Re:It's easier to install and admin than mysql
on
PostgreSQL 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Postgres is really an Oracle killer at this point, and I know, having used Oracle. There is quite simply no reason to use any other relational database at this point, especially to back a live web site.
I'd be careful with statements like this. Postgres competes well with Oracle for a variety of applications. However, Oracle still has some VLDB and high availability features that aren't yet available for Postgres. Also, for a lot of folks, what matters isn't the database, but stuff like the availability of financial packages. There is also a lot of inertia with Oracle-that could be handled by creating libraries that give Postgres a higher degree of API and language compatibility with Oracle. I'm rooting for Postgres-but Postgres has a ways to go before Oracle is truly dead.
Just because someone has money, doesn't mean they have a lot of respect from anyone except other folks with money. Musk is young enough, he probably wants to do something _memorable_ with his life.
I'd also be curious to know if his interest in space predated his dotcom activities. One early microcomputer pioneer is reputed to have motivated his employees with claims that if his company was successful, they'd intest in space development. He even invested in a couple of rocket companies-and then retreated to other interests. The technology has improved since then, but frankly, I think a lot of folks are less trusting of the rich and powerful now than they were then.
Quite a few rich folks find their money brings them neither happiness or satisfaction.
I personally have a strong distrust of concentrations of wealth or political power. However, I would suggest that if humanity doesn't develop real, physical frontiers, the future for humanity is pretty dim-maybe just a high tech replay of ancient Egypt--a highly developed but stagnant culture that gradually drifts into oblivion.
The future for humanity with frontiers could be quite an interesting adventure.
Look at how biotechnology can help extend folks working lifetimes.
Look at how automation and robotics can compensate for the need to support more retirees with fewer workers.
Look at why the most productive members of society are finding it difficult to raise families. Almost all of US population growth is through immigration.
I personally think that there isn't a problem with funding social security through taxes other than a payroll tax--taxes pollution or corporate wealth (as Nader has proposed) sound like good additions to the mix.
MBA programs haven't helped the problem. I tend to think that the domination of legislatures by attorneys is where the problem started. The US used to have leaders like Jefferson and Franklin. I suspect their modern day equivalents are greatly alienated from the present government and business establishment.
My other question to you: do you have a better model for the recent increase in autism in the US? We've seen other diseases increase during large scale migrations(i.e. just look at what happened to the Native Americans). Are your objections here moral/political or scientific? Honestly, the state of the science around autism seems is in pretty bad shape-particularly in the area of epidemiology. We have stuff like tenured UCSF professors saying that the problem is geeks are making too much money! I'm serious-here of course that lady has no numbers to back up her absurd claim-but she's getting taxpayer dollars!
The transitor was invented in part because the team involved disobeyed the Bell Labs Management. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar was going on here. I'm glad the Japanese folks have passed a law requiring fair compensation of inventors-however, I think they need to go further and look at how inventors are incorporated into the management structure of their major corporations and government institutions. If they do so, I suspect they kick the ass of the corrupt and decadent attorneys and MBA's that dominate the US today.
He's a California resident-another $800K-$1000K will go to the state of California--also there is the lawyer's cut. Its still way too low-but for Japan, this is still a move in the right direction.
Where are your figures on 0% GDP growth for Japan? When I look at the figures in the CIA factbook, I see GDP/person of working age growing _faster_ in Japan than the US the last 4 years. A big chunk of the reason the US economy is growing is the workforce is being expanded via unprecedented immigration. However, the growth of GDP per person of working age is lagging the US. Now, the Japanese are producing fewer people-but it isn't exactly like that island is underpopulated.
I agree. When executives do stuff like pay Kary Mullis $10,000 for an invention that earns the company $300 Million, they dishonor themselves. Now Japanese companies tend to have very flat rates of compensation-however what they could easily do is make sure that folks that generate valuable inventions get early retirement and/or cushy jobs like appointments as a lifetime "fellow"(i.e. a chance to do what they want with the rest of their lives).
I don't think it is just greed here though. I honestly think these companies would make more money if they had sane compensation for inventors. It is more a control freak mentality.
As usual, the New York Times errs in claiming that US industry is markedly better than Japanese industry. US industry has a bad habit of treating outstanding contributors rather poorely. Look at what they did to Kary Mullis creator of the most valuable patent of the 20th century. Japan has had some problems here-but at least their businesses try seriously to provide for all their employees--and Japanese upper managers rarely get the extremely high salaries common in the US. In the US, even extremely productive contributors can easily find themselves homeless in their old age-and US management is so dominated by MBA's and lawyers that management has real trouble figuring out who the real contributors are in highly technical businesses. I think this case is important because it shows Japan is moving in a positive direction-basically containing their executive compensation and providing some additional options for their star engineers to gain early retirement/recognition.
awarding prizes to Open Source projects that demonstrate use of IBM patents
some type of clear, licensing suitable for smaller companies that want to take some of this technology commercial.
IBM exists to make money for its shareholders. A lot of these patents haven't gotten their fullest possible use. Ultimately, IBM will retain control of these products-but it needs to faciliate some experimentation if they want IBM to have the stream of products it needs to support its business.
The big external source here might be the congressional record. Baldrson posted his testimony-but I don't think the Congressional Record online goes back that far yet.
Information technology played an important role in the breakup of the Soviet Union-a bigger role possibly than all of Reagan's sabre rattling. It had simply become impossible for the USSR to regulate the press when printing had become _so_ very inexpensive and decentralized, using the tactics the Soviet government was willing and able to use.
Iran is a different case. Their revolution has been much more recent. I'm not sure how popular the government is in Iran-but I suspect their ruling group is larger than in the old Soviet Union. Also, I expect the Iranian government is willing to maintain itself in ways the old Soviet Union was not.
However, the technologies have changed too. For example, wireless internet technology has advanced quite a bit. If there is popular resistance to the Iranian governments internet regulations, technologies like Mesh networks might be rather difficult for the Iranian government to be effectively control.
If folks want to really do something, creating technologies that governments have trouble regulating may be the route to help here-however, it isn't just Iran that has issues in this respect. A net the Iranian government can't control, is one no government can control.
There is a difference between folks that are legally US citizens-and entitled to benefits-and folks that aren't. There has to be a difference if the US is to persist as a country-and to elicit the continued sacrifice required to keep it an independent country. Freedom isn't free.
The problem you describe with illegal aliens voting is real. However, what is a more important effect is that illegal aliens are counted for purposes of representation by the census-that effect is less obviously one that benefits democrats-and one that will be intensified if Bush gets the guest worker expansion he wants.
The point is that under the current system, what enables these companies to turn a profit is the social welfare system that they can use to compensate employees while others pay for it. Now, if you had no such transfer programs, there probably wouldn't be as strong a need form immigration controls. There are folks that actively dislike these programs and see illegal immigration as a way to destroy these programs. I tend to see a lot of that sort of thing as racially motivated.
What you continually miss is the extent to which the _companies_ involved work the system form private gain. The companies that hire illegal immigrants frequently don't generate tax revenue sufficient to educate the children of these immigrants--and handle other externalities like the rise in uninsured drivers, auto theft and crowding of emergency rooms that accompany high levels of illegal immigration. If companies paid those costs, they'd be much less enthusiastic about using the labor of illegal aliens.
Why should private companies be allowed to import workers--and given them access to US social welfare benefits and infrastructure(at little cost tot he company)- on the sole criterion they are "good productive workers"?
However, in regards to "US has spent directly and indirectly about $1.2 Trillion defending middle eastern oil supplies". Even without this spending, we'd get the oil at pretty much the same price. The Saddam's of the world are more than happy to make sweetheart deals which give them exclusive profits domestically while the US gets cheap oil.
Here is the analysis I was talking about. I'm familiar with the claims that your are talking about on the theoretical inability of a politically unified middle east under leadership hostile to US elites, the first folks I heard talk about that was George Stigler and some colleagues at U of Chicago. What those folks tend to miss is the short term _military_ implications of that type of situation. Long term, they can't affect price much-if nothing else because alternative technologies get developed. Short term, they can cause extreme dislocation in Western economies-at serious financial costs to themselves.
Your race claim is a _low_ blow. The US has among the open immigration policy in the world. I fail to see how expropriating assets of businesses and wealthy individuals that have profited from illegal immigration--and using that revenue to facilitate repatriation is a "racist" policy. I _do_ think that NAFTA was racist--and the current practice of illegal immigration in the US has some important aspects of racism(i.e. since illegals can't vote, certain white voters get a boost in representation).
The trade deficit is driven in large part by very bad trade deals and currency arrangements. The US government has had an extraordinary ability to borrow on international markets due to the US of the dollar as the international currency of reserve. I would also suggest the US tax system is fundamentally bad compared to countries like Japan--where companies also don't have the burden of regulations like affirmative action legislation or the arcane US legal system. Japan something like 1/50th as many attorneys per capita and 1/20th as many accountants per capita as the US.
There is a very clear formula for reducing trade decificits: remove taxes and regulations from locally produced goods and tax imports. Right now, we have active subsidization of imports(the exact opposite policy of what your need to close the deficits) via foreign policy. The US has spent directly and indirectly about $1.2 Trillion defending middle eastern oil supplies. If those costs were added onto that commodity, there would be strong market incentive to develop alternative energy sources.
The other aspects of national security, that is really a major item: cessation of trade deficits and cessation of the use of foreign nationals in handling of sensitive data or managing critical infrastructure. A major item in stopping trade deficits it getting energy policy back on track, and as you have pointed out elsewhere
the solution is proving of proper incentives.
Polls are not authoritative as individual items. However, when I see poll after poll differing between what the public wants-and what the leaders are delivering I start questioning what is going on. Regardless of how I might feel on immigration, I think immigration that is driven by elites overriding popular will is a formula for a lot of hard feelings long term.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be careful with statements like this. Postgres competes well with Oracle for a variety of applications. However, Oracle still has some VLDB and high availability features that aren't yet available for Postgres. Also, for a lot of folks, what matters isn't the database, but stuff like the availability of financial packages. There is also a lot of inertia with Oracle-that could be handled by creating libraries that give Postgres a higher degree of API and language compatibility with Oracle. I'm rooting for Postgres-but Postgres has a ways to go before Oracle is truly dead.
I'd also be curious to know if his interest in space predated his dotcom activities. One early microcomputer pioneer is reputed to have motivated his employees with claims that if his company was successful, they'd intest in space development. He even invested in a couple of rocket companies-and then retreated to other interests. The technology has improved since then, but frankly, I think a lot of folks are less trusting of the rich and powerful now than they were then.
Quite a few rich folks find their money brings them neither happiness or satisfaction.
I personally have a strong distrust of concentrations of wealth or political power. However, I would suggest that if humanity doesn't develop real, physical frontiers, the future for humanity is pretty dim-maybe just a high tech replay of ancient Egypt--a highly developed but stagnant culture that gradually drifts into oblivion.
The future for humanity with frontiers could be quite an interesting adventure.
Look at how biotechnology can help extend folks working lifetimes.
Look at how automation and robotics can compensate for the need to support more retirees with fewer workers.
Look at why the most productive members of society are finding it difficult to raise families. Almost all of US population growth is through immigration.
I personally think that there isn't a problem with funding social security through taxes other than a payroll tax--taxes pollution or corporate wealth (as Nader has proposed) sound like good additions to the mix.
MBA programs haven't helped the problem. I tend to think that the domination of legislatures by attorneys is where the problem started. The US used to have leaders like Jefferson and Franklin. I suspect their modern day equivalents are greatly alienated from the present government and business establishment.
Well, I happen to know Sherwin Gooch-and that _is_ what he says. As far as the statistics, do you have countering statistics?
He's a California resident-another $800K-$1000K will go to the state of California--also there is the lawyer's cut. Its still way too low-but for Japan, this is still a move in the right direction.
Where are your figures on 0% GDP growth for Japan? When I look at the figures in the CIA factbook, I see GDP/person of working age growing _faster_ in Japan than the US the last 4 years. A big chunk of the reason the US economy is growing is the workforce is being expanded via unprecedented immigration. However, the growth of GDP per person of working age is lagging the US. Now, the Japanese are producing fewer people-but it isn't exactly like that island is underpopulated.
I don't think it is just greed here though. I honestly think these companies would make more money if they had sane compensation for inventors. It is more a control freak mentality.
As usual, the New York Times errs in claiming that US industry is markedly better than Japanese industry. US industry has a bad habit of treating outstanding contributors rather poorely. Look at what they did to Kary Mullis creator of the most valuable patent of the 20th century. Japan has had some problems here-but at least their businesses try seriously to provide for all their employees--and Japanese upper managers rarely get the extremely high salaries common in the US. In the US, even extremely productive contributors can easily find themselves homeless in their old age-and US management is so dominated by MBA's and lawyers that management has real trouble figuring out who the real contributors are in highly technical businesses. I think this case is important because it shows Japan is moving in a positive direction-basically containing their executive compensation and providing some additional options for their star engineers to gain early retirement/recognition.
awarding prizes to Open Source projects that demonstrate use of IBM patents
some type of clear, licensing suitable for smaller companies that want to take some of this technology commercial.
IBM exists to make money for its shareholders. A lot of these patents haven't gotten their fullest possible use. Ultimately, IBM will retain control of these products-but it needs to faciliate some experimentation if they want IBM to have the stream of products it needs to support its business.
The big external source here might be the congressional record. Baldrson posted his testimony-but I don't think the Congressional Record online goes back that far yet.
Iran is a different case. Their revolution has been much more recent. I'm not sure how popular the government is in Iran-but I suspect their ruling group is larger than in the old Soviet Union. Also, I expect the Iranian government is willing to maintain itself in ways the old Soviet Union was not.
However, the technologies have changed too. For example, wireless internet technology has advanced quite a bit. If there is popular resistance to the Iranian governments internet regulations, technologies like Mesh networks might be rather difficult for the Iranian government to be effectively control.
If folks want to really do something, creating technologies that governments have trouble regulating may be the route to help here-however, it isn't just Iran that has issues in this respect. A net the Iranian government can't control, is one no government can control.
There is a difference between folks that are legally US citizens-and entitled to benefits-and folks that aren't. There has to be a difference if the US is to persist as a country-and to elicit the continued sacrifice required to keep it an independent country. Freedom isn't free.
The problem you describe with illegal aliens voting is real. However, what is a more important effect is that illegal aliens are counted for purposes of representation by the census-that effect is less obviously one that benefits democrats-and one that will be intensified if Bush gets the guest worker expansion he wants.
The point is that under the current system, what enables these companies to turn a profit is the social welfare system that they can use to compensate employees while others pay for it. Now, if you had no such transfer programs, there probably wouldn't be as strong a need form immigration controls. There are folks that actively dislike these programs and see illegal immigration as a way to destroy these programs. I tend to see a lot of that sort of thing as racially motivated.
What you continually miss is the extent to which the _companies_ involved work the system form private gain. The companies that hire illegal immigrants frequently don't generate tax revenue sufficient to educate the children of these immigrants--and handle other externalities like the rise in uninsured drivers, auto theft and crowding of emergency rooms that accompany high levels of illegal immigration. If companies paid those costs, they'd be much less enthusiastic about using the labor of illegal aliens.
Why should private companies be allowed to import workers--and given them access to US social welfare benefits and infrastructure(at little cost tot he company)- on the sole criterion they are "good productive workers"?
What is "tinfoil hat" about saying that mass media has contributed to different generations having radically different values?
Here is the analysis I was talking about. I'm familiar with the claims that your are talking about on the theoretical inability of a politically unified middle east under leadership hostile to US elites, the first folks I heard talk about that was George Stigler and some colleagues at U of Chicago. What those folks tend to miss is the short term _military_ implications of that type of situation. Long term, they can't affect price much-if nothing else because alternative technologies get developed. Short term, they can cause extreme dislocation in Western economies-at serious financial costs to themselves.
Your race claim is a _low_ blow. The US has among the open immigration policy in the world. I fail to see how expropriating assets of businesses and wealthy individuals that have profited from illegal immigration--and using that revenue to facilitate repatriation is a "racist" policy. I _do_ think that NAFTA was racist--and the current practice of illegal immigration in the US has some important aspects of racism(i.e. since illegals can't vote, certain white voters get a boost in representation).
There is a very clear formula for reducing trade decificits: remove taxes and regulations from locally produced goods and tax imports. Right now, we have active subsidization of imports(the exact opposite policy of what your need to close the deficits) via foreign policy. The US has spent directly and indirectly about $1.2 Trillion defending middle eastern oil supplies. If those costs were added onto that commodity, there would be strong market incentive to develop alternative energy sources.
The other aspects of national security, that is really a major item:
cessation of trade deficits and cessation of the use of foreign nationals in handling of sensitive data or managing critical infrastructure. A major item in stopping trade deficits it getting energy policy back on track, and as you have pointed out elsewhere
the solution is proving of proper incentives.
Polls are not authoritative as individual items. However, when I see poll after poll differing between what the public wants-and what the leaders are delivering I start questioning what is going on. Regardless of how I might feel on immigration, I think immigration that is driven by elites overriding popular will is a formula for a lot of hard feelings long term.
Do you have _any_ responsible poll data indicating that the American public wants more immigration?