Honestly, the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets, the more a am suspicious of the product.
First, the only on-the-offense part was a list of new high-end features. Second, it's pretty easy to become rabid when you try to tell people about your quad-turbo Ferrari dumptruck that does 0-60 in 4 seconds fully loaded and pulls 1.5g on the skidpad while getting 137 miles per gallon, but keep getting shouted down by Kia Fanbois who make fun of every feature your truck has that they don't - until they get a half-assed version of it and then act smug like they invented it.
PostgreSQL fans have nothing on rabid MySQL fans, I promise you.
I don't know why that got modded troll because it's essentially true. A PostgreSQL database is subdivided into schemas, each schema being much like an entire MySQL database. If you have a database named "mycompany" with schemas "financial" and "hr", you could have something like
select employee.name, budgetitems.lineitemamount from hr.employee, financial.budgetitems where employee.paylevelid = budgetitems.lineitemid
You can have multiple schemas with the same table names and disambiguate them by referring to schema.table instead of just table. In other words, they're like MySQL databases, and some mod owes the parent an apology.
Deadlocked Query Display No more log detective work to track down which operations deadlocked; the information is right there.
That alone is worth the upgrade to me. Currently, if you have two deadlocked transactions, it's a pain in the neck to figure out exactly which ones are involved.
Beyond that, I tried one of the location demos. A Firefox prompt opened at the top of the window: "${site} wants to know your location: Share Location, Don't Share" with a checkbox to remember the settings for that site. Go ahead and explain how you could possibly be offended by that.
First, Big Brother, privacy, tracking, etc. I agree that it's horrible for all those reasons.
Second, it's a load of crap. Fuel consumption is roughly inversely proportional to weight, so on average, less fuel consumption means lighter vehicles. Lighter vehicles means far less road damage. I've heard (but not verified) that damage is proportional to weight to the 4th power, so if one vehicle weighs 20% less than another, it'll cause about 40% of the damage. That makes at least intuitive sense, as at some point damage drops off to effectively zero. How many bike riders would it take to destroy a highway as much as a single semi truck?
Isn't that a good thing? Except for new road building and repairs due to weather, I'd think that maintenance would drop dramatically as vehicles get lighter, and would in fact drop faster than the revenue from fuel tax.
BTW, remember yesterday's story about Amazon cutting off affiliates in Rhode Island, and people claiming that the fuel taxes paid by UPS and FedEx weren't used for road maintenance? Yeah.
But when everyone is driving more fuel efficient vehicles then they can be taxed on their mileage.
Or raise the fuel tax so that the total revenue remains constant. Or rejoice in the fact that your road maintenance costs have dwindled dramatically because average vehicle weights have dropped and they're not being damaged as much.
one thing seems clear â" only full-time, for-profit professionals are able to consistently beat BD+.
In this case, the "professionals" (hah!) would be the knuckledraggers at Sony who approved this fiasco. They beat BD+ so thoroughly that I have no desire to go anywhere near it.
Since Amazon's customers aren't paying their fair share of consumption taxes, your local retailer is paying MORE than their fair share.
That sounds an awful lot like an issue between the customer and the state. If you buy my used car, it's your responsibility to pay the taxes on it. In what way is that substantially different for Amazon?
In reality, taxing Internet sales is like taxing tourism: it's a zero-sum game. If your state's citizens pay $100,000 in my state, and my state's citizens pay $100,000 in yours, then it's moneywise exactly as if they'd stayed home and paid their taxes there. If all 50 states begin collecting Internet sales taxes, then the average net revenue flow will be exactly $0.00, at the cost of huge regulatory overheads for every single Internet-using business.
What is taxed twice is your return. Your tax return for paying to much in taxes is counted as income and taxed the following year. Even though those monies were taxes collected.
Of course he gave most of his money to the Democrats for God's sake, you don't give a lot of money to the people that are on your side regardless. You give money to people who you want to sway in your direction.
Seriously, that idea's just dumb. People give money to the people they want to win, partly to help assure their victory, and partly to get in their good graces should it actually happen. You don't see Ron Paul donating to the Green Party to win their favor.
On the off-chance you're not being a jackass on purpose: anyone who wants to retire. You've worked your butt off and want to spend your last 10 years doing stuff you enjoy, travelling to see the grandkids, maybe buying that car you always wanted. You're now facing a decade (or several!) with no income but your interest payments and possibly your social security pittance, followed by expensive end-of-life stuff like nursing homes and hospital stays.
That's who needs more than 250K.
More to the point, anyone who's saved more than 250K would probably like to keep it, you know? It's not like people who squirrel away money in banks are intentionally choosing risky investments like Wall Street or Vegas.
Also, are you sure that the CDs were "worse" at reproduction on absolute terms, or that the analogue recordings simply induced distortions that you found pleasant, like tube-induced second harmonic distortion?
I'd like to see an experiment where the output of a recordplayer was meticulously sampled and burned back onto a CD, then both were offered to listeners. Would they prefer the "authentic" crappy sound, or would a nearly perfect recording of the crappy sound be sufficient?
If your job was looking at asses all day long, I bet you'd want to spend your vacation in a monastery.
I have to disagree. I understand your general point, but we're talking about getting paid to stare at butts. You know, butts! Those things we'd stare at 24/7 if we didn't have to take a break to eat! I've gotten tired of sports, of programming, and of listening to music, but never in my life have I thought, "you know, I've seen too many butts today." I'm not even sure if that's correct grammar because my brain has trouble parsing it. Forget the sound of one hand clapping. How many butts are too many? The question is meaningless!
While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it.
OK, then let's. There is one interpretation of his comments that would make me not want to kick him in the ass: he meant them hypothetically, similar to "nailing everyone to the ground might be necessary to keep people perfectly safe". If that's the case, then fine. Pretty much any other interpretation makes me want to kick him in the ass, hard and often, for throwing my rights to free speech under the bus of corporate profit.
I don't care what celebrity endorsements he carries when advocating an end to my freedoms.
Not really. Amazon does not have a presence in NC and should not be taxed as though they had one. What if NC decided to tax you next, even though you don't live or work or have property there?
The competition is based on infrastructure and quality of life -- is there adequate transportation for employees and goods, is there a well-educated workforce, is there a thriving arts culture (yes, smart businesses look for this!).
That's all well and good for a high-tech manufacturer. For the other 99.99% of employers, tax rates are critical decision items. If opening a plant in one state instead of its neighbor means an automatic 5% drop in overhead, the cheaper state will win every time.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets, the more a am suspicious of the product.
First, the only on-the-offense part was a list of new high-end features. Second, it's pretty easy to become rabid when you try to tell people about your quad-turbo Ferrari dumptruck that does 0-60 in 4 seconds fully loaded and pulls 1.5g on the skidpad while getting 137 miles per gallon, but keep getting shouted down by Kia Fanbois who make fun of every feature your truck has that they don't - until they get a half-assed version of it and then act smug like they invented it.
PostgreSQL fans have nothing on rabid MySQL fans, I promise you.
You can have multiple schemas with the same table names and disambiguate them by referring to schema.table instead of just table. In other words, they're like MySQL databases, and some mod owes the parent an apology.
An extention that pings a private website every few minutes whenever it has a connection,
There are easier ways to implement this, like a cron job (or the Windows equivalent) that does the same thing whether or not a browser is open.
That alone is worth the upgrade to me. Currently, if you have two deadlocked transactions, it's a pain in the neck to figure out exactly which ones are involved.
You have an interesting idea of "database". Why not use schemas instead?
You have the option of not using the web browser.
Beyond that, I tried one of the location demos. A Firefox prompt opened at the top of the window: "${site} wants to know your location: Share Location, Don't Share" with a checkbox to remember the settings for that site. Go ahead and explain how you could possibly be offended by that.
They could just check the odometer during emissions checking.
How does that handle farm trucks, or other vehicles that almost never use public roads? Should you be taxed for driving around in your own field?
First, Big Brother, privacy, tracking, etc. I agree that it's horrible for all those reasons.
Second, it's a load of crap. Fuel consumption is roughly inversely proportional to weight, so on average, less fuel consumption means lighter vehicles. Lighter vehicles means far less road damage. I've heard (but not verified) that damage is proportional to weight to the 4th power, so if one vehicle weighs 20% less than another, it'll cause about 40% of the damage. That makes at least intuitive sense, as at some point damage drops off to effectively zero. How many bike riders would it take to destroy a highway as much as a single semi truck?
Isn't that a good thing? Except for new road building and repairs due to weather, I'd think that maintenance would drop dramatically as vehicles get lighter, and would in fact drop faster than the revenue from fuel tax.
BTW, remember yesterday's story about Amazon cutting off affiliates in Rhode Island, and people claiming that the fuel taxes paid by UPS and FedEx weren't used for road maintenance? Yeah.
But when everyone is driving more fuel efficient vehicles then they can be taxed on their mileage.
Or raise the fuel tax so that the total revenue remains constant. Or rejoice in the fact that your road maintenance costs have dwindled dramatically because average vehicle weights have dropped and they're not being damaged as much.
OK, so #2 will never happen, but a guy can dream!
one thing seems clear â" only full-time, for-profit professionals are able to consistently beat BD+.
In this case, the "professionals" (hah!) would be the knuckledraggers at Sony who approved this fiasco. They beat BD+ so thoroughly that I have no desire to go anywhere near it.
To say nothing of our precious bodily fluids!
You want to live in a city with no retail, and nothing but warehouses and UPS trucks?
It's not a matter of personal want. If that's what's demanded, then that's what gets supplied.
You should try to leave your basement every now and then.
<retort class="appropriate">Well, you're a poopyhead!</retort>
Why is that a problem, let alone one that the government should address?
Since Amazon's customers aren't paying their fair share of consumption taxes, your local retailer is paying MORE than their fair share.
That sounds an awful lot like an issue between the customer and the state. If you buy my used car, it's your responsibility to pay the taxes on it. In what way is that substantially different for Amazon?
In reality, taxing Internet sales is like taxing tourism: it's a zero-sum game. If your state's citizens pay $100,000 in my state, and my state's citizens pay $100,000 in yours, then it's moneywise exactly as if they'd stayed home and paid their taxes there. If all 50 states begin collecting Internet sales taxes, then the average net revenue flow will be exactly $0.00, at the cost of huge regulatory overheads for every single Internet-using business.
What is taxed twice is your return. Your tax return for paying to much in taxes is counted as income and taxed the following year. Even though those monies were taxes collected.
You have the world's crappiest accountant.
Let them pay their fair share of taxes,
They already do, considering that they're consuming approximately 0% of the state's resources.
s/rich guys/crooks/ and I agree 100%.
Of course he gave most of his money to the Democrats for God's sake, you don't give a lot of money to the people that are on your side regardless. You give money to people who you want to sway in your direction.
Like how Warren Buffet, famous Republican, donated exclusively to Democrats to bribe them. Oh, and hosted fundraisers for them "just in case".
Seriously, that idea's just dumb. People give money to the people they want to win, partly to help assure their victory, and partly to get in their good graces should it actually happen. You don't see Ron Paul donating to the Green Party to win their favor.
Seriously, who needs more than 250K these days?
On the off-chance you're not being a jackass on purpose: anyone who wants to retire. You've worked your butt off and want to spend your last 10 years doing stuff you enjoy, travelling to see the grandkids, maybe buying that car you always wanted. You're now facing a decade (or several!) with no income but your interest payments and possibly your social security pittance, followed by expensive end-of-life stuff like nursing homes and hospital stays.
That's who needs more than 250K.
More to the point, anyone who's saved more than 250K would probably like to keep it, you know? It's not like people who squirrel away money in banks are intentionally choosing risky investments like Wall Street or Vegas.
Also, are you sure that the CDs were "worse" at reproduction on absolute terms, or that the analogue recordings simply induced distortions that you found pleasant, like tube-induced second harmonic distortion?
I'd like to see an experiment where the output of a recordplayer was meticulously sampled and burned back onto a CD, then both were offered to listeners. Would they prefer the "authentic" crappy sound, or would a nearly perfect recording of the crappy sound be sufficient?
I don't know, but I've been told: it's big-legged women who are soulless.
If your job was looking at asses all day long, I bet you'd want to spend your vacation in a monastery.
I have to disagree. I understand your general point, but we're talking about getting paid to stare at butts. You know, butts! Those things we'd stare at 24/7 if we didn't have to take a break to eat! I've gotten tired of sports, of programming, and of listening to music, but never in my life have I thought, "you know, I've seen too many butts today." I'm not even sure if that's correct grammar because my brain has trouble parsing it. Forget the sound of one hand clapping. How many butts are too many? The question is meaningless!
While this seems like an opinion that runs counter to many tenants slashdotters hold dear, I think we should at least consider it.
OK, then let's. There is one interpretation of his comments that would make me not want to kick him in the ass: he meant them hypothetically, similar to "nailing everyone to the ground might be necessary to keep people perfectly safe". If that's the case, then fine. Pretty much any other interpretation makes me want to kick him in the ass, hard and often, for throwing my rights to free speech under the bus of corporate profit.
I don't care what celebrity endorsements he carries when advocating an end to my freedoms.
The issue is somewhat tricky
Not really. Amazon does not have a presence in NC and should not be taxed as though they had one. What if NC decided to tax you next, even though you don't live or work or have property there?
The competition is based on infrastructure and quality of life -- is there adequate transportation for employees and goods, is there a well-educated workforce, is there a thriving arts culture (yes, smart businesses look for this!).
That's all well and good for a high-tech manufacturer. For the other 99.99% of employers, tax rates are critical decision items. If opening a plant in one state instead of its neighbor means an automatic 5% drop in overhead, the cheaper state will win every time.