binspace

Aah ;-)

> So that's what concerned you. The points don't matter.

That's your response? How very caviler of you.

It does matter because it's communication, albeit binary and pretty bad, about how well your comment is being received. It matters emotionally, just like a scowl matters, or a joke at your expense matters.

It's also a form of censorship and throwing rotten food on the poster.

> Particularly as you don't know who is doling out the points

Well, that is part of the problem, isn't it? Humans are not completely logical, Dr. Spock. Including me and you... We gotta make assumptions sometimes in absence of information. Well cool, I found out something new, you got your jab in there. Win-win.

Point taken about how the voting algorithm works.

I have been noticing some cheaper desks that cover 1 & 2 using google.

http://www.ergoindemand.com/pneumatic-sit-stand-adjustable-c...

http://www.amazon.com/Balt-Inc-Ergo-Easy-Workstation/dp/B000...

I also found a DIY tables, but it does'n quite fit #2. http://www.extremehowto.com/xh/article.asp?article_id=60365

This one does but the plans cost $17. http://www.leviteq.com/

All that ikea piece needs is pneumatic adjustment. It' amazing how difficult it is to find an adjustable desk in the right price point ($150-$400).

Hey, are there any cheaper options that you have found? For example I would be happy with a desk that can be manually adjusted.

It figures you downvoted me. You will probably downvote this one too.

I was sort of thinking about it, and I realized you were screwing with me. It's sortof humorous and dickish (sorry douchey is more appropriate) at the same time.

I don't hate you, but it's not how I would conduct myself, especially if somebody is obviously ignorant over a certain context of discussion.

> second rather uncouth one

I thought it was appropriate. I could have been more high-brow about it, but why bother? You would have downvoted me anyway and would not have been any more sympathetic. It certainly made me feel better.

Also using lmgtfy, classy! (I had another comment but decided I didn't want to get downvoted twice by you, so I merged it).

aah, it was supposed to be humorous. Jeez, I guess the jokes on me.

> and you reach that conclusion?

The only conclusion I have reached so far is that you are a dick.

> If it is necessary for one generation to die for political views to move forward, that doesn't bode well for progress if Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil prove prophetic.

I really want to say you are not right here, but I cannot.

Obviously, being able to live longer carries a greater responsibility. One would hope that our ethics and judgement can evolve too.

One a positive note, the rate of cultural evolution has been increasing. Now we often have dramatic shifts in opinion between generations. That wasn't always the case.

The key is to lessen the value of being right, and heightening the value of exploration and seeking truth.

> and you reach that conclusion?

I think Zed is a good guy. He is certainly civil in person and tends to have well thought out arguments. I was surprised by the claim without any data to back it up. I missed the whole implicit common knowledge part. I thought people were trying to defend his statement.

> it's turned into a rather droll black comedy.

I'll defer to you on this one. I wasn't intending on being a troll, so sorry if it turned out that way.

I'm just annoyed that I was getting downvoted over what I thought were valid questions.

Why, because you disagree with it?

Get rid of downvoting (to fight the pervasive groupthink) and I'll consider joining reddit again.

I'm sick of all of the hype (for the past 20+ years) that relational databases is the only data storage technology you need.

When all you have is a hammer...

@grasshopper - That makes sense. Mongo is certainly new tech, so it would be more work right now with Rails.

With Sinatra, I'm finding it to be less work.

I would probably stick with relational tech if starting off with Rails, but keep your eye open toward alternative store, such as document databases and key/value stores.

@refugee - My experiences have been quite the opposite. Mongo allows me to focus on the domain. AR forces me to think about fitting the relational model into my problem, which causes a huge impedance mismatch, and causes lots of extra work and performance issues.

Of course it depends on the problem, but working with hashes and arrays is simpler than the relational model, no?

I do concede the vast swaths of docs for AR, however AR is pretty complicated and issues arise that aren't well documented.

The learning curve to Sinatra will be light. Sinatra is pretty easy to learn, especially if you already know Rails.

Also, if you want rapid prototyping, you should look into a document store such as Mongo.

Not having to write migrations (as you would with ActiveRecord + Mysql) is huge.

Also, your models can be more flexible. You can add keys to your document as needed. With Mysql, you need to have a migration to add the column.

Haha, I wish I could downvote you ;-)

Yes, Sinatra is a Ruby web framework.

Sinatra is more of a "micro-framework" and puts you closer to the http method.

Basically, the api mimics http more closely, you literally use get, put, post, and delete methods to define your routes and actions.

In Sinatra, you define your routes in the same place where you program your Resource's functionality, so less mapping is required. In Rails, you have a separate controller and route files.

The model layers between Sinatra and Rails are very similar. For example, you can use ActiveRecord in Sinatra.

Yeah it's a hoot, especially coming from the guy who will kill people not using statistics, which is a great read btw. http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/programmer_stats.html

I'm sure it's just an off-the-cuff remark. I've made plenty in my day.

You may also want to consider Sinatra for rapid prototyping. It's lighter weight (less framework) than Rails. Depending on your preferences, it may suite your needs.

There may also be less perceived benefit to studying compared with other activities, such as interacting and collaborating with the broader world. Oh, the horror!

Somebody mentioned having prizes for the drug developer. This would especially help medication where there wouldn't be much profit incentive but would do lots of good (e.g. Malaria).

It's really only the threat of legal action that matters. Who wants to deal with lawyers, legal expenses, and energy spent defending your position, even if you are right?

It's too bad such anti-innovative behavior is even legal.

One thing that the author does not account for is the cost of the commute. If the average total daily commute is 1 hour, over 10% of the day is lost to the commute.

That coupled with the gas (and pollution) necessary to get the workforce from point A to point B, means there is a heavy tax on our resources and time on having everybody work in a particular spot.

Collaborative technology is getting better. Many times email (or the next iteration of communication technology) is better than meetings.

I also personally find I get more done from home than from the office because it is a more relaxed atmosphere. I can focus and easily pace around (which helps me think) without bothering anybody. At work, I'm often distracted and am not as happy (that has got to count for something).

Anyways, I cannot wait to have the freedom to work from a location of my choice.

I don't understand how a monolithic route mapping layer & a separate resource layer is more reusable than a modular resource + route layer. Care to explain?

I find the Sinatra approach leads to less code and less complexity, especially for larger apps. This is because it is easy to extract middleware using Sinatra, since I break up separate resources anyways, instead of the single Application object.

Conventions are powerful. Programmers should be allowed and able to come up with their own conventions that match their domain.

I personally find sinatra routes more scalable than Rails routes because they are modular (defined within the resources). Rails routes are one monolithic file with a separate controller layer.

This applies even with Rails routes. Our routing scheme does not match that of Rails (we want seo friendly routes, that does not always fit the /collection-name/:collection_id paradigm).

I think simple routing systems, like Sinatra, are the way to go here.

From a simple library that does not get in the way, it's not too difficult to come up with a convention that matches your needs. The overall application then becomes simpler because I don't have to fight a heavy-weight routing system that misses the point.

There's more information and more distribution of power to citizens, thus more checks and balances. Also, technology is evolving quickly, with much disruption, which means there is less entrenchment.

The oil industry, has only the government (which has been bought out) as it's check and balance. This is not a case of the free market at all, but a corrupt and closed one.

I have been hearing that senators do listen to their constituents, especially if there is a massive email/letter campaign. Yes, this is at best inefficient.

I just hope there's a discussion for more of a direct democracy. We have the technology...

Of course we also need more transparency.

Against oil spills? Yeah, the .com I work for will not cause an oil spill.

Data security, that's a different manner. Yes, companies should be secure if they claim to be, especially if they store data about their customers. Litigation and bad press, in these cases, seem to cover things well, since there tends to be more competition in the .com space. Fortunately most .com's do not need to keep sensitive information. Some do however. Sucks for them.

In the case of a player in an oligopoly for a critical industry (Energy), it's a bit different. In safety-critical industries, there is strong regulation. Why not in industries which can wreak severe environmental havoc?

The environmental damage BP caused may be worth more than the company itself. Like Exxon, I don't see them having to pay the full cost.