For this forum example, you could have a family for each month of operation.
So what's the difference between that and using a typical SQL database and just having a new table for each month of operation? Aren't tables loaded into memory as necessary?
One more thing - Hannibal is by far the baddest fictional antihero ever.
Seeing as how he's a psychopathic cannibal with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, I think you're operating off a different definition of "antihero" than the rest of us.
Well, either that, or there is something seriously wrong with you.
but I'm pretty sure you would find there a lot of nice and friendly young girls to whom you'd love to show how the Internet works;)
I dunno. Given the level of brainwashing they receive about the evil western capitalist-imperialist devils, I'd be too afraid of getting my.. err... "internet" cut off.
Also, having Internet makes people happuy (well, it makes me happy), and happy people are usually pretty reluctant to go to war.
I think having electricity would make them even happier, and might be a prerequisite for this interwebs thingy.
The system we have is descended from the mode of Christian thought that when a sin(crime) is committed, penance.is needed in order to make the person right with God
Yah, which is why Muslim, Jewish, and communist/"atheist" nations use the same model. Because they've all been influenced by christianity.
I'm not one to defend christianity, but if there's one thing I dislike more than religion it's dumb arguments which baselessly attack religion. Christianity does enough stupid shit without you having to make up things to blame on it.
That sounds good... In general. In this specific case, you've just said you'd prefer the moron that doesn't realize making people work 11 hour days won't make them any more productive, and will destroy morale.
It depends. I'm sure the guy didn't say "hey, how about we make everyone work 11 hour days from now until perpetuity, without offering them any explanations or compensation?". If I have a big project at work, I'll voluntarily put in longer hours without having to be asked, because I know that my bosses will notice and appreciate the extra effort, and will take care of me once the workload decreases.
Yeah, it's possible that the guy is an idiot who has no idea what he's doing. It's also possible that he's just sounding out his employees to see if they'd be willing to put in the extra time and effort to help the company over a hurdle. Given the sparse information provided, you'd have to be one hell of a pessimist to assume incompetence.
More importantly, you have omitted the obvious middle-ground...
Well, yeah, obviously the ideal solution is a compentent, intelligent, very well informed manager, who cares about his people, is willing to learn, and is always trying to make the work environment more pleasant while keeping the company as profitable as possible. While you're tracking down one of those, maybe you can find me a pink unicorn, too:)
Oh stop your sniveling. I'm in Canada, and I have no problem figuring out what they're talking about. If it were about a nation other than the US, it would say so in the summary. If it doesn't say, then they're talking about the US. It's not rocket science.
I'm sure that you already understand this as well as I do - you've just got some kind of persecution complex which demands that everyone acknowledge your particular corner of the world. Well too bad. Do something notable, and maybe/. will have a story about you. "Dickwad in Greater Southeastern Bostwanistan consumes 5 keyboards rectally". Then you can feel all warm and fuzzy because your exploits got your country mentioned on Slashdot. Until then, chill the fuck out.
Boss is asking his opinion, ergo boss apparently cares enough to not just slam people over the head with his authority-stick. I could think of far worse people to work for. OP should be explaining to him the downsides of the plan, and perhaps suggesting better ways of achieving the desired goal - not pulling the pin and fucking off at the high-port.
The shit thing is, if the "correction" is disruptive enough, we may never get the chance to rebuild what we have now. There's only so much easily-accessible energy sitting around waiting for us to get it. If we deplete our oil reserves to low enough levels and then suffer a major global cataclysm, our descendants will be permanently stuck living an Amish lifestyle.
Not that it matters much to us, here and now - I'll be long dead before anything like that happens. But I still feel some responsibility to try and keep our species moving forward.
Thank you for contributing that valuable bit of information. You have answered all my questions, and enriched the conversation immensely. I hope you get modded + 5 BILLION Informative.
Open source code is generally considered tighter and superior than closed source
Oh, ok. In that case, can you tell me why the suckiness it of Gnome is only surpassed by the suckiness of KDE? Today I finally got fed up with my Gnome icons playing musical chairs in the taskbar, and figured I'd apt-get install kubuntu-desktop. Well, in KDE the icons don't fucking around with me, but now whenever I enable any kind of graphical effects, the fucking windows all go apeshit. It's like Shiva on speed connected 6 mice to my computer and is jerking all the windows around so fast that I can only see fragments of them at any one time.
Superior code my ass. The icon issue in Gnome was reported 5 YEARS AGO, and still hasn't been fixed. The KDE bug, I can't even find a mention of it anywhere. But my experience with linux in general is that there is ALWAYS something wrong, and it'll be something different on every system. I'll install it on a new computer, and I'll ooooh and aaaah, and then, a few minutes, or a few days, or a few weeks later, I'll notice some minor issue. And I'll screw with it for days, or weeks, or months, and maybe I'll get it fixed eventually, if I sacrifice enough goats and place the candles at just the right positions in the pentagram. Meanwhile I'll have found 10 other issues that are just as annoying. And the next time I run the update-manager, it'll install something that will destroy my fix, and change the issue just enough so that what I did last time doesn't fix it any more.
Say what you will about Microsoft, but I have NEVER had those kinds of issues with them. Windows either works fine, runs sluggish because someone installed a bunch of crap on it, or fails spectacularly with a blue screen. There's never these weird issues that appear randomly and drive you completely fucking nuts. I'd say the other guy's got it completely right - opensource in general is a fucking mess.
How about I'm arguing for government to stay out of every decision it can reasonably stay out of ?
Sure, I'd buy that, but I don't see how you get to that point by criticizing the best method of discovery which we have. Essentially, your argument boils down to "the government is going to make mistakes no matter what, so let's keep them out of it so that people can make even more mistakes". I'm not sure that this is a logical argument:)
You could make the point that while individuals on their own will tend to make worse decisions, at least those decisions won't affect everyone. That could be a valid argument. But, again, attacking the scientific publication and review process doesn't really get you there.
Of course, if it's tidelocked, there is probably a ring slightly on the dark side of the equator that isn't hellishly hot or cold.
That's where the devil lives. Duh! Why would he want to spend his free time sweating, when he can go home, relax, and let the night-shift take care of the office?
Gladwell overstates it. The implicit assumption is that if those people hadn't had that "extraordinary chance", they'd be losers. There's no justification for that assumption. If Bill gates hadn't had computer time, there's no reason to assume he would have ended up as a janitor at the local highschool - he could simply have found success elsewhere. Conversely, if someone else had had access to the computer instead of Gates, there's no reason to assume that they would have become a billionaire instead of him. We see an entire generation in schools today that was raised with computers in the household - how many of them can do more than check facebook and send out tweets? Is it more logical to assume that Gates had the opportunities he did because he had the aptitude for it, and actively sought them out? Or because he just "got lucky" and happened to somehow pull a successful business out of his ass?
Gladwell's book is a fun read, but he oversimplifies way too much.
Anyone who's been following the debacle has known for years that it was outright fraud. It's just that now we have an "official finding" that we can point to. But I get what you're saying; I guess for most people this might be big news, but my first reaction was "wow, yeah, and the sky is blue, too".
But suppose Obama says (not that he does this, but hey) we'll only use "verified" science. That means 2 peer-reviewed publications. Let's see what happens. That means that 1 in 400 (20*20) decisions is flat-out-wrong in the theoretically optimum case.
What's the alternative?
I'm not actually sure what you're objecting to. Are you opposed to the scientific process? Or are you just arguing against government involvement in medicine? Since the same process is used in all fields of science, are you opposed to government involvement in ANY scientific endeavors? And, if we refuse to allow science to sway political decisions, what process do you propose replace it? Blind guesswork?
I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you've said, although the AC already pointed out one of your errors. Much of it is pretty accurate. I'm just not sure what it is that you're proposing.
Heh, that's funny. Back when Wakefield was the champion of the loonies, the argument was "YOU'RE JUST REPRESSING HIS SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU'RE A BIG-PHARMA BOOT-LICKER!!". Now that he's been exposed as a total fraud, the argument is "Well, this is what happens when Big Pharma wants to make a profit".
I am frankly amazed that this turned out to be a scam and not just sloppy science research. I just cannot fathom the depths of this man's conscience.
You're talking about the same guy who invited kids to his son's birthday party, and then paid them to take their blood samples. I don't think the words "conscience" and "Andrew Wakefield" belong anywhere near each other.
Slashdot Mirror
For this forum example, you could have a family for each month of operation.
So what's the difference between that and using a typical SQL database and just having a new table for each month of operation? Aren't tables loaded into memory as necessary?
Learn to read, not just watch the movies, then come back and tell me that Lecter had "no redeeming qualities whatsoever."
Ok: Lecter had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
On a separate note, I can help you find a good psychiatrist, whenever you decide to acknowledge and deal with your issues.
One more thing - Hannibal is by far the baddest fictional antihero ever.
Seeing as how he's a psychopathic cannibal with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, I think you're operating off a different definition of "antihero" than the rest of us.
Well, either that, or there is something seriously wrong with you.
Eh, if you want to play that game, you can trace the roots of it all the way back to the ape and the monolith.
but I'm pretty sure you would find there a lot of nice and friendly young girls to whom you'd love to show how the Internet works ;)
I dunno. Given the level of brainwashing they receive about the evil western capitalist-imperialist devils, I'd be too afraid of getting my .. err ... "internet" cut off.
Also, having Internet makes people happuy (well, it makes me happy), and happy people are usually pretty reluctant to go to war.
I think having electricity would make them even happier, and might be a prerequisite for this interwebs thingy.
The system we have is descended from the mode of Christian thought that when a sin(crime) is committed, penance.is needed in order to make the person right with God
Yah, which is why Muslim, Jewish, and communist/"atheist" nations use the same model. Because they've all been influenced by christianity.
I'm not one to defend christianity, but if there's one thing I dislike more than religion it's dumb arguments which baselessly attack religion. Christianity does enough stupid shit without you having to make up things to blame on it.
That sounds good... In general. In this specific case, you've just said you'd prefer the moron that doesn't realize making people work 11 hour days won't make them any more productive, and will destroy morale.
It depends. I'm sure the guy didn't say "hey, how about we make everyone work 11 hour days from now until perpetuity, without offering them any explanations or compensation?". If I have a big project at work, I'll voluntarily put in longer hours without having to be asked, because I know that my bosses will notice and appreciate the extra effort, and will take care of me once the workload decreases.
Yeah, it's possible that the guy is an idiot who has no idea what he's doing. It's also possible that he's just sounding out his employees to see if they'd be willing to put in the extra time and effort to help the company over a hurdle. Given the sparse information provided, you'd have to be one hell of a pessimist to assume incompetence.
More importantly, you have omitted the obvious middle-ground ...
Well, yeah, obviously the ideal solution is a compentent, intelligent, very well informed manager, who cares about his people, is willing to learn, and is always trying to make the work environment more pleasant while keeping the company as profitable as possible. While you're tracking down one of those, maybe you can find me a pink unicorn, too :)
I'll take an amateur who's willing to learn over a "professional" who thinks he's infallible, any day.
Oh stop your sniveling. I'm in Canada, and I have no problem figuring out what they're talking about. If it were about a nation other than the US, it would say so in the summary. If it doesn't say, then they're talking about the US. It's not rocket science.
I'm sure that you already understand this as well as I do - you've just got some kind of persecution complex which demands that everyone acknowledge your particular corner of the world. Well too bad. Do something notable, and maybe /. will have a story about you. "Dickwad in Greater Southeastern Bostwanistan consumes 5 keyboards rectally". Then you can feel all warm and fuzzy because your exploits got your country mentioned on Slashdot. Until then, chill the fuck out.
Boss is asking his opinion, ergo boss apparently cares enough to not just slam people over the head with his authority-stick. I could think of far worse people to work for. OP should be explaining to him the downsides of the plan, and perhaps suggesting better ways of achieving the desired goal - not pulling the pin and fucking off at the high-port.
The shit thing is, if the "correction" is disruptive enough, we may never get the chance to rebuild what we have now. There's only so much easily-accessible energy sitting around waiting for us to get it. If we deplete our oil reserves to low enough levels and then suffer a major global cataclysm, our descendants will be permanently stuck living an Amish lifestyle.
Not that it matters much to us, here and now - I'll be long dead before anything like that happens. But I still feel some responsibility to try and keep our species moving forward.
Given the current fiscal situation in the US, I hardly think relocating all coastal cities is a project they're looking forward to.
Thank you for contributing that valuable bit of information. You have answered all my questions, and enriched the conversation immensely. I hope you get modded + 5 BILLION Informative.
John Hagelin appeals to people who think What the Bleep Do We Know and The Secret were science documentaries.
Hey now. Scoff all you like, but The Secret helped me manifest a twelve inch pianist.
Open source code is generally considered tighter and superior than closed source
Oh, ok. In that case, can you tell me why the suckiness it of Gnome is only surpassed by the suckiness of KDE? Today I finally got fed up with my Gnome icons playing musical chairs in the taskbar, and figured I'd apt-get install kubuntu-desktop. Well, in KDE the icons don't fucking around with me, but now whenever I enable any kind of graphical effects, the fucking windows all go apeshit. It's like Shiva on speed connected 6 mice to my computer and is jerking all the windows around so fast that I can only see fragments of them at any one time.
Superior code my ass. The icon issue in Gnome was reported 5 YEARS AGO, and still hasn't been fixed. The KDE bug, I can't even find a mention of it anywhere. But my experience with linux in general is that there is ALWAYS something wrong, and it'll be something different on every system. I'll install it on a new computer, and I'll ooooh and aaaah, and then, a few minutes, or a few days, or a few weeks later, I'll notice some minor issue. And I'll screw with it for days, or weeks, or months, and maybe I'll get it fixed eventually, if I sacrifice enough goats and place the candles at just the right positions in the pentagram. Meanwhile I'll have found 10 other issues that are just as annoying. And the next time I run the update-manager, it'll install something that will destroy my fix, and change the issue just enough so that what I did last time doesn't fix it any more.
Say what you will about Microsoft, but I have NEVER had those kinds of issues with them. Windows either works fine, runs sluggish because someone installed a bunch of crap on it, or fails spectacularly with a blue screen. There's never these weird issues that appear randomly and drive you completely fucking nuts. I'd say the other guy's got it completely right - opensource in general is a fucking mess.
How about I'm arguing for government to stay out of every decision it can reasonably stay out of ?
Sure, I'd buy that, but I don't see how you get to that point by criticizing the best method of discovery which we have. Essentially, your argument boils down to "the government is going to make mistakes no matter what, so let's keep them out of it so that people can make even more mistakes". I'm not sure that this is a logical argument :)
You could make the point that while individuals on their own will tend to make worse decisions, at least those decisions won't affect everyone. That could be a valid argument. But, again, attacking the scientific publication and review process doesn't really get you there.
Of course, if it's tidelocked, there is probably a ring slightly on the dark side of the equator that isn't hellishly hot or cold.
That's where the devil lives. Duh! Why would he want to spend his free time sweating, when he can go home, relax, and let the night-shift take care of the office?
Neat project, but I'm more impressed that your 11 year old daughter can write python. It's rare to see even amongst boys of that age.
I guess. I just find the whole idea so depressing that I'm having a hard time analyzing it rationally.
Gladwell overstates it. The implicit assumption is that if those people hadn't had that "extraordinary chance", they'd be losers. There's no justification for that assumption. If Bill gates hadn't had computer time, there's no reason to assume he would have ended up as a janitor at the local highschool - he could simply have found success elsewhere. Conversely, if someone else had had access to the computer instead of Gates, there's no reason to assume that they would have become a billionaire instead of him. We see an entire generation in schools today that was raised with computers in the household - how many of them can do more than check facebook and send out tweets? Is it more logical to assume that Gates had the opportunities he did because he had the aptitude for it, and actively sought them out? Or because he just "got lucky" and happened to somehow pull a successful business out of his ass?
Gladwell's book is a fun read, but he oversimplifies way too much.
Anyone who's been following the debacle has known for years that it was outright fraud. It's just that now we have an "official finding" that we can point to. But I get what you're saying; I guess for most people this might be big news, but my first reaction was "wow, yeah, and the sky is blue, too".
But suppose Obama says (not that he does this, but hey) we'll only use "verified" science. That means 2 peer-reviewed publications. Let's see what happens. That means that 1 in 400 (20*20) decisions is flat-out-wrong in the theoretically optimum case.
What's the alternative?
I'm not actually sure what you're objecting to. Are you opposed to the scientific process? Or are you just arguing against government involvement in medicine? Since the same process is used in all fields of science, are you opposed to government involvement in ANY scientific endeavors? And, if we refuse to allow science to sway political decisions, what process do you propose replace it? Blind guesswork?
I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you've said, although the AC already pointed out one of your errors. Much of it is pretty accurate. I'm just not sure what it is that you're proposing.
Heh, that's funny. Back when Wakefield was the champion of the loonies, the argument was "YOU'RE JUST REPRESSING HIS SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU'RE A BIG-PHARMA BOOT-LICKER!!". Now that he's been exposed as a total fraud, the argument is "Well, this is what happens when Big Pharma wants to make a profit".
Just can't win with you bastards, eh?
I am frankly amazed that this turned out to be a scam and not just sloppy science research. I just cannot fathom the depths of this man's conscience.
You're talking about the same guy who invited kids to his son's birthday party, and then paid them to take their blood samples. I don't think the words "conscience" and "Andrew Wakefield" belong anywhere near each other.
The worst part is that we've known about this for at least 6 years now. Here's an article from 2004:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/st-wakefield-vaccine.htm
It's always good to see that Slashdot is firmly at the cutting edge of science and technology ...