But that would still be predicated on a fetus being a "person", which is hotly debated. There are many definitions of personhood that a fetus fails, as well as many which it will pass.
It isn't as clear a topic as many folks represent it to be, which is a good reason to keep regulations regarding it down at the state level... Part of the functions of a state is to be "experiments" in law for the rest... each can try their own ideas out, and every one can see how things work out.
>wants to pull out of the UN, Something many Americans actually want as well, and many more couldn't be bothered with one way or the other.
>remove the constitutionally protected women's right to choose, Wow, inflammatory much?
He wants to remove the Federal influence on this because the constitutionality is highly debated. The tricker the question, the more local it should be. That's part of the founding principles
>remove public education
No, he doesn't mind public education, in fact I suspect he supports it. He just sees no place for the Fed in it under our constitution. It's a State deal, and there is should lie.
>but there more important issues out there which Paul loses most voters including this one on. Just make sure you're arguing the same thing.
I think lazy is the wrong word there... There is a lot of good thought buried in the old system, so an overhaul would end up throwing that away.
A bit of refactoring and we're good to go =-)
Something cultural apparently... they use their middle names for everything, and it didn't map over very well when they came to this country.
Kinda like another guy i knew in high school whose first name was Nguyen, because that's how the original paperwork was done, and it's too hard to fix.
My database theory is weak as well, but doesn't normalization basically mean to ensure everything is represented in the database exactly once... no duplicate information and no extraneous information. Checking Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization... yep, that's pretty close. (At least until you bring on a specific normal form)
We know nothing about the data space itself, or the constraints in which it will live, and no key info was specified, so we can't even intelligently determine what those would be... We have a naked table in space... no relationship to anything else, unless we start making assumptions. Why would database guy be making assumptions about organizational data and processes?
What if you have multiple people at one address with the same name and phone number? (A friend of mine had 5 sisters who had same first and last name, at the same address with the same phone number... In this case, the table design itself is deficient, and that requires you to fix the flaw before reiterating through normalization, wouldn't it?)
Given what we've been provided, since you're dealing with just one table in a vacuum, might it not already be normalized? (depending on what "set" means in this context, a constraint on the column would suffice, no?) Who's to say what dependencies exist between the columns?
If it's anything like the ones already produced, this should rock.
The last ones told a good story, and bridged the gap between the series and the movie. The way the characters were different in the movie actually made sense.
>Used so many varieties of BASIC on so many different machines it's unreal.
Commodore's basic didn't support imaginary/unreal numbers by default, though if you accessed the right part of the ROM you were good to go.
That's what I loved about the thing... limited to 4 colors on the screen at a time? bah... play with the VBI. Have a floppy? well, time to learn about asymetric multiprocessing. 8 sprites ton constraining? bah... VBI again. And oh the things you could do with the cartridge port. (Put one of those little smoke generating fireworks things between a spark gap, triggered by one of the pins... really freak out a newbie.. "No... you can't hurt it by typing... oh god no!")
I just felt really funny thinking about the joints actively managing the center of gravity instead of muscles or some analog. It's a really clean way to approach it, it's just a little unnatural.
As another poster noted, I think you might be responding to another post.
But to be clear, I was not making any statement beyond "all my real users are using Firefox and Safari 95% of the time anyway, I'm going to focus on making it work for them. The outliers that just need to take a peek from time to time all use IE7, so I did a courtesy check to see if they could do what they needed, and they can. no problem, no political statement.
I do see a more endemic problem in your post though: You conflate "I am not doing extra work to support specific versions of IE" with "I am actively coding my web page to break IE" You cannot confuse the result with intent. (Well, I guess you can... but you shouldn't)
Since I know every individual person who will ever touch these sites, I am safe in using my valuable time in making the decision to do the first option I listed. The people who pay me money are paying me to actually get work done, they're not paying me to develop web pages.
The last couple sites I built were heavy with more DOM shuffling than I like, and lots of AJAXy goodness. I developed them in Firefox, tested them with Safari, and didn't give IE a thought.
IE7: All functionality worked fine, with one or two very minor formatting differences. (which I'm not going to do anything about)
IE6: Completely and unusably horked. Fortunately I don't have to care.
Your statement that having to speed up for the guy behind you is silly doesn't change the fact that it is against a law in many jurisdictions.
The cop might decide you were impeding traffic, might fit against a road rage law if you have one, might be violation of prima facie speed laws, maybe your laws say you should have changed lanes, etc...
The point is that you can't be 100% sure that you are following all the laws all the time.
Are you sure your signal actually starts lighting up early enough? (since they don't always pop on immediately on flipping the lever. How do you actually measure the distance you have to signal for? (And do you plan in enough to cover the distance you travelled while waiting for your signal to actually light up)
You ever drive slow enough that the guy behind you is too close? get tagged for unsafe driving. When you make a right turn in town, have you ever slid to the left a lane before allowing the proper distance of signalling for the lange change maneuver? (ie, when your destination was immediately on the left after your right)
Ever adjusted the volume on your stereo while taking a hand off the steering wheel? Technically illegal in many jurisdictions.
Ever wave at a neighbor... might be an improper signal. When do you turn on your headlights? It's vague in many jurisdictions when it's required. (How dark is dusk?)
>So how is it piracy to buy a computer with Windows included from a major vendor like Dell or HP and not have a receipt with Windows broken out as a seperate line-item?
Our Dells come with a hologrammed sticker on the side stating what they were licensed for, and the PO (or receipt?) shows Windows as an installed option.
I haven't been keeping up with it all, but how is Hydrogen to be produced for mass consumption?
I recall a lot of it being produced from similar sources as the BioFuels (ie, corn), which would put a large dent into food production/pricing, and end up being harmful to the environment as crop areas are effectively burned out.
If from water, I'm curious about the long term workings... Since some of the hydrogen will end up escaping, and once in the atmosphere I don't imagine Hydrogen being used somewhere else. (Too light to stick around)
1) Trying to centralize gives us large expensive computers that are made out of the same components as smaller ones and thus fail just as the smaller ones do, however, ever trying to cram more crap on the same machine will bring down everything at once whenever it fails.
If that's how you're doing it, you're doing it wrong.
On how many smaller systems can you upgrade your disk controller's firmware without having to reboot or even stop access to the disks? Not a problem on a good SAN system. And those systems only get economical when your data storage needs get big.
2) Trying to centralize has the ultimate goal to eliminate jobs but they need those people since they know all the little details and hickups their systems have. If people know a project is going to eliminate their job, they won't be cooperative. IT not being cooperative is very bad in this world where everything is computerized.
It doesn't always have that ultimate goal, but very often does. And very often, if done correctly, it can achieve that goal. Take 8 sites with 2 admins each that are only doing 50% duty running that service. (You need at least 2 so someone gets to have an occasional vacation). That's 16 people, doing the workload of 8. Bring that down to 1 site, and odds are you could do the exact same job with 8 people (since now there are 7 others to back you up)
And now you're all on one system, so you don't have lots of little variances, so you can be more efficient, etc...
Yes, we have lost some of the little details by losing those people, but in general you've got other problems if some information is only known by one person. As it turned out, a lot of that "critical" information got passed along to other folks anyway, most of what was left turned out to be unimportant, and that small remaining percentage? Well, the rest of us are smart, and the ones with the info weren't idiots... we were able to figure it out.
3) Eventually the same number of people is going to have to work in the centralized system just because you also centralize the problems and more problems will bring more people, more people will bring more overhead and inefficiency, more inefficiency will bring more people (at least that's the default in today's business world, throwing more people at an IT problem doesn't make it disappear faster)
Starting with bad assumptions. A small focused skilled team can do pretty much anything. =-) In fact some would say they're the only ones who do anything.
One example: We used to repeatedly run into situations where we had the same problem at x sites, so we had at least x people trying to solve it. We didn't realize other's were duplicating our effort, so there was a lot of wasted effort, with solutions from different angles, so the sites ended up getting more and more out of sync in their setups.
4) More people in a project that was designed to be more cost efficient means the managers will have to cut expenses. Cut expenses brings underpaid people, underpaid people bring less or no experience and higher turnover, higher turnover means more cutting expenses.
Every centralization project I've been on has had its hiccups, but in the end has resulted in reduced costs overall. We always started off with the people we had, and a contractor or to who was an "expert" in the field we were working in, just to make sure we had an outsider's view. We didn't always believe the contractor, but we'd at least use them for everything they were worth. We then "centralized", and kept most of the folks around to keep everything running everywhere... then the layoffs.
The main problem we have on from our last centralization is that many in our small team are very shy about sharing issues before they know everything about it. They're afraid of looking bad, because they won't be as valuable. (Hadn't run into that one before)
>* The idea that Slashdot readers might be feminine themselves is practically a violation of dogma.
I can see where you'd get the impression that all SlashDot users are bastions of masculinity, but I'm sure a good chunk of the guys here are a little feminine =-)
It happened to my roommate. (though not my roommate at the time)
Nasty divorce, and the ex decided to publish his name, number, address, etc on a website dedicated to dead-beat dads. (No orders regarding support existed at the time, and he was voluntarily giving her 50% of his take home at the time until the ruling actually happened...)
There were numerous death threats. He ended up having to sue the web site owner to have his information removed, and fortunately the threats ended up stopping.
What really amazed me at the time was that she would expose her kids to that sort of thing... they stayed at that address a couple days a week.
Slashdot Mirror
But that would still be predicated on a fetus being a "person", which is hotly debated.
There are many definitions of personhood that a fetus fails, as well as many which it will pass.
It isn't as clear a topic as many folks represent it to be, which is a good reason to keep regulations regarding it down at the state level... Part of the functions of a state is to be "experiments" in law for the rest... each can try their own ideas out, and every one can see how things work out.
>wants to pull out of the UN,
Something many Americans actually want as well, and many more couldn't be bothered with one way or the other.
>remove the constitutionally protected women's right to choose,
Wow, inflammatory much?
He wants to remove the Federal influence on this because the constitutionality is highly debated.
The tricker the question, the more local it should be.
That's part of the founding principles
>remove public education
No, he doesn't mind public education, in fact I suspect he supports it.
He just sees no place for the Fed in it under our constitution.
It's a State deal, and there is should lie.
>but there more important issues out there which Paul loses most voters including this one on.
Just make sure you're arguing the same thing.
>The 14th
How does that grant or deny a woman the ability to kill her unborn child?
The kid is neither born nor naturalized yet, so isn't really covered by that.
The question is whether the kid is a person to be protected.
Ron thinks so, many people do not.
Guess what? That's one of the benefits of states. The harder a question is, the more local it should be.
As I recall, the only difference between public and private in OWA is the length of the timeout... not its existence.
(Then again, that may just be our local policy)
I live in SoCal, and we have a bazillion of them as well.
'Course, half are lowered with stupid exhaust systems and lighting that would induce seizures from 10 miles away... but we have them
>For an OEM to add a firewire port costs about $1.50 more than a USB port. Not exactly a huge difference.
Yeah, but when you spread that across a million machines, you're talking real money.
I think lazy is the wrong word there... There is a lot of good thought buried in the old system, so an overhaul would end up throwing that away. A bit of refactoring and we're good to go =-)
really?
My driver's training manual said a flashing red light is to be treated just like a stop sign. (I learned in California)
Yes
Something cultural apparently... they use their middle names for everything, and it didn't map over very well when they came to this country. Kinda like another guy i knew in high school whose first name was Nguyen, because that's how the original paperwork was done, and it's too hard to fix.
My database theory is weak as well, but doesn't normalization basically mean to ensure everything is represented in the database exactly once... no duplicate information and no extraneous information. Checking Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization... yep, that's pretty close.
(At least until you bring on a specific normal form)
We know nothing about the data space itself, or the constraints in which it will live, and no key info was specified, so we can't even intelligently determine what those would be... We have a naked table in space... no relationship to anything else, unless we start making assumptions. Why would database guy be making assumptions about organizational data and processes?
What if you have multiple people at one address with the same name and phone number? (A friend of mine had 5 sisters who had same first and last name, at the same address with the same phone number... In this case, the table design itself is deficient, and that requires you to fix the flaw before reiterating through normalization, wouldn't it?)
Given what we've been provided, since you're dealing with just one table in a vacuum, might it not already be normalized? (depending on what "set" means in this context, a constraint on the column would suffice, no?) Who's to say what dependencies exist between the columns?
>Firefly, canceled before finishing a full season. Does that seem right to you? Best comment evar!
If it's anything like the ones already produced, this should rock.
The last ones told a good story, and bridged the gap between the series and the movie. The way the characters were different in the movie actually made sense.
>Used so many varieties of BASIC on so many different machines it's unreal.
Commodore's basic didn't support imaginary/unreal numbers by default, though if you accessed the right part of the ROM you were good to go.
That's what I loved about the thing... limited to 4 colors on the screen at a time? bah... play with the VBI.
Have a floppy? well, time to learn about asymetric multiprocessing.
8 sprites ton constraining? bah... VBI again.
And oh the things you could do with the cartridge port. (Put one of those little smoke generating fireworks things between a spark gap, triggered by one of the pins... really freak out a newbie.. "No... you can't hurt it by typing... oh god no!")
... and I liked it.
I just felt really funny thinking about the joints actively managing the center of gravity instead of muscles or some analog.
It's a really clean way to approach it, it's just a little unnatural.
As another poster noted, I think you might be responding to another post.
But to be clear, I was not making any statement beyond "all my real users are using Firefox and Safari 95% of the time anyway, I'm going to focus on making it work for them. The outliers that just need to take a peek from time to time all use IE7, so I did a courtesy check to see if they could do what they needed, and they can. no problem, no political statement.
I do see a more endemic problem in your post though:
You conflate "I am not doing extra work to support specific versions of IE" with "I am actively coding my web page to break IE"
You cannot confuse the result with intent. (Well, I guess you can... but you shouldn't)
Since I know every individual person who will ever touch these sites, I am safe in using my valuable time in making the decision to do the first option I listed. The people who pay me money are paying me to actually get work done, they're not paying me to develop web pages.
The last couple sites I built were heavy with more DOM shuffling than I like, and lots of AJAXy goodness.
I developed them in Firefox, tested them with Safari, and didn't give IE a thought.
IE7: All functionality worked fine, with one or two very minor formatting differences. (which I'm not going to do anything about)
IE6: Completely and unusably horked. Fortunately I don't have to care.
Thank goodness for internal only sites.
The point is that these can get silly.
Your statement that having to speed up for the guy behind you is silly doesn't change the fact that it is against a law in many jurisdictions.
The cop might decide you were impeding traffic, might fit against a road rage law if you have one, might be violation of prima facie speed laws, maybe your laws say you should have changed lanes, etc...
The point is that you can't be 100% sure that you are following all the laws all the time.
Are you sure your signal actually starts lighting up early enough? (since they don't always pop on immediately on flipping the lever.
How do you actually measure the distance you have to signal for? (And do you plan in enough to cover the distance you travelled while waiting for your signal to actually light up)
You ever drive slow enough that the guy behind you is too close? get tagged for unsafe driving.
When you make a right turn in town, have you ever slid to the left a lane before allowing the proper distance of signalling for the lange change maneuver? (ie, when your destination was immediately on the left after your right)
Ever adjusted the volume on your stereo while taking a hand off the steering wheel? Technically illegal in many jurisdictions.
Ever wave at a neighbor... might be an improper signal.
When do you turn on your headlights? It's vague in many jurisdictions when it's required. (How dark is dusk?)
>So how is it piracy to buy a computer with Windows included from a major vendor like Dell or HP and not have a receipt with Windows broken out as a seperate line-item?
Our Dells come with a hologrammed sticker on the side stating what they were licensed for, and the PO (or receipt?) shows Windows as an installed option.
That not good enough?
I haven't been keeping up with it all, but how is Hydrogen to be produced for mass consumption?
I recall a lot of it being produced from similar sources as the BioFuels (ie, corn), which would put a large dent into food production/pricing, and end up being harmful to the environment as crop areas are effectively burned out.
If from water, I'm curious about the long term workings... Since some of the hydrogen will end up escaping, and once in the atmosphere I don't imagine Hydrogen being used somewhere else. (Too light to stick around)
Have those been addressed?
Nope, though if it's of a sufficient size they have to give you 2 months notice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act
And my company at least tends to boot you out immediately and just pay you for those 2 months.
1) Trying to centralize gives us large expensive computers that are made out of the same components as smaller ones and thus fail just as the smaller ones do, however, ever trying to cram more crap on the same machine will bring down everything at once whenever it fails.
If that's how you're doing it, you're doing it wrong.
On how many smaller systems can you upgrade your disk controller's firmware without having to reboot or even stop access to the disks? Not a problem on a good SAN system.
And those systems only get economical when your data storage needs get big.
2) Trying to centralize has the ultimate goal to eliminate jobs but they need those people since they know all the little details and hickups their systems have. If people know a project is going to eliminate their job, they won't be cooperative. IT not being cooperative is very bad in this world where everything is computerized.
It doesn't always have that ultimate goal, but very often does. And very often, if done correctly, it can achieve that goal.
Take 8 sites with 2 admins each that are only doing 50% duty running that service. (You need at least 2 so someone gets to have an occasional vacation).
That's 16 people, doing the workload of 8.
Bring that down to 1 site, and odds are you could do the exact same job with 8 people (since now there are 7 others to back you up)
And now you're all on one system, so you don't have lots of little variances, so you can be more efficient, etc...
Yes, we have lost some of the little details by losing those people, but in general you've got other problems if some information is only known by one person.
As it turned out, a lot of that "critical" information got passed along to other folks anyway, most of what was left turned out to be unimportant, and that small remaining percentage?
Well, the rest of us are smart, and the ones with the info weren't idiots... we were able to figure it out.
3) Eventually the same number of people is going to have to work in the centralized system just because you also centralize the problems and more problems will bring more people, more people will bring more overhead and inefficiency, more inefficiency will bring more people (at least that's the default in today's business world, throwing more people at an IT problem doesn't make it disappear faster)
Starting with bad assumptions.
A small focused skilled team can do pretty much anything. =-)
In fact some would say they're the only ones who do anything.
One example: We used to repeatedly run into situations where we had the same problem at x sites, so we had at least x people trying to solve it. We didn't realize other's were duplicating our effort, so there was a lot of wasted effort, with solutions from different angles, so the sites ended up getting more and more out of sync in their setups.
4) More people in a project that was designed to be more cost efficient means the managers will have to cut expenses. Cut expenses brings underpaid people, underpaid people bring less or no experience and higher turnover, higher turnover means more cutting expenses.
Every centralization project I've been on has had its hiccups, but in the end has resulted in reduced costs overall. We always started off with the people we had, and a contractor or to who was an "expert" in the field we were working in, just to make sure we had an outsider's view. We didn't always believe the contractor, but we'd at least use them for everything they were worth. We then "centralized", and kept most of the folks around to keep everything running everywhere... then the layoffs.
The main problem we have on from our last centralization is that many in our small team are very shy about sharing issues before they know everything about it. They're afraid of looking bad, because they won't be as valuable. (Hadn't run into that one before)
>* The idea that Slashdot readers might be feminine themselves is practically a violation of dogma.
I can see where you'd get the impression that all SlashDot users are bastions of masculinity, but I'm sure a good chunk of the guys here are a little feminine =-)
It happened to my roommate. (though not my roommate at the time)
Nasty divorce, and the ex decided to publish his name, number, address, etc on a website dedicated to dead-beat dads. (No orders regarding support existed at the time, and he was voluntarily giving her 50% of his take home at the time until the ruling actually happened...)
There were numerous death threats.
He ended up having to sue the web site owner to have his information removed, and fortunately the threats ended up stopping.
What really amazed me at the time was that she would expose her kids to that sort of thing... they stayed at that address a couple days a week.