You believe that people are too stupid to govern themselves.
So you imagine a method of only having "smart" people vote, but are concerned because it would exclude the "dumb" races. (Your thinking, not mine. I don't consider any race inferior or superior to mine.) If you are a racist, why not just tell people that you are a racist? Why do you insist on equalizing the races?
Then you think that by passing candidates through some certification course so that they can become electable is somehow fair. Well, who gets to determine who is smart and who is dumb? What certification should be used?
You are forgetting that maybe everyone else is right and you are wrong. Maybe, just maybe, the idea of majority rule was the best system and the system that the Founding Fathers (who are quite possibly far more intelligent than you are) decided upon for that reason.
As for me, I've read their writings and I've discovered that they had one core belief: That people should govern themselves. They dispelled the idea that there was something that the King and the nobleman had that the commoners didn't that allowed them to rule. They proved it absolutely absurd to think that anyone is any smarter than anyone else and more suited to govern!
Right to privacy? I couldn't seem to find it in the Constitution. What constitution are you reading?
In fact I see here that citizens can be deprived of their rights, property and life with due process of law (amendment 5). There is no right to privacy.
Where is the gulag in Cuba? I've heard of Guantanamo, but I have never heard of a gulag. Oh, I've heard that some left-wing liberals are accusing us of running a gulag, but there is absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, we treat the jihadis better at Guantanamo than they would get treated in their own homes!
What secret prisons in Europe? You are making another unsubstantiated claim. There is no evidence of this, no record, just a leak from an unnamed source. In fact, when the leak was reviewed whether it should be investigated, congress quickly dropped it. Perhaps there are no secret prisons and so the leaker wasn't leaking classified information?
Allowing the government to spy? And that's a bad thing? No checks? I'm sorry, I've never heard of such a thing. Perhaps you are referring to the Patriot Act. Except the Patriot Act requires that a judge signs all warrants for the installation of surveillance equipment.
A vice-president who lobbies for torture? I assume you mean Dick Cheney. I haven't seen him lobby for this. Sure, he is accused of this, but I have yet to hear him say one thing in favor of torture. What is it you call "torture" anyway? According to my definition, listening to an Al Gore speech was pure torture that no one should ever be subjected to. Was he the vice-president you were referring to?
And are we the USSR? Of course not. See, here, you still have the right to vote for whoever you want. And you have the right to accuse the government of things that they didn't do (as you just did). You had no such rights in the USSR.
DId you ever read the Patriot Act? You might have noticed that the judicial branch is the only branch that has the power to grant the use of these measures on a case-by-case basis. The main point is that when the warrant is signed, it isn't a public document. However, it is still reviewed by the judiciary.
If you're sick of government intrusion and demand limited government it's time you stood up and started protecting your rights. This is the formula our Founding Fathers laid down.
(1) Participate politically using whatever method you have at your disposal. States don't run themselves, and if you aren't satisfied, then by all means, take it over lawfully. Ultimately, folks like YOU can become representative, senator, and president. So stop moaning and start getting elected.
(2) Arm yourself under the protections of the 2nd amendments. We're allowed guns not just to hunt prey, protect our country from foreign invaders, and ensure our private security, but also to protect ourselves from domestic threats (meaning from within our borders.) If and when our government has become so corrupt that reform through the ballot boxes is impossible, then it is time to turn to the ammo boxes. (I don't believe we are near that point at all. When we are, a whole lot more people will be reaching for their ammo boxes.)
America is founded on one principle: That people are smart enough to rule themselves. By corollary, the government is a reflection of the people, nothing more, and nothing less. If you don't like the government, get off your butt and do something about it. After all, you are in power here, not them.
What's even sillier is statements that people who call themselves scientists make citing their beliefs in scientific theories. Eg, "I believe in evolution" as if it were some animated and all-powerful being with answers to all of life's questions.
The realm of scientific thought processes and religious beliefs are completely separate. I can understand and think about the theory of evolution without abandoning my beliefs that God created the world in 6 days. My scientific inquiries are of a mechanical and lifeless sort. "What evidence is there? How does this evidence corroborate with the theories of the day?" I certainly don't go about setting my hopes and beliefs on any scientific principle, because they are lifeless constructs of our intellects.
I find believing in evolution as absurd as believing that the integral of e to the x dx is e to the x. What is there to believe?
As to the question of what actually happened. Were we created as described in Genesis? Or was there some other process? How can anyone hope to answer that question definitively without building a time machine and actually observing the process? As far as I can see, we have a group of very bright and intellectual people who claim that by looking at rocks that they have determined the origin of the earth and all of its life, and we have a group of very bright and intellectual people claiming that God speaks to his prophets and that God said he created the earth something like 6,000 years ago. Who is correct? What it really boils down to is do you put your trust in a God who made some really absurd claims in a book called the Bible or do you trust so-called scientists who so far haven't gotten anything right as evidenced by the state of science today versus 100 years ago?
As for myself, I trust the God in the bible much more than I'll trust any group of scientists alive today. That's a matter of belief, not science.
Yeah, because Bush has been burning his opponents in the US at the stake, and assassinating heads of state of foreign countries that oppose him. It's real courageous to stand up to Bush.
It's funny though. They did all they could to appease the terrorists and look at their country now. Even Johnny Depp doesn't feel safe there anymore. Go figure. You think the whole Bush line of "we don't negotiate with terrorists and if you're not with us you must be against us" meant something, huh?
Your whole comment is an ad-hominem attack. First, Charles Johnson is not a racist, and neither is Michelle Malkin. And Islamofascism is not a race--it's an ideology, a dark and sinister one that has spread terrorism throughout the ages. I would be surprised if you could find anyone who thinks the idea of a global caliphate is a good one! You should educate yourself on what Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi really want. Hint: If they win this war, we won't be allowed to show photographs of women, vote in a free election, drink alcohol, speak our mind, charge or pay interest, or challenge a moslem in court!
But, to an ID thinker, and I am sure you would agree to this, they are trying to explain the gaps. Evolutionists are more than happy to ignore the gaps. The ID thinker is trying to fill them in. Quantum Mechanics raised more questions than it answered. So did Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity. However, that did not mean it is not correct.
I think China is a great example. Even when a government gets hellbent on destroying the people's ability to use the internet, people find a way around it. No matter how bad it gets in America, it can never be as bad as it is now in China. And yet the internet is still working the way it was intended in China, and people are able to circumvent whatever controls the government puts in place.
Here's another example: Spam. No matter what we have tried to stop spam, nothing has worked, not even close. Spam is unstoppable. We have switched our efforts from outrunning the bear to outrunning those around us. Spam represents the capability of individuals to do things on the interent despite what those around them allow.
I want to bring to the table two logical fallacies.
The first is the argument people around here call "occam's razor". It says that apparently the simplest explanation is the correct one. A simple exercise in thinking can reveal that this isn't true. After all, Newtonian mechanics is far simpler than quantum field theory. But it is more incorrect. Even QFT is incorrect, and physicists readily admit to its limits and ponder what could be used to replace it. Physicists and mathematicians wish the world were as simple as the theory of electrodynamics (thanks to Maxwell's insight), but even that model is incorrect and limited.
The second argument I hear is that of falsifiability. "If some theory can't be exposed to experiments that could prove it false, it can't be true." This is also incorrect. I would like to turn your attention back to physics. Give a 5-year-old child a bunch of blocks, explain Maxwell's equations, and ask him to invent experiments to prove it wrong. Just because he can't come up with experiments that could potentially prove the theory of electrodynamics is wrong doesn't mean it is false.
I am a physicist by education. I must tell you that those who were professors around me cautiously acknowledged their own inferiority to a superior being. Many regularly attended their religion of choice. None were terribly happy with the theory of evolution, nor any other theory they taught about in physics class. Being a physicist means being honest. Ask some professor about whatever theory you like. Then ask them about its limitations. Every theory I learned about had a realm where it worked and a realm where it didn't, even the most advanced theories.
It's absurd to think, by simply observation, that man knows anything about the universe around him. Even our physicsts can barely explain the simplest of phenonema correctly. (Why do bicycles work? Why do airplanes fly? Physicists were wrong up until a few years ago when someone explained that the point of contact being behind the axis of rotation helped keep the bike upright and the angle of attack of the wing caused more lift than Bernoulli's principle.)
As a scientist, my only allegiance is to the theory that we are all idiots and that perhaps by careful observation I might find some way to advance that theory by turning conventional wisdom and/or science on its head.
On the subject of religion, why are so many people upset by it? Religion addresses a whole region of the human experience that science, by definition, cannot approach! Science deals with observation of the five senses; religion deals with observations of the spiritual side of man. Trying to use one to bludgeon the other is like using a sword to cut water! Let the religionists preach salvation and knowledge of the divine, and let the scientists measure the world around us and postulate on its mechanics. Never let one limit the other!
I am perfectly happy about learning about the THEORY of evolution and relativity and Newtonian mechanics, but I am also perfectly happy about learning about man's need for a savior and the true way to approach God for an absolution of one's sins. They aren't mutually exclusive.
By the way, I don't think that there is enough evidence in the earth's outer crust to either prove or disprove evolution. Ultimately, whether you BELIEVE man evolved or was created is an exercise in religion. So don't try bringing science into a realm where an infinite and omnipotent being interferes with the lives of man. Religion triumphs in matters of belief.
FINALLY: If you BELIEVE in the theory of evolution, you are not a scientist. In fact, you are what the Catholic Church was to Galileo.
(1) Stairs really help a lot. It made me realize how out of shape I had become. Take the stairs when you can, and be persistent. You'd be surprised how much more you can go after a few weeks of stair climbing at your office.
(2) Avoid drugs, including caffeine and alcohol. You've got to break that caffeine habit if you have one. When I drink a caffeinated beverage, I get really, really hungry.
(3) A little bit of candy or anything with too many carbs really does ruin your week. Avoid it like the plague. When you finally muster the willpower to tell people, "No thank you. I really like doughnuts, but I like them too much." then you are on the right path. Just think of what happens after you eat the candy or the doughnut - the hunger pains, the headaches, the slowness, etc...
(4) Stress is another biggy. Learn to deal with it properly. When you are geniunely happy and emotionally in control, it's a lot easier to regulate your intake. This also means you can't stress about your weight. (I know, it's almost a paradox: You want to lose weight so you have to become comfortable with your weight...)
You mean the tons of yellow-cake discovered in Iraq? Or the sarin-filled artillery shells the terrorists were using against the Iraqi people? What about the mobile weapons lab? Or the buried MiG fighters? Or the satellite photos of Russian trucks leaving key installations known to house WMDs for Syria before the invasion?
Or do you mean the same weapons of mass destruction that President Clinton used as a reason to lob missiles at the country?
Or do you mean the invisible and totally fake WMD Saddam used to murder countless Kurds and Shiites? Did those women and children just fall to the ground dead because of harmless dust dropped by helicopters, or did they use WMD to kill them? Are those mass graves imaginary?
Are you saying that President Bush was such a great liar that even before he became governor of Texas he was able to convince the president of the opposing party to take his line of weapons and mass destruction and run with it? Was he so influential that he actually convinced Saddam Hussein himself that he had WMD? And not just Saddam, but every intelligence agency in the world, bar none? No one at the time of the invasion seriously doubted that the WMD were there, and that Saddam would've used them if he could. Name one person who wrote an article BEFORE the invasion with evidence that the WMDs were not there!
And if President Bush is such a great liar, why didn't he have Karl Rove plant some nuclear or biological or chemical weapons in some obscure base in Iraq. After he has him plant the material evidence, the Army could move in, and Voila! President Bush is no longer a liar! Why didn't Bush do that? It would've been so simple...
Oracle is continuously leads the pack in benchmarks...
I thought the EULA prevented anyone from benchmarking Oracle? That's why no one can publish side-by-side comparisons of Oracle and PostgreSQL. Go ahead and search the internet for a comparison. I can't find any good ones. That's whay I also can't tell you about my own experiences.
It's not MySQL that is causing Oracle to fear. PostgreSQL recently announce 8.1. Take a look at the feature set. Compare with Oracle's feature set. The only thing Oracle has on PostgreSQL now are apps. Even then, most of the apps Oracle has are easy enough to code up that it's hard to convince a tech shop to use Oracle over making their own.
Python is a great language for learning general programming concepts, not syntax. The major philosophies of programming are all present in one form or another. And it's all highly readable, meaning you don't have to be a pro to understand the pros.
I'm teaching a weekly night class on Python to beginning programmers in my areas and they are picking it up very quickly.
Some people want something that is very lightweight and fast.
Which is why they are switching to PostgreSQL.
Your assumptions about the footprint and speed of PostgreSQL are way out of date.
PostgreSQL is much easier to administer, much easier to develop for, and much better solution that it used to be for high-performance and low-performance shops. It has grown from its niche and began occupying the niches owned by MS SQL, MySQL, and Oracle.
I see the one huge thing in PostgreSQL 8.2 is 2 phase commit.
What this means is you can run a multi-master replication system of databases. MySQL, eat your heart out!
Other things of note: One guy claims he sees a 20%-40% improvement in speed in smaller queries. That is breath-taking.
And the equivalent (and frankly, better implementation of) table partitioning is here! Now there is NO REASON to use Oracle over PostgreSQL. Oracle has lost all of its competitive advantages when 8.1 is released!
Predictions: New Oracle installations drop significantly. PostgreSQL becomes the new DB of choice among the illiterati in the DB community. Salaries for PostgreSQL admins and developers increase significantly, causing a huge demand in PostgreSQL training. News articles about people implementing PostgreSQL and having problems (man bites dog is no longer implementing PostgreSQL, but NOT.) IT costs drop significantly. Oracle lowers licensing fees and relaxes their strict licensing terms. Oracle begins shifting focus from the database itself to the apps running on the database.
As an experienced web developer, and having extensive experience with both databases, the "quirks" in MySQL quickly become unbearable. What do you mean my backup wasn't consistent? What do you mean the data I just incremented one operation ago is back to its old value? Why, when I clear the table, do I get old ids that should now be bad?
The fact that PostgreSQL does it right, and does it the way you expect it to be done, and does it better, means that I choose it every time. The fact that only PostgreSQL cares about backing up your data consistently, providing a consistent transaction, and allows you to do row-level locking, means that only it is up to the task you will inevitable have for it.
As you grow and understand what databases really are, you will begin demanding it do more work for you. With MySQL, you can't grow. With PostgreSQL, you can grow as much as you like.
I've never understood the complexity argument. Apparently, you don't need transactions and sequences and consistent backups if your just doing something simple. I thought things should _just work_ for beginners. Why are you suggesting something that _doesn't just work_ for beginners?
Question: Do you have data? Answer: Yes. Suggestion: Since you have data, you need to use PostgreSQL.
Did you do real-world tests or did you just run a few queries and pull out a stopwatch?
Did you test when data was in the buffer or when the data was clean? Do you even know how to flush the buffer on both databases?
One thing I've noticed consistently is that MySQL begins to slow down as there are more processes running. That's why I never use it for the backend of a website.
Compared to PostgreSQL, which, with only 1 or 2 processes is slower than MySQL, but it begins to shine as your load approaches reality. It also does tremendously well if it is overburdened. I haven't seen a system running PostgreSQL brown out due to overload. I think it's sweet spot is consuming about 75% of your box's resources.
I can't think of a role where I would use MySQL at all.
Okay, you try to get along with me. That means you have to pay me $50 every month for the rest of your life or I come into your home and shoot you dead.
Oh, you don't like that? Well, why don't you just try to get along? Why do we have to fight all the time?
Your hippy ideas are nice but they need a touch more reality. Of course everyone wants to get along, but under whose terms? The question is and always will be under who do we submit ourselves?
Answer that and you'll quickly become a neo-conservative.
"We give them what they want! We get the **** out of Saudi Arabia!"
We already did.
Should we cave into their other demands? Let's list what they want us to do:
(1) Become dhimmis. That means that we can't testify in court against any muslim. If we refuse to worship Islam, then we must pay an annual dhimmi tax.
(3) Stop giving equal rights to women. Women must cover their heads and must be subservient to their husband. If they don't have a husband they are worthless.
(4) Kill all gays and adulterers and pornographers. Bill Clinton is one of the people that Osama bin Laden frequently mentions as being morally reprehensible and eligible for execution.
(5) Adopt Shari'a law in our land. This is far worse than anything you read in the Bible.
(6) Submit to a global caliphate. That would be a world government administered by Islam imams. Think Iran but on a global scale. No, think Spanish Inquisition replacing the blue-helmetted UN.
So we'll just cave into the demans. You're not an adulterer ot homosexual are you? Why don't you just commit suicide and make our job easier in submitting to Osama's demands.
The terrorists don't get it. Every time they shout "Allahu Akbar!" as they saw off a head, they are reinforcing what Europeans have known since the Middle Ages. Islam is not about peace, it is about enforcing tyrnnay by the sword.
If Muslims find the idea of Mecca turning to irradiated glass repulsive, it's high time they stood up to their imams and shouted, "ENOUGH! We will not be hijacked by sick people like you!"
Christianity went through this process and today, Christianity is very, very different from what it was in the Spanish Inquisition. Now Christianity is the religion of democracy and peace.
Slashdot Mirror
You believe that people are too stupid to govern themselves.
So you imagine a method of only having "smart" people vote, but are concerned because it would exclude the "dumb" races. (Your thinking, not mine. I don't consider any race inferior or superior to mine.) If you are a racist, why not just tell people that you are a racist? Why do you insist on equalizing the races?
Then you think that by passing candidates through some certification course so that they can become electable is somehow fair. Well, who gets to determine who is smart and who is dumb? What certification should be used?
You are forgetting that maybe everyone else is right and you are wrong. Maybe, just maybe, the idea of majority rule was the best system and the system that the Founding Fathers (who are quite possibly far more intelligent than you are) decided upon for that reason.
As for me, I've read their writings and I've discovered that they had one core belief: That people should govern themselves. They dispelled the idea that there was something that the King and the nobleman had that the commoners didn't that allowed them to rule. They proved it absolutely absurd to think that anyone is any smarter than anyone else and more suited to govern!
Right to privacy? I couldn't seem to find it in the Constitution. What constitution are you reading?
In fact I see here that citizens can be deprived of their rights, property and life with due process of law (amendment 5). There is no right to privacy.
I'm sorry, did I miss something?
Where is the gulag in Cuba? I've heard of Guantanamo, but I have never heard of a gulag. Oh, I've heard that some left-wing liberals are accusing us of running a gulag, but there is absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, we treat the jihadis better at Guantanamo than they would get treated in their own homes!
What secret prisons in Europe? You are making another unsubstantiated claim. There is no evidence of this, no record, just a leak from an unnamed source. In fact, when the leak was reviewed whether it should be investigated, congress quickly dropped it. Perhaps there are no secret prisons and so the leaker wasn't leaking classified information?
Allowing the government to spy? And that's a bad thing? No checks? I'm sorry, I've never heard of such a thing. Perhaps you are referring to the Patriot Act. Except the Patriot Act requires that a judge signs all warrants for the installation of surveillance equipment.
A vice-president who lobbies for torture? I assume you mean Dick Cheney. I haven't seen him lobby for this. Sure, he is accused of this, but I have yet to hear him say one thing in favor of torture. What is it you call "torture" anyway? According to my definition, listening to an Al Gore speech was pure torture that no one should ever be subjected to. Was he the vice-president you were referring to?
And are we the USSR? Of course not. See, here, you still have the right to vote for whoever you want. And you have the right to accuse the government of things that they didn't do (as you just did). You had no such rights in the USSR.
DId you ever read the Patriot Act? You might have noticed that the judicial branch is the only branch that has the power to grant the use of these measures on a case-by-case basis. The main point is that when the warrant is signed, it isn't a public document. However, it is still reviewed by the judiciary.
If you're sick of government intrusion and demand limited government it's time you stood up and started protecting your rights. This is the formula our Founding Fathers laid down.
(1) Participate politically using whatever method you have at your disposal. States don't run themselves, and if you aren't satisfied, then by all means, take it over lawfully. Ultimately, folks like YOU can become representative, senator, and president. So stop moaning and start getting elected.
(2) Arm yourself under the protections of the 2nd amendments. We're allowed guns not just to hunt prey, protect our country from foreign invaders, and ensure our private security, but also to protect ourselves from domestic threats (meaning from within our borders.) If and when our government has become so corrupt that reform through the ballot boxes is impossible, then it is time to turn to the ammo boxes. (I don't believe we are near that point at all. When we are, a whole lot more people will be reaching for their ammo boxes.)
America is founded on one principle: That people are smart enough to rule themselves. By corollary, the government is a reflection of the people, nothing more, and nothing less. If you don't like the government, get off your butt and do something about it. After all, you are in power here, not them.
What's even sillier is statements that people who call themselves scientists make citing their beliefs in scientific theories. Eg, "I believe in evolution" as if it were some animated and all-powerful being with answers to all of life's questions.
The realm of scientific thought processes and religious beliefs are completely separate. I can understand and think about the theory of evolution without abandoning my beliefs that God created the world in 6 days. My scientific inquiries are of a mechanical and lifeless sort. "What evidence is there? How does this evidence corroborate with the theories of the day?" I certainly don't go about setting my hopes and beliefs on any scientific principle, because they are lifeless constructs of our intellects.
I find believing in evolution as absurd as believing that the integral of e to the x dx is e to the x. What is there to believe?
As to the question of what actually happened. Were we created as described in Genesis? Or was there some other process? How can anyone hope to answer that question definitively without building a time machine and actually observing the process? As far as I can see, we have a group of very bright and intellectual people who claim that by looking at rocks that they have determined the origin of the earth and all of its life, and we have a group of very bright and intellectual people claiming that God speaks to his prophets and that God said he created the earth something like 6,000 years ago. Who is correct? What it really boils down to is do you put your trust in a God who made some really absurd claims in a book called the Bible or do you trust so-called scientists who so far haven't gotten anything right as evidenced by the state of science today versus 100 years ago?
As for myself, I trust the God in the bible much more than I'll trust any group of scientists alive today. That's a matter of belief, not science.
Yeah, because Bush has been burning his opponents in the US at the stake, and assassinating heads of state of foreign countries that oppose him. It's real courageous to stand up to Bush.
It's funny though. They did all they could to appease the terrorists and look at their country now. Even Johnny Depp doesn't feel safe there anymore. Go figure. You think the whole Bush line of "we don't negotiate with terrorists and if you're not with us you must be against us" meant something, huh?
Your whole comment is an ad-hominem attack. First, Charles Johnson is not a racist, and neither is Michelle Malkin. And Islamofascism is not a race--it's an ideology, a dark and sinister one that has spread terrorism throughout the ages. I would be surprised if you could find anyone who thinks the idea of a global caliphate is a good one! You should educate yourself on what Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi really want. Hint: If they win this war, we won't be allowed to show photographs of women, vote in a free election, drink alcohol, speak our mind, charge or pay interest, or challenge a moslem in court!
But, to an ID thinker, and I am sure you would agree to this, they are trying to explain the gaps. Evolutionists are more than happy to ignore the gaps. The ID thinker is trying to fill them in. Quantum Mechanics raised more questions than it answered. So did Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity. However, that did not mean it is not correct.
"Mormon- a religion which used to promote treating women like cattle and marrying as many as you like."
That's a blatant falsehood. Why don't you go look up the facts before opening your mouth?
I challenge you to find any religion (or philosophy) that treats women with as much respect as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
I think China is a great example. Even when a government gets hellbent on destroying the people's ability to use the internet, people find a way around it. No matter how bad it gets in America, it can never be as bad as it is now in China. And yet the internet is still working the way it was intended in China, and people are able to circumvent whatever controls the government puts in place.
Here's another example: Spam. No matter what we have tried to stop spam, nothing has worked, not even close. Spam is unstoppable. We have switched our efforts from outrunning the bear to outrunning those around us. Spam represents the capability of individuals to do things on the interent despite what those around them allow.
I understand that; however, the way people I have seen try to argue evolution using Occam's Razor describe Occam's Razor is as I asserted above.
If Occam's Razor is "the simplest theory is correct", then Occam's Razor is wrong. This means that many's perception of Occam's Razor is wrong.
If Occam's Razor is that only what is necessary should be included, then it is a concept that everyone shares and is part of common sense.
I want to bring to the table two logical fallacies.
The first is the argument people around here call "occam's razor". It says that apparently the simplest explanation is the correct one. A simple exercise in thinking can reveal that this isn't true. After all, Newtonian mechanics is far simpler than quantum field theory. But it is more incorrect. Even QFT is incorrect, and physicists readily admit to its limits and ponder what could be used to replace it. Physicists and mathematicians wish the world were as simple as the theory of electrodynamics (thanks to Maxwell's insight), but even that model is incorrect and limited.
The second argument I hear is that of falsifiability. "If some theory can't be exposed to experiments that could prove it false, it can't be true." This is also incorrect. I would like to turn your attention back to physics. Give a 5-year-old child a bunch of blocks, explain Maxwell's equations, and ask him to invent experiments to prove it wrong. Just because he can't come up with experiments that could potentially prove the theory of electrodynamics is wrong doesn't mean it is false.
I am a physicist by education. I must tell you that those who were professors around me cautiously acknowledged their own inferiority to a superior being. Many regularly attended their religion of choice. None were terribly happy with the theory of evolution, nor any other theory they taught about in physics class. Being a physicist means being honest. Ask some professor about whatever theory you like. Then ask them about its limitations. Every theory I learned about had a realm where it worked and a realm where it didn't, even the most advanced theories.
It's absurd to think, by simply observation, that man knows anything about the universe around him. Even our physicsts can barely explain the simplest of phenonema correctly. (Why do bicycles work? Why do airplanes fly? Physicists were wrong up until a few years ago when someone explained that the point of contact being behind the axis of rotation helped keep the bike upright and the angle of attack of the wing caused more lift than Bernoulli's principle.)
As a scientist, my only allegiance is to the theory that we are all idiots and that perhaps by careful observation I might find some way to advance that theory by turning conventional wisdom and/or science on its head.
On the subject of religion, why are so many people upset by it? Religion addresses a whole region of the human experience that science, by definition, cannot approach! Science deals with observation of the five senses; religion deals with observations of the spiritual side of man. Trying to use one to bludgeon the other is like using a sword to cut water! Let the religionists preach salvation and knowledge of the divine, and let the scientists measure the world around us and postulate on its mechanics. Never let one limit the other!
I am perfectly happy about learning about the THEORY of evolution and relativity and Newtonian mechanics, but I am also perfectly happy about learning about man's need for a savior and the true way to approach God for an absolution of one's sins. They aren't mutually exclusive.
By the way, I don't think that there is enough evidence in the earth's outer crust to either prove or disprove evolution. Ultimately, whether you BELIEVE man evolved or was created is an exercise in religion. So don't try bringing science into a realm where an infinite and omnipotent being interferes with the lives of man. Religion triumphs in matters of belief.
FINALLY: If you BELIEVE in the theory of evolution, you are not a scientist. In fact, you are what the Catholic Church was to Galileo.
Some more personal notes:
(1) Stairs really help a lot. It made me realize how out of shape I had become. Take the stairs when you can, and be persistent. You'd be surprised how much more you can go after a few weeks of stair climbing at your office.
(2) Avoid drugs, including caffeine and alcohol. You've got to break that caffeine habit if you have one. When I drink a caffeinated beverage, I get really, really hungry.
(3) A little bit of candy or anything with too many carbs really does ruin your week. Avoid it like the plague. When you finally muster the willpower to tell people, "No thank you. I really like doughnuts, but I like them too much." then you are on the right path. Just think of what happens after you eat the candy or the doughnut - the hunger pains, the headaches, the slowness, etc...
(4) Stress is another biggy. Learn to deal with it properly. When you are geniunely happy and emotionally in control, it's a lot easier to regulate your intake. This also means you can't stress about your weight. (I know, it's almost a paradox: You want to lose weight so you have to become comfortable with your weight...)
You mean the tons of yellow-cake discovered in Iraq? Or the sarin-filled artillery shells the terrorists were using against the Iraqi people? What about the mobile weapons lab? Or the buried MiG fighters? Or the satellite photos of Russian trucks leaving key installations known to house WMDs for Syria before the invasion?
Or do you mean the same weapons of mass destruction that President Clinton used as a reason to lob missiles at the country?
Or do you mean the invisible and totally fake WMD Saddam used to murder countless Kurds and Shiites? Did those women and children just fall to the ground dead because of harmless dust dropped by helicopters, or did they use WMD to kill them? Are those mass graves imaginary?
Are you saying that President Bush was such a great liar that even before he became governor of Texas he was able to convince the president of the opposing party to take his line of weapons and mass destruction and run with it? Was he so influential that he actually convinced Saddam Hussein himself that he had WMD? And not just Saddam, but every intelligence agency in the world, bar none? No one at the time of the invasion seriously doubted that the WMD were there, and that Saddam would've used them if he could. Name one person who wrote an article BEFORE the invasion with evidence that the WMDs were not there!
And if President Bush is such a great liar, why didn't he have Karl Rove plant some nuclear or biological or chemical weapons in some obscure base in Iraq. After he has him plant the material evidence, the Army could move in, and Voila! President Bush is no longer a liar! Why didn't Bush do that? It would've been so simple...
Oracle is continuously leads the pack in benchmarks...
I thought the EULA prevented anyone from benchmarking Oracle? That's why no one can publish side-by-side comparisons of Oracle and PostgreSQL. Go ahead and search the internet for a comparison. I can't find any good ones. That's whay I also can't tell you about my own experiences.
All I can say is go try it yourself.
It's not MySQL that is causing Oracle to fear. PostgreSQL recently announce 8.1. Take a look at the feature set. Compare with Oracle's feature set. The only thing Oracle has on PostgreSQL now are apps. Even then, most of the apps Oracle has are easy enough to code up that it's hard to convince a tech shop to use Oracle over making their own.
Databases are now a commodity.
Python is a great language for learning general programming concepts, not syntax. The major philosophies of programming are all present in one form or another. And it's all highly readable, meaning you don't have to be a pro to understand the pros.
I'm teaching a weekly night class on Python to beginning programmers in my areas and they are picking it up very quickly.
Some people want something that is very lightweight and fast.
Which is why they are switching to PostgreSQL.
Your assumptions about the footprint and speed of PostgreSQL are way out of date.
PostgreSQL is much easier to administer, much easier to develop for, and much better solution that it used to be for high-performance and low-performance shops. It has grown from its niche and began occupying the niches owned by MS SQL, MySQL, and Oracle.
I see the one huge thing in PostgreSQL 8.2 is 2 phase commit.
What this means is you can run a multi-master replication system of databases. MySQL, eat your heart out!
Other things of note: One guy claims he sees a 20%-40% improvement in speed in smaller queries. That is breath-taking.
And the equivalent (and frankly, better implementation of) table partitioning is here! Now there is NO REASON to use Oracle over PostgreSQL. Oracle has lost all of its competitive advantages when 8.1 is released!
Predictions: New Oracle installations drop significantly. PostgreSQL becomes the new DB of choice among the illiterati in the DB community. Salaries for PostgreSQL admins and developers increase significantly, causing a huge demand in PostgreSQL training. News articles about people implementing PostgreSQL and having problems (man bites dog is no longer implementing PostgreSQL, but NOT.) IT costs drop significantly. Oracle lowers licensing fees and relaxes their strict licensing terms. Oracle begins shifting focus from the database itself to the apps running on the database.
As an experienced web developer, and having extensive experience with both databases, the "quirks" in MySQL quickly become unbearable. What do you mean my backup wasn't consistent? What do you mean the data I just incremented one operation ago is back to its old value? Why, when I clear the table, do I get old ids that should now be bad?
The fact that PostgreSQL does it right, and does it the way you expect it to be done, and does it better, means that I choose it every time. The fact that only PostgreSQL cares about backing up your data consistently, providing a consistent transaction, and allows you to do row-level locking, means that only it is up to the task you will inevitable have for it.
As you grow and understand what databases really are, you will begin demanding it do more work for you. With MySQL, you can't grow. With PostgreSQL, you can grow as much as you like.
I've never understood the complexity argument. Apparently, you don't need transactions and sequences and consistent backups if your just doing something simple. I thought things should _just work_ for beginners. Why are you suggesting something that _doesn't just work_ for beginners?
Question: Do you have data? Answer: Yes. Suggestion: Since you have data, you need to use PostgreSQL.
Did you do real-world tests or did you just run a few queries and pull out a stopwatch?
Did you test when data was in the buffer or when the data was clean? Do you even know how to flush the buffer on both databases?
One thing I've noticed consistently is that MySQL begins to slow down as there are more processes running. That's why I never use it for the backend of a website.
Compared to PostgreSQL, which, with only 1 or 2 processes is slower than MySQL, but it begins to shine as your load approaches reality. It also does tremendously well if it is overburdened. I haven't seen a system running PostgreSQL brown out due to overload. I think it's sweet spot is consuming about 75% of your box's resources.
I can't think of a role where I would use MySQL at all.
"Let's all just try to get along, okay? "
Okay, you try to get along with me. That means you have to pay me $50 every month for the rest of your life or I come into your home and shoot you dead.
Oh, you don't like that? Well, why don't you just try to get along? Why do we have to fight all the time?
Your hippy ideas are nice but they need a touch more reality. Of course everyone wants to get along, but under whose terms? The question is and always will be under who do we submit ourselves?
Answer that and you'll quickly become a neo-conservative.
"We give them what they want! We get the **** out of Saudi Arabia!"
We already did.
Should we cave into their other demands? Let's list what they want us to do:
(1) Become dhimmis. That means that we can't testify in court against any muslim. If we refuse to worship Islam, then we must pay an annual dhimmi tax.
(2) Stop charging interest. Stop receiving interest.
(3) Stop giving equal rights to women. Women must cover their heads and must be subservient to their husband. If they don't have a husband they are worthless.
(4) Kill all gays and adulterers and pornographers. Bill Clinton is one of the people that Osama bin Laden frequently mentions as being morally reprehensible and eligible for execution.
(5) Adopt Shari'a law in our land. This is far worse than anything you read in the Bible.
(6) Submit to a global caliphate. That would be a world government administered by Islam imams. Think Iran but on a global scale. No, think Spanish Inquisition replacing the blue-helmetted UN.
So we'll just cave into the demans. You're not an adulterer ot homosexual are you? Why don't you just commit suicide and make our job easier in submitting to Osama's demands.
We would nuke Mecca.
The terrorists don't get it. Every time they shout "Allahu Akbar!" as they saw off a head, they are reinforcing what Europeans have known since the Middle Ages. Islam is not about peace, it is about enforcing tyrnnay by the sword.
If Muslims find the idea of Mecca turning to irradiated glass repulsive, it's high time they stood up to their imams and shouted, "ENOUGH! We will not be hijacked by sick people like you!"
Christianity went through this process and today, Christianity is very, very different from what it was in the Spanish Inquisition. Now Christianity is the religion of democracy and peace.