OK, sounds like we got a deal. You keep Fox News, I get my Eurotrash BBC along with the tyranny of a $15 or so broadcasting tax per month and everybody's happy.
Yeah, Slashdot is run by folks who are americans, and more power to them. Thanks goodness american American Zealot.
Interesting. I did not know that. Would you say though that the inability of app writers to create local temporary views is a SQL weakness or an implementation weakness? Sounds to me like it's an artifact of how access is managed in a given DB, no?
The dialects you mention do deserve to be common practice IMHO. Which ones are they, BTW?
The approach I envision would allow this. There would be intermediate virtual tables that would feed to later operations. One can concentrate on creating one virtual table at a time.
x1 = foo(....)
x2 = glab(....)
result = join(x1, x2,....)
One can refer to chunks via name, whereas SQL forces one to nest stuff to acheive the same thing.
But the argument against gay marriage was drawn in analogy to something else:
It is also the principle on which gay marriage should not be allowed.
Unless the principle in question refers to the previous sententce, as I assumed, I think it can only refer to
The healthy growth and development of children is best promoted by a stable two parent family.
Which has exactly the same bearing on the issue of gay marriage as the premarital sex sentence. So my point stands - pro-child arguments are either irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or actually support it if thought out logically; and dumping all your favorite values into a vague pro-society pro-child ramble heap, while trying to make it look like a reasonable argument, is confused.
It never ceases to amuse me how people try to derive pre-arranged moral conclusions from "reasonable" arguments. Take this one:
Attempts to externally enforce sexual morality are similarly founded on the survival of society.
What is society? Either it's just a bunch of people together, in which case its "survival" just kinda happens; or it's "the Society" of people who adhere to a rigid set of moral laws and tend to exclude people who don't - in which case, why give a hoot about its survival? Bring it down!
It used to be the principle on which premarital sex was sanctioned - it tends to create children in need of a home. It is also the principle on which gay marriage should not be allowed.
Excuse me? Gay marriage tends to create children in need of a home? Or do you mean that gay couples adopting children tend to create children in need of a home?
I can't tell about Germany, but in the UK the (state-sponsored) BBC channels are by far better than anything I've ever seen in the US. Wide-ranging, informative, low on advertising crap.
It's not tyranny as much as a collective action problem. Good TV is a public good that has to be paid for somehow; a small flat tax is not unreasonable IMHO.
And if Fox News is your idea of free media, give me tyranny.
Better get your installation validated now, because after the current validation testing is completed and validation becomes mandatory I imagine only one computer with any particular key is going to be able to get updates and that will be the first to validate that key.
Microsoft won't be that stupid. How many people outside of US/Europe do you think would use windows if they had to pay as much as M$ wishes? And what would that do to M$ as the de facto standard?
So on second thought, please, please let M$ strictly enforce license key validation!
Do you remember how much the artist gets out of the $99 on iTunes? $.10
Remember what pimps are? The guys that get rich off the girls that do the actual work, and keep the girls poor (check out "The American Pimp" movie).
I buy CDs from CDbaby.com - they charge a flat fee and give the rest to the artist; and directly from websites when available. As for major labels: Morally, I don't owe them shit. Legally, try and catch me. I don't have to pay pimps.
Also, Elvis is dead. How can dead people have copyright? At the very least, anything by a dead person or a long since broken-up band is morally public domain.
Well, it's a matter of degree, as most things. In this case, I see massive overkill. His oldest is 9 and not allowed to access the internet at all?
And consider this:
I can decide that as their parent and until they are 18, their privacy goes out the window when safety is in question
And who decides when safety is in question? Right, the parent. See, with five-year-olds, this is OK. Nine is pushing it. Teenagers - a recipe for bitter conflict (or rather, really creative lies and excuses - teenagers are good at that when there's no other way).
You want your children to be safe? Trust them enough to decide for themselves, gradually but certainly with virtually no "protection" by 13 (discipline re:homework etc. is a different thing, of course).
When a parent forbids so many things, many of them "just in case", how can a child distinguish between real danger and all the other forbidden things?
Wake up, control freak. Every attempt to control or monitor your kids that closely will simply result in your kids still doing what they feel like *but you won't know it* and they won't come to you for advice when they need it.
To come to the present example, has it ever occurred to you that there are other computers out there that they can use? Driven on by the lure of the forbidden, too...
>> If people stopped downloading music, the RIAA would have no choice but to lower their CD prices.
WHY??? It's the other way around. As long as you're feeding the RIAA, it'll do what it always did. If it weren't for illegal (not immoral;) ) downloads, there'd still be no iTunes and such.
Now all we have to do is to keep the pressure on until the market forces the price to the consumer of downloading songs to approach its actual cost (ie couple of cents a song, tops);)
I'm sure the idea is technically doable, and I can see why you'd want it, but still it's not going to work.
Thing is, if I have to type in anything at all besides a valid email address to qualify for a download, I will look for an equivalent offer by somebody else where no such nonsense is required (ahh, the freedom of the Internet). A free trial and similar goodies are mostly just not worth having to reveal your identity - that's the reason why all such schemes (Microsoft passport and lots of others) are stagnating in spite of the big money behind them.
The free;) market at work, God bless it.
Slashdot Mirror
That last sentence should have been "Thanks goodness american (not equal) American Zealot."
Sorry - did not preview enough.
OK, sounds like we got a deal. You keep Fox News, I get my Eurotrash BBC along with the tyranny of a $15 or so broadcasting tax per month and everybody's happy.
Yeah, Slashdot is run by folks who are americans, and more power to them. Thanks goodness american American Zealot.
Interesting. I did not know that. Would you say though that the inability of app writers to create local temporary views is a SQL weakness or an implementation weakness? Sounds to me like it's an artifact of how access is managed in a given DB, no?
The dialects you mention do deserve to be common practice IMHO. Which ones are they, BTW?
The approach I envision would allow this. There would be intermediate virtual tables that would feed to later operations. One can concentrate on creating one virtual table at a time.
....)
x1 = foo(....)
x2 = glab(....)
result = join(x1, x2,
One can refer to chunks via name, whereas SQL forces one to nest stuff to acheive the same thing.
Isn't that what views are supposed to do?
But the argument against gay marriage was drawn in analogy to something else: It is also the principle on which gay marriage should not be allowed. Unless the principle in question refers to the previous sententce, as I assumed, I think it can only refer to The healthy growth and development of children is best promoted by a stable two parent family. Which has exactly the same bearing on the issue of gay marriage as the premarital sex sentence.
So my point stands - pro-child arguments are either irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or actually support it if thought out logically; and dumping all your favorite values into a vague pro-society pro-child ramble heap, while trying to make it look like a reasonable argument, is confused.
It never ceases to amuse me how people try to derive pre-arranged moral conclusions from "reasonable" arguments. Take this one:
Attempts to externally enforce sexual morality are similarly founded on the survival of society.
What is society? Either it's just a bunch of people together, in which case its "survival" just kinda happens; or it's "the Society" of people who adhere to a rigid set of moral laws and tend to exclude people who don't - in which case, why give a hoot about its survival? Bring it down!
It used to be the principle on which premarital sex was sanctioned - it tends to create children in need of a home. It is also the principle on which gay marriage should not be allowed.
Excuse me? Gay marriage tends to create children in need of a home? Or do you mean that gay couples adopting children tend to create children in need of a home?
It's not tyranny as much as a collective action problem. Good TV is a public good that has to be paid for somehow; a small flat tax is not unreasonable IMHO.
And if Fox News is your idea of free media, give me tyranny.
I agree so far.
the current situation needs regulation of some sort
Like what? Laws to sweep back the tide never work. And you just gave a major reason why:
any reasonably computer-savvy 10 year old often know a lot more about their computers than their parents
Always have, always will;). Plus, for the interested teenager there's always a friend's computer, and other creative solutions.
Besides, what's wrong with porn? In a society as badly undersexed in actual practice as the US is, apparently "virtual sex" fills a need.
Microsoft won't be that stupid. How many people outside of US/Europe do you think would use windows if they had to pay as much as M$ wishes? And what would that do to M$ as the de facto standard?
So on second thought, please, please let M$ strictly enforce license key validation!
Remember what pimps are? The guys that get rich off the girls that do the actual work, and keep the girls poor (check out "The American Pimp" movie).
I buy CDs from CDbaby.com - they charge a flat fee and give the rest to the artist; and directly from websites when available. As for major labels: Morally, I don't owe them shit. Legally, try and catch me. I don't have to pay pimps.
Also, Elvis is dead. How can dead people have copyright? At the very least, anything by a dead person or a long since broken-up band is morally public domain.
And consider this:
I can decide that as their parent and until they are 18, their privacy goes out the window when safety is in question
And who decides when safety is in question? Right, the parent. See, with five-year-olds, this is OK. Nine is pushing it. Teenagers - a recipe for bitter conflict (or rather, really creative lies and excuses - teenagers are good at that when there's no other way).
You want your children to be safe? Trust them enough to decide for themselves, gradually but certainly with virtually no "protection" by 13 (discipline re:homework etc. is a different thing, of course).
When a parent forbids so many things, many of them "just in case", how can a child distinguish between real danger and all the other forbidden things?
BTW I'm 28 with a 16yo sister[smile]
Wake up, control freak. Every attempt to control or monitor your kids that closely will simply result in your kids still doing what they feel like *but you won't know it* and they won't come to you for advice when they need it. To come to the present example, has it ever occurred to you that there are other computers out there that they can use? Driven on by the lure of the forbidden, too...
>> If people stopped downloading music, the RIAA would have no choice but to lower their CD prices. WHY??? It's the other way around. As long as you're feeding the RIAA, it'll do what it always did. If it weren't for illegal (not immoral;) ) downloads, there'd still be no iTunes and such. Now all we have to do is to keep the pressure on until the market forces the price to the consumer of downloading songs to approach its actual cost (ie couple of cents a song, tops);)
I'm sure the idea is technically doable, and I can see why you'd want it, but still it's not going to work. Thing is, if I have to type in anything at all besides a valid email address to qualify for a download, I will look for an equivalent offer by somebody else where no such nonsense is required (ahh, the freedom of the Internet). A free trial and similar goodies are mostly just not worth having to reveal your identity - that's the reason why all such schemes (Microsoft passport and lots of others) are stagnating in spite of the big money behind them. The free ;) market at work, God bless it.