I am referring to using database "sequences" which are independent objects that Oracle and PostgreSQL support that generate a sequence of unique integers in a high performance manner.
You can get a unique value from the sequence just by using "sequence_name.nextval" in your INSERT, UPDATE, or SELECT statement. You can also get the last allocated value in your session by referring to "sequence_name.currval". Slightly more work, much more flexible.
If you really have to generate unique values using a database table, you can always make your own counter table, and allocate unique values safely using "SELECT... FOR UPDATE; UPDATE". The problem with that is the counter row ends up being locked until the transaction commits, which is slow if you have lots of concurrent transactions that need unique ids. Hence the invention of database sequences, or the more limited alternative - the "serial" data type.
Actually, MySQL doesn't. At least not with InnoDB:
"InnoDB uses the following algorithm to initialize the auto-increment counter for a table t that contains an AUTO_INCREMENT column named ai_col: After a server startup, for the first insert into a table t, InnoDB executes the equivalent of this statement:
SELECT MAX(ai_col) FROM t FOR UPDATE;
InnoDB increments by one the value retrieved by the statement and assigns it to the column and to the auto-increment counter for the table. If the table is empty, InnoDB uses the value 1"
Oracle most certainly does guarantee that the values are unique, unless you tell it not to. Unless you need more than 10^38 unique values, Oracle has no problem at all.
Microsoft Access doesn't. The problem is you delete a row and Access re-allocates a number that has previously been used, because it is not present in the table.
Auto-increment columns are a really bad idea unless your database guarantees that the same value will never be used twice. Otherwise you should use sequences, which are fast and which both Oracle and PostgreSQL support. Oracle invented the idea, PostgreSQL adopted it.
When the Commodore 64 came out, it wasn't cheap either. $595 was a lot of money in 1982.
I stand corrected on the production dates. In the US, at least, there wasn't much happening by the late 1980s. I worked at a video game company from 1987-1989 and C-64 games were on the way out.
The C-64 was a nice machine for its time, certainly cost effective in its later years. I just am dubious that it has a "cult" at this point that remotely compares to the Amiga one. Mostly because the C-64 is obsolete in every way, and the Amiga, while expensive, was sophisticated enough that people are still trying to resurrect the OS for serious use, twenty five years later, even though the original hardware is obsolete.
"From 1982 to 1994, the Commodore 64 was the most successful personal computer ever made"
The Commodore 64 was replaced by the backward compatible Commodore 128 in 1985. Production ceased on the latter in 1989. The Amiga and Atari ST "cults" were far stronger than any C-64 cult by then.
If we are going to include (nearly) dead cults, what about the ones for the Apple II, Atari 8-bit, TRS-80, TI 99, and so on?
She is unethical and a bit of a hypocrite at the very least. Clearly the law needs to be amended to eliminate the loophole, but she is violating the intent of the law in spades. For a judge, that is unconscionable.
Legally speaking, you typically have much more freedom to record video than audio. That is what makes it legal for businesses to have security cameras - no audio recording capability. A security camera that records oral conversations that the owner is not a party to is illegal in every state in the union.
There are generally additional laws, of course, that restrict video recordings in certain circumstances (notably restrooms and changing facilities) as well.
Until Microsoft announces HTML5 canvas support, its HTML5 support should more rightly be considered a joke than a real proposition.
Not only that, unless Microsoft manages to make a version of IE 9 that runs on Windows XP, which was still shipping a couple of years ago, MSIE will be considered a HTML 4 only zone for several years to come, even if they add HTML5 canvas support to IE 9.
The point is, that even if it's not "locked down" and may even appear to be open, behaving this way in a residential area is tantamount to trespassing
Using someone's service to actually send and receive Internet traffic is a completely different situation from analyzing unencrypted data packets. As in significantly different legal standards apply. In this case, it is ridiculous to consider passively listening to unencrypted traffic to be "trespassing", any more than parking on the side of the street would be.
I. As it happens, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act states "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter...to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;" (18 USC 2511, 2(g))
The wisdom of capturing traffic from a system configured so that the communication is "readily accessible to the general public" aside, Congress certainly doesn't consider such things to be a legally prohibited privacy violation. Otherwise it could be illegal, for example, to listen to a CB ("citizens band") radio just because the conversation was not addressed to you.
Now as it happens, it is illegal to listen to phone calls on certain bands, and Congress has made such traffic not readily accessible by prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of amateur radios, etc. that can listen on those bands. As of yet, Congress has not prohibited the sale and distribution of wireless network adapters, however, nor prohibited such adapters from transmitting traffic "readily accessible to the general public".
II. Besides the ECPA, a much older law governs what you can actually do with the contents of wireless transmissions not intended for you. Specifically, you cannot disclose the contents to others, nor can you use them for your own private benefit (cf. 47 USC 605). So it would seem that Google can legally capture the traffic, but they can neither disclose it, nor use the contents even for their own proprietary benefit.
There is a specific exception to this provision for viewing unencrypted satellite transmission under certain conditions, but no visible exception for divulging or making private benefit of (unencrypted) wireless network transmissions.
You do realize that ISPs are not and have never been common carriers, right?
That is ridiculous. The entire purpose of the Internet (as a network) is to be a common carrier of data packets. When the FCC previously decided that Internet access providers should not be considered common carriers, it only demonstrated their prior regulatory incompetence.
Without something like instant runoff voting (IRV) in general elections, or the complete and total collapse of one of the existing parties, any third party is dead in the water.
My complaint was not about the "system". I actually understand it relatively well. My complaint was about the implication that four months or whatever from the time a bill is introduced until the time it is passed is enough time to "read the bill".
As I am sure you know, as a rule bills often undergo substantive amendments between the time of introduction and passage, often including earmarks, carve outs, and other special provisions and political compromises to attract additional votes at the last minute. As a consequence legislators need some time to review the final version of the bill immediately before passage, even if the major provisions are largely unchanged.
I believe everyone agrees that seventy two hours is adequate time for that. And in cases where at least seventy two hours has passed from the time that any but the most well disclosed, simple, single issue, and independently adopted amendments are made to a bill and its final passage, then I have no complaint.
Please, take a civics class, you'll be a better citizen for it. Many community colleges offer adult education programs, see if your local institute has a civics class or program to take part in.
I don't have time to debate the merits of the question, but don't you think you are being just a little condescending (not to mention presumptuous) here? Way to attract people to your side of the debate.
Without the enticement of being able to reap the monetary rewards from a temporary, sanctioned monopoly on the invention, where is the motivation?
In the field of software, copyright serves that purpose. The historical inability to patent software doesn't seem to have stopped the computer revolution. In fact, it is far more likely that if software had been patentable, we would be a couple decades or more behind where we are now. Nothing but sand in the gears.
Slashdot Mirror
I am referring to using database "sequences" which are independent objects that Oracle and PostgreSQL support that generate a sequence of unique integers in a high performance manner.
You can get a unique value from the sequence just by using "sequence_name.nextval" in your INSERT, UPDATE, or SELECT statement. You can also get the last allocated value in your session by referring to "sequence_name.currval". Slightly more work, much more flexible.
If you really have to generate unique values using a database table, you can always make your own counter table, and allocate unique values safely using "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE; UPDATE". The problem with that is the counter row ends up being locked until the transaction commits, which is slow if you have lots of concurrent transactions that need unique ids. Hence the invention of database sequences, or the more limited alternative - the "serial" data type.
MySQL has sequences these days, does it not?
Actually, MySQL doesn't. At least not with InnoDB:
"InnoDB uses the following algorithm to initialize the auto-increment counter for a table t that contains an AUTO_INCREMENT column named ai_col: After a server startup, for the first insert into a table t, InnoDB executes the equivalent of this statement:
SELECT MAX(ai_col) FROM t FOR UPDATE;
InnoDB increments by one the value retrieved by the statement and assigns it to the column and to the auto-increment counter for the table. If the table is empty, InnoDB uses the value 1"
Oracle most certainly does guarantee that the values are unique, unless you tell it not to. Unless you need more than 10^38 unique values, Oracle has no problem at all.
Microsoft Access doesn't. The problem is you delete a row and Access re-allocates a number that has previously been used, because it is not present in the table.
Auto-increment columns are a really bad idea unless your database guarantees that the same value will never be used twice. Otherwise you should use sequences, which are fast and which both Oracle and PostgreSQL support. Oracle invented the idea, PostgreSQL adopted it.
Was it ever possible to buy a frame relay switch that doesn't have an automatically rerouting ATM backbone as the underlaying technology?
I don't think the early frame relay switches from Cascade Communications or several other vendors supported ATM until 1993 or thereabouts.
When the Commodore 64 came out, it wasn't cheap either. $595 was a lot of money in 1982.
I stand corrected on the production dates. In the US, at least, there wasn't much happening by the late 1980s. I worked at a video game company from 1987-1989 and C-64 games were on the way out.
The C-64 was a nice machine for its time, certainly cost effective in its later years. I just am dubious that it has a "cult" at this point that remotely compares to the Amiga one. Mostly because the C-64 is obsolete in every way, and the Amiga, while expensive, was sophisticated enough that people are still trying to resurrect the OS for serious use, twenty five years later, even though the original hardware is obsolete.
"From 1982 to 1994, the Commodore 64 was the most successful personal computer ever made"
The Commodore 64 was replaced by the backward compatible Commodore 128 in 1985. Production ceased on the latter in 1989. The Amiga and Atari ST "cults" were far stronger than any C-64 cult by then.
If we are going to include (nearly) dead cults, what about the ones for the Apple II, Atari 8-bit, TRS-80, TI 99, and so on?
She is unethical and a bit of a hypocrite at the very least. Clearly the law needs to be amended to eliminate the loophole, but she is violating the intent of the law in spades. For a judge, that is unconscionable.
Legally speaking, you typically have much more freedom to record video than audio. That is what makes it legal for businesses to have security cameras - no audio recording capability. A security camera that records oral conversations that the owner is not a party to is illegal in every state in the union.
There are generally additional laws, of course, that restrict video recordings in certain circumstances (notably restrooms and changing facilities) as well.
Until Microsoft announces HTML5 canvas support, its HTML5 support should more rightly be considered a joke than a real proposition.
Not only that, unless Microsoft manages to make a version of IE 9 that runs on Windows XP, which was still shipping a couple of years ago, MSIE will be considered a HTML 4 only zone for several years to come, even if they add HTML5 canvas support to IE 9.
They can't troubleshoot even simple hardware problems, they get viruses on their system, they don't know how to set their OS to do what they want, etc
I have no doubt that is true, but any programmer who can't do these things is not qualified to be a software developer in the first place.
The point is, that even if it's not "locked down" and may even appear to be open, behaving this way in a residential area is tantamount to trespassing
Using someone's service to actually send and receive Internet traffic is a completely different situation from analyzing unencrypted data packets. As in significantly different legal standards apply. In this case, it is ridiculous to consider passively listening to unencrypted traffic to be "trespassing", any more than parking on the side of the street would be.
I. As it happens, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act states "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter...to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;" (18 USC 2511, 2(g))
The wisdom of capturing traffic from a system configured so that the communication is "readily accessible to the general public" aside, Congress certainly doesn't consider such things to be a legally prohibited privacy violation. Otherwise it could be illegal, for example, to listen to a CB ("citizens band") radio just because the conversation was not addressed to you.
Now as it happens, it is illegal to listen to phone calls on certain bands, and Congress has made such traffic not readily accessible by prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of amateur radios, etc. that can listen on those bands. As of yet, Congress has not prohibited the sale and distribution of wireless network adapters, however, nor prohibited such adapters from transmitting traffic "readily accessible to the general public".
II. Besides the ECPA, a much older law governs what you can actually do with the contents of wireless transmissions not intended for you. Specifically, you cannot disclose the contents to others, nor can you use them for your own private benefit (cf. 47 USC 605). So it would seem that Google can legally capture the traffic, but they can neither disclose it, nor use the contents even for their own proprietary benefit.
There is a specific exception to this provision for viewing unencrypted satellite transmission under certain conditions, but no visible exception for divulging or making private benefit of (unencrypted) wireless network transmissions.
There's the undocumented laborers that maintain his property.
Who could have guessed that more than six billion people on this planet are entirely "undocumented"?
You do realize that ISPs are not and have never been common carriers, right?
That is ridiculous. The entire purpose of the Internet (as a network) is to be a common carrier of data packets. When the FCC previously decided that Internet access providers should not be considered common carriers, it only demonstrated their prior regulatory incompetence.
Without something like instant runoff voting (IRV) in general elections, or the complete and total collapse of one of the existing parties, any third party is dead in the water.
My complaint was not about the "system". I actually understand it relatively well. My complaint was about the implication that four months or whatever from the time a bill is introduced until the time it is passed is enough time to "read the bill".
As I am sure you know, as a rule bills often undergo substantive amendments between the time of introduction and passage, often including earmarks, carve outs, and other special provisions and political compromises to attract additional votes at the last minute. As a consequence legislators need some time to review the final version of the bill immediately before passage, even if the major provisions are largely unchanged.
I believe everyone agrees that seventy two hours is adequate time for that. And in cases where at least seventy two hours has passed from the time that any but the most well disclosed, simple, single issue, and independently adopted amendments are made to a bill and its final passage, then I have no complaint.
Please, take a civics class, you'll be a better citizen for it. Many community colleges offer adult education programs, see if your local institute has a civics class or program to take part in.
I don't have time to debate the merits of the question, but don't you think you are being just a little condescending (not to mention presumptuous) here? Way to attract people to your side of the debate.
Without the enticement of being able to reap the monetary rewards from a temporary, sanctioned monopoly on the invention, where is the motivation?
In the field of software, copyright serves that purpose. The historical inability to patent software doesn't seem to have stopped the computer revolution. In fact, it is far more likely that if software had been patentable, we would be a couple decades or more behind where we are now. Nothing but sand in the gears.
HR 3200 was introduced OVER A YEAR before the final bill passed.
No doubt it wasn't amended, not even once, during that time.
Twenty years old today? I don't think so. Windows 3.0 has been dead and buried for more than a decade.
Yeah, too bad neither the Amiga nor the Lisa were ever relevant outside the US
You have that backwards. The Amiga was much more popular in Europe than in the United States, especially in Germany.
the whole point is that there is no defined classical state the system is in.
Are you sure about that?
Come to think of it, wireless ethernet is an excellent example of non-switched ethernet. (smile)