Yes, perhaps there are some amazing people at Yahoo! who using only MySQL can cause a database to switch schemas instantly over many tens of millions of rows whilst not being in read-only state. And no cheating like using multiple database servers and switching from one set to another - we don't (yet) have the hardware to achieve that.
Because the devs and the sysadmins are one and the same (generally), and they like playing fire with fire.:-)
Seriously, "not recommended" is because it hasn't been properly tested yet in a large-scale environment; this is what is being done right now. If this version of MediaWiki works for Wikimedia, it should work for everyone else, too (barring the funny odd bits we don't use).
Actually, no, bandwidth (I'll assume here that you meant "throughput";-)) problems are not significant, it's much more the actual server hardware. Wikis are very database- and CPU-heavy.
All government departments now live on email - email over the Internet, that is - including with non-governmental parties and non-secure systems, all the time. The idea that they could function without being connected to the Internet, but simply some private internet, is unworkable.
Nor, for that matter, could they do what bits of the Armed Forces do - all emails to the outside world go to a special room where trained security operatives read the outbound email on one screen (a computer on the white network) and type it into another machine (on the black network), checking for release of documents. This is because "Here is today's draft of the Green Paper - any further comments", with a 500-page confidential document attached, is not something that can be readily re-typed. For "confidential"-tagged (and even sometimes "secret"-tagged) such situations, think of the CSRs (comprehensive spending reviews), where the Treasury gets terribly uppity about security.
Hell, be pretentious, and go check out The Seven Samurai
Sorry, Kurosawa films are 'pretentious' now? Gosh. I suppose you dislike Eisenstein films, too?:-)
Or go watch _Das Boot_ in subtitles.
Subtitles? Subtitles?! Pah! Watch films in the original - no translator can capture the true essence of a language in mere words scrolling underneath the cinematography.
Umm. The copyright to Peter Pan expired a while ago. What you are talking about is that there is mandatory licensing of Peter Pan ad infinitum imposed by the government. This is outside of copyright, but is effectively the same. The resultant monies go to a children's hospital, the Great Ormond Street, which is one of the best in the world, apparently. I hardly see that paying a pittance towards curing children of cancer and so on is that terrible a thing.
There is, however, a perpetual copyright in the United Kingdom, in that the Authorised Version (which you might know better as the King James Version) of the Bible is judged to have been written by the office of the King (rather than the person); as the office hasn't died, the 'author' is still alive, and so it is still under copyright. But that's just a perculiarity of having no automatic public domain crtierion for governmental works at the time.
They've all been fantastic - no reliability or useability complaints at all. OTOH, Motorolas and Sonys that friends have (always briefly) had have been clunky to use and reliability nightmares.
Back to the subject at hand, this will probably just become another standard feature, just like everything else.
120 Pounds Sterling a year, which is, well, it was US$180, about a year ago, but then the US Dollar went into free-fall and it's now about US$220, and will probably hit US$300 quite soon...
Umm. Riiight. You are aware that the two options you suggested both require restarting the machine to access the firmware of the RAID card, however "cool" you think it is?
Restarting = downtime = bad. No, really.
The Areca card is for proper environments where you just don't have the option to take the system down to pull a disc or three from the array. Hotswap discs, hot-rebuilding of RAID arrays, etc. It's a proper RAID card.
I'm sorry, but this is commonly repeated, but wrong.
3ware's SATA implementation is ugly; it's effectively a bridge from their PATA one, so it doesn't support NCQ.
Personally I use Areca cards - a 16-way card that can run RAID '6' (RAID 5 but with two parity discs) and a hot-spare, has its own Ethernet port for remote access to the firmware is rather good. Oh, and it has (unofficial) kernel sources suitable for 2.3 - 2.6.
The weekly version is called, appropriately enough, The Weekly. It's mainly aimed at ex-pats, and is very good. I read it because it's an easier way to distill the world's news when you've got a real life to lead. (I'd spend the whole of my life reading the news if I could;-).)
Bandwidth isn't the problem (or the cost, really), but the servers. We spend $4k-ish a month on bandwidth (off the top of my head; ICBW), but we spent about $65k in just the last 6 months on servers (see the server list).
BTW, we prefer that people just call it "Wikipedia", without a definite article.
All I need is one of these that can convert on-the-fly from a native store of FLAC to MP3 or Vorbis depending on the using application. Oh, and, currenntly, an 800 GiB hard disc.
*sigh*
Yeah, I know, "not the target market" and all that jazz, and I'll probably get one regardless of the lack of FLAC/Vorbis, but...
The reason they mention the contention ratio is, IIRC, that they're legally required to.
BTW, this may seem quite good to people used to the UK Internet connection market, but it's the first time I've ever seen a download cap - trying to get a nasty business practice in through the back door, as it were, by offering "low low prices".
Actually, they don't automatically get copies. They have the right to get one, but they don't have much space, so they only get copies of publications that they feel like getting. The British Library would be a more interesting one to team up with, as they get a copy of every publication...
Scanning mode differences between a 'proper' TV and a normal CRT aren't that far apart... However, yes, I take the point. You can get CRT monitors for peanuts now, though, so the difference is less significant than it used to be.
STBs here generally have SCART, coax-RF, and component out; some have more fun things, like optical digital sound out, VGA out, and so on. This is for satellite STBs - I don't know about cable, I don't touch the stuff.
No, it'd work: you can use some odd tricks in the super het. to over-sample, so you use a harmonic of the base signal, IIRC. But this is more complicated, and so rare...
I'm sure that this has been answered before, but, in order:
1
Yes; analogue, 3 channels with adverts and 2 BBC channels, digital, 12-odd channels with adverts and 8 BBC channels (though some of these run at different times, so there's only 6 BBC channels at any one time running).
2
Yes, but it's inexecrable, and subsequently has poor market share.
3
They provide the BBC channels in their feed, but they don't bill one for that; it is the subscriber's responsibility to ensure that he is compliant with the law; use of BBC channels is not what's being taxed, so, no.
4
Yes, I believe so, but ICBW.
5
A CRT computer monitor is a TV without a tuner, so, yes.
6
No, it's a part of the tuner (super het.). Plasma TVs &c. also have such a tuner.
7
Yes, I suppose so, but the feed into a television from a non-terrestrial broadcast feed (satellite, or cable) is in the form of an RF jack that is then interpretted by the tuner (thought sometimes this is by SCART or component in, instead).
8
As above, yes, part of the tuner. Legally, no, because the detecting of the tuner is the mechanism, not the law (otherwise someone would just make a tuner that used a different frequency). However, they would not automatically detect one's watching of TV, so...
9
Yes, presumably; no idea, but probably not, as a mark of common sense, rather than the letter of the law; and no idea.
In brief: The "licence fee" is the cost that is charged to people with equipment capable of picking up a particular part of the RF spectrum. It is a Government radio-spectrum licence, all the money of which goes direct to the BBC.
Please, be my guest, create a Wikipedia mirror funded by ads and donate some/all of the profit back to the Wikimedia Foundation, but it's been said time and again that we're not going to have adverts. The primary reason for this is that many/most of the major contributors would fork were adverts to be used (*cough*, es, *cough*). Also, we don't wish to appear biased towards a particular organisation/company/&c. which adverts would obviously suggest. Finally, if we had opt-in adverts, we would get barely any income - people who are opting to have adverts displayed are doing so conciously, without the desire to actually purchase anything, and so their eyeballs are worthless, or, at least, worth less than "normal" adverts.
Well, yes. After all, diamorphine was developed to not be chemically addictive, like morphine is (of course, it's sadly still psychologically addictive). "Heroin" is to "diamorphine" what "gak" is to "cocaine" and "ganja" is to "marijuana".
Also, the "utterly shocking" comment by the submitter is rather sad - it makes the brain unresponsive to the canabanoids and a few other such neurotransmitter chemicals; the morphine is still meant to work as a pain-killer.
You can find links to previous revisions through the history page for each article; this will remain available unless the article and its history is deleted, normally due to being full of nonsense and/or a copyright violation. For example, this is just the current revision of the/. article, whereas a version from February this year is here.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, perhaps there are some amazing people at Yahoo! who using only MySQL can cause a database to switch schemas instantly over many tens of millions of rows whilst not being in read-only state. And no cheating like using multiple database servers and switching from one set to another - we don't (yet) have the hardware to achieve that.
'Cos Yahoo! offered to host them at their facility there, and our overall global reach has a bit of a paucity in Asia.
Seriously, "not recommended" is because it hasn't been properly tested yet in a large-scale environment; this is what is being done right now. If this version of MediaWiki works for Wikimedia, it should work for everyone else, too (barring the funny odd bits we don't use).
Actually, no, bandwidth (I'll assume here that you meant "throughput" ;-)) problems are not significant, it's much more the actual server hardware. Wikis are very database- and CPU-heavy.
Nor, for that matter, could they do what bits of the Armed Forces do - all emails to the outside world go to a special room where trained security operatives read the outbound email on one screen (a computer on the white network) and type it into another machine (on the black network), checking for release of documents. This is because "Here is today's draft of the Green Paper - any further comments", with a 500-page confidential document attached, is not something that can be readily re-typed. For "confidential"-tagged (and even sometimes "secret"-tagged) such situations, think of the CSRs (comprehensive spending reviews), where the Treasury gets terribly uppity about security.
Sorry, Kurosawa films are 'pretentious' now? Gosh. I suppose you dislike Eisenstein films, too? :-)
Subtitles? Subtitles?! Pah! Watch films in the original - no translator can capture the true essence of a language in mere words scrolling underneath the cinematography.
Why yes, I am being sarcastic.
I imagine it's due to the way the Bluetooth protocol works, with 8 active devices at any one time (including the host).
Umm. The copyright to Peter Pan expired a while ago. What you are talking about is that there is mandatory licensing of Peter Pan ad infinitum imposed by the government. This is outside of copyright, but is effectively the same. The resultant monies go to a children's hospital, the Great Ormond Street, which is one of the best in the world, apparently. I hardly see that paying a pittance towards curing children of cancer and so on is that terrible a thing.
There is, however, a perpetual copyright in the United Kingdom, in that the Authorised Version (which you might know better as the King James Version) of the Bible is judged to have been written by the office of the King (rather than the person); as the office hasn't died, the 'author' is still alive, and so it is still under copyright. But that's just a perculiarity of having no automatic public domain crtierion for governmental works at the time.
HTH.
I'm sorry, whut? That Sony is, well, vile. Quite apart from anything else, it's an awful flip-'phone.
I use Nokias (and proper monoblocs) exclusively - my 'phones have been, in order, since '97 (nice 14th birthday present):
* 3310
* 3330
* 8210
* 8310
* 8230
* 8860
* 6220
* 6610
They've all been fantastic - no reliability or useability complaints at all. OTOH, Motorolas and Sonys that friends have (always briefly) had have been clunky to use and reliability nightmares.
Back to the subject at hand, this will probably just become another standard feature, just like everything else.
120 Pounds Sterling a year, which is, well, it was US$180, about a year ago, but then the US Dollar went into free-fall and it's now about US$220, and will probably hit US$300 quite soon...
Restarting = downtime = bad. No, really.
The Areca card is for proper environments where you just don't have the option to take the system down to pull a disc or three from the array. Hotswap discs, hot-rebuilding of RAID arrays, etc. It's a proper RAID card.
3ware's SATA implementation is ugly; it's effectively a bridge from their PATA one, so it doesn't support NCQ.
Personally I use Areca cards - a 16-way card that can run RAID '6' (RAID 5 but with two parity discs) and a hot-spare, has its own Ethernet port for remote access to the firmware is rather good. Oh, and it has (unofficial) kernel sources suitable for 2.3 - 2.6.
Very good.
The weekly version is called, appropriately enough, The Weekly . It's mainly aimed at ex-pats, and is very good. I read it because it's an easier way to distill the world's news when you've got a real life to lead. (I'd spend the whole of my life reading the news if I could ;-).)
Bandwidth isn't the problem (or the cost, really), but the servers. We spend $4k-ish a month on bandwidth (off the top of my head; ICBW), but we spent about $65k in just the last 6 months on servers (see the server list).
BTW, we prefer that people just call it "Wikipedia", without a definite article.
All I need is one of these that can convert on-the-fly from a native store of FLAC to MP3 or Vorbis depending on the using application. Oh, and, currenntly, an 800 GiB hard disc. *sigh* Yeah, I know, "not the target market" and all that jazz, and I'll probably get one regardless of the lack of FLAC/Vorbis, but...
The reason they mention the contention ratio is, IIRC, that they're legally required to. BTW, this may seem quite good to people used to the UK Internet connection market, but it's the first time I've ever seen a download cap - trying to get a nasty business practice in through the back door, as it were, by offering "low low prices".
Actually, that's not "Wiki style"; on Wikipedia, we call that "Slashdot style".
:-)
Actually, they don't automatically get copies. They have the right to get one, but they don't have much space, so they only get copies of publications that they feel like getting. The British Library would be a more interesting one to team up with, as they get a copy of every publication...
Scanning mode differences between a 'proper' TV and a normal CRT aren't that far apart... However, yes, I take the point. You can get CRT monitors for peanuts now, though, so the difference is less significant than it used to be.
STBs here generally have SCART, coax-RF, and component out; some have more fun things, like optical digital sound out, VGA out, and so on. This is for satellite STBs - I don't know about cable, I don't touch the stuff.
No, it'd work: you can use some odd tricks in the super het. to over-sample, so you use a harmonic of the base signal, IIRC. But this is more complicated, and so rare...
I'm sure that this has been answered before, but, in order:
1 Yes; analogue, 3 channels with adverts and 2 BBC channels, digital, 12-odd channels with adverts and 8 BBC channels (though some of these run at different times, so there's only 6 BBC channels at any one time running). 2 Yes, but it's inexecrable, and subsequently has poor market share. 3 They provide the BBC channels in their feed, but they don't bill one for that; it is the subscriber's responsibility to ensure that he is compliant with the law; use of BBC channels is not what's being taxed, so, no. 4 Yes, I believe so, but ICBW. 5 A CRT computer monitor is a TV without a tuner, so, yes. 6 No, it's a part of the tuner (super het.). Plasma TVs &c. also have such a tuner. 7 Yes, I suppose so, but the feed into a television from a non-terrestrial broadcast feed (satellite, or cable) is in the form of an RF jack that is then interpretted by the tuner (thought sometimes this is by SCART or component in, instead). 8 As above, yes, part of the tuner. Legally, no, because the detecting of the tuner is the mechanism, not the law (otherwise someone would just make a tuner that used a different frequency). However, they would not automatically detect one's watching of TV, so... 9 Yes, presumably; no idea, but probably not, as a mark of common sense, rather than the letter of the law; and no idea.In brief: The "licence fee" is the cost that is charged to people with equipment capable of picking up a particular part of the RF spectrum. It is a Government radio-spectrum licence, all the money of which goes direct to the BBC.
Please, be my guest, create a Wikipedia mirror funded by ads and donate some/all of the profit back to the Wikimedia Foundation, but it's been said time and again that we're not going to have adverts. The primary reason for this is that many/most of the major contributors would fork were adverts to be used (*cough*, es, *cough*). Also, we don't wish to appear biased towards a particular organisation/company/&c. which adverts would obviously suggest. Finally, if we had opt-in adverts, we would get barely any income - people who are opting to have adverts displayed are doing so conciously, without the desire to actually purchase anything, and so their eyeballs are worthless, or, at least, worth less than "normal" adverts.
AIUI, the "99.99%" is of the number of customers, not revenue or profits, BICBW.
Well, yes. After all, diamorphine was developed to not be chemically addictive, like morphine is (of course, it's sadly still psychologically addictive). "Heroin" is to "diamorphine" what "gak" is to "cocaine" and "ganja" is to "marijuana".
Also, the "utterly shocking" comment by the submitter is rather sad - it makes the brain unresponsive to the canabanoids and a few other such neurotransmitter chemicals; the morphine is still meant to work as a pain-killer.
You can find links to previous revisions through the history page for each article; this will remain available unless the article and its history is deleted, normally due to being full of nonsense and/or a copyright violation. For example, this is just the current revision of the /. article, whereas a version from February this year is here.