Well, what starts out simple can quickly become complicated when you need performance. If you need a summary view of a table that's a few GB, MySQL can't help you much there. Disk I/O is only so fast. What you need is a materialized view, and PostgreSQL allows you to do that (with triggers, &c.).
Not only that, but sometimes you want to insert data one way and look at the data another way. The "straightforward" way is using PostgreSQL's features.
So by omitting features, MySQL often makes things much less "straightforward".
PGSQL
Great database, been around long time, used to be slow but now is faster with more popularity due to mysql success. Free and all that. Biggest limitation in my limited experience is the lack of any replication features built in.
How is not having integrated replication a limitation? Replication is a complex problem, and requires a variety of solutions. Moreover, if you integrate a replication technology, the releases must be in lockstep with the rest of the code.
Because the replication solutions are not released as a part of the main distribution, the replication solutions are very version-independent and allow a lot of flexibility about their application.
The developers don't see this as a limitation, and have no plans to change it. So if it's limiting you, tell everyone how, and maybe it will be fixed.
Carbs stimulate insulin production. Insulin is a hormone that does 3 main things: (1) Delivers energy to cells (2) Promotes the growth of muscle (3) Promotes the growth of fat
If you reduce carbs, #3 is reduced. The other two are also reduced.
It doesn't sound very healthy at all to me. I am type 1 diabetic and when I don't have enough insulin, I feel sluggish, depressed, and generally just bad. Also, you can't grow muscle, and getting more muscle is a good way to burn fat (because it increases the calories you burn through everyday activities).
I've known people who have lost weight in the long term, and none did it using some kind of fad. They all did basically the following: (1) More smaller meals throughout the day (2) Eat enough, and eat balanced meals (sometimes people starve themselves, and that just destroys muscle and promotes the storage of fat when you do eat) (3) Not eat way too much (4) Exercise at low-moderate heart rate (if you exercise at a higher heart rate, it burns proportionally less fat and more carbs and muscle)
If I'm off base on something here, someone please inform me.
Well who should speak then, and how do we decide? If we allow anyone to speak freely, at least then there is a chance for the underdog to get their message out. They can use initial support to raise funds to get more support. That initial money is crucial, and it's often a lot more than $50 dollars.
If we put financial limits, then only the incumbants and established parties get to speak.
"Fair Speech" is the enemy of free speech. It can be used by powermongers easily because it's vague and arbitrary.
Indeed, if we see a trend of certain information being edited out of articles about Republicans, it could be quite safe to assume the information that was removed is completely valid, and is being removed because it is the unfortunate truth.
I disagree that it's "safe to assume". Which is more common, someone trying to defame a person or a cause through libel, or someone trying to cover up unfortunate truths about themselves?
I don't know the answer to that. Although I do know one thing, if we assume the latter than the former will increase in intensity. If we assume the former than the latter will increase in intensity. So we can't assume either.
Then we're back to finding the real facts ourselves. And in that case, wikipedia is not more than a guide about what to look for when examining more reliable sources.
In a realted matter, consider the stereotype of an inventor 50 years ago. They build some convoluted device with a hundred moving parts to accomplish some task that was previously repetitive.
Now, there aren't many imaginitive, creative people with day jobs that invent as a hobby. The reason is because computers and motors and ICs trivialize most of those inventions. A clock/calendar system is one example. There were many different designs that accomplished different goals, depending on whether you were tracking the moon or stars or what.
Let's say today that there's no calendar suitable for a colony on Jupiter, and it needs to be invented. Nobody sits around thinking about all the rotational patterns of Jupiter, it's moons, and the Sun, and then tries to create a device to track it all that uses gears and gravity. Today, someone would just look on some astronomy websites, program it into a computer, and your done.
Shouldn't our elected representatives step in to prevent the sale of dangerous goods for example?
If it crosses a state line, then the federal government is a possible solution (if the problem doesn't solve itself through other channels). If not, the federal government should have no authority.
Why is your first response to a problem to give the federal government the power to solve it? There are all kinds of alternatives to federal power. Certification and brand names go a long way to ensuring product quality and safety. If you buy from a brand that's been around 200 years, it has a major reputation to hold up. And if something goes wrong, you can bet they will have the money to pay when you sue them. Or if you buy the item from a reputable merchant, same story.
If you still need more regulation after that, how about the states? That's what states are here for. All the details that the Constitution doesn't talk about are reserved for the states or the people (10th Amendment).
You get what you pay for. If you pay them nothing, then you will only get the type of people who seek power above all else, exactly what we don't want. The only way they could make money is by selling what they've got (the power) to the highest bidder. And we'd get all the people who couldn't make it with normal careers. And that's exactly what we have now.
The best and the brightest are generally too tied up in a career to enter politics. It would be a major risk to their families to go from a job paying $100k to $0.
We'd be driving away the best, most successful people in society and attracting the worst.
I've a better idea: trash the legal fiction that corporations are persons. Which is actually based on a misreading of a Supreme Court decision.
I'd agree to that. The way I look at it, corporations limit the legal liability of the owners, and are double-taxed. So, basically, the government allows them to be irresponsible in exchange for extra tax revenue. Sounds more like a bribe to me.
A nice followup to this might be banning political contributions from anyone other than private individuals, and limiting them to something easily affordable by the majority of citizens - say, $50.
I disagree here. This essentially limits free speech. Dollars talk, and if you limit the dollars spent, you limit the speech. If an independent politician wants to get their message out, they need money, and lots of it. What would actually happen is this: Democrats and Republicans would jump for joy, because no 3rd party could challenge them. It would limit choice. It would also give a major advantage to the incumbants. And PACs could never accomplish anything.
It's impossible to stop corruption once you give someone the power. And make no mistake, the Congress should take most of the blame. Often, congressmen will solicit "expected contributions" and punish those who do not bribe.
Right now Congress has a huge amount of power to make and break individual companies or groups of companies.
If you take away as much of that power as you can, by restricting government to only its necessary functions, you eleiminate the possibility of most of the corruption that takes place.
We can change all that by eliminating career politicians. We could have a term limit of 1, and require that X years pass before they can hold office again. And then we pay every congressperson some large amount of money, like $1-10M/year, to attract successful people who can make 6+ figures in the private sector.
I'm tired of politicians spending our money to get themselves re-elected. We need high-quality people from normal life to enter politics. If they haven't made it in the real world with a respectable job before they run, they probably would never be elected.
Do you actually have any evidence of this happening, or are you just making it up?
That's what juries are for. They look at the evidence and make a determination. Most juries wouldn't convict unless they saw some corroborating evidence. An isolated email from some anonymous account doesn't really mean anything. And to get a search warrant, the DA can't just go in with an anonymous email. If the accuser has a motive to frame the accused, the jury will see right through the setup.
I think so. You have a reasonable position, but I'm just approaching it differently. I respect your opinion. As one final note, I never advocated government monitoring, but rather public monitoring.
That's not what I'm saying at all. There should be no political affirmative action. I'm saying that the public should be informed about what's really going on in the university that is spending public money.
I'm not advocating any particular policy, aside from information discolsure. I'm confident that just the disclosure of professors' use of class resources will help balance the spectrum of ideology, as the public asks for changes.
Bottom line: you don't want the public to have that information, I do.
The original post we are responding to IS talking about professors who are already there.
Changing the hiring practices would allow new perspectives in, therefore students wouldn't need to seek out a private school to hear them. My point was right on target, and completely on topic for the original poster.
So, the professors that you CHOOSE to hire would be able to talk freely.
It's not that I'm choosing anyone. It's just that whoever is hiring the professors is open to public scrutiny and criticism when one of those professors starts ranting in a public school. Of course, for public scrutiny, you need to information available, like what the professors are using their class time to discuss. Which probably means students need to report that information (within fair use, of course, no outright copying).
This is exactly what we currently have.
A lot of college students disagree with you. That means they aren't hearing their viewpoints in class. That means a lot of viewpoints aren't being heard. So, one might argue the ideology isn't so diverse. Some people want to expose how slanted the spectrum of viewpoints is, and you want to keep that information secret.
The only meaningful opinions come from the right?
No, the only meaningful opinions come when one is exposed to a variety of viewpoints.
Please explain to me how bounties for outing "radical professors" is constructive criticism, or just plain criticism.
In order to have constructive criticism, you need information. Most voters have not attended a 4 year public university in the last 10 years, so they have absolutely no information on the current state of academia in the U.S.
Now, how do we collect that information? If you're someone important with a lot of money, you can probably talk to the school officials and do a "study". If you're some curious nobody with $20k, you can try to collect the information without talking to the school officials by offering bounties.
I don't see any reason that "some curious nobody with $20k" who pays his taxes shouldn't be able to investigate.
Once the information is available, then people can form criticisms constructively. Until that time nobody can criticize constructively. And that's the way a lot of people like it.
The evidence that is collected can be used by the public to make those kinds of judgements. If the public sees UCLA to be too far left, they can pressure the public universities to hire different types of professors that better represent their views.
If you don't collect the evidence, than you're right, you can't make a very informed judgement about the professors.
And people outside the country have no bearing on this matter. The U.S. funds (and state funds) pay for the universities, so U.S. taxpayers make the judgements.
Are you implying that Fox News is the only viewpoint aside from the extreme left? How about some real intellectual diversity, on the left and the right.
If you think that an hour of Hannity & Colmes every day would give people an informed perspective of conservative politics, you're just ignorant of the conservative viewpoint.
I'm not opposing academic freedom, and I'm not suggesting tax refunds for unused services.
It seems like you're arguing that the actions of a professor are beyond criticism, which I simply don't agree with. Professors are paid by the public, and open to public criticism. Perhaps the evidence collected could be used to change the hiring practices at universities to create a more intellectually diverse environment. That would not threaten the academic freedom of anyone.
You make some good points, but you assume that pressure on current professors is the only possible goal.
Perhaps the actual goal is to change hiring practices to create a more intellectually diverse set of professors. You don't need to strong-arm any current professors to do that.
It would be hard not to give views on ID if teaching biology
Huh? Biologists have been teaching biology without mentioning ID for the past couple millenia. I'm not sure that I understood your point here.
They would employ fair use to distribute a very small portion of the lecture. There is no reason to redistribute an entire lecture. You can't use intellectual property laws to avoid scrutiny.
But it's a cash bounty for actual evidence. What's wrong with that? If you're studying the university, you can either try to take the classes yourself, which is impractical for a variety of reasons, or just ask someone else to collect the evidence for you. Seems logical to me, although it is a little strange, I'll give you that.
Some important viewpoints are too politically incorrect to ever be heard on campus. Extremes are fine, so long as there is diversity of opinion. Many people, including myself, think that college professors are too single-minded about many issues, leaning very far to the left of the rest of the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what starts out simple can quickly become complicated when you need performance. If you need a summary view of a table that's a few GB, MySQL can't help you much there. Disk I/O is only so fast. What you need is a materialized view, and PostgreSQL allows you to do that (with triggers, &c.).
Not only that, but sometimes you want to insert data one way and look at the data another way. The "straightforward" way is using PostgreSQL's features.
So by omitting features, MySQL often makes things much less "straightforward".
PGSQL
Great database, been around long time, used to be slow but now is faster with more popularity due to mysql success. Free and all that. Biggest limitation in my limited experience is the lack of any replication features built in.
How is not having integrated replication a limitation? Replication is a complex problem, and requires a variety of solutions. Moreover, if you integrate a replication technology, the releases must be in lockstep with the rest of the code.
Because the replication solutions are not released as a part of the main distribution, the replication solutions are very version-independent and allow a lot of flexibility about their application.
The developers don't see this as a limitation, and have no plans to change it. So if it's limiting you, tell everyone how, and maybe it will be fixed.
Atkins diet principle:
Carbs stimulate insulin production. Insulin is a hormone that does 3 main things:
(1) Delivers energy to cells
(2) Promotes the growth of muscle
(3) Promotes the growth of fat
If you reduce carbs, #3 is reduced. The other two are also reduced.
It doesn't sound very healthy at all to me. I am type 1 diabetic and when I don't have enough insulin, I feel sluggish, depressed, and generally just bad. Also, you can't grow muscle, and getting more muscle is a good way to burn fat (because it increases the calories you burn through everyday activities).
I've known people who have lost weight in the long term, and none did it using some kind of fad. They all did basically the following:
(1) More smaller meals throughout the day
(2) Eat enough, and eat balanced meals (sometimes people starve themselves, and that just destroys muscle and promotes the storage of fat when you do eat)
(3) Not eat way too much
(4) Exercise at low-moderate heart rate (if you exercise at a higher heart rate, it burns proportionally less fat and more carbs and muscle)
If I'm off base on something here, someone please inform me.
Well who should speak then, and how do we decide? If we allow anyone to speak freely, at least then there is a chance for the underdog to get their message out. They can use initial support to raise funds to get more support. That initial money is crucial, and it's often a lot more than $50 dollars.
If we put financial limits, then only the incumbants and established parties get to speak.
"Fair Speech" is the enemy of free speech. It can be used by powermongers easily because it's vague and arbitrary.
Indeed, if we see a trend of certain information being edited out of articles about Republicans, it could be quite safe to assume the information that was removed is completely valid, and is being removed because it is the unfortunate truth.
I disagree that it's "safe to assume". Which is more common, someone trying to defame a person or a cause through libel, or someone trying to cover up unfortunate truths about themselves?
I don't know the answer to that. Although I do know one thing, if we assume the latter than the former will increase in intensity. If we assume the former than the latter will increase in intensity. So we can't assume either.
Then we're back to finding the real facts ourselves. And in that case, wikipedia is not more than a guide about what to look for when examining more reliable sources.
In a realted matter, consider the stereotype of an inventor 50 years ago. They build some convoluted device with a hundred moving parts to accomplish some task that was previously repetitive.
Now, there aren't many imaginitive, creative people with day jobs that invent as a hobby. The reason is because computers and motors and ICs trivialize most of those inventions. A clock/calendar system is one example. There were many different designs that accomplished different goals, depending on whether you were tracking the moon or stars or what.
Let's say today that there's no calendar suitable for a colony on Jupiter, and it needs to be invented. Nobody sits around thinking about all the rotational patterns of Jupiter, it's moons, and the Sun, and then tries to create a device to track it all that uses gears and gravity. Today, someone would just look on some astronomy websites, program it into a computer, and your done.
Shouldn't our elected representatives step in to prevent the sale of dangerous goods for example?
If it crosses a state line, then the federal government is a possible solution (if the problem doesn't solve itself through other channels). If not, the federal government should have no authority.
Why is your first response to a problem to give the federal government the power to solve it? There are all kinds of alternatives to federal power. Certification and brand names go a long way to ensuring product quality and safety. If you buy from a brand that's been around 200 years, it has a major reputation to hold up. And if something goes wrong, you can bet they will have the money to pay when you sue them. Or if you buy the item from a reputable merchant, same story.
If you still need more regulation after that, how about the states? That's what states are here for. All the details that the Constitution doesn't talk about are reserved for the states or the people (10th Amendment).
I think it would be better to pay them nothing.
You get what you pay for. If you pay them nothing, then you will only get the type of people who seek power above all else, exactly what we don't want. The only way they could make money is by selling what they've got (the power) to the highest bidder. And we'd get all the people who couldn't make it with normal careers. And that's exactly what we have now.
The best and the brightest are generally too tied up in a career to enter politics. It would be a major risk to their families to go from a job paying $100k to $0.
We'd be driving away the best, most successful people in society and attracting the worst.
I've a better idea: trash the legal fiction that corporations are persons. Which is actually based on a misreading of a Supreme Court decision.
I'd agree to that. The way I look at it, corporations limit the legal liability of the owners, and are double-taxed. So, basically, the government allows them to be irresponsible in exchange for extra tax revenue. Sounds more like a bribe to me.
A nice followup to this might be banning political contributions from anyone other than private individuals, and limiting them to something easily affordable by the majority of citizens - say, $50.
I disagree here. This essentially limits free speech. Dollars talk, and if you limit the dollars spent, you limit the speech. If an independent politician wants to get their message out, they need money, and lots of it. What would actually happen is this: Democrats and Republicans would jump for joy, because no 3rd party could challenge them. It would limit choice. It would also give a major advantage to the incumbants. And PACs could never accomplish anything.
It's impossible to stop corruption once you give someone the power. And make no mistake, the Congress should take most of the blame. Often, congressmen will solicit "expected contributions" and punish those who do not bribe.
Right now Congress has a huge amount of power to make and break individual companies or groups of companies.
If you take away as much of that power as you can, by restricting government to only its necessary functions, you eleiminate the possibility of most of the corruption that takes place.
We can change all that by eliminating career politicians. We could have a term limit of 1, and require that X years pass before they can hold office again. And then we pay every congressperson some large amount of money, like $1-10M/year, to attract successful people who can make 6+ figures in the private sector.
I'm tired of politicians spending our money to get themselves re-elected. We need high-quality people from normal life to enter politics. If they haven't made it in the real world with a respectable job before they run, they probably would never be elected.
Do you actually have any evidence of this happening, or are you just making it up?
That's what juries are for. They look at the evidence and make a determination. Most juries wouldn't convict unless they saw some corroborating evidence. An isolated email from some anonymous account doesn't really mean anything. And to get a search warrant, the DA can't just go in with an anonymous email. If the accuser has a motive to frame the accused, the jury will see right through the setup.
I think so. You have a reasonable position, but I'm just approaching it differently. I respect your opinion. As one final note, I never advocated government monitoring, but rather public monitoring.
Do we monitor you as you do your job daily to make sure you are not saying anything against the current administration?
No, but the people who pay me do monitor me while I work.
In this case, they are paid by the public, so the public should be able to monitor them.
And the government has always been able to monitor publicly available information without a warrant.
That's not what I'm saying at all. There should be no political affirmative action. I'm saying that the public should be informed about what's really going on in the university that is spending public money.
I'm not advocating any particular policy, aside from information discolsure. I'm confident that just the disclosure of professors' use of class resources will help balance the spectrum of ideology, as the public asks for changes.
Bottom line: you don't want the public to have that information, I do.
The original post we are responding to IS talking about professors who are already there.
Changing the hiring practices would allow new perspectives in, therefore students wouldn't need to seek out a private school to hear them. My point was right on target, and completely on topic for the original poster.
So, the professors that you CHOOSE to hire would be able to talk freely.
It's not that I'm choosing anyone. It's just that whoever is hiring the professors is open to public scrutiny and criticism when one of those professors starts ranting in a public school. Of course, for public scrutiny, you need to information available, like what the professors are using their class time to discuss. Which probably means students need to report that information (within fair use, of course, no outright copying).
This is exactly what we currently have.
A lot of college students disagree with you. That means they aren't hearing their viewpoints in class. That means a lot of viewpoints aren't being heard. So, one might argue the ideology isn't so diverse. Some people want to expose how slanted the spectrum of viewpoints is, and you want to keep that information secret.
The only meaningful opinions come from the right?
No, the only meaningful opinions come when one is exposed to a variety of viewpoints.
Maybe persistent, hard scientific work makes people "brainy".
Please explain to me how bounties for outing "radical professors" is constructive criticism, or just plain criticism.
In order to have constructive criticism, you need information. Most voters have not attended a 4 year public university in the last 10 years, so they have absolutely no information on the current state of academia in the U.S.
Now, how do we collect that information? If you're someone important with a lot of money, you can probably talk to the school officials and do a "study". If you're some curious nobody with $20k, you can try to collect the information without talking to the school officials by offering bounties.
I don't see any reason that "some curious nobody with $20k" who pays his taxes shouldn't be able to investigate.
Once the information is available, then people can form criticisms constructively. Until that time nobody can criticize constructively. And that's the way a lot of people like it.
The evidence that is collected can be used by the public to make those kinds of judgements. If the public sees UCLA to be too far left, they can pressure the public universities to hire different types of professors that better represent their views.
If you don't collect the evidence, than you're right, you can't make a very informed judgement about the professors.
And people outside the country have no bearing on this matter. The U.S. funds (and state funds) pay for the universities, so U.S. taxpayers make the judgements.
Are you implying that Fox News is the only viewpoint aside from the extreme left? How about some real intellectual diversity, on the left and the right.
If you think that an hour of Hannity & Colmes every day would give people an informed perspective of conservative politics, you're just ignorant of the conservative viewpoint.
I'm not opposing academic freedom, and I'm not suggesting tax refunds for unused services.
It seems like you're arguing that the actions of a professor are beyond criticism, which I simply don't agree with. Professors are paid by the public, and open to public criticism. Perhaps the evidence collected could be used to change the hiring practices at universities to create a more intellectually diverse environment. That would not threaten the academic freedom of anyone.
You make some good points, but you assume that pressure on current professors is the only possible goal.
Perhaps the actual goal is to change hiring practices to create a more intellectually diverse set of professors. You don't need to strong-arm any current professors to do that.
It would be hard not to give views on ID if teaching biology
Huh? Biologists have been teaching biology without mentioning ID for the past couple millenia. I'm not sure that I understood your point here.
They would employ fair use to distribute a very small portion of the lecture. There is no reason to redistribute an entire lecture. You can't use intellectual property laws to avoid scrutiny.
But it's a cash bounty for actual evidence. What's wrong with that? If you're studying the university, you can either try to take the classes yourself, which is impractical for a variety of reasons, or just ask someone else to collect the evidence for you. Seems logical to me, although it is a little strange, I'll give you that.
Some important viewpoints are too politically incorrect to ever be heard on campus. Extremes are fine, so long as there is diversity of opinion. Many people, including myself, think that college professors are too single-minded about many issues, leaning very far to the left of the rest of the United States.