Re:SQLite Gui_
on
Sun Buys MySQL
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And why not just use MySQL?
1. Completely free for embedding (the embedded version of MySQL has license fees, AFAIK). 2. Easier to move databases between machines (they're endian-neutral, monolithic files). 3. Supports more of SQL92. 4. Far lighter in terms of resource consumption.
I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons, but for a certain subset of problem domains, SQLite is an *excellent* solution, IMHO.
'course, that's not to say it's perfect. It has a quirky typing system, and it's locking is extremely rudimentary. But for your average Access user, it's probably more than sufficient as a data storage engine.
Question: are you a heavy reader? I've always suspected that, for the most part, those with proper spelling and grammar developed the skills, in part at least, by reading frequently. Personally, I believe I have at least passable grammar, yet I've spent little time overtly developing it. On the other hand, I've been reading all my life... I don't think that's a coincidence.
So, that said, if you don't read that much, I'd suggest spending time doing just that. You never know, it might just help.
Ugh, another sad person who's clearly never been introduced to Smalltalk. Please. If you want to be a programmer (and maybe you don't, but if you do), you'll do yourself a *huge* favour by learning at least two languages: Smalltalk and Lisp. From there (plus the C/Algol camp) all else flows.
I'm talking about people who have witnessed seizures in their children, and that's a hard thing to be inaccurate about. A kid has a seizure or he doesn't.
Yes, I'm sure she did. And I never once disputed that. But tell me, when precisely, did it happen? What were the order of events? What were the details? These are the things people get grossly wrong after the fact.
So sure, you can tell me your sister had a seizure. But I'll be damned if I'll believe your accounts regarding when it happened relative to her immunization.
It may be true that people's memories aren't entirely accurate
No, you don't understand. The human memory is *extremely* inaccurate. There have been myriad scientific studies demonstrating that human memory is remarkably malleable, and memories can actually change *every time they're recalled*. One classic example is crime witnesses who often provide testimony uncannily similar to events as they were reported in the news, papers, etc.
The human memory is, without question, one of the worst ways to perform a scientific "study", and any claims based on such biased testimony should be outright ignored, unless they're supported by documented accounts of the events shortly after they have happened.
Gah, you're completely and utterly missing the point. This isn't about friggin' languages, and it never was. It's about programming paradigms. My training in computing science took us through the usual host of languages: C/C++/Java, Assembler, Prolog, and of course Lisp. Plus SQL and, if you were so interested, Smalltalk. Was the point, here, to teach languages? Of course not! The purpose was to teach traditional imperative, functional and declarative programming, in procedural, functional, and object-oriented styles, all the while exposing us to both high-level software concepts while giving us a grounding in the underlying details so we can grasp how things work down at the hardware level. And *that* experience is vital for producing well-rounded software developers who understand a variety of techniques and can apply the appropriate tools for the job.
So, sure, if you could find a language that supports all those programming paradigms, and allows one to expose students to both low- and high-level programming concepts, then my all means, teach it from start to finish. Because you're absolutely right, it isn't really about the language. But, that said, the language is there to best express one's ideas. And I'd be *very* surprised if you could find a language that encapsulated the full breadth and depth of programming approaches while not being a pathetic, lowest-common-denominator expression of those concepts.
Incidentally, the real irony in all this is that languages like Java and C# are taking on more and more functional and declarative features (though, again, only a poor man's version of them). Just look at C#: suddenly, they have lambdas, and soon it'll have a built in query language. Bang, suddenly we have declarative, functional, and procedural programming models all jammed into the same syntax. And the brutal, bitter truth is that most programmers using C# probably have *no idea* how to best use these tools to solve problems.
You're gonna try again later after an OOM fault? Really? Because, something tells me, odds are, you won't get that opportunity. So why the hell bother? Other than to increase code bulk and decrease the chance that you'll get high levels of code coverage during testing.
Honestly, why was it even included in the article posting? It's just a pointless summary of the content present in the original blog postings. 'course, I'm sure they appreciate the additional ad revenue...
Until they are mature enough, you are damn right I do.
I believe the GP's very point was that, by vaccinating your child, you remove that choice permanently. After all, there's no way to "unvaccinate" someone. But I assume that doesn't change your response?
And just OOC, if you caught your child smoking, would you have them vaccinated against nicotine?
Disclaimer: I don't really have a firm opinion on this one yet, I'm just honestly curious.
So a two party system rewards politicians that change their values whenever the public has different values from them. Not necessarily a bad thing, as long as they keep the fear of the public in them.
What? The US system is a republic. As such, people elect representatives, who are then tasked with making decisions in government. These people should *not* be held to every whim and fancy of the public. That's the entire point. Otherwise, you just have a weak form of direct democracy, and it's pretty clear that *doesn't* scale.
Of course, the people should always have recourse (aside from elections, such as impeachment) should it turn out that a representative grossly misrepresented themselves, or is otherwise unfit or incompetant to govern. However, such measures should require drastic action to execute, in contrast to the current system where politicians bend to the slightest popular breeze that happens to be flowing.
The votes come out as 30% B, 30% C, and 40% A. B and C form a coalition - so they get X and Y, even though 70% of the population is against those measures. Democracy has failed.
Err, no, you wouldn't get X and Y. You said it yourself, in the case of those issues, 70% of the base of A don't want them in (yeah, it's a different 70%, but the point stands). And A isn't going to take the risk of alienating their base by allowing those issues to pass unchallenged. So, instead, A will negotiate with B and C, probably by passing compromise legislation that allows B and C to claim they've moved on the issue, while satisfying the opposing 70% of A's base. And so the system works as best it can, by negotiation and compromise.
Again, I've seen this work in practice. You clearly haven't.
Life expectancy in the US is mainly a choice. The leading cause of death is heart disease, which is commonly caused by obesity. Obesity is mostly a choice.
Obesity is also a function of food quality. And when the only food cheap enough to afford is of low quality, surprise surprise, the poor will ultimately end up in poorer health. And guess what the cheapest food is? Yup, fast food junk. And don't get me started on the function of education (which itself is a function of income) in dietary choice.
No, I think the GP has it right. You really are "someone coddled by a privileged existence and having no concept of life outside such an upbringing." Seriously, try looking past your own limited horizon, you might learn something.
then obviously the amount we're spending is not the problem
Did anyone say that was the problem? No. That's flat out ridiculous. How could spending more money inherently be the problem? No, the amount of money spent relative to the health of the people is merely a symptom of systemic failure. It's evidence that, despite the magic "free market" mantra being touted, the resultant system is far *less* efficient (as measured by dollars spent versus overall population health) than a centralized system.
And sure, you could try and somehow fix the system. Although, how you'll magically remove all the overhead and profiteering, not to mention alter an insurance industry actively encouraged by the invisible hand to withhold treatment, I don't know. I suppose you could deregulate further and see what happens... hardcore capitalists seem to enjoy such experiments (though they love to ignore the Enron-style failures).
Alternatively, you could choose a system that's proven to work the world over: centralized, government-administered healthcare (possibily privately delivered).
'course, I'm not so deluded as to ever believe the US ever would, or could, implement such a thing... there simply isn't the political will (after all, the people most negatively affected by the current system are the same people who are deeply neglected in US politics: the poor). Of course, the situation isn't helped by a medical-industrial complex that's heavily invested in keeping the status quo.
A dual party system *requires* wedge issues in order to sway a vote. The US system is clear demonstration of this. And wedge issues are, by their nature, radical and polarizing. Why do you think abortion, stem cell research, global warming, etc, etc, inevitably become the focus of US elections? Because it's those issues that will sway the centrist voters one way or another, while solidifying the party base.
In a multi-party system, you either have a single party with broad support winning out, which by it's nature can't be terribly radical, or you end up with a multi-party coalition that's forced to compromise in order to get anything done. Thus, no radical agenda can win, because no member of the coalition will want to alienate their voters by supporting an agenda which runs counter to their party philosphy.
And I speak from experience, as Canada has been functioning under a minority government for some two years now (or is it just a year? Time, it keeps on slipping slipping...)
Wha? The Wii controller is a standard Bluetooth device. This page is just one of many that provides links to drivers, and details on how to install them, for using the Wiimote on either Windows or Linux.
Of course you can. Well, granted, the employer will have to come up with a difference excuse (what with that pesky constitution and all), but luckily in the US, they can just make one up!
When King himself (who was never happy with the Kubrick version) tried to do a TV miniseries with Mick Garris many years later, the result was not only laughably silly but also drew heavily from the Kubrick film version (literally from the very opening of wide shots of the car on the road to the Overlook, clearly influenced by the opening shots of Kubrick's version). And the elements restored from the novel all fall flat in comparison to the original film. What is a New England style hotel doing in Colorado? Why did they show these goofy ghosts? Is a croquet mallet supposed to be menacing?
Congratulations. You've demonstrated that, left to his own devices, King does a crappy job adapting his works to the big screen (a fact that is, I think, reasonably well known).
But how does a good adaptation, which differs signficantly from the novel, and a bad adaptation which is closer to the novel, demonstrate that the good adaptation is better than the novel itself?
Hint: it doesn't.
In fact, I would argue the film adaptation is more "iconic" than the novel simply because a) it's film, and therefore will have a greater pop culture impact, and b) it's Kubrick. 'nuff said.
And, as it happens, I think both the book and the movie are excellent, but for very different reasons (which shouldn't be surprising, given they're completely different mediums).
When King himself (who was never happy with the Kubrick version) tried to do a TV miniseries with Mick Garris many years later, the result was not only laughably silly but also drew heavily from the Kubrick film version (literally from the very opening of wide shots of the car on the road to the Overlook, clearly influenced by the opening shots of Kubrick's version). And the elements restored from the novel all fall flat in comparison to the original film. What is a New England style hotel doing in Colorado? Why did they show these goofy ghosts? Is a croquet mallet supposed to be menacing?
Congratulations. You've demonstrated that, left to his own devices, King does a crappy job adapting his works to the big screen (a fact that is, I think, reasonably well known).
But how a good adaptation, which differs signficantly from the novel, and a bad adaptation which is closer to the novel, demonstrate that the first is better than the last?
Hint: it doesn't.
And, as it happens, I think both the book and the movie are excellent, but for very different reasons (which shouldn't be surprising, given they're completely different mediums).
Err... huh? What in this quote discusses the install process of Ubuntu?
'However it does so with strong undertones of "you could always install Linux (but it's complicated and not really good for anything except displaying a few web pages and doing basic stuff) if you're *that* cheap".'
Or perhaps you misread. AFAICT, the above quote states "you could always install Linux", but unfortunately Linux is "complicated and not really good for anything".
I'm sorry, but what does ease of install have to do with the gPC or the quality of Ubuntu as an OS for such a purpose? Hell, what does it have to do with the OS at all, given most people buy preloaded and never switch to anything else?
Apparently it is you that needs to read the article. To quote:
"The gPC runs the "gOS" operating system, an implementation of Ubuntu Linux with an Enlightenment environment (a Google-oriented theme and graphical user interface on top of Linux)."
Slashdot Mirror
And why not just use MySQL?
1. Completely free for embedding (the embedded version of MySQL has license fees, AFAIK).
2. Easier to move databases between machines (they're endian-neutral, monolithic files).
3. Supports more of SQL92.
4. Far lighter in terms of resource consumption.
I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons, but for a certain subset of problem domains, SQLite is an *excellent* solution, IMHO.
'course, that's not to say it's perfect. It has a quirky typing system, and it's locking is extremely rudimentary. But for your average Access user, it's probably more than sufficient as a data storage engine.
Question: are you a heavy reader? I've always suspected that, for the most part, those with proper spelling and grammar developed the skills, in part at least, by reading frequently. Personally, I believe I have at least passable grammar, yet I've spent little time overtly developing it. On the other hand, I've been reading all my life... I don't think that's a coincidence.
So, that said, if you don't read that much, I'd suggest spending time doing just that. You never know, it might just help.
Ugh, another sad person who's clearly never been introduced to Smalltalk. Please. If you want to be a programmer (and maybe you don't, but if you do), you'll do yourself a *huge* favour by learning at least two languages: Smalltalk and Lisp. From there (plus the C/Algol camp) all else flows.
I'm talking about people who have witnessed seizures in their children, and that's a hard thing to be inaccurate about. A kid has a seizure or he doesn't.
Yes, I'm sure she did. And I never once disputed that. But tell me, when precisely, did it happen? What were the order of events? What were the details? These are the things people get grossly wrong after the fact.
So sure, you can tell me your sister had a seizure. But I'll be damned if I'll believe your accounts regarding when it happened relative to her immunization.
It may be true that people's memories aren't entirely accurate
No, you don't understand. The human memory is *extremely* inaccurate. There have been myriad scientific studies demonstrating that human memory is remarkably malleable, and memories can actually change *every time they're recalled*. One classic example is crime witnesses who often provide testimony uncannily similar to events as they were reported in the news, papers, etc.
The human memory is, without question, one of the worst ways to perform a scientific "study", and any claims based on such biased testimony should be outright ignored, unless they're supported by documented accounts of the events shortly after they have happened.
Look it up.
I take it it never occurred to you to just increase the number of ports and knocks? You have 64k to choose from. Go nuts.
Gah, you're completely and utterly missing the point. This isn't about friggin' languages, and it never was. It's about programming paradigms. My training in computing science took us through the usual host of languages: C/C++/Java, Assembler, Prolog, and of course Lisp. Plus SQL and, if you were so interested, Smalltalk. Was the point, here, to teach languages? Of course not! The purpose was to teach traditional imperative, functional and declarative programming, in procedural, functional, and object-oriented styles, all the while exposing us to both high-level software concepts while giving us a grounding in the underlying details so we can grasp how things work down at the hardware level. And *that* experience is vital for producing well-rounded software developers who understand a variety of techniques and can apply the appropriate tools for the job.
So, sure, if you could find a language that supports all those programming paradigms, and allows one to expose students to both low- and high-level programming concepts, then my all means, teach it from start to finish. Because you're absolutely right, it isn't really about the language. But, that said, the language is there to best express one's ideas. And I'd be *very* surprised if you could find a language that encapsulated the full breadth and depth of programming approaches while not being a pathetic, lowest-common-denominator expression of those concepts.
Incidentally, the real irony in all this is that languages like Java and C# are taking on more and more functional and declarative features (though, again, only a poor man's version of them). Just look at C#: suddenly, they have lambdas, and soon it'll have a built in query language. Bang, suddenly we have declarative, functional, and procedural programming models all jammed into the same syntax. And the brutal, bitter truth is that most programmers using C# probably have *no idea* how to best use these tools to solve problems.
You're gonna try again later after an OOM fault? Really? Because, something tells me, odds are, you won't get that opportunity. So why the hell bother? Other than to increase code bulk and decrease the chance that you'll get high levels of code coverage during testing.
The assumption is that if you have physical access to the machine, you can do what you want with it anyway.
Where, in the GPs post, did he say that physical access was required to do the firmware update from the guest account? Oh right! He didn't!
So... what was your point, again?
Honestly, why was it even included in the article posting? It's just a pointless summary of the content present in the original blog postings. 'course, I'm sure they appreciate the additional ad revenue...
Until they are mature enough, you are damn right I do.
I believe the GP's very point was that, by vaccinating your child, you remove that choice permanently. After all, there's no way to "unvaccinate" someone. But I assume that doesn't change your response?
And just OOC, if you caught your child smoking, would you have them vaccinated against nicotine?
Disclaimer: I don't really have a firm opinion on this one yet, I'm just honestly curious.
So a two party system rewards politicians that change their values whenever the public has different values from them. Not necessarily a bad thing, as long as they keep the fear of the public in them.
What? The US system is a republic. As such, people elect representatives, who are then tasked with making decisions in government. These people should *not* be held to every whim and fancy of the public. That's the entire point. Otherwise, you just have a weak form of direct democracy, and it's pretty clear that *doesn't* scale.
Of course, the people should always have recourse (aside from elections, such as impeachment) should it turn out that a representative grossly misrepresented themselves, or is otherwise unfit or incompetant to govern. However, such measures should require drastic action to execute, in contrast to the current system where politicians bend to the slightest popular breeze that happens to be flowing.
The votes come out as 30% B, 30% C, and 40% A. B and C form a coalition - so they get X and Y, even though 70% of the population is against those measures. Democracy has failed.
Err, no, you wouldn't get X and Y. You said it yourself, in the case of those issues, 70% of the base of A don't want them in (yeah, it's a different 70%, but the point stands). And A isn't going to take the risk of alienating their base by allowing those issues to pass unchallenged. So, instead, A will negotiate with B and C, probably by passing compromise legislation that allows B and C to claim they've moved on the issue, while satisfying the opposing 70% of A's base. And so the system works as best it can, by negotiation and compromise.
Again, I've seen this work in practice. You clearly haven't.
Life expectancy in the US is mainly a choice. The leading cause of death is heart disease, which is commonly caused by obesity. Obesity is mostly a choice.
Obesity is also a function of food quality. And when the only food cheap enough to afford is of low quality, surprise surprise, the poor will ultimately end up in poorer health. And guess what the cheapest food is? Yup, fast food junk. And don't get me started on the function of education (which itself is a function of income) in dietary choice.
No, I think the GP has it right. You really are "someone coddled by a privileged existence and having no concept of life outside such an upbringing." Seriously, try looking past your own limited horizon, you might learn something.
then obviously the amount we're spending is not the problem
Did anyone say that was the problem? No. That's flat out ridiculous. How could spending more money inherently be the problem? No, the amount of money spent relative to the health of the people is merely a symptom of systemic failure. It's evidence that, despite the magic "free market" mantra being touted, the resultant system is far *less* efficient (as measured by dollars spent versus overall population health) than a centralized system.
And sure, you could try and somehow fix the system. Although, how you'll magically remove all the overhead and profiteering, not to mention alter an insurance industry actively encouraged by the invisible hand to withhold treatment, I don't know. I suppose you could deregulate further and see what happens... hardcore capitalists seem to enjoy such experiments (though they love to ignore the Enron-style failures).
Alternatively, you could choose a system that's proven to work the world over: centralized, government-administered healthcare (possibily privately delivered).
'course, I'm not so deluded as to ever believe the US ever would, or could, implement such a thing... there simply isn't the political will (after all, the people most negatively affected by the current system are the same people who are deeply neglected in US politics: the poor). Of course, the situation isn't helped by a medical-industrial complex that's heavily invested in keeping the status quo.
I call bullshit on your base premise.
A dual party system *requires* wedge issues in order to sway a vote. The US system is clear demonstration of this. And wedge issues are, by their nature, radical and polarizing. Why do you think abortion, stem cell research, global warming, etc, etc, inevitably become the focus of US elections? Because it's those issues that will sway the centrist voters one way or another, while solidifying the party base.
In a multi-party system, you either have a single party with broad support winning out, which by it's nature can't be terribly radical, or you end up with a multi-party coalition that's forced to compromise in order to get anything done. Thus, no radical agenda can win, because no member of the coalition will want to alienate their voters by supporting an agenda which runs counter to their party philosphy.
And I speak from experience, as Canada has been functioning under a minority government for some two years now (or is it just a year? Time, it keeps on slipping slipping...)
So, what you're saying is it's the Vi of 3D modellers. :)
Wha? The Wii controller is a standard Bluetooth device. This page is just one of many that provides links to drivers, and details on how to install them, for using the Wiimote on either Windows or Linux.
Of course you can. Well, granted, the employer will have to come up with a difference excuse (what with that pesky constitution and all), but luckily in the US, they can just make one up!
Err, let's try this again, more intelligably:
When King himself (who was never happy with the Kubrick version) tried to do a TV miniseries with Mick Garris many years later, the result was not only laughably silly but also drew heavily from the Kubrick film version (literally from the very opening of wide shots of the car on the road to the Overlook, clearly influenced by the opening shots of Kubrick's version). And the elements restored from the novel all fall flat in comparison to the original film. What is a New England style hotel doing in Colorado? Why did they show these goofy ghosts? Is a croquet mallet supposed to be menacing?
Congratulations. You've demonstrated that, left to his own devices, King does a crappy job adapting his works to the big screen (a fact that is, I think, reasonably well known).
But how does a good adaptation, which differs signficantly from the novel, and a bad adaptation which is closer to the novel, demonstrate that the good adaptation is better than the novel itself?
Hint: it doesn't.
In fact, I would argue the film adaptation is more "iconic" than the novel simply because a) it's film, and therefore will have a greater pop culture impact, and b) it's Kubrick. 'nuff said.
And, as it happens, I think both the book and the movie are excellent, but for very different reasons (which shouldn't be surprising, given they're completely different mediums).
When King himself (who was never happy with the Kubrick version) tried to do a TV miniseries with Mick Garris many years later, the result was not only laughably silly but also drew heavily from the Kubrick film version (literally from the very opening of wide shots of the car on the road to the Overlook, clearly influenced by the opening shots of Kubrick's version). And the elements restored from the novel all fall flat in comparison to the original film. What is a New England style hotel doing in Colorado? Why did they show these goofy ghosts? Is a croquet mallet supposed to be menacing?
Congratulations. You've demonstrated that, left to his own devices, King does a crappy job adapting his works to the big screen (a fact that is, I think, reasonably well known).
But how a good adaptation, which differs signficantly from the novel, and a bad adaptation which is closer to the novel, demonstrate that the first is better than the last?
Hint: it doesn't.
And, as it happens, I think both the book and the movie are excellent, but for very different reasons (which shouldn't be surprising, given they're completely different mediums).
Err... huh? What in this quote discusses the install process of Ubuntu?
'However it does so with strong undertones of "you could always install Linux (but it's complicated and not really good for anything except displaying a few web pages and doing basic stuff) if you're *that* cheap".'
Or perhaps you misread. AFAICT, the above quote states "you could always install Linux", but unfortunately Linux is "complicated and not really good for anything".
I'm sorry, but what does ease of install have to do with the gPC or the quality of Ubuntu as an OS for such a purpose? Hell, what does it have to do with the OS at all, given most people buy preloaded and never switch to anything else?
Apparently it is you that needs to read the article. To quote:
"The gPC runs the "gOS" operating system, an implementation of Ubuntu Linux with an Enlightenment environment (a Google-oriented theme and graphical user interface on top of Linux)."