM and GR will never 'collide' because GR will have disappeared to be replaced by something else - possibly something which QM has no problem with.
Exactly. If it turns out that inertial mass is separate from gravitational mass, then General Relativity is flat-out wrong, since in General Relativity gravitation is caused by inertia - that is, spacetime bends, masses try to follow straight paths in spacetime, and because spacetime is curved those straight paths appear as curved to us. In other words, in GR inertial and gravitational mass are not just equivalent, they are the same thing: there are no two separate properties which always have a same value, but rather a single property that can be measured in two ways, which are really the same way but seem different to us.
Because the predictions of General Relativity are backed by some very convincing evidence which would be quite hard to explain otherwise, I find it unlikely that this is actually the case.
How is it impossible to build a voting machine again? I have quite a bit of experience with secure systems, and while I grant you that extant voting machine makers need to be dragged out and shot, I don't see any evidence to conclude what you do.
It's possible to make a ballot-based voting system that's tamper-proof and simple enough that Joe Voter can understand it. It's not possible to build a voting machine that's tamper-proof and simple enough for Joe to understand, which means that Joe has to take your word on blind faith, and, well... it's always possible to get "experts" to testify for the quality of your product if you pay them enough.
Apart from this, hand-counting votes happens in the open, while a voting machine is a black box. Even if you had sufficient intelligence and expertize to understand how it works, you have no way to know whether a particular voting machine actually works the way you think it does. So even Joe Genius can't really trust them, and has to take their trustworthiness on blind faith.
Once people can reasonably suspect that any election that didn't give the results they wanted was rigged, and that any future election might be as well, democracy is dead. And that means return to violence as the only effective method people can influence their higher-ups.
Parameterized SQL, or prepared statements, completely prevent SQL injection attacks. They might also speed things up in some circumstances. Why not simply use them exclusively?
You don't have to be looking to buy something to want to be aware of what's out there.
Yes, you do. Awareness is a limited resource; if an advertizer manages to make me waste awareness on a product I don't need or want, it's off from something else that might benefit me. That makes advertizing - all advertizing - noise to be filtered out as thoroughly as possible.
This is related to a recent discussion about whether Net makes you less capable of "deep thought" due to constant distractions.
Most people have an idea of what they like, but not the specifics of what they want. So, in fact, if advertising is targeted well, most people it targets would appreciate the information (even if they object to the way it's delivered).
You are making the assumption that people are seeking to buy something most of the time. That assumption is incorrect. And even the times when I'm looking for something, advertising is completely untrustworthy, making it useless as information source.
Modifications to the files should be applied to the files. Metadata should be stored in the files. To do either otherwise is asking for problems.
Unfortunately, since the file system treats files as mere streams of bytes, this is impossible in the general case, and inconvenient even in many specific cases. It should be possible to store arbitrary data about the files in the files, but that's not going to happen soon, or likely ever.
Since when does patent override Copyright on pure content?
Since when that allows a corporation to screw you over more effectively, the same as with all other Intellectual Property laws, and with all laws if we really think about it.
"But we CAN'T put a man on the moon anymore. Our might forebearers could do that but we can't. Morons like you traded all that for a welfare state."
The reason why we can't put men on the Moon is that we never really had that capacity. Yes, we managed to put a few people there at enormous expense, but that was simply not sustainable; technology is only now starting to near the point where maintaining a presence in the Low-Earth Orbit might be.
But, rather than look at the problem and even trying to understand the reasons, you blame it all on the poor not starving as they should, like a right-wing tool you are. Moron.
For all practical purposes, there's not a huge difference between memorizing entire books and being able to quickly pull the same information off Google when you need it. It's now less about what you know, and more about how you can actually use that knowledge.
True, but I've noticed something when observing people who are trying to learn something: facts are like pieces of puzzle: You can have a set of facts that are correct, relevant and sufficient, but unless you know how they connect to each other, you have nothing but a mess.
You can skim a missing puzzle piece from Google, and in fact can often work around not having it. But if you don't have the Big Picture... then your work ends up in your profession's equivalent of The Daily WTF, and rightfully so.
That's the point of education, IMHO: to give the people The Big Picture. You can't compensate for not knowing details, but you can't compensate for not having any idea WTF you're trying to do.
That's also why almost every non-fiction book begins with an introduction, and why you should always read it; all too often it's self-congratulatory droning, but it also gives you a clear idea of what the book's about. Next read through the table of contents. Only then start reading the actual book.
And so on and so forth. The same thing always comes through: people who know the Big Picture can use the information they have, while the people who don't know it don't really benefit from their bag of factoids except completely by random.
That's the real problem with Googling things. Google returns random facts in no particular order, so it'll take a long time establishing them into some kind of model so you can actually use them and add more. A book, on the other hand, goes through things in order, the later chapters building on things covered in the former, so you can simply read it - assuming the writer's any good, of course. It's far more efficient for picking up new things, while Googling is more efficient for checking details.
The fundamental argument they are having is whether or not deep thinkers learn to be deep thinkers or if they are born to be deep thinkers.
Which is an idiotic argument since "deep thinking" simply means that you keep going over the same thing over and over again, refining the finer points, figuring out how it relates to other things you know and how its parts relate to each other, and following the new insights this reveals. "Deep" thinking is not different than "shallow" thinking, it just means that you keep thinking about something longer and understanding it on a deeper level - which, of course, means that you'll have less time to go over other topics.
Every human being thinks some things deeply and others shallowly due to having only limited processing power and time available. The Internet tilts the balance to the "shallow" direction simply because it increases the amount of incoming data, leaving less time to process any particular item, but this no more make you unable to think deeply than your eyes adjusting to dark make you blind in light - sure it does, for a few dozen seconds.
As for a solution, the sooner we can upload our minds to computers, or at the very least hooking them up, the faster we can start benefiting from Moore's law and adding more lobes to handle all the incoming data - which, of course, will also increase the amount of data produced. Argh.
No I didn't. In my *imaginary* scenario I never removed or even touched my gun - it's just hanging there inside a holster.
You didn't get your way, so you deliberately showed the clerk you have a gun. Please explain what you were trying to do if not threaten?
And I know your scenario is imaginary, like I said you'd be behind bars otherwise, if not dead.
And I did not steal, because the iPad was paid for ($530 cash handed-over for a $529.99 item). So what exactly can I be charged for? Nothing. No laws have been broken by me.
Yes, they have. You were offered the iPad on certain terms (which may be legal or illegal, that is irrelevant). You refused these terms and used threat of deadly force to coerce the clerk to give you an iPod by your terms instead.
You refused store's terms. The store refused yours. No agreement was reached, thus the iPad was never yours, whether you left money in the store or not. Taking something that is not yours from the store is theft. That you used a gun in the theft makes it armed robbery.
I suppose one could argue the store refused to sell the Pad, but that itself is a crime (discrimination), and the owner would be guilty not me.
The store refused to change the terms of the sale to suit you. That is not discrimination, quite the contrary, it's treating you like everyone else.
Those terms may or may not be illegal by themselves, but that neither makes your behaviour legal nor has anything to do with discrimination.
All computers that can accept 3rd party software are susceptible to trojans (not the same as viruses). And so if you download executable software from unknown people on a torrent site, you are pretty stupid.
Store-bought software almost always comes with DRM-related trojans, while torrents have usually been disinfected of them. Pirate Bay is a safer place to get software than Wall-Mart.
ME: (opening coat to reveal concealed gun)* "No I don't. You have the money. I have my phone. We're done here."
And walk out the door with my phone. I will not be forced to do things I do not want to do, especially when the store, Apple, or whoever is in violation of consumer protection laws.
So basically, you performed an armed robbery. Guess what happens next? Hint: it involves sirens and flashing lights.
And of course this assumes that another employee or customer doesn't also have a firearm and blow your brains out when you start threatening people with yours.
(Before you freak out, I have a concealed carry permit issued by the government.)
Thus proving that the rules for getting it are too lax.
It is entirely possible to have a high performing economy that is not based on manufacturing and exports, there is an entire industry known as the service industry which does very well without having anything to do with manufacturing.
No, this is not true. A service economy is one where the majority of economic activity takes place in the form of services. However, what people often forget is that a service economy still needs just as much manufacturing as a manufacturing-based economy. The reason is that someone still needs to build all the things you use.
Compare this to the transition from agrarian to industrial society: people still eat, and in fact agricultural output - both total and per-person is actually far higher than it was prior to Industrial Revolution. It has not sunk; it's just that we have manufacturing in addition to agriculture, and it's monetary value is far greater than agriculture's. However, it would be a foolish person indeed who'd suggest that you can run an industrial society completely without agriculture.
A service economy is simply one where industrial manufacturing has grown to the point where it can't grow anymore, because nobody can use more stuff, so new growth comes mainly from services. This does not make manufacturing redundant, it simply relegates it to the same status as, say, water pipes, power lines and sewer system: part of the basic infrastructure of civilization.
The problem right now most developed nations face is an ageing population, this dwarfs any losses in manufacturing and exports by orders of magnitude.
All developed nations have two-digit unemployment rates, so no, this is not and won't be a problem for years, if not decades.
Protecting local manufacturing is a proven losing strategy, besides, wealthy OECD citizens should be looking at highly educated service jobs anyway, thats where the money is at.
Most service jobs pay minimum wage. Also, education costs money, so the falling general level of wealth makes it ever harder to get. Good for those who already have education, since it lessens the competition; very bad for the future of Western countries.
What you have going is really a good thing: Companies like Apple and Intel designing tech and having it manufactured offshore makes money for the USA.
Designing stuff makes money for the USA. Manufacturing it in China loses money for the USA, since it means paying Chinese rather than Americans.
What we, as OECD citizens, need is high levels of education, and a high output of quality IP. As China grows in wealth manufacturing will move elsewhere, improving the lot of new places. Hopefully by the time we've run out of cheap labour its all going to be robots or something equally as awesome.
Intellectual Property is, to put it bluntly, worthless. If Chinese make your chips in factories located in China, they can simply decide at any time that those factories now belong to them. What are you going to do about it, start a war?
When this day comes you will want to be the smartest nation with the most and best engineers, not the one with the biggest manufacturing base.
Being the best engineer there is doesn't do you any good unless you can actually build what you design. That requires manufacturing base. And the Chinese are just as smart as we are, they don't need us. They are simply using us to help set up their manufacturing base so they can cut us off and pay Chinese engineers instead, thus keeping the money in Chinese economy and becoming the next self-sufficient hyperpower.
That's the difference between Chinese leaders and American CEOs: both are evil, ruthless scum, but the Chinese are looking after the interests of their country while American CEOs are only looking after their wallets.
The only hope humanity has to avoid being ruled by dictators for the next few centuries seems to be for EU to get its shit together and start aggressively protecting its domestic markets. It's very likely far too late for the USA.
I enjoy tobacco and don't mind dying younger. They're not doing anything wrong by supplying what I ask of them. They might be abusing dimlows but that does not mean they're abusing me. What they are doing _is_ right.
It's questionable whether someone knowingly inhaling a carcinogenic agent should call anyone "dimlow". It's also questionable whether supplying such a person the means to self-abuse is morally right. What isn't questionable is that having others suffer from second-hand smoke is quite thoroughly evil.
But then again, I just ate a fat-soaked meal and followed it with a nice strong pot of coffee to counteract the beer from yesterday, so pots and kettles and all that.
The argument is you go broke because the "have nots" are as well or better off than the "haves", so people stop working. Which, taken to the extreme of ensuring economic equality for everybody, would be true.
And also completely irrelevant in the context of post-scarcity economy, where robots do all the work - if they don't, then labour is scarce, and the economy is not post-scarcity.
I'm also not sure it's even true at all. People do work all the time without monetary benefits. For example, here we are, analyzing this story and economic theory, and at least I'm not getting paid for this.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't do that. Construct the parameterized query dynamically (that is, insert as many "?," as needed), then bind the parameters.
I've run into the same problem and it really is a serious deficiency in client libs, but it's not a reason to use manual quoting.
Exactly. If it turns out that inertial mass is separate from gravitational mass, then General Relativity is flat-out wrong, since in General Relativity gravitation is caused by inertia - that is, spacetime bends, masses try to follow straight paths in spacetime, and because spacetime is curved those straight paths appear as curved to us. In other words, in GR inertial and gravitational mass are not just equivalent, they are the same thing: there are no two separate properties which always have a same value, but rather a single property that can be measured in two ways, which are really the same way but seem different to us.
Because the predictions of General Relativity are backed by some very convincing evidence which would be quite hard to explain otherwise, I find it unlikely that this is actually the case.
It's possible to make a ballot-based voting system that's tamper-proof and simple enough that Joe Voter can understand it. It's not possible to build a voting machine that's tamper-proof and simple enough for Joe to understand, which means that Joe has to take your word on blind faith, and, well... it's always possible to get "experts" to testify for the quality of your product if you pay them enough.
Apart from this, hand-counting votes happens in the open, while a voting machine is a black box. Even if you had sufficient intelligence and expertize to understand how it works, you have no way to know whether a particular voting machine actually works the way you think it does. So even Joe Genius can't really trust them, and has to take their trustworthiness on blind faith.
Once people can reasonably suspect that any election that didn't give the results they wanted was rigged, and that any future election might be as well, democracy is dead. And that means return to violence as the only effective method people can influence their higher-ups.
Typical politicians don't get charged. Everyone might be equal before law, but the pigs are more equal than others.
Well, the first use for money would be some actor lessons.
Maybe they wanted to make sure anyway, seeing how it's the middle of a huge recession and all.
Parameterized SQL, or prepared statements, completely prevent SQL injection attacks. They might also speed things up in some circumstances. Why not simply use them exclusively?
Yes, you do. Awareness is a limited resource; if an advertizer manages to make me waste awareness on a product I don't need or want, it's off from something else that might benefit me. That makes advertizing - all advertizing - noise to be filtered out as thoroughly as possible.
This is related to a recent discussion about whether Net makes you less capable of "deep thought" due to constant distractions.
So you pay for it either way, with or without blinkenbanners.
"Might you, or anyone you know, be interested in fully automatic sidearms?"
:).
You are making the assumption that people are seeking to buy something most of the time. That assumption is incorrect. And even the times when I'm looking for something, advertising is completely untrustworthy, making it useless as information source.
Advertising is simply more noise to filter out.
On the contrary, that's what gave us these masterpieces of unintended comedy.
Unfortunately, since the file system treats files as mere streams of bytes, this is impossible in the general case, and inconvenient even in many specific cases. It should be possible to store arbitrary data about the files in the files, but that's not going to happen soon, or likely ever.
Since when that allows a corporation to screw you over more effectively, the same as with all other Intellectual Property laws, and with all laws if we really think about it.
So? Those taxpayers will be paid the ever-decreasing minimum wage, just like before.
More likely they move their nominal headquarters to tax shelters and engage in other shenigans to avoid paying, just like now.
And libertarians wonder why people think they're crazy.
The reason why we can't put men on the Moon is that we never really had that capacity. Yes, we managed to put a few people there at enormous expense, but that was simply not sustainable; technology is only now starting to near the point where maintaining a presence in the Low-Earth Orbit might be.
But, rather than look at the problem and even trying to understand the reasons, you blame it all on the poor not starving as they should, like a right-wing tool you are. Moron.
True, but I've noticed something when observing people who are trying to learn something: facts are like pieces of puzzle: You can have a set of facts that are correct, relevant and sufficient, but unless you know how they connect to each other, you have nothing but a mess.
You can skim a missing puzzle piece from Google, and in fact can often work around not having it. But if you don't have the Big Picture... then your work ends up in your profession's equivalent of The Daily WTF, and rightfully so.
That's the point of education, IMHO: to give the people The Big Picture. You can't compensate for not knowing details, but you can't compensate for not having any idea WTF you're trying to do.
That's also why almost every non-fiction book begins with an introduction, and why you should always read it; all too often it's self-congratulatory droning, but it also gives you a clear idea of what the book's about. Next read through the table of contents. Only then start reading the actual book.
And so on and so forth. The same thing always comes through: people who know the Big Picture can use the information they have, while the people who don't know it don't really benefit from their bag of factoids except completely by random.
That's the real problem with Googling things. Google returns random facts in no particular order, so it'll take a long time establishing them into some kind of model so you can actually use them and add more. A book, on the other hand, goes through things in order, the later chapters building on things covered in the former, so you can simply read it - assuming the writer's any good, of course. It's far more efficient for picking up new things, while Googling is more efficient for checking details.
Which is an idiotic argument since "deep thinking" simply means that you keep going over the same thing over and over again, refining the finer points, figuring out how it relates to other things you know and how its parts relate to each other, and following the new insights this reveals. "Deep" thinking is not different than "shallow" thinking, it just means that you keep thinking about something longer and understanding it on a deeper level - which, of course, means that you'll have less time to go over other topics.
Every human being thinks some things deeply and others shallowly due to having only limited processing power and time available. The Internet tilts the balance to the "shallow" direction simply because it increases the amount of incoming data, leaving less time to process any particular item, but this no more make you unable to think deeply than your eyes adjusting to dark make you blind in light - sure it does, for a few dozen seconds.
As for a solution, the sooner we can upload our minds to computers, or at the very least hooking them up, the faster we can start benefiting from Moore's law and adding more lobes to handle all the incoming data - which, of course, will also increase the amount of data produced. Argh.
Slashdot is a discussion board, 4chan is an image board. Comparing them is idiotic, since they have almost nothing in common.
However, if you need to train your mind for facing Cthulhu, then 4chan is a good place to start.
You didn't get your way, so you deliberately showed the clerk you have a gun. Please explain what you were trying to do if not threaten?
And I know your scenario is imaginary, like I said you'd be behind bars otherwise, if not dead.
Yes, they have. You were offered the iPad on certain terms (which may be legal or illegal, that is irrelevant). You refused these terms and used threat of deadly force to coerce the clerk to give you an iPod by your terms instead.
You refused store's terms. The store refused yours. No agreement was reached, thus the iPad was never yours, whether you left money in the store or not. Taking something that is not yours from the store is theft. That you used a gun in the theft makes it armed robbery.
The store refused to change the terms of the sale to suit you. That is not discrimination, quite the contrary, it's treating you like everyone else.
Those terms may or may not be illegal by themselves, but that neither makes your behaviour legal nor has anything to do with discrimination.
Store-bought software almost always comes with DRM-related trojans, while torrents have usually been disinfected of them. Pirate Bay is a safer place to get software than Wall-Mart.
So basically, you performed an armed robbery. Guess what happens next? Hint: it involves sirens and flashing lights.
And of course this assumes that another employee or customer doesn't also have a firearm and blow your brains out when you start threatening people with yours.
Thus proving that the rules for getting it are too lax.
No, this is not true. A service economy is one where the majority of economic activity takes place in the form of services. However, what people often forget is that a service economy still needs just as much manufacturing as a manufacturing-based economy. The reason is that someone still needs to build all the things you use.
Compare this to the transition from agrarian to industrial society: people still eat, and in fact agricultural output - both total and per-person is actually far higher than it was prior to Industrial Revolution. It has not sunk; it's just that we have manufacturing in addition to agriculture, and it's monetary value is far greater than agriculture's. However, it would be a foolish person indeed who'd suggest that you can run an industrial society completely without agriculture.
A service economy is simply one where industrial manufacturing has grown to the point where it can't grow anymore, because nobody can use more stuff, so new growth comes mainly from services. This does not make manufacturing redundant, it simply relegates it to the same status as, say, water pipes, power lines and sewer system: part of the basic infrastructure of civilization.
All developed nations have two-digit unemployment rates, so no, this is not and won't be a problem for years, if not decades.
Most service jobs pay minimum wage. Also, education costs money, so the falling general level of wealth makes it ever harder to get. Good for those who already have education, since it lessens the competition; very bad for the future of Western countries.
Designing stuff makes money for the USA. Manufacturing it in China loses money for the USA, since it means paying Chinese rather than Americans.
Intellectual Property is, to put it bluntly, worthless. If Chinese make your chips in factories located in China, they can simply decide at any time that those factories now belong to them. What are you going to do about it, start a war?
When this day comes you will want to be the smartest nation with the most and best engineers, not the one with the biggest manufacturing base.
Being the best engineer there is doesn't do you any good unless you can actually build what you design. That requires manufacturing base. And the Chinese are just as smart as we are, they don't need us. They are simply using us to help set up their manufacturing base so they can cut us off and pay Chinese engineers instead, thus keeping the money in Chinese economy and becoming the next self-sufficient hyperpower.
That's the difference between Chinese leaders and American CEOs: both are evil, ruthless scum, but the Chinese are looking after the interests of their country while American CEOs are only looking after their wallets.
The only hope humanity has to avoid being ruled by dictators for the next few centuries seems to be for EU to get its shit together and start aggressively protecting its domestic markets. It's very likely far too late for the USA.
It's questionable whether someone knowingly inhaling a carcinogenic agent should call anyone "dimlow". It's also questionable whether supplying such a person the means to self-abuse is morally right. What isn't questionable is that having others suffer from second-hand smoke is quite thoroughly evil.
But then again, I just ate a fat-soaked meal and followed it with a nice strong pot of coffee to counteract the beer from yesterday, so pots and kettles and all that.
And also completely irrelevant in the context of post-scarcity economy, where robots do all the work - if they don't, then labour is scarce, and the economy is not post-scarcity.
I'm also not sure it's even true at all. People do work all the time without monetary benefits. For example, here we are, analyzing this story and economic theory, and at least I'm not getting paid for this.