Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Don't use Excel for CSV files! (Score 1) 319

It's not like Excel alters the underlying data, all you have to do is correctly change the column type.

Oh! but it does - once you save it.

If you open a CSV with Excel by default, it will simply read in the values and format it how it sees fit.
Then if you save it, even as a csv, it will give you a warning saying something like "some of the features are not compatible with this format type"
If you proceed, your file is now changed. I have seen scientific notation changed like this. Many columns and rows, you may miss a malformatting and save it as csv. Boom, your data is now toast.

It is why I always look at my CSV files with a text editor first, and only open copies in Excel.
And if you use a real editor like vi, even opening files with millions of rows isn't an issue.

Comment Re:There's a simpler answer to this (Score 1) 184

Carriers would find a way around this. e.g. "you have to own the phone before you are eligible for security updates" T-Mobile does the "pay $20 a month" for a new phone, so you wouldn't really own it until your contract was up. That's why I think that "other" brands will start making real inroads into the market - BLU, Huwei, Xiaomi, etc. I have a BLU, and love it. Dual sim, unlocked, octacore, 2GB ram, gorilla glass, for $150. Why would I buy some $600 phone? As long as the manufacturers control the updates, I might as well get a good phone that I can afford to either root or replace in a couple of years.

Comment What a long painfully joyful trip it's been... (Score 2) 305

I ditched Windows back in 1998 and installed RedHat 5.1. It was awesome! Then I upgraded. Wow, what a nightmare. Dependency hell. I struggled with it for a few years, but hung in there because I just loved it and had no interest in going back to Windows. Macs make my brain hurt.

Then along came Mandrake which took away some of the pain. That was great as well, really liked KDE. Upgrades were still painful, but much better.

Then I started hearing a lot about Ubuntu so I made the leap to Kubuntu 6.06. I went through about 8 in-place upgrades over time (minorly painful) until I finally things got unstable enough that I did a fresh install. Things were much better... but I kept having issues with KDE wigging out on me and pegging my cpu.

So I installed XFCE on top of Kubuntu. XFCE spoke to me - I realized all the UI flash didn't matter to me. I would flip back to KDE, but the problem kept happening and I was happy with XFCE. Eventually I heard about Mint around 2011, and had to try Mint XFCE - I have been there since. I have decided to not do rolling installs anymore, but I am configured pretty well to do full installs. I just installed over my Mint 17 XFCE release and was up and running on Mint XFCE 18 in about an hour. (my / partition is 55 GB and only uses about 12, and I have a separate partition for home). This was the smoothest linux system update I have ever had - even no issues with the Nvidia proprietary drivers!

Installs aside, my Linux system does everything I want it to do. Seeing all the various applications on it grow and blossom, and really cool things like bootable distros to embedded linux to mini systems to android. It has really been great to see it all flourish.

At work I use Windows 10, and I get by. But it brings me no joy. At home I run Linux, and it brings me joy. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to it.

Comment It's the efficiency mindset... (Score 1) 508

I'd argue that very few people's productivity is measured in how efficient their file operations are. It's sort of like believing you're going to be vastly more efficient as a programmer if you memorize a bunch of keyboard shortcuts or type 60wpm instead of 30. Unlike the movies [hackertyper.com], programming isn't about how fast you type.

I think it's more about learning how to work efficiently, and keeping an "efficient" mindset in whatever you do. Example: I use pine for my email, I have since around 2000. I use fetchmail to pull in a few accounts locally. If I want to check my email, it's faster for me to ssh to my home machine and check it rather than scan across several emails on my phone (I do use K9 to pull them into one app though). Now, if I want to view and attach pictures to emails, or look at attachments, then a GUI is better. But most of the time I am just reading the text and ssh/pine is much more efficient.

Another example: at work someone on my team was trying to generate a 2 million row csv file for testing. She was trying to do it in Excel, and it was very cumbersome and slow. Using an example row, i created a script that was able to generate a million rows in about 5 minutes. Then I used a couple of other tools (sed/cat/vi) to copy the million row file, modify it, and cat them back together. She had her 2 million row csv file in about 15 minutes. She was amazed. Since then I have worked on several other large files like this because people think they have to use Excel to view csv files. And vi kicks notepads ass in editing.

These are just two examples of doing something efficiently. Yes, it was comfortable for me to use these things, but there was no other good solution for this particular problem because people were locked into what they knew. Back on topic, I can certainly use other desktops, but I moved to XFCE many years ago when KDE kept eating my CPU for some unknown reason... and I have simply grown to prefer it. MintXFCE is my sweet spot now, and I don't have any plans to switch.

Comment Flat files... (Score 2) 671

Back in the early 90s I worked at the big cellphone company. We worked on Unix workstations, and I learned a lot of what to do and what not to do. We used an in-house built bug system built to use sccs. I managed the build shell scripts. The only way to get code into the build was to enter a CR (Change Request) and link the source files to it. Then the build would examine all the CRs for a weekly build, check out that code, ftp it to the target platform (tandem), build it. If all went well, 8 hours later you would have a successful build, which I would then write to 9 track tapes, and THEN install it on the target system testing platform.

So the bug system I mentioned used flat readable text files to store all the info. There was a gui front-end but it was kind of slow.

Out of necessity to quickly look things up, I wrote a shell script that would allow you to search and view CRs on the command line. Bad built on top of bad, but it worked pretty well. Other people on my team started using it too.

It worked so well in fact that somewhere around 2006 I was living across the country, having been at a few other companies since then. An old colleague still at my first company got in touch with me, and someone was asking about me and the tool I created. They saw my email in the header of the script, and wanted to get in touch with me to see if I would let them edit it. They were still using it! What I created for myself others found so useful that it was still chugging along doing its job on the command line. I don't know if it made me proud or sad, but it was humorous to me. I haven't heard anything from them since then, but it would be very interesting if they were still using that same process and those shell scripts I created so long ago.

Comment rule of law? please (Score 1) 242

I'll say it again: it is not the technology or capability that is at issue. In a free society governed by the rule of law, it is the LAW that is paramount.

In theory, law is paramount, but we are governed by the rule of lawmakers not law. Our entire society is strangled by our self-fulfilling legal system. Look at how... well... EVERYTHING runs. EULAs. Disclaimers. TV commercials that flash miniscule paragraphs on the screen. Mountains of paperwork to do anything. Lawsuits lawsuits lawsuits. We are steeped in a society that lawyers have created, and manage, and ensure that we stay that way. Don't like something? Create a new law to make it legal. (not you or me... people with power) Everything is based on precedent. If someone got away with it once, it's probably OK to do again - and the opposite holds true as well. A police officer can chase you and if you run, you have broken the law (fleeing). Laws laws laws laws. I GUARANTEE YOU that these spy planes are legal according to some law that was passed at some point. Don't think so, well, you'll have to prove it. By then the laws will have been changed.

 

Comment Re: Duh. (bad science all around) (Score 1) 184

He is not a published scientist of any repute. There, I think I covered the facts of your response. He is a medical doctor. But there are lots of those, right? What he does well is encourage people to read the research, and to become critical thinkers.

Your post reeks of some vendetta against him. If I had to put money on it, I would guess you are a vegetarian/vegan.

Fine, you don't like him there are other doctors and researchers out there who are researching the same things, and he references them in what he publishes and talks about. You probably already know that, but only want to stick to your ideology instead of looking at the science behind it.

If your doctor wants you on a statin, it's time to start eating healthier because you have atherosclerosis.

WOW. This is exactly what is wrong. Doctors prescribe statins because someone has high cholesterol, not atherosclerosis! And they only do that because they think that "high cholesterol is bad". I know what you are thinking - there is "good and bad" cholesterol... which is grossly over-simplified. That is precisely the shallow-minded unquestioning thinking that causes unhealthy FADS like low-fat diets to take root and prosper. And mis-information that statins are to treat atherosclerosis. Yet with one of the most prescribed drugs ever in statins, heart disease is still on the rise.

The causes of atherosclerosis are not definitively known. Seriously, look it up. Here are some key words for you though - oxidation and inflammation.
I know it's Attia's site, but read the content... it's a 10 part series that delves in to cholesterol and atherosclerosis... Jump to Part 10 that summarizes things very well. Sorry if there are big sciency words. Read back through all 10 posts. It is a few years old, but it's pretty clear this guy is not a marketing shill.

Comment Re: Duh. (bad science all around) (Score 2) 184

Well... yes and no. 5000 calories is a lot, even in high-caloric foods. I think you would poop a lot and you wouldn't WANT to eat that much food because you wouldn't need to. The calorie argument is a red herring - it is a piece of information, but only a small one.

But I can tell you this. After eating high-fat (animal fats, butter, coconut oil, olive oil), no grains/legumes and virtually no sugar for a year, and not counting calories at all or exercising any more than I normally did, I lost 15 lbs and 2 inches off my waist. Actually that happened in the first 3 months, but I tracked it for a year. I went from 170 lbs to 155. If I were overweight, I would have lost a lot more. I have been eating this way for 4 years now, and after increasing my non-grain carbs a little I am at 160 with no effort. And I feel better than I ever have. There are other great effects of eating this way, such as reducing inflammation.

A year or so ago I did track what I ate and measured the fat/calories/sugar for a week. It was typical, and I made no adjustments to my diet.
The daily average came out to 2300 calories, 54 grams carbs, 186 grams fat, 18 grams sugar. I actually expected the calories to be higher, but that is what I found. I did actually think for a moment "oh no, I'm not eating enough... the average male should consume..." NO! That is generalized hogwash for the masses based on old information (I can't even call it science). Watch this video by Dr Peter Attia on Vimeo who talks about how our Dietary Guidelines are what they are. I know.. it's long, but it's really interesting. He has some really deep info on his website about how our diet and fat affects our cholesterol. Another fun fact - high cholesterol isn't bad. Another fun fact - half of all people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol. Cholesterol is simply one thing, one factor in the grand scheme... but you know what doctors say... you need to lower it, I want you to take statins. (which are at the top of the most prescribed drug lists, in quantity and in dollars) But I digress...

I think it would be hard to eat 5000 calories in a day. I can see where someone doing vigorous work all day would require more food, but that is not saying the same thing as "just eat fewer calories and you will lose weight". I can only explain so much... I referenced some good books that go into far greater detail on the topic. Your body operates on hormones, and what you eat directly impacts that process. Calories do not. It's really that simple. But please, don't take my word for it, find those books and read them. The information is out there.

Comment Re:That is impossible. (Score 3, Funny) 118

Something just does not become impossible. if something impossible does exist then you'd be able to see it.. if somebody for example made something impossible it actually is not impossible because it had succeeded via the person's own intent. but if that person had covered up the intent well that is still not impossible because we already know something impossible cannot exist.

"His weapon flails wildly at any or all targets, the truth. his theory placed with humble intentions cannot be understood until someone proves him wrong"

What in the fuck is wrong with you?

Those are actually lyrics from a Ke$ha song.

I think the question "What in the fuck is wrong with you?" still applies.

Comment Re:Or... (Score 1) 184

Having lost 150lbs over the past few years, I have read innumerable articles over that time about nutrition and have come to a conclusion: Nobody has any fucking idea what they're talking about. Carbs are bad for you, fat is bad for you, refined sugar is bad for you, all sugar is bad for you, processed food of any kind is bad for you, artificial sweeteners are bad for you, and on and on. I can find an article and a study to back up just about any claim you care to make about nutrition. It's all bullshit pseudo science.

Here's the consensus: Burn more calories than you consume and you will lose weight, and try to eat some vegetables every once in a while to ensure you get some vitamins. That's about it.

If you're having trouble gaining weight, you're not eating enough. Simple as that. Here's what you do: Eat what you normally would every day, then eat an entire loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter every night. That's an extra 10000 Calories or so every day. If you can't gain weight on that then you're a medical marvel or an Olympiad in training. Will it be hard to force yourself to eat all that? You bet it will. It's at least as hard for people on the opposite end of the spectrum who have to force themselves not to eat, trust me. So it's really just a matter of how bad you want it, isn't it?

You are wrong on some points. There are NOT studies that back up some of your assertions (i.e. fat is bad for you). People have selectively interpreted results to fit their own opinions, and in some cases outright lied about them. IT IS NOT ABOUT CALORIES IN / CALORIES OUT.

Eating more does not make you fat. Period. Being overweight is due to an imbalance in how your body regulates fat storage due to hormonal regulation of homeostasis. The main driver of this process is insulin. Insulin is directly affected by WHAT you eat, now how much. And more precisely, it is the amount of carbs in your diet. Sugars are particularly nasty in this regard.

    It's a lot more complex than this, but that is a sufficient summary of the basics. Overeating or sedentary behavior does NOT make you fat. It's pretty much the other way around - becoming fat increases the amount of food you need and makes it more difficult to be physically active.

Good Calories Bad Calories (or Why We Get Fat: and what to do about it) and the Primal Blueprint are great books to read on this topic. And Grain Brain is good for how grains have been shown to impact our brains, which is more to the topic of this story.

(some of the above was copy/pasted from another post I replied to in this story)

Comment Re:Duh. (bad science all around) (Score 1) 184

If there's a correlation it could be the other way around: perhaps people with those specific brain characteristics are prone to eating more.

Eating more does not make you fat. Period. Being overweight is due to an imbalance in how your body regulates fat storage due to hormonal regulation of homeostasis. The main driver of this process is insulin. Insulin is directly affected by WHAT you eat, now how much. And more precisely, it is the amount of carbs in your diet. Sugars are particularly nasty in this regard.

  It's a lot more complex than this, but that is a sufficient summary of the basics. Overeating or sedentary behavior does NOT make you fat. It's pretty much the other way around - becoming fat increases the amount of food you need and makes it more difficult to be physically active.

Good Calories Bad Calories (or Why We Get Fat: and what to do about it) and the Primal Blueprint are great books to read on this topic. And Grain Brain is good for how grains have been shown to impact our brains, which is more to the topic of this story.

Comment Re:If you think Twitter is bad... (Score 1) 116

I am not an admin, I only need to remember my passwords. Personally, I have a less-secure "story" and a more-secure "story". So I basically have 2 variations on the story behind my passwords. That doesn't mean I have only 2 passwords of course. So even if someone cracked one of my passwords they would be able to guess my others. And I have been using the secure scheme since 1996. The password looks totally random, but I know the story behind it, and remember the variations I made. So I can write down a single letter (or number) and know what the password is.

I think my point is that people need to THINK about their passwords, and make it unguessable yet something they can write down reminders for without compromising the guessability. Now making it 'uncrackable' is a different story completely.

Comment Re:If you think Twitter is bad... (Score 1) 116

True, to some degree... I only use this type of naming scheme where I am required to change my password - which is pretty much everywhere except on things that I control. Sometimes you have to deal with reality, and that means having to change your password. Is DaisyRIPyy99 harder to crack than DaisyRIPzz00? Not at all, but it is a method to help the user remember it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam

Working...