Often databases are created in a vacuum and only later does one need to utilize multiples in a query.
That feels wrong somehow; if your (logical) databases are so distinct that you can't plan to co-locate them in the same (Postgres) database, does it make sense to have such tight coupling on the query side? Now you have to synchronize the data between them, and you can't move them off the same machine, so what's the point of keeping those databases separate? It also seems like client code should never have to know where different databases are physically located.
I don't agree that this is the "simple solution", it's a horrible hack on the part of the database engine (I don't actually know if anyone apart from Oracle does this) with unpredictable performance results - looks more like the "lazy solution".
I don't know, just seems like such a thing breaks the database/application "contract".
Besides, shouldn't your ORM layer abstract such minutiae away pretty easily?
Just seems like he wants it to exist so he's making it so.
That's theoretical physics for you. If this catches people's imaginations, 50 years from now Phantom Matter will be treated as fact by most people, just like all the other made up "matters" we have now.
Which is a little odd, since I only expressed a view of an exercise.
An exercise that makes you reconsider the rules of the game is very important in the real world, where you have to expect the unexpected.
Which is all well and good, but there is plenty of other types of exercises that are equally as useful. Besides, in your example it sounds like they were using perfectly legitimate tactics that were deemed outside the scope of some fairly specific exercise, whereas here, TFA makes it seem like they were just screwing with the monitoring systems for poops and giggles. Even taking into account all the vagaries of the real world, that is not productive.
The parent seemed to think enzymes were a kind of microorganism, I thought he might enjoy knowing that's not the case. Now, it's 2008 or so, pretty much anyone with arms can type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme into Firefox to find out what an enzyme is - what's the point of having me badly summarize it?
Which brings us to an example:
"enzymes don't 'live', they exist/are found/are produced in undersea volcanic areas."
Only one of those statements is tenuously technically correct, and still misses the main point that they are produced by the microorganisms (bacteria and archaea) living in those volcanic vents. This might be the peak of pedantry, but the distinction between a protein and a living organism strikes me as somewhat important.
Don't correct if you're not willing to teach.
Conversely, don't teach if you aren't willing to learn, I guess.
"I have also revoked the licensing under the GPL for the
pchdtvr version 1.0 codebase, all prior versions of the
pchdtvr codebase and all release candidates of the pchdtvr
codebase"
You didn't bother reading TFA even the tiniest little bit, did you?
Change the name, start a new project, abandon the old. Problem solved.
I don't see how that solves the problem - he wants to revoke the license granted on previous versions of the software, abandoning it doesn't accomplish that. If all he wanted to do was change the licensing for future release, he certainly wouldn't need a new project for that.
Both the summary and the article made no sense whatsoever (and I am not bored enough to read the paper), can someone clarify this for me?
The "branches" on the "tree" of life are pretty much arbitrary, you could draw a single node called "Life" or you could draw every single individual organism that ever existed - both would be valid.
Are they saying that they combined two groups on some taxonomic level because they are more closely related than previously thought?
I don't know what exactly they mean by "the five groups...", but I'm pretty sure their little unreadable graphic (which, by the way, wtf?) doesn't cover all of Eukarya - is this groundbreaking research transforming one mostly unknown pet classification into another?
Then there's this: "Previously, these species were thought to be completely unrelated."
Unless I slept through something fairly major, all currently living organisms on Earth are still considered to have arisen from a common origin (or created by the gods in a flash of omnipotence, etc, etc.), so all species are related.
And of course it explains that to arrive at these conclusion they have "studied" the genes - I'm sure anything more specific would make our poor little heads hurt.
Which would explain why Genesis I and II contridict each other about creation.
Of course the argument is that they don't contradict each other - they are two retellings of the story used to highlight different aspects of the nature of God (of course whether or not they were ever meant to be taken literally is anyone's guess). Never underestimate the mental gymnastics that go into the devout reading of the Bible.
Evolution isn't an attack on religion, it's just another piece of evidence that the Genesis creation stories are a fable.
The thing is, we say that in the interest of amicability, but it's not true. Evolution is the cornerstone of the whole position that biology can be treated as a science, that observation and critical reasoning can be used to arrive at real understanding of the world around us. Whereas in a dogmatic world-view, our physical reality is just an expression of the will of the Creator (a willful and capricious one, at that); all we can do is gape in awe, we cannot claim any real understanding, except through divine revelation. In other words, the circa-17th century way of viewing the world that so many people seem hell-bent on returning to.
Some people claim to successfully compartmentalize the two in their day-to-day lives - good for them - though the skeptic in me suspects that they don't focus much on the theological underpinnings of their religion, and rather concentrate on the feel-good social/ceremonial aspects. (Not to say that that's a bad thing - it seems to work for quite a few people)
you'd still be liable for what you did BEFORE you moved it out
Well, yeah. The exact quote from the parent (and will likely face all sorts of penalties for moving their operations out of the country) made it sound like it's the actual moving that would be penalized. I just thought that a little odd.
Where is it not illegal to help people to steal music films and software?
Probably nowhere, in the more or less civilized world. On the other hand, hosting information that others may use to commit copyright infringement is not illegal in many countries, such as Sweden, for example.
a television show is the result of several man years of work, it has value, why should the creators not be able to protect their work from being taken from them and distributed by others?
Don't see why they shouldn't. Here we seem to assume that this protection trumps all other considerations (and sometimes laws, and now apparently the 4th Amendment: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=414687), some other places take a more even-handed approach.
Slashdot Mirror
8.2 was released over a year ago - this is not a minor revision.
Oh give it a fucking rest. MySQL is 10-15% faster on simple queries, with few threads, on a single disk.
And that's only with MyISAM (in which case, why bother with a database server? SQLite is probably enough for your needs).
Often databases are created in a vacuum and only later does one need to utilize multiples in a query.
That feels wrong somehow; if your (logical) databases are so distinct that you can't plan to co-locate them in the same (Postgres) database, does it make sense to have such tight coupling on the query side? Now you have to synchronize the data between them, and you can't move them off the same machine, so what's the point of keeping those databases separate? It also seems like client code should never have to know where different databases are physically located.
I don't agree that this is the "simple solution", it's a horrible hack on the part of the database engine (I don't actually know if anyone apart from Oracle does this) with unpredictable performance results - looks more like the "lazy solution".
I don't know, just seems like such a thing breaks the database/application "contract".
Besides, shouldn't your ORM layer abstract such minutiae away pretty easily?
Just seems like he wants it to exist so he's making it so.
That's theoretical physics for you. If this catches people's imaginations, 50 years from now Phantom Matter will be treated as fact by most people, just like all the other made up "matters" we have now.
I could be used for snu-snu!
That's a very naive view of the world.
Which is a little odd, since I only expressed a view of an exercise.
An exercise that makes you reconsider the rules of the game is very important in the real world, where you have to expect the unexpected.
Which is all well and good, but there is plenty of other types of exercises that are equally as useful. Besides, in your example it sounds like they were using perfectly legitimate tactics that were deemed outside the scope of some fairly specific exercise, whereas here, TFA makes it seem like they were just screwing with the monitoring systems for poops and giggles. Even taking into account all the vagaries of the real world, that is not productive.
Well, the point of war games is to simulate real-life scenarios, so cheating is not constructive, no matter how clever it is.
We don't even fully understand the genome, and we're going to complicate it further.
Poppycock. We understand the mechanisms of DNA replication and transcription perfectly well (which are the relevant parts here).
I love this whole "knowledge of the world is impossible, so we should all just sit on our hands until we die" attitude.
The parent seemed to think enzymes were a kind of microorganism, I thought he might enjoy knowing that's not the case. Now, it's 2008 or so, pretty much anyone with arms can type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme into Firefox to find out what an enzyme is - what's the point of having me badly summarize it?
Which brings us to an example:
"enzymes don't 'live', they exist/are found/are produced in undersea volcanic areas."
Only one of those statements is tenuously technically correct, and still misses the main point that they are produced by the microorganisms (bacteria and archaea) living in those volcanic vents. This might be the peak of pedantry, but the distinction between a protein and a living organism strikes me as somewhat important.
Don't correct if you're not willing to teach.
Conversely, don't teach if you aren't willing to learn, I guess.
"I have also revoked the licensing under the GPL for the pchdtvr version 1.0 codebase, all prior versions of the pchdtvr codebase and all release candidates of the pchdtvr codebase"
You didn't bother reading TFA even the tiniest little bit, did you?
Change the name, start a new project, abandon the old. Problem solved.
I don't see how that solves the problem - he wants to revoke the license granted on previous versions of the software, abandoning it doesn't accomplish that. If all he wanted to do was change the licensing for future release, he certainly wouldn't need a new project for that.
investigating enzymes that live in undersea volcanic areas
You keep using that word, I do not think it... etc, etc.
Oh man, Story Tag Nazi has got to be the most thankless job ever.
They've been doing this successfully since the 50s (usually with irradiated insects, rather than genetically engineered ones) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique
Most are exceptionally lame, plus, they really missed the point of "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".
Both the summary and the article made no sense whatsoever (and I am not bored enough to read the paper), can someone clarify this for me?
The "branches" on the "tree" of life are pretty much arbitrary, you could draw a single node called "Life" or you could draw every single individual organism that ever existed - both would be valid.
Are they saying that they combined two groups on some taxonomic level because they are more closely related than previously thought?
I don't know what exactly they mean by "the five groups...", but I'm pretty sure their little unreadable graphic (which, by the way, wtf?) doesn't cover all of Eukarya - is this groundbreaking research transforming one mostly unknown pet classification into another?
Then there's this: "Previously, these species were thought to be completely unrelated."
Unless I slept through something fairly major, all currently living organisms on Earth are still considered to have arisen from a common origin (or created by the gods in a flash of omnipotence, etc, etc.), so all species are related.
And of course it explains that to arrive at these conclusion they have "studied" the genes - I'm sure anything more specific would make our poor little heads hurt.
Can someone summarize what they actually did?
As much as I think the term "intellectual property" is silly, "a bloggers [sic] intellectual property" is far funnier.
Which would explain why Genesis I and II contridict each other about creation.
Of course the argument is that they don't contradict each other - they are two retellings of the story used to highlight different aspects of the nature of God (of course whether or not they were ever meant to be taken literally is anyone's guess). Never underestimate the mental gymnastics that go into the devout reading of the Bible.
Evolution isn't an attack on religion, it's just another piece of evidence that the Genesis creation stories are a fable.
The thing is, we say that in the interest of amicability, but it's not true. Evolution is the cornerstone of the whole position that biology can be treated as a science, that observation and critical reasoning can be used to arrive at real understanding of the world around us. Whereas in a dogmatic world-view, our physical reality is just an expression of the will of the Creator (a willful and capricious one, at that); all we can do is gape in awe, we cannot claim any real understanding, except through divine revelation. In other words, the circa-17th century way of viewing the world that so many people seem hell-bent on returning to.
Some people claim to successfully compartmentalize the two in their day-to-day lives - good for them - though the skeptic in me suspects that they don't focus much on the theological underpinnings of their religion, and rather concentrate on the feel-good social/ceremonial aspects. (Not to say that that's a bad thing - it seems to work for quite a few people)
Sorry, that turned out kinda ranty.
Man, I KNOW -- they didn't hire me either. Totally evil.
And I even baked them a cake shaped like the internet!
Didn't Oracle buy InnoDB two years ago, or so? I'm pretty sure they were still distributing it under GPL - did something new happen?
Not sure if anyone ever actually used the BDB backend, but it's definitely still distributed under Sleepycat's Free license.
Seemed to work out pretty well when Oracle did it with BerkeleyDB JE.
you'd still be liable for what you did BEFORE you moved it out
Well, yeah. The exact quote from the parent (and will likely face all sorts of penalties for moving their operations out of the country) made it sound like it's the actual moving that would be penalized. I just thought that a little odd.
Where is it not illegal to help people to steal music films and software?
Probably nowhere, in the more or less civilized world. On the other hand, hosting information that others may use to commit copyright infringement is not illegal in many countries, such as Sweden, for example.
a television show is the result of several man years of work, it has value, why should the creators not be able to protect their work from being taken from them and distributed by others?
Don't see why they shouldn't. Here we seem to assume that this protection trumps all other considerations (and sometimes laws, and now apparently the 4th Amendment: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=414687), some other places take a more even-handed approach.
But I admit it would be tempting if they could guarantee a perfect filet mignon every time.
Tasteless and insipid?
These clones are not genetically identical to uncloned animals.
No, they are even more genetically identical than uncloned animals!
(btw, the relative number of telomeres doesn't change - they get shorter; it's probably in that link you provided)