I really don't know about that. Congress explicitly gave the FCC the authority to create a do not call list. They declined, and the FTC did it instead.
These things are important. I imagine the FTC felt they should get involved because fraud is frequently carried out via telemarketting, so it makes sense that the DNC list would help their jobs. However, these distinctions are important. The process went exactly the way it should have:
1) Judge says, "You can't do that. Congress never said you could do that." 2) Congress says, "No, it's fine, they can do it."
I can't tell you how many times the Virginia State Police Association has called me asking for money.
As someone else pointed out, those calls are usually from a for-profit business that is totally unaffiliated with the charity in question. They then give 2% of the money they collect to whatever charity.
The FTC has a bunch of information about charity fraud on their website. These people would be prevented by the DNC list.
No. It's just a little different. It uses a different kernel. It has a different architecture for device drivers. It uses a NetInfo to store various configuration information.
It doesn't have FreeBSD Ports (a simple way for users and administrators to install applications). It's got it's own thing instead, which isn't as good (yet).
The reason I'd use BSD is for FreeBSD Ports, so I think the folks using Darwin are mostly just doing it since no one else is, and it's geeky.
It also makes sense if you're primarily interested in administering a MacOS X network, but I don't see why you wouldn't spend the cash on Mac OS X Server.
My understanding with their object based design is that it absolutely does allow integrity constraints. It's written in Java. There's got to be a way to ensure that your School object has a Principal, whom must also be in the People table. Or something like that.
Plus, a lot of these people are comparing Prevaylent to MySQL, which (so far) has none of these features.
Lindows might be paying Seagate for the privilege. Really. Then they'll hope to get subscribers. Kindof like razors/razor blades, but more like free lamps/standard oil.
If Lindows pays $5/drive with Lindows, it still seems kindof smart.
I don't really know what you mean when you say Prevayler can't ensure that your data is safe and correct.
Their system seems better for those two things. Certainly miles and miles better than MySQL and PostgresQL, for example. Perhaps not much better than Oracle.
The foundation might be solid. It's the last 10% of features that they'll never get, and will make their product totally useless to the majority of RDBMS applications.
I'm not sure what the ACs' problems are. My post has plenty of grammatical errors as well.
But the point is, in business, not only do we have a SQL database, there are thousands of vendors with products that expect SQL/ODBC databases.
Sure, if I'm writing something that requires a database, but will never ever have to interoperate with anything else that I haven't predicted, then Prevaylent is in the running. Otherwise, not. Their website is gleefully ignorant of this fact.
They imply that anyone not using their product is idiotic. They do it many times, and here the poster acts like their relative unpopularity is an enigma. They sound like assholes. I'll stand by that.
At all times, they serialize commands to log files. Those commands are sent to every machine in your cluster. (A clock tick is one of those commands.) When you backup at night, one of those machines serializes it's objects to disk, and racks up commands to complete. Once it's done serializing to disk, it runs through the commands and catches up.
If all your servers go up in flames, you take your object serialization, and reload it. Then you run through the command logs, and you're right back where you were when the machines died. (Assuming you've got your command logs)
So no, they don't have their heads up their asses in that respect.
"We have some features that are better than relational databases. RELATIONAL DATABASES SHOULD NEVER BE USED AGAIN."
In their wiki, "When Should I Not Use Prevalence" lists three things: When you do not know how to program. When you cannot afford enough RAM to contain all your Business Objects. When you cannot find a Java Virtual Machine that is robust enough.
That's obviously the stupidest thing ever. How about, "When I don't have the time and money to connect all my company's SQL DB stuff to your java stuff." Obviously my scenario encompasses a whole lot more users than their three, and perhaps explains why no one is using their product.
Well, then a lot of those people in those developing countries might have their grandchildren killed by mass starvation. If I were in their shoes, I'd certainly make sacrifices now in order to have a better shot at avoiding that.
Of course, I'm not in their shoes. Which is fine. If we don't have a good way of convincing those people in developing countries to do burn less fossil fuels, we might still be able to make an impact.
I'm in my shoes. We developed nations can burn less fossil fuels, emit less chloroflorocarbons, etc., and give financial incentives to other nations to do the same. No nation need be forced.
That may not do the trick. I'm still totally happy to take a bath now and improve our chances in the long run. The only thing that we need to prove is that it will improve our chances. Of course, it may not. That's what we need to focus research on. Not whether global warming is "natural."
Why does this issue always divide exactly along party lines? I once had a conservative tell me that he couldn't care less what the world would be like for his grandchildren, so long as he wasn't alive anymore. I'm not trying to argue that it'll affect how he feels in the afterlife, but rather that it should affect how he feels now. And I have no idea if this is a common conservative viewpoint. It would certainly explain a lot. Perhaps this is a feeling that many conservatives have, although they don't realize it?
I guess a more common view might be that they don't care what the world will be like for other people's grand children, so long as it will be alright for their own. Any responses? Am I full of shit?
90% of the complaints on Google-Watch are from "search engine optimizers."
That is, people are upset that they can't manipulate listings on Google for money. (Hint: Buy a fucking ad.) Forgive me if that makes me want to ignore Google-Watch.
Google's privacy policy is well defined. If you've got a problem with it, holler. Your scenario would pretty clearly violate their policy. If you've got some other way that they should do their business without losing features, holler.
The logic that fishes addresses out of web pages might not be as flexible as you think. There might be quite a lot of work involved in making it work for different places in the US. Each other nation may require a lot of customization as well.
It probably is running on some kind of cluster. They're trying to get it up to production strength, and there wouldn't be much point in a public beta if they still haven't made it clusterable (ie scalable).
Of course, you're right, that doesn't mean it's scaled. It's likely on ten machines, not a few thousand.
You forgot (C): Global warming is a "natural" cycle
Do nothing:
(C) Global warming is natural: bad things happen, polar caps melt, etc.
Do something:
(C) Global warming is natural, nothing happens... hopefully.
All I'm trying to say is that the argument "this is a natural occurance" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it. If we were about to enter into an ice age, should we try to avoid it?
I don't care what's natural if it's going to cause mass starvation and war. We might need to do something about global warming whether or not it's caused by humans.
On my dad's mac plus. I was too young to have good enough hand-eye coordination. My mom was pretty good at it, though, and the sounds were what really got my attention.
All the grunts the main character would make. The dizzy noise that happened when you fell down. The "nya-nya-nya-nya" from the imps. The vulture squaks.
Rad, rad game. Very fluid. Originally released in 1986 by Silicon Beach Software. More fluid, imho, than Prince of Persia. Of course... I was six.
I think Silicon Beach eventually merged with Aldus, and sold the rights to a company called Delta Tau software, that then released a color version.
Don't like it? Rent the games from Gamefly, the Netflix of the gaming world.
No, they're the GreenCine of the gaming world. I don't mean they're the also-ran: Gamefly and GreenCine operate out of the same building and share some infrastructure, iirc.
Re:Creator's rights and copying technologies
on
Ask Neil Gaiman
·
· Score: 1
Love him or hate him, ya gotta admit, the man DO know how to turn a phrase...
What makes you say that? His prose style leaves me cold and clammy.
Do you edit your writing so that it will be more easily penetrated by your audience? Do you have any opinions on your style in this regard? The style of other authors?
(Sorry, I'm a crappy interviewer, but I'm curious. Your writing is very approachable and leaves no one behind.)
Re:That forgotten god from American Gods..
on
Ask Neil Gaiman
·
· Score: 1
Uh... that was the king of the dwarves, I thought. When the king of the dwarves is first introduced, there was something about his description that made me think it was the unrememberable god.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't know about that. Congress explicitly gave the FCC the authority to create a do not call list. They declined, and the FTC did it instead.
These things are important. I imagine the FTC felt they should get involved because fraud is frequently carried out via telemarketting, so it makes sense that the DNC list would help their jobs. However, these distinctions are important. The process went exactly the way it should have:
1) Judge says, "You can't do that. Congress never said you could do that."
2) Congress says, "No, it's fine, they can do it."
Problem solved.
I can't tell you how many times the Virginia State Police Association has called me asking for money.
As someone else pointed out, those calls are usually from a for-profit business that is totally unaffiliated with the charity in question. They then give 2% of the money they collect to whatever charity.
The FTC has a bunch of information about charity fraud on their website. These people would be prevented by the DNC list.
That's why we need to make the resulting vote counts obviously false.
Make every candidate in one county get 31337 votes?
Now we just need a short list that outlines which of those features are big improvements that should make doubters look at PostgreSQL again.
Is Darwin better than *BSD?
No. It's just a little different. It uses a different kernel. It has a different architecture for device drivers. It uses a NetInfo to store various configuration information.
It doesn't have FreeBSD Ports (a simple way for users and administrators to install applications). It's got it's own thing instead, which isn't as good (yet).
The reason I'd use BSD is for FreeBSD Ports, so I think the folks using Darwin are mostly just doing it since no one else is, and it's geeky.
It also makes sense if you're primarily interested in administering a MacOS X network, but I don't see why you wouldn't spend the cash on Mac OS X Server.
My understanding with their object based design is that it absolutely does allow integrity constraints. It's written in Java. There's got to be a way to ensure that your School object has a Principal, whom must also be in the People table. Or something like that.
Plus, a lot of these people are comparing Prevaylent to MySQL, which (so far) has none of these features.
Lindows might be paying Seagate for the privilege. Really. Then they'll hope to get subscribers. Kindof like razors/razor blades, but more like free lamps/standard oil.
If Lindows pays $5/drive with Lindows, it still seems kindof smart.
I don't really know what you mean when you say Prevayler can't ensure that your data is safe and correct.
Their system seems better for those two things. Certainly miles and miles better than MySQL and PostgresQL, for example. Perhaps not much better than Oracle.
The foundation might be solid. It's the last 10% of features that they'll never get, and will make their product totally useless to the majority of RDBMS applications.
I'm not sure what the ACs' problems are. My post has plenty of grammatical errors as well.
But the point is, in business, not only do we have a SQL database, there are thousands of vendors with products that expect SQL/ODBC databases.
Sure, if I'm writing something that requires a database, but will never ever have to interoperate with anything else that I haven't predicted, then Prevaylent is in the running. Otherwise, not. Their website is gleefully ignorant of this fact.
They imply that anyone not using their product is idiotic. They do it many times, and here the poster acts like their relative unpopularity is an enigma. They sound like assholes. I'll stand by that.
At all times, they serialize commands to log files. Those commands are sent to every machine in your cluster. (A clock tick is one of those commands.) When you backup at night, one of those machines serializes it's objects to disk, and racks up commands to complete. Once it's done serializing to disk, it runs through the commands and catches up.
If all your servers go up in flames, you take your object serialization, and reload it. Then you run through the command logs, and you're right back where you were when the machines died. (Assuming you've got your command logs)
So no, they don't have their heads up their asses in that respect.
Their jingoism is absurd.
"We have some features that are better than relational databases. RELATIONAL DATABASES SHOULD NEVER BE USED AGAIN."
In their wiki, "When Should I Not Use Prevalence" lists three things:
When you do not know how to program.
When you cannot afford enough RAM to contain all your Business Objects.
When you cannot find a Java Virtual Machine that is robust enough.
That's obviously the stupidest thing ever. How about, "When I don't have the time and money to connect all my company's SQL DB stuff to your java stuff." Obviously my scenario encompasses a whole lot more users than their three, and perhaps explains why no one is using their product.
What assholes.
What if the warming is unstoppable?
Well, then a lot of those people in those developing countries might have their grandchildren killed by mass starvation. If I were in their shoes, I'd certainly make sacrifices now in order to have a better shot at avoiding that.
Of course, I'm not in their shoes. Which is fine. If we don't have a good way of convincing those people in developing countries to do burn less fossil fuels, we might still be able to make an impact.
I'm in my shoes. We developed nations can burn less fossil fuels, emit less chloroflorocarbons, etc., and give financial incentives to other nations to do the same. No nation need be forced.
That may not do the trick. I'm still totally happy to take a bath now and improve our chances in the long run. The only thing that we need to prove is that it will improve our chances. Of course, it may not. That's what we need to focus research on. Not whether global warming is "natural."
Why does this issue always divide exactly along party lines? I once had a conservative tell me that he couldn't care less what the world would be like for his grandchildren, so long as he wasn't alive anymore. I'm not trying to argue that it'll affect how he feels in the afterlife, but rather that it should affect how he feels now. And I have no idea if this is a common conservative viewpoint. It would certainly explain a lot. Perhaps this is a feeling that many conservatives have, although they don't realize it?
I guess a more common view might be that they don't care what the world will be like for other people's grand children, so long as it will be alright for their own. Any responses? Am I full of shit?
90% of the complaints on Google-Watch are from "search engine optimizers."
That is, people are upset that they can't manipulate listings on Google for money. (Hint: Buy a fucking ad.) Forgive me if that makes me want to ignore Google-Watch.
Google's privacy policy is well defined. If you've got a problem with it, holler. Your scenario would pretty clearly violate their policy. If you've got some other way that they should do their business without losing features, holler.
Till then, quit hinting.
The logic that fishes addresses out of web pages might not be as flexible as you think. There might be quite a lot of work involved in making it work for different places in the US. Each other nation may require a lot of customization as well.
Yahoo Yellow Pages also does a similar thing.
The novel part is that it gleans all of its information from web pages. Not from listing services with well formatted address fields.
It probably is running on some kind of cluster. They're trying to get it up to production strength, and there wouldn't be much point in a public beta if they still haven't made it clusterable (ie scalable).
Of course, you're right, that doesn't mean it's scaled. It's likely on ten machines, not a few thousand.
wtf is your problem?
Anybody will remove links to sites after a legitimate DMCA request. Either that or they go out of business. It's not up to Google.
You forgot (C): Global warming is a "natural" cycle
Do nothing:
(C) Global warming is natural: bad things happen, polar caps melt, etc.
Do something:
(C) Global warming is natural, nothing happens... hopefully.
All I'm trying to say is that the argument "this is a natural occurance" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it. If we were about to enter into an ice age, should we try to avoid it?
I don't care what's natural if it's going to cause mass starvation and war. We might need to do something about global warming whether or not it's caused by humans.
On my dad's mac plus. I was too young to have good enough hand-eye coordination. My mom was pretty good at it, though, and the sounds were what really got my attention.
All the grunts the main character would make. The dizzy noise that happened when you fell down. The "nya-nya-nya-nya" from the imps. The vulture squaks.
Rad, rad game. Very fluid. Originally released in 1986 by Silicon Beach Software. More fluid, imho, than Prince of Persia. Of course... I was six.
I think Silicon Beach eventually merged with Aldus, and sold the rights to a company called Delta Tau software, that then released a color version.
If VeriSign were to be revoked their registrar status, ICANN would stand to lose millions.
Right, but then they'd make someone else the registrar and get those millions from them.
Don't like it? Rent the games from Gamefly, the Netflix of the gaming world.
No, they're the GreenCine of the gaming world. I don't mean they're the also-ran: Gamefly and GreenCine operate out of the same building and share some infrastructure, iirc.
Love him or hate him, ya gotta admit, the man DO know how to turn a phrase...
What makes you say that? His prose style leaves me cold and clammy.
Do you edit your writing so that it will be more easily penetrated by your audience? Do you have any opinions on your style in this regard? The style of other authors?
(Sorry, I'm a crappy interviewer, but I'm curious. Your writing is very approachable and leaves no one behind.)
Uh... that was the king of the dwarves, I thought. When the king of the dwarves is first introduced, there was something about his description that made me think it was the unrememberable god.
Maybe I'm fulla shit. Dunno.