One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com
Using 89% of the same design the blog had in 2001.
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!!
Back-up your data and, when you bike,
always wear white.
With Vista's User Account Control (UAC) turned on, you're really not an Administrator after all. If you turn off UAC (or launch the Studio with the 'Run As [Administrator]') everything will be back to the way you're used to it working.
I've recently come up against a file of sql that's too big for SQuirreL SQL to handle... I keep getting a Java Memory Heap error when I try and paste it all in. The quick answer appears to be csplit. To break a giant file into files of 10,000 lines each, you can call this:
csplit tokenLinks.sql 10000 {100} <<< Don't use!
That basically says to chunk the sql file into 100 groups of 10,000 lines each.
The problem here is if your file doesn't have 100 groups of 10,000 lines... I used 100 b/c the number of lines often changed from file to file, and I didn't want to have long last files if I pitched low. That is, 15 groups of 10,000 lines isn't really enough if the file's got 200k lines.
So csplit gives you an "out of range" error if you shoot too high and then, get this, erasing all the files it made. Nice. So it's worthless.
Unfortunately, if you tell csplit to create more files than it's able to, this produces an 'out of range' error. Furthermore, when csplit encounters an error, it exits by removing any files it created along the way. (A bug, if you ask me.) This is where the -k option comes in. Specify -k to keep the files around, even when the 'out of range' message occurs.
csplit -k tokenLinks.sql 10000 {100}
Happy and reponsitive [sic]. And, at least on my iBook running 10.4, the last file does have the last entry, so nothing's missed.
Yesterday, the web was buzzing with commentary about Google CEO Eric Schmidt's dangerous, dismissive response to concerns about search engine users' privacy. When asked during an interview for CNBC's recent 'Inside the Mind of Google' special about whether users should be sharing information with Google as if it were a 'trusted friend,' Schmidt responded, 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
One of the blogs I most enjoy reading is Trace Ramsey's Cricket Bread. I'm not going to go through the excuses I'm not living like he is, where it certainly seems like his approach to the grid is one that's wholly defensible and consciously crafted on every level. There's a [near?] minimalism at work in Ramsey's approach to life, from his 100 mile diet to his self-published Quitter zines/books.
Today's post contains a few especially graphic images of animals-becoming-meat as well as this excellent bit of perhaps slightly controversial, but genuinely good writing.
My grandfather’s task was brutal regardless, but maybe less so as there were no mounted heads on the walls of his home like there were in our home. The need for those stuffed and preserved reminders is something that I couldn’t explain back then, but know now is an indication of small mindedness, a dedication to the outward projection of dominance when you know that you are inescapably weak inside.
The new service enables users to bypass their own Internet Service Provider's DNS to use Google's performance-optimized name lookup server ... Other free DNS services are already available, but most cover their costs by redirecting failed lookups (for mistyped or incorrect URLs) to ad supported pages that suggest alternatives. So far, Google isn't performing any such commercial redirects. Instead, the company is providing the service for free as a way to collect information about how users use the Internet on an anonymous and aggregated level.
Of course it's anonymous. It's worth more to Google as anonymous data.
Anyhow, the advantage is no 404 ads? Is that really a huge advantage? And then you provide Google free labor? Interesting. Are we really so excited to use Google that we'd like to give up some privacy -- maybe not individually specific privacy, but our privacy as collective demographics -- to avoid a few cruddy ads?
There's a politics of the collective that is being almostly entirely forgotten in our age of "postmodern" individuality (let's just call it "late capitalism", right?).
With Apple having already won a judgment against Psystar for copyright infringement, Psystar's tactic of shifting the burden of OS X installation to the customer appears to be its new primary strategy for attempting to remain in business.
This reminds me of the GIMP without gif support or Audacity without LAME or Handbrake without whatever does the DeCSSing (in this case VLC, and the strange battle in Handbrake of making VLC be installed in the OS X Applications folder only). At what point is the gun close enough to being loaded that when it goes off somewhere it shouldn't that it's the seller's fault?
Boy, that was a horribly botched metaphor. Still, I think the point is a useful one. To butcher another, if there's this potentially illegal combination of a square hole and a square peg and I'm not only making the hole, but pointing it out in neon lettering and giving you instructions, as well as some, let's say, coupling technology that helps you insert it (I hate Freud), have I breached copyright? At what point might the law come back to attack Handbrake and Audacity? Pystar's is, it would seem, an important precedent-setting case.
posted by ruffin
at 12/01/2009 01:48:00 PM
The postings on this site are [usually] my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any employer, past or present, or other entity. About Our Author
