Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Pittsburgh? (Score 1) 464

Agreed. Pittsburgh has really come around from what older generations remember it as; it once was a smoggy industrial town without much to recommend it. A tech boom that started in the late 90s has picked up a lot of steam recently (having great universities eventually pays off) and it's affordable, livable, and has good public transit while still being car friendly. I lived there from 2002 to 2011 and was very happy there.

(It does have bitterly cold winters and transit to other cities is lacking, but those are the only faults I see)

Submission + - PostgreSQL getting parallel query 1

iamvego writes: A major feature PostgreSQL users have requested for some time now is to have the query planner "parallelize" a query. Now, thanks to Robert Haas and Amit Kapila, this has now materialized in the 9.6 branch. Robert Haas writes in his blog entry that so far it only supports splitting up a sequential scan between multiple workers, but should hopefully be extended to work with multiple partitions before the final release, and much more beside in future releases.

Comment Re:Is a candidate who plans to resign really serio (Score 1) 239

I agree; I support Lessig and would support him for President if he were actually willing to do the job. I think he'd be able to do a lot of good on various issues.

I don't think his resignation pledge is compatible with taking him seriously; our nation deserves better than that. Our offices are not tools for stunts.

Comment Your team and how they work - most important (Score 1) 158

I'd focus on the people side - figure out what who you're going to get rid of, who you can work with, and build good habits of working well with them while you hold down the fort - feel out your first few changes to see what kinds of resistance you get from humans (and from technology). How that goes will give you a feel for the possibilities of larger change.

Comment Re:Time (Score 3, Informative) 370

If I had any mod points, you'd be being upvoted for this - time normalises everything, and whether someone is getting kudos or negative attention, eventually people forget, whether it's the teeming masses or troll groups. Plenty of us have been victims at least once, and it sucks (and can be scary) at the time, but it gets better.

Comment CIO/CTOs are hopefully technical (Score 1) 154

CIOs/CTOs are hopefully technical in a company that has these needs, and they'll also hopefully consult with their people for these kinds of questions. If they're not capable or willing to do both, the company has more pressing concerns than where to host its stuff.

(Plenty of tech companies have bad CIOs or CTOs).

Comment Re:Banks vs Manchester. Law, no. Indexes by publis (Score 1) 292

What makes you think you're more qualified to judge constitutionality or legality than our Supreme Court? Courts judge these things. Your opinion doesn't matter - these things remain legal and constitutional until and unless successfully challenged - that's how our system works. It is challenge-based. If you don't get that, you're just clueless about our Constitution, how it's judged, and the broader legal system in which it resides.

Comment Re:Banks vs Manchester. Law, no. Indexes by publis (Score 1) 292

I'm saying the founders gave a rough sketch, and in this case that sketch was too vague to work right. We'd either need to fix it, or accept that it won't work. It's quite likely the founders would've accepted it, maybe not even included this restriction if they knew it wouldn't work, or done a better job drafting it. Still, their system as a whole worked well enough, and provided means for its broken bits to be improved. If some part is important now, we can still fix it. If not, why worry about it? Build momentum, propose an alternative, and maybe it'll be fixed. Our government isn't a shrine to long-dead people -it belongs to the people alive today.

It's also important not to treat the founders as if they significantly agreed with each other. They didn't. They had huge differences, long debates, and like any representative government, they had an enormously difficult time reaching agreement. Our first government failed. We're in a heavily evolved descendant of the second try.

Comment Re:Banks vs Manchester. Law, no. Indexes by publis (Score 2) 292

How do you quantify resemblance?

There's nothing unconstitutional about what happened. Maybe you'd like to amend the Constitution to make some parts of it unconstitutional - maybe even some of those amendments would be ok if they were practical and enforcable, but your attempt to portray yourself a defending the Constitution here against assailants is ridiculous - you just don't like the way our system works. Which is fine, it's just the posing that's off.

Comment Re:Banks vs Manchester. Law, no. Indexes by publis (Score 1) 292

There's no good way to come up with a hard line against this kind of practice. If we're going to allow bills to evolve as they pass between both houses, then how would one quantify sufficient "gutting and stuffing" to cross a threshold of "is not allowed"?

I realise it's tempting to say things like "The government isn't bound to follow the Constitution", and some political persuasions love to do that without either understanding the Constitution or how law works. We need reasonably bright (even if not necessarily precise) lines within which reasonable practices are workable.

Either way, the Constitution doesn't stand alone - like other Common Law nations, we have a body of legal practice that has evolved and will continue to evolve as our needs change and as good legal ideas come into vogue. This happened in the Founders' times, it happened well before them, and it will continue for as long as our nation does law this way.

Use the Force, Luke.