Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score 1) 1003

by sutekh137 (#38390138) Attached to: Why the NTSB Is Wrong About Cellphones

I think that's the mentality that's missing from this whole argument. A risk / benefit analysis. I think LaHood said that 3000 people a year die due to distracted driving. Out of 300 million. Or around 1 in 100,000 . Everybody would be safer if they stayed in their basement, rather than getting out. But there's a whole world out there that's worth exploring, and it's worth the risk to leave your basement. *** Being able to communicate with other people while traveling makes your life better. *** That's worth something. Listening to the car radio is worth something. Reading the newspaper while driving makes the ride more fun, and is worth something. Each of these items has risk. Some risks are worth the benefit. Others aren't. .

Starred the bit I have an issue with.

That's just it -- you AREN'T really communicating with anyone if you are driving at the same time. Go back to the multi-tasking issue. Ninety-nine percent of people aren't driving and communicating. They are driving POORLY and communicating POORLY. Your argument falls apart in a cost-benefit regard due to that.

The only cost-benefit, then, is in the cost because the benefit isn't anything of value in the first place. You can't compare that to staying in the basement to going out into the world, because for one thing, going out into the world doesn't necessarily entail doing two things at once and compromising concentration in doing so.

Thanks,
JoeK

Comment: Re:An even better option... (Score 1) 459

by sutekh137 (#34905722) Attached to: Facebook Opens Up Home Addresses and Phone Numbers

Putting what people may or may not be able to figure out about you aside, at what point does the "I don't post anything like that" equate to, "Hm, I don't post ANYTHING very important on Facebook, and it actually takes a bit of CPU-time for me to even decide WHAT to post."

When that point is reached (if it is, at least in part), what are you gaining from Facebook? To put it another way, do the upside/downside ratio on using Facebook. We hear about the downsides all the time, though they don't appear to bother you, and that's cool. However, what is the upside? Furthermore, what upsides are there that you can't have via normal interactions, both virtual and non-virtual?

Does Facebook increase your quality of life, overall?
   

Comment: Re:Dead on. (Score 1) 470

by sutekh137 (#34828328) Attached to: Is Mark Zuckerberg the Next Steve Case?

Everyone may say they are "bored" of facebook but really i've never heard of anyone quitting it.

That's easily fixed then: I quit Facebook after a year, my wife quit Facebook after about nine months, IIRC, and another friend of mine quit Facebook not long after her daughter was born (again, IIRC).

Primary reason for quitting/deletion? Boredom, privacy concerns, and an overwhelming feeling of impersonal pointlessness (not necessarily in that order).

In any case, if you've never heard of anyone quitting it, you most certainly never looked very far along that particular vector of questioning, which I don't assume there would be much reason to do if you are enjoying the site.

Comment: Re:Dead on. (Score 1) 470

by sutekh137 (#34825856) Attached to: Is Mark Zuckerberg the Next Steve Case?

^ this,

Social networking has never interested me much, but during the birth of my child, my wife was in labour for nearly 15 hours. Normally, we would have had all sorts of friends and family trying to ring us or text us or whatever, just to know what was going on. Instead, I opted to tweet various status updates (which were automatically posted on facebook). This turned out to be a brilliant idea (I was just looking for something to do at the time) as people were kept up to date, nobody could complain that they weren't "told first" (something that happened when we announced our wedding) and all the messages coming through could be read at our leisure.

It was also just as easy to post up a picture mere minutes after he was born, once again everyone that WANTED to know did and those that didn't could just ignore it.
That would never work with email, or IRC or even instant messaging.

Well, if you aren't going to try to set up any privacy boundaries in the first place, then yeah, I suppose Facebook is a pretty decent mechanism.

I recently went through a 48-hour labor (water break to C-section) with my wife (and a couple midwives, 40 hours of that was at home...) You know how many phone calls I got? None. Only a few family members even knew the labor had started, and they knew better than to bother us. Why on earth would you think you need to update everyone every step of the way?

Simple control over information vomit is the first thing that should be thought through in such times. In going straight to "how should I let people know?" you forgot the primary critical-thinking choices/questions from the outset: "Must I let people know?" and "Just because I can do something, should I?" Your communication dilemma wasn't a dilemma at all.

Comment: Re:Rushmore technology anyone? (Score 2, Informative) 172

by sutekh137 (#18435355) Attached to: Microsoft to Open Source FoxPro
Let's see... I just did a query against a 1.5 GB table (DBF) that has an index file (CDX) of 240 MB. I did an indexed query that returned 435 records or so, and it did it in 1.11 seconds.

So, you are mistaken. Either that, or my machine downloaded 240 MB in under a second. Sorry, our network isn't that fast. *smile*

I don't know much about file servers, but the entire index file does not need to come down. Not sure if that is a boon of the file server or of Foxpro, but I have been fighting that myth for ten years -- Foxpro does NOT pull entire files down...neither the index files nor the data file.

Let's get some other "duh" stuff taken care of. ANY system will be slow if you pull down a lot of data. That's because the data is coming down. It has to traverse the network to become truly local. If it isn't coming down, like some sort of DataReader thingamabob, then OK, it isn't down. But then don't try joiing that table to another local one, because then you'll just have to wait _then_.

Foxpro is incredibly fast. We have custom applications totalling more than 600,000 lines of code. Everything from old DOS-based input screen to an imaging system (scan, classify, viewing) housing more than 5 million images/files across 2 SQL Server databases (yes, VFP does wonders with SQL Server databases as well). The file-based DBF problems arise as they would with any file-based solution: size limits, contention issues, corruption, etc. But we have over 50-60 users regularly pounding our system, a mix of DBF data and SQL Server data, and it works pretty darn well.

Foxpro's other advantage is what it does with client side data. I can read in an XLS file (one line of code), bring in data via a SQL Server query (3 lines of code), and query a local DBF file (one line of code). Each query will reside in it's own local cursor which can then be indexed, browsed etc. Even better, those cursors can then be joined, filtered, and queried to build another cursor with all of that data brought together. I hear Microsoft is still working on a local engine with that kind of power for .NET. It's called LINQ, and it isn't out yet. Foxpro has been doing this stuff for more than 15 years. I've accessed text files, Excel spreadsheets, AS/400 DB2 data, and SQL Server data all at one time and generated reports that can be viewed, printed, and/or exported back to Excel. All coming from million+ row data sources, all heterogenous.

Foxpro has a lot of problems, sure, and I am digging .NET. But I have never seen anything do what Foxpro can do with varied data sources and local cursor speed in 15+ years of business database programming.

And one more time: FOXPRO DOESN'T PULL DOWN THE WHOLE INDEX FILE WHEN DOING QUERIES! *phew* *smile*

The universe is all a spin-off of the Big Bang.

Working...