MS SQL is essentially the number one threat to Oracle's business in the short term, since for the vast majority of cases it's a perfectly viable solution, generally costs less(presuming you already have any MS products in your organization), and to be honest, Microsoft are a lot nicer to deal with than Oracle.
Seems like more of a reason for Oracle to keep MySQL going than Java.
I once took a course in JBoss administration that included a section on tuning garbage collection. It convinced me that GC is a bad idea. It may make it easier for programmers but it shifts the burden for efficient memory management into a domain where it doesn't belong. Effective memory management is very sensitive to the design of the application. Shifting it to a generalized facility that runs garbage collection based on the short, medium or long duration of objects is an administrative nightmare. Someone writes an app that goes against the rules configured into the GC and the performance of the whole server suffers. So now we have training classes for Java programmers on how the GC works so they can write more efficient programs. How is that different from teaching C++ programmers a few simple code design disciplines (encapsulation, proper use of auto_ptr, etc.) to minimize memory management problems in their code?
Let them see for themselves. Tell them to hire one of the MS partners to come and convert there systems to MS products. Ask them to get a money back guarantee in writing (which is essentially what they seem to be asking from you for their OSS systems). If they won't give them that, it ought to tell them something. If they do, tell them if they have any regrets later you'll be there to move them back (for a fee, of course).
Taken together, which actually makes a lot more sense to do than any other two languages (they are often used together in the same project), C and C++ have the highest percentage.
I think you'll need to find a more authoritative reference that that. The author of this article seems to be making an assumption based on the name. Dennis Ritchie's "Evolution of the UNIX Systems says only that "Although it was not until well into 1970 that Brian Kernighan suggested the name `Unix,' in a somewhat treacherous pun on `Multics,' the operating system we know today was born." Read the rest of the paper here: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/hist.html
If UNIX was ever single user it was only for a brief early period in the laboratory and was a multiuser system long before it came into general use. The multiuser capability certainly wasn't "bolted on" as an afterthought. It was designed in from the beginning.
"... 99.999% uptime? That's the gold standard, and one that we are used to
thanks to regulated telephone service."
Ha! Welcome to the post-Bell System world. Where have you been? What took you so long to notice?
This is because MS Windows needs to be updated so often they automate the process and do it remotely in the evening (usually requires a reboot). So much for "green computing."
Yeah, it could do us a lot of good but I keep thinking about that saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They seem to be able to justify any means. What will those "failures" look like? How are regulations going to "incorporate any 'unforeseen developments'?" Seems like we've been down roads like this before both in history and in imagination. I think the risks are too great. I'm not only afraid of what kind of "failures" we might produce, but of what kind of people we might become by having to tolerate them in the name of science.
"Persinger and his team have trained their device on the temporal
lobes of hundreds of people. In doing so, the researchers induced in most
of them the experience of a sensed presence, a feeling that someone (or
a spirit) is in the room when no one, in fact, is"
How do they know this for a fact? Do they have instruments that can detect God's presence or absence? They claim to be inducing a "God experience." What if God really is omnipresent and they are just artificially stimulating or facilitating a response that is possible under any circumstances? (Psalm 138:7-12) This is very interesting, but it says more about the receiving end of such experiences (where the human brain responds to them) than the source.
Slashdot Mirror
MS SQL is essentially the number one threat to Oracle's business in the short term, since for the vast majority of cases it's a perfectly viable solution, generally costs less(presuming you already have any MS products in your organization), and to be honest, Microsoft are a lot nicer to deal with than Oracle.
Seems like more of a reason for Oracle to keep MySQL going than Java.
I once took a course in JBoss administration that included a section on tuning garbage collection. It convinced me that GC is a bad idea. It may make it easier for programmers but it shifts the burden for efficient memory management into a domain where it doesn't belong. Effective memory management is very sensitive to the design of the application. Shifting it to a generalized facility that runs garbage collection based on the short, medium or long duration of objects is an administrative nightmare. Someone writes an app that goes against the rules configured into the GC and the performance of the whole server suffers. So now we have training classes for Java programmers on how the GC works so they can write more efficient programs. How is that different from teaching C++ programmers a few simple code design disciplines (encapsulation, proper use of auto_ptr, etc.) to minimize memory management problems in their code?
Let them see for themselves. Tell them to hire one of the MS partners to come and convert there systems to MS products. Ask them to get a money back guarantee in writing (which is essentially what they seem to be asking from you for their OSS systems). If they won't give them that, it ought to tell them something. If they do, tell them if they have any regrets later you'll be there to move them back (for a fee, of course).
Does that k_id string at the end of your URL give you a commission for people who sign up for their service using it?
Taken together, which actually makes a lot more sense to do than any other two languages (they are often used together in the same project), C and C++ have the highest percentage.
This is not true.
Yes, it is.
I think you'll need to find a more authoritative reference that that. The author of this article seems to be making an assumption based on the name. Dennis Ritchie's "Evolution of the UNIX Systems says only that "Although it was not until well into 1970 that Brian Kernighan suggested the name `Unix,' in a somewhat treacherous pun on `Multics,' the operating system we know today was born." Read the rest of the paper here: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/hist.html If UNIX was ever single user it was only for a brief early period in the laboratory and was a multiuser system long before it came into general use. The multiuser capability certainly wasn't "bolted on" as an afterthought. It was designed in from the beginning."UNIX actually started out as a single-user OS and the multiuser aspect was bolted on later." This is not true.
"... 99.999% uptime? That's the gold standard, and one that we are used to thanks to regulated telephone service." Ha! Welcome to the post-Bell System world. Where have you been? What took you so long to notice?
It's a bigger problem than most people like to think or admit. Two science journalists wrote about it back in the 1980's in a book that was widely and unjustly condemned by the scientific establishment. See Betrayers of the Truth by Broad and Wade http://www.amazon.com/Betrayers-Truth-William-Broad/dp/0671495496/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201873131&sr=1-1
I doubt much has changed. Scientists are only human and the pressures they work under have only increased.
This is because MS Windows needs to be updated so often they automate the process and do it remotely in the evening (usually requires a reboot). So much for "green computing."
Natural selection may not be random, but aren't the the genetic mutations which affect evolution random?
See George Ou's ZDNet column: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=829
Yeah, it could do us a lot of good but I keep thinking about that saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They seem to be able to justify any means. What will those "failures" look like? How are regulations going to "incorporate any 'unforeseen developments'?" Seems like we've been down roads like this before both in history and in imagination. I think the risks are too great. I'm not only afraid of what kind of "failures" we might produce, but of what kind of people we might become by having to tolerate them in the name of science.
"Persinger and his team have trained their device on the temporal lobes of hundreds of people. In doing so, the researchers induced in most of them the experience of a sensed presence, a feeling that someone (or a spirit) is in the room when no one, in fact, is" How do they know this for a fact? Do they have instruments that can detect God's presence or absence? They claim to be inducing a "God experience." What if God really is omnipresent and they are just artificially stimulating or facilitating a response that is possible under any circumstances? (Psalm 138:7-12) This is very interesting, but it says more about the receiving end of such experiences (where the human brain responds to them) than the source.
If only they would all be Einsteins.
http://www.superseventies.com/sl_indianawantsme.ht ml