but some scripting languages will probably define additional features (macros, MI, continuations etc.) that have no "native" representation in Parrot
So? That just means that they are not using Parrot. Big deal. What's you're point? You're point is that some people will use Parrot and others will use a different VM? I think we all, already understood this.
In many states, a mass of votes means absoluetely nothing, let along a single vote. While in other states, a single vote makes the difference. It's all about what state you're in. This exactly relates to laws in different states which determine how electorial votes are cast.
On the other hand, this isn't a situation of our two party system is broken, let's fix it. Rather, this is a case of our two party system is broken and has been for a very long time (half a century?). The two party system is fundimentally flawed. As one insightful poster offered, the two party system is one candidate away from a dictatorship. And frankly, the offerings being provided by both of the parties pretty much suck. Bluntly, the two party system is completely broken and will never be fixed...unless... campaign finance laws are significantly changed, which more or less opens the door third parties. In otherwords, the only way to repair the two party system is to pass laws which directly or indirectly allow third party participation. IMO, until you see a third party (or more) on ballots in every state, which receive simular federal dollars, we are screwed without regard to whether or not your vote counts.
The meme of `register byte code will map nicely to hardware' is also rubbish.
I don't believe this to be a true statement at all. It appears that they are using "typed registers", if you will. The optimizer is free to load ints and longs into registers while it can move pointers to strings into registers equally well. In other words, it maps VERY well to the underlying hardware.
I think you make some wonderful points. Just the same, where you said, "I realize it's a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" situation, but right now it's crushing him. It comes off as arrogance,..." IMO, there are two camps, there are ignorant people that think this makes his arrogant and then there are those that understands he's a politician, first and foremost. He's never going to make stupid people happy without pissing off the people that got him where he is today.
set I1, 1 set N1, 4.2 set S1, "Resting" print I1 print ", " print N1 print ", " print S1 print "\n" end
Which seems to indicate a heavy use of register type functionality. This will map to hardware (thusly faster) better, much more so than a stack based (java) VM implementation. Especially for dynamically typed languages (perl, python, ruby, etc).
Potentially Parrot can pull together Perl, Python and Ruby - imagine CPAN that works with all of those languages at once, but pulls in all the interesting Python and Ruby libraries too.
You know, I never thought of that aspect of it. That is certainly exciting.
we're just one less candidate shy of a dictatorship.
Now that's an awesome zinger and hella insightful! I honestly can say, I've never thought of it on such terms and yet, there it is! Man, I seriously hope someone mods you up!
indeed. at first i found it amusing, but i am troubled that gwb finds it impossible to admit a specific instance in which he made a wrong decision.
I'm completely amazed for completely different reasons. He is, first and foremost, a man running for re-election. You can be assured that Kerry or who ever in such a position, is not going to start bragging about past mistakes right before an election. I'm sorry, but that's the reality we live in. Ding GWB for it if you must, but you simply don't understand politics if you think you would get any other class of answer from any other man in an election year (right before election).
Simple fact is, we ALL known he's made mistakes. How dumb do you have to be to hear it from his own mouth to know he's made mistakes.
his leadership style is like that of a religious organization... no matter what, never admit you are wrong (until at least a few hundred years after the incident, if ever).
Once again, I'm forced to disagree. His leadership style is like that of a man running for re-election. Like it or not, this is what US politics and our four-year cycle has created. It's just a fact of US politics and our current election system.
part of making decisions is making the wrong ones and being able recognize them, admit it, and learn from them going forward.
Maybe for us mortals, but not for a man running for re-election. Politics is politics, and these are the answers you should expect for any politician in high office. After all, that's what makes them politicians.
If you think for even a second, you have the option of voting for a human versus a politician, then your right to vote should be taken away.
I have family that constantly sends me pro-Bush propaganda. Comments like your seem no different to me. Often, I see people in a hurry to bash the other side while forgetting that everything they are bashing one side for, is probably true for the otherside too. Granted, this election does have some wide divides, unlike what you normally see, but just stop and think if your comments hold water when applied to the other side. More often then not, you're bad talking both sides and you just don't realize it.
This is why I tell my son that this election is figuring out to vote for, "dumb or dumber". In this election, it's not like you even have an option of figuring out which is best. Rather, your objective is to figure out which one is less stupid and vote for him. Let's face it, our options suck. Nader? Ya right. That's a vote for Bush, not Nader. Yet another reason, which highlights that our 2-party system sucks.
Re:SQL is good for some things, but not for others
on
An Alternative to SQL?
·
· Score: 1
Since MySQL is usually the database of choice in Unix-based web servers,
Sorry, needs some corrections. MySQL is the readily available DB and is rarely, if never, the database of choice for Unix-base web server, when they are being put together by people qualified to make such choices. Being readily available, hardly makes it the popular choice.
SQL by design distinguishes null from "0" - it's not a limitation or a flaw in the design, it's quite deliberate, but it's a distinction that people who are not familiar with SQL often get confused about.
I completely agree with your statement. This form of confusion is typical of someone that isn't familair with SQL. And yet, oddly, the very people which seem to be commenting at this basic level, appear to be casting out SQL and marching in something better. If they fail to understand core principals of SQL, how can be improve on it? I guess by strictly adhering to Date and Darwen, but I'm forced to agree, the quoted passages won't win people over.
I think perhaps we have different definitions of Christian ideology and what is a Christian nation. So perhaps we don't disagree with eachother as much as we think...
That's what I said. LOL.:)
For the most part, I didn't have a problem with your commentary. Rather, the pushback came from misinterpreations of my statements.
I think you make some excellent points! Especially about the sociological duality of our nation, as it relates to religios ethos, in light of the fact that the US, statistically, is a "Christian nation." (Hmmm...wonder if I could make a sentence that sounds even more like mumbo-jumbo-BS...hehe).
When I have more time, I'll have to come back and re-read your post. I think you're got some interesting and insightful tidbits hidden with.:)
If he's only been doing this for five to eight years, then he doesn't have enough data to warrant a conclusion.
He was able to draw a conclusion based on carbon loss, not temp. A temp increase is what atmosphereic models predict, which is based on our currently level of understanding. So, it seems not only was he able to draw a conclussion, but he was able to rationally support it. Meaning, he found A, and applied known area of study B, and came to conclusion C. This doesn't mean he has drawn the right conclusion, but his conclusion isn't exactly unsupported either.
I should also mention that he also uses old striations of earth, realative to each other, to measure historical deltas over time, which date back a long, long time (sorry, I don't recall the timeline). I guess this is pretty significant part of the story, but I'm only now recalling since you pushed on it. At any rate, his results indicate that carbon loss is much faster now than historical record indicates.
The difference is, all things being equal, it makes the case for a faster transition into warmer climates. The physics of what happens with carbon in the atmosphere is fairly well understood. Which brings us back to...is this part of a larger, normal cyclic trend or not? And if it is, what normalizes the carbon and brings it back down? If it's not, what can we do? Is it a bad as some say? Is it worse? If so, what corrective actions can we do now?
Long story short, I wish others would of piped in, providing more details than what my scretchy brain is allowing for.
You have to watch out for people like this. People who predict unrestrained runaway processes
I already know where you're going with this, and I agree.
have a very important and critical question to answer: "If the process is so easy to set off and runs in such an unrestrained fashion, answer one of two questions: a. Why hasn't it happened before, or b. What stopped it last time?
Who says it hasn't already happened before? You're asking questions which are larger than you or I. And frankly, I think are completely out of scope. What he did is pure research. He then offered a warning, sustained by the results of his research. That's doesn't mean he's come to the right conclusion, however, it doesn't mean he's wrong either.
Why is it a problem this time and not last time?
Perhaps because we're around now. People tend to want to know if they should plan for the worst of times. Accordingly, they want to know if they can simply ignore the, "green house", screams. There's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not saying there are no answers. I'm saying for any given threat, if there are no answers, then it probably isn't worth worrying about.
Which means, science is out to prove you wrong. Basically, your position seems to be, if you don't have an answer today, then don't worry about finding an answer tomorrow. I'm sorry, but that's just plain silly.
By your logic, the first ammendment should not prevent the majority from outlawing, say Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism.
What? I think you misread what I typed or you replied to the wrong person? I never said anything which could come to mean anything of the nature. According to "my logic", the constitution PREVENTS the majority from outlawing Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism. According to "my logic", you're out in left field.
The very fact that we are not a theocracy means that our nation is not associated with one religious ideology or even a group of them (note that Iran's parliament contains representatives of religious groups rather than of political parties).
The US is not a theocracy. This, we seem to agree. Just the same, clearly the US IS heavily influenced by our Christian heritage. And since the majority is still Christian, you will find laws following the majority's ideology. No bones about it. So, while most religions are well tolorated in the US, that does not mean there is zero sociological impact. Having said, the impact and influence is indirect, which is why we are not a theocracy. Having said that, it's still fair to say, the US is mostly a country of Christians.
As for the rest of your comments, you're all over the map. You seem to be commenting on things which I never stated.
First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.
This is exactly right. Those that say global warming doesn't exist, is living, 100% in a fantasy world. AFAIK, the only question is, is global warming part of a cyclical trend, directly caused by human efforts, or both?
There is certainly some trending which indicates that human's are part of the "cycle". The only question is, are human causing the trend to be above what the "normal" cycle would normally be.
Second, the theory is quite sound. CO2 pushes the energy budget of Earth up. Less energy out means Earth has to heat up.
I personally believe that humans are pushing the trend above the bell curve. Simple fact is, the theory is well supported by physics, as we understand it, and we are able to make observations which support our level of understanding. To me, the only question which remains, how far off the curve are we? And, will the departure be enough to matter in the long run? Those questions, IMO, are the really tough questions to answer. Frankly, I'm not sure we have the ability to answer it unless the environment makes a huge swing, for good or bad.
'global warming' industry
It seems, he considers basic science to be part of that budget. I agree with you, that his numbers appear to be completely baseless.
I saw a story on (I think) PBS about this. A guy, many years ago (5-8 years) marked off some plots in various locations. Once a year he goes and samples the soil from these plots. His finding was that carbon (CO2) is being depleated from the soil. In turn, the the warming planet will increase the rate of CO2 release from the soil. IIRC, from his test plots, the carbon levels present in his plots were down something like 5x what they were when he started his experiment.
His conclusion that the warming of the planet will greatly accelerate the release of carbon from the soil, which in turn, will warm the planet, which in turn will release more carbon from the soil. As you can see, he predicts a nasty spiral.
Perhaps someone here saw this story too and can offer the name of it? Perhaps it was a Nova show? I must admit, I did not see the whole show, nor did I pay a lot of attention to it? So, perhaps I missed some details. At any rate, hopefully someone will provide more details.
If we are a Christian country as opposed to merely a country of Christians, perhaps you can explain why our national monuments are primarily of a pagan nature?
I think you're pedantically playing semantics here. While you appear to be making such a distinction of Christian country versus a country of Christians, I was using the two synonymously. Meaning, I think of the US as being a country of Christians (~60%), whereby, I can refer to it as a Christian country, by majority.
I'm a little rushed right now, but I'll read and think more about your posts sometime in the near future.
No, I actually make the distinction. I do realize that the popular view is that Catholics are Christians. I just don't happen to subscribe to the popular view.
Slashdot Mirror
but some scripting languages will probably define additional features (macros, MI, continuations etc.) that have no "native" representation in Parrot
So? That just means that they are not using Parrot. Big deal. What's you're point? You're point is that some people will use Parrot and others will use a different VM? I think we all, already understood this.
In many states, a mass of votes means absoluetely nothing, let along a single vote. While in other states, a single vote makes the difference. It's all about what state you're in. This exactly relates to laws in different states which determine how electorial votes are cast.
On the other hand, this isn't a situation of our two party system is broken, let's fix it. Rather, this is a case of our two party system is broken and has been for a very long time (half a century?). The two party system is fundimentally flawed. As one insightful poster offered, the two party system is one candidate away from a dictatorship. And frankly, the offerings being provided by both of the parties pretty much suck. Bluntly, the two party system is completely broken and will never be fixed...unless... campaign finance laws are significantly changed, which more or less opens the door third parties. In otherwords, the only way to repair the two party system is to pass laws which directly or indirectly allow third party participation. IMO, until you see a third party (or more) on ballots in every state, which receive simular federal dollars, we are screwed without regard to whether or not your vote counts.
The meme of `register byte code will map nicely
to hardware' is also rubbish.
I don't believe this to be a true statement at all. It appears that they are using "typed registers", if you will. The optimizer is free to load ints and longs into registers while it can move pointers to strings into registers equally well. In other words, it maps VERY well to the underlying hardware.
I think you make some wonderful points. Just the same, where you said, "I realize it's a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" situation, but right now it's crushing him. It comes off as arrogance, ..." IMO, there are two camps, there are ignorant people that think this makes his arrogant and then there are those that understands he's a politician, first and foremost. He's never going to make stupid people happy without pissing off the people that got him where he is today.
I think he means register based.
From one of the examples, we get:
set I1, 1
set N1, 4.2
set S1, "Resting"
print I1
print ", "
print N1
print ", "
print S1
print "\n"
end
Which seems to indicate a heavy use of register type functionality. This will map to hardware (thusly faster) better, much more so than a stack based (java) VM implementation. Especially for dynamically typed languages (perl, python, ruby, etc).
Potentially Parrot can pull together Perl, Python and Ruby - imagine CPAN that works with all of those languages at once, but pulls in all the interesting Python and Ruby libraries too.
You know, I never thought of that aspect of it. That is certainly exciting.
+1 Insightful!
we're just one less candidate shy of a dictatorship.
:)
Now that's an awesome zinger and hella insightful! I honestly can say, I've never thought of it on such terms and yet, there it is! Man, I seriously hope someone mods you up!
+1 Insightful and/of sad/funny
indeed. at first i found it amusing, but i am troubled that gwb finds it impossible to admit a specific instance in which he made a wrong decision.
I'm completely amazed for completely different reasons. He is, first and foremost, a man running for re-election. You can be assured that Kerry or who ever in such a position, is not going to start bragging about past mistakes right before an election. I'm sorry, but that's the reality we live in. Ding GWB for it if you must, but you simply don't understand politics if you think you would get any other class of answer from any other man in an election year (right before election).
Simple fact is, we ALL known he's made mistakes. How dumb do you have to be to hear it from his own mouth to know he's made mistakes.
his leadership style is like that of a religious organization... no matter what, never admit you are wrong (until at least a few hundred years after the incident, if ever).
Once again, I'm forced to disagree. His leadership style is like that of a man running for re-election. Like it or not, this is what US politics and our four-year cycle has created. It's just a fact of US politics and our current election system.
part of making decisions is making the wrong ones and being able recognize them, admit it, and learn from them going forward.
Maybe for us mortals, but not for a man running for re-election. Politics is politics, and these are the answers you should expect for any politician in high office. After all, that's what makes them politicians.
If you think for even a second, you have the option of voting for a human versus a politician, then your right to vote should be taken away.
I have family that constantly sends me pro-Bush propaganda. Comments like your seem no different to me. Often, I see people in a hurry to bash the other side while forgetting that everything they are bashing one side for, is probably true for the otherside too. Granted, this election does have some wide divides, unlike what you normally see, but just stop and think if your comments hold water when applied to the other side. More often then not, you're bad talking both sides and you just don't realize it.
This is why I tell my son that this election is figuring out to vote for, "dumb or dumber". In this election, it's not like you even have an option of figuring out which is best. Rather, your objective is to figure out which one is less stupid and vote for him. Let's face it, our options suck. Nader? Ya right. That's a vote for Bush, not Nader. Yet another reason, which highlights that our 2-party system sucks.
Since MySQL is usually the database of choice in Unix-based web servers,
Sorry, needs some corrections. MySQL is the readily available DB and is rarely, if never, the database of choice for Unix-base web server, when they are being put together by people qualified to make such choices. Being readily available, hardly makes it the popular choice.
SQL by design distinguishes null from "0" - it's not a limitation or a flaw in the design, it's quite deliberate, but it's a distinction that people who are not familiar with SQL often get confused about.
I completely agree with your statement. This form of confusion is typical of someone that isn't familair with SQL. And yet, oddly, the very people which seem to be commenting at this basic level, appear to be casting out SQL and marching in something better. If they fail to understand core principals of SQL, how can be improve on it? I guess by strictly adhering to Date and Darwen, but I'm forced to agree, the quoted passages won't win people over.
$50.00 + the cost of OSX.
I think perhaps we have different definitions of Christian ideology and what is a Christian nation. So perhaps we don't disagree with eachother as much as we think...
:)
:)
That's what I said. LOL.
For the most part, I didn't have a problem with your commentary. Rather, the pushback came from misinterpreations of my statements.
I think you make some excellent points! Especially about the sociological duality of our nation, as it relates to religios ethos, in light of the fact that the US, statistically, is a "Christian nation." (Hmmm...wonder if I could make a sentence that sounds even more like mumbo-jumbo-BS...hehe).
When I have more time, I'll have to come back and re-read your post. I think you're got some interesting and insightful tidbits hidden with.
Thanks. Cheers.
LOL.
Ya, sure...whatever...LOL
By their nature, once they are "set off", there is supposed to be no stopping them.
You're blowing smoke up everyone's tail pipe now. You making a poor conclusion and making even worse statements to support your poor logic.
Simple fact is, there is still a lot that we don't know and research like this is suppose to help increase our body knowledge.
If he's only been doing this for five to eight years, then he doesn't have enough data to warrant a conclusion.
He was able to draw a conclusion based on carbon loss, not temp. A temp increase is what atmosphereic models predict, which is based on our currently level of understanding. So, it seems not only was he able to draw a conclussion, but he was able to rationally support it. Meaning, he found A, and applied known area of study B, and came to conclusion C. This doesn't mean he has drawn the right conclusion, but his conclusion isn't exactly unsupported either.
I should also mention that he also uses old striations of earth, realative to each other, to measure historical deltas over time, which date back a long, long time (sorry, I don't recall the timeline). I guess this is pretty significant part of the story, but I'm only now recalling since you pushed on it. At any rate, his results indicate that carbon loss is much faster now than historical record indicates.
The difference is, all things being equal, it makes the case for a faster transition into warmer climates. The physics of what happens with carbon in the atmosphere is fairly well understood. Which brings us back to...is this part of a larger, normal cyclic trend or not? And if it is, what normalizes the carbon and brings it back down? If it's not, what can we do? Is it a bad as some say? Is it worse? If so, what corrective actions can we do now?
Long story short, I wish others would of piped in, providing more details than what my scretchy brain is allowing for.
You have to watch out for people like this. People who predict unrestrained runaway processes
I already know where you're going with this, and I agree.
have a very important and critical question to answer: "If the process is so easy to set off and runs in such an unrestrained fashion, answer one of two questions: a. Why hasn't it happened before, or b. What stopped it last time?
Who says it hasn't already happened before? You're asking questions which are larger than you or I. And frankly, I think are completely out of scope. What he did is pure research. He then offered a warning, sustained by the results of his research. That's doesn't mean he's come to the right conclusion, however, it doesn't mean he's wrong either.
Why is it a problem this time and not last time?
Perhaps because we're around now. People tend to want to know if they should plan for the worst of times. Accordingly, they want to know if they can simply ignore the, "green house", screams. There's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not saying there are no answers. I'm saying for any given threat, if there are no answers, then it probably isn't worth worrying about.
Which means, science is out to prove you wrong. Basically, your position seems to be, if you don't have an answer today, then don't worry about finding an answer tomorrow. I'm sorry, but that's just plain silly.
By your logic, the first ammendment should not prevent the majority from outlawing, say Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism.
What? I think you misread what I typed or you replied to the wrong person? I never said anything which could come to mean anything of the nature. According to "my logic", the constitution PREVENTS the majority from outlawing Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism. According to "my logic", you're out in left field.
The very fact that we are not a theocracy means that our nation is not associated with one religious ideology or even a group of them (note that Iran's parliament contains representatives of religious groups rather than of political parties).
The US is not a theocracy. This, we seem to agree. Just the same, clearly the US IS heavily influenced by our Christian heritage. And since the majority is still Christian, you will find laws following the majority's ideology. No bones about it. So, while most religions are well tolorated in the US, that does not mean there is zero sociological impact. Having said, the impact and influence is indirect, which is why we are not a theocracy. Having said that, it's still fair to say, the US is mostly a country of Christians.
As for the rest of your comments, you're all over the map. You seem to be commenting on things which I never stated.
First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.
This is exactly right. Those that say global warming doesn't exist, is living, 100% in a fantasy world. AFAIK, the only question is, is global warming part of a cyclical trend, directly caused by human efforts, or both?
There is certainly some trending which indicates that human's are part of the "cycle". The only question is, are human causing the trend to be above what the "normal" cycle would normally be.
Second, the theory is quite sound. CO2 pushes the energy budget of Earth up. Less energy out means Earth has to heat up.
I personally believe that humans are pushing the trend above the bell curve. Simple fact is, the theory is well supported by physics, as we understand it, and we are able to make observations which support our level of understanding. To me, the only question which remains, how far off the curve are we? And, will the departure be enough to matter in the long run? Those questions, IMO, are the really tough questions to answer. Frankly, I'm not sure we have the ability to answer it unless the environment makes a huge swing, for good or bad.
'global warming' industry
It seems, he considers basic science to be part of that budget. I agree with you, that his numbers appear to be completely baseless.
The cost of Earth Simulator
There are many reasons to justify this project. As you saying the sole justification for this project is the looming threat of global warming?
I saw a story on (I think) PBS about this. A guy, many years ago (5-8 years) marked off some plots in various locations. Once a year he goes and samples the soil from these plots. His finding was that carbon (CO2) is being depleated from the soil. In turn, the the warming planet will increase the rate of CO2 release from the soil. IIRC, from his test plots, the carbon levels present in his plots were down something like 5x what they were when he started his experiment.
His conclusion that the warming of the planet will greatly accelerate the release of carbon from the soil, which in turn, will warm the planet, which in turn will release more carbon from the soil. As you can see, he predicts a nasty spiral.
Perhaps someone here saw this story too and can offer the name of it? Perhaps it was a Nova show? I must admit, I did not see the whole show, nor did I pay a lot of attention to it? So, perhaps I missed some details. At any rate, hopefully someone will provide more details.
If we are a Christian country as opposed to merely a country of Christians, perhaps you can explain why our national monuments are primarily of a pagan nature?
I think you're pedantically playing semantics here. While you appear to be making such a distinction of Christian country versus a country of Christians, I was using the two synonymously. Meaning, I think of the US as being a country of Christians (~60%), whereby, I can refer to it as a Christian country, by majority.
I'm a little rushed right now, but I'll read and think more about your posts sometime in the near future.
I've read it before. It was many years ago. I certainly did not remember reading those words.
Again, thanks.
Wow! I certainly did not remember reading that!
Thanks for sharing. Chilling and insightful to say the least!
Again. Thanks.
Interesting. In what context were those words spoken?
No, I actually make the distinction. I do realize that the popular view is that Catholics are Christians. I just don't happen to subscribe to the popular view.