First.. Wal*Mart decides to shutdown it's DRM support system, so no more transferring music to another computer unless you quickly burn everything to CD.
Now Apple threatening to shutdown it's music store, probably putting everyone in the same boat in a few years when they decide to not support servers that aren't generating revenue.
I think my need for Apple products stays as 'no need' and my need to download music at 'slight need'.
I try to buy only DRM free CDs and rip everything to disk. Or buy downloads I can remove DRM from.
When DRM starts shutting off CDs, I'll just record the analog signal.
Hmmm...I think I used to do that in the 70s to 8-track tapes. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Good whiskey (or tequila) needs neither water or ice (or salt or lime). Just a glass.
Buy the better stuff (at least $25US a bottle), and learn to enjoy the taste and aromas. It may cost more, but one might find they drink less because it is savored it instead of shooting it down.
Cheap alcohol and shots are for those that just want to get drunk. The good stuff is for relaxing with friends.
Re:a bunch of questions
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 1
Spend the dollars to rewrite code that has major design flaws because the coder thought new, cutting edge tech were 'cool' and wrote important systems without any experience in the tech they were using.
Spend the dollars to rewrite code that causes hours of downtime because it doesn't understand things like 'error detection' or 'restart'. Spend the dollars to put in intelligent error messages instead of 'program aborted at 13cs35213' so the time spent figuring out the cause it drastically reduced.
These costs are for more expensive and usually not even tallied when rewriting code. I don't know how many projects I've been on when the rewrite was 'just copy everything the way it is, don't reengineer it, we don't have the time'. So garbage in COBOL becomes garbage in C++ with all the same problems.
Reducing servers is a side-effect and had nothing to do with the original need. But, if one is going to rewrite code, why not?? Fewer servers mean less hardware costs, fewer failures, lower facility costs, cheaper upgrades, etc. The servers all run in virtual engines, hardware failure is an inconvenience when the new program's restart procedures are simply 'rerun from the step that failed'. No data restores, no issuing SQL to reset counters or dates. Just rerun.
Re:a bunch of questions
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 1
It's what happens when you let a development staff run without any standards or experienced oversight. When everyone codes the way they want to, programs are duplicated with minor changes instead of enhancing existing ones that do the same thing, just differently.
It runs in 20 minutes because the original coder for some bizarre reason felt it was necessary encapsulate EVERYTHING and had gone as far as to enapsulate standard database calls with their own, further increasing inefficiencies.
It has nothing to do with the language, only the coders.
Re:a bunch of questions
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
They can take one company off the list of users. We are rewriting all the C# (and C++) code in Java so we can gain portability. Already, our operations staff is drooling over the prospect of being able to deploy virtual Linux servers that need far less memory instead of Windoze if they want to.
The first project converted 12 C++ programs to one, far more flexible Java program (that runs 12 times). The nightly run is now 30 minutes instead of two hours and hasn't had an abort in two months. In fact, the operations manager was very nervous for awhile because he wasn't getting paged on the weekends and kept checking the system.
We could have done the same thing in C++ or C#, but they offered no discernible benefit and are more complicated to use for what we are doing.
I bought a Hauppauge card, Snapstream's beyond TV, and a Firefly RF remote. I see they are running this for about $180 on Snapstream's site. I've been using a cheaper board for several months now and think it's great.
No subscription charges, files are stored so anyone can view them or burn to DVD. It also includes compression and advertisement skipping, an hour of TV is about around 500 to 900MB. They also offer a $30 add-on so you can view from another computer on the network. I share the hard drive instead, but then the advertisement skipping feature can't be used, just standard fast forward.
Snapstream isn't the most intuitive program out there, but you don't have to pay the monthly subscription charge for access to free information once the first 12 month subscription runs out.
Sure it's got a camera... with a small CCD that has tons of noise who cares what the pixels are, the images generally are lackluster when compared to 'real' cameras. Great for taking a picture in a pinch when you need to document something, but in general not worth sharing. And for the most part they are a pain in the ass to use. Although my Razr phone can use the camera without even opening it, my wife's Samsung piece of shit she has never used because it takes to long to enable the camera. It's also a pain to get the photos off, emailing them takes forever. I have to turn the bluetooth on or plug in the USB adapter. Rather just pop a card out and pop it into the computer. Except on most phones you have to jack open the case. And some of the lenses used to be indented and were a pain in the ass to clean. (I bought the Motorola software, mostly so I can create my own ringtones and backup my phone lists.)
Browsers?? Screen is too friggen small... even my daughter's iPhone.
MP3 player?? Can't use a regular headset, have to carry around adapters that are small and easily lost.
GPS?? Again.. too small for old eyes to use when driving, and it sucks the battery power too fast.
All I want is a goddamn phone with some minimal IM/email capabilities. My next phone I'm going cheap on just for that reason.
Two recent personal open source decisions Java IDE -- NetBeans v/s JBuilder upgrade... pure cost. We weren't willing to pony up the bucks. The additional features JBuilder offers just didn't make it worthwhile to a small company. NetBeans is a large program and seems to do what we need. It is very unlikely I will ever look at the source.
Job Scheduling -- Quartz v/s Flux... flexibility. With Flux, we were locked in to their development schedule and decisions on which features to add. We won't be modifying Quartz, but will be wrapping it with tools to manage and monitor. In the end run, the cost of our time will be more than purchasing Flux, but we will have the tools we need, not the tools someone else thinks we need. Again, highly unlikely I will ever look at the source since the API is rich enough for us to manipulate it and the extensive use of Apache commons makes things like logging and database access pretty simple.
I have only looked/fixed at open source code a few times over the last several years. Both times were due to bugs, so it is always possible if something comes up, I will appreciate being able to look at the source.
I was trying to point out that this is a constitutional issue, As other posts pointed out, it requires a constitutional amendment to change it, not passing a federal law.
Sorry I didn't make it clearer what I my point was.
When handguns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Then ban shotguns so only outlaws will have shotguns. Then smoothbore rifles, so only outlaws will have smoothbore rifles. Try to ban knives, so only outlaws will have knives. And don't forget banning cricket bats, so only outlaws will have cricket bats. (Ok.. that last article was satire...)
When all that fails, ban fists so only outlaws will have fists.
And then every street corner will have a camera to find the outlaws letting their dogs poop in the street.
Remember... it started in the UK with the banning of hand guns. That excuse was trying curb violence. Doesn't seem to work well....
Forcing all the states to vote the same way would be unconstitutional. The constitution outlines how many electoral votes each state gets, and then leaves it up to each state to determine how to allocate them. The only real influence it has is in stating who can't be in the electoral college, such as the president or I believe anyone in the US house or senate.
Any changes would require a constitutional amendment.
It appears to me the creators of the original constitution felt it was important for the citizens of each state to decide how to cast their electoral votes. We may not like it, but that's the way it is. This was all before the ability to instantly count ballots and transmit results across thousands of miles, so while it may not be relevant any longer, it's still in the constitution.
No machine is 'up-to-date' as there is no such thing as instantaneous data transfers *unless* data is applied and committed to both machines at the same time. This is very costly outside of a local area. Before Oracle had replication services, we used this and were able to keep the remote machine (which was 2,000 miles away) within 5 minutes of the primary 95% of the time. It dawned on us one day how dangerous this was and changed it to not apply the logs for 60 minutes since it would only take us about 10 minutes to catch it up and switch it from stand-by, longer than it would take to decide to fail over and change DNS.
I did not mean to imply this was the best solution for replication, only that if someone is using replication software for this type of purpose, i.e. disaster recovery, then this is a perfectly acceptable solution that probably will work for any database and does not require additional licenses *except* for the remote machine. Oracle allowed us to run the remote machine this way without a license since we did not use it in a production capacity.
A backup solution??? I guess it is a backup of the primary, but many replicate machines are this way since 2-way replication difficulties often limits the usability of the remote server beyond read-only access. The data is never used to 'restore' the original machine, it is an exact, fully usable copy. If the primary machine crashed, the choices are to restore from tape, or make the remote machine the primary. The remote machine can serve as the production server for as long as is necessary. To restore the primary machine after the remote server has been used for an extended period, a backup of the remote has to be taken and applied to the primary. This can take a few days as the amount of data needed to be transferred is very high. A backup is taken to tape, overnighted, applied, and then additional log files are applied until the two are in sync and a point is reached where a controlled fail-back can occur.
In fact, at one facility, we 'swapped' machines every 30 days to make sure they would function if one failed.
It depends on what type of replication one needs. The simplest means of Oracle replication is to create another database somewhere else and simply copy the logs over and apply them. We have done that for years for one simple reason... for databases that don't require 5 nines service, I don't want an 'up-to-date' copy.
A major cause of database failures in my experience has been due to programmer or administrator error (i.e. program bug or someone typing truncate table wrong.) Creating scripts to copy the logs to another server as soon as they are created, and applying them after they are a few hours old, we maintain an environment where it only takes a few minutes to switch over and prevent the 'uh-oh' moments from corrupting both databases.
We have found that the decision to switch over to a remote database takes time. No one wants to do it because then we have to copy that whole database back to the primary site eventually, and that takes a lot of effort and time. When we have a failure, someone is tasked at getting the remote database ready while the discussions are held whether or not to fix or fail-over.
One benefit of this has been that when we have 'uh-oh' moments, the old data is still available and we can correct it, sometimes without the end-users even being impacted.
So.. for all of you database admins out there, replication is possible without the fancy software *IF* you can write scripts, create a somewhat simple system to repoint to the new one (i.e. DNS), and can live with a few minutes of downtime a couple of times a year.
There is no need to prove vacuum is nothing or that ether doesn't exist. One can measure the number of particles per cc and once that is done, one finds space is not empty anyway. So what's the point of proving ether doesn't exist except to dispel ignorant thoughts.
I don't think you will find any scientist who says science proves everything. It seems that the more we learn, the more questions come up. Which is exactly the point of learning rather than the dogma of religion. 'God created everything... so stop looking' stops critical thinking, it does not extend it. Which was my point by saying religion is for the know-it-alls, not science.
Twisted morality of atheists?? Ummmm...I'm confused with that one. Did that have a point, or was it just ranting because my statement was correct. I'm a monogamist, don't steal or murder, and pay my taxes on time. So where is my twisted morality??? Evolution does a much better job of explaining why societies function best if people don't steal than a couple of lines on a stone tablet. There are numerous examples of animals having a sense of morality also, where did they get it??
The US basis for law is very specifically written so that it can change over time not based on a set-in-stone rule set, but by constant evolution of society. Women's rights, civil rights, prohibition and it's repeal, all show how society evolves and changes and new and better ways are discovered. I would much rather live today than in the good-ole-days. Things aren't perfect, but they are getting better than they were 100 years ago. Yet the religious dogmas still spout out about no sex except for babies, jihad against the infidels, and no abortion for you because we say so. That is until their flocks fight back and start leaving the church forcing them to change the rules to keep them.
I not interested in changing adult opinions, I'm more interested in making sure people realize they have a choice, not just between religions but also with no religion. If the ignorant wants still want to delude themselves with superstitions, it's no skin off my nose. But it has to start somewhere.
2,000 years ago, there weren't any Christians either. 250 years ago, as a matter of fact, there ratio was not has high as it is today in the USA.
See what can be accomplished by slow and steady brainwashing instead of enlightening?? The good news is knowledge sticks a lot better than fairy tales. -- Yo' mama's for Obama?? You need a new family!!!
What a crock of bullshit. An atheists doesn't hypothesis about the non-existence of something, that is just an ignorant statement offered up by religious people trying to elevate their non-scientific methods of establishing religion to a credible level instead of the dogma and circular logic it really is.
There is no need to believe something exists if there is no evidence that it exists. The only reason religion exists at all is because people are unwilling to admit they are ignorant and don't know everything, such as where did we come from, how did that tree get there, how is it possible something like the human body could come about by random changes. True, science does the same thing, but science at attempts to truly explain something rather than just offer 'Oh.. I don't know. It must be because god wanted it that way. Now stopping asking such question.'
Religion provides fairy tale answers to those insecurities. Nothing more. They provide no true moral compass, since it appears all religious tomes are vague and subject to interpretation by whatever person needs to twist it to their current purpose, including the pope. Those all mighty deities have a terrible communication plan. Even the 10 commandments are vague and have been twisted and changed throughout history to suit whoever has an agenda.
Religion also provides a means for a central group to force a larger group to behave according to what they think is right. 'Don't have sex with your sister because you will go to hell' is easier to explain than 'Don't have sex with your sister because the risk of genetic mutation is greater'. 'Don't have butt sex because it's evil' is easier to explain than 'Ummm...that's an outie. Bad things will happen to it if you use it that way too many times and it increases the chance for transmitting diseases'. 'Don't steal because you will rot in hell' rather than 'If we all steal we fall into a state of anarchy and progress is forever halted'.
It's time for atheists to stop being polite and to start denouncing religion for what it is.. delusional behavior and petty superstition. It's time to let everyone know that they don't have to accept the dogma of the church, they can live their own lives perfectly well, with purpose and morals of their own choosing rather than from some reclusive group in Italy who never has sex or kids (talk about out of touch...), and without all the BS and tithing and wasted Sundays. Or Saturday. Or all that bending and praying all day.
I see no evidence that opportunities are reduced by my socializing. I have only been laid off once in my 30 year career, and because I socialize and make friends was able to get a job offer within a week of applying because someone I knew worked for a manager who was looking for more people. And I've only worked at places that are fun to work at, so not only am I very well paid but also get to enjoy every day of work.
In fact, my current position was found because a friend of mine had taken another position, and thought I would be perfect for the job.
It seems to me that by socializing, I have expanded my career opportunities rather than reduced them. I don't need to be able to work for any company, just the ones that have the type of environment I want to work in.
Given the choice between stick-in-the-ass company A and fun company B that pays 10% less, I'll take company B. At least going to work every day will be fun even if it means I retire at 67 instead of 62.
I don't worry about what I post, because it's me. Every employer I have ever worked for has found out that I smoke cigars, love drinking expensive whiskey and bourbon, and smoked marijuana up until my mid 20s. They also find out about my political views eventually because I'm just not that shy.
If they don't want to hire me because I do those things, then I don't want to work for them.
Religious belief is dogma.. unquestionable, unalterable, ineffable. Actions are set in stone until some random religious leader decides that too many people are leaving the church and changes it. Questioning by the masses is forbidden, and if someone presses it they can be kicked out of the church.
Reasoning is continuous examination of evidence as it comes in and adjusting one's actions because of it. There is no grand almighty scientist telling us what we have to do or think. The many scientists that are encouraged to argue with each other and refine their theories. The average person can even contribute to the furthering of scientific theory, there is no 'chosen one'. Unlike religion, discussion and refuting a theory is expected. Very few religions tolerate such discussions.
It is not conceivable to me that a deity exist. It is not necessary to prove one does not exist, lots of things 'don't exist' like the aforementioned Santa Claus, I don't belief there is no Santa Claus... there is no Santa Claus. There are other things that fall into the 'might exist' category like Sasquatch and scientific principles are brought to bear against any evidence that arises.
Until evidence is brought forth to prove a deity exists, as far as I'm concerned there are none. I don't 'believe' there isn't a god, I don't have to because there is no reason to believe there is one.
Oh, and please realize when I say all of the above, I hold the same view for atheists. They too are bigoted to their beliefs. And while certainly in living it is necessary to have at least some bigoted belief (even if it's as simple as the belief to drink more and think less), it's very difficult, if not impossible, to know which belief is the right one to be bigoted to. That's the paradox of religion in general: if it's the case that anyone can lie as much as they want and make up whatever religious belief they care to, how at all is it possible for a sane person to reasonably know the right one from the false ones? It seems the answer is, it's impossible to know. That's why I have the bigoted view of agnosticism. Thankfully, not having a definitive answer about religion isn't necessary to live.
Funny.. I could swear that my atheistic slant has come from 35 years of seeing more and more reasons why a belief in god (or the supernatural for that matter) is little more than supersitious nonsense.
All bible-belt fanatics have to point to their belief is a book filled with contradictory sayings that anyone that believes in it has to pick and choose which ones are true and which ones are allegories. Then apply some wild circular logic about how their god has to be here to explain everything, yet they can't explain how their god got here without using what comes down to a 'because the bible said so' type logic.
An atheist can know there is no god as easily as anyone can know anything. It does not require a belief, just an assessment of theories and physical evidence that shows there is nothing that supports the existence of one, nor evidence that suggests there has to be one to explain anything.
I don't have to have faith or belief in anything to be an atheist. I read books and talk to other religious people and have yet to see any reason to believe in some type of all-might creator of the universe. Nor can I find any evidence that suggest any single religious belief is any more 'correct' than any other.
I can no more believe in the existence of gods than I can Santa Claus.
The only difference between a 'believer' and an atheist is I don't feel any of the 2,000 religions of the world are an accurate depiction of reality, a 'believer' doesn't believe 1,999 of them.
Flamebait?? Because I compared religion to a superstition that can also be explained by evolutionary theory? Methinks some god fanatic got to the post first and wanted to hide it instead of trying to dispute it.
See Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' for a good explanation why the development of religion can be explained using Darwin's theory of evolution.
I'm sure open minded people won't be afraid to read it and consider it's points.
Let's not forget the smart people who picked up and made a profit afterward.
Evolution is a great system. Here you have a bunch of morons who lost money because they didn't think for themselves and investigate the validity of a story before making a decision. They lost a bunch of money and are now not as attractive as the smart ones who knew what was going on, quietly waited, and bought low.
Slashdot Mirror
First .. Wal*Mart decides to shutdown it's DRM support system, so no more transferring music to another computer unless you quickly burn everything to CD.
Now Apple threatening to shutdown it's music store, probably putting everyone in the same boat in a few years when they decide to not support servers that aren't generating revenue.
I think my need for Apple products stays as 'no need' and my need to download music at 'slight need'.
I try to buy only DRM free CDs and rip everything to disk. Or buy downloads I can remove DRM from.
When DRM starts shutting off CDs, I'll just record the analog signal.
Hmmm...I think I used to do that in the 70s to 8-track tapes. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Blasphemy!!!!!
Good whiskey (or tequila) needs neither water or ice (or salt or lime). Just a glass.
Buy the better stuff (at least $25US a bottle), and learn to enjoy the taste and aromas. It may cost more, but one might find they drink less because it is savored it instead of shooting it down.
Cheap alcohol and shots are for those that just want to get drunk. The good stuff is for relaxing with friends.
Spend the dollars to rewrite code that has major design flaws because the coder thought new, cutting edge tech were 'cool' and wrote important systems without any experience in the tech they were using.
Spend the dollars to rewrite code that causes hours of downtime because it doesn't understand things like 'error detection' or 'restart'. Spend the dollars to put in intelligent error messages instead of 'program aborted at 13cs35213' so the time spent figuring out the cause it drastically reduced.
These costs are for more expensive and usually not even tallied when rewriting code. I don't know how many projects I've been on when the rewrite was 'just copy everything the way it is, don't reengineer it, we don't have the time'. So garbage in COBOL becomes garbage in C++ with all the same problems.
Reducing servers is a side-effect and had nothing to do with the original need. But, if one is going to rewrite code, why not?? Fewer servers mean less hardware costs, fewer failures, lower facility costs, cheaper upgrades, etc. The servers all run in virtual engines, hardware failure is an inconvenience when the new program's restart procedures are simply 'rerun from the step that failed'. No data restores, no issuing SQL to reset counters or dates. Just rerun.
It's what happens when you let a development staff run without any standards or experienced oversight. When everyone codes the way they want to, programs are duplicated with minor changes instead of enhancing existing ones that do the same thing, just differently.
It runs in 20 minutes because the original coder for some bizarre reason felt it was necessary encapsulate EVERYTHING and had gone as far as to enapsulate standard database calls with their own, further increasing inefficiencies.
It has nothing to do with the language, only the coders.
They can take one company off the list of users. We are rewriting all the C# (and C++) code in Java so we can gain portability. Already, our operations staff is drooling over the prospect of being able to deploy virtual Linux servers that need far less memory instead of Windoze if they want to.
The first project converted 12 C++ programs to one, far more flexible Java program (that runs 12 times). The nightly run is now 30 minutes instead of two hours and hasn't had an abort in two months. In fact, the operations manager was very nervous for awhile because he wasn't getting paged on the weekends and kept checking the system.
We could have done the same thing in C++ or C#, but they offered no discernible benefit and are more complicated to use for what we are doing.
I bought a Hauppauge card, Snapstream's beyond TV, and a Firefly RF remote. I see they are running this for about $180 on Snapstream's site. I've been using a cheaper board for several months now and think it's great.
No subscription charges, files are stored so anyone can view them or burn to DVD. It also includes compression and advertisement skipping, an hour of TV is about around 500 to 900MB. They also offer a $30 add-on so you can view from another computer on the network. I share the hard drive instead, but then the advertisement skipping feature can't be used, just standard fast forward.
Snapstream isn't the most intuitive program out there, but you don't have to pay the monthly subscription charge for access to free information once the first 12 month subscription runs out.
You seem to have an odd empathy towards maladjusted individuals. Perhaps it is your own maladjustment that makes you so.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Yep ...
Sure it's got a camera ... with a small CCD that has tons of noise who cares what the pixels are, the images generally are lackluster when compared to 'real' cameras. Great for taking a picture in a pinch when you need to document something, but in general not worth sharing. And for the most part they are a pain in the ass to use. Although my Razr phone can use the camera without even opening it, my wife's Samsung piece of shit she has never used because it takes to long to enable the camera. It's also a pain to get the photos off, emailing them takes forever. I have to turn the bluetooth on or plug in the USB adapter. Rather just pop a card out and pop it into the computer. Except on most phones you have to jack open the case. And some of the lenses used to be indented and were a pain in the ass to clean. (I bought the Motorola software, mostly so I can create my own ringtones and backup my phone lists.)
Browsers?? Screen is too friggen small ... even my daughter's iPhone.
MP3 player?? Can't use a regular headset, have to carry around adapters that are small and easily lost.
GPS?? Again .. too small for old eyes to use when driving, and it sucks the battery power too fast.
All I want is a goddamn phone with some minimal IM/email capabilities. My next phone I'm going cheap on just for that reason.
Two recent personal open source decisions ... pure cost. We weren't willing to pony up the bucks. The additional features JBuilder offers just didn't make it worthwhile to a small company. NetBeans is a large program and seems to do what we need. It is very unlikely I will ever look at the source.
Java IDE -- NetBeans v/s JBuilder upgrade
Job Scheduling -- Quartz v/s Flux ... flexibility. With Flux, we were locked in to their development schedule and decisions on which features to add. We won't be modifying Quartz, but will be wrapping it with tools to manage and monitor. In the end run, the cost of our time will be more than purchasing Flux, but we will have the tools we need, not the tools someone else thinks we need. Again, highly unlikely I will ever look at the source since the API is rich enough for us to manipulate it and the extensive use of Apache commons makes things like logging and database access pretty simple.
I have only looked/fixed at open source code a few times over the last several years. Both times were due to bugs, so it is always possible if something comes up, I will appreciate being able to look at the source.
Yeah ... like if you show up you pass....
Stupid gym class....
I was trying to point out that this is a constitutional issue, As other posts pointed out, it requires a constitutional amendment to change it, not passing a federal law.
Sorry I didn't make it clearer what I my point was.
When handguns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Then ban shotguns so only outlaws will have shotguns. Then smoothbore rifles, so only outlaws will have smoothbore rifles. Try to ban knives, so only outlaws will have knives. And don't forget banning cricket bats, so only outlaws will have cricket bats. (Ok .. that last article was satire...)
When all that fails, ban fists so only outlaws will have fists.
And then every street corner will have a camera to find the outlaws letting their dogs poop in the street.
Remember ... it started in the UK with the banning of hand guns. That excuse was trying curb violence. Doesn't seem to work well....
Forcing all the states to vote the same way would be unconstitutional. The constitution outlines how many electoral votes each state gets, and then leaves it up to each state to determine how to allocate them. The only real influence it has is in stating who can't be in the electoral college, such as the president or I believe anyone in the US house or senate.
Any changes would require a constitutional amendment.
It appears to me the creators of the original constitution felt it was important for the citizens of each state to decide how to cast their electoral votes. We may not like it, but that's the way it is. This was all before the ability to instantly count ballots and transmit results across thousands of miles, so while it may not be relevant any longer, it's still in the constitution.
That was my first thought. When you outlaw knives, only outlaws will have knives. Then baseball bats. Then rolling pins. Then bare hands.
No machine is 'up-to-date' as there is no such thing as instantaneous data transfers *unless* data is applied and committed to both machines at the same time. This is very costly outside of a local area. Before Oracle had replication services, we used this and were able to keep the remote machine (which was 2,000 miles away) within 5 minutes of the primary 95% of the time. It dawned on us one day how dangerous this was and changed it to not apply the logs for 60 minutes since it would only take us about 10 minutes to catch it up and switch it from stand-by, longer than it would take to decide to fail over and change DNS.
I did not mean to imply this was the best solution for replication, only that if someone is using replication software for this type of purpose, i.e. disaster recovery, then this is a perfectly acceptable solution that probably will work for any database and does not require additional licenses *except* for the remote machine. Oracle allowed us to run the remote machine this way without a license since we did not use it in a production capacity.
A backup solution??? I guess it is a backup of the primary, but many replicate machines are this way since 2-way replication difficulties often limits the usability of the remote server beyond read-only access. The data is never used to 'restore' the original machine, it is an exact, fully usable copy. If the primary machine crashed, the choices are to restore from tape, or make the remote machine the primary. The remote machine can serve as the production server for as long as is necessary. To restore the primary machine after the remote server has been used for an extended period, a backup of the remote has to be taken and applied to the primary. This can take a few days as the amount of data needed to be transferred is very high. A backup is taken to tape, overnighted, applied, and then additional log files are applied until the two are in sync and a point is reached where a controlled fail-back can occur.
In fact, at one facility, we 'swapped' machines every 30 days to make sure they would function if one failed.
It depends on what type of replication one needs. The simplest means of Oracle replication is to create another database somewhere else and simply copy the logs over and apply them. We have done that for years for one simple reason ... for databases that don't require 5 nines service, I don't want an 'up-to-date' copy.
A major cause of database failures in my experience has been due to programmer or administrator error (i.e. program bug or someone typing truncate table wrong.) Creating scripts to copy the logs to another server as soon as they are created, and applying them after they are a few hours old, we maintain an environment where it only takes a few minutes to switch over and prevent the 'uh-oh' moments from corrupting both databases.
We have found that the decision to switch over to a remote database takes time. No one wants to do it because then we have to copy that whole database back to the primary site eventually, and that takes a lot of effort and time. When we have a failure, someone is tasked at getting the remote database ready while the discussions are held whether or not to fix or fail-over.
One benefit of this has been that when we have 'uh-oh' moments, the old data is still available and we can correct it, sometimes without the end-users even being impacted.
So .. for all of you database admins out there, replication is possible without the fancy software *IF* you can write scripts, create a somewhat simple system to repoint to the new one (i.e. DNS), and can live with a few minutes of downtime a couple of times a year.
There is no need to prove vacuum is nothing or that ether doesn't exist. One can measure the number of particles per cc and once that is done, one finds space is not empty anyway. So what's the point of proving ether doesn't exist except to dispel ignorant thoughts.
I don't think you will find any scientist who says science proves everything. It seems that the more we learn, the more questions come up. Which is exactly the point of learning rather than the dogma of religion. 'God created everything ... so stop looking' stops critical thinking, it does not extend it. Which was my point by saying religion is for the know-it-alls, not science.
Twisted morality of atheists?? Ummmm...I'm confused with that one. Did that have a point, or was it just ranting because my statement was correct. I'm a monogamist, don't steal or murder, and pay my taxes on time. So where is my twisted morality??? Evolution does a much better job of explaining why societies function best if people don't steal than a couple of lines on a stone tablet. There are numerous examples of animals having a sense of morality also, where did they get it??
The US basis for law is very specifically written so that it can change over time not based on a set-in-stone rule set, but by constant evolution of society. Women's rights, civil rights, prohibition and it's repeal, all show how society evolves and changes and new and better ways are discovered. I would much rather live today than in the good-ole-days. Things aren't perfect, but they are getting better than they were 100 years ago. Yet the religious dogmas still spout out about no sex except for babies, jihad against the infidels, and no abortion for you because we say so. That is until their flocks fight back and start leaving the church forcing them to change the rules to keep them.
I not interested in changing adult opinions, I'm more interested in making sure people realize they have a choice, not just between religions but also with no religion. If the ignorant wants still want to delude themselves with superstitions, it's no skin off my nose. But it has to start somewhere.
2,000 years ago, there weren't any Christians either. 250 years ago, as a matter of fact, there ratio was not has high as it is today in the USA.
See what can be accomplished by slow and steady brainwashing instead of enlightening?? The good news is knowledge sticks a lot better than fairy tales.
--
Yo' mama's for Obama?? You need a new family!!!
What a crock of bullshit. An atheists doesn't hypothesis about the non-existence of something, that is just an ignorant statement offered up by religious people trying to elevate their non-scientific methods of establishing religion to a credible level instead of the dogma and circular logic it really is.
There is no need to believe something exists if there is no evidence that it exists. The only reason religion exists at all is because people are unwilling to admit they are ignorant and don't know everything, such as where did we come from, how did that tree get there, how is it possible something like the human body could come about by random changes. True, science does the same thing, but science at attempts to truly explain something rather than just offer 'Oh .. I don't know. It must be because god wanted it that way. Now stopping asking such question.'
Religion provides fairy tale answers to those insecurities. Nothing more. They provide no true moral compass, since it appears all religious tomes are vague and subject to interpretation by whatever person needs to twist it to their current purpose, including the pope. Those all mighty deities have a terrible communication plan. Even the 10 commandments are vague and have been twisted and changed throughout history to suit whoever has an agenda.
Religion also provides a means for a central group to force a larger group to behave according to what they think is right. 'Don't have sex with your sister because you will go to hell' is easier to explain than 'Don't have sex with your sister because the risk of genetic mutation is greater'. 'Don't have butt sex because it's evil' is easier to explain than 'Ummm...that's an outie. Bad things will happen to it if you use it that way too many times and it increases the chance for transmitting diseases'. 'Don't steal because you will rot in hell' rather than 'If we all steal we fall into a state of anarchy and progress is forever halted'.
It's time for atheists to stop being polite and to start denouncing religion for what it is .. delusional behavior and petty superstition. It's time to let everyone know that they don't have to accept the dogma of the church, they can live their own lives perfectly well, with purpose and morals of their own choosing rather than from some reclusive group in Italy who never has sex or kids (talk about out of touch...), and without all the BS and tithing and wasted Sundays. Or Saturday. Or all that bending and praying all day.
I see no evidence that opportunities are reduced by my socializing. I have only been laid off once in my 30 year career, and because I socialize and make friends was able to get a job offer within a week of applying because someone I knew worked for a manager who was looking for more people. And I've only worked at places that are fun to work at, so not only am I very well paid but also get to enjoy every day of work.
In fact, my current position was found because a friend of mine had taken another position, and thought I would be perfect for the job.
It seems to me that by socializing, I have expanded my career opportunities rather than reduced them. I don't need to be able to work for any company, just the ones that have the type of environment I want to work in.
Given the choice between stick-in-the-ass company A and fun company B that pays 10% less, I'll take company B. At least going to work every day will be fun even if it means I retire at 67 instead of 62.
I don't worry about what I post, because it's me. Every employer I have ever worked for has found out that I smoke cigars, love drinking expensive whiskey and bourbon, and smoked marijuana up until my mid 20s. They also find out about my political views eventually because I'm just not that shy.
If they don't want to hire me because I do those things, then I don't want to work for them.
Works for me .....
Religious belief is dogma .. unquestionable, unalterable, ineffable. Actions are set in stone until some random religious leader decides that too many people are leaving the church and changes it. Questioning by the masses is forbidden, and if someone presses it they can be kicked out of the church.
Reasoning is continuous examination of evidence as it comes in and adjusting one's actions because of it. There is no grand almighty scientist telling us what we have to do or think. The many scientists that are encouraged to argue with each other and refine their theories. The average person can even contribute to the furthering of scientific theory, there is no 'chosen one'. Unlike religion, discussion and refuting a theory is expected. Very few religions tolerate such discussions.
It is not conceivable to me that a deity exist. It is not necessary to prove one does not exist, lots of things 'don't exist' like the aforementioned Santa Claus, I don't belief there is no Santa Claus ... there is no Santa Claus. There are other things that fall into the 'might exist' category like Sasquatch and scientific principles are brought to bear against any evidence that arises.
Until evidence is brought forth to prove a deity exists, as far as I'm concerned there are none. I don't 'believe' there isn't a god, I don't have to because there is no reason to believe there is one.
Oh, and please realize when I say all of the above, I hold the same view for atheists. They too are bigoted to their beliefs. And while certainly in living it is necessary to have at least some bigoted belief (even if it's as simple as the belief to drink more and think less), it's very difficult, if not impossible, to know which belief is the right one to be bigoted to. That's the paradox of religion in general: if it's the case that anyone can lie as much as they want and make up whatever religious belief they care to, how at all is it possible for a sane person to reasonably know the right one from the false ones? It seems the answer is, it's impossible to know. That's why I have the bigoted view of agnosticism. Thankfully, not having a definitive answer about religion isn't necessary to live.
Funny .. I could swear that my atheistic slant has come from 35 years of seeing more and more reasons why a belief in god (or the supernatural for that matter) is little more than supersitious nonsense.
All bible-belt fanatics have to point to their belief is a book filled with contradictory sayings that anyone that believes in it has to pick and choose which ones are true and which ones are allegories. Then apply some wild circular logic about how their god has to be here to explain everything, yet they can't explain how their god got here without using what comes down to a 'because the bible said so' type logic.
An atheist can know there is no god as easily as anyone can know anything. It does not require a belief, just an assessment of theories and physical evidence that shows there is nothing that supports the existence of one, nor evidence that suggests there has to be one to explain anything.
I don't have to have faith or belief in anything to be an atheist. I read books and talk to other religious people and have yet to see any reason to believe in some type of all-might creator of the universe. Nor can I find any evidence that suggest any single religious belief is any more 'correct' than any other.
I can no more believe in the existence of gods than I can Santa Claus.
The only difference between a 'believer' and an atheist is I don't feel any of the 2,000 religions of the world are an accurate depiction of reality, a 'believer' doesn't believe 1,999 of them.
Flamebait?? Because I compared religion to a superstition that can also be explained by evolutionary theory? Methinks some god fanatic got to the post first and wanted to hide it instead of trying to dispute it.
See Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' for a good explanation why the development of religion can be explained using Darwin's theory of evolution.
I'm sure open minded people won't be afraid to read it and consider it's points.
A belief in a being that created everything and cares about our insignificant little speck of dust in the entire universe.
A little bit of egotistical, self-centered belief tossed in with superstition, and you get a personal supreme being.
Let's not forget the smart people who picked up and made a profit afterward.
Evolution is a great system. Here you have a bunch of morons who lost money because they didn't think for themselves and investigate the validity of a story before making a decision. They lost a bunch of money and are now not as attractive as the smart ones who knew what was going on, quietly waited, and bought low.
Survival of the fittest at it's finest.