Re:What happens with deceased people's code?
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Come now. Maybe it wasn't interesting to you because you knew the answer.
But it was a valid question for the grand parent, and it was modded interesting because others had the same question.
Re:Database independence
on
A Decade of PHP
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think that the chart is rather accurate. I know the people that made it and one of them is in the SQL Standards committee (Åke Persson).
It may be really picky and unforgiving, however, and even a minor deviation from the standard might disqualify a feature from being listed as supported for a certain database. I can't say that that isn't the case. All I'm saying is that they guys that made the list know what they are talking about.
Åke Persson is also a compiler expert and he wrote this tool:
I saw a Simpsons episode once where they switched from their normal format to the format of the Sitcom. They had typical one liners with the obligatory recorded audience laughter sounds.
Seeing it that way made me realise how shallow and weak sitcoms really were.
I was of course watching friends as usual 2 weeks later. But regardless of that, it was an interesting "experiment".
Well, you can still do it the old way. And they don't necessarily send a perfumed paper letter to all developers announcing that they support the standard syntax.
All database vendors want you to use their proprietary constructs. But they also want to make it easy for you to move to their database. So in some cases they support the standard, but doesn't announce it.
Here's something you can try. INFORMATION_SCHEMA is the standard way to inspect a database to find tables and columns for instance. SQL Server 2000 supports it, but they aren't really encouraging its use over their proprietary approach. They make it really hard to find.
You are thinking that the only way to organize data is hierarchally.
Consider a document:/home/username/work/myproject/main.cpp
Another way of thinking about it is to have a document called main.cpp with the following tags: author: username1, username2 (maybe more than one author) category: work projectname: myproject filetype: cpp date: 20050505 version: 4 status: checked-out reviewed: no whathaveyou: something
As you can see you have the same amount of information attached to the file in both cases (about). The difference is that with the second case it is not hierarchical.
With the hierarchical approach you have to know higher levels in the path to narrow down the number of possible hits. With the non hierarchical approach you can narrow down the number of possible hits by picking values for the different tags in no particular order.
The tags that you assign to files can be different for different files.
All this said, I don't think the folders are going away any time soon. I think we'll have both.
Database independence
on
A Decade of PHP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I support the idea of database independence.
But it should be done by using standard SQL.
Unfortunately, that is not a losing battle, it is a lost battle.
The database vendors doesn't care about standard SQL.
Not that I know anything in particular but here comes a little speculation just for fun.
Isn't it entirely possible that an alien species might have a strong urge to explore, but the thought of war might never have even occurred to them?
They might be vegeterians and never had a need for hunting anyway.
So, they might arrive at planet earth and not have as much as a sling shot.
I'm not saying that it is likely, but I can't prove that it wouldn't be the case. But it isn't very likely that we'll get visitors any time soon either.
But I think it was a bigger problem that Yoda "much fear in him saw". And this was because of his experiences with getting drawn away and eventually losing his mother.
So, if Luke was older, but harmonious then maybe...
My god. I'm debating how things work in George Lucas fantasy universe.
Isn't this information already available for the most part from the Whois archives?
I realise that Whois isn't very reliable, but in principle it should be correct for most domains.
So this means that China isn't interested in sort of kind of knowing who is responsible for a web site. They want someone that will be responsible in the eyes of the law.
This is likely a very clever way to force self censorship. If your name is registered, you'll make sure that there's no contra band on your web site.
They'll prosecute a few, but many more web sites will comply out of fear.
Slashdot Mirror
Come now. Maybe it wasn't interesting to you because you knew the answer.
But it was a valid question for the grand parent, and it was modded interesting because others had the same question.
I think that the chart is rather accurate. I know the people that made it and one of them is in the SQL Standards committee (Åke Persson).
It may be really picky and unforgiving, however, and even a minor deviation from the standard might disqualify a feature from being listed as supported for a certain database. I can't say that that isn't the case. All I'm saying is that they guys that made the list know what they are talking about.
Åke Persson is also a compiler expert and he wrote this tool:
http://developer.mimer.com/validator/index.htm
You can use it to validate your SQL to SQL-92, -99 and 2003. Pretty nifty if I may say so.
I saw a Simpsons episode once where they switched from their normal format to the format of the Sitcom. They had typical one liners with the obligatory recorded audience laughter sounds.
Seeing it that way made me realise how shallow and weak sitcoms really were.
I was of course watching friends as usual 2 weeks later. But regardless of that, it was an interesting "experiment".
Yes:
p d_comparison_chart.tml
http://developer.mimer.com/validator/comparison/u
Well, you can still do it the old way. And they don't necessarily send a perfumed paper letter to all developers announcing that they support the standard syntax.
All database vendors want you to use their proprietary constructs. But they also want to make it easy for you to move to their database. So in some cases they support the standard, but doesn't announce it.
Here's something you can try. INFORMATION_SCHEMA is the standard way to inspect a database to find tables and columns for instance. SQL Server 2000 supports it, but they aren't really encouraging its use over their proprietary approach. They make it really hard to find.
But you had no practical way of using that to find the package.
Here is a good comparison that I use:
p d_comparison_chart.tml
http://developer.mimer.com/validator/comparison/u
You are thinking that the only way to organize data is hierarchally.
/home/username/work/myproject/main.cpp
Consider a document:
Another way of thinking about it is to have a document called main.cpp with the following tags:
author: username1, username2 (maybe more than one author)
category: work
projectname: myproject
filetype: cpp
date: 20050505
version: 4
status: checked-out
reviewed: no
whathaveyou: something
As you can see you have the same amount of information attached to the file in both cases (about). The difference is that with the second case it is not hierarchical.
With the hierarchical approach you have to know higher levels in the path to narrow down the number of possible hits. With the non hierarchical approach you can narrow down the number of possible hits by picking values for the different tags in no particular order.
The tags that you assign to files can be different for different files.
All this said, I don't think the folders are going away any time soon. I think we'll have both.
I support the idea of database independence.
But it should be done by using standard SQL.
Unfortunately, that is not a losing battle, it is a lost battle.
The database vendors doesn't care about standard SQL.
Haha...
:)
I love it.
You should write movie scripts. That would have been a great scene in Office Space.
I bet even ROT13 "encryption" would defeat the corporate censors.
Were you going to put any data on that USB stick before you do that or were you just planning on doing it for fun?
Not that I know anything in particular but here comes a little speculation just for fun.
Isn't it entirely possible that an alien species might have a strong urge to explore, but the thought of war might never have even occurred to them?
They might be vegeterians and never had a need for hunting anyway.
So, they might arrive at planet earth and not have as much as a sling shot.
I'm not saying that it is likely, but I can't prove that it wouldn't be the case. But it isn't very likely that we'll get visitors any time soon either.
I think you are right that the age was a problem.
But I think it was a bigger problem that Yoda "much fear in him saw". And this was because of his experiences with getting drawn away and eventually losing his mother.
So, if Luke was older, but harmonious then maybe...
My god. I'm debating how things work in George Lucas fantasy universe.
You prefer Papa the John?
Dvorak makes a prediction that comes true... Oh wait.
Why don't we hear more about these things happening in the middle east?
Some of the goverments there have even more to lose by their citizens seeing information from the outside world.
Maybe it is because the general public in those countries not normally having Internet yet?
Isn't this information already available for the most part from the Whois archives?
I realise that Whois isn't very reliable, but in principle it should be correct for most domains.
So this means that China isn't interested in sort of kind of knowing who is responsible for a web site. They want someone that will be responsible in the eyes of the law.
This is likely a very clever way to force self censorship. If your name is registered, you'll make sure that there's no contra band on your web site.
They'll prosecute a few, but many more web sites will comply out of fear.
I wish I had mod points.
I'd help you on the way to be a +5 Troll (I'd just vote underrated).
While the language is harsh, you are right. Frames do cause problems.
They sound good, but they bring problems with them.
Wow, that is great news.
I used to be a Debian head. But I've sort of lost touch with it. But this makes me want to try it again.
What kernel version? 2.4? 2.6?
I'm wondering if the iPod success is crucial for this move?
Maybe the iPod is what makes people think that Apple still is a credible company that has a bright future and that will continue to be around.
Without the iPod people might have been dangerously close to thinking that Apple has lost their reason to exist.
I'm not saying that I'm being completely rational here.
With a different CPU I felt as if they were "sticking it to the man".
It's like someone being completely surrounded by 50 baddies in a movie, and saying with complete confidence "surrender or I will kill you".
For some reason I thought that some of the appeal with the Mac was that it used a different CPU.
And that is gone now.
I'm probably not the only one.
I can't help but think that Apple didn't want this move, but was forced by IBM.
IBM might have said that they weren't going to spend any R&D on the G5/970 for the laptop for instance.
And Apple was forced to take the plunge.
And now they are desperately trying to make this sound as if it will be an advantage to the end user and that it is a great thing.
But behind the scenes Steve Jobs is cursing IBM.
Haha...
Aaah, I see they had smileys back then too.
And they seemed to have bigger noses back then.
Did we have Email 2001 years ago but forgot about it?