There is no free software RDBMS. The only current RDBMS is Alphora Dataphor, but it is not free. Remember, SQL is not conformant to the Relational Model.
Ingres did have a relational interface, QUEL. I haven't been able to discover if QUEL is still supported, but even if it is and if it was not corrupted, Ingres wouldn't be an RDBMS because SQL access to data violates the RM.
>
a kernel which changes every few weeks can hardly be described as a stable platform
But it doesn't.
2.6 had quite some time from 2.4, and 2.8 will take a similar amount of time.
Inside 2.6 or 2.4 series it takes several weeks for new releases, but these are bug fixes only without changing APIs and hardly ever changing anything fundamental even if under covers.
Anyway, applications aren't coded to Linux but to the GNU C Library, the glibc, and this is really very conservative.
>
the important bit is that 20% (ok - that is a wildly inaccurate figure) performance hit associated with a microkernel [...] it is not acceptable on a (for example) database server
Quite to the contrary, any responsible DBA would go nuts for a system with 20% performance hit but with less security and stability risks.
You realise, it is not hard to tell users their reports will take longer, or to tell coders they can't really continue embellishing their apps to eat up all CPU. But it scares us to think the server could be down for any extended period or our data could fall into the competition's hands.
>
The Hurd is a set of user-space server running on top of a microkernel (currently Mach)
So it includes a microkernel... and because it needs the microkernel, it is a microkernel-based system.
>
it's not taking so long because it was a microkernel (it is NOT!)
It is.
>
it's just that there's nobody working on it
There are some quite smart people working on it. Now it does not help that the FSF could use some popularity, but the Hurd is not helped either by the current focus on Linux with its more familiar monolithic architecture.
>
I don't even think it's necessary for the currency to be directly convertible
You could hardly call anything to do with games 'necessary'... the point is that relative prices get distorted, so valuations such as the article's are off base.
>
If you devalue a job by paying someone less to do it elsewhere, do not expect to be better off if you're doing that job.
The person doing it for less is still earning more that before. And she needs it more than you. She has less opportunities for learning, for relocation, less assistance.
>
If a person is doing that job reasonably well they deserve to be able to afford more than just the bare essentials
No one deserves anything. It is not a concept in Economics.
Now, she will get more than the bare essential if everyone similarly qualified is already getting it. If someone is not, this someone will get the job.
>
They on the other hand are grateful to be a slave because now they can eat.
Now who does this benefit?
The person who can eat. And ultimately everyone, as this person will help moviment the economy, the service she does will be less expensive, more capital will be freed for new investments.
>
what you forget to take into account is that if this story is repeated again and again, the conumer can no longer afford the services provided
First, it won't be repeated again and again. The pool of qualified workers isn't that big, and its growth is diminishing due to diminishing fertility rates and growing killing of the unborn. In fact, usually you lack people. Current unemployment in rich countries is anormal.
Second, if it was, then that service was superfluous. Better that everyone eat than that superfluous services exist.
Third, for each person loosing their job there are still dozens of others able to pay for the services. And the reduction in income in the rich countries isn't that important. You are thinking with your fears and perhaps anedoctes, not with hard numbers.
>
I don't understand how you think this will work.
As it has always worked, absent protectionism and wars. Perhaps you should read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
>
One minute you tell me I can't have high standards of living everywhere and the next you're saying I'm a very bad man because if I had my way everyone would be worse off.
You misread me. I said the only way everywhere there can be high standards of living is with the globalisation you reject. I said the same thing in two different ways.
>
What you need is some control over migration and trade to prevent employers from exploiting their staff.
Absolutely not. Without migration and trade we'd be poorer, and you too.
You forget we are exporters both of goods and of people. And if you didn't have migrants and imports, you wouldn't be able to afford all you currently have.
Have you forgotten you are a descendant of immigrants yourself? Most people who migrate do that to be able to get a better living.
>
this can be done through legislation
Legislation out of touch with reality engenders black markets.
>
unless you have an effective international mechanism fr preventing abuse of a "free market" and effective policiing to ensure abuse does not occur you ultimately end up with situations like you have with conflict diamonds where people have only two choices: literally be a slave or die violently.
The thing with diamonds is due to wars, not free trade. It has nothing to do with work exploitation.
>
if you want a better job for yourself, get an education and work hard towards getting the skills you need for that job
Are you so naïve? Same education don't get same incomes everywhere. That's why I had to spend two years in Switzerland, and would still be there if it wasn't for discrimination against foreign workers.
Frankly your ignorance is offensive to the poor of the world. Typical of populist brainwashing. Get yourself some education on the world and its economy, it is useless to try to educate you with/. posts.
The US federal government backs it with its guarantee it is legal tender for all public debts, and that it won't start printing it without basis on the GDP.
>
Isn't that what we are trying to do with the FTAA
In theory yes, in practice the FTAA would leave out lots of very important fields for us, like cane, orange, soy... we don't see your seriousness about free trade except as a smoke screen to get even more concessions from us while giving as little as possible.
Now that's fair, that's negotiation... only that, being richer and already having draconian limitations to the free movement of people, the bigger concessions should be in your side, not ours.
And while we negotiate, you shouldn't blame us for negotiating hard. We enable the game by dismantling our protectionist legislation, now you should play along or keep out of the game.
>
Isn't Brazil one of the holdouts while trying to strengthen their tactical advantage through Mercosur
What's the problem with that? Mercosul (pt, es with final r) is legitimate and good for everyone, including US consumers who get cheaper goods and less immigration pressure. We can't be blamed if its success (still not to be taken for granted, sadly) makes us need the FTAA less.
If you'd be serious about this, you'd practice free trade. And BTW you wouldn't impose on us the copy rights and patents, as you refused the same impositions from Europe in the late XIX century and Europe refused them from England in the early XIX century.
>
Argentina with their surgically enhanced women thanks to their free health care system
That's legend. They simply don't have the money to do that.
>
You don't improve someone else's standard of living by bringing your own down
In the short term, yes. Wealth gets better distributed quite quickly.
In the long term, the distribution of wealth makes it grow faster, so that everyone gets richer.
>
You improve the standard of living of the owners of your company
And that of foreign workers and company owners. Eventually company owners feel the competition too, as this helps develop companies in poorer countries. Just check where American Motors went, and from were come all those Hyundays.
>
Wealth gets MORE concentrated
In your country, for a short period of time. Over the long term everywhere, and in the short term in poorer countries wealth gets distributed.
It stands to reason that your work will be done by a greater number of foreigners then were unemployed in your country, and that these would otherwise either receive even less, work in even worse conditions or simply be unemployed themselves, only with more children to feed and with less government help than you.
>
A person doing the same job in another country should be able to expect similar HIGH standards of living
That's wishful thinking. There is no way of doing that happen other than with globalisation, and that in the very, very long term.
>
you do need to take into account differences in cost of living etc. but that does not mean it should be significantly cheaper to move that business to another country.
But it is precisely this difference in costs that makes moving business necessary. Otherwise poorer countries would put you out of business.
Granted you can stop trading and migration, but that would impoverish everyone, including you, and create a totalitarian state. BTW Europe and US already feel quite totalitarian to someone from Brazil.
>
I make no apology for wanting to live well
If you had it your way, you'd effectively live worse.
>
I don't just want that for myself.
In theory. But in practice, that is quite another story.
>
the fact that the US Government guarantees the value of the USD makes it a currency.
Not only guarantees, but enforces... all that about legal tender for payments...
>
The fact that nobody guarantees anything regarding the value of the EQP makes it not a currency.
Yep.
>
if I were to mint up a bunch of coins, and claim they were each worth a dollar, that's a commodity
Yep, people would value them at their will. You'd create a market in a sense.
>
If I were to guarantee that I would give anyone one dollar if they redeemed the coin, then it would be a non-convertable currency, although a marginal and almost certainly untrusted one.
Well, it would be convertible by you. Unless you acted like a currency board and started controlling who could convert it at which prices, then it would be non-convertible.
>
If I were to mint up a bunch of coins, and then set up a bank to encourage trade in them, and have the bank guarantee by force of its existance that it will maintain the value of these coins as a medium for trade, then it would be a currency along similar lines to the USD
In fact this can be done in some countries, including the US. There are some gold bugs trading new privately minted gold dollars.
>
With neither the bank nor my guarantee to trade the coins for something else, then it's not a currency, just pieces of metal.
Or more precisely a simple commodity.
>
you meant "gold in bullion is only a commodity..."
>
On cold days in Brazil it is hard to start an alcohol based car.
This has been getting better, in any case cars have a small gasoline tank to start up. Not an issue at all.
>
after reaching a high of 50%, isn't the ratio of pure alcohol based cars in Brazil dropping quickly?
Yes. The fuel market in Brazil is heavily regulated. Some time ago the government screwed its own regulations, and the result was a lack of alcohol but not of gasoline. At around the same time the price of petrol dropped at the same time as sugar cane derivates in general rised, so alcohol wasn't interesting circumstancially. This led to quite some years with little sales of alcohol cars.
But more recently cars able to drive on both alcohol, gasoline or any combination have reached the market. Some models aren't even available anymore for gasoline, and the plan is to eventually have only dual fuel models, even with trifuel ones taking natural gas -- as opposed to gasoline -- too. And when driving such a car, you tend to use alcohol most of the time, since it's cheaper and gives better performance.
>
alcohol for fuel in the USA comes from corn
Ever heard of free trade? I guess we could spare some sugar cane alcohol for reasonable prices... it would keep money from wahabist terrorists, ease up pressure on your Middle East ally, and help distribute wealth better.
>
all USDEGP trade is unregulated, so wouldn't this make it a convertable currency?
What's USDEGP?
If you refer to EQ plats, it would be a simple commodity. It would only be a currency if it had backing. Just like gold in bullion is only a currency, but minted was currency.
We do, here in Brazil. It is commonplace, you get alcohol in nearly all gasoline stations. There are cars driving alcohol exclusively and other taking any mixture of alcohol and gasoline you like. In fact there are no cars running gasoline exclusively, all gasoline here takes 20% alcohol.
>
You can't keep the value of currency higher than it would usually be.
Yes, you can. That's what a currency board does. By forbidding people from selling it for other currencies, but allowing other currencies being traded for the one in question, it overvaluates it.
Now the case of plats is different. It isn't convertible... simply because it ain't currency, but a commodity.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no free software RDBMS. The only current RDBMS is Alphora Dataphor, but it is not free. Remember, SQL is not conformant to the Relational Model.
Ingres did have a relational interface, QUEL. I haven't been able to discover if QUEL is still supported, but even if it is and if it was not corrupted, Ingres wouldn't be an RDBMS because SQL access to data violates the RM.
But it doesn't.
2.6 had quite some time from 2.4, and 2.8 will take a similar amount of time.
Inside 2.6 or 2.4 series it takes several weeks for new releases, but these are bug fixes only without changing APIs and hardly ever changing anything fundamental even if under covers.
Anyway, applications aren't coded to Linux but to the GNU C Library, the glibc, and this is really very conservative.
Quite to the contrary, any responsible DBA would go nuts for a system with 20% performance hit but with less security and stability risks.
You realise, it is not hard to tell users their reports will take longer, or to tell coders they can't really continue embellishing their apps to eat up all CPU. But it scares us to think the server could be down for any extended period or our data could fall into the competition's hands.
We like to sleep well at night.
So it includes a microkernel... and because it needs the microkernel, it is a microkernel-based system.
It is.
There are some quite smart people working on it. Now it does not help that the FSF could use some popularity, but the Hurd is not helped either by the current focus on Linux with its more familiar monolithic architecture.
Probably not true. Applications aren't coded to Linux the kernel, but to the GNU C library.
It does not need gold. Suffice that it is legal tender, and that it is not printed in excess.
Which under the rule of law amounts to a guarantee... but point taken, thanks.
You mean if one has a credit. It one has a debit, he must pay, not take currency.
Obviously not. But if the government expands the monetary base too much over the GDP, that's inflation.
You could hardly call anything to do with games 'necessary'... the point is that relative prices get distorted, so valuations such as the article's are off base.
The person doing it for less is still earning more that before. And she needs it more than you. She has less opportunities for learning, for relocation, less assistance.
No one deserves anything. It is not a concept in Economics.
Now, she will get more than the bare essential if everyone similarly qualified is already getting it. If someone is not, this someone will get the job.
The person who can eat. And ultimately everyone, as this person will help moviment the economy, the service she does will be less expensive, more capital will be freed for new investments.
First, it won't be repeated again and again. The pool of qualified workers isn't that big, and its growth is diminishing due to diminishing fertility rates and growing killing of the unborn. In fact, usually you lack people. Current unemployment in rich countries is anormal.
Second, if it was, then that service was superfluous. Better that everyone eat than that superfluous services exist.
Third, for each person loosing their job there are still dozens of others able to pay for the services. And the reduction in income in the rich countries isn't that important. You are thinking with your fears and perhaps anedoctes, not with hard numbers.
As it has always worked, absent protectionism and wars. Perhaps you should read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
You misread me. I said the only way everywhere there can be high standards of living is with the globalisation you reject. I said the same thing in two different ways.
Absolutely not. Without migration and trade we'd be poorer, and you too.
You forget we are exporters both of goods and of people. And if you didn't have migrants and imports, you wouldn't be able to afford all you currently have.
Have you forgotten you are a descendant of immigrants yourself? Most people who migrate do that to be able to get a better living.
Legislation out of touch with reality engenders black markets.
The thing with diamonds is due to wars, not free trade. It has nothing to do with work exploitation.
Are you so naïve? Same education don't get same incomes everywhere. That's why I had to spend two years in Switzerland, and would still be there if it wasn't for discrimination against foreign workers.
Frankly your ignorance is offensive to the poor of the world. Typical of populist brainwashing. Get yourself some education on the world and its economy, it is useless to try to educate you with /. posts.
The US federal government backs it with its guarantee it is legal tender for all public debts, and that it won't start printing it without basis on the GDP.
Sad thing... specially given Florida is were lots of concentrated Latin American money ends up.
In theory yes, in practice the FTAA would leave out lots of very important fields for us, like cane, orange, soy... we don't see your seriousness about free trade except as a smoke screen to get even more concessions from us while giving as little as possible.
Now that's fair, that's negotiation... only that, being richer and already having draconian limitations to the free movement of people, the bigger concessions should be in your side, not ours.
And while we negotiate, you shouldn't blame us for negotiating hard. We enable the game by dismantling our protectionist legislation, now you should play along or keep out of the game.
What's the problem with that? Mercosul (pt, es with final r) is legitimate and good for everyone, including US consumers who get cheaper goods and less immigration pressure. We can't be blamed if its success (still not to be taken for granted, sadly) makes us need the FTAA less.
If you'd be serious about this, you'd practice free trade. And BTW you wouldn't impose on us the copy rights and patents, as you refused the same impositions from Europe in the late XIX century and Europe refused them from England in the early XIX century.
That's legend. They simply don't have the money to do that.
That is, the US is for free trade except where there are elections involved.
The combination of democracy and ignorance is dangerous.
Actually the Carnival is not about alcohol, but music. You should think Oktoberfest or pubs, and we do have both here too.
In the short term, yes. Wealth gets better distributed quite quickly.
In the long term, the distribution of wealth makes it grow faster, so that everyone gets richer.
And that of foreign workers and company owners. Eventually company owners feel the competition too, as this helps develop companies in poorer countries. Just check where American Motors went, and from were come all those Hyundays.
In your country, for a short period of time. Over the long term everywhere, and in the short term in poorer countries wealth gets distributed.
It stands to reason that your work will be done by a greater number of foreigners then were unemployed in your country, and that these would otherwise either receive even less, work in even worse conditions or simply be unemployed themselves, only with more children to feed and with less government help than you.
That's wishful thinking. There is no way of doing that happen other than with globalisation, and that in the very, very long term.
But it is precisely this difference in costs that makes moving business necessary. Otherwise poorer countries would put you out of business.
Granted you can stop trading and migration, but that would impoverish everyone, including you, and create a totalitarian state. BTW Europe and US already feel quite totalitarian to someone from Brazil.
If you had it your way, you'd effectively live worse.
In theory. But in practice, that is quite another story.
Not only guarantees, but enforces... all that about legal tender for payments...
Yep.
Yep, people would value them at their will. You'd create a market in a sense.
Well, it would be convertible by you. Unless you acted like a currency board and started controlling who could convert it at which prices, then it would be non-convertible.
In fact this can be done in some countries, including the US. There are some gold bugs trading new privately minted gold dollars.
Or more precisely a simple commodity.
Precisely.
This has been getting better, in any case cars have a small gasoline tank to start up. Not an issue at all.
Yes. The fuel market in Brazil is heavily regulated. Some time ago the government screwed its own regulations, and the result was a lack of alcohol but not of gasoline. At around the same time the price of petrol dropped at the same time as sugar cane derivates in general rised, so alcohol wasn't interesting circumstancially. This led to quite some years with little sales of alcohol cars.
But more recently cars able to drive on both alcohol, gasoline or any combination have reached the market. Some models aren't even available anymore for gasoline, and the plan is to eventually have only dual fuel models, even with trifuel ones taking natural gas -- as opposed to gasoline -- too. And when driving such a car, you tend to use alcohol most of the time, since it's cheaper and gives better performance.
Ever heard of free trade? I guess we could spare some sugar cane alcohol for reasonable prices... it would keep money from wahabist terrorists, ease up pressure on your Middle East ally, and help distribute wealth better.
Usually yes, but if the difference isn't too big and law enforcement is efficient and harsh enough the black market will be relatively small.
What's USDEGP?
If you refer to EQ plats, it would be a simple commodity. It would only be a currency if it had backing. Just like gold in bullion is only a currency, but minted was currency.
We do, here in Brazil. It is commonplace, you get alcohol in nearly all gasoline stations. There are cars driving alcohol exclusively and other taking any mixture of alcohol and gasoline you like. In fact there are no cars running gasoline exclusively, all gasoline here takes 20% alcohol.
As I said, convertibility is not an intuitive concept. It has to do with it being reckognised as a currency, backed by someone, and freely traded.
A plat, as you call it, isn't a currency, and therefore can't be convertible. But sure it is a commodity.
Try explaining that again.
Yes, you can if you control supply. That's what a currency board does.
Yes, you can. That's what a currency board does. By forbidding people from selling it for other currencies, but allowing other currencies being traded for the one in question, it overvaluates it.
Now the case of plats is different. It isn't convertible... simply because it ain't currency, but a commodity.
OK, but to be a real currency there must be someone backing it.
Like gold in bullions. It is a commodity, not a currency.
Amazing, but that's not convertibility.