Although both Oracle 9i Release 2 and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 have OLAP features, they differ greatly in their approach.
Microsoft has a separate analysis engine (Analysis Services), with separate storage for the cubes. This has the benefit of offloading processing onto another server, but carries with it the burden of transferring the data, usually with the Data Transformation Services (DTS) utility. But DTS doesn't scale well in the current version, and is being totally rewritten in Yukon to correct this and add functionality as an Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) utility.
Oracle has chosen to implement their OLAP engine in the main database, subject to the same security model. The benefit here is that the data isn't moved outside the security boundary of the database. Their ETL solution is not a separate utility; they chose instead to add functionality to SQL such as external tables (flat files that pretend to be Oracle tables), multi-table INSERT statements, and the new MERGE statement that either INSERTS or UPDATES depending on whether a row already exists. Also, the parallel processing features built into the database engine and SQL can be used, making it scalable.
It all depends on whom you believe, but data warehouses tend to be BIG databases, and Oracle knows BIG, so I'd give them the edge right now, though they are a pricier solution and the tools aren't as nice as Microsoft's.
Thank God that crackers don't know how to spell. I just look at the spelling of the message and count the spelling and grammar errors. Once they reach a threshold, I know it's a virus/worm message.;-)
Regardless what you think about the RIAA, the fact that the defendants are trying to use the RICO Act to countersue just shows what a danger RICO may be as an instrument of harrassment. As described in this essay it has never met a full constitutional challenge. It appears to be broad enough that many activist organizations could be seen falling under its guidelines. The threat of RICO prosecution could have a chilling effect on both freedom of speech and of association.
I've got one like that too - but then somebody leaves and I have to train 'em all over again!
But I hear what you're saying: of course having real human interactions are better. It not only is less artificial than a technology-based solution, but it lets you treat the server like a real person too instead of a commodity.
I think we can do both; we can use the technology to help people learn our preferences. If we're a regular, they'll catch on.
I've often thought that when you go into a fast food place (for example), the cash register should customize itself to your preferred menu items. You should be able to say, "I'd like my #6, please" and not have to say, "Big Breakfast, no hash browns, add a side of bacon, medium Diet Coke", and then later have to explain what they did wrong.
It would clearly save money for the retailer, as the ordering process would be quicker and more accurate. It would improve the customer "experience" too.
Instead of having the merchant suggest these items based on your past buying habits (intrusive), you could go to their website to set up your custom choices (say up to 6) and change them as often as you want. The clerks don't need to deal with the fact that everyone's choices are different, as the keys themselves change meaning when your RFID walks up to the register.
I think this article points out one of the major weaknesses in the IT profession currently: a lack of people skills and empathy for the end user.
I've been a computer professional for over 25 years now. I'm still aghast at system administrators who take servers down on the last day of the month for maintenance, with total disregard of the fact that the company's biggest transaction volume occurs that day. Or help desk people who answer the phone in an impatient tone of voice, as if it's a major annoyance that someone is disturbing them.
Computing SHOULD be an appliance, it SHOULD be invisible. Sure, it was cool in the early days of the Internet to be among the priesthood and the elite, but that's not where it's at today. The clueless are not at fault here; it's we geeks who are at fault for designing systems for ourselves, instead of for everyone.
To answer another poster's assertion that the Internet is like a car, you can't just drive, you have to have some knowledge, I'd say this: sure, you have to know how to USE the car. But you shouldn't have to be expected to understand its architecture and occasionally pull the carburetor as well.
Using unions to try to solve the "problem"of IT outsourcing is like trying to use a locomotive to solve the "problem" of a postal worker being replaced by UPS and FedEx.
First, because it is a solution that is obsolete for the times we live in, and second, because it won't work anyway. The trend toward outsourcing and globalization will not change or go away, no matter how many cardboard signs we carry in front of a company's entrance doors. It will not change or go away by turning our power over to union leaders whose primary agenda is building a power base for themselves and collecting dues. It will not change or go away - period.
The only sane response is to accept the situation for what it is, admit that yes, it sucks, but then look around for opportunities. And then look for the next ones after those.
Unfortunately, it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better - and it's only going to get better when enough people have adapted to the new economic conditions that systems are in place that make the new way easier. Fasten your seat belts - the next decade is going to be a bumpy ride.
What Amazon's doing with A9 is pretty obvious - they'll let Google invest in the overhead to index billions of pages that have little to no commercial potential, in the quest to produce "complete" listings.
In the meantime, A9 will index a fraction of that content, focused tightly on e-commerce that will have huge revenue potential, and skim the cream from the search paradigm.
Sorta like doctors who specialize in "diseases of the rich".:-)
... would be for each student to write the entire paper, then meet together for the equivalent of a "code review", then take the best ideas and phrasing from all the papers to create a finished effort.
there are horizontal applications (Apache, PGP) that are useful for a lot of purposes, and there are vertical applications (Blackhawk training simulators) that have a specific purpose. As a developer, if I write a horizontal application, I don't think I should be able to restrict who can use it or what they use it for, because that leads to a loss of freedom in general.
But...
If I write an application whose sole purpose is to train people to use expensive flying machines to kill people, the problem is not with my software licensing, it's with my choice of projects.
Q: Why do SQL programmers make good marriage prospects?
A: Because they're not afraid to COMMIT.
Securing the cafeteria is actually a good idea
on
Stupid Security
·
· Score: 1
Terrorists want to create maximum impact from their actions, so they target areas where large numbers of people will be congregated. Sure, there are no state secrets in the cafeteria, but that's not what terrorists are after. By exploding a bomb in a very crowded place at lunchtime, they create the terror they are looking for.
I was a visitor at M$ corporate campus recently, and everyone has to "badge in" to the lunchrooms (guests must be escorted). The rule is "no tailgating" - one person, one badge swipe.
You're thinking linearly, like "the tools get better (ie more abstracted) but there will always be programmers." What's needed is lateral thinking, that programmers themselves won't be as numerous. The end user themselves will design their business rules using a GUI tool, then the smart software will do the coding. The only programmers needed will be the relatively few that design the tools.
IANAT (troll). What's wrong with 8 year olds learning some computer science?
Seymour Papert, a pioneer in artificial intelligence research, also invented the language Logo so that kids could program a turtle robot and learn programming principles in the process.
This is right on target IMHO. First, software automated the blue collar manufacturing jobs, then the pink collar clerical jobs. Now it's after the white collar professional and technical jobs, the knowledge workers.
The notion that smarter software converts knowledge work into service work is the truly scary part of this trend. Software won't replace people, because software will never be perfect; but it will REDUCE dramatically the number of people needed in the original task, and relegate the others to cleanup (help desk) type positions at much lower pay. In another country.
That's why the newer models have code chips embedded in the plastic handle. A plain copy may work in the door (in fact, my dealer even gave me a plastic "wallet" key in case I lock myself out someday) but it won't turn over the ignition.
Chips can have many more combinations that those allowed by even 7 tumblers, and the complexity can't be reduced if the number of bits is high and the generation algorithm is robust.
Computer lab or vocational education?
on
Maine School & Linux
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Most middle school and high school "computer labs" seem to be oriented around the business department vocational education model. That is, they teach people how to keyboard quickly, use office productivity apps, maybe even edit a web page or develop a PowerPoint presentation.
Using Linux in the computer lab is closer IMHO to a real computer science lab like at the university level, where one learns how computers work.
It all depends on your intent. If the intent is to teach business apps, Windows is the right choice because that's what businesses use. But Linux offers a richer environment for understanding computer principles.
I forget who said this, but there's a real paradox with security that the more you THINK you have, the more risks you will take, and therefore the less safe you are. When you know you are vulnerable, it heightens the senses, focuses your awareness. You're sharper, because you have to be.
I'm not saying throw the security away, but think about this: trusting on a secret can make you complacent just as Diffie writes. Knowing your code is Open Source and everyone can look at it should help you focus on the real problem, which is that security is a moving target and needs constant evaluation.
The best way to learn IS to teach, because in preparing for a class you have to do the labs themselves and make/anticipate the mistakes. That's all that was meant, I think.
These perpetual extensions of existing terms harm Internet growth...
Sheesh! At the rate the Internet has grown over the past 5 years, Lord help us all if we didn't have term extensions acting as a brake to keep that growth manageable!;-)
Seriously, I agree with Lessig that there is useful content that needs to be public domain. I just thought the line above was funny.
I agree that copyright should be limited to encourage the ongoing supply of public domain "raw materials". But here's another thought: what if the work becomes SO well known that it is a de facto trademark for the corporation that paid for its creation?
Everyone says Disney is the heavy here, so let's use them as an example. If Mickey Mouse falls into the public domain, he is so synonymous with Disney the corporation that any derivitive use of him would affect Disney's reputation. Porno Mickey or Mickey as anti-hero would tarnish their reputation as a family-friendly company. Is this fair?
In other words, at what point does copyright stop and trademark begin?
I think the court rulings regarding the right of the Hare Krisna's and Moonies to distribute religious propaganda at airports may be relevant here. In essence, the courts said that for free speech to have meaning, there must be places where it can be delivered and heard. So public places could not restrict freedom of expression except as regards danger (like yelling "fire").
So, is the Internet a public space, and therefore should candidates have the right to use it?
I say no, email is NOT public. It is private, in the same way that a FAX machine is private. If you want public, put up a web page. When you cross the boundary into my mail server, you are invading my private space.
Besides, the Internet is global. Whose courts (and whose cultural mores) should govern it? Better to treat it like a common carrier and make it content neutral.
Slashdot Mirror
Although both Oracle 9i Release 2 and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 have OLAP features, they differ greatly in their approach.
Microsoft has a separate analysis engine (Analysis Services), with separate storage for the cubes. This has the benefit of offloading processing onto another server, but carries with it the burden of transferring the data, usually with the Data Transformation Services (DTS) utility. But DTS doesn't scale well in the current version, and is being totally rewritten in Yukon to correct this and add functionality as an Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) utility.
Oracle has chosen to implement their OLAP engine in the main database, subject to the same security model. The benefit here is that the data isn't moved outside the security boundary of the database. Their ETL solution is not a separate utility; they chose instead to add functionality to SQL such as external tables (flat files that pretend to be Oracle tables), multi-table INSERT statements, and the new MERGE statement that either INSERTS or UPDATES depending on whether a row already exists. Also, the parallel processing features built into the database engine and SQL can be used, making it scalable.
It all depends on whom you believe, but data warehouses tend to be BIG databases, and Oracle knows BIG, so I'd give them the edge right now, though they are a pricier solution and the tools aren't as nice as Microsoft's.
Thank God that crackers don't know how to spell. I just look at the spelling of the message and count the spelling and grammar errors. Once they reach a threshold, I know it's a virus/worm message. ;-)
Regardless what you think about the RIAA, the fact that the defendants are trying to use the RICO Act to countersue just shows what a danger RICO may be as an instrument of harrassment. As described in this essay it has never met a full constitutional challenge. It appears to be broad enough that many activist organizations could be seen falling under its guidelines. The threat of RICO prosecution could have a chilling effect on both freedom of speech and of association.
coders are poets;
code, strict as any sonnet
compilers, judges
Actually, it is, if you're low carb; I've lost 40 lb. over the course of a year ordering my #6 as part of an overall eating plan. :-)
I've got one like that too - but then somebody leaves and I have to train 'em all over again!
But I hear what you're saying: of course having real human interactions are better. It not only is less artificial than a technology-based solution, but it lets you treat the server like a real person too instead of a commodity.
I think we can do both; we can use the technology to help people learn our preferences. If we're a regular, they'll catch on.
I've often thought that when you go into a fast food place (for example), the cash register should customize itself to your preferred menu items. You should be able to say, "I'd like my #6, please" and not have to say, "Big Breakfast, no hash browns, add a side of bacon, medium Diet Coke", and then later have to explain what they did wrong.
It would clearly save money for the retailer, as the ordering process would be quicker and more accurate. It would improve the customer "experience" too.
Instead of having the merchant suggest these items based on your past buying habits (intrusive), you could go to their website to set up your custom choices (say up to 6) and change them as often as you want. The clerks don't need to deal with the fact that everyone's choices are different, as the keys themselves change meaning when your RFID walks up to the register.
I think this article points out one of the major weaknesses in the IT profession currently: a lack of people skills and empathy for the end user.
I've been a computer professional for over 25 years now. I'm still aghast at system administrators who take servers down on the last day of the month for maintenance, with total disregard of the fact that the company's biggest transaction volume occurs that day. Or help desk people who answer the phone in an impatient tone of voice, as if it's a major annoyance that someone is disturbing them.
Computing SHOULD be an appliance, it SHOULD be invisible. Sure, it was cool in the early days of the Internet to be among the priesthood and the elite, but that's not where it's at today. The clueless are not at fault here; it's we geeks who are at fault for designing systems for ourselves, instead of for everyone.
To answer another poster's assertion that the Internet is like a car, you can't just drive, you have to have some knowledge, I'd say this: sure, you have to know how to USE the car. But you shouldn't have to be expected to understand its architecture and occasionally pull the carburetor as well.
Here's another: WRONG.
Using unions to try to solve the "problem"of IT outsourcing is like trying to use a locomotive to solve the "problem" of a postal worker being replaced by UPS and FedEx.
First, because it is a solution that is obsolete for the times we live in, and second, because it won't work anyway. The trend toward outsourcing and globalization will not change or go away, no matter how many cardboard signs we carry in front of a company's entrance doors. It will not change or go away by turning our power over to union leaders whose primary agenda is building a power base for themselves and collecting dues. It will not change or go away - period.
The only sane response is to accept the situation for what it is, admit that yes, it sucks, but then look around for opportunities. And then look for the next ones after those.
Unfortunately, it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better - and it's only going to get better when enough people have adapted to the new economic conditions that systems are in place that make the new way easier. Fasten your seat belts - the next decade is going to be a bumpy ride.
What Amazon's doing with A9 is pretty obvious - they'll let Google invest in the overhead to index billions of pages that have little to no commercial potential, in the quest to produce "complete" listings.
:-)
In the meantime, A9 will index a fraction of that content, focused tightly on e-commerce that will have huge revenue potential, and skim the cream from the search paradigm.
Sorta like doctors who specialize in "diseases of the rich".
... would be for each student to write the entire paper, then meet together for the equivalent of a "code review", then take the best ideas and phrasing from all the papers to create a finished effort.
there are horizontal applications (Apache, PGP) that are useful for a lot of purposes, and there are vertical applications (Blackhawk training simulators) that have a specific purpose. As a developer, if I write a horizontal application, I don't think I should be able to restrict who can use it or what they use it for, because that leads to a loss of freedom in general.
But...
If I write an application whose sole purpose is to train people to use expensive flying machines to kill people, the problem is not with my software licensing, it's with my choice of projects.
Q: Why do SQL programmers make good marriage prospects?
A: Because they're not afraid to COMMIT.
Terrorists want to create maximum impact from their actions, so they target areas where large numbers of people will be congregated. Sure, there are no state secrets in the cafeteria, but that's not what terrorists are after. By exploding a bomb in a very crowded place at lunchtime, they create the terror they are looking for.
I was a visitor at M$ corporate campus recently, and everyone has to "badge in" to the lunchrooms (guests must be escorted). The rule is "no tailgating" - one person, one badge swipe.
You're thinking linearly, like "the tools get better (ie more abstracted) but there will always be programmers." What's needed is lateral thinking, that programmers themselves won't be as numerous. The end user themselves will design their business rules using a GUI tool, then the smart software will do the coding. The only programmers needed will be the relatively few that design the tools.
IANAT (troll). What's wrong with 8 year olds learning some computer science?
Seymour Papert, a pioneer in artificial intelligence research, also invented the language Logo so that kids could program a turtle robot and learn programming principles in the process.
This is right on target IMHO. First, software automated the blue collar manufacturing jobs, then the pink collar clerical jobs. Now it's after the white collar professional and technical jobs, the knowledge workers.
The notion that smarter software converts knowledge work into service work is the truly scary part of this trend. Software won't replace people, because software will never be perfect; but it will REDUCE dramatically the number of people needed in the original task, and relegate the others to cleanup (help desk) type positions at much lower pay. In another country.
That's why the newer models have code chips embedded in the plastic handle. A plain copy may work in the door (in fact, my dealer even gave me a plastic "wallet" key in case I lock myself out someday) but it won't turn over the ignition.
Chips can have many more combinations that those allowed by even 7 tumblers, and the complexity can't be reduced if the number of bits is high and the generation algorithm is robust.
Most middle school and high school "computer labs" seem to be oriented around the business department vocational education model. That is, they teach people how to keyboard quickly, use office productivity apps, maybe even edit a web page or develop a PowerPoint presentation.
Using Linux in the computer lab is closer IMHO to a real computer science lab like at the university level, where one learns how computers work.
It all depends on your intent. If the intent is to teach business apps, Windows is the right choice because that's what businesses use. But Linux offers a richer environment for understanding computer principles.
I forget who said this, but there's a real paradox with security that the more you THINK you have, the more risks you will take, and therefore the less safe you are. When you know you are vulnerable, it heightens the senses, focuses your awareness. You're sharper, because you have to be.
I'm not saying throw the security away, but think about this: trusting on a secret can make you complacent just as Diffie writes. Knowing your code is Open Source and everyone can look at it should help you focus on the real problem, which is that security is a moving target and needs constant evaluation.
As of the time I posted this, there were over 430 comments to the article. Seems to me the editors know what they are doing in selecting articles!
The best way to learn IS to teach, because in preparing for a class you have to do the labs themselves and make/anticipate the mistakes. That's all that was meant, I think.
Sheesh! At the rate the Internet has grown over the past 5 years, Lord help us all if we didn't have term extensions acting as a brake to keep that growth manageable!
Seriously, I agree with Lessig that there is useful content that needs to be public domain. I just thought the line above was funny.
I agree that copyright should be limited to encourage the ongoing supply of public domain "raw materials". But here's another thought: what if the work becomes SO well known that it is a de facto trademark for the corporation that paid for its creation?
Everyone says Disney is the heavy here, so let's use them as an example. If Mickey Mouse falls into the public domain, he is so synonymous with Disney the corporation that any derivitive use of him would affect Disney's reputation. Porno Mickey or Mickey as anti-hero would tarnish their reputation as a family-friendly company. Is this fair?
In other words, at what point does copyright stop and trademark begin?
I think the court rulings regarding the right of the Hare Krisna's and Moonies to distribute religious propaganda at airports may be relevant here. In essence, the courts said that for free speech to have meaning, there must be places where it can be delivered and heard. So public places could not restrict freedom of expression except as regards danger (like yelling "fire").
So, is the Internet a public space, and therefore should candidates have the right to use it?
I say no, email is NOT public. It is private, in the same way that a FAX machine is private. If you want public, put up a web page. When you cross the boundary into my mail server, you are invading my private space.
Besides, the Internet is global. Whose courts (and whose cultural mores) should govern it? Better to treat it like a common carrier and make it content neutral.