JOIN vs sub-query? I don't know what DB or problem sets you are working with, but if it were MySQL, for instance, MyISAM just seems to run many sub-queries much faster than similar JOIN logic.

In any case, reducing working sets (when there's not a simple index mapping) can be very important for getting any kind of performance. sub-query shines for that, (perhaps in a JOIN at times) JOIN by itself doesn't.

Expecting a certain slant on which is better (JOIN vs sub-query) just smacks of personal bias. (unless perhaps they've re-written the same sub-logic 10 times and aren't receiving serious performance gain)

Well can you have an anti aircraft rocket then?

I would say the Constitution is unambiguously clear on this point: yes. When the government derives all power from "We, the people" [per the preamble] then whatever my government does, I also can do (because it was given the power to do so from me). Likewise, anything the people cannot do, they cannot authorize their government to do.

So unless you want to argue that the Army and Air Force have to give up all of their tanks, planes, and H-bombs because nobody has a right to such things, then the American population has an absolute right to buy them as individuals.

Personally, I think the crimes of Nixon (and cohorts) pale in comparison to the crimes committed by the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations. Where are the impeachments?

Waiting on the American people to elect politicians who don't all dream of one day having their name added to that litany.

The US Constitution does not GIVE us rights. .... Just because the right of privacy is not mentioned is not to imply it does not exist and cannot be claimed.

Exactly so. The Ninth amendment is worded in such a way as to deliberately outline this fact: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In any case, a strong argument could also be made that the fourth amendment's phrasing ("...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches...") is pretty much the textbook definition of "right to privacy".

According to the article "unstable code" is anything with undefined behavior according to the C++ standard. This could be as simple as an integer overflow or divide by zero which in debug or "zero optimization" mode would always cause an error, but which in an optimized release may simply be removed.

I think momentum is an important term to remember here. Photons may not have rest mass, but they do have momentum. (in classical physics: p = m * v)

I just have to point out a bit of a seeming discrepancy here. From the wiki article on ERP:

> However, information tools like ERP are expensive, and not a practical method for medium or small business owners.

Okay, let me try clarifying by presenting my conclusion first and giving the specific argument afterwards.

Are you absolutely certain that you have the right way of things? Are you 100% sure that your answer is the best possible answer, forever and ever, for all people, no exceptions? Is there any chance, no matter how remote, that this rule could actually cause harm -- not more harm than inaction, but any at all?Faced with a dilemma of where inaction causes great harm versus actions that cause small harm, human beings often choose inaction; the exceptions have significantly higher incidents of sociopathy and psycopathy ... are you so certain you can boldly proclaim, "Yes, even in a world where everyone acts like complete anti-social psychopaths, this action would still be correct"?

If any of this has given you have even the least smidgen of doubt—even just one tiny whisper of "well, but..."—then why are you willing to force suffering upon your fellow human beings?

With such absolutely certainty in your rightness, should I not take your belief seriously, but call you "arrogant" instead?

Are you certain that government cannot fall prone to any classist, racist, sexist, bigoted behavior? Are you so certain in the goodness of "Western" (European and the US) society that I can't provide multiple examples from those same governments (albeit far less extreme) within recent history? Are you so certain a central system is superior you would boldly proclaim "Yes, even if the government itself were to be racist, it would be the superior choice for all people"?

I'm not.

If this is a '90% serious' answer, then you are a barbarian.

It's 90% serious because it's a pure expression of my argument—that absent absolute, crushing certainty in the correct behavior, freedom of choice is better than any mandate—presented in a tounge-in-cheek fashion.

And for that levity, I am called a "barbarian"?

In all seriousness: all "medicine" has started out as either "alternative medicine" or "experimental medicine". Are you so certain that the procedures in place are a perfect, immutable method of separating the healing methods from quackery that you're willing to force everyone to obey your preferences?

I'm not.

Okay. I've presented this argument flatly, with the least humor possible. Is this more understandable?

BTW, what was this basic "human right" again? I can't seem to place it from what you're saying. You've just been yacking about "socialized health care".

Question: Do you believe that someone without insurance, or who otherwise has no ability to pay, who is suffering from an acute medical emergency, should be turned away from a hospital emergency room and left to die on the sidewalk?
If the answer is "No," then I've got some even worse news for you: we already have "socialized medicine." The patient will, in fact, be treated, and you and I will, in fact, pick up the tab.

Answer the First: You present a false dilemma; "the patient (or his insurance)" and "the public" are not the only possible answers to the question of who pays. It's quite sad that so many people are ignorant of the March of Dimes' origins as a anti-polio charity that they never imagine that there could be such a concept as a medical care charity. If somebody can't cover the costs of their treatment at the time they enter a hospital, they can seek assistance from a charitable organization (either specific to the nature of their care or a "general" community charity, like a church).

[That is, if we didn't live in a world where government-run centralized care systems (like Medicare/Medicaid) hadn't driven 99% of such charities out of the marketplace. After all, a focused or local charity, struggling to raise even $100K in donations, will collapse with no donations when 'competing' against the government who can swoop in with millions of dollars in tax/"aid" money.]

Answer the Second: <sarcasm seriousness=90%> I have no problems with turning away a patient from a hospital because they can't afford to pay. After all, they can always go to a charismatic/Pentecostal minister for miraculous healing, and they tend to charge far less less for their services. Heck, while we're at it let's also allow witch doctors, homeopathy, acupuncture, and every other "alternative medicine" practitioner to tend to medical care!</sarcasm>

[In all seriousness, hospitals are far from the only people who claim to heal life-threatening medical conditions. On what grounds do you limit the legitimacy of "health care" to hospitals alone? Furthermore, on what grounds can you then claim to limit my choices to those same restrictions?]

Answer the Third: <sarcasm seriousness=0% tone="humorous">Oh, I absolutely LOVE this game!
* Do you believe that someone who has no ability to pay, who is suffering from an acute starvation, should be turned away from a McDonalds and left to die on the sidewalk?
* Do you believe that someone without relevant skills or a degree, or who is suffering from medical conditions that make them unable to work, should be turned away from life-affirming "gainful" employment?</sarcasm>
* Do you believe that someone who has been mis-informed, or who remains willfully ignorant, should be forced to live according to "the right and proper nature of things", rather than allow them to chart their own course, even to the point that their incorrect beliefs will kill them?

Actually, if you've got tick-marks at the integer level, then you should be taking measurements at 10-times that precision. ie: deciding between 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 for that "half-way" dial by looking at how far the dial is above the top of the previous tick-mark. The scale doesn't precisely measure beyond that resolution. Didn't any of your labs teach this?

Accuracy is a whole other subject usually involving comparison of a measurement with something "real" (often through other measurements).

In fact you can register for their beta-program right now.

Thank you for mentioning this without actually linking to the survey. I don't want a flood of Slashdotters lowering my chances of getting in the beta early.

It isn't the function of government to protect your "intent" against your own stupidity.

Bingo! Furthermore, the last few wireless routers I've setup automatically prompted to turn on some form of encryption during that process. If you choose not to use this feature, it should be viewed as a deliberate (not ignorant) choice in the nature of your setup.