[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

[UPDATE] RubyConf 2006 registration pre-info

dblack

7/28/2006 1:40:00 PM

9 Answers

Tom Werner

7/28/2006 8:08:00 PM

0

dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
>
> My current plan, barring unforeseen whatever, is to open registration
> on August 2. I'm going to be in Los Angeles doing Rails training, so
> it's a bit dependent on hotel connectivity and stuff, and it will
> probably be in the evening, Pacific time.
>

Given the small number of spots for the conference and the large number
of people who want to fill those spots, I wonder if a two stage
registration would be more egalitarian. Stage one would involve the
collection of details for anyone wanting to register (open for perhaps
two or three days). From this (probably staggering) pool of potential
registrants, the chosen few would be picked at random and their payments
would be collected in the second stage.

While this approach would be a bit more work than just opening the
registration floodgate and watching with horror (or delight?) the
ensuing stampede, it would at least mean a fair chance for those who
find themselves on the toilet when you press the magic button.

On one hand, perhaps the hardcore, with their polling scripts and high
blood pressure, deserve to be rewarded with admission, but on the other
hand, there are a lot of us that are nearly, but not quite, as hardcore
who want to attend just as badly.

Regards,

Tom

--
Tom Werner
Helmets to Hardhats
Software Developer
tom@helmetstohardhats.org
www.helmetstohardhats.org

S Wayne

7/28/2006 8:57:00 PM

0

I'd like to second Tom's suggestion. Given the supply vs. demand on
this one, I would like to see a lottery. I live only a few blocks from
the Convention location this year, and will be most disheartened if I
cannot get in. However, I'd be much happier if I have an equal shot
with the 'campers' :)

Jim Freeze

7/28/2006 9:44:00 PM

0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Werner <tom@helmetstohardhats.org>
On one hand, perhaps the hardcore, with their polling scripts and high
blood pressure, deserve to be rewarded with admission, but on the other
hand, there are a lot of us that are nearly, but not quite, as hardcore
who want to attend just as badly.

Now there is a great idea for the next Ruby quiz.
A script that monitors email for Rubyconf opening and
then auto registers you for the conference.

JEGII, consider this my submission. :)

--
Jim Freeze

James Gray

7/28/2006 10:32:00 PM

0

On Jul 28, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Jim Freeze wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tom Werner <tom@helmetstohardhats.org>
> On one hand, perhaps the hardcore, with their polling scripts and high
> blood pressure, deserve to be rewarded with admission, but on the
> other
> hand, there are a lot of us that are nearly, but not quite, as
> hardcore
> who want to attend just as badly.
>
> Now there is a great idea for the next Ruby quiz.
> A script that monitors email for Rubyconf opening and
> then auto registers you for the conference.
>
> JEGII, consider this my submission. :)

I would rather not lead the Denial of Service attach on Ruby
Central. ;)

If you guys really can write a script that properly submits before
you have seen the form though, you are a lot cooler than I am!

James Edward Gray II

Eric Armstrong

7/28/2006 10:55:00 PM

0

The organizers may already know about this, but
I'll pass it along just in case...

I heard once that when you sign up for space at
a hotel, you can adjust the size of the room up
or down depending on the number of registrations
you get.

They have all those folding partitions they use
to make rooms larger or smaller, you wind up
getting charged for the space you actually use.

There is probably some lead time to take in
account (a week? two?). But it's one to go to
prevent having to "plan small" to be safe...


Jim Freeze wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tom Werner <tom@helmetstohardhats.org>
> On one hand, perhaps the hardcore, with their polling scripts and high
> blood pressure, deserve to be rewarded with admission, but on the other
> hand, there are a lot of us that are nearly, but not quite, as hardcore
> who want to attend just as badly.
>
> Now there is a great idea for the next Ruby quiz.
> A script that monitors email for Rubyconf opening and
> then auto registers you for the conference.
>
> JEGII, consider this my submission. :)
>

Tom Werner

7/28/2006 11:17:00 PM

0

Tom Werner wrote:
> dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
>>
>> My current plan, barring unforeseen whatever, is to open registration
>> on August 2. I'm going to be in Los Angeles doing Rails training, so
>> it's a bit dependent on hotel connectivity and stuff, and it will
>> probably be in the evening, Pacific time.
>>
>
> Given the small number of spots for the conference and the large
> number of people who want to fill those spots, I wonder if a two stage
> registration would be more egalitarian. Stage one would involve the
> collection of details for anyone wanting to register (open for perhaps
> two or three days). From this (probably staggering) pool of potential
> registrants, the chosen few would be picked at random and their
> payments would be collected in the second stage.
>
> While this approach would be a bit more work than just opening the
> registration floodgate and watching with horror (or delight?) the
> ensuing stampede, it would at least mean a fair chance for those who
> find themselves on the toilet when you press the magic button.
>
> On one hand, perhaps the hardcore, with their polling scripts and high
> blood pressure, deserve to be rewarded with admission, but on the
> other hand, there are a lot of us that are nearly, but not quite, as
> hardcore who want to attend just as badly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom
>
Another interesting thing this would accomplish is to determine with
absolute certainly how many people actually *are* interested in
attending the conference (providing better audience knowledge to the
decision makers when it comes time to plan for next year's RubyConf).

Tom

--
Tom Werner
Helmets to Hardhats
Software Developer
tom@helmetstohardhats.org
www.helmetstohardhats.org

Gregory Brown

7/29/2006 1:47:00 AM

0

On 7/28/06, Tom Werner <tom@helmetstohardhats.org> wrote:

> Another interesting thing this would accomplish is to determine with
> absolute certainly how many people actually *are* interested in
> attending the conference (providing better audience knowledge to the
> decision makers when it comes time to plan for next year's RubyConf).

Slap a page on the RubyGarden wiki, I imagine if people want to
express interest they will, though I don't know this can change the
amount of seats available.

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

7/29/2006 2:40:00 AM

0

Jim Freeze wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tom Werner <tom@helmetstohardhats.org>
> On one hand, perhaps the hardcore, with their polling scripts and high
> blood pressure, deserve to be rewarded with admission, but on the other
> hand, there are a lot of us that are nearly, but not quite, as hardcore
> who want to attend just as badly.
>
> Now there is a great idea for the next Ruby quiz.
> A script that monitors email for Rubyconf opening and
> then auto registers you for the conference.
>
> JEGII, consider this my submission. :)
>
Ah, but for performance, shouldn't you write the script in C?

Bob

8/13/2010 8:49:00 PM

0

"wy" <wy_@myself.com> wrote in message
news:7e2a0142-05d7-4c35-b1ce-4a8bb21480c9@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 2:19 pm, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > ...http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Issues/Issu......
>
> > > > > > > Yeah, it's a better way alright. One you'd have to wait till
> > > > > > > 2018
> > > > > > > for, while Obama's is already beginning to kick in and should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > almost fully in place by 2014.
>
> > > > > > > Not only that, but I guess you overlooked the taxation part of
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > proposal, didn't you? Its deceptively Simple Tax proposal
> > > > > > > breaks
> > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > to basically this: 10% tax on earnings under $50,000, 25% tax
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > earnings over $50,000, and for joint returns the same but the
> > > > > > > dividing
> > > > > > > line being $100,000. What's wrong with that picture? Well, let
> > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > try to keep this real simple because it is, after all, a
> > > > > > > Simple
> > > > > > > Tax
> > > > > > > proposal.
>
> > > > > > > If you as an individual made $49,000, your tax would be
> > > > > > > $4,900.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the following year you got a raise of $2,000, that would put
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > over
> > > > > > > the dividing line to $51,000, when your tax would be $12,750.
> > > > > > > Meaning
> > > > > > > you'd be set back to a net income of $38,250, earning $5,750
> > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > you would've if you still remained at $49,000. In fact, in
> > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > any raise into the $50,000 range from $49,000 to be worth it
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > that raise would have to go straight to $60,000, in which case
> > > > > > > you'd
> > > > > > > find yourself earning $900 more after taxes. This is what's
> > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > the $50,000 Suckage Hole in the GOP plan. Why would anyone
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > earn more than $49,999 if that's what they're already earning
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > they're going to be set back by almost $6,000 going into the
> > > > > > > $50,000+
> > > > > > > range? This in turn would create an income chasm whereby the
> > > > > > > $50,000-
> > > > > > > $59,999 would eventually cease to exist because it wouldn't be
> > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > one's bother to put up with it, thus keeping those earning
> > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > $50,000 always earning under $50,000.

> > > You said for individuals:
> > > Tax on $49,000 is $4,000 (correct)
> > > Tax on $51,000 is $12,750 (incorrect)
>
> > > From your link:
> > > Tax on $49,000 is $4,900
> > > Tax on $51,000 is $5,150
>
> > > Can you see the difference now? If not, look at the calculations
> > > for for the tax due on $51,000 in both instances. Again, your
> > > error is using the 25% rate for the entire $51,000 instead of
> > > using that rate for only the amount exceeding $50,000. You
> > > are right about one thing ... the math is quite simple.
>
> > That may apply to the current way of doing things, but how can you be
> > sure it's that simple for their own proposal? How can you be sure
> > that they really don't mean 25% on $51,000, not just on the first
> > thousand over $50,000? It's not specified, you know.
> > **********************************************
> > It most certainly is specified.
> > 10% on $0 - $50,000
> > 25% on $50,000 and over
>
> Literally, all that means is regardless of what you earn on the first
> $50,000 it'll be 10% tax and what you earn over $50,000 it'll be 25%
> tax. Literally. There's no explanation provided that it's anything
> other than that. You might want to assume that they will apply the
> rates in much the same way as now, but assumption can be naivete on
> your part.
> ************************************************
> There's no other way to apply them. Are you one of
> those people who cannot admit a mistake in public?

Are you naive enough to believe that the Republicans have your best
interests at heart? If they did, you wouldn't be in the mess you're
in now. Just as you had to "see what's really in the health care
bill" once it got passed, according to Nancy Pelosi, so too you'll
have to "see what's really in the tax reform" Republicans would like
to pass once it gets passed. Until then, it's all smoke and mirrors
and the smart money is on trusting Republicans less than Democrats.
**************************************************
I guess you are ...