But Oracle's main selling point vs. DB2 traditionally is how fast it is.
For amusement, make that point in front of a bunch of IBMers/DB2 consultants. If you're lucky, you'll hear how Oracle's SQL optimizer is the one IBM rejected in favor of the one used in DB2.
Oracle doesn't care about losing the trust of the MySQL community. They already have a database to sell; they're probably more interested in the vertical integration with OS, hardware, and programming language tools.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were happy to sell the MySQL business unit, or kill it completely.
Not necessarily - phones transmit the IMSI to the network, and there's known flaws in the encryption scheme GSM uses (and some carriers don't use encryption, though it's not very common, AFAIK). It's plausible that those two would get you the IMSI.
It's weird that people who think they were created by random chance think they or anything else is worth more than a pile of shit.
That's silly. I'm alive, conscious, and experiencing the world. I'm the only thing I really know - it's ridiculous to think that I don't think I'm worth something. And the people that I encounter in my life, some I dislike and others I like. The latter set is far smaller than the former, and I value its members more highly.
But of course you're talking about ultimate value, in absolute terms, I don't think is a particularly meaningful or useful thing to talk about. I don't think there's anything absolute, permanent, or unchanging, and so nothing has value or essence in the way you're thinking.
After Tether departed in February (good riddance), DARPA's had just an acting director with no major changes to policy. I know I'd like to see someone appointed, preferably with a real scientific research background.
If nothing else, can we get rid of the stupid GNG targets?
First, your question should be, "Why is Fox News the only media outlet reporting this?"
Well, no, first your question should be "Is Fox news is the only media outlet reporting this," which it isn't. If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd notice the "gaffe" was initially reported by a person from Newsweek (see here for the original story).
Fox does seem to be the only media outlet making a big deal about it. I think that's probably because it's not actually important or newsworthy in any significant sense, and Fox mostly has an agenda to pursue in terms of pointing out every insignificant thing anyone in the Obama administration does with an eye to trying to make them look bad. For example, all the silliness with Michelle Obama touching the Queen, or Barack Obama shaking hands with Hugo Chavez at (*gasp*) a diplomatic meeting.
Somehow it's a major gaffe and security lapse to let on that there's a secure bunker under the official residence of the Vice President? I think if you'd asked me if there was one before reading this story, I'd just have assumed so.
Sorry, this is making a story out of basically nothing. I think Biden's kind of a putz sometimes, but this is just kinda bullshitty.
I don't believe that the government should be using my money for those purposes. When you buy an electrical appliance are you content with the UL listing or do you limit your purchases to those appliances that have been tested by some Federal agency?
Depends on the appliance; I do pay attention to the Energy star ratings and consumption figures that are on major appliances. If you're buying medicines, do you buy the ones that are tested by an independent agency that at least ought to provide a reasonable expectation of independence from manufacturers, or do you just trust that whatever Dr. Watson has bottled up for his patent medicine show is perfectly safe and does what it's marketed to do?
The difference is that the military is actually envisioned by the Constitution. Federal funding for scientific research and slaughterhouse inspection is not.
Article 1, Section 8, which grants congress the power to:
provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
The authority to write laws providing for health inspections of slaughterhouses, among other things, rather obviously fall under such a power.
But, to return to something you said initially:
When the Government takes my money and uses it to fund things that I have moral objections to I have no recourse.
In what way do you not have recourse? We have elections in the US, as well as a free press. Vote for that person who will best represent you, and make use of your freedom of speech to convince others to see things your way.
The tyranny of the majority is just as insidious as other kinds of tyranny. When the Government takes my money and uses it to fund things that I have moral objections to I have no recourse.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, this is merely an argument for anarchy. Say I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and I don't want my tax dollars spent encouraging or enabling people to eat meat. Consequently, I don't think the government should take my money and use it to fund stuff like health inspections at slaughterhouses or meat packing plants, etc. because that encourages people to eat meat. Also, I'm a religious fundamentalist and believe that I must literally cleave to the proscriptions in Leviticus, meaning I also don't want the government doing anything that involves shellfish, pork, or garments with more than one kind of material in them. And finally, I'm a pacifist and believe that all violence is wrong. Therefore, none of my money should be spent on the military; for that matter, I don't want that money going to my local police force because they carry guns and nightsticks.
Eventually, you'll find someone who has an objection to everything. So then, anarchy, because there's nothing at all you'll be able to find the government can fund and not run afoul of someone's ethical concerns.
How do you take the politics out of the science when you hold the science hostage to political considerations to get the required funds?
You try to make the policy and decision making processes for the agencies that fund this kind of thing independent of political appointees. It's not absolutely perfect, but it's also not impossible to do.
Also, it's worth noting three things. One, these are draft regs and the linked article only quotes a couple of people complaining about them without any indication of having contacted the agency for comment. Two, ethical decisions are actually important as part of research protocols, and establishing ethical standards can be done without it becoming rife with political considerations - there are people who study medical and scientific ethics who work to come up with reasonable ways to handle this kind of stuff. Three, this is just for federal funding; private organizations are free to continue using whatever stem cell lines they can legally obtain for their purposes.
It's not about openness, at all. It's about the right to a fair trial; openness is just a side effect.
If you're relying on a machine to give evidence that's (for all intents and purposes) sufficient to convict someone of DUI, openness is a pre-requisite for conducting a fair trial.
Well, one, states aren't countries and vice versa - they're still separate countries, but part of a single state. Second, they unified 1-2 years after Franklin was born, so it doesn't really count.
Yeah, could be. I know I've paid for drinks at bars in Leeds and York with Scottish pounds and not had it be a problem, but was told (by a Scottish friend) not to try it further south.
England and Scotland merged into the United Kingdom as of 1707, so they were a single state with one government and Parliament. They're still separate countries, though - Scotland's banks even issue their own currency, the Scottish pound. I believe they're perfectly legal tender in the rest of the UK, but you get funny looks from people anywhere much past north England.
Slashdot Mirror
For amusement, make that point in front of a bunch of IBMers/DB2 consultants. If you're lucky, you'll hear how Oracle's SQL optimizer is the one IBM rejected in favor of the one used in DB2.
Gotta say, though, I do prefer DB2 to Oracle.
Yes, exactly. And PostgreSQL's capabilities and feature set is already closer to Oracle than MySQL's is or is likely to be in the future.
Oracle doesn't care about losing the trust of the MySQL community. They already have a database to sell; they're probably more interested in the vertical integration with OS, hardware, and programming language tools.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were happy to sell the MySQL business unit, or kill it completely.
Not necessarily - phones transmit the IMSI to the network, and there's known flaws in the encryption scheme GSM uses (and some carriers don't use encryption, though it's not very common, AFAIK). It's plausible that those two would get you the IMSI.
This:
That's silly. I'm alive, conscious, and experiencing the world. I'm the only thing I really know - it's ridiculous to think that I don't think I'm worth something. And the people that I encounter in my life, some I dislike and others I like. The latter set is far smaller than the former, and I value its members more highly.
But of course you're talking about ultimate value, in absolute terms, I don't think is a particularly meaningful or useful thing to talk about. I don't think there's anything absolute, permanent, or unchanging, and so nothing has value or essence in the way you're thinking.
Way to go with a logical fallacy.
Also, you exhibit a deep lack of understanding with respect to most of Christian history.
It's weird that people think following the supposed arbitrary whims of a giant invisible daddy figure in the sky is a decent basis for morality.
They've patented product activation. You don't get the full app till you pay up, or find a crack.
Seriously, is this really any different than the countless other schemes for product activation that have been tried and found lacking over the years?
And does it run on *nix?
No? Then it's still useless to me.
After Tether departed in February (good riddance), DARPA's had just an acting director with no major changes to policy. I know I'd like to see someone appointed, preferably with a real scientific research background.
If nothing else, can we get rid of the stupid GNG targets?
Well, no, first your question should be "Is Fox news is the only media outlet reporting this," which it isn't. If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd notice the "gaffe" was initially reported by a person from Newsweek (see here for the original story).
Fox does seem to be the only media outlet making a big deal about it. I think that's probably because it's not actually important or newsworthy in any significant sense, and Fox mostly has an agenda to pursue in terms of pointing out every insignificant thing anyone in the Obama administration does with an eye to trying to make them look bad. For example, all the silliness with Michelle Obama touching the Queen, or Barack Obama shaking hands with Hugo Chavez at (*gasp*) a diplomatic meeting.
Somehow it's a major gaffe and security lapse to let on that there's a secure bunker under the official residence of the Vice President? I think if you'd asked me if there was one before reading this story, I'd just have assumed so.
Sorry, this is making a story out of basically nothing. I think Biden's kind of a putz sometimes, but this is just kinda bullshitty.
Depends on the appliance; I do pay attention to the Energy star ratings and consumption figures that are on major appliances. If you're buying medicines, do you buy the ones that are tested by an independent agency that at least ought to provide a reasonable expectation of independence from manufacturers, or do you just trust that whatever Dr. Watson has bottled up for his patent medicine show is perfectly safe and does what it's marketed to do?
Article 1, Section 8, which grants congress the power to:
The authority to write laws providing for health inspections of slaughterhouses, among other things, rather obviously fall under such a power.
But, to return to something you said initially:
In what way do you not have recourse? We have elections in the US, as well as a free press. Vote for that person who will best represent you, and make use of your freedom of speech to convince others to see things your way.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, this is merely an argument for anarchy. Say I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and I don't want my tax dollars spent encouraging or enabling people to eat meat. Consequently, I don't think the government should take my money and use it to fund stuff like health inspections at slaughterhouses or meat packing plants, etc. because that encourages people to eat meat. Also, I'm a religious fundamentalist and believe that I must literally cleave to the proscriptions in Leviticus, meaning I also don't want the government doing anything that involves shellfish, pork, or garments with more than one kind of material in them. And finally, I'm a pacifist and believe that all violence is wrong. Therefore, none of my money should be spent on the military; for that matter, I don't want that money going to my local police force because they carry guns and nightsticks.
Eventually, you'll find someone who has an objection to everything. So then, anarchy, because there's nothing at all you'll be able to find the government can fund and not run afoul of someone's ethical concerns.
You try to make the policy and decision making processes for the agencies that fund this kind of thing independent of political appointees. It's not absolutely perfect, but it's also not impossible to do.
Also, it's worth noting three things. One, these are draft regs and the linked article only quotes a couple of people complaining about them without any indication of having contacted the agency for comment. Two, ethical decisions are actually important as part of research protocols, and establishing ethical standards can be done without it becoming rife with political considerations - there are people who study medical and scientific ethics who work to come up with reasonable ways to handle this kind of stuff. Three, this is just for federal funding; private organizations are free to continue using whatever stem cell lines they can legally obtain for their purposes.
What Obama talked about was taking the politics out of science, not the government. Those aren't the same thing.
If you're relying on a machine to give evidence that's (for all intents and purposes) sufficient to convict someone of DUI, openness is a pre-requisite for conducting a fair trial.
Existing products - there's some software packages people like to use from the open source world that are tied to MySQL.
But yeah, if I had any choice, there'd be no instances in which I'd pick MySQL over SQLite or Postgres.
Well, one, states aren't countries and vice versa - they're still separate countries, but part of a single state. Second, they unified 1-2 years after Franklin was born, so it doesn't really count.
Yeah, could be. I know I've paid for drinks at bars in Leeds and York with Scottish pounds and not had it be a problem, but was told (by a Scottish friend) not to try it further south.
Clearly you're new here - the "baseless speculation" bit is implicitly set on all stories.
England and Scotland merged into the United Kingdom as of 1707, so they were a single state with one government and Parliament. They're still separate countries, though - Scotland's banks even issue their own currency, the Scottish pound. I believe they're perfectly legal tender in the rest of the UK, but you get funny looks from people anywhere much past north England.
I'm not angry; I am an asshole, though. And you are a douchebag.
Your comebacks suck, too.
Could be. Or you could be a douchebag.
Ok, well, you're definitely a douchebag.