I'm sorry to hear that. (I'm a native of the Badlands region.:P) And indeed, if Minnesota weren't afraid of punishing violent sex offenders, he never would have had a chance to do what he did in 2003. It boggles the mind to think how common sense can be so lacking as to see such a distinct contrast and the results it provides and not be able to understand the solution, or at least to understand that hand-holding is not the solution.
Compare this to the heartland of America, where we punish the people who kidnap, rape, and murder young girls instead of banning a type of thought. Here's an item about Dru Sjodin's killer being convicted this week to show how it's supposed to be done.
Nobody said anything about my mother, but rather the mother of invention. Regardless, the way you worded it, using the word "really," implied that you were indicating that someone else was correct in saying it. But, if you weren't quoting anyone, can you explain what you mean? "The best invention really is necessity." Did the Blender team invent necessity?
Other towns have, although not in quite the same way. There are several towns in the Midwest of the US that renamed themselves after liquor companies for a period of time in exchange for cash. For instance, the town of Granville, ND, changed its name to McGillicuddy City, USA, for $100,000 one year. The town wins by having some public development funds and some public attention outside of its borders, and the liquor company gets some gimicky advertising at a fairly low price.
Here's how management elects the board... The President/CEO tells the shareholders "You should vote for the following slate for the board of directors." They do as they're told, because it's easier to do that than actually get someone else nominated and listed in the proxy materials, since election matters are easy to exclude from the company's proxy materials and therefore any contender has to front the cost of getting his name out to the shareholders.
Nah, I caught the sarcasm. I just know that, if nobody explains that nothing is at stake, 150,000 Slashdotters won't get it because they will read just the blurb and think not only that "precident" is the correct spelling but also that a $6 billion lawsuit is being decided on a rock-paper-scissors contest. Looking through other comments about the brokenness of the American legal system is rather telling.
The rochambeau contest here was set to settle a dispute between the lawyers over what day to hold a particular event. This won't determine the outcome of the case, it will just determine which of the lawyers gets to pick the date (out of a very narrow window that the judge specified for them).
Then again, I didn't RTFA - I read the judge's actual order about 15 hours ago when I received a PDF of it from my boss in the morning.:P
Do you know of a way to get a list of the revisions in which a file was changed? I want to be able to type one command and get a list of every revision that changed a particular file, and no other revisions. In CVS, I can do this just by finding the current revision number of a file and iterating from 1.1 up to that number. Maybe I'm being too picky, but my main complaint is this: My miscellaneous files have no interdependencies upon one another, and therefore the state of one is irrelevant to the state of another, and therefore changing the state of one (by committing a new revision or by reverting to a previous revision) should have no effect on the state of another (by changing its current revision number or by reverting to a previous revision). I want versions per-file, not per-repository. (For most coding, it is exactly the opposite and SVN seems unbeatable. It's only in limited applications like assorted documents that it should be this way.)
You can have mixed revisions in one working copy, but the revisions are still per-project. I suppose that it is possible to work with it that way, but CVS's very shortcoming is what makes it easier to use CVS for that: If I want the previous revision of a given file, I can decrement its revision number to get it. In SVN, if I want the previous revision of a given file, I first have to figure out which revision of the repository that file was last changed in, and then decrement it. That is to say that, in CVS, the second revision of a file on the mainline branch is always 1.2, whereas in SVN the second revision of a file could be any positive integer.
Correct me if I am wrong. Right now I have no version control on my "documents" directory and I use the Unison synchronizer, because I cannot find a version control system that really works well for this. I would love to change that.:)
My problem with svn as opposed to cvs is that sometimes I want to have per-file revision tracking. For instance, my directory full of miscellaneous documents is such a place. I do not care what the relative state of the documents is at any given point, because they have no interrelations whatsoever. Source code and independent documents are different animals, and I don't know of a revision control system that treats both of them the right way.
I think that there is more value in the source of the data than in the data itself. If you wiped out everything on Myspace other than the usernames and passwords, the data would be back in a day at the most. The userbase is the valuable component, just as it is on Slashdot. The data on Myspace may be worth more than that on Slashdot, but only in passing.
Thanks for the calm, rational post. I think the main argument against SOX is that you can't invest in Nigerian barges nearly as easily as you used to do.;)
Additionally, lawyers tend to be made personally liable under SOX for helping directors/officers do bad things and even for not reporting directors'/officers' bad behavior. SOX is one of the exceptions to attorney-client privilege, and it's a mandatory exception (even the exception for telling the police that your client is about to kill someone is less rigid).
Shareholder insurance already exists. It's called limited liability. If you make people pay an additional premium to invest safely, they won't invest in businesses anymore. If you make them liable for director and office liability (side note: there is insurance for directors and officers for this; it's similar in form to malpractice insurance), they will invest elsewhere.
Shareholders are already discouraged from investing in companies that break the law. When a company breaks the law, its profits go down and thus its stock prices go down, making the net worth of its shareholders go down. You don't want to discourage them from investing at all, though.
Business tends to stagnate without investment, and making shareholders liable for corporate wrongs will increase the cost of entering the market with a new company to the point that nobody will do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry to hear that. (I'm a native of the Badlands region. :P) And indeed, if Minnesota weren't afraid of punishing violent sex offenders, he never would have had a chance to do what he did in 2003. It boggles the mind to think how common sense can be so lacking as to see such a distinct contrast and the results it provides and not be able to understand the solution, or at least to understand that hand-holding is not the solution.
Compare this to the heartland of America, where we punish the people who kidnap, rape, and murder young girls instead of banning a type of thought. Here's an item about Dru Sjodin's killer being convicted this week to show how it's supposed to be done.
I didn't realize these light bulbs had that kind of circuitry. I am a 60-watt man, myself.
The smell was probably ozone gas. Now you, too, can be an arrogant know-it-all the next time it happens. ;)
Nobody said anything about my mother, but rather the mother of invention. Regardless, the way you worded it, using the word "really," implied that you were indicating that someone else was correct in saying it. But, if you weren't quoting anyone, can you explain what you mean? "The best invention really is necessity." Did the Blender team invent necessity?
You need a quote checker, too. "Necessity is the mother of invention." and "The best invention is necessity." do not mean the same thing. :)
Other towns have, although not in quite the same way. There are several towns in the Midwest of the US that renamed themselves after liquor companies for a period of time in exchange for cash. For instance, the town of Granville, ND, changed its name to McGillicuddy City, USA, for $100,000 one year. The town wins by having some public development funds and some public attention outside of its borders, and the liquor company gets some gimicky advertising at a fairly low price.
Is this text in the public domain or maybe copylefted? I want to rip it off. :)
Isn't 99% "something like 97"? ;)
Here's how management elects the board... The President/CEO tells the shareholders "You should vote for the following slate for the board of directors." They do as they're told, because it's easier to do that than actually get someone else nominated and listed in the proxy materials, since election matters are easy to exclude from the company's proxy materials and therefore any contender has to front the cost of getting his name out to the shareholders.
For what it's worth, US patent law expressly provides for patents on plants, but not for animals.
I think that your point is valid - I was an idiot for not doing just that. ;)
That helps. It still feels kludgy to do per-repository versioning when per-file is appropriate, but at least it can be hacked into a workable form. :)
Nah, I caught the sarcasm. I just know that, if nobody explains that nothing is at stake, 150,000 Slashdotters won't get it because they will read just the blurb and think not only that "precident" is the correct spelling but also that a $6 billion lawsuit is being decided on a rock-paper-scissors contest. Looking through other comments about the brokenness of the American legal system is rather telling.
The rochambeau contest here was set to settle a dispute between the lawyers over what day to hold a particular event. This won't determine the outcome of the case, it will just determine which of the lawyers gets to pick the date (out of a very narrow window that the judge specified for them).
:P
Then again, I didn't RTFA - I read the judge's actual order about 15 hours ago when I received a PDF of it from my boss in the morning.
...except paper...
But scissors beats paper! Kif, we have a conundrum!
Do you know of a way to get a list of the revisions in which a file was changed? I want to be able to type one command and get a list of every revision that changed a particular file, and no other revisions. In CVS, I can do this just by finding the current revision number of a file and iterating from 1.1 up to that number. Maybe I'm being too picky, but my main complaint is this: My miscellaneous files have no interdependencies upon one another, and therefore the state of one is irrelevant to the state of another, and therefore changing the state of one (by committing a new revision or by reverting to a previous revision) should have no effect on the state of another (by changing its current revision number or by reverting to a previous revision). I want versions per-file, not per-repository. (For most coding, it is exactly the opposite and SVN seems unbeatable. It's only in limited applications like assorted documents that it should be this way.)
You can have mixed revisions in one working copy, but the revisions are still per-project. I suppose that it is possible to work with it that way, but CVS's very shortcoming is what makes it easier to use CVS for that: If I want the previous revision of a given file, I can decrement its revision number to get it. In SVN, if I want the previous revision of a given file, I first have to figure out which revision of the repository that file was last changed in, and then decrement it. That is to say that, in CVS, the second revision of a file on the mainline branch is always 1.2, whereas in SVN the second revision of a file could be any positive integer.
:)
Correct me if I am wrong. Right now I have no version control on my "documents" directory and I use the Unison synchronizer, because I cannot find a version control system that really works well for this. I would love to change that.
My problem with svn as opposed to cvs is that sometimes I want to have per-file revision tracking. For instance, my directory full of miscellaneous documents is such a place. I do not care what the relative state of the documents is at any given point, because they have no interrelations whatsoever. Source code and independent documents are different animals, and I don't know of a revision control system that treats both of them the right way.
I think that there is more value in the source of the data than in the data itself. If you wiped out everything on Myspace other than the usernames and passwords, the data would be back in a day at the most. The userbase is the valuable component, just as it is on Slashdot. The data on Myspace may be worth more than that on Slashdot, but only in passing.
I somehow doubt that myspace's "data" is worth $150,000.
Posted by Anne Nonymous
>> Urinal gaming stations
This is clearly a plot to improve our aim.
You ladies really are in desperate need of improvement.
Thanks for the calm, rational post. I think the main argument against SOX is that you can't invest in Nigerian barges nearly as easily as you used to do. ;)
Additionally, lawyers tend to be made personally liable under SOX for helping directors/officers do bad things and even for not reporting directors'/officers' bad behavior. SOX is one of the exceptions to attorney-client privilege, and it's a mandatory exception (even the exception for telling the police that your client is about to kill someone is less rigid).
Shareholder insurance already exists. It's called limited liability. If you make people pay an additional premium to invest safely, they won't invest in businesses anymore. If you make them liable for director and office liability (side note: there is insurance for directors and officers for this; it's similar in form to malpractice insurance), they will invest elsewhere.
Shareholders are already discouraged from investing in companies that break the law. When a company breaks the law, its profits go down and thus its stock prices go down, making the net worth of its shareholders go down. You don't want to discourage them from investing at all, though.
Business tends to stagnate without investment, and making shareholders liable for corporate wrongs will increase the cost of entering the market with a new company to the point that nobody will do it.