First, hierarchical databases weaknesses are not limited to many-to-many relationship modeling. The simple fact is that some data is better represented in a hierarchical fashion (a directory service IS a hierarchical database) and others in a relational fashion. XML is a tool for exposing that data to external sources regardless of its internal representation(s).
Speaking of MySQL books... I would love to have people interested in MySQL visit:
http://oreilly.techrev.org
And look at one or two chapters from our forthcoming book on MySQL. This is the technical review portion of the book which means there are still tons of typos, but what we are looking for is that the community validate its technical content.
The fact is that no curriculum will prepare you for the real workplace. The best thing any curriculum can do is provide you with the framework with dealing with different kinds of problems rather than direct you how to think n particular circumstances. Ultimately, this is why liberal arts majors make more money than others over time.
10,000 soldiers? Boy are you optimistic. Adjust upwards by a power of ten at least.
You base these estimates on what? The U.S.S.R. lost 30K in over a decade in Afghanistan. The USA lost 50K in Vietnam. There is absolutely no reason on earth to believe this engagement will be anything like those engagements.
Now ask yourself if that isn't a steep price for futility. You see, terrorism isn't a person, it's an idea. You can't kill ideas with bombs, guns or secret state police. Ask the members of every revolution ever waged.
Futility? You remove state sponsorship for organized international terrorism and it goes away. Of course, you will always have isolated nuts as well as organized internal terror campaigns. But these are very different beasts than what we are after.
The US basically proved how effective removing state sponsorship is to destroying terrorism. When was the last time you heard of Libyan, Iranian, or Syrian sponsorship of organized terrorism outside of the middle east?
The world is not that simple and trying to beat it with a stick won't work.
Just becauseusing a stick is not always the answer does not imply that it is never part of the answer.
The stuff you reference was again not military tactics, but morality issues; in other words, the killing of innocent civilians. As it turns out, the American public really did not appreciate the reality of that war from a tactical perspective.
The heart of the anti-war movement, however, was that we did not belong there in the first place.
"we're going to hold the people who house them accountable."
is not the same as your assetion that the US won't care if it hits innocent civilians or not. In fact, this quote actually directly contradicts your thesis. It says we are going after those who did this and the people who house them. In other words, not innocent civilians.
Freedom to get cheap oil from middle east by putting tyrants over local populace?!!
No, the freedom not to worry about airliners flying into our buildings and killing innocent civilians.
Listen up dipshit, none of the governments in the middle east are democracies 'cuz if they were democracies, we'd be paying more for oil.
It is not our right to impose democracy on them. The imposition of democracy by an outside force has never worked. They need to sort out their own issues. In fact, Iran is the model of how this will likely work.
I don't know where you get to the conclusion that we would pay more for oil if the countries were democracies. Generally price is a reflection of supply and demand. Democracies tend to be more efficient economies and thus would tend to increase supply to meet an ideal supply/demand/price ration.
Democracy is a loaded word. But I don't except morons like you to understand this.
Nothing about your post really counters my post in any way. We have been attacked in a most horrible way. This has NOTHING to do with oil. We have to defend ourselves using whatever means will most effectively accomplish our goals. If it means we lose 10,000 American soldier's lives, but it also means we end organized terrorism that would result in many more 9/11's, then it is worth those 10,000 lives.
Because I'm not an expert on the military, I shouldn't let my opinions be known.
In this situation, your opinion on what is militarily possible is about as useful as a janitor's opinion on the merits of Java versus C# in artificial intelligence.
Economics is, in fact, quite different. Everyone experiences economics every day of their lives.
The Vietnam War argument is not relevant either. The protestors were protesting our being there, not speculating on what military tactics we should be taking. You are condemning tactics you are not qualified to discuss.
Yeah, except that the "rebel" faction in this case controls 90% of the country, and with an iron fist no less.
You realize this is actually a weakness, right?
Guerilla warfare has the advantage of not having to hold territory. The Taliban are no longer in the position of being guerilla fighters, but instead an established army holding territory.
Russians and Brits were trying to hold together control of the native population, while the US won't really care if the population is under control or not, so long as they're not in the way of us getting Bin Laden. What evidence do you have for this amazingly speculative comment? So far, no one has suggested any such thing. In fact, such an attitude would run counter to everything Bush has been claiming.
Despite whether or not you or I believe it to be the prudent thing to do, it is the course of action that has been set in motion by the US government.
Funny, neither you nor I are military experts. Why don't you leave the doomsaying until you actually have a fucking clue what is going on and what the results are?
If we go in full force as a conventional army, it'll be a catastrophe.
Protecting freedom is hard. If that's what it takes to take out these terrorists, then that is what needs to be done.
Funny thing is, there is absolutely no indication that that's what Bush intends to do. Just a bunch of idiotic yahoos like yourself playing armchair general.
Chechnya was a war against terrorism wasn't it? Its funny because the war was condemned by the US and the UN.
No, the US did not condemn the war in Chechnya. In fact, we supported the war, just not some of the Russian tactics in fighting that war. We specifically took issue with their indiscriminate targetting.
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
What an ignorant comment! We have not sent in a single troop yet, and yet you feel you have a basis for making this claim?
Guess what? We have Russian advisors assisting us in our military planning. Just because the English and Soviets failed does not mean the lesson is "Don't touch Afghanistan". It certainly is not "Don't touch Afghanistan even if they harbor terrorists who kill 5,000 of your citizens."
Once again.. my facts are moded as flamebait - yet someone calling me a hatemonger is modded up.
Maybe it is because you are a hate monger?
Simply put, Islamic nations don't like us!
Islamic nations do not like us? You mean like our allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey? Or do you mean the Albanians we saved from genocide in Kosovo? Simply put, that statement alone shows you are an ignorant hate-monger. Some Islamic nations like us, some do not, and most have mixed feelings about us. Just like Christian nations.
We have not actually done much, anyways, to endear ourselves with the Islamic world. We supported a policy that forced Palestinians from their homes to create an artificial Jewish state. Wonder why they would be pissed off at us? I would if I were them.
You mention bin Laden? He is one lunatic. The world is full of lunatics of all religions, races, and nationalities. You cannot judge a group by its lunatics.
Even if we hated Israel next week, Islamic countries aren't going to be our friends. Part of this hate was started on behalf of Russians (DURING WWII, NOT AFTER) who saw the radicals as an easy way to hate us. Why do you think they own Migs?
Who is "they"?
Oh yeah, I forgot. You think all Muslims are bin Laden clones. That would be a sign of an ignorant hate-monger... the tendency to make sweeping generalizations against a very diverse group of people. Some Muslims have American planes. Some have Russian planes. Some are African-Americans who play basketball in the NBA and are among the most pious people on earth. Some are Arab. Some are southeast Asian. Some are Iranian. Some are Spanish. Etc.
Our cultures don't mix, they won't. They don't like us - the FBI saw a threat that we didn't see so they went in.
Well, so far you have not exactly demonstrated a commanding understanding of Islamic culture. It is therefore hard for me to understand how you jump to the conclusion that our cultures cannot mix.
What you are saying is totally false. Completely false. You may resent me calling you a hate monger, but when you spread lies about a group of people that are designed to make that group of people look evil, that is called being a hate monger.
Yes, there are part of the Koran that advocate violence against infidels. But that is not really the message of the Koran any more than the message of the Old Testament is to kill homosexuals or the message of the New Testament is to kill Jews. The fact is all Judeo-Christian texts are self-contradictory and advocate violence in places and pacifism in other places. Extremists of all three faiths have historically used these contradictions to justify their violent, evil behavior. That goes for suicide bombers, crusaders, and Jewish terrorists. If you want to start painting religions by the evil done in their name, Christianity is the place to start looking. More evil has been done in the name of Christianity than any other religion.
My point, however, is not that Christianity is evil. It is that you cannot describe one religion in terms of its extremists and then ignore the actions of extremists in another religion.
You are completely ignorant of Islamic practices. You are simply a hate-monger.
In fact, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ALL have their nastier bits. They all have elements that preach hatred, and they all have elements that preach love and tolerence. None of them claim the moral high ground over the others. However, just about any other religion on earth is more tolerent than the three of these religions.
Get a fucking grip. It is people like you who make middle east peace impossible.
Now, I am about as pro-Palestinian as things get. But your rhetoric of racism and Zionism is nauseating. Yes, Israel is a fake country plucked out of Palestinian land. But that was 50 years ago. Israel exists and is populated with people who view themselves as Israeli.
The challenge is to carve up fair and equitable borders between the two countries. This is an extremely difficult challenge. The alternative, however, is mutual destruction. So stop whining about irrelevancies.
Generally, I build Open Source software to address one of three concerns:
To scratch an itch, so to speak. In other words, there is no reasonable solution to a problem I want solved, so I solve it myself. An example of this is would be my mSQL-JDBC driver. At the time, there simply was no way to access a database using JDBC.
To empower previously disenfranchised people. For example, I wrote my mud code because at the time (1991), building new muds was very much an elitist endeavor. I wanted to remove the technical irrelevancies and empower people to be creative.
To reduce the cost of a product group that is outrageously overpriced. A good current example of that is digital asset management solutions. IBM and others charge fortunes for their digital asset management products. I wrote xS to compete with these guys.
Most UI experts. The couple of idiosyncrasies you mention are not in fact UI problems. As others have mentioned, they are probably not even problems at all. Nevertheless, I never claimed the Mac OS UI was perfect.
Not to mention that having only one mouse button severely limits the usefulness of the device.
Funny, I use Mac OS and I have two mouse buttons and they work just fine. And they do exactly what you would expect. Just because Apple sells machines with one mouse button does not mean that the OS is a one mouse button OS.
People who "consider" the Mac interface to be better don't really understand human dynamics.
You mean like usability engineers? What UI is better than the Mac UI from a usability perspective and what experts back up your opinion?
Some of the advantages touted for Berlin vs. X actually sound like disadvantages to me.... In other words, Berlin takes the Mac approach of taking UI decisions away from app developers.
There is a reason the Mac is considered a good user interface and all X Window UI's bad. Funny how that works.
Seriously, though, if nothing else, a user experience must be consistent. All X Window UI's are nothing close to consistent. Windows is at least somewhat consistent. The Mac, of course, deals best with consistency.
Stored procedures are generally a bad idea in distributed and multi-tier Web applications. They are a product of the client/server era when there was no clear tier for business and logic and thus the only real way to share business logic was to place it in the database.
Today, if you are building a multi-tier Web application, you should be placing your business logic in a mid-tier application server like Orion. Stored procedures, in this environment, have only a limited role for VERY specific optimizations.
Slashdot Mirror
Why in the name of all that is holy would anyone have lpd running on a firewall?
First, hierarchical databases weaknesses are not limited to many-to-many relationship modeling. The simple fact is that some data is better represented in a hierarchical fashion (a directory service IS a hierarchical database) and others in a relational fashion. XML is a tool for exposing that data to external sources regardless of its internal representation(s).
http://oreilly.techrev.org
And look at one or two chapters from our forthcoming book on MySQL. This is the technical review portion of the book which means there are still tons of typos, but what we are looking for is that the community validate its technical content.
Thanks!
The fact is that no curriculum will prepare you for the real workplace. The best thing any curriculum can do is provide you with the framework with dealing with different kinds of problems rather than direct you how to think n particular circumstances. Ultimately, this is why liberal arts majors make more money than others over time.
10,000 soldiers? Boy are you optimistic. Adjust upwards by a power of ten at least.
You base these estimates on what? The U.S.S.R. lost 30K in over a decade in Afghanistan. The USA lost 50K in Vietnam. There is absolutely no reason on earth to believe this engagement will be anything like those engagements.
Now ask yourself if that isn't a steep price for futility. You see, terrorism isn't a person, it's an idea. You can't kill ideas with bombs, guns or secret state police. Ask the members of every revolution ever waged.
Futility? You remove state sponsorship for organized international terrorism and it goes away. Of course, you will always have isolated nuts as well as organized internal terror campaigns. But these are very different beasts than what we are after.
The US basically proved how effective removing state sponsorship is to destroying terrorism. When was the last time you heard of Libyan, Iranian, or Syrian sponsorship of organized terrorism outside of the middle east?
The world is not that simple and trying to beat it with a stick won't work.
Just becauseusing a stick is not always the answer does not imply that it is never part of the answer.
The heart of the anti-war movement, however, was that we did not belong there in the first place.
"we're going to hold the people who house them accountable."
is not the same as your assetion that the US won't care if it hits innocent civilians or not. In fact, this quote actually directly contradicts your thesis. It says we are going after those who did this and the people who house them. In other words, not innocent civilians.
Freedom to get cheap oil from middle east by putting tyrants over local populace?!!
No, the freedom not to worry about airliners flying into our buildings and killing innocent civilians.
Listen up dipshit, none of the governments in the middle east are democracies 'cuz if they were democracies, we'd be paying more for oil.
It is not our right to impose democracy on them. The imposition of democracy by an outside force has never worked. They need to sort out their own issues. In fact, Iran is the model of how this will likely work.
I don't know where you get to the conclusion that we would pay more for oil if the countries were democracies. Generally price is a reflection of supply and demand. Democracies tend to be more efficient economies and thus would tend to increase supply to meet an ideal supply/demand/price ration.
Democracy is a loaded word. But I don't except morons like you to understand this.
Nothing about your post really counters my post in any way. We have been attacked in a most horrible way. This has NOTHING to do with oil. We have to defend ourselves using whatever means will most effectively accomplish our goals. If it means we lose 10,000 American soldier's lives, but it also means we end organized terrorism that would result in many more 9/11's, then it is worth those 10,000 lives.
Because I'm not an expert on the military, I shouldn't let my opinions be known.
In this situation, your opinion on what is militarily possible is about as useful as a janitor's opinion on the merits of Java versus C# in artificial intelligence.
Economics is, in fact, quite different. Everyone experiences economics every day of their lives.
The Vietnam War argument is not relevant either. The protestors were protesting our being there, not speculating on what military tactics we should be taking. You are condemning tactics you are not qualified to discuss.
Yeah, except that the "rebel" faction in this case controls 90% of the country, and with an iron fist no less.
You realize this is actually a weakness, right?
Guerilla warfare has the advantage of not having to hold territory. The Taliban are no longer in the position of being guerilla fighters, but instead an established army holding territory.
Russians and Brits were trying to hold together control of the native population, while the US won't really care if the population is under control or not, so long as they're not in the way of us getting Bin Laden.
What evidence do you have for this amazingly speculative comment? So far, no one has suggested any such thing. In fact, such an attitude would run counter to everything Bush has been claiming.
Despite whether or not you or I believe it to be the prudent thing to do, it is the course of action that has been set in motion by the US government.
Funny, neither you nor I are military experts. Why don't you leave the doomsaying until you actually have a fucking clue what is going on and what the results are?
If we go in full force as a conventional army, it'll be a catastrophe.
Protecting freedom is hard. If that's what it takes to take out these terrorists, then that is what needs to be done.
Funny thing is, there is absolutely no indication that that's what Bush intends to do. Just a bunch of idiotic yahoos like yourself playing armchair general.
Chechnya was a war against terrorism wasn't it? Its funny because the war was condemned by the US and the UN.
No, the US did not condemn the war in Chechnya. In fact, we supported the war, just not some of the Russian tactics in fighting that war. We specifically took issue with their indiscriminate targetting.
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
What an ignorant comment! We have not sent in a single troop yet, and yet you feel you have a basis for making this claim?
Guess what? We have Russian advisors assisting us in our military planning. Just because the English and Soviets failed does not mean the lesson is "Don't touch Afghanistan". It certainly is not "Don't touch Afghanistan even if they harbor terrorists who kill 5,000 of your citizens."
Really. I am not sure what point you think you have.
Once again.. my facts are moded as flamebait - yet someone calling me a hatemonger is modded up.
Maybe it is because you are a hate monger?
Simply put, Islamic nations don't like us!
Islamic nations do not like us? You mean like our allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey? Or do you mean the Albanians we saved from genocide in Kosovo? Simply put, that statement alone shows you are an ignorant hate-monger. Some Islamic nations like us, some do not, and most have mixed feelings about us. Just like Christian nations.
We have not actually done much, anyways, to endear ourselves with the Islamic world. We supported a policy that forced Palestinians from their homes to create an artificial Jewish state. Wonder why they would be pissed off at us? I would if I were them.
You mention bin Laden? He is one lunatic. The world is full of lunatics of all religions, races, and nationalities. You cannot judge a group by its lunatics.
Even if we hated Israel next week, Islamic countries aren't going to be our friends. Part of this hate was started on behalf of Russians (DURING WWII, NOT AFTER) who saw the radicals as an easy way to hate us. Why do you think they own Migs?
Who is "they"?
Oh yeah, I forgot. You think all Muslims are bin Laden clones. That would be a sign of an ignorant hate-monger... the tendency to make sweeping generalizations against a very diverse group of people. Some Muslims have American planes. Some have Russian planes. Some are African-Americans who play basketball in the NBA and are among the most pious people on earth. Some are Arab. Some are southeast Asian. Some are Iranian. Some are Spanish. Etc.
Our cultures don't mix, they won't. They don't like us - the FBI saw a threat that we didn't see so they went in.
Well, so far you have not exactly demonstrated a commanding understanding of Islamic culture. It is therefore hard for me to understand how you jump to the conclusion that our cultures cannot mix.
Yes, there are part of the Koran that advocate violence against infidels. But that is not really the message of the Koran any more than the message of the Old Testament is to kill homosexuals or the message of the New Testament is to kill Jews. The fact is all Judeo-Christian texts are self-contradictory and advocate violence in places and pacifism in other places. Extremists of all three faiths have historically used these contradictions to justify their violent, evil behavior. That goes for suicide bombers, crusaders, and Jewish terrorists. If you want to start painting religions by the evil done in their name, Christianity is the place to start looking. More evil has been done in the name of Christianity than any other religion.
My point, however, is not that Christianity is evil. It is that you cannot describe one religion in terms of its extremists and then ignore the actions of extremists in another religion.
In fact, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ALL have their nastier bits. They all have elements that preach hatred, and they all have elements that preach love and tolerence. None of them claim the moral high ground over the others. However, just about any other religion on earth is more tolerent than the three of these religions.
Now, I am about as pro-Palestinian as things get. But your rhetoric of racism and Zionism is nauseating. Yes, Israel is a fake country plucked out of Palestinian land. But that was 50 years ago. Israel exists and is populated with people who view themselves as Israeli.
The challenge is to carve up fair and equitable borders between the two countries. This is an extremely difficult challenge. The alternative, however, is mutual destruction. So stop whining about irrelevancies.
Most UI experts. The couple of idiosyncrasies you mention are not in fact UI problems. As others have mentioned, they are probably not even problems at all. Nevertheless, I never claimed the Mac OS UI was perfect.
Not to mention that having only one mouse button severely limits the usefulness of the device.
Funny, I use Mac OS and I have two mouse buttons and they work just fine. And they do exactly what you would expect. Just because Apple sells machines with one mouse button does not mean that the OS is a one mouse button OS.
People who "consider" the Mac interface to be better don't really understand human dynamics.
You mean like usability engineers? What UI is better than the Mac UI from a usability perspective and what experts back up your opinion?
Some of the advantages touted for Berlin vs. X actually sound like disadvantages to me.... In other words, Berlin takes the Mac approach of taking UI decisions away from app developers.
There is a reason the Mac is considered a good user interface and all X Window UI's bad. Funny how that works.
Seriously, though, if nothing else, a user experience must be consistent. All X Window UI's are nothing close to consistent. Windows is at least somewhat consistent. The Mac, of course, deals best with consistency.
How is it a static IP change requires a reboot but a DHCPed one doesn't.
It doesn't. This is just FUD coming from the Linux crowd.
Today, if you are building a multi-tier Web application, you should be placing your business logic in a mid-tier application server like Orion. Stored procedures, in this environment, have only a limited role for VERY specific optimizations.
Perl stored procedures, IMHO, are an abomination.