I wish her well in the lawsuit, but I think that if she really wants this career, she should take the following steps:
By posting this, you are leaving evidence of your "I have better judgment than you" attitude on the internet. Have you considered the impact this will have on your career? And I'm showing my "attitude", too.
It might be a good idea for all potential employers, whether would-be puritans or scowlers, to consider that any "attitude" gleaned from the web about someone could be a fictitious persona. To overlook good candidates for reasons like this is just a sign that it's a bad place to work. Because, unlike internet personas, that attitude taints an entire organization. And it leaves the good candidates to work for Cogswell Cogs, instead.
2. Perfect information about someone's future health might compromise the insurance system, but this is an institutional problem, not a moral one.
Indeed. In the short story "Life-Line" by Robert A. Heinlein, a man creates a device that can accurately predict when a person will die. For his troubles, he gets murdered by insurance companies and his invention destroyed.
I'm getting a bunch of guys together, we're gonna sue all the women for trademark infringement. And don't get me started on the blatant discrimination of the Hershey bar.
For the output CFL's use 10w to 20w These use 1.5w to 2w.
You're comparing a much dimmer LED with a CFL. A 14W CFL is rated for ~630 lumens, 23W CFL is ~1000 lumens -- and those are at the low end of the efficiency scale. The 2W CC Vivid LED is rated for 31 lumens (almost 16 lumens/Watt). The PAR LED spotlight is rated for 200 lumens and 5.4 Watts (running on DC power supply). That's ~37 lumens/watt. Compare that to ~45 lumens/watt for the 14W CFL.
So, how would you feel about the bulb breaking over a grow of weed that you were going to smoke??? If you don't smoke weed, there is a good chance that some one you know does or that your kids will try it.
That's got to be the most bizare "thinkofthechildren" appeal that I've ever read!
LED is the way to go.. they are 10 times more enegry efficent than CFL and last 4 times longer.
The LED lamps on the page you linked were not 10 times more energy efficient than CFLs -- closer to par. And they're rather dim, too. Not really suited for general illumination. While there are some nice bright LED lamps out there, their advantage over CFL is not efficiency.
I like this one: Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury-thermometer factory in India.
I guess I'm the same way. One of my inconsistencies is that I enjoy a refreshing rain shower, I like to see the plants turn green and flowers bloom. But I get all upset at flooding. I'm just weird. I like water, so more water is better, right? If more is better, too much is just right.
Turns out I've got weird inconsistencies with other stuff too. Like vitamins and minerals in food. I want to get about 5-10 micrograms of Vitamin D per day. And yet I get all pissy when someone tries to increase the dose to 1 mg/day. What the hell is wrong with me? Do I want rickets or something?
A simple C# code fragment to serialize access to the Jet DB can go like this.
Sure, you could lock the database on the server every time a client updates a record. And you could make sure that the clients know how to wait and retry if the server table is locked. In theory, that works fine. In practice, though, the clients probably update the server tables piecemeal, not nice atomic commits. So we'd have a recipe for deadlock.
You are correct that it could be done, but with the amount of work it would take, I think that it would be a better use of resources to switch to a multi-tier architecture, and thus get rid of the Jet Engine. The fact that they apparently did neither says a lot.
this really isn't about MS having a shitty database. It's really about Diebold not knowing how to design a database application.
The fact that it was built with Jet suggests that it was initially designed as a non-networked, single-user system initially. Votes were probably uploaded one machine at a time (batch style) for counting purposes. What happened next was "organic growth" of the product. Let me speculate (harp music plays) . ..
Along comes the idea that they need to network the voting machines together at a polling place, or even an entire voting jurisdiction. It makes sense. Only thing is, they use Jet. And worse than that, they use a bunch of proprietary features. So switching to a multi-user database is way worse than just switching database engines. They face a huge code rewrite. Database-specific code is mixed together with other aspects of the system. Nothing is split into any kind of tiered structure. And the "Jet Guy" has moved on to another job.
So they puzzle out how to access a remote Jet database, set up the voting machines so they can be configured for local or remote db, and now you've got networked voting machines. Problem solved. No rewrite, no expensive contracting.
But I know from experience with Citrix that Jet does not scale to more than 1000 simultaneous users.
I bet it doesn't. It's really more of a single-user database engine. It's nice for redistributing with a single user application, but not appropriate in a network setting. Makes you wonder if they (Diebold) just didn't have anyone with any multi-user database experience.
This "fear" that the great unwashed masses would somehow use netradio as a means to obtain "free" content is the same shibboleth trotted out by the *AAs to enforce unreasonable copyright extension
You don't get to work "shibboleth" into conversation very often.
But on the subject, I'm sure they'll find a way of hating "Hi-Definition" radio, too.
Are you suggesting that children can kill people at will because they don't get to vote?
Totally, man. Then I'll send my army of immune child assassins to clean up Slashdot. Then the world! I'm king of the world, and there's nothing you can do to stop me with my tiny army!!!! Mwuhahahhahahahaha!!!
It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA:P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?
(I know you're being rhetorical.)
I can't see how it would serve to benefit society at large to prosecute a 7 year old for drunk driving, or even for driving, since I doubt that drunkenness would make a 7 year old's driving any worse. At some point, a prosecutor and judge would have to say that there is no benefit to anyone to trying a young child. Can you even explain 'copyright' to a 7 year old? I doubt I could. While we're on the subject of vehicular crimes, you might was well prosecute the rabbit that ran in front of the car that made the driver brake and skid out of control into the guardrail. Ridiculous, you say? (Oops, this is Slashdot, "rediculous"). Because you won't really do anything to discourage future bunnies from crossing the street without looking by jailing Harvey the Hare? By the same token, prosecuting someone for a crime they don't even understand is not likely serve justice or the greater good.
Also, minors can be found liable for copyright infringement. There's nothing special about them in that regard either.
How about having no money? "Blood from a stone (or turnip)" and all that?
But kidding aside, I can't see why a child could be liable for laws they have no say in. I'm sure there's a legally great reason, but not a morally good one.
The luckiest of all is the child who was never born.
I'm not sure, it seems to me that what is right, and what has left, has turned 90 degrees. I used to be on the right, but now I think both parties are bug-fuck insane.
This started a little over 40 years ago. LBJ declared (ca. 1964) that civil rights was a permanent plank of the Democratic Party platform. The Democrats had been an uncomfortable alliance of Northeastern and Midwestern laborers, Western farmers and Southern whites. LBJ's drove a wedge that split off the Southern Whites and other rural Democrats. Nixon welcomed these folks to the Republican side in 1968 with open arms.
It's been a weird ride since then, with the Republican Party becoming the political wing of the Southern Baptist Church. This has made a lot of old-school, pre-Nixon republicans uncomfortable. In Kansas, for example, the Republican party has effectively split in two: a "moderate" and a "conservative" wing. The conservatives accuse the moderates of being not hard-core enough: RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). And the moderates think the conservatives are a bunch of hillbillies. As a result, Kansas has a Democratic governor now, and half of the US Representatives from the state are Democrats.
No one is out there for personal freedom.
Man, do you have that right. I pray for gridlock to stop the encroachment of our rights by government, but corporate interests always find a "bi-partisan" way to come shining through.
I'm not sure the solution is another party. I think the solution is a fundamental change to our government that reduces the necessity of parties. Like instant runoff voting.
I'd like to see a direct election of the president. I assumed that we would get some attention for this when Dubya lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the electoral college. But amazingly, no one seemed to care. Proponents of the electoral college system say that it gives small states more influence in deciding the president, but it really only gives the majority party in those states the influence. Everyone else might as well stay home on election day if your state is divided 60/40 or better (worse). More citizens would vote if they felt that every vote mattered.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.imdb.com/
By posting this, you are leaving evidence of your "I have better judgment than you" attitude on the internet. Have you considered the impact this will have on your career? And I'm showing my "attitude", too.
It might be a good idea for all potential employers, whether would-be puritans or scowlers, to consider that any "attitude" gleaned from the web about someone could be a fictitious persona. To overlook good candidates for reasons like this is just a sign that it's a bad place to work. Because, unlike internet personas, that attitude taints an entire organization. And it leaves the good candidates to work for Cogswell Cogs, instead.
It is to the fundies.
Damn, I'm old enough to remember when that term only referred to underwear for two.
That's quite a qualification: "Universally adored in Thailand". Kinda like "World famous in Poland".
Indeed. In the short story "Life-Line" by Robert A. Heinlein, a man creates a device that can accurately predict when a person will die. For his troubles, he gets murdered by insurance companies and his invention destroyed.
Even if the insurance part of the bill is of no interest to you, there is an employment discrimination component as well.
I'll tell you the answer to one of these if you RTFA for the other two:
The answer to (3), 'What is he actually doing that's "holding up" the bill?' is: A "hold." Beautiful, huh?
I'm getting a bunch of guys together, we're gonna sue all the women for trademark infringement. And don't get me started on the blatant discrimination of the Hershey bar.
Then we'll need more. Our motto can be "Eat more for freedom!"
That's got to be the most bizare "thinkofthechildren" appeal that I've ever read!
The LED lamps on the page you linked were not 10 times more energy efficient than CFLs -- closer to par. And they're rather dim, too. Not really suited for general illumination. While there are some nice bright LED lamps out there, their advantage over CFL is not efficiency.
I guess I'm the same way. One of my inconsistencies is that I enjoy a refreshing rain shower, I like to see the plants turn green and flowers bloom. But I get all upset at flooding. I'm just weird. I like water, so more water is better, right? If more is better, too much is just right.
Turns out I've got weird inconsistencies with other stuff too. Like vitamins and minerals in food. I want to get about 5-10 micrograms of Vitamin D per day. And yet I get all pissy when someone tries to increase the dose to 1 mg/day. What the hell is wrong with me? Do I want rickets or something?
Sure, you could lock the database on the server every time a client updates a record. And you could make sure that the clients know how to wait and retry if the server table is locked. In theory, that works fine. In practice, though, the clients probably update the server tables piecemeal, not nice atomic commits. So we'd have a recipe for deadlock.
You are correct that it could be done, but with the amount of work it would take, I think that it would be a better use of resources to switch to a multi-tier architecture, and thus get rid of the Jet Engine. The fact that they apparently did neither says a lot.
The fact that it was built with Jet suggests that it was initially designed as a non-networked, single-user system initially. Votes were probably uploaded one machine at a time (batch style) for counting purposes. What happened next was "organic growth" of the product. Let me speculate (harp music plays) . . .
Along comes the idea that they need to network the voting machines together at a polling place, or even an entire voting jurisdiction. It makes sense. Only thing is, they use Jet. And worse than that, they use a bunch of proprietary features. So switching to a multi-user database is way worse than just switching database engines. They face a huge code rewrite. Database-specific code is mixed together with other aspects of the system. Nothing is split into any kind of tiered structure. And the "Jet Guy" has moved on to another job.
So they puzzle out how to access a remote Jet database, set up the voting machines so they can be configured for local or remote db, and now you've got networked voting machines. Problem solved. No rewrite, no expensive contracting.
I bet it doesn't. It's really more of a single-user database engine. It's nice for redistributing with a single user application, but not appropriate in a network setting. Makes you wonder if they (Diebold) just didn't have anyone with any multi-user database experience.
You don't get to work "shibboleth" into conversation very often.
But on the subject, I'm sure they'll find a way of hating "Hi-Definition" radio, too.
Dear Mr. President. There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
Totally, man. Then I'll send my army of immune child assassins to clean up Slashdot. Then the world! I'm king of the world, and there's nothing you can do to stop me with my tiny army!!!! Mwuhahahhahahahaha!!!
(I know you're being rhetorical.)
I can't see how it would serve to benefit society at large to prosecute a 7 year old for drunk driving, or even for driving, since I doubt that drunkenness would make a 7 year old's driving any worse. At some point, a prosecutor and judge would have to say that there is no benefit to anyone to trying a young child. Can you even explain 'copyright' to a 7 year old? I doubt I could. While we're on the subject of vehicular crimes, you might was well prosecute the rabbit that ran in front of the car that made the driver brake and skid out of control into the guardrail. Ridiculous, you say? (Oops, this is Slashdot, "rediculous"). Because you won't really do anything to discourage future bunnies from crossing the street without looking by jailing Harvey the Hare? By the same token, prosecuting someone for a crime they don't even understand is not likely serve justice or the greater good.
How about having no money? "Blood from a stone (or turnip)" and all that?
But kidding aside, I can't see why a child could be liable for laws they have no say in. I'm sure there's a legally great reason, but not a morally good one.
The luckiest of all is the child who was never born.
In between those gigs, he was Secretary of Agriculture under the Clinton Administration. I have no idea how that helped him land the MPAA job.
The "Tort of Outrage" would be a great name for a band.
This started a little over 40 years ago. LBJ declared (ca. 1964) that civil rights was a permanent plank of the Democratic Party platform. The Democrats had been an uncomfortable alliance of Northeastern and Midwestern laborers, Western farmers and Southern whites. LBJ's drove a wedge that split off the Southern Whites and other rural Democrats. Nixon welcomed these folks to the Republican side in 1968 with open arms.
It's been a weird ride since then, with the Republican Party becoming the political wing of the Southern Baptist Church. This has made a lot of old-school, pre-Nixon republicans uncomfortable. In Kansas, for example, the Republican party has effectively split in two: a "moderate" and a "conservative" wing. The conservatives accuse the moderates of being not hard-core enough: RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). And the moderates think the conservatives are a bunch of hillbillies. As a result, Kansas has a Democratic governor now, and half of the US Representatives from the state are Democrats.
Man, do you have that right. I pray for gridlock to stop the encroachment of our rights by government, but corporate interests always find a "bi-partisan" way to come shining through.
I'd like to see a direct election of the president. I assumed that we would get some attention for this when Dubya lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the electoral college. But amazingly, no one seemed to care. Proponents of the electoral college system say that it gives small states more influence in deciding the president, but it really only gives the majority party in those states the influence. Everyone else might as well stay home on election day if your state is divided 60/40 or better (worse). More citizens would vote if they felt that every vote mattered.