Hydroelectric is essentially concentrated solar power already converted to physical energy for us.
I agreed with you, right up until "for us". We have no right to take power from the oceans. Have we any idea what that'll do to the ocean currents? To breeding cycles? To weather? To plankton upon which many other things (directly or indirectly) feed?
A DBA that uses composite primary keys does not deserve the title. You should never designate a primary key whose value can change.
You're assuming that all composite primary keys use values that do change. That's highly unlikely, given the number of tables in the world filled with historical data. That said, I agree (for other reasons) that surrogate keys are much better.
The biggest question to ask yourself is "Do I want to program in Ruby?". If the answer is "no" then meh who cares about this.
The other one is, "can ruby perform well enough for any reasonably loaded webapp?". So far, most of the answers I've heard amount to "no", or "well, if it gets to that stage, you can always buy a cluster".
It's new tech for people who weren't aware of...
on
Ruby on Rails 2.0 is Done
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You're absolutely right: Rails is just a framework on top of Ruby, and neither are very special. Except in that a lot of people were still using crap coding techniques like mixed PHP and HTML, until frameworks like RoR and Django introduced them to MVC, ORMs, templates, and Unit Testing --- AND the speedups and elegance that go with those things, once you have an actual framework that does the boilerplate for you.
There's nothing special about RoR, no. But compared to tools like PHP, it's a godsend.
And, alternately, Blu-ray is what Playstation 3 supports, which I think is more like what thier real motivation is - Xbox vs PS3.
I think it means more to microsoft than console market vs. console market. A generation of kids raised on Microsoft's X-Box? Can you imagine how much more sycophantic they'll be when they're a little older and making decisions about whether their office should go with Microsoft products, thus locking everyone they deal with into microsoft products too?
Ever since they abused the spirit of trademark law by hijacking the word "windows", ever since they abused their monopoly power to market inferior products instead of admitting the better tech and contributing to it, microsoft have been playing a money and PR game, not a tech and customer game.
I'm not talking about deep hooks into the OS; I'm talking about the app itself being a mini OS. Sure, you can partition that app from the rest of the system, but if that app can run arbitrary applets, contact any machine over the net, and is used for stuff like e-commerce, then you're pretty much screwed unless you as a user know what you're doing. Even then, it can be tricky.
I learnt to spell years ago, thanks. I just don't care that much about a single word I use once every five years when I'm posting a quick comment between busy moments. Get over it.
Well, that's a pretty flimsy distinction they're trying to build up. Democracy means rule by the people, not necessarily a particular voting system. Granted, if people referred to a Wikipedia as representative democracy, or direct democracy, then they'd be wrong. That's not what I (or anyone else I know) would do, though. People go to wikipedia and see publically contributed content. They see that they can contribute content themselves, and a (yes) democratic process of majority editing power will decide who has the truth of it*. Those who get more involved or have a certain background also see the license, and associate it with all sorts of freedom and good, open decision making processes.
Ask yourself this: how many people have contributed to pages of interest on wikipedia? Now... how many of them know that little piece of text you linked to exists? How many of them have edited it? How many of them agree with it? How many of them would take their open content and setup a new site elsewhere, holding to the principles THEY believe wikipedia is about, if pushed into it?
I'm sorry, but with so many whack-jobs in the world, it doesn't surprise me in the least that some people are banned from wikipedia
That's irrelevant. The problem isn't that they're banning people. The problem is that they've set themselves up as an elite group, outside the normal wikipedia democratic processes.
Sorry, I don't like to make too many assumptions about what ancient critters did, or what non-skeletal features they had. Given the needs of evolution, I'm pretty sure they fucked though;)
Seems to me that the headline is slightly misleading. It's not that the chimps could do better on the memory tests, they could just do it faster
Exactly. It seems to me that memory capacity is largely a function of contextual information, and understanding of the subject at hand.
For instance, remembering many-digit numbers is hard, but if grouped into sets of four digits that you happen to know well as unicode code points, then it'd be much easier. Although I have more respect for animals as peers than most people, this gives humans better memories than chimps, almost by definition.
I don't know about others, but personally, my recall is very bad, unless I give myself time to recall related context first. When remembering information, I seem to store it as links with related things, not as a fact simply "in" my head. That means, when I'm working on the same subject as I need to remember something on, recall is easy. But when someone asks me a question out of the blue about a subject I discussed last thursday for the first time in a month, recall will be much slower. Possibly more flawed, but also possibly just slower.
I didn't know they were that P2P friendly, for sure. It's great to see people getting it, and doing the right thing. Anyway, I there's only one appropriate response to news like this, and that's:
People running Windows binaries via WINE on Linux don't experience the same problems with malware because the expected security flaws in the underlying OS and/or applications aren't there.
I wouldn't go that far. Windows security is flawed by design, as well as by implementation. Recreating that security model on another OS means you're letting the same things run there. For example, it's very easy to get IE infected in just the same way as on Windows. The only benefit WINE has over windows on that is that you can more easily delete your wine files and start again, or you can virtualise it somehow. But then you might as well run an actual VM.
...considering that every contribution made to Wiki was made under the GFDL, not CC. Are they going to get permission from all of the past contributors to change the license, or are they going to throw it all away and start from scratch? They don't own the content (it was licensed to them under GFDL) so they just can't change the license.
Yep. No one contacted me about it, at least. I'm willing to bet that's the same for virtually everyone else. Even if it wasn't, they'd have a hard job narrowing down every contribution that relicensing hasn't been permitted for.
Surely the point is that, if you can generate two blocks that do this, then you can generate one block to pair with a previously known block -- such as something in open source code.
An attack that requires insider access? Well colour me frightened!
If you'd read the article, you'd see that one of the (prominent) possible attack scenarios listed is that of software distribution: distribute a good file, with the intent of replacing it later. For example, in debian, even with MD5 checksums on all your data, and tools reporting what's changed during the software update, this would still allow downloading infected files, without noticing.
It's a danger both from malicious distributors, and from hacked distribution sites.
Slashdot Mirror
I agreed with you, right up until "for us". We have no right to take power from the oceans. Have we any idea what that'll do to the ocean currents? To breeding cycles? To weather? To plankton upon which many other things (directly or indirectly) feed?
You're assuming that all composite primary keys use values that do change. That's highly unlikely, given the number of tables in the world filled with historical data. That said, I agree (for other reasons) that surrogate keys are much better.
The other one is, "can ruby perform well enough for any reasonably loaded webapp?". So far, most of the answers I've heard amount to "no", or "well, if it gets to that stage, you can always buy a cluster".
You're absolutely right: Rails is just a framework on top of Ruby, and neither are very special. Except in that a lot of people were still using crap coding techniques like mixed PHP and HTML, until frameworks like RoR and Django introduced them to MVC, ORMs, templates, and Unit Testing --- AND the speedups and elegance that go with those things, once you have an actual framework that does the boilerplate for you.
There's nothing special about RoR, no. But compared to tools like PHP, it's a godsend.
No, I'd prefer one of the well known medical formats, not something that was invented for MS Paint.
I think it means more to microsoft than console market vs. console market. A generation of kids raised on Microsoft's X-Box? Can you imagine how much more sycophantic they'll be when they're a little older and making decisions about whether their office should go with Microsoft products, thus locking everyone they deal with into microsoft products too?
Ever since they abused the spirit of trademark law by hijacking the word "windows", ever since they abused their monopoly power to market inferior products instead of admitting the better tech and contributing to it, microsoft have been playing a money and PR game, not a tech and customer game.
I'm not talking about deep hooks into the OS; I'm talking about the app itself being a mini OS. Sure, you can partition that app from the rest of the system, but if that app can run arbitrary applets, contact any machine over the net, and is used for stuff like e-commerce, then you're pretty much screwed unless you as a user know what you're doing. Even then, it can be tricky.
Hahhah, you could be right about that :)
I learnt to spell years ago, thanks. I just don't care that much about a single word I use once every five years when I'm posting a quick comment between busy moments. Get over it.
Well, that's a pretty flimsy distinction they're trying to build up. Democracy means rule by the people, not necessarily a particular voting system. Granted, if people referred to a Wikipedia as representative democracy, or direct democracy, then they'd be wrong. That's not what I (or anyone else I know) would do, though. People go to wikipedia and see publically contributed content. They see that they can contribute content themselves, and a (yes) democratic process of majority editing power will decide who has the truth of it*. Those who get more involved or have a certain background also see the license, and associate it with all sorts of freedom and good, open decision making processes.
Ask yourself this: how many people have contributed to pages of interest on wikipedia? Now... how many of them know that little piece of text you linked to exists? How many of them have edited it? How many of them agree with it? How many of them would take their open content and setup a new site elsewhere, holding to the principles THEY believe wikipedia is about, if pushed into it?
Said customer may not have wanted it published that his site runs on a virtual machine rather than his own dedicated systems.
Umm... I think that's pretty damning, in and of itself.
That's irrelevant. The problem isn't that they're banning people. The problem is that they've set themselves up as an elite group, outside the normal wikipedia democratic processes.
Sorry, I don't like to make too many assumptions about what ancient critters did, or what non-skeletal features they had. Given the needs of evolution, I'm pretty sure they fucked though ;)
Exactly. It seems to me that memory capacity is largely a function of contextual information, and understanding of the subject at hand.
For instance, remembering many-digit numbers is hard, but if grouped into sets of four digits that you happen to know well as unicode code points, then it'd be much easier. Although I have more respect for animals as peers than most people, this gives humans better memories than chimps, almost by definition.
I don't know about others, but personally, my recall is very bad, unless I give myself time to recall related context first. When remembering information, I seem to store it as links with related things, not as a fact simply "in" my head. That means, when I'm working on the same subject as I need to remember something on, recall is easy. But when someone asks me a question out of the blue about a subject I discussed last thursday for the first time in a month, recall will be much slower. Possibly more flawed, but also possibly just slower.
BMP? For science?!
the Fucking Terranosaur Article?
Actually, it's not. Someone obviously screwed up the story. To fix it, just read "war room" as "blood bath".
I wouldn't go that far. Windows security is flawed by design, as well as by implementation. Recreating that security model on another OS means you're letting the same things run there. For example, it's very easy to get IE infected in just the same way as on Windows. The only benefit WINE has over windows on that is that you can more easily delete your wine files and start again, or you can virtualise it somehow. But then you might as well run an actual VM.
Yep. No one contacted me about it, at least. I'm willing to bet that's the same for virtually everyone else. Even if it wasn't, they'd have a hard job narrowing down every contribution that relicensing hasn't been permitted for.
Surely the point is that, if you can generate two blocks that do this, then you can generate one block to pair with a previously known block -- such as something in open source code.
Just wait 'till you're on a train, and everyone reading their paper sees goatse at the same time ;)
If you'd read the article, you'd see that one of the (prominent) possible attack scenarios listed is that of software distribution: distribute a good file, with the intent of replacing it later. For example, in debian, even with MD5 checksums on all your data, and tools reporting what's changed during the software update, this would still allow downloading infected files, without noticing.
It's a danger both from malicious distributors, and from hacked distribution sites.
And the beer goggles strike again!