I remember reading a Stephen King interview just after I had read The Gunslinger and he said that he didn't know if he would ever finish the Dark Tower series. I didn't touch any of them until after the last was published. I have avoided Jordan's series for the same reason - and it seems appropriate that I find out at slashdot that while King lived to finish his, Jordan didn't make it.
I was running whatever the latest redhat desktop product was at the time it came out. I could install it - start it - but it could not run a single example program without crashing. I couldn't get simple projects I tried out myself to run without it crashing on a regular basis. I would have stuck with it, but Borland gave up even faster than I did.
And I've just got to say taht from what I saw there was a lot of excitement and hope for this thing to go well. A better VB for linux. When I mention Kylix to my friend who does a lot of Delphi work he just shakes his head. His Delphi program I have to use for work is the primary reason I own a windows machine.
those must have been the testers who actually got kylix to work. i never could, and i don't think i was alone. kylix died before it ever got out of the gate.
global hawk is a lot more than an r/c. my understanding is that when it made the 20 hour or so flight to Australia - it did so without direct input once it left the ground.
It should not be a surprise that the Global Hawk record did not stand. Look at the two craft. If a global hawk hit the zephyr it probably wouldn't even notice.
Columns read fast - rows write fast. It's that simple. Then just look at what the system needs to do. If there are lots of updates and inserts - go with rows. If the data is being loaded in huge chunks that bypass all the normal restrictions and the only consideration is reading quickly - go with columns. There really isn't much need (as far as I can see) to make it any more complicated than that.
In my experience - hiring, firing, changing (raises, promotions, lateral moves, etc.) all involve enough writing that oltp is where it is at. But more on target - it is also more efficient for building and processing orders. But once those orders have been shipped and what not - some manager is going to want to dig around in that data - and she wont be writing anything - just reading. So somebody is going to be shipping all those rows from all those normalized tables into a star schema or something - and then columns may make sense as another method to help make that data accessible for bi and what not.
Those two functions, as I said, wont be occurring in the same place, so there is no need to choose between the two options. Use them both.
From what little exposure I've had to MySQL - it can't do much of anything for you or anyone else. I think if you move to PostgreSQL you will find that it will do your dishes for you and make you a better person.
Maybe, but I doubt it. The money is in the data warehouse market and the etl tools that move the data from the oltp environment to the warehouse environment. I think what the author points out is not that people are trying to use the same database to do both, but rather that they are trying to use the same product to both. He says it would make more sense to use Oracle (for example) for oltp - and something else for the warehouse, rather than trying to get Oracle to do both well.
You can get MS SQL Server to store tables differently than the default? It will write columns to disk as opposed to rows? You can store columns in their own files? It's been a few years since I worked with SQL Server - but I really don't remember those features. Is it a SQL Server 2005 thing?
You are exactly right and this is backed up by the home page for c-store. It says: "C-Store is a read-optimized relational DBMS " - c-store is the open source project that apparently is the basis for Vertica - Stonebraker's commercial offering.
This game depicts real people (soldiers) that the players very likely may look up to in what are claimed to be realistic situations. That's very different than most video games
You really think so? Seriously? I have to say that I can't agree. I think there are tons of games out there that do a much, much better job of providing realistic depictions of military and paramilitary operations. In fact, this thread contains claims that the major problem with the game is that it isn't realistic enough. If a game could build up false impressions, and influence people to join, I would think it would be those games. I've seen advertising for games that showed what were supposed to be actual special forces members playing the game. I don't think that this game is unusual in any way, other than it is funded by tax payers.
If it were completely true to life it would be unplayable and boring. The vast majority of players would never see combat of any kind but spend a lot of time polishing boots. Anything less is a 'lie' and so the game cannot win by this standard of judgment. But as I've said, it is a horrible recruiting tool.
I have two sets of discussions going on in this thread. One set centers around the idea that this game is unethical because it is a realistic simulation that trains youth to kill and this one says that it is an unethical recruiting tool because it isn't realistic enough. I think it isn't realistic enough to be a simulator that prompts kids to be o.k. with signing up and killing people, as I'm guessing you would agree -- but at the same time that this lack of realistic detail is so obvious that it isn't a 'lie' or unethical recruiting tool either. I think, like so much the military does, it is a waste of tax payer money.
I'll just stick with the numbers and give my opinion.
1) This would not be thinking it through. Joining the military means serving the wishes of the military and ultimately the elected government. Right now US serviceman and woman are all over the globe doing all kinds of things.
2)The normal enlistment contract is for 8 years last I checked. So the end of the contract you mention in 2004 would be the completion of the active portion, usually followed up with 4 more of IRR. So yes, it's what they signed.
3) If soldiers were allowed to run the military from the bottom up- we'd have never gotten past the revolutionary war. Someone capable of maintaining this mindset should never join - they are going to be miserable because for many enlisted personnel in the military a great portion of their time is spent on things that will appear to them (and quite probably are) harmful and counter productive.
4) The enlistment oath is very simple. I'll drop the whole thing in here:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.(The national guard oath is the same but with the governor included along with the President.)
I think there are a couple things here worth mentioning. First, and the most obvious is that part there about obeying the President and officers. It carries just as much force as the defending of the constitution. But of course the reality is that the officers appointed and the UCMJ are much more immediate and understandable than the fine points of constitutional law. The second is that while you may feel confident that this war is illegal, it seems that others don't hold to the same level of certainty. I have sympathy for someone who has decided that this is the case - though I would say that once again, they've chosen to enter into military service while at the same time displaying willful ignorance of American history - and most especially American foreign policy in the last 50 years or so.
I think it is safe to say that no country has ever gone to war without some portion of the populace of that nation questioning such action. I know for sure that this has been the case with the United States of America. I personally think this is good - as I detest war and what it does. It is also evident from history that these people don't often get their way. Joining the military of any nation is, on some level, agreeing to the possibility of being involved in military action that will be judged by some to be unjust.
You'll have to help me out here. I'm not trying to be a smart ass - but here is how you start: "It's not about intent" and here is part of the next to last sentence: "specifically the explicit and government-sanctioned intention" and I know I'm just grabbing a little piece - but this just confuses me.
Detail does matter. Not every detail - the import details. To learn to hit a target, the target doesn't need to have a lot of detail. But there is no substitute for firing a real weapon. This game does not provide a significant level of detail in any aspect and so (and I think here we will just have to agree to disagree) I think that it is much like gta and most any other video game that involves some form of simulated violence. No pc or console provides an experience that is going to reinforce these behaviors in a meaningful way.
heh - if it were like real basic - nobody would make it through - they'd get bored and quit. by all accounts - this game is no simulator, it is a game.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked the end of Dark Tower.
Card? It must really have gotten pretty bad.
I remember reading a Stephen King interview just after I had read The Gunslinger and he said that he didn't know if he would ever finish the Dark Tower series. I didn't touch any of them until after the last was published. I have avoided Jordan's series for the same reason - and it seems appropriate that I find out at slashdot that while King lived to finish his, Jordan didn't make it.
I was running whatever the latest redhat desktop product was at the time it came out. I could install it - start it - but it could not run a single example program without crashing. I couldn't get simple projects I tried out myself to run without it crashing on a regular basis. I would have stuck with it, but Borland gave up even faster than I did.
And I've just got to say taht from what I saw there was a lot of excitement and hope for this thing to go well. A better VB for linux. When I mention Kylix to my friend who does a lot of Delphi work he just shakes his head. His Delphi program I have to use for work is the primary reason I own a windows machine.
those must have been the testers who actually got kylix to work. i never could, and i don't think i was alone. kylix died before it ever got out of the gate.
global hawk is a lot more than an r/c. my understanding is that when it made the 20 hour or so flight to Australia - it did so without direct input once it left the ground.
Thunderstorms can get taller than that - and I'd imagine even if one were a bit lower, the disturbance would extend above.
it's good for learning things to be used in later vehicles that will accomplish, you know, stuff
they probably can't go that fast. then there is weather, wind, what not.
This BBC article has good info.
It should not be a surprise that the Global Hawk record did not stand. Look at the two craft. If a global hawk hit the zephyr it probably wouldn't even notice.
Here's a decent rundown of the thing it made the front page here at the dot - though I'm having a tougher time tracking that down.
You bring up a good point Open Office will not cure stupidity. This is important to remember.
Columns read fast - rows write fast. It's that simple. Then just look at what the system needs to do. If there are lots of updates and inserts - go with rows. If the data is being loaded in huge chunks that bypass all the normal restrictions and the only consideration is reading quickly - go with columns. There really isn't much need (as far as I can see) to make it any more complicated than that.
In my experience - hiring, firing, changing (raises, promotions, lateral moves, etc.) all involve enough writing that oltp is where it is at. But more on target - it is also more efficient for building and processing orders. But once those orders have been shipped and what not - some manager is going to want to dig around in that data - and she wont be writing anything - just reading. So somebody is going to be shipping all those rows from all those normalized tables into a star schema or something - and then columns may make sense as another method to help make that data accessible for bi and what not.
Those two functions, as I said, wont be occurring in the same place, so there is no need to choose between the two options. Use them both.
i was just making a stupid joke of my own -- relax
From what little exposure I've had to MySQL - it can't do much of anything for you or anyone else. I think if you move to PostgreSQL you will find that it will do your dishes for you and make you a better person.
Maybe, but I doubt it. The money is in the data warehouse market and the etl tools that move the data from the oltp environment to the warehouse environment. I think what the author points out is not that people are trying to use the same database to do both, but rather that they are trying to use the same product to both. He says it would make more sense to use Oracle (for example) for oltp - and something else for the warehouse, rather than trying to get Oracle to do both well.
Nice - in other words - no, but you could write one on (open source rdbms of your choice)
You can get MS SQL Server to store tables differently than the default? It will write columns to disk as opposed to rows? You can store columns in their own files? It's been a few years since I worked with SQL Server - but I really don't remember those features. Is it a SQL Server 2005 thing?
You are exactly right and this is backed up by the home page for c-store. It says: "C-Store is a read-optimized relational DBMS " - c-store is the open source project that apparently is the basis for Vertica - Stonebraker's commercial offering.
every article linked makes it clear that this is about warehousing as opposed to oltp. so is the technology dead? no - can it do everything? no
This game depicts real people (soldiers) that the players very likely may look up to in what are claimed to be realistic situations. That's very different than most video games
You really think so? Seriously? I have to say that I can't agree. I think there are tons of games out there that do a much, much better job of providing realistic depictions of military and paramilitary operations. In fact, this thread contains claims that the major problem with the game is that it isn't realistic enough. If a game could build up false impressions, and influence people to join, I would think it would be those games. I've seen advertising for games that showed what were supposed to be actual special forces members playing the game. I don't think that this game is unusual in any way, other than it is funded by tax payers.
If it were completely true to life it would be unplayable and boring. The vast majority of players would never see combat of any kind but spend a lot of time polishing boots. Anything less is a 'lie' and so the game cannot win by this standard of judgment. But as I've said, it is a horrible recruiting tool.
I have two sets of discussions going on in this thread. One set centers around the idea that this game is unethical because it is a realistic simulation that trains youth to kill and this one says that it is an unethical recruiting tool because it isn't realistic enough. I think it isn't realistic enough to be a simulator that prompts kids to be o.k. with signing up and killing people, as I'm guessing you would agree -- but at the same time that this lack of realistic detail is so obvious that it isn't a 'lie' or unethical recruiting tool either. I think, like so much the military does, it is a waste of tax payer money.
I'll just stick with the numbers and give my opinion.
1) This would not be thinking it through. Joining the military means serving the wishes of the military and ultimately the elected government. Right now US serviceman and woman are all over the globe doing all kinds of things.
2)The normal enlistment contract is for 8 years last I checked. So the end of the contract you mention in 2004 would be the completion of the active portion, usually followed up with 4 more of IRR. So yes, it's what they signed.
3) If soldiers were allowed to run the military from the bottom up- we'd have never gotten past the revolutionary war. Someone capable of maintaining this mindset should never join - they are going to be miserable because for many enlisted personnel in the military a great portion of their time is spent on things that will appear to them (and quite probably are) harmful and counter productive.
4) The enlistment oath is very simple. I'll drop the whole thing in here:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.(The national guard oath is the same but with the governor included along with the President.)
I think there are a couple things here worth mentioning. First, and the most obvious is that part there about obeying the President and officers. It carries just as much force as the defending of the constitution. But of course the reality is that the officers appointed and the UCMJ are much more immediate and understandable than the fine points of constitutional law. The second is that while you may feel confident that this war is illegal, it seems that others don't hold to the same level of certainty. I have sympathy for someone who has decided that this is the case - though I would say that once again, they've chosen to enter into military service while at the same time displaying willful ignorance of American history - and most especially American foreign policy in the last 50 years or so.
I think it is safe to say that no country has ever gone to war without some portion of the populace of that nation questioning such action. I know for sure that this has been the case with the United States of America. I personally think this is good - as I detest war and what it does. It is also evident from history that these people don't often get their way. Joining the military of any nation is, on some level, agreeing to the possibility of being involved in military action that will be judged by some to be unjust.
You'll have to help me out here. I'm not trying to be a smart ass - but here is how you start: "It's not about intent" and here is part of the next to last sentence: "specifically the explicit and government-sanctioned intention" and I know I'm just grabbing a little piece - but this just confuses me.
Detail does matter. Not every detail - the import details. To learn to hit a target, the target doesn't need to have a lot of detail. But there is no substitute for firing a real weapon. This game does not provide a significant level of detail in any aspect and so (and I think here we will just have to agree to disagree) I think that it is much like gta and most any other video game that involves some form of simulated violence. No pc or console provides an experience that is going to reinforce these behaviors in a meaningful way.
heh - if it were like real basic - nobody would make it through - they'd get bored and quit. by all accounts - this game is no simulator, it is a game.