Interesting. I wonder how the performance hit of running that on compares to running hotbackup. Our DB is about 200GB and takes about 5 hours for hotbackup without notable performance degradation.
Also, hotbackup is "smart" enough to lock the couple of MyISAM tables we still use (for fulltext indexing) and so it really does provide a consistent snapshot. --single-transaction doesn't seem to do that.
Still, I'll keep this in mind and try it out. Thanks for the tip!
If you had problems with Oracle and now problems with MySQL, I'm going to say as gently as I can that you're probably not using things correctly.
Having worked with MySQL on a high volume site for six years now, I can admit it has many shortcomings. But there are many ways to back it up. Some of the posts below elaborate, but in our system:
1. buy hotbackup. make a backup while the DB is running, use that backup to start replication. 2. as often as you like, stop the replication slave, mysqldump or cp the files, start replication back up.
This works very well. The only problem is that if any write thread on the master is killed, replication will break and you'll have to use hotbackup again to get a new one started. In general one shouldn't kill writing threads, but hey, it's the real world and these things happen.
The above has worked well for Zappos. Our DB isn't as large (200GB) but I don't imagine it wouldn't work for you.
Good to hear from you. I certainly didn't intend to imply any problems with your product. Actually Zappos just bought 5+ Linux/Power and Linux/x86 licenses for hotbackup a few months ago. We're very happy with how everything is working. I'd still love to see InnoDB level replication though (unbreakable, less disk writes (no MySQL bin log, etc.):)
My only concern was where Oracle will take the product over time. Having been part of large corporate buyout in the past *cough* LinkExchange *cough* Microsoft *cough*, I personally fear they don't work out as well as hoped. But I still hope that InnoDB and hotbackup continue to be developed and improved.
Thanks for the great product, and best of luck, Jonathan FIeld
All true. FYI, we do our backups off a replicated server. And we don't use hotbackup for that, we just stop replication, take the backup, then bring replication back up. Quick clean backup.
The thing we use InnoDB for is to start a new replicated server if something goes wrong with replication. The fact that something can go wrong with replication on a regular basis is probably a deficiency in MySQL. In practice it happens a few times per year for us. When that happens, hotbackup seems to be the only way to get the slaves back in sync with the master without any downtime.
I don't know anything about Postgres, so please use it if you like it, but I just wanted to correct some confusion here: the problem that is being discussed in this thread is not a problem with MySQL if you use hotbackup. That was my original point. You can take a live backup whenever you want without locking anything. You just need to use that bit of commercial software. It's just that Oracle bought the company that writes hotbackup, and it's not GPL. So that's a little concerning. We'll see what develops, though.
Others have answered this, but I'll throw in a few words, too. I used bad terminology when I said "take the DB down". You don't have to take the DB down to use mysqldump. But if you want a consistent database copy that can be used to start up replication on a slave, you have to lock all the tables. This is fine if your DB is doing nothing but reads, but our DB gets hundreds of writes per second. So locking the tables for the 2+ hours it takes to dump is not an option. As I said, the fastest thing to get a replication slave up is to stop the DB and do a raw copy of the data files. The only way to do it without locking or taking the DB down is with hotbackup. Which is a fine product. I'm just worried about Oracle continuing to support and improve InnoDB.
Well, I can understand your frustration, but I don't want to bash InnoDB. I think InnoDB is the best table handler for MySQL, and the fact that it offers a hotbackup at all is great, and at a very reasonable price. So I can't get behind the "good riddance" sentiment. I just hope that the Oracle buyout doesn't end up killing off InnoDB and hotbackup.
Thanks for the input, replication is an important part of any large MySQL installation. We already run four replicated servers, and one is indeed used for backup as you describe. But what happens when replication breaks? This happens to us a few times a year for various reasons. When that happens the slaves go out of sync and it is often impossible to get things back to normal.
The only way to get replication back up cleanly is with a fresh copy of the master from after the event that caused replication to break. The fastest way to do this is to shut down the master DB and the site and copy the data files. For a database our size, this takes about 40 minutes, which is generally an unacceptable amount of downtime. Alternately, we can run a hotbackup with no downtime, and have a clean copy to replicate from in about 5 hours. That is obviously preferred. So I think hotbackup is still a required piece of software for any serious enterprise operation on MySQL.
These moves have concerned me. We use InnoDB and have purchased hotbackup licenses for all our machines. Last year when we switched to IBM Power servers running Linux, we were able to talk to Heikki and Pekka directly and have them compile special versions for us (until then they never had a Power/Linux version). I doubt that such service would be common for long under Oracle.
I guess MySQL can just keep on with the latest GPL version and fork it if needed to keep things going. But one of the key Enterprise features of InnoDB is the hotbackup, which allows you to create a clean snapshot of the entire database without taking it down. This is pretty much a required piece of software and it is not GPL. As I mentioned we already own a perpetual non-server bound license, so hopefully Oracle will honor that. But that's the piece MySQL should worry about, and attempt to recreate. We would not have been able to stick with MySQL without that software.
Immoral Schimmoral. It's just dumb for them to expect to sell something and have it used only in the way they want. It's my livingroom, I'll do what I want. Even if it's illegal, what are they going to practically do? Stupid uninforcable laws and licensing agreements like this just dilute respect for reasonable laws.
Excuse me, but how is it theft to buy a boxed operating system and not a computer to run it on? Is it theft for me to buy a boxed OSX and then just let it sit on a shelf? Then why does it become theft if I try installing it on a homemade computer? What about using it as a paperweight? Even by strict copyright standards, if I buy it, I should be able to do anything I want that doesn't interfere with their business (like distributing it for free, or selling copies, for example).
I guess the business marketing has succeeded. Even tech savvy people here on slashdot have lost site of what is and isn't theft. Next they'll tell us it's stealing to not buy upgrades and we'll believe them.
Huh? How is his use of custom hardware to run software that he buys dictating their business? If I buy a hairdryer and I use it to dry paint, am I dictating their business? What if I buy Excel and use the install CD as a frisbee? What gives?
I can deal with businesses having ridiculous ideas about how the world should work: that they should control things after they've sold them. Businesses are always ridiculous. As long as they stay out of my house they can say and think whatever they want. But when individuals like yourself start siding with these draconian business ideas, I worry.
BTW, I paid for my Powerbook G4, and for the latest boxed version of OSX. And I would say that anyone planning to run OSX on Intel should do the same. This is not about stealing. This is about personal choice, creativity, and exploration. Let's not lose sight of that.
Gothca. I see where you're coming from. I guess that if you cast the net that wide, then I agree. I am a big fan of technology, and I think it's the key to surviving our population growth and making the quality of life better for everyeon. I tend to think far more in short to mid term goals, but you're probably right that all that progress will eventually add up to leaving the planet.
Anything that doesn't lead to us eventually leaving the planet, then the solar system is a waste
Wow, that's a pretty extreme statement. I wonder -- what exactly is the benefit of getting off the planet? I'm all for progress and I'm a fan of sci-fi, but getting off the planet is incredibly impractical as a short or medium term goal for humanity. Even as a long term goal it's probably not a particularly great idea. It's certainly cool sounding, but I don't see it having a wonderful impact on the fundamentals of human life.
What exactly is our aim in getting off the planet? If it's to find another place to live? Well, not in this solar system. And not in any of the stars that are within a lifetimes' journey. And why do we want to find a different planet to live on? The chances are astronomical that we'd find anything we could live on naturally or convert ourselves or the environment of sufficiently. And even if we did we get... what? More space? More resources? For how long?
Now, one could say "where would we be if the ancient explorers had thought like that?". But it's not really the same thing. The ROI for those kind of efforts were quite favorable in comparison. Exploration beyond our solar system is not a variation in degree, it is a variation in kind. The laws of physics limit us. And the potential payoff is not that great.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that I don't think it's worth thinking about. But I think the more interesting exploration is in another direction -- understanding the chaotic nature of massive network interactions; like a brain or a society. These are the explorations that will have a greater impact on the human condition.
In the meantime, conservation of this planet is a pretty good idea.
BTW, the "law" I was referring to was Sturgeon's Law, and actually fits in nicely with what you're saying about the filter of time leaving us only the best.
On one hand you say we don't know what exactly is sustainable, then you state that the American lifestyle isn't sustainable. So which is it?
That's why I said I think the American lifestyle is unsustainable:) The fact is nobody knows, but my guess is that it isn't. That's all.
I agree that America produces a load of stuff, and other nations would be well off to follow our growth (hey, there's a reason I live here, I love this country). But there are some things where the balance is way off -- such as the consumption of oil. There's also a reasonable question to be posed for anything we buy super-cheap today that was made with sweatshop labor in other countries. Our shoes and clothes for example -- if everyone on the planet lived as Americans did the price of these products would likely go up an order of magnitude. There's probably a way to work it all out, but the picture will be different than today.
But you're right: increasing output in other areas is part of sustainability too. Overall I'm optimistic enough to think it's something we can achieve.
RIght on -- the energy storage vs. energy source thing is something many people haven't grasped yet. I think the move to hydrogen (or alcohol or whatever) is sort of analogous to moving from a barter system to a currency system. There is benefit in decoupling the source of value from the transport mechanism.
You're right! If I can only reduce my load on the system by 20%, I might as well not bother at all. Heck, if we're going to run out of resources anyways, and pollution is going to overtake us, let's just run everything into the ground as fast as we can.
Okay, enough sarcasm. I think you're probably right that in your comparison with America, Europe, and the tribesman and their relative impact. Problem is we don't know what exactly is sustainable, and we don't know how long it will take to get there. I think the current American lifestyle is unsustainable -- if everyone on the planet lived as we did it wouldn't work. But I don't think we all have to live as tribesmen either. This is a false dilemma that has come up ever since Regan said "I won't have Americans freezing in the dark".
I believe there is a comfortable lifestyle that is sustainable. I think technology is a part of that, but until it catches up I think conservation is another part of that. I'm one of those people everyone hates who recycles as much as I can, tries to avoid waste, buys organic products, and yes, even drives a Prius. What can I say: I am not willing to become a subsistance farmer, but I am willing to vote with my dollars for more sustainable ways to do things. I don't see how that's bad.
Is my current lifestyle sustainable? Hell if I know. Hell if anyone knows. I doubt it. But I'm doing what I can reasonably do as a working stiff to encourage things in what I think is a sustainable direction.
My wife had a real problem for a couple years where she let just about everything in her life go in favor of playing Tribes and hanging out online with her fellow players. She gave it up eventually, but not after engaging in some seriously self-destructive behavior and bottoming out. It followed the pattern of substance abuse, so it certainly seemed like a true addiction.
However, we did realize after counselling that this was just a manifestation of underlying depression. Neither of us feel that the computer pulled her in beyond her control. Rather, she had some serious personal issues that were not dealt with and she just chose the computer as her form of distraction. As long as she was plugged in she could forget about her problems. There was no physical component to it, it was psychological.
It makes me wonder about all sorts of distraction. I know people who, in my judgement, are similarly depressed, but they choose real-world socializing to distract themselves: going to parties and clubs all the time. Or more obvious choices like television watching, or even things that are considered "healthy" like reading. If it's consistently keeping you from doing things you know you should, either responsibilities or even more selfish things like following your dreams, it's probably an addiction, and probably a result of depression. And you probably have to figure out what the depression is about before you can make any improvements. You probably also need professional help.
On the other hand I do spend a lot of time on the computer as well, even outside of work. Am I addicted? I don't know -- sometimes I'm actively seeking to distract myself. Other times I'm just doing normal tasks on the computer, like bill paying, communicating with family and friends, managing creative projects. But I keep up on most of my responsibilities, and I do try to work on my personal goals as well. I could do more though. I do twiddle away time on meaningless distraction sometimes... like posting on Slashdot;)
I don't know... it's a gray area. But I think it's worth it to think about once in a while. It's not about computers. It's about not living in a way you'll be pleased with in the end.
Yeah, it was after Timex bought out the original Sinclair and put a little "Timex" sticker on it. Man I loved that thing... even though without the 16KB expansion pack, it didn't have enough memory to fill the entire screen in black (!) -- it would run out on the last line with about an inch to go and give a "out of memory" error, which was just a number at the bottom left of the screen. I got the expansion pack though:)
It had this clever idea of using full basic keywords, but having them mapped to single ascii-range characters, so it was more memory efficient. The result was that you'd hit "Function P" and the whole word "PRINT" would appear in your program, but it was actually stored internally as a small number, not a full character sequence of P-R-I-N-T. It also made typing out long programs on it's awful membrane keyboard almost bearable... for a geeky 12 year old anyways.
Tape drive with regular audio inputs that seemed to work about 40% of the time, resulting in lost data the rest of the time. Black on white character-only TV display. No official sound -- though a clever guy published a program that played "music" -- by having you detune your TV to be halfway off the correct channel, and then creating tones by changing the (now scrambled) video display, which would then be incorrectly modulated back into the audio channel by the TV. Ingenious, if not truly listenable.
But it's where I learned to program, and it was great. Until I got my C64 and then I really saw the power:)
The false dilemma between science (or more specifically, evolution) and belief in a creator (or more specifically Christianity) is old, tired, and ready to go. I actually wrote a related article on this over at Kuro5hin just this morning.
I'm not sure where this idea came from that if we understand the physical mechanisms that are working in our universe, that we have somehow moved away from God. If you believe in God, you must believe he created all these mechanisms. God could very well have created evolution itself as the best means to give rise to complex life. Isn't it flattering and respectful to learn about the world God created?
I haven't done a study, but it seems to me that everyone thinks there's mostly crap on the radio. And there's that law that says that 90% of anything is crap, but it's beyond that, because we're not just saying that there are lots of crap stations (anything we don't like) but also that there are dearth of good stations. The majority of people are underserved by the radio. This partly explains the massive success of iTunes and other music download services. Because most people can't find anything on the radio (for free) that they sufficiently enjoy, so they have to buy songs themselves.
I guess my point is, radio really is crap. Not just because we potential audience members are condescending, but because the radio stations are.
To be a pedant about the scientific marvel that was the original Superman movie, it wasn't that he spun the earth backwards that caused time to go backwards. Rather, he flew around the planet faster than light, and the earth spinning backwards represents said reversal of time visually.
Therefore, the events of the Superman movie are all quite possible;)
I can't find an online mention at the moment, but I remember reading about this technique used in medicine in Discover magazine about a decade ago. The idea was that the program would translate blood work and other medical data into well known melodies, offset by the difference between the patient's data and what was considered "normal". Doctors were able to more readily notice abnormalities that were out of range, and they were able to do so even when distracted or not able to pay full attention, I believe.
Or something like that. But I've joked about setting this up with our monitoring tools at work. Neat stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. I wonder how the performance hit of running that on compares to running hotbackup. Our DB is about 200GB and takes about 5 hours for hotbackup without notable performance degradation.
Also, hotbackup is "smart" enough to lock the couple of MyISAM tables we still use (for fulltext indexing) and so it really does provide a consistent snapshot. --single-transaction doesn't seem to do that.
Still, I'll keep this in mind and try it out. Thanks for the tip!
Cheers.
If you had problems with Oracle and now problems with MySQL, I'm going to say as gently as I can that you're probably not using things correctly.
Having worked with MySQL on a high volume site for six years now, I can admit it has many shortcomings. But there are many ways to back it up. Some of the posts below elaborate, but in our system:
1. buy hotbackup. make a backup while the DB is running, use that backup to start replication.
2. as often as you like, stop the replication slave, mysqldump or cp the files, start replication back up.
This works very well. The only problem is that if any write thread on the master is killed, replication will break and you'll have to use hotbackup again to get a new one started. In general one shouldn't kill writing threads, but hey, it's the real world and these things happen.
The above has worked well for Zappos. Our DB isn't as large (200GB) but I don't imagine it wouldn't work for you.
Cheers.
Hello Heikki,
:)
Good to hear from you. I certainly didn't intend to imply any problems with your product. Actually Zappos just bought 5+ Linux/Power and Linux/x86 licenses for hotbackup a few months ago. We're very happy with how everything is working. I'd still love to see InnoDB level replication though (unbreakable, less disk writes (no MySQL bin log, etc.)
My only concern was where Oracle will take the product over time. Having been part of large corporate buyout in the past *cough* LinkExchange *cough* Microsoft *cough*, I personally fear they don't work out as well as hoped. But I still hope that InnoDB and hotbackup continue to be developed and improved.
Thanks for the great product, and best of luck,
Jonathan FIeld
All true. FYI, we do our backups off a replicated server. And we don't use hotbackup for that, we just stop replication, take the backup, then bring replication back up. Quick clean backup.
The thing we use InnoDB for is to start a new replicated server if something goes wrong with replication. The fact that something can go wrong with replication on a regular basis is probably a deficiency in MySQL. In practice it happens a few times per year for us. When that happens, hotbackup seems to be the only way to get the slaves back in sync with the master without any downtime.
Cheers.
I don't know anything about Postgres, so please use it if you like it, but I just wanted to correct some confusion here: the problem that is being discussed in this thread is not a problem with MySQL if you use hotbackup. That was my original point. You can take a live backup whenever you want without locking anything. You just need to use that bit of commercial software. It's just that Oracle bought the company that writes hotbackup, and it's not GPL. So that's a little concerning. We'll see what develops, though.
Cheers.
Others have answered this, but I'll throw in a few words, too. I used bad terminology when I said "take the DB down". You don't have to take the DB down to use mysqldump. But if you want a consistent database copy that can be used to start up replication on a slave, you have to lock all the tables. This is fine if your DB is doing nothing but reads, but our DB gets hundreds of writes per second. So locking the tables for the 2+ hours it takes to dump is not an option. As I said, the fastest thing to get a replication slave up is to stop the DB and do a raw copy of the data files. The only way to do it without locking or taking the DB down is with hotbackup. Which is a fine product. I'm just worried about Oracle continuing to support and improve InnoDB.
Cheers.
Well, I can understand your frustration, but I don't want to bash InnoDB. I think InnoDB is the best table handler for MySQL, and the fact that it offers a hotbackup at all is great, and at a very reasonable price. So I can't get behind the "good riddance" sentiment. I just hope that the Oracle buyout doesn't end up killing off InnoDB and hotbackup.
Cheers.
Thanks for the input, replication is an important part of any large MySQL installation. We already run four replicated servers, and one is indeed used for backup as you describe. But what happens when replication breaks? This happens to us a few times a year for various reasons. When that happens the slaves go out of sync and it is often impossible to get things back to normal.
The only way to get replication back up cleanly is with a fresh copy of the master from after the event that caused replication to break. The fastest way to do this is to shut down the master DB and the site and copy the data files. For a database our size, this takes about 40 minutes, which is generally an unacceptable amount of downtime. Alternately, we can run a hotbackup with no downtime, and have a clean copy to replicate from in about 5 hours. That is obviously preferred. So I think hotbackup is still a required piece of software for any serious enterprise operation on MySQL.
Cheers.
These moves have concerned me. We use InnoDB and have purchased hotbackup licenses for all our machines. Last year when we switched to IBM Power servers running Linux, we were able to talk to Heikki and Pekka directly and have them compile special versions for us (until then they never had a Power/Linux version). I doubt that such service would be common for long under Oracle.
I guess MySQL can just keep on with the latest GPL version and fork it if needed to keep things going. But one of the key Enterprise features of InnoDB is the hotbackup, which allows you to create a clean snapshot of the entire database without taking it down. This is pretty much a required piece of software and it is not GPL. As I mentioned we already own a perpetual non-server bound license, so hopefully Oracle will honor that. But that's the piece MySQL should worry about, and attempt to recreate. We would not have been able to stick with MySQL without that software.
Cheers.
Immoral Schimmoral. It's just dumb for them to expect to sell something and have it used only in the way they want. It's my livingroom, I'll do what I want. Even if it's illegal, what are they going to practically do? Stupid uninforcable laws and licensing agreements like this just dilute respect for reasonable laws.
Cheers.
Excuse me, but how is it theft to buy a boxed operating system and not a computer to run it on? Is it theft for me to buy a boxed OSX and then just let it sit on a shelf? Then why does it become theft if I try installing it on a homemade computer? What about using it as a paperweight? Even by strict copyright standards, if I buy it, I should be able to do anything I want that doesn't interfere with their business (like distributing it for free, or selling copies, for example).
I guess the business marketing has succeeded. Even tech savvy people here on slashdot have lost site of what is and isn't theft. Next they'll tell us it's stealing to not buy upgrades and we'll believe them.
Cheers.
Huh? How is his use of custom hardware to run software that he buys dictating their business? If I buy a hairdryer and I use it to dry paint, am I dictating their business? What if I buy Excel and use the install CD as a frisbee? What gives?
I can deal with businesses having ridiculous ideas about how the world should work: that they should control things after they've sold them. Businesses are always ridiculous. As long as they stay out of my house they can say and think whatever they want. But when individuals like yourself start siding with these draconian business ideas, I worry.
BTW, I paid for my Powerbook G4, and for the latest boxed version of OSX. And I would say that anyone planning to run OSX on Intel should do the same. This is not about stealing. This is about personal choice, creativity, and exploration. Let's not lose sight of that.
Cheers.
Gothca. I see where you're coming from. I guess that if you cast the net that wide, then I agree. I am a big fan of technology, and I think it's the key to surviving our population growth and making the quality of life better for everyeon. I tend to think far more in short to mid term goals, but you're probably right that all that progress will eventually add up to leaving the planet.
Cheers!
Anything that doesn't lead to us eventually leaving the planet, then the solar system is a waste
Wow, that's a pretty extreme statement. I wonder -- what exactly is the benefit of getting off the planet? I'm all for progress and I'm a fan of sci-fi, but getting off the planet is incredibly impractical as a short or medium term goal for humanity. Even as a long term goal it's probably not a particularly great idea. It's certainly cool sounding, but I don't see it having a wonderful impact on the fundamentals of human life.
What exactly is our aim in getting off the planet? If it's to find another place to live? Well, not in this solar system. And not in any of the stars that are within a lifetimes' journey. And why do we want to find a different planet to live on? The chances are astronomical that we'd find anything we could live on naturally or convert ourselves or the environment of sufficiently. And even if we did we get... what? More space? More resources? For how long?
Now, one could say "where would we be if the ancient explorers had thought like that?". But it's not really the same thing. The ROI for those kind of efforts were quite favorable in comparison. Exploration beyond our solar system is not a variation in degree, it is a variation in kind. The laws of physics limit us. And the potential payoff is not that great.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that I don't think it's worth thinking about. But I think the more interesting exploration is in another direction -- understanding the chaotic nature of massive network interactions; like a brain or a society. These are the explorations that will have a greater impact on the human condition.
In the meantime, conservation of this planet is a pretty good idea.
Cheers.
BTW, the "law" I was referring to was Sturgeon's Law, and actually fits in nicely with what you're saying about the filter of time leaving us only the best.
Cheers.
On one hand you say we don't know what exactly is sustainable, then you state that the American lifestyle isn't sustainable. So which is it?
:) The fact is nobody knows, but my guess is that it isn't. That's all.
That's why I said I think the American lifestyle is unsustainable
I agree that America produces a load of stuff, and other nations would be well off to follow our growth (hey, there's a reason I live here, I love this country). But there are some things where the balance is way off -- such as the consumption of oil. There's also a reasonable question to be posed for anything we buy super-cheap today that was made with sweatshop labor in other countries. Our shoes and clothes for example -- if everyone on the planet lived as Americans did the price of these products would likely go up an order of magnitude. There's probably a way to work it all out, but the picture will be different than today.
But you're right: increasing output in other areas is part of sustainability too. Overall I'm optimistic enough to think it's something we can achieve.
Cheers.
RIght on -- the energy storage vs. energy source thing is something many people haven't grasped yet. I think the move to hydrogen (or alcohol or whatever) is sort of analogous to moving from a barter system to a currency system. There is benefit in decoupling the source of value from the transport mechanism.
Cheers.
You're right! If I can only reduce my load on the system by 20%, I might as well not bother at all. Heck, if we're going to run out of resources anyways, and pollution is going to overtake us, let's just run everything into the ground as fast as we can.
Okay, enough sarcasm. I think you're probably right that in your comparison with America, Europe, and the tribesman and their relative impact. Problem is we don't know what exactly is sustainable, and we don't know how long it will take to get there. I think the current American lifestyle is unsustainable -- if everyone on the planet lived as we did it wouldn't work. But I don't think we all have to live as tribesmen either. This is a false dilemma that has come up ever since Regan said "I won't have Americans freezing in the dark".
I believe there is a comfortable lifestyle that is sustainable. I think technology is a part of that, but until it catches up I think conservation is another part of that. I'm one of those people everyone hates who recycles as much as I can, tries to avoid waste, buys organic products, and yes, even drives a Prius. What can I say: I am not willing to become a subsistance farmer, but I am willing to vote with my dollars for more sustainable ways to do things. I don't see how that's bad.
Is my current lifestyle sustainable? Hell if I know. Hell if anyone knows. I doubt it. But I'm doing what I can reasonably do as a working stiff to encourage things in what I think is a sustainable direction.
Cheers.
My wife had a real problem for a couple years where she let just about everything in her life go in favor of playing Tribes and hanging out online with her fellow players. She gave it up eventually, but not after engaging in some seriously self-destructive behavior and bottoming out. It followed the pattern of substance abuse, so it certainly seemed like a true addiction.
;)
However, we did realize after counselling that this was just a manifestation of underlying depression. Neither of us feel that the computer pulled her in beyond her control. Rather, she had some serious personal issues that were not dealt with and she just chose the computer as her form of distraction. As long as she was plugged in she could forget about her problems. There was no physical component to it, it was psychological.
It makes me wonder about all sorts of distraction. I know people who, in my judgement, are similarly depressed, but they choose real-world socializing to distract themselves: going to parties and clubs all the time. Or more obvious choices like television watching, or even things that are considered "healthy" like reading. If it's consistently keeping you from doing things you know you should, either responsibilities or even more selfish things like following your dreams, it's probably an addiction, and probably a result of depression. And you probably have to figure out what the depression is about before you can make any improvements. You probably also need professional help.
On the other hand I do spend a lot of time on the computer as well, even outside of work. Am I addicted? I don't know -- sometimes I'm actively seeking to distract myself. Other times I'm just doing normal tasks on the computer, like bill paying, communicating with family and friends, managing creative projects. But I keep up on most of my responsibilities, and I do try to work on my personal goals as well. I could do more though. I do twiddle away time on meaningless distraction sometimes... like posting on Slashdot
I don't know... it's a gray area. But I think it's worth it to think about once in a while. It's not about computers. It's about not living in a way you'll be pleased with in the end.
Cheers.
Yeah, it was after Timex bought out the original Sinclair and put a little "Timex" sticker on it. Man I loved that thing... even though without the 16KB expansion pack, it didn't have enough memory to fill the entire screen in black (!) -- it would run out on the last line with about an inch to go and give a "out of memory" error, which was just a number at the bottom left of the screen. I got the expansion pack though :)
:)
It had this clever idea of using full basic keywords, but having them mapped to single ascii-range characters, so it was more memory efficient. The result was that you'd hit "Function P" and the whole word "PRINT" would appear in your program, but it was actually stored internally as a small number, not a full character sequence of P-R-I-N-T. It also made typing out long programs on it's awful membrane keyboard almost bearable... for a geeky 12 year old anyways.
Tape drive with regular audio inputs that seemed to work about 40% of the time, resulting in lost data the rest of the time. Black on white character-only TV display. No official sound -- though a clever guy published a program that played "music" -- by having you detune your TV to be halfway off the correct channel, and then creating tones by changing the (now scrambled) video display, which would then be incorrectly modulated back into the audio channel by the TV. Ingenious, if not truly listenable.
But it's where I learned to program, and it was great. Until I got my C64 and then I really saw the power
Cheers.
The false dilemma between science (or more specifically, evolution) and belief in a creator (or more specifically Christianity) is old, tired, and ready to go. I actually wrote a related article on this over at Kuro5hin just this morning.
I'm not sure where this idea came from that if we understand the physical mechanisms that are working in our universe, that we have somehow moved away from God. If you believe in God, you must believe he created all these mechanisms. God could very well have created evolution itself as the best means to give rise to complex life. Isn't it flattering and respectful to learn about the world God created?
Cheers.
I haven't done a study, but it seems to me that everyone thinks there's mostly crap on the radio. And there's that law that says that 90% of anything is crap, but it's beyond that, because we're not just saying that there are lots of crap stations (anything we don't like) but also that there are dearth of good stations. The majority of people are underserved by the radio. This partly explains the massive success of iTunes and other music download services. Because most people can't find anything on the radio (for free) that they sufficiently enjoy, so they have to buy songs themselves.
I guess my point is, radio really is crap. Not just because we potential audience members are condescending, but because the radio stations are.
Cheers.
To be a pedant about the scientific marvel that was the original Superman movie, it wasn't that he spun the earth backwards that caused time to go backwards. Rather, he flew around the planet faster than light, and the earth spinning backwards represents said reversal of time visually.
;)
Therefore, the events of the Superman movie are all quite possible
Cheers.
Thanks for the thoughts... that makes a lot of sense. I agree that having multiple languages is fine when the domains are suitably different.
Cheers.
I can't find an online mention at the moment, but I remember reading about this technique used in medicine in Discover magazine about a decade ago. The idea was that the program would translate blood work and other medical data into well known melodies, offset by the difference between the patient's data and what was considered "normal". Doctors were able to more readily notice abnormalities that were out of range, and they were able to do so even when distracted or not able to pay full attention, I believe.
Or something like that. But I've joked about setting this up with our monitoring tools at work. Neat stuff.