First, about language. If a vendor comes out with some terminology that's completely stupid, they'll usually get mocked or ignored, and they'll drop it. On the other hand, if they come out with something that is a mutation of what has come before, people might adopt it. Language changes like this all the time, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The fact that most people go along with the terminology is a strong sign that they agree with it.
For the theory, my understanding is that the heart of relational theory is organizing data as n-tuples in a system that abstracts data access away from the details of data storage. I'm not dishonest, I do know SQL, and I'm quite sure that relational databases do this. Even if Codd doesn't like the implementation (or consider it to be faithful). Personally, I'm not terribly interested in what Codd thinks of an implementation, since the people who originate theories are notoriously inclined to be poor judges of their implementation, extension and interpretation.
You should not "think" if you do not know History.
And you shouldn't be pedantic if you honestly want have a discussion.
> popular database products that use SQL or some subset of it are commonly referred to as relational databases
So we should call relational databases something else, like X, and leave the relational name for SQL?
Now, what happens when someone comes calling his product X even if it is not conforming to the relational model Y?
Perhaps we should not allow vendors to implement their Newspeak in the first place.
Whether you agree or like it, the term relational database is used by virtually everyone to mean databases that use SQL. That's the way language works: what people mean when they say something is what the word means, period.
These databases are implementations of the relational model. Not perfect ones, not complete ones. They also have a lot of other junk thrown in to address other needs. If you want to talk about a database that does a better job of implementing the relational model, call it a "True Relational" or "Pure Relational" or something like that. Or just call it a RDBMS and say that Oracle has a crappy impl.
Software vendors are a big source of terminology getting blurred, but I don't think that's what happened here. I think a couple of vendors implemented the relational model, and people started calling them relational databases. Over time the databases added new stuff, and proprietary extensions, and stopped being "just" relational databases. The recent fad of adding XML translation to RDBMS is just the most recent example of this.
>breaking up documents into many discrete units is a requirement of the normalization required by relational theory.
Not if document, or a reasonable subdivision of it (section?) is a data type.
In my particular application, the data is mostly semi-structured content (names, dates, titles of paintings, names of countries, etc.) that aren't formatted consistently (b/c they come from several different source institutions, some of which have local heterogenity as well). There are about 15 top-level categories, with most categories having several all-optional, all-repeatable subcategories, with a different type of data for each sub-category. So a traditional relational design would quickly wind up with dozens of tables and some pretty nasty joins to get the whole doc back.
My solution was to use one system for storage (a native XML database - Xindice) and different system for querying (a fulltext search engine - Lucene). Most of the XML-enabled RDBMS could do basically the same thing, but it seemed like a bad fit to use a RDBMS with a totally non-relational approach.
where have you seen libraries using open-source technologies (like Linux) to solve problems?
UC (University of California) San Diego has started moving towards open-source software. We were a Solaris/Sybase/Netscape shop a few years back. But the cost just isn't practical, especially for places with tight budgets like libraries. So we've been moving (albeit slowly) to commodity hardware, Linux, Apache, Tomcat, etc. for our server-side stuff. Some of the developers use Linux and/or MacOSX for their desktops, too. There are links on my homepage, or respond to this if you're interested in more info.
In terms of software written specifically for libraries, Greenstone and OSS4Lib that other posters mentioned are good. Also check out D-Space, NC State's MyLibrary, and if you want to handle MARC data in Java/XML, MARC4J. Of course, all the standard open-source software works for libraries, too.
SQL not being relational, the only apps using relational databases nowadays are the ones based on either QUEL (are there any yet?), IBM BS12 (probably none?) and Dataphor Alphora (those by SoftWise, and some few inhouse ones up to now).
This is the kind of argument that gives IT folks a bad rep. Everybody knows that the popular database products that use SQL or some subset of it are commonly referred to as relational databases, regardless of whether they perfectly implement the relational model. The fact is that you can take example queries from Date's Introduction to Database Systems and run them with almost no change on any number of SQL databases. These systems store data in basically the way described and follow most of the guidelines for being relational. Of course, they also let you do all kinds of other wacky stuff, too. But that doesn't alter the fact that the features that are common across database products are the core of a relational system.
All the cases you mention are specific failures of SQL, not of the relational model.
Actually, no, breaking up documents into many discrete units is a requirement of the normalization required by relational theory. It is this fragmentation which makes relational databases awkward for storing documents where retrieving the entire document is usually the desired operation.
Now, if you want to say that these are implementation problems, then I'd agree with you. A relational database could assemble a schema on the fly (just like XML databases parse their contents on the fly when processing XPath or XQuery queries). But they don't, and it's a well-known property of relational databases that they don't.
I agree that relational databases are the best solution for most problems -- that's why they're the backbones of most apps these days.
That said, there are some cases where they fall down. One example that I'm working on right now is organizing a million or so smallish documents. The relational design to store the documents with the same degree of specificity as the XML format they are in is ridiculously complicated. But storing them in an XML database (we're using Xindice, but have looked at Tamino, and a few others) is a lot simpler.
Another downside of relational dbs is that it's generally pretty difficult to change your schema. A lot of XML databases, on the other hand, can be configured to not enforce a schema at all. So if you're working on a problem that requires experimentation on the basic schema, it can be a lot easier to use an XML database (or even just files on disk) instead.
Using similar methods, the Club of Rome predicted in the early 1970s that the world would run out of oil by 1992. They and others also predicted that the West would be hopelessly overpopulated by... right around now.
This has been going on for more than a century now, starting with Malthus. If you assume current technology, rates of consumption, etc., then we are fucked (and have always been fucked) and are all going to die in the next generation or so.
Of course, things change. When we start to run out of a commodity, it becomes scarce and expensive. Guess what? It then becomes economical to do something else. And we do. Take coal, for example. A hundred years ago, we burnt coal for all kinds of things -- in our kitchen stoves, to power trains, to make electricity, for heat, etc. But when it started to get impractical to use so much coal (environmental impact, better work safety standards, and exhausting the easily-available coal) natural gas became a much more popular fuel (electricity, cooking, heating).
What scares me is the possibility of setting off a total ecosystem collapse. A good (well... bad, I suppose) example of this is Easter Island. They had a great ecosystem, lots of trees and crops. They built the famous huge statues and used logs as wheels and levers to transport and set them up. Then inter-tribal warfare drove them to build lots of statues, and cut down a lot of trees to move/erect them. Then one day, they cut down the last tree, and they were fucked. The Phoenecians did basically the same thing to Lebanon (ever wonder why they've got a cedar tree on their flag?), cutting down all of their trees to build boats. Now Lebanon has no cedar trees and no hope of having any grow back.
With our better technology and greater geographic reach (prolly not 83%, but still a lot larger than Easter or the Mediterranean coast), we could cause an ecological catastrophe on a grand scale. Maybe we'd be able to get hydroponics or subterranean living (or whatever tech we needed to adapt), but maybe not.
Why is the monopoly granted? To promote the progress of science and useful arts. No promotion of science and useful arts would seem to result from a person who didn't create any progress in the first place controlling a copyright on someone else's work.
Well, the argument goes that if the survivors have a monopoly, they are much more likely to be able to get the works published and commercially exploit them. Knowing this, authors who are near death (or paranoid...) are more likely to create since they know the fruits of their works will be inherited by their survivors.
From a moral standpoint, I think there is also some justification. This comes from the fact that many authors and artists have a lot of help from their families in producing their art. Many authors start by making up stories for their children (Tolkien and Rowling come to mind). And many family memebers help edit, proofread, etc. Even if that actual participation isn't there, they probably do a lot of housework and practical things for the author.
Not to mention the fact that many survivors feel a particularly strong connection to their anscestor's works (like those children who were first told the stories as bedtime stories). Giving them ability to maintain the artistic integrity for a reasonable ammount of time seems humane to me.
I agree that the copyright terms are ridiculous -- I think going back to the 14 year terms with one renewal would make a lot of sense. But I don't think that cutting that term short because the author dies is necessary.
The right to free speech means that the government or its officials cannot forbid citizens the freedom of expression.
Another important thing to remember about First Amendment speech protection is that the current court has upheld many limits on speech and religion because they are content neutral. For example, you can't harrass people going into an abortion clinic, regardless of what you are saying. This clearly limits speech (and resulted in a lawsuit from the anti-abortion folks), but is constitutional because it doesn't discriminate against a specific viewpoint. Now obviously, people with a certain viewpoint are more likely to want to harrass people outside of an abortion clinic, but since the law just specifies the type of speech, and not the content, it's OK.
In the same way, making a law that prohibits UCE isn't neccessarily a violation of free speech. Since it doesn't descriminate based on the content of the email, and the spammer has many other means of communication at their disposal.
Taking it a step further and also banning only fradulent and deceptive UCE is even better. In general, the more narrow the prohibition on speech (the more targeted to the specific problem that's being addressed), the more likely it will be found to be constitutional.
By "Anonymous Coward", you mean, the guy who is selling the thing on eBay?
This would be funny if it wasn't true. I never noticed that the AC submissions linked to the email address -- not very anonymous, now is it?
I'm not one to complain about/. editors. I've been reading for about 4 of the 5 years, and it's been pretty consistent all the way -- an unprofessional, overgrown blog. But this takes the cake. This isn't just an ad -- Taco, you're a tool.
Personally, I did the opposite (skipped senior year of high school to go to college a year earlier). It never came up in my job interviews, but it does come up with friends and coworkers occassionally. I agree with the other comments about admission: they go through thousands of transcripts, I doubt they'll even notice when they admit you a year later. That said, you might check out getting admitted now, and then deferring for a year. I don't know if that's an option or not, but it could be the best of both worlds.
But if it does come up, in job interviews, admission screenings, etc., I think the most important thing is that you have a good answer for why you did it. I think this is true for anything unusual that you do in your life that people are going to notice on your resume, not just this.
For example, I'm an American, but I've done a bit of traveling -- I spent the first half of my junior year in Prague, went to Paris for a vacation, and I'm now living in England for two years. People see that sort of thing on your resume and ask you about it on occassion. And if you can come up with a coherent, short, meaningful answer for why, then I think it's a good way for people to remember you and mark you out as someone who's willing to try something different.
If, on the other hand, you have a bunch of dead-end jobs, drink/smoke/whatever the year away, and have nothing to show for it at the end of the day, I think it's not a very good situation. You should have some reason better than just wanting to grow up, chill out and get your priorities straight (you didn't mention why you want to take a year off, so I'm just guessing...). It doesn't have to be anything huge, if I was interviewing a programmer and he said he took a year off to work on his photography, I'd count it as positive, even if the photography never turned out to be anything more than a hobby.
I've used a bunch of different OSes over the years, starting with DOS 5x/6x, Win 3.1 and MacOS 7x in the early to mid nineties. I used Win 9x for a while, but also started using Linux. I started using Linux fulltime around three years ago, but added MacOS 9 when I wanted to do some video editing -- we got an iMac. When the OSX Public Beta came out, I put that on the iMac and never went back. My wife and I both got new portables about six months ago (iBook for her, work sprang for a TiBook for me), and I've been using that fulltime since. I still have a linux box for a webserver and NAT, but almost never login on the console.
OSX 10.0 and 10.1 had some major problems. But as more apps have been ported from OS9 to OSX, and with 10.2 giving a much needed performance boost, I think OSX is definitely ready. It's a really good user experience, though not as polished as OS9, yet. When I occasionally login to my linux box (RH7.2 w/GNOME), I find it very jolting -- the UI isn't as consistent, the apps seem to take longer to load (maybe the stupid bouncing icons in the Dock are good for something...), etc. With Fink, a reasonably modern JDK, XDarwin, etc., you can run almost anything that's available for linux on OSX.
My only major complaint is that there isn't a decent backup system. All the command-line tools lose your resource fork and HFS+ attributes (which makes the system and apps useless). None of the GUI tools are any good. I've been using Retrospect for a while, but it's very flaky and the interface is horrible. Still, it's the best I've found.
Genetic difference is typically not measured in total genetic material -- they could have a lot of the same DNA sequences, but moved around within their chromosomes differently. So you can't just count up the chromosomes or the total ammount of genetic material. Genes actually get moved around a fair amount, so you can't assume that the DNA is just going to stay in the same order as one long string over millions of years. Genes get mixed up a lot during sperm production, including some genes that jump to other chromosomes.
Genetic difference is usually measured by comparing sections of the DNA that perform the same function (e.g., produce the same protein). The rationale for doing it this way is that if you assume that there is a common ancestor, then the section of DNA would have been identical when the divergence began. Since individuals who have the section that produces a required protein (e.g., hemaglobin) isn't going to survive, you can count on that section having been continguous in both animals since the genetic divergence began.
You're not listening to what I'm saying -- I'm not going to pay the RIAA when they change their policy. For one thing, they won't change it. For another thing, I don't want them to change, I want them to go out of business altogether. Giving them money -- any money -- prolongs their lifespans and makes it more likely they will successfully squash p2p.
Maybe I'm cheap. I'm perfectly willing to admit it's a factor.
But if you knew me at all, you'd also know that I've got very deeply held beliefs about intellectual property. I think charging for intellectual property is immoral -- whether its music, video, software, books, etc. Charging for media, charging for performance, charging for tech support, charging for a really nice theatre environment, etc. -- these are they way media producers should make their money.
As an academic, I am most interested in supporting organizations exist for the good of society, research, advancement of knowledge and the like. Those types of organizations tend to be OK with giving away IP because they know it helps everyone in the long run. I'm even happy with small record labels who exist mostly to propagate their artists' music (i.e., not exploit them). I don't mind paying $5 or $10 for a CD from places like this.
And as a realist, I do sometimes give money to the media companies. I try to avoid it, but when they make movies out of LotR, of course I went to see it. I had to talk my wife out of buying both DVD versions. This isn't hypocrisy -- it's the real world. No moral is absolute, and you have to weigh morality with expedience, long term ideals with short term realities. If you think you don't do this every day, you're lying to yourself.
Sometimes I just don't get the Slashdot crowd... Many of us
What do you mean "us"? Slashdot is not a person, it's not a coherent statement of belief. It's a bunch of people, with a bunch of different opinions, having a bunch of different conversations about it. I'm sure there are people from one end of the spectrum (hate RIAA/MPAA and don't give them a cent) to the other (don't see what the problem is and want to get the music any way they can).
That said, personally, I'm torn -- I don't like what the RIAA is doing, but still like some of their music. I mostly buy independent music these days. When I do want some RIAA stuff, I generally pirate it because it subverts their business model. They spend a lot of music up front to produce and promote music, and then I get it without giving them any money. I don't see any point in complaining about their attempts to stop this -- they're futile anyway.
One place to look for career paths are your (older) co-workers. Look around and see what people with technical backgrounds are doing now.
You probably know some older people who are doing roughly the same job as you. I know several older programmers who have an application that's their baby, they've been working on it forever, etc.
I also know a programmer or two who are still doing technical work, but have gained some authority -- they supervise a group of people, or are heavily involved in deciding future technical directions for projects and infrastructure.
Of course, there's always management. Does your boss have a tech background? Your boss's boss? How did they get there?
Personally (I'm in my mid-twenties, and have a baby daughter), I'm more interested in my quality of life than my career, per se. If they don't work me like a dog, I get to work on interesting stuff, and the money's OK, it's fine with me if I wind up working on the same application for twenty years. I think it's more likely I'd wind up in charge of a small team of programmers, that'd be cool, too.
Maybe this will stop Blockbuster from editing movies.
I can't tell you how surprised I was when I rented Clerks to show it to a friend, and found that they had censored the line: "What are you going to do for an encore, anally rape my mother with a ball-peen hammer while pouring sugar in my gas tank?"
The reason I was particularly surprised was that the only dropped a single word: ball-peen. Say it over once or twice, with and without the ball-peen. I think it makes it much more graphic to leave it out. It backs off from the original over-the-top version, and gives a sicker, more violent feel.
The real problem with software is that it interacts with other software in a complex and often difficult to understand way. For example, if I discover that Product A managed to corrupt my hard drive and erase all my work, should the manufactorer of Product A be liable?
I think the way to address this sort of problem is to build on the existing compatability lists and package management systems. The installer could have a screen that checks out your h/w and tells you if anything isn't on their compatability list, and the consequences for warranty.
The package manager could do the same kind of thing by not letting you install packages that don't have the offical signature, unless you agree to a click-wrap style agreement that it voids your warranty. Other software vendors could certify their packages for certain environments, or get them certified by the original OS vendor. Maybe something like SourceForge's compile farm could be setup to test a bunch of packages on a bunch of hardware...
This seems pretty reasonable to me. If you want to keep your warranty, you use hardware that's supported, and only install official packages. I know that most users don't install anything. Most server-class stuff already uses approved hardware and official packages only, anyway.
The only people who this would really have much impact on are programmers and hobbiests who like to try out new stuff, tweak their systems, etc. These are the kinds of people who are pretty capable of making an informed decision about whether they need or want some new feature, or would rather keep their warranty intact.
Other people have mentioned a lot these authors, but here are my favorites:
Zamiatin: We - probably the first dystopic novel
Kakfa: The Trial - Much better then Metamorphosis, IMHO. Though the end is a bit sudden.
Nabokov: Bend Sinister - the best dystopia, and the most realistic. Almost all early Nabokov has dystopic elements. Invitation to a Beheading is another great dystopia by VN, too.
Wells: Time Machine - one of the great classics.
Vonnegut: Galapagos - Vonnegut's got a lot of dystopic themes running through his work, but this is my favorite. Close runners up would be Slaughterhouse-5 and Cat's Cradle.
Heller: Catch-22 - another looks at WW2 as a dystopia. Worth reading just for the concepts of jamais-vu and presque-vu. One of the funniest books around, too.
I can rent PS2 games at blockbuster, so what's the problem here?
THe problem here is that the man on the street understands renting a CD or cartdridge containing software, but he understands it on the physical level. Once you start talking about transmitting that copy in electronic (not physical) form, it starts to sound sinister enough to Jonny Q that the RIAA et al can have their way.
The problem is that in one case you have one copy, which you are giving to another person. This means that while they have it, you don't, and you can't use it. In the other case, you've now got two copies: one that you let them download, and one that you still have. Now you might say that you're not going to use it. But nothing is stopping you. This is related to the mp3.com precedent: just because someone has a license to have a copy, you still can't make a copy of a work and give it to them -- they have to make it themselves.
Libraries and video stores don't cause any trouble: they buy a copy of something, let people borrow it, etc. There's only one copy, they paid for it, and by the doctrine of first sale, they can do whatever they want with it. Libraries also have the benefit of not being liable for damages in cases where they are found to have made a good faith effort to comply with copyright law -- private companies can be liable for huge damages, even if thier lawyers and everyone else thought it was OK to do what they were doing.
Once you start making copies of a copyrighted work, all bets are off. You have to get permission from the copyright holder or claim fair use (and deal with an area of copyright where there are no clear precedents). In my experience (working at an academic library that has been considering the ins and outs of copyright issues related to digital library content), there are no hard and fast truths in fair use, no trusted precedents, and no certainty about how a court would rule in any given situation.
mp3.com tried this, remember -- my.mp3.com. there defense was that they required people to prove they owned the CDs, and then they'd let them listen to the music. That's even more controlled than this, which lets you access stuff you have never bought.
mp3.com got busted, big time. expect the same here.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think an average person saying they understand why oppressed people are driven to political violence would be taken as a threat. I don't feel the least bit threatened by your statement about understanding the Palestinians, for example.
But we've got a different context. If I knew you were mentally ill, had gotten a lot of rambling emails from you, etc. that might change my perspective.
I agree it's sad that this Goldberg guy fealt threatened and broke off the 20-year friendship. But just because you've known someone for 20 years doesn't mean that they aren't going to be violent tomorrow.
The comment about a little guy on disability being pushed around by the great and powerful University of California really struck me. Not because of the power of UC (ObDisclaimer: I work for UC San Diego). I'm aware of their power: I got pulled over by the campus cops one day for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. The first thing I did was go home and check out their legal authority to stop me, etc. It turns out they've got the full powers of any municipal police force. Lets take it as a given that any organization that has its own police force is very powerful.
What struck me was the fact that in Goldberg's position, I too might be afraid. From the point of view of a tenured professor, a mentally ill person on disability has nothing to lose. That is the most dangerous person in the world. And since he's obviously taken an interest in Goldberg, and is sending him what he calls "pathetic emails", I can assume that Goldberg might be a little weireded out by a lot of attention, rambling emails (if the interview responses are any indication), etc. from him.
Add to that the declaration that, while he used to regard all violence as unjustified, he now sees how some violence is understandable. In the context of the other stuff that was going on, I could see how somebody could get scared.
Obviously, compared to "Move your fucking car or I'm going to kill you", it's hardly a threat that inspires dread. But it still looks like it could be interpreted as a threat by a reasonable person.
Some vehicles, especially those manufactured during the mid to late 90's already have a black box that *they* neglected to tell us about.
Did you ever actually own one of the cars with these black boxes? I did.
Saturn (part of GM), at least, talks about it all the time. It's part of the sales pitch. They say that if you ever get in an accident or have a major mechanical failure, they'll know just what to fix b/c the computer will tell them how fast your were going, what the coolant level was, and a million other things they can use to track down the problem.
They have a new owner night at the garage (this is Saturn we're talking about), where they give you a guided tour of the car's engine, chassis, etc. Part of that is showing you the computer, and their PC interface.
I just moved to Europe (UK), and I can't tell you much about the job market (I'm telecommuting to my US job), but I can tell you that moving to Europe is a lot of work.
What I've found to be very hard are the day-to-day details of life. Renting a house was relatively easy (once we convinced them we really did need to rent a house sight-unseen for our visa paperwork). But buying furniture, establishing credit, getting a bank account, dealing with foreign checks, etc. is a pain. My wife, 15-month-old daughter and I flew over and signed our lease, and went straight to our new house -- big mistake. If I had it to do over again, I would deinitely have one of us come over in advance and stay in a hotel while finding a place to stay, getting furniture, etc.
We're only going to be here two years, so we decided to sell everything we could, store only a small amount of stuff ($50/month storage unit), and ship almost nothing. We spent around $1,000 to ship a couple of boxes of books and papers, and two boxes of toys/clothes for our daughter. Most things arrived OK, but one of the boxes of books exploded and arrived as a pile of books held together with tape.
We've been here around two months now, and we're still looking for a lot of things we had back home. It's astounding how much stuff you use every day and take for granted. Unless you can pack your whole house and move it all, you'll spend a lot of time tracking down odds and ends.
I was doing tech support and some sysadmin for a project, and had been the sysadmin/graphic designer/jack-of-all-trades at a small company before that.
I taught myself Perl (sounds like you've already gotten this far), and picked an application that needed to be rewritten from scratch. In my case, it was the Campus Map at the university where I work. I went to the people who were in charge of developing it (who didn't really have the time to do it right, and it wasn't a high priority for them at all), and volunteered to do it.
Then I did a really good job. I did the project as if it was my real job -- meeting with the people involved with the site and related stuff on campus to get all the input I needed to have the app meet everyone's needs. I redesigned the whole section of the website. I badgered people to get access to all the content that needed to be included. I documented the API for the Perl CGIs so other people could embed the maps into their own websites.
And the next time a job came up in the department, I was at the top of the list.
Slashdot Mirror
First, about language. If a vendor comes out with some terminology that's completely stupid, they'll usually get mocked or ignored, and they'll drop it. On the other hand, if they come out with something that is a mutation of what has come before, people might adopt it. Language changes like this all the time, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The fact that most people go along with the terminology is a strong sign that they agree with it.
For the theory, my understanding is that the heart of relational theory is organizing data as n-tuples in a system that abstracts data access away from the details of data storage. I'm not dishonest, I do know SQL, and I'm quite sure that relational databases do this. Even if Codd doesn't like the implementation (or consider it to be faithful). Personally, I'm not terribly interested in what Codd thinks of an implementation, since the people who originate theories are notoriously inclined to be poor judges of their implementation, extension and interpretation.
And you shouldn't be pedantic if you honestly want have a discussion.
-Esme
Whether you agree or like it, the term relational database is used by virtually everyone to mean databases that use SQL. That's the way language works: what people mean when they say something is what the word means, period.
These databases are implementations of the relational model. Not perfect ones, not complete ones. They also have a lot of other junk thrown in to address other needs. If you want to talk about a database that does a better job of implementing the relational model, call it a "True Relational" or "Pure Relational" or something like that. Or just call it a RDBMS and say that Oracle has a crappy impl.
Software vendors are a big source of terminology getting blurred, but I don't think that's what happened here. I think a couple of vendors implemented the relational model, and people started calling them relational databases. Over time the databases added new stuff, and proprietary extensions, and stopped being "just" relational databases. The recent fad of adding XML translation to RDBMS is just the most recent example of this.
In my particular application, the data is mostly semi-structured content (names, dates, titles of paintings, names of countries, etc.) that aren't formatted consistently (b/c they come from several different source institutions, some of which have local heterogenity as well). There are about 15 top-level categories, with most categories having several all-optional, all-repeatable subcategories, with a different type of data for each sub-category. So a traditional relational design would quickly wind up with dozens of tables and some pretty nasty joins to get the whole doc back.
My solution was to use one system for storage (a native XML database - Xindice) and different system for querying (a fulltext search engine - Lucene). Most of the XML-enabled RDBMS could do basically the same thing, but it seemed like a bad fit to use a RDBMS with a totally non-relational approach.
-Esme
UC (University of California) San Diego has started moving towards open-source software. We were a Solaris/Sybase/Netscape shop a few years back. But the cost just isn't practical, especially for places with tight budgets like libraries. So we've been moving (albeit slowly) to commodity hardware, Linux, Apache, Tomcat, etc. for our server-side stuff. Some of the developers use Linux and/or MacOSX for their desktops, too. There are links on my homepage, or respond to this if you're interested in more info.
In terms of software written specifically for libraries, Greenstone and OSS4Lib that other posters mentioned are good. Also check out D-Space, NC State's MyLibrary, and if you want to handle MARC data in Java/XML, MARC4J. Of course, all the standard open-source software works for libraries, too.
-Esme
This is the kind of argument that gives IT folks a bad rep. Everybody knows that the popular database products that use SQL or some subset of it are commonly referred to as relational databases, regardless of whether they perfectly implement the relational model. The fact is that you can take example queries from Date's Introduction to Database Systems and run them with almost no change on any number of SQL databases. These systems store data in basically the way described and follow most of the guidelines for being relational. Of course, they also let you do all kinds of other wacky stuff, too. But that doesn't alter the fact that the features that are common across database products are the core of a relational system.
Actually, no, breaking up documents into many discrete units is a requirement of the normalization required by relational theory. It is this fragmentation which makes relational databases awkward for storing documents where retrieving the entire document is usually the desired operation.
Now, if you want to say that these are implementation problems, then I'd agree with you. A relational database could assemble a schema on the fly (just like XML databases parse their contents on the fly when processing XPath or XQuery queries). But they don't, and it's a well-known property of relational databases that they don't.
-Esme
I agree that relational databases are the best solution for most problems -- that's why they're the backbones of most apps these days.
That said, there are some cases where they fall down. One example that I'm working on right now is organizing a million or so smallish documents. The relational design to store the documents with the same degree of specificity as the XML format they are in is ridiculously complicated. But storing them in an XML database (we're using Xindice, but have looked at Tamino, and a few others) is a lot simpler.
Another downside of relational dbs is that it's generally pretty difficult to change your schema. A lot of XML databases, on the other hand, can be configured to not enforce a schema at all. So if you're working on a problem that requires experimentation on the basic schema, it can be a lot easier to use an XML database (or even just files on disk) instead.
-Esme
This has been going on for more than a century now, starting with Malthus. If you assume current technology, rates of consumption, etc., then we are fucked (and have always been fucked) and are all going to die in the next generation or so.
Of course, things change. When we start to run out of a commodity, it becomes scarce and expensive. Guess what? It then becomes economical to do something else. And we do. Take coal, for example. A hundred years ago, we burnt coal for all kinds of things -- in our kitchen stoves, to power trains, to make electricity, for heat, etc. But when it started to get impractical to use so much coal (environmental impact, better work safety standards, and exhausting the easily-available coal) natural gas became a much more popular fuel (electricity, cooking, heating).
What scares me is the possibility of setting off a total ecosystem collapse. A good (well... bad, I suppose) example of this is Easter Island. They had a great ecosystem, lots of trees and crops. They built the famous huge statues and used logs as wheels and levers to transport and set them up. Then inter-tribal warfare drove them to build lots of statues, and cut down a lot of trees to move/erect them. Then one day, they cut down the last tree, and they were fucked. The Phoenecians did basically the same thing to Lebanon (ever wonder why they've got a cedar tree on their flag?), cutting down all of their trees to build boats. Now Lebanon has no cedar trees and no hope of having any grow back.
With our better technology and greater geographic reach (prolly not 83%, but still a lot larger than Easter or the Mediterranean coast), we could cause an ecological catastrophe on a grand scale. Maybe we'd be able to get hydroponics or subterranean living (or whatever tech we needed to adapt), but maybe not.
-Esme
Well, the argument goes that if the survivors have a monopoly, they are much more likely to be able to get the works published and commercially exploit them. Knowing this, authors who are near death (or paranoid...) are more likely to create since they know the fruits of their works will be inherited by their survivors.
From a moral standpoint, I think there is also some justification. This comes from the fact that many authors and artists have a lot of help from their families in producing their art. Many authors start by making up stories for their children (Tolkien and Rowling come to mind). And many family memebers help edit, proofread, etc. Even if that actual participation isn't there, they probably do a lot of housework and practical things for the author.
Not to mention the fact that many survivors feel a particularly strong connection to their anscestor's works (like those children who were first told the stories as bedtime stories). Giving them ability to maintain the artistic integrity for a reasonable ammount of time seems humane to me.
I agree that the copyright terms are ridiculous -- I think going back to the 14 year terms with one renewal would make a lot of sense. But I don't think that cutting that term short because the author dies is necessary.
-Esme
Another important thing to remember about First Amendment speech protection is that the current court has upheld many limits on speech and religion because they are content neutral. For example, you can't harrass people going into an abortion clinic, regardless of what you are saying. This clearly limits speech (and resulted in a lawsuit from the anti-abortion folks), but is constitutional because it doesn't discriminate against a specific viewpoint. Now obviously, people with a certain viewpoint are more likely to want to harrass people outside of an abortion clinic, but since the law just specifies the type of speech, and not the content, it's OK.
In the same way, making a law that prohibits UCE isn't neccessarily a violation of free speech. Since it doesn't descriminate based on the content of the email, and the spammer has many other means of communication at their disposal.
Taking it a step further and also banning only fradulent and deceptive UCE is even better. In general, the more narrow the prohibition on speech (the more targeted to the specific problem that's being addressed), the more likely it will be found to be constitutional.
-Esme
This would be funny if it wasn't true. I never noticed that the AC submissions linked to the email address -- not very anonymous, now is it?
I'm not one to complain about /. editors. I've been reading for about 4 of the 5 years, and it's been pretty consistent all the way -- an unprofessional, overgrown blog. But this takes the cake. This isn't just an ad -- Taco, you're a tool.
-Esme
Personally, I did the opposite (skipped senior year of high school to go to college a year earlier). It never came up in my job interviews, but it does come up with friends and coworkers occassionally. I agree with the other comments about admission: they go through thousands of transcripts, I doubt they'll even notice when they admit you a year later. That said, you might check out getting admitted now, and then deferring for a year. I don't know if that's an option or not, but it could be the best of both worlds.
But if it does come up, in job interviews, admission screenings, etc., I think the most important thing is that you have a good answer for why you did it. I think this is true for anything unusual that you do in your life that people are going to notice on your resume, not just this.
For example, I'm an American, but I've done a bit of traveling -- I spent the first half of my junior year in Prague, went to Paris for a vacation, and I'm now living in England for two years. People see that sort of thing on your resume and ask you about it on occassion. And if you can come up with a coherent, short, meaningful answer for why, then I think it's a good way for people to remember you and mark you out as someone who's willing to try something different.
If, on the other hand, you have a bunch of dead-end jobs, drink/smoke/whatever the year away, and have nothing to show for it at the end of the day, I think it's not a very good situation. You should have some reason better than just wanting to grow up, chill out and get your priorities straight (you didn't mention why you want to take a year off, so I'm just guessing...). It doesn't have to be anything huge, if I was interviewing a programmer and he said he took a year off to work on his photography, I'd count it as positive, even if the photography never turned out to be anything more than a hobby.
-Esme
I've used a bunch of different OSes over the years, starting with DOS 5x/6x, Win 3.1 and MacOS 7x in the early to mid nineties. I used Win 9x for a while, but also started using Linux. I started using Linux fulltime around three years ago, but added MacOS 9 when I wanted to do some video editing -- we got an iMac. When the OSX Public Beta came out, I put that on the iMac and never went back. My wife and I both got new portables about six months ago (iBook for her, work sprang for a TiBook for me), and I've been using that fulltime since. I still have a linux box for a webserver and NAT, but almost never login on the console.
OSX 10.0 and 10.1 had some major problems. But as more apps have been ported from OS9 to OSX, and with 10.2 giving a much needed performance boost, I think OSX is definitely ready. It's a really good user experience, though not as polished as OS9, yet. When I occasionally login to my linux box (RH7.2 w/GNOME), I find it very jolting -- the UI isn't as consistent, the apps seem to take longer to load (maybe the stupid bouncing icons in the Dock are good for something...), etc. With Fink, a reasonably modern JDK, XDarwin, etc., you can run almost anything that's available for linux on OSX.
My only major complaint is that there isn't a decent backup system. All the command-line tools lose your resource fork and HFS+ attributes (which makes the system and apps useless). None of the GUI tools are any good. I've been using Retrospect for a while, but it's very flaky and the interface is horrible. Still, it's the best I've found.
-Esme
Genetic difference is usually measured by comparing sections of the DNA that perform the same function (e.g., produce the same protein). The rationale for doing it this way is that if you assume that there is a common ancestor, then the section of DNA would have been identical when the divergence began. Since individuals who have the section that produces a required protein (e.g., hemaglobin) isn't going to survive, you can count on that section having been continguous in both animals since the genetic divergence began.
-Esme
Maybe I'm cheap. I'm perfectly willing to admit it's a factor.
But if you knew me at all, you'd also know that I've got very deeply held beliefs about intellectual property. I think charging for intellectual property is immoral -- whether its music, video, software, books, etc. Charging for media, charging for performance, charging for tech support, charging for a really nice theatre environment, etc. -- these are they way media producers should make their money.
As an academic, I am most interested in supporting organizations exist for the good of society, research, advancement of knowledge and the like. Those types of organizations tend to be OK with giving away IP because they know it helps everyone in the long run. I'm even happy with small record labels who exist mostly to propagate their artists' music (i.e., not exploit them). I don't mind paying $5 or $10 for a CD from places like this.
And as a realist, I do sometimes give money to the media companies. I try to avoid it, but when they make movies out of LotR, of course I went to see it. I had to talk my wife out of buying both DVD versions. This isn't hypocrisy -- it's the real world. No moral is absolute, and you have to weigh morality with expedience, long term ideals with short term realities. If you think you don't do this every day, you're lying to yourself.
-Esme
That said, personally, I'm torn -- I don't like what the RIAA is doing, but still like some of their music. I mostly buy independent music these days. When I do want some RIAA stuff, I generally pirate it because it subverts their business model. They spend a lot of music up front to produce and promote music, and then I get it without giving them any money. I don't see any point in complaining about their attempts to stop this -- they're futile anyway.
-Esme
One place to look for career paths are your (older) co-workers. Look around and see what people with technical backgrounds are doing now.
You probably know some older people who are doing roughly the same job as you. I know several older programmers who have an application that's their baby, they've been working on it forever, etc.
I also know a programmer or two who are still doing technical work, but have gained some authority -- they supervise a group of people, or are heavily involved in deciding future technical directions for projects and infrastructure.
Of course, there's always management. Does your boss have a tech background? Your boss's boss? How did they get there?
Personally (I'm in my mid-twenties, and have a baby daughter), I'm more interested in my quality of life than my career, per se. If they don't work me like a dog, I get to work on interesting stuff, and the money's OK, it's fine with me if I wind up working on the same application for twenty years. I think it's more likely I'd wind up in charge of a small team of programmers, that'd be cool, too.
-Esme
I can't tell you how surprised I was when I rented Clerks to show it to a friend, and found that they had censored the line: "What are you going to do for an encore, anally rape my mother with a ball-peen hammer while pouring sugar in my gas tank?"
The reason I was particularly surprised was that the only dropped a single word: ball-peen. Say it over once or twice, with and without the ball-peen. I think it makes it much more graphic to leave it out. It backs off from the original over-the-top version, and gives a sicker, more violent feel.
-Esme
I think the way to address this sort of problem is to build on the existing compatability lists and package management systems. The installer could have a screen that checks out your h/w and tells you if anything isn't on their compatability list, and the consequences for warranty.
The package manager could do the same kind of thing by not letting you install packages that don't have the offical signature, unless you agree to a click-wrap style agreement that it voids your warranty. Other software vendors could certify their packages for certain environments, or get them certified by the original OS vendor. Maybe something like SourceForge's compile farm could be setup to test a bunch of packages on a bunch of hardware...
This seems pretty reasonable to me. If you want to keep your warranty, you use hardware that's supported, and only install official packages. I know that most users don't install anything. Most server-class stuff already uses approved hardware and official packages only, anyway.
The only people who this would really have much impact on are programmers and hobbiests who like to try out new stuff, tweak their systems, etc. These are the kinds of people who are pretty capable of making an informed decision about whether they need or want some new feature, or would rather keep their warranty intact.
-Esme
-Esme
The problem is that in one case you have one copy, which you are giving to another person. This means that while they have it, you don't, and you can't use it. In the other case, you've now got two copies: one that you let them download, and one that you still have. Now you might say that you're not going to use it. But nothing is stopping you. This is related to the mp3.com precedent: just because someone has a license to have a copy, you still can't make a copy of a work and give it to them -- they have to make it themselves.
Libraries and video stores don't cause any trouble: they buy a copy of something, let people borrow it, etc. There's only one copy, they paid for it, and by the doctrine of first sale, they can do whatever they want with it. Libraries also have the benefit of not being liable for damages in cases where they are found to have made a good faith effort to comply with copyright law -- private companies can be liable for huge damages, even if thier lawyers and everyone else thought it was OK to do what they were doing.
Once you start making copies of a copyrighted work, all bets are off. You have to get permission from the copyright holder or claim fair use (and deal with an area of copyright where there are no clear precedents). In my experience (working at an academic library that has been considering the ins and outs of copyright issues related to digital library content), there are no hard and fast truths in fair use, no trusted precedents, and no certainty about how a court would rule in any given situation.
-Esme
mp3.com got busted, big time. expect the same here.
-Esme
But we've got a different context. If I knew you were mentally ill, had gotten a lot of rambling emails from you, etc. that might change my perspective.
I agree it's sad that this Goldberg guy fealt threatened and broke off the 20-year friendship. But just because you've known someone for 20 years doesn't mean that they aren't going to be violent tomorrow.
-Esme
The comment about a little guy on disability being pushed around by the great and powerful University of California really struck me. Not because of the power of UC (ObDisclaimer: I work for UC San Diego). I'm aware of their power: I got pulled over by the campus cops one day for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. The first thing I did was go home and check out their legal authority to stop me, etc. It turns out they've got the full powers of any municipal police force. Lets take it as a given that any organization that has its own police force is very powerful.
What struck me was the fact that in Goldberg's position, I too might be afraid. From the point of view of a tenured professor, a mentally ill person on disability has nothing to lose. That is the most dangerous person in the world. And since he's obviously taken an interest in Goldberg, and is sending him what he calls "pathetic emails", I can assume that Goldberg might be a little weireded out by a lot of attention, rambling emails (if the interview responses are any indication), etc. from him.
Add to that the declaration that, while he used to regard all violence as unjustified, he now sees how some violence is understandable. In the context of the other stuff that was going on, I could see how somebody could get scared.
Obviously, compared to "Move your fucking car or I'm going to kill you", it's hardly a threat that inspires dread. But it still looks like it could be interpreted as a threat by a reasonable person.
-Esme
Did you ever actually own one of the cars with these black boxes? I did.
Saturn (part of GM), at least, talks about it all the time. It's part of the sales pitch. They say that if you ever get in an accident or have a major mechanical failure, they'll know just what to fix b/c the computer will tell them how fast your were going, what the coolant level was, and a million other things they can use to track down the problem.
They have a new owner night at the garage (this is Saturn we're talking about), where they give you a guided tour of the car's engine, chassis, etc. Part of that is showing you the computer, and their PC interface.
-Esme
What I've found to be very hard are the day-to-day details of life. Renting a house was relatively easy (once we convinced them we really did need to rent a house sight-unseen for our visa paperwork). But buying furniture, establishing credit, getting a bank account, dealing with foreign checks, etc. is a pain. My wife, 15-month-old daughter and I flew over and signed our lease, and went straight to our new house -- big mistake. If I had it to do over again, I would deinitely have one of us come over in advance and stay in a hotel while finding a place to stay, getting furniture, etc.
We're only going to be here two years, so we decided to sell everything we could, store only a small amount of stuff ($50/month storage unit), and ship almost nothing. We spent around $1,000 to ship a couple of boxes of books and papers, and two boxes of toys/clothes for our daughter. Most things arrived OK, but one of the boxes of books exploded and arrived as a pile of books held together with tape.
We've been here around two months now, and we're still looking for a lot of things we had back home. It's astounding how much stuff you use every day and take for granted. Unless you can pack your whole house and move it all, you'll spend a lot of time tracking down odds and ends.
-Esme
I was doing tech support and some sysadmin for a project, and had been the sysadmin/graphic designer/jack-of-all-trades at a small company before that.
I taught myself Perl (sounds like you've already gotten this far), and picked an application that needed to be rewritten from scratch. In my case, it was the Campus Map at the university where I work. I went to the people who were in charge of developing it (who didn't really have the time to do it right, and it wasn't a high priority for them at all), and volunteered to do it.
Then I did a really good job. I did the project as if it was my real job -- meeting with the people involved with the site and related stuff on campus to get all the input I needed to have the app meet everyone's needs. I redesigned the whole section of the website. I badgered people to get access to all the content that needed to be included. I documented the API for the Perl CGIs so other people could embed the maps into their own websites.
And the next time a job came up in the department, I was at the top of the list.
-Esme