I've got to say that this scenario sounds all too familiar. I've been a contributing author for a couple of books and even co-authored one (name on the cover!). My last experience was for a Microsoft book with MS Press which ended not-so-well. People think that the publishers (editors, project managers, etc.) have a complete handle on the subject matter and are on the same page (no pun intended) with the authors. It couldn't be further from the truth 99.999% of the time. My last book project was supposed to be a useful administrator's reference and ended up being an 800 page advertisement for Microsoft products and a rehash of the online docs. Our project managers disappeared for months at a time only to finally resurface and demand the schedule be accelerated for no additional compensation. My own personal decision boiled down to quitting work for four months to write the book full-time and finish it or quit the book. Since advances are typically only a few thousand dollars against a VERY small percentage of the list price (think less than a dollar royalty for a $50 tech book, split among all the authors), I decided consistent income was a better option than having my name on another book.
Unless your name is J.K. Rowling or Stephen King, you will not get rich writing books, especially tech books where a run of 10,000 books is considered huge. You do it for the name recognition and that's about it.
Bottom line: the publishing process is totally not what you would expect it to be. In the end, your book will not really resemble what you originally envisioned.
This is THE most retarded review of modern database systems that I've ever read. From the moment I read the overview of MSSQL Express, I knew what the writer's opinion was going to be, and that was completely tilted in MySQL's favor. The basic descriptions of product feature were in most cases wrong. One would get the impression from this article that a major RDBMS would always allow dirty reads. And while it's true that you CAN do that, it is not the default behavior for any of them. It has to be explicity done and you have to go out of your way in your SQL code to make that happen.
It's things like that where you just ultimately conclude that the writer(s) of this article just does not know what the hell he's talking about and doesn't have a basic understanding of the concepts or products under review. It's just more OSS nonsensical propaganda in my opinion. And don't fool yourselves into thinking that an article like this is going to change any IT manager's mind about what DBMS he's going to deploy in his enterprise.
I'm not suggesting that anyone has tried to sell me that bill of goods. But it is a worthy question: why would you have color receptors in your eyes if your brain couldn't make sense of the information? and why would you develop color stimulus in your brain if you had no data to interpret?
So that would generally lead down the path of a genetic mutation. But that's a lot of stuff happening at once or in a few generations.
As an evolutionist, he has no answer. As a geneticist/scientist, he says "we're working on that". That's the kind of answer I like.
During the same time, our predators were getting faster and stronger and we were getting....smarter???
Sure, if you live in the modern world with the internet and taxi cabs and books and shit, that'd be a big deal. But if you're some ancestor of ours out in the wild, you'd be pretty low on the totem pole, so to speak, in terms of survivability. So how is it we did it? Before intelligence we had every disadvantage.
Which would you take in a fight: an unarmed man or a bear? a gorilla? a crocodile? a shark? a dog? I wouldn't want to face any of these alone in the wild. We were fundamentally physically unequipped to survive in the wild 3.5M years ago.
Domestication is not evolution. We have domesticated cattle, not caused a genetic mutation that makes them different from previous generations. Close and distant relatives of the domesticated cow continue to survive in the wild, human intervention or not. Buffalo roamed the plains of North America for millenia before humans with no problems.
I'm not advocating either "side" in this debate of evolution versus creationism. I'm only taking a stance that evolution is a theory and that it's irresponsible of us (scientists in particular) to portray it as fact, because it is not. It is not any more fact than any occurance in the Bible.
If that puts me in the minority camp on/., so be it.
Well, my father is a biologist who taught evolution at a major university for almost 35 years. I tend to seem him quite a bit, so I'd say on average I have more contact with an evolutionist that the average person. I've seen a science lab or two in my lab (a degree in MechE helped with that) but I detest biology, mainly because of the smells, agar in particular.
And there's not this "rebellious son of a evolutionist" thing going on either. I'm no more of a Christian than a frog.
So, to ask a question that apparently can be backed up with facts: how did we develop color vision? Wouldn't we have to have simultaneous and almost instantaneous advancements in both our eyes AND our brains? What's the likelihood of that happening in one generation? Does one do good without the other? So why would one develop without the other?
Isn't evolution supposed to answer that for me? Why or why not?
So, then you can demonstrate evolution for me? When is it a good time for me to see that happen?
I can go to the science lab and I can SEE and WITNESS chemstry happen, and biology and physics.
Do you understand the difference?
Evolution is more of a search for truth than fact, just like any religion. And I don't think it should be taught in a school any more than the Bible should be.
So you support my point. I say 100,00 years ago the first signs of human intellidence appear, you say over the course of 3.5 million years. How is it we survived? According to the theory of evolution and "survival of the fittest", we shouldn't be here. But we are. Why?
Look at it another way: wouldn't certain animal species that use elaborate mechanisms (think peacock) to attract mates also be more attractive to predators and easier to catch and kill? I mean a peacock can't do shit. *I* can catch one and I'm fat lazy bastard. How come they survived? And how exactly and why did they develop the way they did?
And don't get me wrong. I don't think reading some 4,000 year old book did it. There is some other explanation for it, and I leave it up to the scientists to figure those things out. The theory of evolution is a start, but it IS flawed or in another sense incomplete.
Theories have holes. That's what separates them from facts. It's a novel idea.
And Einstein was smart enough to label his theories as "theories". One day, maybe, we'll have all the evidence and knowledge in place to elevate it to "established fact". That will be a long time coming and a lot of work by a lot of smart people.
The supporters of the theory of evolution just want to skip all that nasty business of work and evidence and got straight from theory to established fact practically overnight.
Actually on the Earth where I live, we have this thing called "gravity". It's based on science. It's cool. Drop your Geek Atheist Dipshit translation of the Bible and check it out some time.
I'm not going to debate certain aspects of evolution because I think it would be ridiculous. Yes, we have a fossil records. Yes, dinosaurs once roamed the earth. Yes, there are enough similarities betweem certain species to support the idea that they descended from common ancestors. Yes, the earth is roughly four gazillion years old based on our understanding of carbon dating, etc.. That's all well and good.
But it doesn't PROVE evolution.
They're not doing the hard science and answering the tough questions, like why, for instance, if intelligence in humans is SO important and crucial to our survival (we have no sharp teeth, claws, we can't run or climb or swim well compared to the rest of the animal kingdom), then why did it take so long for intelligence to develop in humans (say within the past 100,000 years)? How was it possible that WE survived all those years effectively at a huge disadvantage physically?
That's a tough question that NO ONE has been able to answer definitively with facts.
Instead, what we get is "there was once this primordial soup in the oceans (what it was we couldn't tell ya but it was there! and we can't replicate it!) and then some shit went down and here we are."
Wow. I'm stunned by the brilliance of that.
And you're right: gravity is based on theory, just like relativity, and most of the "hard" sciences. But there are smart people doing responsible tough science on those theories. And they don't just throw shit on the wall to see what sticks.
There's no denying that evolution is far from established fact and is fundamentally a theory with PLENTY of holes and unanswered questions. To me I see those zealots who accept evolution as fact in the same light as how *they* perceive Christians and Christianity: mindless minions of bad logic and reasoning. It just seems like evolutionists want to skip a whole bunch of steps and not do the actual science required to figure out if the evidence supports their theory or not. That's the scientific method, folks. You never PROVE anything: you have evidence that either supports or doesn't support your theory.
A grassroots organization is NOT one that is funded with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from a single individual, be it liberal or conservative. Grassroots to me means me and a few friends and a LOT of strangers from around the state or country pitch a few dollars a piece and start a website or buy some campaign buttons to further a common vision or agenda. Why we should be subjected to FEC rules is beyond me.
"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Can't quite place it.
Effectively by NOT passing this law, Congress continues to end run the constitution and maintains their control over defining what speech is free. Control which they explicitly do not have in the first place.
This helps the Democrats more since the Moveon.org's of the world will continue to be powerhouses on the net, while TRUE grassroots organizations get f'd.
Ah, so its all the money-grubbing conservatives' fault then....riiiiighhhhttt.
I would venture a guess, and this is just a guess, that its those same money-grubbing corporations that produce better results, more quickly since their asses are on the line.
We owe much of our ever-increasing lifespans to money-hungry drug and medical companies who produce results like no other. I don't know about you, I like living. if it costs me a few hundred dollars more a year to enjoy a better quality of life, well, hell show me who to pay.
Asbestos is safe? how about "hydrogen fuel is going to save the planet"!
I think the public is smart enough to realize that what's being propped up and paraded around as "science" is in fact just a bunch of hogwash, much of which is politically motivated (i.e. global warming, stem cell research, etc.). As a result, there's a general lack of trust of the scientific community to begin with. Plus, our "convenience store" mentally of wanting everything now now now means we have little patience to wait 20-30 years for results.
Look to get taxed and fee'd to death if this ruling stands, just like your land line and your cell phone. With the "telecommunication service" distinction comes a WHOLE lotta baggage.
Carbines also typically (nowadays) fire catridges designed for pistols (9mm,.45, etc.) though thats not always the case. Those types of ammunition work well for barrels less than 20". That's just becoming the trend.
Microsoft was the primary development partner with AMD on the x86-64 instruction set. What MS wanted, AMD delivered. And it's great! Not like that crappy HP/Intel Itanium fiasco.
How many software engineers are willing to work as "associates" for low wages for years while the senior partners take all the credit and all the money in hopes of eventually being granted the recommendation they must have in order to get a license?
And that's precisely one of the problems with software "engineers". You have to actually go out and earn prestige and respect. You aren't handed that along with your diploma.
What do you think doctors and lawyers do after graduation?
Programmers call themselves software "engineers" to:
1. get more money
2. gain respect they don't deserve and didn't earn
3. ride on the coattails of others
And actually 1 and 2 are byproducts of 3. Hat trick!
It's a shame that people who went through enigneering school, put in their time, took their professional exams, got their license, paid their fees, and carry their liability insurance have to put up with such NONSENSE from a bunch of egotistical computer nerds.
It makes about as much sense as me calling myself "doctor". I'm glad we have laws like this in Texas,a nd I wish there was more enforcement of it. Software engineer, sales engineer, customer support engineer, field engineer, application engineer. Jeez! All fancy titles for pretty lackluster jobs.
Microsoft was the primary developer of the x86-64 instruction set along with AMD. They basically told AMD "Here's what we want in a 64-bit instruction set" and AMD produced. They have a vested interest to see Opteron/Hammer succeed. They only developed a version of Windows for Itanium because they felt they had to, not because they wanted to. Itanium is just a weird fit with Microsoft.
Even if that were not the case, x86 is not going anyhere anytime soon. So Hammer will run anything Microsoft puts out just fine. Hammer will kick the crap out of ANYTHING Intel puts on the market and is doing so right now.
And Microsoft will be coming out with x86-64 versions of Windows, rest assured. That is not speculation.
If there's ever anything Microsoft understands, its "volume" and "price".
Based on that, I would presume then that MS Access could do 100% of what MySQL could do since it has none of those features either. So, let's just all "upgrade" to Access then. Hell, who needs data consistency and performance anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
I've got to say that this scenario sounds all too familiar. I've been a contributing author for a couple of books and even co-authored one (name on the cover!). My last experience was for a Microsoft book with MS Press which ended not-so-well. People think that the publishers (editors, project managers, etc.) have a complete handle on the subject matter and are on the same page (no pun intended) with the authors. It couldn't be further from the truth 99.999% of the time. My last book project was supposed to be a useful administrator's reference and ended up being an 800 page advertisement for Microsoft products and a rehash of the online docs. Our project managers disappeared for months at a time only to finally resurface and demand the schedule be accelerated for no additional compensation. My own personal decision boiled down to quitting work for four months to write the book full-time and finish it or quit the book. Since advances are typically only a few thousand dollars against a VERY small percentage of the list price (think less than a dollar royalty for a $50 tech book, split among all the authors), I decided consistent income was a better option than having my name on another book.
Unless your name is J.K. Rowling or Stephen King, you will not get rich writing books, especially tech books where a run of 10,000 books is considered huge. You do it for the name recognition and that's about it.
Bottom line: the publishing process is totally not what you would expect it to be. In the end, your book will not really resemble what you originally envisioned.
This is THE most retarded review of modern database systems that I've ever read. From the moment I read the overview of MSSQL Express, I knew what the writer's opinion was going to be, and that was completely tilted in MySQL's favor. The basic descriptions of product feature were in most cases wrong. One would get the impression from this article that a major RDBMS would always allow dirty reads. And while it's true that you CAN do that, it is not the default behavior for any of them. It has to be explicity done and you have to go out of your way in your SQL code to make that happen.
It's things like that where you just ultimately conclude that the writer(s) of this article just does not know what the hell he's talking about and doesn't have a basic understanding of the concepts or products under review. It's just more OSS nonsensical propaganda in my opinion. And don't fool yourselves into thinking that an article like this is going to change any IT manager's mind about what DBMS he's going to deploy in his enterprise.
I'm not suggesting that anyone has tried to sell me that bill of goods. But it is a worthy question: why would you have color receptors in your eyes if your brain couldn't make sense of the information? and why would you develop color stimulus in your brain if you had no data to interpret?
So that would generally lead down the path of a genetic mutation. But that's a lot of stuff happening at once or in a few generations.
As an evolutionist, he has no answer. As a geneticist/scientist, he says "we're working on that". That's the kind of answer I like.
Amen, Brother Beavis.
And I thought I was the only one.
During the same time, our predators were getting faster and stronger and we were getting....smarter???
Sure, if you live in the modern world with the internet and taxi cabs and books and shit, that'd be a big deal. But if you're some ancestor of ours out in the wild, you'd be pretty low on the totem pole, so to speak, in terms of survivability. So how is it we did it? Before intelligence we had every disadvantage.
Which would you take in a fight: an unarmed man or a bear? a gorilla? a crocodile? a shark? a dog? I wouldn't want to face any of these alone in the wild. We were fundamentally physically unequipped to survive in the wild 3.5M years ago.
Domestication is not evolution. We have domesticated cattle, not caused a genetic mutation that makes them different from previous generations. Close and distant relatives of the domesticated cow continue to survive in the wild, human intervention or not. Buffalo roamed the plains of North America for millenia before humans with no problems.
You assume too much.
/., so be it.
I'm not advocating either "side" in this debate of evolution versus creationism. I'm only taking a stance that evolution is a theory and that it's irresponsible of us (scientists in particular) to portray it as fact, because it is not. It is not any more fact than any occurance in the Bible.
If that puts me in the minority camp on
Well, my father is a biologist who taught evolution at a major university for almost 35 years. I tend to seem him quite a bit, so I'd say on average I have more contact with an evolutionist that the average person. I've seen a science lab or two in my lab (a degree in MechE helped with that) but I detest biology, mainly because of the smells, agar in particular.
And there's not this "rebellious son of a evolutionist" thing going on either. I'm no more of a Christian than a frog.
So, to ask a question that apparently can be backed up with facts: how did we develop color vision? Wouldn't we have to have simultaneous and almost instantaneous advancements in both our eyes AND our brains? What's the likelihood of that happening in one generation? Does one do good without the other? So why would one develop without the other?
Isn't evolution supposed to answer that for me? Why or why not?
So, then you can demonstrate evolution for me? When is it a good time for me to see that happen?
I can go to the science lab and I can SEE and WITNESS chemstry happen, and biology and physics.
Do you understand the difference?
Evolution is more of a search for truth than fact, just like any religion. And I don't think it should be taught in a school any more than the Bible should be.
So you support my point. I say 100,00 years ago the first signs of human intellidence appear, you say over the course of 3.5 million years. How is it we survived? According to the theory of evolution and "survival of the fittest", we shouldn't be here. But we are. Why?
Look at it another way: wouldn't certain animal species that use elaborate mechanisms (think peacock) to attract mates also be more attractive to predators and easier to catch and kill? I mean a peacock can't do shit. *I* can catch one and I'm fat lazy bastard. How come they survived? And how exactly and why did they develop the way they did?
And don't get me wrong. I don't think reading some 4,000 year old book did it. There is some other explanation for it, and I leave it up to the scientists to figure those things out. The theory of evolution is a start, but it IS flawed or in another sense incomplete.
Theories have holes. That's what separates them from facts. It's a novel idea.
And Einstein was smart enough to label his theories as "theories". One day, maybe, we'll have all the evidence and knowledge in place to elevate it to "established fact". That will be a long time coming and a lot of work by a lot of smart people.
The supporters of the theory of evolution just want to skip all that nasty business of work and evidence and got straight from theory to established fact practically overnight.
Why?
Actually on the Earth where I live, we have this thing called "gravity". It's based on science. It's cool. Drop your Geek Atheist Dipshit translation of the Bible and check it out some time.
I'm not going to debate certain aspects of evolution because I think it would be ridiculous. Yes, we have a fossil records. Yes, dinosaurs once roamed the earth. Yes, there are enough similarities betweem certain species to support the idea that they descended from common ancestors. Yes, the earth is roughly four gazillion years old based on our understanding of carbon dating, etc.. That's all well and good.
But it doesn't PROVE evolution.
They're not doing the hard science and answering the tough questions, like why, for instance, if intelligence in humans is SO important and crucial to our survival (we have no sharp teeth, claws, we can't run or climb or swim well compared to the rest of the animal kingdom), then why did it take so long for intelligence to develop in humans (say within the past 100,000 years)? How was it possible that WE survived all those years effectively at a huge disadvantage physically?
That's a tough question that NO ONE has been able to answer definitively with facts.
Instead, what we get is "there was once this primordial soup in the oceans (what it was we couldn't tell ya but it was there! and we can't replicate it!) and then some shit went down and here we are."
Wow. I'm stunned by the brilliance of that.
And you're right: gravity is based on theory, just like relativity, and most of the "hard" sciences. But there are smart people doing responsible tough science on those theories. And they don't just throw shit on the wall to see what sticks.
There's no denying that evolution is far from established fact and is fundamentally a theory with PLENTY of holes and unanswered questions. To me I see those zealots who accept evolution as fact in the same light as how *they* perceive Christians and Christianity: mindless minions of bad logic and reasoning. It just seems like evolutionists want to skip a whole bunch of steps and not do the actual science required to figure out if the evidence supports their theory or not. That's the scientific method, folks. You never PROVE anything: you have evidence that either supports or doesn't support your theory.
A grassroots organization is NOT one that is funded with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from a single individual, be it liberal or conservative. Grassroots to me means me and a few friends and a LOT of strangers from around the state or country pitch a few dollars a piece and start a website or buy some campaign buttons to further a common vision or agenda. Why we should be subjected to FEC rules is beyond me.
"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Can't quite place it.
Effectively by NOT passing this law, Congress continues to end run the constitution and maintains their control over defining what speech is free. Control which they explicitly do not have in the first place.
This helps the Democrats more since the Moveon.org's of the world will continue to be powerhouses on the net, while TRUE grassroots organizations get f'd.
Ah, so its all the money-grubbing conservatives' fault then....riiiiighhhhttt.
I would venture a guess, and this is just a guess, that its those same money-grubbing corporations that produce better results, more quickly since their asses are on the line.
We owe much of our ever-increasing lifespans to money-hungry drug and medical companies who produce results like no other. I don't know about you, I like living. if it costs me a few hundred dollars more a year to enjoy a better quality of life, well, hell show me who to pay.
Asbestos is safe? how about "hydrogen fuel is going to save the planet"!
Yeah, right. The actual science says "no".
I think the public is smart enough to realize that what's being propped up and paraded around as "science" is in fact just a bunch of hogwash, much of which is politically motivated (i.e. global warming, stem cell research, etc.). As a result, there's a general lack of trust of the scientific community to begin with. Plus, our "convenience store" mentally of wanting everything now now now means we have little patience to wait 20-30 years for results.
Look to get taxed and fee'd to death if this ruling stands, just like your land line and your cell phone. With the "telecommunication service" distinction comes a WHOLE lotta baggage.
Carbines also typically (nowadays) fire catridges designed for pistols (9mm, .45, etc.) though thats not always the case. Those types of ammunition work well for barrels less than 20". That's just becoming the trend.
Um, I have prior art dude.
No soup for you!
Microsoft was the primary development partner with AMD on the x86-64 instruction set. What MS wanted, AMD delivered. And it's great! Not like that crappy HP/Intel Itanium fiasco.
How many software engineers are willing to work as "associates" for low wages for years while the senior partners take all the credit and all the money in hopes of eventually being granted the recommendation they must have in order to get a license?
And that's precisely one of the problems with software "engineers". You have to actually go out and earn prestige and respect. You aren't handed that along with your diploma.
What do you think doctors and lawyers do after graduation?
Programmers call themselves software "engineers" to:
1. get more money
2. gain respect they don't deserve and didn't earn
3. ride on the coattails of others
And actually 1 and 2 are byproducts of 3. Hat trick!
It's a shame that people who went through enigneering school, put in their time, took their professional exams, got their license, paid their fees, and carry their liability insurance have to put up with such NONSENSE from a bunch of egotistical computer nerds.
It makes about as much sense as me calling myself "doctor". I'm glad we have laws like this in Texas,a nd I wish there was more enforcement of it. Software engineer, sales engineer, customer support engineer, field engineer, application engineer. Jeez! All fancy titles for pretty lackluster jobs.
Microsoft was the primary developer of the x86-64 instruction set along with AMD. They basically told AMD "Here's what we want in a 64-bit instruction set" and AMD produced. They have a vested interest to see Opteron/Hammer succeed. They only developed a version of Windows for Itanium because they felt they had to, not because they wanted to. Itanium is just a weird fit with Microsoft.
Even if that were not the case, x86 is not going anyhere anytime soon. So Hammer will run anything Microsoft puts out just fine. Hammer will kick the crap out of ANYTHING Intel puts on the market and is doing so right now.
And Microsoft will be coming out with x86-64 versions of Windows, rest assured. That is not speculation.
If there's ever anything Microsoft understands, its "volume" and "price".
Based on that, I would presume then that MS Access could do 100% of what MySQL could do since it has none of those features either. So, let's just all "upgrade" to Access then. Hell, who needs data consistency and performance anyway?