The "memory test" is somewhat flaky, IMO. I can write C++, C, Perl, and shell scripts without looking at a manual, and have a pretty good chance of getting stuff to compile ("no syntactic errors") on the first try, and still a reasonable chance of getting it to work on that first try, too. I'm not saying that I'm a guru in these languages, only that I've used them all quite a bit, so I now remember them. I was getting to the same point with Java, then I stopped using it, and now I need to look up a fair bit of stuff (especially APIs).
This memory test is simply what you're used to. Use a tool for long enough, and you'll feel comfortable with it, even if it's an otherwisely awkward tool (e.g., what could be more awkward than awk?).
I suppose it depends on your job, job security, size of corporation, ease of replacement... but I find that a good dose of snarkiness can help a long way. Or, with a bit of management support (?!?), we've basically had OT outlawed. You can still do it (and we get paid for OT still), but need prior management approval first. This just delays the projects - does wonders for cutting out the crap.
To be honest, perhaps GP post didn't phrase it precisely, but it seems to be correct on the issues - Bush got elected. In an ideal world, that means that the majority of voters agree with the majority of his platform. Which, in his second term, includes everything he did in his first term. His re-election is proof that USA has accepted what he did, including, but not limited to, ban on funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, invasion of Iraq, etc.
So you're right in that taxes are for the good of the whole, but only the majority gets to say what's the good of the whole.
As for your claim that "[n]o matter what comes of it, researching embryonic stem cells will provide a benefit to society", you're merely sidestepping the issues: the primary issue is whether the destruction of embryos is a valid method of harvesting stem cells morally and ethically. Sidestepping the issue is really stating either that you don't see any moral or ethical quandaries here (i.e., the embryo isn't human, and thus is undeserving of human rights, protections, and personhood under the law), or that the ends justifies the means, or both.
There are, obviously, people on both sides of the debate. But what is good for the whole has yet to be authoritatively decided, so all we are left with is the issues. Those that believe in democracy, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, would say that a) Bush was elected, and b) until the issues are solved, we should hold off on this research simply because it's a genie that you can't stuff back in the bottle. Of course, there are likely very few people on either side of the debate that believe in democracy on this issue...
What you're proposing is to ignore the moral/ethical quagmire and do the research, then have the moral/ethical discussion. That just seems backwards to me.
As a relatively devout Roman Catholic, I will say "no." The only problems that the Catholic Church (I can only interpret the RC Church, not any of the other fundamentalist Christian faiths) has with stem cell research is the destruction of unborn children in the attempt to get embryonic stem cells. Since it is a fundamental of faith that we are human persons from the point of conception, the destruction of embryos is morally equivalent to murder, regardless of the ends that are attempting to justify these means.
This is the same moral argument against abortion.
There is nothing wrong with donating blood, for example, thus using stem cells from adults that do not otherwise harm those adults is completely up to the owner of those adults. Here I'm using the term "adult" somewhat loosely since the cord may have the child's DNA (I'm not sure whose DNA the cord has, so I can't properly attribute it to mother or child). What I mean is in comparison to the embryonic stage of human development, any other stage, for the purposes of this moral argument, is basically adult if the donor (child, adult) is not killed to harvest the cells.
I presume that most of the other religious groups that oppose stem cell research are also only opposing harvesting of embryonic stem cells based on their similar convictions opposing abortion, but, as I said, I can't really speak for them.
Sounds like as good of a reason as any to firmly establish what adult stem cells can do before entering the moral/ethical quagmire that is embryonic stem cell studying. Look at it this way: If adult stem cells can do everything, then no one can complain. If there are specific diseases that cannot be helped by adult stem cells, then we can have the whole moral/ethical debate specifically about those. But, it will be a much better educated debate because we'll have a better understanding about the limitations of adult stem cells - and isn't a well-educated moral debate better than a knee-jerk moral debate?
You know, I've never seen a post answered by its own sig before...
No one person shoulders the cost of "total destruction of our environment", it is spread out among everyone. Yet, in your scenario, one person (or corporation or government) shoulders the entire cost, and thus risk. There will be many large corporations looking for this to fail, so you've got your work cut out for you. Until you can find a rich saviour, this won't ever get off the ground.
All we can do is point out the reasons why consumers want this, and the reward/risk ratio will change as consumers will demand it. The risk goes down (the competing energy sources won't be able to cause failure at this point), the reward goes up (there are consumers just waiting to empty their pockets into this rather than traditional fuels), and there will be competitors looking to get their own pieces of this pie.
This, by the way, is exactly how the capitalist "invisible hand" is supposed to work: consumers demand something, whether for purely selfish reasons (materialist), or for purely environmental reasons (it's a cause they're willing to pay for), or for any other reason. Point is, consumers demand what they want, and someone will eventually come along to give it to them. Thus, the key is to drive demand, in order to drive supply.
Just out of curiosity, and not that I'm really decided on an opinion on the topic myself anyway, but which spammers are going to complain to the cops? "Sir, my spam site just got DDoS'd by Lycos." After asking "Who's Lycos?", I'm sure the cops would stop laughing and eventually arrest the "victim".
Sorta like complaining that some thug stole your stash of heroin...
Bah - we don't need that - just post the URLs on/. - that'll kill 'em for sure. And, best of all, since it isn't automated (at least, technically it isn't, although it seems that ethically it is somewhat automated... post URL, site is slashdotted...), it won't legally qualify as a DDoS attack. (IANAL)
Whyise being their friend and fulfilling your "job" of raising them mutually exclusive?
Simple. Because a parent/child relationship is uniquely different from a friend/friend (peer/peer) relationship. It blurs the lines of authority between parent and child, and when you have to change from "friend" to "parent", it confuses the child. This is not to say that you should not be friendly, on the contrary! Only that lines of authority should never be blurred. Age-appropriate boundaries, and the enforcement thereof, are absolutely critical to children growing in to full-functioning adults.
No, no, no. Your job as a parent is not to be your child's friend. Your job as a parent is to raise these children to be productive, successful, responsible adults (where "success" should not be defined solely in terms of money). THEY do not need to figure it out. YOU do. YOU need to take the responsibility to teach them responsibility - where else will they learn it from, their teenage friends who are going through the same growth process (hormones, brain still growing, etc.)?
That said, YOU also have to determine if it is actually a problem or not. Putting the computers in a public area is more than reasonable - but same goes for other activities, like TV, game consoles, etc. The bedroom should be a private place where a child can go to relax, find refuge, do homework. It shouldn't be Disneyland.
Chances are, if the computer is in a public area, 10-12 hours per weekend of online time won't be a bad thing. But YOU will be in a better position to make that judgement. And THEY will be less likely to try.
Isn't this one of MS's salvos against Linux? That the TCO of Linux is higher because the techs command more money? Be careful of what you wish for - you might just get it.
Absolutely correct. Well, probably. You see, if there are unseen holes in the protocol itself which make a secure implementation difficult, it's sorta like being parked on a busy freeway - yes, the guy who drove into your car is 100% at fault legally, but we all know that the technical/legal answer is far from the moral answer.
I'm not saying that MS is even morally at fault here. Just pointing out that, until we know the details (and we'll likely never know the details sufficiently), there is that possibility that we can still take out our flamethrowers and point in the Redmondly direction.
Who am I fooling -/. doesn't need the moral right to flame MS for/. to flame MS anyway...
Both IBM and Oracle have data-mining technologies available for off-the-shelf purchasing. I assume Teradata does as well, but, if not, IBM's data mining software (Data Warehouse) will work with DB2, Oracle, Teradata, Sybase, SQL Server, and probably others, IIRC.
You don't search it. You transform it. However, any more detail than that, and it starts confusing me, so I suggest you talk to your commercial db vendor to find out more info - they'll be happy to sell you the Walmart solution;-)
I think you're being overly optimistic about data storage.
Transactions need at least:
item code
timestamp
price (changes over time - can be discounted at till)
store/register
Stores need at least:
item code
timestamp
selling price (changes over time)
description (text)
quantity at each store
timestamps for arrivals at the store
vendor
purchase price from vendor
how to order more from vendor (mostly web purchasing now, but gotta keep that url handy)
and much more I'm not even thinking about
Most of this thread I've seen so far seems to think that 460TB is from simply customer purchases. I'm not sure this is even half the data. Heck, they seem to be keeping some data about weather patterns to see how that influences sales! (My local gas company does likewise, and advertises the "average temperature" for the billing period on our gas bills, so Walmart doing it as well is pretty darned likely, I think.)
This is just being overly pedantic. Yes, the words "internet" and "WWW" (using a very loose definition of "word" here) are not interchangeable. However, to the general audience reading this FA, the two words have the same meaning. Most people don't grasp the difference between "web" and "internet" - asking someone about email, they'll often use the word "web" somewhere in the description of how they get it. "I download my email from the web into Outlook Express." Bzzt, wrong. But when TFA is speaking to the less technical, communication has been acheived, and, oddly enough, the exact meaning the author intended to get across, with wildly inaccurate terminology, is the exact meaning that the average reader interprets - the definition of perfect communication (with that average reader).
I'm not even going to address "noiseless" and "meaningful" since that's completely in the eye of the beholder - and, with Walmart holding this much data, there's a fairly good chance they believe it to be noiseless and meaningful.
However, as to redundant, I would wager lots of money on the idea that, excluding backups (imagine the length of that tape!), Walmart has no redundant data in that datastore. Even if two people bought precisely the same things at the same time both with cash, it's still independant transactions which have different meaning because there are two of them than it would have if there was only one such transaction. Contrast this with 67,000 P2P users having the identical copy of the latest song from Madonna - the data is redundant unless you're trying to extrapolate meaning (that is, data mining).
I've seen that type of crunch at other businesses. Never a good idea. Funny thing is, it's more expensive to do things this way - you need to constantly be hiring and training - very expensive activities given they have no direct return on investment.
Oh, and paying your accountants enough to get the books cooked in case of an audit ("Yes, sir, we pay each and every one of them at minimum $90k, or they simply don't work overtime.") is probably not cheap, either.
While I appreciate ea_spouse's candor and warning, I have to wonder if s/he (not sure which gender) is taking the next step and talking to California authorities about an audit. Gotta make those accountants work for their money...
Slashdot Mirror
The "memory test" is somewhat flaky, IMO. I can write C++, C, Perl, and shell scripts without looking at a manual, and have a pretty good chance of getting stuff to compile ("no syntactic errors") on the first try, and still a reasonable chance of getting it to work on that first try, too. I'm not saying that I'm a guru in these languages, only that I've used them all quite a bit, so I now remember them. I was getting to the same point with Java, then I stopped using it, and now I need to look up a fair bit of stuff (especially APIs).
This memory test is simply what you're used to. Use a tool for long enough, and you'll feel comfortable with it, even if it's an otherwisely awkward tool (e.g., what could be more awkward than awk?).
I suppose it depends on your job, job security, size of corporation, ease of replacement ... but I find that a good dose of snarkiness can help a long way. Or, with a bit of management support (?!?), we've basically had OT outlawed. You can still do it (and we get paid for OT still), but need prior management approval first. This just delays the projects - does wonders for cutting out the crap.
To be honest, perhaps GP post didn't phrase it precisely, but it seems to be correct on the issues - Bush got elected. In an ideal world, that means that the majority of voters agree with the majority of his platform. Which, in his second term, includes everything he did in his first term. His re-election is proof that USA has accepted what he did, including, but not limited to, ban on funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, invasion of Iraq, etc.
So you're right in that taxes are for the good of the whole, but only the majority gets to say what's the good of the whole.
As for your claim that "[n]o matter what comes of it, researching embryonic stem cells will provide a benefit to society", you're merely sidestepping the issues: the primary issue is whether the destruction of embryos is a valid method of harvesting stem cells morally and ethically. Sidestepping the issue is really stating either that you don't see any moral or ethical quandaries here (i.e., the embryo isn't human, and thus is undeserving of human rights, protections, and personhood under the law), or that the ends justifies the means, or both.
There are, obviously, people on both sides of the debate. But what is good for the whole has yet to be authoritatively decided, so all we are left with is the issues. Those that believe in democracy, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, would say that a) Bush was elected, and b) until the issues are solved, we should hold off on this research simply because it's a genie that you can't stuff back in the bottle. Of course, there are likely very few people on either side of the debate that believe in democracy on this issue...
What you're proposing is to ignore the moral/ethical quagmire and do the research, then have the moral/ethical discussion. That just seems backwards to me.
"By all accounts" ... whose? URLs, please.
As a relatively devout Roman Catholic, I will say "no." The only problems that the Catholic Church (I can only interpret the RC Church, not any of the other fundamentalist Christian faiths) has with stem cell research is the destruction of unborn children in the attempt to get embryonic stem cells. Since it is a fundamental of faith that we are human persons from the point of conception, the destruction of embryos is morally equivalent to murder, regardless of the ends that are attempting to justify these means.
This is the same moral argument against abortion.
There is nothing wrong with donating blood, for example, thus using stem cells from adults that do not otherwise harm those adults is completely up to the owner of those adults. Here I'm using the term "adult" somewhat loosely since the cord may have the child's DNA (I'm not sure whose DNA the cord has, so I can't properly attribute it to mother or child). What I mean is in comparison to the embryonic stage of human development, any other stage, for the purposes of this moral argument, is basically adult if the donor (child, adult) is not killed to harvest the cells.
I presume that most of the other religious groups that oppose stem cell research are also only opposing harvesting of embryonic stem cells based on their similar convictions opposing abortion, but, as I said, I can't really speak for them.
Example (poorly worded): American Catholic website
Sounds like as good of a reason as any to firmly establish what adult stem cells can do before entering the moral/ethical quagmire that is embryonic stem cell studying. Look at it this way: If adult stem cells can do everything, then no one can complain. If there are specific diseases that cannot be helped by adult stem cells, then we can have the whole moral/ethical debate specifically about those. But, it will be a much better educated debate because we'll have a better understanding about the limitations of adult stem cells - and isn't a well-educated moral debate better than a knee-jerk moral debate?
You know, I've never seen a post answered by its own sig before ...
No one person shoulders the cost of "total destruction of our environment", it is spread out among everyone. Yet, in your scenario, one person (or corporation or government) shoulders the entire cost, and thus risk. There will be many large corporations looking for this to fail, so you've got your work cut out for you. Until you can find a rich saviour, this won't ever get off the ground.
All we can do is point out the reasons why consumers want this, and the reward/risk ratio will change as consumers will demand it. The risk goes down (the competing energy sources won't be able to cause failure at this point), the reward goes up (there are consumers just waiting to empty their pockets into this rather than traditional fuels), and there will be competitors looking to get their own pieces of this pie.
This, by the way, is exactly how the capitalist "invisible hand" is supposed to work: consumers demand something, whether for purely selfish reasons (materialist), or for purely environmental reasons (it's a cause they're willing to pay for), or for any other reason. Point is, consumers demand what they want, and someone will eventually come along to give it to them. Thus, the key is to drive demand, in order to drive supply.
Just out of curiosity, and not that I'm really decided on an opinion on the topic myself anyway, but which spammers are going to complain to the cops? "Sir, my spam site just got DDoS'd by Lycos." After asking "Who's Lycos?", I'm sure the cops would stop laughing and eventually arrest the "victim".
Sorta like complaining that some thug stole your stash of heroin...
Bah - we don't need that - just post the URLs on /. - that'll kill 'em for sure. And, best of all, since it isn't automated (at least, technically it isn't, although it seems that ethically it is somewhat automated ... post URL, site is slashdotted...), it won't legally qualify as a DDoS attack. (IANAL)
From the metaphor FA:
Really? I heard that 87.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot ... I just have to wonder if this one is part of that majority...
Whyise being their friend and fulfilling your "job" of raising them mutually exclusive?
Simple. Because a parent/child relationship is uniquely different from a friend/friend (peer/peer) relationship. It blurs the lines of authority between parent and child, and when you have to change from "friend" to "parent", it confuses the child. This is not to say that you should not be friendly, on the contrary! Only that lines of authority should never be blurred. Age-appropriate boundaries, and the enforcement thereof, are absolutely critical to children growing in to full-functioning adults.
No, no, no. Your job as a parent is not to be your child's friend. Your job as a parent is to raise these children to be productive, successful, responsible adults (where "success" should not be defined solely in terms of money). THEY do not need to figure it out. YOU do. YOU need to take the responsibility to teach them responsibility - where else will they learn it from, their teenage friends who are going through the same growth process (hormones, brain still growing, etc.)?
That said, YOU also have to determine if it is actually a problem or not. Putting the computers in a public area is more than reasonable - but same goes for other activities, like TV, game consoles, etc. The bedroom should be a private place where a child can go to relax, find refuge, do homework. It shouldn't be Disneyland.
Chances are, if the computer is in a public area, 10-12 hours per weekend of online time won't be a bad thing. But YOU will be in a better position to make that judgement. And THEY will be less likely to try.
Just my 2 cents.
I know that.
You know that.
But you can bet your last penny that MS won't mention it in their "unbiased" "third-party" TCO calculations.
Isn't this one of MS's salvos against Linux? That the TCO of Linux is higher because the techs command more money? Be careful of what you wish for - you might just get it.
Absolutely correct. Well, probably. You see, if there are unseen holes in the protocol itself which make a secure implementation difficult, it's sorta like being parked on a busy freeway - yes, the guy who drove into your car is 100% at fault legally, but we all know that the technical/legal answer is far from the moral answer.
I'm not saying that MS is even morally at fault here. Just pointing out that, until we know the details (and we'll likely never know the details sufficiently), there is that possibility that we can still take out our flamethrowers and point in the Redmondly direction.
Who am I fooling - /. doesn't need the moral right to flame MS for /. to flame MS anyway...
I'm sure Microsoft has been keeping track of the exploits. They may be a bit skinny on the fixes, though.
Both IBM and Oracle have data-mining technologies available for off-the-shelf purchasing. I assume Teradata does as well, but, if not, IBM's data mining software (Data Warehouse) will work with DB2, Oracle, Teradata, Sybase, SQL Server, and probably others, IIRC.
You don't search it. You transform it. However, any more detail than that, and it starts confusing me, so I suggest you talk to your commercial db vendor to find out more info - they'll be happy to sell you the Walmart solution ;-)
I think you're being overly optimistic about data storage.
Transactions need at least:
Stores need at least:
Most of this thread I've seen so far seems to think that 460TB is from simply customer purchases. I'm not sure this is even half the data. Heck, they seem to be keeping some data about weather patterns to see how that influences sales! (My local gas company does likewise, and advertises the "average temperature" for the billing period on our gas bills, so Walmart doing it as well is pretty darned likely, I think.)
This is just being overly pedantic. Yes, the words "internet" and "WWW" (using a very loose definition of "word" here) are not interchangeable. However, to the general audience reading this FA, the two words have the same meaning. Most people don't grasp the difference between "web" and "internet" - asking someone about email, they'll often use the word "web" somewhere in the description of how they get it. "I download my email from the web into Outlook Express." Bzzt, wrong. But when TFA is speaking to the less technical, communication has been acheived, and, oddly enough, the exact meaning the author intended to get across, with wildly inaccurate terminology, is the exact meaning that the average reader interprets - the definition of perfect communication (with that average reader).
I'm not even going to address "noiseless" and "meaningful" since that's completely in the eye of the beholder - and, with Walmart holding this much data, there's a fairly good chance they believe it to be noiseless and meaningful.
However, as to redundant, I would wager lots of money on the idea that, excluding backups (imagine the length of that tape!), Walmart has no redundant data in that datastore. Even if two people bought precisely the same things at the same time both with cash, it's still independant transactions which have different meaning because there are two of them than it would have if there was only one such transaction. Contrast this with 67,000 P2P users having the identical copy of the latest song from Madonna - the data is redundant unless you're trying to extrapolate meaning (that is, data mining).
Anyone else notice that his email address changed in the last entry? Cut-and-paste job this ain't.
I've seen that type of crunch at other businesses. Never a good idea. Funny thing is, it's more expensive to do things this way - you need to constantly be hiring and training - very expensive activities given they have no direct return on investment.
Oh, and paying your accountants enough to get the books cooked in case of an audit ("Yes, sir, we pay each and every one of them at minimum $90k, or they simply don't work overtime.") is probably not cheap, either.
While I appreciate ea_spouse's candor and warning, I have to wonder if s/he (not sure which gender) is taking the next step and talking to California authorities about an audit. Gotta make those accountants work for their money...
Nah - the other 90% are hiding behind couches and the like, waiting for opportune moments to give wedgies.