Solution:
var thisValue = 12;
var thisText = 'December';
var thisOpt = document.createElement('option');
thisOpt.value = theValue;
thisOpt.appendChild(document.createTextNode(thisText));
$(".months_menu").append(thisOpt);
]]>
SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE ... IN ( SELECT ... FROM ... GROUP BY ... HAVING COUNT(*) > 1 );
So, to give an example, you want to select all rows from the table "books" that have a non-unique title:
SELECT * FROM books WHERE title IN ( SELECT title FROM books GROUP BY books HAVING COUNT(*) > 1 );]]>
use Time::Local qw/timegm/; my $dt = "2008-08-02 12:45:01"; my @datetime = split /\-|:|\s/, $dt; $datetime[1]--; # months need decrementing my $epoch_time = timegm(reverse @datetime);]]>
We agree to copy rights to create resources for the benefit of mankind (or, ourselves) by invention. It is a reward system. It takes time and other resources to create a medicine, a song, a piece of software. Without substantial reward many substantial inventions would not happen. We do not agree to copy rights to reward inventors any more than our employers agree to pay us to make sure we have a good living. Just like our employers pay us to induce us to work, we agree to IP to induce authors to create.
Unlike our employers, we have let the debate on how much reward be centred on what's right. That was how employers operated in the 1970s, and the unions took advantage of that; to our cost. What should determine how much reward we give should be how little we can offer to induce invention.
So back to Scrabulous: Hasbro would have invented and sold Scrabble boards all those years ago if they only had 20 years copy right. Paul McCartney would have been a member of the Beetles and writting his songs if he only had 20 years copy right. Hasbro are making use of the overly generous terms of employment that we give them. McCartney pleaded for longer copy rights for artists, and was taken seriously in some quarters. He's part of the delusion that copy right is about the author. It's not: it's about the us, the consumer, and should be as little as possible to get him, Hasbro, Glaxo, to make us stuff that we like, and as little as possible is certainly less than the current copy right and patent rights give. We need to fine tune these instruments of ours to increase our yield.
]]>Here's a one line solution:
my %args = (
id => 102546,
key => 'kljdlasjd3289290mkdlmca',
list => 12,
action => 'unsubcribe',
);
my $query_string = join '&', map { "$_=$args{$_}" } keys %args;
my $url = "http://example.com/newsletter?$query_string";
That should create your query string out of all the elements of your hash.
]]>I got the list from Wikipedia so it should be up to date as of today. It includes the country name and ISO 3166-1 codes. Enjoy.
]]>The Prime Minister has moaned at OPEC for not producing more oil in order to bring prices down. Will he be capping the prices charged for North Sea oil? Demanding increased output? Reducing fuel duty? No. Brown wants the extra money just as much as OPEC countries do. And higher prices means higher revenues from North Sea oil. There's also the fact that we don't have a shortage of fuel, but we also don't have extra capacity in our refineries. Saudi Arabia - the only OPEC member that could increase output - could pump millions more barrels out but we couldn't use them because we can't refine them. Brown's demand on OPEC is hollow retoric with undertones of racism. Higher prices are okay for Gordon so long the economy isn't stalled by them and he's the benificiary rather than Arabs, Russians, Nigerians or Venuzualians maximising their profits.
]]>Here's my reasoning: the last 60 years growth have been based on the assumption of plentiful and cheap natural resources such as oil, metals, crops, fuel, fish - you name it, it's scarcer and in more demand and therefore more costly than before. Many of these resources are diminishing - we're almost certainly at or beyond peak oil, for instance - whilst demand from emerging economies such as India and China is adding to the acceleration in demand in emerged economies. Add to that the shrinking workforce and growing old age pensioners, which is already happening in some parts of Europe and will rapidly be happening here, and you have rising underlying costs. And they are rising irreversably for the next couple of decades, at least.
Now this doesn't mean anything should be done. In fact, it's pretty clear nothing can be done, other than to expect slower growth of our standard of living. Which, might, tenuously, lead into thoughts of what is our standard of living and how do we measure it beyond material wealth. Kids on sink estates in England feel they've got the shitty end of the stick, but materially they have massive advantage over their Malawian counterparts. And, providing it's not a drought year, generally, the kid in Malawi has a better standard of living, in my limited experience. They are happier, better adjusted, more pleasant, inquisitive and able to enjoy the moment.
Just as Aldous Huxley said that morality is dependent on some basic material wealth, beyond that absolute amount of material wealth there's a welter of ways in which our standard of living can and should be considered. As we enter an era where fast material gains become scarcer would could, as people - not states - consider, adjust, improve, perfect our non-material lives.
]]>If only...
]]>What would be interesting would be if they sold tickets in a reverse auction - starting the price very high and gradually bringing it down. Those fans with the money and desire to make sure they get in will have the advantage of getting their tickets early on but at a higher cost, whilst everyone can wait, and watch as the prices comes down. Assuming the number of available tickets is also made public, you can wait until the price is what you're prepared to pay or you see enough tickets shifting to think it's time to get one before they run out. Buy early - pay more and get peace of mind. Buy later - pay less and take more risk of missing the show.
This has several desirable effects: those prepared to pay more get better preference; the event gets maximum price the market is willing to pay at the expense of touts who can't "gazump" consumers early on; and payload on the ticketing system would be distributed over a longer period as not everyone will be refreshing their browser a bazillion times at 8am on the day sales start because tickets will be, say, £1000 to start with.
If the system starts with a £1000 price tag and brings it down by £5 every 30 minutes, after about 4 days the price would be £60. Now the system could also delay the next price drop by, say 5 minutes every time there 1+ tickets are sold. This way the maximum price will be maintained so long as people are buying.
Whether or not fans will see this as exploitation / profiteering would be the biggest hurdle to get over, but pointing out that this eliminates touts and the artist / venue get the money they would have spent anyway instead of that annoying 15 year old bedroom speculator could well mitigate that negative feeling.
]]>I shouldn't be counting my chickens before they've been transferred to my bank account, but I'll keep track of this and see if it does actually pay out.
]]>