Not sure about indexes as I've not used this beyond briefly having to support it in someone else's app, but when selecting you can define what types the fields are at that point.
I haven't touched MySQL in years, but do they have an XML field type? MS SQL Server does (as does many other RDBMSes I bet, I mention SQL Server as that's where my current experience lies) which allows you to essentially keep the table schema-less but still allows you to perform complex queries on the contained data.
Updates are a worry to me as well - although I eventually decided my Android adventure wasn't working with my HTC Desire, I've been looking heavily at the Galaxy Note in the past week or two. Having played with one a lot, I think Samsung have a good grip on the issues I had before, but my main issue is that the device is 6 months old, and yet is only just getting ICS this week. So I have to start my comparisons from catch again when I get one with ICS on to play with - is it still responsive, do the apps still work, does the update overbear the hardware etc etc etc.
The Note should have had ICS 4 or more months ago. Right now, the slow update is a huge negative.
Does Optus have broad enough rights in its broadcast license terms from the content producers to essentially rebroadcast content on an on-demand basis, because that is what they are essentially doing. There is a difference between the customer recording it and the telco doing it for them, as one involves rebroadcasting of the content and the other does not.
Really, its not that hard to hold a toddler a fraction of your weight and ability in your lap - especially if the intention is to keep him occupied by something on the tv or on a screen. Just keep the items in question out of their reach - a laptop two metres away is not going to get touched, drooled on or pushed off the work surface. Its called supervision - something modern parents seem to be lacking in the ability to carry out it would seem.
Oh, and thankyou for engaging in this discussion without resorting to posting as an Anonymous Coward.
Put the laptop on a table, out of arms reach and hold the child on your lap. There. Problem solved. No need for restraining of hands, you just hold the child on your lap as you would any other time.
But from the summary, thats not what the parent wants - he wants to stop several very easily prevented actions, such as touching, ending the call accidentally, drooling on the devices etc. All of those things would not happen if they were there supervising the child during the conversation.
Seriously, is it too much to ask for parents to do their jobs? Spend that 40 minutes with your child, rather than just plonking them down infront of grandma and grandpa and walking away... You can interact with them during that Skype call - theres no need for them to get anywhere near the computer in question, especially if you are there!
Then you know nothing about aviation manufacturers - a modern Airbus aircraft can be over 50% American by weight if chosen with GE or P&W engines, and 40% with RR engines. Airbus has major US suppliers.
There are Airbus and Boeing planes built using parts made by the lower capacity presses used while this one was unserviceable or down for maintenance...
I'm afraid that the evidence in the investigation does not support any assertion that the engines failed to respond, they responded immediately to the throttle commands.
The common misapprehension that the engines failed to respond comes from an Airbus OEB notice that was issued in the month prior to the crash, but all the data recorded shows no such delay and the OEB was not applicable in this case.
The pilot just reacted far too slowly than he should.
AA Flight 587 - the one where the vertical tail fin failed well in excess of its certificated ultimate load (150% maximum load, and maximum load should never be reached in an aircrafts life anyway)? I always choose to fly on aircraft that match or exceed safety requirements.
AF Flight 447 - the one where three crew members couldn't get laid in a womens prison while holding a handful of pardons? You can believe all the hatchet jobs you want, but the Airbus FBW system was not at issue in this one, and its amusing that all of the anti-Airbus stories citing the sidestick as a central issue in this point totally ignore the almost identical crashes that involved Boeing 727 and 767s (crews managed to fully stall the aircraft while completely overlooking the issue at hand), and those have standard central yokes as control.
Do you want me to cite a long list of Boeing design faults and issues? The 737 rudder hard over events that Boeing denied for a decade, before the NTSB eventually found a major issue with the tail hydraulics? The 747 cargo door designs which Boeing knew to be a design fault, but didn't do anything until people died? The 737s with corrosion issues?
If you are going to troll, do it with some actually decent facts.
The main difference is that Soyuz is a modular system, with the unmanned cargo booster also being part of The same series - most people compare only the manned missions, when the Shuttle has to always fly manned whether the cargo requires it or not.
Nope, sorry, your explanation is the standard one and it's wrong - the FBW system didn't prevent anything, the pilot had the engines at a far too low power setting and it takes time for any jet engine to spool up from that point. The pilot should have had the engines at a high power setting (TOGA) and he should have been using aerodynamic devices to keep the speed at the level he wanted it - he didn't, he just throttled back the engines, which you should never do in that situation.
From what I have read, the descent to 6000ft was made on the prior demo flight as well, as part of the sightseeing - the weather was poor, so they would have wanted to get under the weather to see the sights.
Ahh the good old Habsheim Crash, wondered when that would get trotted out.
The Air France pilot of that particular aircraft was too low, too slow and untrained for such a stunt. He flew below the height of surrounding obstacles with his engines at or near idle, and then blamed the spool up time as the engines being "unresponsive". He put the aircraft into a dangerous situation and other people paid for his mistakes with their lives.
The pilot was an idiot, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft that caused that crash. Sure there was irregularities with the handling of the flight recorders afterward, but nothing has ever been proven in that particular conspiracy theory.
It's worth mentioning that Boeing is a major partner in the Superet program, providing consultation, manufacturing, design and technical ability. They are more than a subcontractor, they signed a long term partnership for the project.
So it's worth holding off on the "its Russian" comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure about indexes as I've not used this beyond briefly having to support it in someone else's app, but when selecting you can define what types the fields are at that point.
I haven't touched MySQL in years, but do they have an XML field type? MS SQL Server does (as does many other RDBMSes I bet, I mention SQL Server as that's where my current experience lies) which allows you to essentially keep the table schema-less but still allows you to perform complex queries on the contained data.
Wouldn't that be better than a TEXT field type?
Updates are a worry to me as well - although I eventually decided my Android adventure wasn't working with my HTC Desire, I've been looking heavily at the Galaxy Note in the past week or two. Having played with one a lot, I think Samsung have a good grip on the issues I had before, but my main issue is that the device is 6 months old, and yet is only just getting ICS this week. So I have to start my comparisons from catch again when I get one with ICS on to play with - is it still responsive, do the apps still work, does the update overbear the hardware etc etc etc.
The Note should have had ICS 4 or more months ago. Right now, the slow update is a huge negative.
Does Optus have broad enough rights in its broadcast license terms from the content producers to essentially rebroadcast content on an on-demand basis, because that is what they are essentially doing. There is a difference between the customer recording it and the telco doing it for them, as one involves rebroadcasting of the content and the other does not.
Really, its not that hard to hold a toddler a fraction of your weight and ability in your lap - especially if the intention is to keep him occupied by something on the tv or on a screen. Just keep the items in question out of their reach - a laptop two metres away is not going to get touched, drooled on or pushed off the work surface. Its called supervision - something modern parents seem to be lacking in the ability to carry out it would seem.
Oh, and thankyou for engaging in this discussion without resorting to posting as an Anonymous Coward.
Put the laptop on a table, out of arms reach and hold the child on your lap. There. Problem solved. No need for restraining of hands, you just hold the child on your lap as you would any other time.
But from the summary, thats not what the parent wants - he wants to stop several very easily prevented actions, such as touching, ending the call accidentally, drooling on the devices etc. All of those things would not happen if they were there supervising the child during the conversation.
Seriously, is it too much to ask for parents to do their jobs? Spend that 40 minutes with your child, rather than just plonking them down infront of grandma and grandpa and walking away... You can interact with them during that Skype call - theres no need for them to get anywhere near the computer in question, especially if you are there!
Then you know nothing about aviation manufacturers - a modern Airbus aircraft can be over 50% American by weight if chosen with GE or P&W engines, and 40% with RR engines. Airbus has major US suppliers.
Ahh the FA extends the comment made out to all presses in the Heavy Press Program - the summary is wrong.
There are Airbus and Boeing planes built using parts made by the lower capacity presses used while this one was unserviceable or down for maintenance...
Why? Alien was good, Prometheus is excellent (I've seen a preview screening) - why do you not want Scott?
Or the virtual memory swapping pages out "just in case", or any of the speedup features Windows has etc etc etc.
Even when "idle", the OS is still doing things behind the scenes. Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they don't happen.
Let me guess, a Windows developer killed your dog, slept with your wife, read your Sports Illustrated and ruined your birthday party?
Or are you just the type that holds a stupid trollish opinion about something you obviously have no idea about?
I'm sorry, do you know something that the investigators should be made aware of? If you don't, then your opinion sucks.
Some little hitler with mid points didn't like basic facts, eh? Go read the accident report if you don't believe me....
I'm afraid that the evidence in the investigation does not support any assertion that the engines failed to respond, they responded immediately to the throttle commands.
The common misapprehension that the engines failed to respond comes from an Airbus OEB notice that was issued in the month prior to the crash, but all the data recorded shows no such delay and the OEB was not applicable in this case.
The pilot just reacted far too slowly than he should.
AA Flight 587 - the one where the vertical tail fin failed well in excess of its certificated ultimate load (150% maximum load, and maximum load should never be reached in an aircrafts life anyway)? I always choose to fly on aircraft that match or exceed safety requirements.
AF Flight 447 - the one where three crew members couldn't get laid in a womens prison while holding a handful of pardons? You can believe all the hatchet jobs you want, but the Airbus FBW system was not at issue in this one, and its amusing that all of the anti-Airbus stories citing the sidestick as a central issue in this point totally ignore the almost identical crashes that involved Boeing 727 and 767s (crews managed to fully stall the aircraft while completely overlooking the issue at hand), and those have standard central yokes as control.
Do you want me to cite a long list of Boeing design faults and issues? The 737 rudder hard over events that Boeing denied for a decade, before the NTSB eventually found a major issue with the tail hydraulics? The 747 cargo door designs which Boeing knew to be a design fault, but didn't do anything until people died? The 737s with corrosion issues?
If you are going to troll, do it with some actually decent facts.
The main difference is that Soyuz is a modular system, with the unmanned cargo booster also being part of The same series - most people compare only the manned missions, when the Shuttle has to always fly manned whether the cargo requires it or not.
The A330 crash happened on a test flight, while the oft mentioned A320 crash happened at a small airshow, not the Paris Airshow.
Again, depends on why it crashed.
Nope, it didn't even put a stain on the program - annual orders for the A320 series (A320 and A321 as follows
1987 58,
1988 116,
1989 146,
1990 300
The Habsheim crash occured in 1988 - no recovery was needed, as no order slump occured.
Nope, sorry, your explanation is the standard one and it's wrong - the FBW system didn't prevent anything, the pilot had the engines at a far too low power setting and it takes time for any jet engine to spool up from that point. The pilot should have had the engines at a high power setting (TOGA) and he should have been using aerodynamic devices to keep the speed at the level he wanted it - he didn't, he just throttled back the engines, which you should never do in that situation.
The pilot was correctly blamed for that one.
From what I have read, the descent to 6000ft was made on the prior demo flight as well, as part of the sightseeing - the weather was poor, so they would have wanted to get under the weather to see the sights.
Ahh the good old Habsheim Crash, wondered when that would get trotted out.
The Air France pilot of that particular aircraft was too low, too slow and untrained for such a stunt. He flew below the height of surrounding obstacles with his engines at or near idle, and then blamed the spool up time as the engines being "unresponsive". He put the aircraft into a dangerous situation and other people paid for his mistakes with their lives.
The pilot was an idiot, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft that caused that crash. Sure there was irregularities with the handling of the flight recorders afterward, but nothing has ever been proven in that particular conspiracy theory.
It's worth mentioning that Boeing is a major partner in the Superet program, providing consultation, manufacturing, design and technical ability. They are more than a subcontractor, they signed a long term partnership for the project.
So it's worth holding off on the "its Russian" comments.