Really? If there was factual evidence of existence of Jesus years back, I would be able to accept that, not really a big deal. I am saying there is no evidence, there are scriptures written hundreds of years after the purported events supposedly took place. I also said that is very likely there was no such person as Christ at all, but it's not impossible that there was.
However, on the issue of that possible person being a god, well, that's a different story altogether.
I am an atheist and I never saw any actual evidence that Christ was real, as in he actually physically existed ever at all. The ideas that are assigned to him are obviously much older than he himself, Plato and Diogenes come to mind (note how both of those are tied to Socrates.)
No, I never saw evidence that Jesus existed, so I take it with a huge grain of salt, his actual physical existence, forget about him being a god.
There is at least one more ingredient that is not being taken into consideration here: reason to write music.
Did Mozart have a reason to write his music? I bet he did. Did his reasons come out of his life experiences? I bet they did. Does a machine have reason to write music other than we tell it to? Not yet. Until a machine can take its 'life' experiences and based on those come up with a reason to create music, it will not be the same, though it may sound similar.
Life experience is what forces people to do things, music is a reflection of their lives. Listen to different composers, you may learn something about their particular life styles, troubles/problems, high points/low points etc. Listen to a machine - you will learn that its 'life' experience is quite limited.
Capitalism is not offering to perform a service that people could do for themselves. Capitalism is controlling the tools and making people pay a tribute that they might enjoy the privilege of serving themselves.
- right. Maybe a definition should be actually presented before any further discussion takes place.
How about this: capitalism is based on the idea of self first of all, trying to make self progress forward by applying any necessary means. In capitalism the capital is the goal and the means of acquiring the capital are irrelevant actually. Capital is the goal in itself and is the tool to get more capital.
Now, if this definition is not complete, it is because complete definitions are beyond me, I don't know that ideas like capitalism are actually finite and do not in themselves evolve into new forms with the passage of time.
Given this, I submit to you that capitalism is not about providing services or owning tools, it is about increasing the capital. That's the goal. It is coincidental that there are many ways to increase capital, but there are only very few distinct ways that are generally used:
1. Capital can be increased by taking capital away from others. This could in principle be anything, from theft to war.
2. Capital can be increased by others giving it to you voluntarily - religions, maybe some 'charity' institutions and such.
3. Capital can be increased by offering people, who you view as customers some product or service that you can provide in exchange for a disproportionate reward. Disproportionate because normally most such enterprises fail and once that succeed are regarded as examples of possibilities, and such examples need to be convincing enough for newcomers to try and do it themselves. Generally the population prefers this form of capitalism to the other forms, because at the end the population wants the goods and services that can be produced by such a system - I would call it the symbiosis.
I believe that what is happening today with many large corporations is that they have moved away from the 3rd way of doing 'capitalism' into the 2nd and often even into the 1st and this is becoming unacceptable. While the first way maybe often not an optimal solution for the general population (capitalism of the 3rd way can produce goods and services, but it can for example harm environment and leave the cost of that to the public), the second and the third ways of doing capitalism are much more dangerous but also they are much more lucrative and so eventually those are the forms that large entities tend to gravitate to because they got so huge, they influence everything around themselves, they change the political system by becoming part of it through various ways that are normally related to large amounts of money that these entities acquire with time.
I would say that monopolies are dangerous for political systems, but political systems allow monopolies, because those provide the most political and financial capital to the politicians. This is getting long, my point is that people maybe should define things before arguing about them, because otherwise they end up arguing about very different things without noticing it.
Judging by the video, that system works by using the laser to burn up the mosquito's wings. The laser doesn't make the mosquito fall, however: it's the fact that the mosquito can lo longer use its wings to counteract gravity that causes it to fall. That's not how it works with satellites
Just abstract the problem a bit from an existing special case.
You see, we already take out certain things with laser when we want to while those things are in flight, so obviously, moving from the special case to a higher level general case, it should be possible to apply the same solution to other types of problems.
The question is: do you have to glue mosquito wings to all of the pieces of junk floating around the Earth first or not?
http://slashdot.org/~roman_mir/comments - I imagine twater storm of moderation points was spent well this time, every single post I had on this issue was above 3 point and now within 1 hour, all comments were moderated down. To me that's just funny - someone does not like the truth.
I just wonder is it the twater birds or does it have something to do with the nosql ideologists?
goodness, that is a terrible article you are referring to, just awful.
Additionally, managing relational databases in a production environment can become labor intensive and error-prone. Each database package comes with its own world of configuration options, performance sensitivities, bugs, and tools
- just like any other software. What, the NoSQL software will not have its own 'labor intensive, error-prone, configuration options, performance sensitive, bugs and tools' features? What, they invented a way to write software in the NoSQL camp that can avoid being complex to maintain in real production environments while being totally bug free while not having complex configuration options and will not be performance sensitive?
While these issues usually start small, they can become a drain on developers' time and resources as the product matures and its needs become more complex. This complexity of management arises from the complexity of the database packages themselves; it is their very breadth of capabilities which makes them difficult to manage.
- and this NoSQL thing will start small and will eventually have the same exact issues.
You want a prediction? I predict that eventually NoSQL camp will add some sort of 'pseudo-sql' features on top of their paradigm to become more compatible with the current SQL systems, while adding more and more features, bugs, tools, complexities and at the end a new paradigm will be born, bug free and tool free and sensitivity free, it will be called: NoNoSQL++-+-.
I mean, look at this stupid article, it says that existing features that are provided by the databases are the reason why people don't want to use them? That's exactly like all those stupid idiots arguing that Java is a terrible language because there are so many libraries available for it!
Here it is - the epiphany of stupidity:
Finally, SQL encourages (but does not require) developers to perform data processing in the database itself, in addition to data storage. Much of the time, the easiest way to map two tables together is to use a JOIN, and the easiest way to sort the results is with an ORDER BY, and so forth. Doing so adds load to the database's CPU, often a precious resource, while saving load on the application host--a bad trade-off that leads more quickly to the relational database's scaling wall.
- Muhahahahahaha! Morons. Is that the reason why Twfuuufter is moving away from RDBMSs, because they can do joins and orders in the database rather than in their own application? Idiotic at best. Whoever wrote this piece of garbage technobable 'article' is a total moron.
The problem with Twyyter is that they don't design, they take off the shelf stuff end expect it to do 'thinking' for them. They should have a cluster of dedicated servers to churn out static content off a queue of inputs and have one machine commit the inputs into a datastore, whatever it is. Then the static content is really easy to serve from a cluster of web servers. The database specific design is irrelevant then, but I bet that most of their data is relational.
In the context of this story I am confusing nothing. They are moving out of ACID space that was provided to them by an RDBMS into some NoSQL stuff that specifically says it does not guarantee transaction properties. They are doing this for speed supposedly or maybe to save money.
They are not going to have major improvements with this I bet, they will see some moderate speed improvement, but the point is they never needed data to be transactional in the first place, since they obviously don't care about that property of data now, however, I doubt very much that all of their data is truly not relational. Some of it is not, but that's always the case.
What they should have done instead is proper design, which might have ended up being a small cluster of big machines generating static pages out of the input content and replacing static pages on a cluster of web servers every minute or 5 or whatever is acceptable. Would have been faster than generating all of the dynamic content for each http request. The inbound data only has to be thrown into some queue, memory queue even, then a cluster of generators would grub things off the queue and produce static content while one of the machines could persist the data into some relational database for backup.
Yeah, the actual requirement of the twooter should be really thought over once more.
They may not need any database for their front end at all, that's their problem: they can't scale with the old back end, they think they'll fix it with this new silver bullet? Maybe they'll have it run faster for a while, but what about some real design? Do they actually need to generate any content for every http request? I doubt it. Maybe all they need is a small cluster of large enough servers to generate all of the necessary static pages and push them periodically to their front end web servers. For the inbound requests they probably don't need a database either, just a queue for the generator cluster to work on to generate the static pages.
That maybe all they need, but instead of doing some actual design work and maybe changing some implementation they'll just do what management normally does in the pointy hair boss way: get a hammer, hopefully a silver one and do the same old thing hopefully marginally faster.
Certainly Amazon is in business different from the twater, they can put many more minds together to compensate for all of the deficiencies of a non-transactional system where transactions are needed. For example excessive journalling can be done and then back end systems can sort out the details and process 99% of cases successfully and throw the last 1% at some CSRs in India or wherever they have the call centers.
I am sure that Amazon would have preferred to have completely transactional system and their specific problem may as well be performance deficiencies of RDBMSs of their choice. On the other hand it is also possible that their architecture could be changed to do so, but maybe it was less expensive to go the other way, I haven't worked for them yet, so I don't know. However I am building a retailer solution right now with a cluster of PostgreSQL nodes that process a few million transactions a day with a large growth potential and where possible, I'll stick to the RDBMS but I certainly do caching and use hashmaps in memory to speed up quite a few report generations and other features.
My point is that twufter never really needed an RDBMS in the first place, so it doesn't matter what they use, a fast enough roll of toilet paper maybe sufficient for their purposes, who knows.
Freedom of choice, definitely. I had projects just recently I used property files as a database - inserts, deletes, updates, all in a property file. Easy enough because it is just a hash map. You don't impress me with any of it, it's not in any way new first of all, but it does not replace any RDBMS where RDBMS is needed.
My entire point is that Twooter never needed an RDBMS in the first place. They should be just fine without any database usage on the front end, and forget about JSON. The problem with them, if they can't scale right now, is that they don't do design, they just jumped on a silver bullet train. Tweuter can just as well serve static content, that's as fast as you can get. The design is obvious - generate static content and periodically replace it on the front end web servers. Done, no need for anything else. Who cares what's on the back end? They never needed an RDBMS, you see, that's my point. Just like google. To your point - we always had the choice, it's all the same stuff in different wrapping, so fine, who fights that?
I don't understand why we need so many useless regulators who are usually wolves being put in charge of the hen house when the courts could easily handle this. It's going to end up being prosecuted in a court of law anyway and not solved by some magic regulation hand-waving. - reread your own statement, there are both question and answer there, it's just a bit of a semantics problem.
'why we need so many useless regulators' - no no, you don't any useless regulator. Do you need any regulator, that's really the question. I say no, but then I also would not allow government to tax or to create money by printing and I would never allow corporations donate money and employ politicians ever. No politician should be allowed to work for a corporation that he was supposed to 'regulate' during his/her government employment.
Most lobbyists (or lobby consultants) are former politicians, they accept the implicit bribe - they behave nicely and play alone with the corporation while they are in power and after they are done with the government they go to those multimillion dollar deals, where they lobby for the same corporations.
It works back and forward - people work together in government and in large corporations, they are loosely interchangeable and the goal is to take money from the system and not to pay back the interest or the principal. Government does not produce, banks do not produce, they all consume money though and to finance it they put the population into debt.
Who is controlling regulation of your financial system? Goldman Sachs former CEO. Any problem with that?
Just remember that the only thing to stand up to a big business nowadays is big government, and the goal of any big business is to convince everyone that a small government can watch over big business just like a big government can.
- I mean, really? Wake up, is there anyone home? The government that you like so much consists of a system of people, who like to remain in power. To do so takes money. Lots and lots of money. Where do you get the money? It's the system - the bribes real and implied etc.
Government today is in it with the large corporations. They are one government. In Canada it is a bit different from the US but the principles are the same. Big money wants more money, to do so it needs to corrupt the government and it works on that day and night. Big government wants to stay in power, to do so it needs contributions and various other things money can buy, they do this day and night.
It's like that Alien vs Predator: no matter which one of them wins, who do you think is going to lose?
Let me put it this way, it will make it perfectly clear: if twoofter is regenerating every page on every hit and they are running into issues with speed, then their problem is not their data storage, it's their design. Now that it is clear they don't care about data consistency, I have the solution for them.
They just need to regenerate the pages once in a few minutes on some large node and then push the static content to their webservers. Done. And that's why they sometimes pay me the big bucks:) to think of the obvious.
Twwweeeeter can also probably generate static pages just as well on some large node and then push them to web servers, that just might have worked better for them.
Do they really need dynamic pages at all or could they live with something that's regenerated every 10 minutes? Just saying.
You know, the truth is, most data is still stored in individual files, not in databases. So RDBMSs were always a very niche thing used for projects because they are understood and it's easier to develop for them if you really have massive data requirements.
Files - that's what many projects even today use, not databases. This is basically what they are going back to - files with whatever window dressing on top - a facade of hashes, it's all key/value pairs. It is, my friends, the old old idea of property files.
I mean, really, I wrote a system in August that uses property files for storage as a database. Property file as a database - because it works. But that's a storage method. So in the NoSQL space they also do clustering by replication across nodes, but it does not really matter much if the data is all the same on all nodes.
But you can do the same with an RDBMS, really, you can skip the principles of ACID and replicate across nodes and hope that it's good enough. Maybe the implementation for things like 'Cassandra' allows faster replication than what is normally done in an RDBMS, but just you wait and see how the RDBMSs of tomorrow provide a few flags to do the same thing in some 'partial ACID mode' with quick replication.
This is intended for applications that do not really care about consistency of data - Google does not care. Twewter does not care. Amazon has to jump through more hoops I am sure than Tweeter, because real money is involved.
you really should have left that comment to the 'bad analogy guy', he could make it sound good.
If other tools are faster and better than rdbms, then why people should waste their time with slower option.
- faster and better, ha? So you don't really mind if your bank switches from its datastore to a 'faster and better' NoSQL system, whatever the latest fad name is? I mean what's a few dollars not rolling back in a transaction that fails when your employment check is deposited?
Propeller would have been a file in a makeshift file system, we use jet engines now for large commercial aircraft now, you don't see the ramjets on those though or rocket boosters, do you?
In general your attitude reminds me of the people who thought personal computers would always be toys. "Proper work" would be done on mainframes/supercomputers and trivial office tasks may as well be done on paper. Well, mainframes / supercomputers are still faster than personal computers, but few people would claim the PC had no impact on the office.
- in general your attitude reminds me of everyone who ever thought that the latest fad is the silver bullet that will devoid them of any responsibility for a hacky design and kludgy implementation, all sprinkled with hair bossy management attitude. Good luck with your new silver bullet, hope you kill the vampire of incompetence.
As I said, there are projects and then there are projects. Tweater is not the project that requires any real database in the first place, who cares is a commit is transactional there?
As for your last comment: problems with database performance are all about design. You think NoSQL will not hit the same roadblocks in projects that don't do design right? What are they going to move to when that one fails? NoNoSQL++?
your question is answered in my post: google does not need a database for ACID properties.
Can you complain much if in one location google gives you results that are very different for the same search query as for the same query in a different location at the same time? Well, if you do complain, you can ask google for your money back.
The more interesting aspect of all of this 'NoSQL' movement is how they believe that if they achieve some speed improvement against some relational databases, how that makes them so much better.
If you don't really need a database to run your 'website', then who cares if you use flat files or an in memory hashmap for all your data needs? Databases are not being replaced by NoSQL in projects that need databases. The projects that may not have ever needed databases may benefit by this NoSQL idea, but if you actually need a database... well, you better be really good at working around all kinds of problems that this will create for you.
I think that relational databases are good at what they do and that many projects may not need them, but if you do need them on the back end, you will end up with them on the back end. Of-course there maybe some caching/hashmaps/files on the front end but at the back stuff will be sorted out within a real datastore.
Is there really a huge issue with rdbms speeds? Well if there is something there, that's what needs to be looked at. If RDBMSs are not fast enough, that's just an opportunity to work more on them to speed them up.
just because/. is a technical site does not mean that everyone's opinions have to be the same on all topics. Maybe it does for you, but not for me here.
I don't care I don't CARE about ANY features of a mobile phone except for one (1) - calls over phone network. Imagine that. But I don't listen to music, so to me an mp3 player is useless - and note, this has nothing to do with me being technical or not, I don't listen to music - it is not a technical issue.
I did play a few games on one of the old phones I had while on a plane, that's about it. The phone for me is a nuisance that is somewhat useful, I need it unfortunately, to communicate with people.. I have a camera in one of the older phones, in the new one I do not - it always brakes and takes pictures of my pockets and sends that to people, fuck that. Don't need a camera in the phone, I have a camera.
I don't talk into my camera and I don't take pictures with my book reader. Get over yourself, just because you like the latest gadget does not make you the authority on what people on/. should be like.
Nope. Capitalism is not about playing with other people's money. It is about investing money that you save and using it to create more wealth, it is not about taking free money given to you by the government and then gambling with it because you have no repercussions - the government will step in and save you and you ensure this by being in very close and good relationship with it.
There is no capitalism when your friend - the fed steps in and saves you over and over. There is no capitalism when your friend - the fed prints money and hands it over to you because you are the preferred corporation (whether a bank or a weapons manufacturer or a farmer or a construction worker or a car manufacturer or anything else.)
None of that is capitalism. All of that is cronyism.
Capitalism is about saving your money that you work for and reinvesting it.
Which one of the bank CEOs actually worked and saved the money that they gambled with? None.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? If there was factual evidence of existence of Jesus years back, I would be able to accept that, not really a big deal. I am saying there is no evidence, there are scriptures written hundreds of years after the purported events supposedly took place. I also said that is very likely there was no such person as Christ at all, but it's not impossible that there was.
However, on the issue of that possible person being a god, well, that's a different story altogether.
the rust could have covered the dirt. I once saw a gray car that on a closer inspection appeared to be a yellow submarine.
I am an atheist and I never saw any actual evidence that Christ was real, as in he actually physically existed ever at all. The ideas that are assigned to him are obviously much older than he himself, Plato and Diogenes come to mind (note how both of those are tied to Socrates.)
No, I never saw evidence that Jesus existed, so I take it with a huge grain of salt, his actual physical existence, forget about him being a god.
There is at least one more ingredient that is not being taken into consideration here: reason to write music.
Did Mozart have a reason to write his music? I bet he did. Did his reasons come out of his life experiences? I bet they did. Does a machine have reason to write music other than we tell it to? Not yet. Until a machine can take its 'life' experiences and based on those come up with a reason to create music, it will not be the same, though it may sound similar.
Life experience is what forces people to do things, music is a reflection of their lives. Listen to different composers, you may learn something about their particular life styles, troubles/problems, high points/low points etc. Listen to a machine - you will learn that its 'life' experience is quite limited.
Capitalism is not offering to perform a service that people could do for themselves. Capitalism is controlling the tools and making people pay a tribute that they might enjoy the privilege of serving themselves.
- right. Maybe a definition should be actually presented before any further discussion takes place.
How about this: capitalism is based on the idea of self first of all, trying to make self progress forward by applying any necessary means. In capitalism the capital is the goal and the means of acquiring the capital are irrelevant actually. Capital is the goal in itself and is the tool to get more capital.
Now, if this definition is not complete, it is because complete definitions are beyond me, I don't know that ideas like capitalism are actually finite and do not in themselves evolve into new forms with the passage of time.
Given this, I submit to you that capitalism is not about providing services or owning tools, it is about increasing the capital. That's the goal. It is coincidental that there are many ways to increase capital, but there are only very few distinct ways that are generally used:
1. Capital can be increased by taking capital away from others. This could in principle be anything, from theft to war.
2. Capital can be increased by others giving it to you voluntarily - religions, maybe some 'charity' institutions and such.
3. Capital can be increased by offering people, who you view as customers some product or service that you can provide in exchange for a disproportionate reward. Disproportionate because normally most such enterprises fail and once that succeed are regarded as examples of possibilities, and such examples need to be convincing enough for newcomers to try and do it themselves. Generally the population prefers this form of capitalism to the other forms, because at the end the population wants the goods and services that can be produced by such a system - I would call it the symbiosis.
I believe that what is happening today with many large corporations is that they have moved away from the 3rd way of doing 'capitalism' into the 2nd and often even into the 1st and this is becoming unacceptable. While the first way maybe often not an optimal solution for the general population (capitalism of the 3rd way can produce goods and services, but it can for example harm environment and leave the cost of that to the public), the second and the third ways of doing capitalism are much more dangerous but also they are much more lucrative and so eventually those are the forms that large entities tend to gravitate to because they got so huge, they influence everything around themselves, they change the political system by becoming part of it through various ways that are normally related to large amounts of money that these entities acquire with time.
I would say that monopolies are dangerous for political systems, but political systems allow monopolies, because those provide the most political and financial capital to the politicians. This is getting long, my point is that people maybe should define things before arguing about them, because otherwise they end up arguing about very different things without noticing it.
Judging by the video, that system works by using the laser to burn up the mosquito's wings. The laser doesn't make the mosquito fall, however: it's the fact that the mosquito can lo longer use its wings to counteract gravity that causes it to fall. That's not how it works with satellites
- you don't say?!
Just abstract the problem a bit from an existing special case.
You see, we already take out certain things with laser when we want to while those things are in flight, so obviously, moving from the special case to a higher level general case, it should be possible to apply the same solution to other types of problems.
The question is: do you have to glue mosquito wings to all of the pieces of junk floating around the Earth first or not?
http://slashdot.org/~roman_mir/comments - I imagine twater storm of moderation points was spent well this time, every single post I had on this issue was above 3 point and now within 1 hour, all comments were moderated down. To me that's just funny - someone does not like the truth.
I just wonder is it the twater birds or does it have something to do with the nosql ideologists?
goodness, that is a terrible article you are referring to, just awful.
Additionally, managing relational databases in a production environment can become labor intensive and error-prone. Each database package comes with its own world of configuration options, performance sensitivities, bugs, and tools
- just like any other software. What, the NoSQL software will not have its own 'labor intensive, error-prone, configuration options, performance sensitive, bugs and tools' features? What, they invented a way to write software in the NoSQL camp that can avoid being complex to maintain in real production environments while being totally bug free while not having complex configuration options and will not be performance sensitive?
While these issues usually start small, they can become a drain on developers' time and resources as the product matures and its needs become more complex. This complexity of management arises from the complexity of the database packages themselves; it is their very breadth of capabilities which makes them difficult to manage.
- and this NoSQL thing will start small and will eventually have the same exact issues.
You want a prediction? I predict that eventually NoSQL camp will add some sort of 'pseudo-sql' features on top of their paradigm to become more compatible with the current SQL systems, while adding more and more features, bugs, tools, complexities and at the end a new paradigm will be born, bug free and tool free and sensitivity free, it will be called: NoNoSQL++-+-.
I mean, look at this stupid article, it says that existing features that are provided by the databases are the reason why people don't want to use them? That's exactly like all those stupid idiots arguing that Java is a terrible language because there are so many libraries available for it!
Here it is - the epiphany of stupidity:
Finally, SQL encourages (but does not require) developers to perform data processing in the database itself, in addition to data storage. Much of the time, the easiest way to map two tables together is to use a JOIN, and the easiest way to sort the results is with an ORDER BY, and so forth. Doing so adds load to the database's CPU, often a precious resource, while saving load on the application host--a bad trade-off that leads more quickly to the relational database's scaling wall.
- Muhahahahahaha! Morons. Is that the reason why Twfuuufter is moving away from RDBMSs, because they can do joins and orders in the database rather than in their own application? Idiotic at best. Whoever wrote this piece of garbage technobable 'article' is a total moron.
The problem with Twyyter is that they don't design, they take off the shelf stuff end expect it to do 'thinking' for them. They should have a cluster of dedicated servers to churn out static content off a queue of inputs and have one machine commit the inputs into a datastore, whatever it is. Then the static content is really easy to serve from a cluster of web servers. The database specific design is irrelevant then, but I bet that most of their data is relational.
In the context of this story I am confusing nothing. They are moving out of ACID space that was provided to them by an RDBMS into some NoSQL stuff that specifically says it does not guarantee transaction properties. They are doing this for speed supposedly or maybe to save money.
They are not going to have major improvements with this I bet, they will see some moderate speed improvement, but the point is they never needed data to be transactional in the first place, since they obviously don't care about that property of data now, however, I doubt very much that all of their data is truly not relational. Some of it is not, but that's always the case.
What they should have done instead is proper design, which might have ended up being a small cluster of big machines generating static pages out of the input content and replacing static pages on a cluster of web servers every minute or 5 or whatever is acceptable. Would have been faster than generating all of the dynamic content for each http request. The inbound data only has to be thrown into some queue, memory queue even, then a cluster of generators would grub things off the queue and produce static content while one of the machines could persist the data into some relational database for backup.
Yeah, the actual requirement of the twooter should be really thought over once more.
They may not need any database for their front end at all, that's their problem: they can't scale with the old back end, they think they'll fix it with this new silver bullet? Maybe they'll have it run faster for a while, but what about some real design? Do they actually need to generate any content for every http request? I doubt it. Maybe all they need is a small cluster of large enough servers to generate all of the necessary static pages and push them periodically to their front end web servers. For the inbound requests they probably don't need a database either, just a queue for the generator cluster to work on to generate the static pages.
That maybe all they need, but instead of doing some actual design work and maybe changing some implementation they'll just do what management normally does in the pointy hair boss way: get a hammer, hopefully a silver one and do the same old thing hopefully marginally faster.
Certainly Amazon is in business different from the twater, they can put many more minds together to compensate for all of the deficiencies of a non-transactional system where transactions are needed. For example excessive journalling can be done and then back end systems can sort out the details and process 99% of cases successfully and throw the last 1% at some CSRs in India or wherever they have the call centers.
I am sure that Amazon would have preferred to have completely transactional system and their specific problem may as well be performance deficiencies of RDBMSs of their choice. On the other hand it is also possible that their architecture could be changed to do so, but maybe it was less expensive to go the other way, I haven't worked for them yet, so I don't know. However I am building a retailer solution right now with a cluster of PostgreSQL nodes that process a few million transactions a day with a large growth potential and where possible, I'll stick to the RDBMS but I certainly do caching and use hashmaps in memory to speed up quite a few report generations and other features.
My point is that twufter never really needed an RDBMS in the first place, so it doesn't matter what they use, a fast enough roll of toilet paper maybe sufficient for their purposes, who knows.
you don't think I know what I mean?
Freedom of choice, definitely. I had projects just recently I used property files as a database - inserts, deletes, updates, all in a property file. Easy enough because it is just a hash map. You don't impress me with any of it, it's not in any way new first of all, but it does not replace any RDBMS where RDBMS is needed.
My entire point is that Twooter never needed an RDBMS in the first place. They should be just fine without any database usage on the front end, and forget about JSON. The problem with them, if they can't scale right now, is that they don't do design, they just jumped on a silver bullet train. Tweuter can just as well serve static content, that's as fast as you can get. The design is obvious - generate static content and periodically replace it on the front end web servers. Done, no need for anything else. Who cares what's on the back end? They never needed an RDBMS, you see, that's my point. Just like google. To your point - we always had the choice, it's all the same stuff in different wrapping, so fine, who fights that?
I don't understand why we need so many useless regulators who are usually wolves being put in charge of the hen house when the courts could easily handle this. It's going to end up being prosecuted in a court of law anyway and not solved by some magic regulation hand-waving. - reread your own statement, there are both question and answer there, it's just a bit of a semantics problem.
'why we need so many useless regulators' - no no, you don't any useless regulator. Do you need any regulator, that's really the question. I say no, but then I also would not allow government to tax or to create money by printing and I would never allow corporations donate money and employ politicians ever. No politician should be allowed to work for a corporation that he was supposed to 'regulate' during his/her government employment.
Most lobbyists (or lobby consultants) are former politicians, they accept the implicit bribe - they behave nicely and play alone with the corporation while they are in power and after they are done with the government they go to those multimillion dollar deals, where they lobby for the same corporations.
It works back and forward - people work together in government and in large corporations, they are loosely interchangeable and the goal is to take money from the system and not to pay back the interest or the principal. Government does not produce, banks do not produce, they all consume money though and to finance it they put the population into debt.
Who is controlling regulation of your financial system? Goldman Sachs former CEO. Any problem with that?
Just remember that the only thing to stand up to a big business nowadays is big government, and the goal of any big business is to convince everyone that a small government can watch over big business just like a big government can.
- I mean, really? Wake up, is there anyone home? The government that you like so much consists of a system of people, who like to remain in power. To do so takes money. Lots and lots of money. Where do you get the money? It's the system - the bribes real and implied etc.
Government today is in it with the large corporations. They are one government. In Canada it is a bit different from the US but the principles are the same. Big money wants more money, to do so it needs to corrupt the government and it works on that day and night. Big government wants to stay in power, to do so it needs contributions and various other things money can buy, they do this day and night.
It's like that Alien vs Predator: no matter which one of them wins, who do you think is going to lose?
Let me put it this way, it will make it perfectly clear: if twoofter is regenerating every page on every hit and they are running into issues with speed, then their problem is not their data storage, it's their design. Now that it is clear they don't care about data consistency, I have the solution for them.
They just need to regenerate the pages once in a few minutes on some large node and then push the static content to their webservers. Done. And that's why they sometimes pay me the big bucks :) to think of the obvious.
Twwweeeeter can also probably generate static pages just as well on some large node and then push them to web servers, that just might have worked better for them.
Do they really need dynamic pages at all or could they live with something that's regenerated every 10 minutes? Just saying.
You know, the truth is, most data is still stored in individual files, not in databases. So RDBMSs were always a very niche thing used for projects because they are understood and it's easier to develop for them if you really have massive data requirements.
Files - that's what many projects even today use, not databases. This is basically what they are going back to - files with whatever window dressing on top - a facade of hashes, it's all key/value pairs. It is, my friends, the old old idea of property files.
I mean, really, I wrote a system in August that uses property files for storage as a database. Property file as a database - because it works. But that's a storage method. So in the NoSQL space they also do clustering by replication across nodes, but it does not really matter much if the data is all the same on all nodes.
But you can do the same with an RDBMS, really, you can skip the principles of ACID and replicate across nodes and hope that it's good enough. Maybe the implementation for things like 'Cassandra' allows faster replication than what is normally done in an RDBMS, but just you wait and see how the RDBMSs of tomorrow provide a few flags to do the same thing in some 'partial ACID mode' with quick replication.
This is intended for applications that do not really care about consistency of data - Google does not care. Twewter does not care. Amazon has to jump through more hoops I am sure than Tweeter, because real money is involved.
you really should have left that comment to the 'bad analogy guy', he could make it sound good.
If other tools are faster and better than rdbms, then why people should waste their time with slower option.
- faster and better, ha? So you don't really mind if your bank switches from its datastore to a 'faster and better' NoSQL system, whatever the latest fad name is? I mean what's a few dollars not rolling back in a transaction that fails when your employment check is deposited?
Propeller would have been a file in a makeshift file system, we use jet engines now for large commercial aircraft now, you don't see the ramjets on those though or rocket boosters, do you?
In general your attitude reminds me of the people who thought personal computers would always be toys. "Proper work" would be done on mainframes/supercomputers and trivial office tasks may as well be done on paper. Well, mainframes / supercomputers are still faster than personal computers, but few people would claim the PC had no impact on the office.
- in general your attitude reminds me of everyone who ever thought that the latest fad is the silver bullet that will devoid them of any responsibility for a hacky design and kludgy implementation, all sprinkled with hair bossy management attitude. Good luck with your new silver bullet, hope you kill the vampire of incompetence.
As I said, there are projects and then there are projects. Tweater is not the project that requires any real database in the first place, who cares is a commit is transactional there?
As for your last comment: problems with database performance are all about design. You think NoSQL will not hit the same roadblocks in projects that don't do design right? What are they going to move to when that one fails? NoNoSQL++?
your question is answered in my post: google does not need a database for ACID properties.
Can you complain much if in one location google gives you results that are very different for the same search query as for the same query in a different location at the same time? Well, if you do complain, you can ask google for your money back.
who cares what twuufter is running off.
The more interesting aspect of all of this 'NoSQL' movement is how they believe that if they achieve some speed improvement against some relational databases, how that makes them so much better.
If you don't really need a database to run your 'website', then who cares if you use flat files or an in memory hashmap for all your data needs? Databases are not being replaced by NoSQL in projects that need databases. The projects that may not have ever needed databases may benefit by this NoSQL idea, but if you actually need a database... well, you better be really good at working around all kinds of problems that this will create for you.
I think that relational databases are good at what they do and that many projects may not need them, but if you do need them on the back end, you will end up with them on the back end. Of-course there maybe some caching/hashmaps/files on the front end but at the back stuff will be sorted out within a real datastore.
Is there really a huge issue with rdbms speeds? Well if there is something there, that's what needs to be looked at. If RDBMSs are not fast enough, that's just an opportunity to work more on them to speed them up.
just because /. is a technical site does not mean that everyone's opinions have to be the same on all topics. Maybe it does for you, but not for me here.
I don't care I don't CARE about ANY features of a mobile phone except for one (1) - calls over phone network. Imagine that. But I don't listen to music, so to me an mp3 player is useless - and note, this has nothing to do with me being technical or not, I don't listen to music - it is not a technical issue.
I did play a few games on one of the old phones I had while on a plane, that's about it. The phone for me is a nuisance that is somewhat useful, I need it unfortunately, to communicate with people.. I have a camera in one of the older phones, in the new one I do not - it always brakes and takes pictures of my pockets and sends that to people, fuck that. Don't need a camera in the phone, I have a camera.
I don't talk into my camera and I don't take pictures with my book reader. Get over yourself, just because you like the latest gadget does not make you the authority on what people on /. should be like.
Nope. Capitalism is not about playing with other people's money. It is about investing money that you save and using it to create more wealth, it is not about taking free money given to you by the government and then gambling with it because you have no repercussions - the government will step in and save you and you ensure this by being in very close and good relationship with it.
There is no capitalism when your friend - the fed steps in and saves you over and over. There is no capitalism when your friend - the fed prints money and hands it over to you because you are the preferred corporation (whether a bank or a weapons manufacturer or a farmer or a construction worker or a car manufacturer or anything else.)
None of that is capitalism. All of that is cronyism.
Capitalism is about saving your money that you work for and reinvesting it.
Which one of the bank CEOs actually worked and saved the money that they gambled with? None.