Forcing it will only make people resent the change that much more. That's how you lose your gains - all at once, fast, and for a very long time.
Nobody is "forcing" people to change in a free market; it's a simple, voluntary process.
Managing progress to be at an human-acceptable speed isn't painful. That's how you keep your gains - at a pace that doesn't assume the worker is at fault.
History says otherwise. Even if this wasn't rife with corruption within a country, we're competing in an international market, and other nations aren't going to slow their adoption of robots just so that American workers can avoid adapting.
You're making it pretty clear by the fact you can't even answer these questions for yourself that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Absolutely correct. Hence my statement I can't quite figure out why anybody would want to use Microsoft SQL Server.
so here's a better idea - fire up Google and go and find the answers to your own question if you care
I did, before posting even. That's how I included the link I included. I can't find any open source repository or release; it's not in the Ubuntu package manager; there are few language bindings for it in Ubuntu repositories; I couldn't find any benchmarks comparing it with other database systems running on Linux either.
Even if I do do your research for you
So you actually know nothing about MS SQL Server yourself, you just like it because... what?
you're not here with an open mind, you're here to spread your zealotry
Yes, my horrible "zealotry" of asking for someone to actually explain their use of MS SQL Server based on technical reasons.
You can literally find hundreds of pages explaining to anyone who cars what those "unnamed and unverifiable" things are. They are also verified by extensive historical records, kind of like the ones I linked.
You provided links to an event. How does that occurrence of that event prove that slavery, conservatives, or Republicans are responsible for the economic disparities of blacks in the US, in particular since that event didn't even take place in a slave state?
Lynching and white mobs were not the progressives of their times, not as we understand "progressives" to mean today.
Lynchings and white mobs occurred several times and places during US history and for different reasons. In the post-Civil War South, they were related to slavery. In early and mid 20th century, they were largely related to segregation, eugenics, and grievances of the white working class, i.e., progressive ideas. Admirably, lynchings largely stopped in the 1960's when progressives and Democrats changed from violent forms of racism to the less violent forms they advocate now.
The white mobs were conservative, not progressive. They were holding onto an old way of doing things. One that discriminated against blacks. That's pretty much textbook conservative, but go ahead and put your head in the sand.
You're confusing slavery and racial discrimination. Slavery was a phenomenon of the pre-civil war Southern states, mostly perpetrated by a kind of rural aristocracy. Of course, those people were "conservative" in a European sense of favoring a powerful elite, but they were a tiny minority. Slavery didn't exist in the territories or the free states (i.e., most of the US). Most of the US was "conservative" in the sense of Republicanism, classical liberalism, and libertarianism, conservative ideologies staunchly opposed to slavery.
Racial discrimination in the US in the 20th century came out of scientific ideas about race and racial differences, and progressive policies that advocated using such scientific ideas as the basis of government; that's where segregation, separate-but-equal, forced sterilizations, racial immigration restrictions, and all that stuff came from. Oklahoma was reliably in Democratic hands until 1963, and was likely fairly progressive as a result, which explains the race conflicts.
Wow, you have a warped view of reality if you think today's Democrats are the same as those
I didn't say they were "the same as those". In fact, I think today's Democrats are dysfunctional in new and innovative ways. For example, Democrats and progressives used to believe that blacks were doing poorly because they inherited inferior genes; these days, Democrats and progressives believe that blacks are doing poorly because they suffer from a legacy of slavery that is inherited in some unnamed and unverifiable way. But the problem isn't even with those racist beliefs, it's with the racist policies that Democrats propose as a result, which one way or another always amount to some form of segregation or preferential treatment.
Conservatives and libertarians are pretty straightforward on race: we believe that government should be race blind and that people should be free to make their own decisions and live with the consequences. And we accept that race-blind policies lead to unequal outcomes.
On a GitHub project, assuming it is an "open one" every commiter could potentially destroy the master.
Notice the term "committer"? GitHub projects have a defined list of committers, a list that is often much smaller than the list of people who submit patches or who use the software.
But who am I that I dare to think such stuff with in total only roughly 35 years experience...
I don't know. Who are you? If you have "roughly 35 years experience", you are apparently not "angel'o'sphere", since that guy seems to have graduated in 1997 and not worked much in corporate environments.
If you where my coworker in a proffesional environment you had now problems;D
No doubt. In fact, I think I would have problems if you were my coworker in any environment.
that still doesn't mean Hitler was any sort of socialist.
You need to look at two things, first what Hitler promised in order to get into power, and then what he did afterwards.
What Hitler and is party promised is quite simple:
But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.
The National Socialist State recognizes no ‘classes’. But, under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto.
We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
The latter could be a direct quote from Sanders or Warren.
Whether Hitler and the NSDAP leadership actually believed that or merely said it to gain votes and popular support is just as irrelevant as whether any socialist leader believes what they are saying or are just saying it to gain power; as a voter and a supporter, you won't know until these people are in power anyway.
You need to look at what he actually did, which was to get chummy with big industrialists
So what? That doesn't make his system a free market ("capitalist") system. Hitler happened to pick experienced crooks to run his state-run economy, while socialists/communists tend to pick inexperienced crooks. Ultimately, both systems end up creating a state-run economy run by people who do not believe in free markets. Whether these people started out as "industrialists" or revolutionaries, whether they identify as fascists or communists is irrelevant; they end up with massive amounts of power, they are protected from market forces, and they live in luxury.
Fascism is a collectivist authoritarian philosophy of government, and, hence, I'm against it. I'm not actually a socialist either. I am against Social Darwinism, which was the guiding philosophy of a lot of capitalists.
I don't know what that is even supposed to mean. Is "biological Darwinism" a "guiding philosophy of nature"? Of course not. It's a description of some natural processes, with no particular value attached to them. And those natural processes have brought about human cooperation, tolerance, compassion, and charity, among others, so I don't see why you would object to them.
And if you're thinking about a simplistic "survival of the fittest" view of society, in what way is socialism better than free markets? How do you think you acquire political power and influence under socialism other than by ruthlessly eliminating your opponents?
Lots of people in Europe suffered horribly during and after WWII. It's better to know what really happened than to pick out one bogeyman and blame everything on it.
I don't pick "a bogeyman" at all. I blame socialism, communism, fascism, and monarchism in equal measure: they are all shitty, totalitarian ideologies.
We know that capitalist and socialist nations both can turn into totalitarian dictatorships.
A social welfare state and a liberal democracy can turn into a totalitarian dictatorship. And they usually do so via either socialism or fascism. That's because socialism and fascism are both totalitarian ideologies that promise to improve people's lives by taking away their liberties.
Those are excellent examples. Notice how American progressives and Democrats were on the morally wrong side of each of these?
or you propose doing away with corporate welfare, rural subsidies, mortgage deductions, etc...
Those are good conservative values, yes. I'm not ashamed of supporting "doing away with corporate welfare, rural subsidies, mortgage deductions, etc.".
Self-made billionaire, Alibaba chairman Jack Ma warned on Monday that society could see decades of pain thanks to disruption caused by the internet and new technologies to different areas of the economy.
That's the good kind of pain, like the pain you feel after a healthy workout or long run. It's the kind of pain people feel when they are being challenged intellectually and need to learn new skills.
It's much preferable to the other kind of pain, the pain you feel from stagnation, economic failure, and poverty, which are the inevitable consequences of governments trying to shield people from change and manage progress.
The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.
I get it, you hate Microsoft, that's fine. But don't pretend MS SQL server isn't widely used, and it's widely used for good reason - it's a good product.
Geez, man, get a hold of yourself. I didn't "pretend" anything, nor do I "hate Microsoft". For example, I think the Linux community should have adopted C# and Mono widely and have argued extensively for that here.
SQL server for Linux is open source,
Really? Where is the source? Where is the open source developer community? As far as I can tell, there are just binary package installations.
the whole point being that it's easy to migrate to.... The reality is most companies would rather pay for something solid and reliable like MS SQL server
Where are the benchmarks that are showing that MS SQL Server is actually more reliable, faster, etc. than other servers?
As far as I can tell, MS SQL Server on Linux only exists as binary packages from an unofficial repository, with no consistent distribution support, almost no user community, few language drivers, and little tool support, and those limitations carry over into any kind of cloud usage of MS SQL Server. In terms of functionality, it seems to be behind FOSS databases in terms of available plug-ins, data types, and distributed features.
So, the only substantive argument so far I have heard you make for MS SQL Server is that it comes from Microsoft and interoperates well with Microsoft products, something so totally obvious that I thought it should have been clear that I wasn't asking about that.
Again, I have an open mind here. If MS SQL Server is indeed a high performance, open source relational database server with useful and advanced features, by all means, I'd love to know about it and see some convincing links, starting with a link to the source code repository and some comparative benchmarks. Right now, all I hear from you is name calling and superstitions.
Well...who needs to riot or loot when you can twist the laws to do your bidding.
Your understanding of the mechanisms of rioting, looting, and violence is excellent: it's when people who are accustomed to government handouts have them denied. Like, for example, when people propose cutting public funding for education, healthcare, welfare, abortion, and all that.
As conservatives become unable to do so, you'll see much more rioting, looting,and violence; rest assured.
Could give some significant historical examples of "conservative rioting, looting, and violence"?
Oh, I was way ahead of you and had thought of even sending you that link. The problem with Fowler's page is that it doesn't list the kind of weak ownership most companies actually use, namely something between strong and weak code ownership: teams build libraries and apps, anybody within a team can make changes to the code the team is responsible for, but other teams usually go through team members to make changes, get patches approved, etc. You know, pretty much the same way the entire FOSS ecosystem works, they way Github projects work, etc.
I never ever in the last 30 years worked for a company that hat something different than "collective code ownership"... because as I mentioned before: I don't know what I'm doing or how to build big systems, so only small fly-by-night operations staffed by ex-baristas hire me
I think the mistake you're making is that you're assuming that because it's not right for you, it's not right for anyone.
I just asked a question.
Probably because it has deep integration with windows networks and security that most businesses run on
That's lock-in, not a technical advantage, as are most of the other things you list. Those are compelling reasons if you have already invested heavily in Microsoft. But they are not a good reason to, say, pick up Microsoft SQL Server and install it on Linux.
There are big businesses out there that need something enterprise grade, and that typically means Oracle, MS SQL.
Well, and there are several enterprise-grade relational databases that don't come from Microsoft and don't come with Microsoft's strings attached: Oracle, DB2, and Spanner for example.
Oh man, can we do that? I never knew. Can you add any group into any group or are there limits?
You can only do it if the two groups are actually historically and ideologically closely related. But I understand your confusion: I used to believe in a strict left/right division as well, until I actually read a lot more 19th and 20th century history.
In any case, my reason for "including fascists" among "the left" above isn't because of their historical connections, it's because of what the modern American left advocates. People like Sanders, Clinton, and Warren don't fight specifically for the working class and public ownership of the means of production (socialist/communist ideas), they fight for regulation of corporations "in the public benefit", free education, free health care, welfare, fair pay, minimum wage, massive taxes on "unearned income", and protection of Americans from cheap foreign labor (fascist ideas).
It's the good folks of Missoula Montana who've probably seen a couple of Muslims their whole lives who feel the need to take action to prevent Sharia Law from taking hold in their city.
The only "action" the good folks of Missoula Montana are likely to ever take against Sharia law is at the ballot box.
Riots, looting, and violent political actions are overwhelmingly carried out by leftists (and I include fascists in that), not by conservatives or libertarians.
It's the folks who've fled to lily white suburbs who are up in arms about all the "Mexicans" flowing in over the borders.
Well, it's the folks who've fled to the lily white suburbs who are paying for the schools, roads, welfare, etc. that the Mexicans that have been flowing in over the borders are using.
It seems obvious: The more we learn about other people, the more we'll come to like them.
That depends entirely on the people and what they believe. I actually ended up liking some people and groups better after getting to know them better, and other people and groups less.
I guess the biggest general trend was that a lot of facades of success come crumbling down when you get to know people better, while quiet unassuming types often are more solid. And what I really dislike is if people make bad decisions and then blame others for it, which is particularly obvious on social media these days.
I didn't bash Microsoft SQL Server. But good relational databases are a dime a dozen; I can't even imagine any features Microsoft SQL Server could have to make me want to go through the trouble of switching and take the risk inherent in using a Microsoft-proprietary product.
About 50% of cyclists I pass are doing something stupid, from swerving all over to simply riding out in the middle of the road.
In most places, cyclists have full use of the lane. Cyclists generally don't take advantage of that right in order to help traffic along, but when they do, they usually have a good reason for it. So, contain your road rage.
First of all, the idea that you can reliably remove other factors from such data is bogus. The population of people who can and want to bike to work is too different from the population who can't or don't want to. There is likely massive self-selection, for example, for locations that have low pollution, for the simple reason that biking in high pollution areas is no fun.
But that's not even the major problem. Biking to work may improve your cardiovascular health and reduce your cancer risk, but it ups your risk of a fatal accident by an order of magnitude. It's likely even worse for commuters since, unlike leisure biking, when commuting by bike, you often have to use the bike even when conditions are bad.
What do extradition treaties have to do with legal limitations on my leaders' privileges such as clemency granting?
Nothing. What they have to do with is America's ability to drag your sorry ass out of your country, with the support of your government, if you violate American law. Of course, ignorance and bigotry aren't crimes in the US, so as long as you stick to those, you're probably safe.
Lots of companies have figured out how to deal with code ownership in the presence of turnover. It's not rocket science. If you don't know how to do that, perhaps it's time to take up a job as short order cook or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is "forcing" people to change in a free market; it's a simple, voluntary process.
History says otherwise. Even if this wasn't rife with corruption within a country, we're competing in an international market, and other nations aren't going to slow their adoption of robots just so that American workers can avoid adapting.
Absolutely correct. Hence my statement I can't quite figure out why anybody would want to use Microsoft SQL Server.
I did, before posting even. That's how I included the link I included. I can't find any open source repository or release; it's not in the Ubuntu package manager; there are few language bindings for it in Ubuntu repositories; I couldn't find any benchmarks comparing it with other database systems running on Linux either.
So you actually know nothing about MS SQL Server yourself, you just like it because... what?
Yes, my horrible "zealotry" of asking for someone to actually explain their use of MS SQL Server based on technical reasons.
You provided links to an event. How does that occurrence of that event prove that slavery, conservatives, or Republicans are responsible for the economic disparities of blacks in the US, in particular since that event didn't even take place in a slave state?
Lynchings and white mobs occurred several times and places during US history and for different reasons. In the post-Civil War South, they were related to slavery. In early and mid 20th century, they were largely related to segregation, eugenics, and grievances of the white working class, i.e., progressive ideas. Admirably, lynchings largely stopped in the 1960's when progressives and Democrats changed from violent forms of racism to the less violent forms they advocate now.
You're confusing slavery and racial discrimination. Slavery was a phenomenon of the pre-civil war Southern states, mostly perpetrated by a kind of rural aristocracy. Of course, those people were "conservative" in a European sense of favoring a powerful elite, but they were a tiny minority. Slavery didn't exist in the territories or the free states (i.e., most of the US). Most of the US was "conservative" in the sense of Republicanism, classical liberalism, and libertarianism, conservative ideologies staunchly opposed to slavery.
Racial discrimination in the US in the 20th century came out of scientific ideas about race and racial differences, and progressive policies that advocated using such scientific ideas as the basis of government; that's where segregation, separate-but-equal, forced sterilizations, racial immigration restrictions, and all that stuff came from. Oklahoma was reliably in Democratic hands until 1963, and was likely fairly progressive as a result, which explains the race conflicts.
I didn't say they were "the same as those". In fact, I think today's Democrats are dysfunctional in new and innovative ways. For example, Democrats and progressives used to believe that blacks were doing poorly because they inherited inferior genes; these days, Democrats and progressives believe that blacks are doing poorly because they suffer from a legacy of slavery that is inherited in some unnamed and unverifiable way. But the problem isn't even with those racist beliefs, it's with the racist policies that Democrats propose as a result, which one way or another always amount to some form of segregation or preferential treatment.
Conservatives and libertarians are pretty straightforward on race: we believe that government should be race blind and that people should be free to make their own decisions and live with the consequences. And we accept that race-blind policies lead to unequal outcomes.
Notice the term "committer"? GitHub projects have a defined list of committers, a list that is often much smaller than the list of people who submit patches or who use the software.
I don't know. Who are you? If you have "roughly 35 years experience", you are apparently not "angel'o'sphere", since that guy seems to have graduated in 1997 and not worked much in corporate environments.
No doubt. In fact, I think I would have problems if you were my coworker in any environment.
You need to look at two things, first what Hitler promised in order to get into power, and then what he did afterwards.
What Hitler and is party promised is quite simple:
The latter could be a direct quote from Sanders or Warren.
Whether Hitler and the NSDAP leadership actually believed that or merely said it to gain votes and popular support is just as irrelevant as whether any socialist leader believes what they are saying or are just saying it to gain power; as a voter and a supporter, you won't know until these people are in power anyway.
So what? That doesn't make his system a free market ("capitalist") system. Hitler happened to pick experienced crooks to run his state-run economy, while socialists/communists tend to pick inexperienced crooks. Ultimately, both systems end up creating a state-run economy run by people who do not believe in free markets. Whether these people started out as "industrialists" or revolutionaries, whether they identify as fascists or communists is irrelevant; they end up with massive amounts of power, they are protected from market forces, and they live in luxury.
I don't know what that is even supposed to mean. Is "biological Darwinism" a "guiding philosophy of nature"? Of course not. It's a description of some natural processes, with no particular value attached to them. And those natural processes have brought about human cooperation, tolerance, compassion, and charity, among others, so I don't see why you would object to them.
And if you're thinking about a simplistic "survival of the fittest" view of society, in what way is socialism better than free markets? How do you think you acquire political power and influence under socialism other than by ruthlessly eliminating your opponents?
I don't pick "a bogeyman" at all. I blame socialism, communism, fascism, and monarchism in equal measure: they are all shitty, totalitarian ideologies.
A social welfare state and a liberal democracy can turn into a totalitarian dictatorship. And they usually do so via either socialism or fascism. That's because socialism and fascism are both totalitarian ideologies that promise to improve people's lives by taking away their liberties.
Those are excellent examples. Notice how American progressives and Democrats were on the morally wrong side of each of these?
Those are good conservative values, yes. I'm not ashamed of supporting "doing away with corporate welfare, rural subsidies, mortgage deductions, etc.".
That's the good kind of pain, like the pain you feel after a healthy workout or long run. It's the kind of pain people feel when they are being challenged intellectually and need to learn new skills.
It's much preferable to the other kind of pain, the pain you feel from stagnation, economic failure, and poverty, which are the inevitable consequences of governments trying to shield people from change and manage progress.
The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.
Geez, man, get a hold of yourself. I didn't "pretend" anything, nor do I "hate Microsoft". For example, I think the Linux community should have adopted C# and Mono widely and have argued extensively for that here.
Really? Where is the source? Where is the open source developer community? As far as I can tell, there are just binary package installations.
Where are the benchmarks that are showing that MS SQL Server is actually more reliable, faster, etc. than other servers?
As far as I can tell, MS SQL Server on Linux only exists as binary packages from an unofficial repository, with no consistent distribution support, almost no user community, few language drivers, and little tool support, and those limitations carry over into any kind of cloud usage of MS SQL Server. In terms of functionality, it seems to be behind FOSS databases in terms of available plug-ins, data types, and distributed features.
So, the only substantive argument so far I have heard you make for MS SQL Server is that it comes from Microsoft and interoperates well with Microsoft products, something so totally obvious that I thought it should have been clear that I wasn't asking about that.
Again, I have an open mind here. If MS SQL Server is indeed a high performance, open source relational database server with useful and advanced features, by all means, I'd love to know about it and see some convincing links, starting with a link to the source code repository and some comparative benchmarks. Right now, all I hear from you is name calling and superstitions.
Your understanding of the mechanisms of rioting, looting, and violence is excellent: it's when people who are accustomed to government handouts have them denied. Like, for example, when people propose cutting public funding for education, healthcare, welfare, abortion, and all that.
Could give some significant historical examples of "conservative rioting, looting, and violence"?
Oh, I was way ahead of you and had thought of even sending you that link. The problem with Fowler's page is that it doesn't list the kind of weak ownership most companies actually use, namely something between strong and weak code ownership: teams build libraries and apps, anybody within a team can make changes to the code the team is responsible for, but other teams usually go through team members to make changes, get patches approved, etc. You know, pretty much the same way the entire FOSS ecosystem works, they way Github projects work, etc.
FTFY
I just asked a question.
That's lock-in, not a technical advantage, as are most of the other things you list. Those are compelling reasons if you have already invested heavily in Microsoft. But they are not a good reason to, say, pick up Microsoft SQL Server and install it on Linux.
Well, and there are several enterprise-grade relational databases that don't come from Microsoft and don't come with Microsoft's strings attached: Oracle, DB2, and Spanner for example.
You can only do it if the two groups are actually historically and ideologically closely related. But I understand your confusion: I used to believe in a strict left/right division as well, until I actually read a lot more 19th and 20th century history.
In any case, my reason for "including fascists" among "the left" above isn't because of their historical connections, it's because of what the modern American left advocates. People like Sanders, Clinton, and Warren don't fight specifically for the working class and public ownership of the means of production (socialist/communist ideas), they fight for regulation of corporations "in the public benefit", free education, free health care, welfare, fair pay, minimum wage, massive taxes on "unearned income", and protection of Americans from cheap foreign labor (fascist ideas).
The only "action" the good folks of Missoula Montana are likely to ever take against Sharia law is at the ballot box.
Riots, looting, and violent political actions are overwhelmingly carried out by leftists (and I include fascists in that), not by conservatives or libertarians.
Well, it's the folks who've fled to the lily white suburbs who are paying for the schools, roads, welfare, etc. that the Mexicans that have been flowing in over the borders are using.
That depends entirely on the people and what they believe. I actually ended up liking some people and groups better after getting to know them better, and other people and groups less.
I guess the biggest general trend was that a lot of facades of success come crumbling down when you get to know people better, while quiet unassuming types often are more solid. And what I really dislike is if people make bad decisions and then blame others for it, which is particularly obvious on social media these days.
Well, maybe for the fly-by-night companies you seem to consult for, or maybe you simply don't understand what "code ownership" means.
I didn't bash Microsoft SQL Server. But good relational databases are a dime a dozen; I can't even imagine any features Microsoft SQL Server could have to make me want to go through the trouble of switching and take the risk inherent in using a Microsoft-proprietary product.
You've been able to use Python for a while in Postgres, MySQL, SQLite, and even DB2.
I can't quite figure out why anybody would want to use Microsoft SQL Server.
With your bad attitude, it's only a matter off time. At least juries will be able to find a record of your views here.
In most places, cyclists have full use of the lane. Cyclists generally don't take advantage of that right in order to help traffic along, but when they do, they usually have a good reason for it. So, contain your road rage.
I frequently bike to work, and it's jerks like you that give cyclists a bad name and cause accidents.
Change your attitude.
First of all, the idea that you can reliably remove other factors from such data is bogus. The population of people who can and want to bike to work is too different from the population who can't or don't want to. There is likely massive self-selection, for example, for locations that have low pollution, for the simple reason that biking in high pollution areas is no fun.
But that's not even the major problem. Biking to work may improve your cardiovascular health and reduce your cancer risk, but it ups your risk of a fatal accident by an order of magnitude. It's likely even worse for commuters since, unlike leisure biking, when commuting by bike, you often have to use the bike even when conditions are bad.
Nothing. What they have to do with is America's ability to drag your sorry ass out of your country, with the support of your government, if you violate American law. Of course, ignorance and bigotry aren't crimes in the US, so as long as you stick to those, you're probably safe.
Lots of companies have figured out how to deal with code ownership in the presence of turnover. It's not rocket science. If you don't know how to do that, perhaps it's time to take up a job as short order cook or something.