Arrogance is blinding you
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 4, Informative
PostgreSQL has seen major improvements.
Look at the Coverity open source scans. Coverity identified 90 (potential) coding errors. Each was investigated. There were 57 code fixes, on for every code error that was confirmed by a coder. Not exactly a rotting community.
Look at the previously reported scaling on FreeBSD 7.0. This is nearly perfect scaling. That doesn't happen by itself.
Niagara should have a future
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
We are entering an era where energy conservation is going to be critical. Niagara2 can provide 32 threads for 72 Watts. This is a great CPU for a hypothetical Oracle on-site enterprise database appliance. Add a hot-failover-to-cloud, and you can have a database that doesn't even stop for upgrades or floods.
MySQL is in a very different niche than Oracle. When is the last time you saw Oracle used as the back end for a Wiki or a large company use MySQL for an enterprise ERP system? It may happen that somebody uses a product outside of its niche, but like a lungfish on land, it just isn't as effective as something that has evolved to better fill that role.
Postgres is looking better than ever
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It remains a functional relational database. It has a BSD-style license with a very stable, nearly bug-free (see Coverity) core. It has modular design (you can write procedures in Java, C, C++, T/SQL, R, Python and others. You can get commercial support from a company (EnterpriseDB) that doesn't have a vested interest in moving you to a very expensive alternative.
Look at Saul Griffith's TED video
Kites can reach higher altitudes and sweep more sky than turbines, so they can (theoretically at least) generate more power than the turbines.
Almost as soon as you get causation != correlation, you get trolling like this. Once you accept that causation != correlation, you can also accept that other reasonably intelligent people will accept this also. The authors of the report make no claim to causation. But this does lead to important questions that deserve to be investigated. So please, just don't post if all you want is a soapbox for your politics.
The car is named 'tata' and the best you can come up with is a iPod interface? Am I the only one with a gutter mind who is looking forward to a ta-ta interface with left and right control silicone controllers?
I lived & worked in France, it was better than the US for the middle class. It was also better for 'cultural elites', but it not such a nice place if you want to accumulate personal wealth. All in all, I like the French approach.
There is also private medicine in Europe. It is for elective procedures (cosmetic surgery, usually) and there are some private clinics that offer the 'high end' services for millionaires that don't want public health care. If money can be made, somebody somewhere will find a way to provide the service.
Consider this: French workers are more productive per hour worked than US workers. We just work more hours per year. At least for me, productivity should be a measure of units of output per unit of input. If you consider 'wealth created per worker-year', the US is highly productive. If you want to consider 'wealth generated per worker-hour', the French are more productive. It is not all clear to me that the French are 'lazy', they just have different values.
As to the 'elitist' charge. The US economy is great for the financial elite, but miserly with respect to anyone with a median salary or lower. In a lab in Europe, the lab assistants got food subsidies at the excellent cafeteria. The lab ran a nice Mercedes bus that picked them up from each of the nearby villages - a nice perk given the cost of gas. So, who is favoring the elite - France or the US?
Let me get this straight. Two men help strangers to use free software and you are calling one an ass because he wants to 1) share the results of a fix with future users of the group, and 2) avoid flowery 'thank you' follow ups because he has high pressure work to do (there is no other kind of work at Morgan Stanley). Is that the jist of it?
I'm just guessing that he is getting more like $20/second on the TV spots. What really sucks is that the $20/hr 'gurus' probably know more about Windows than Seifeld.
There is no claim of righteousness in science. There are just a claim of being in the scientific mainstream and claims that the evidence for a theory is compelling (I think of this using Bayesian statistics, but you can define confidence in a conclusion in many ways)
In science, you have to accept that knowledge in imperfect. Science is the most effective tool we have devised to improve the quality of our knowledge. So current evolution is 'more nearly right' than current creationism. Future scientific consensus on the origin of species seems all but certain to be a refinement of our current views.
The amount of accumulated evidence is compelling to the scientific community: the amount of evidence to overthrow this view would have to be even more compelling. The current issue on carbon dating certainly falls into the category of 'refinement' rather being a 'refutation'.
The habit of creationists picking at the details as if pulling one thread would somehow 'unravel' the entire theory of evolution shows a gross misunderstanding of the volume of evidence that has been accumulated in support of evolution.
At the end of the 19th century it appeared that Newton, Faraday and Maxwell provided a complete theoretical framework for the physics of the natural world: Except for the thankless task of doing more experiments to add more digits to physical constants, it seemed to some that the end of physics was almost in sight. So, the last time there was a feeling that science was about to 'complete' a field, it proved to be the calm before the storm. Quantum mechanics, relativity and complexity theory have removed any chance of 'completing' physics. Any claim that a field of science is 'all done' would be almost immediately regretted by the scientist that claimed it. So, one reason that papers never say "Nope, that's it, we're done here" is because they never are done.
I would think that you could just sign up with Amazon and run a virtual linux instance under Xen on their Elastic Compute Cloud. I don't mean to sound like a commercial, but it seems perfect for this sort of number crunching. You start a virtual server, push your code onto it (in a bash script) and you run. If you want to run multiple instances, its just as cheap to run 4 concurrent servers as it would be to run one server 4 times as long. At $0.10/hour, this should be a good deal.
Slashdot Mirror
PostgreSQL has seen major improvements. Look at the Coverity open source scans. Coverity identified 90 (potential) coding errors. Each was investigated. There were 57 code fixes, on for every code error that was confirmed by a coder. Not exactly a rotting community. Look at the previously reported scaling on FreeBSD 7.0. This is nearly perfect scaling. That doesn't happen by itself.
We are entering an era where energy conservation is going to be critical. Niagara2 can provide 32 threads for 72 Watts. This is a great CPU for a hypothetical Oracle on-site enterprise database appliance. Add a hot-failover-to-cloud, and you can have a database that doesn't even stop for upgrades or floods.
MySQL is in a very different niche than Oracle. When is the last time you saw Oracle used as the back end for a Wiki or a large company use MySQL for an enterprise ERP system? It may happen that somebody uses a product outside of its niche, but like a lungfish on land, it just isn't as effective as something that has evolved to better fill that role.
It remains a functional relational database. It has a BSD-style license with a very stable, nearly bug-free (see Coverity) core. It has modular design (you can write procedures in Java, C, C++, T/SQL, R, Python and others. You can get commercial support from a company (EnterpriseDB) that doesn't have a vested interest in moving you to a very expensive alternative.
Look at Saul Griffith's TED video Kites can reach higher altitudes and sweep more sky than turbines, so they can (theoretically at least) generate more power than the turbines.
Almost as soon as you get causation != correlation, you get trolling like this. Once you accept that causation != correlation, you can also accept that other reasonably intelligent people will accept this also. The authors of the report make no claim to causation. But this does lead to important questions that deserve to be investigated. So please, just don't post if all you want is a soapbox for your politics.
I suggest they call it Echo-System.
The car is named 'tata' and the best you can come up with is a iPod interface? Am I the only one with a gutter mind who is looking forward to a ta-ta interface with left and right control silicone controllers?
At least you can take solace in writing a joke over my head. that should be some soul loss
No, a melting pot would retain the heaviest, which the US has quite well
I have to disagree with your argument. That should be most dense, not heaviest... Oh never mind. We also do that well.
If that is your view about national service, don't volunteer. If someone else wants to, why berate them?
A cost 'doubling' of the software and the CPU cycles in a system like this would add only a tiny fraction to the final cost.
I lived & worked in France, it was better than the US for the middle class. It was also better for 'cultural elites', but it not such a nice place if you want to accumulate personal wealth. All in all, I like the French approach.
There is also private medicine in Europe. It is for elective procedures (cosmetic surgery, usually) and there are some private clinics that offer the 'high end' services for millionaires that don't want public health care. If money can be made, somebody somewhere will find a way to provide the service.
As to the 'elitist' charge. The US economy is great for the financial elite, but miserly with respect to anyone with a median salary or lower. In a lab in Europe, the lab assistants got food subsidies at the excellent cafeteria. The lab ran a nice Mercedes bus that picked them up from each of the nearby villages - a nice perk given the cost of gas. So, who is favoring the elite - France or the US?
Let me get this straight. Two men help strangers to use free software and you are calling one an ass because he wants to 1) share the results of a fix with future users of the group, and 2) avoid flowery 'thank you' follow ups because he has high pressure work to do (there is no other kind of work at Morgan Stanley). Is that the jist of it?
I'm just guessing that he is getting more like $20/second on the TV spots. What really sucks is that the $20/hr 'gurus' probably know more about Windows than Seifeld.
There is no claim of righteousness in science. There are just a claim of being in the scientific mainstream and claims that the evidence for a theory is compelling (I think of this using Bayesian statistics, but you can define confidence in a conclusion in many ways) In science, you have to accept that knowledge in imperfect. Science is the most effective tool we have devised to improve the quality of our knowledge. So current evolution is 'more nearly right' than current creationism. Future scientific consensus on the origin of species seems all but certain to be a refinement of our current views. The amount of accumulated evidence is compelling to the scientific community: the amount of evidence to overthrow this view would have to be even more compelling. The current issue on carbon dating certainly falls into the category of 'refinement' rather being a 'refutation'. The habit of creationists picking at the details as if pulling one thread would somehow 'unravel' the entire theory of evolution shows a gross misunderstanding of the volume of evidence that has been accumulated in support of evolution.
This gives 'High Noon' a whole new meaning. It is now the time that terrorists are most anonymous.
At the end of the 19th century it appeared that Newton, Faraday and Maxwell provided a complete theoretical framework for the physics of the natural world: Except for the thankless task of doing more experiments to add more digits to physical constants, it seemed to some that the end of physics was almost in sight. So, the last time there was a feeling that science was about to 'complete' a field, it proved to be the calm before the storm. Quantum mechanics, relativity and complexity theory have removed any chance of 'completing' physics. Any claim that a field of science is 'all done' would be almost immediately regretted by the scientist that claimed it. So, one reason that papers never say "Nope, that's it, we're done here" is because they never are done.
Are you on a LaCROSSe team too?
You open access to the source code of the C++, Java and Python libraries that you use in your internal work.
I would think that you could just sign up with Amazon and run a virtual linux instance under Xen on their Elastic Compute Cloud. I don't mean to sound like a commercial, but it seems perfect for this sort of number crunching. You start a virtual server, push your code onto it (in a bash script) and you run. If you want to run multiple instances, its just as cheap to run 4 concurrent servers as it would be to run one server 4 times as long. At $0.10/hour, this should be a good deal.
well, duh, ... its Golden. That's like asking 'Who is buried in Grant's tomb.'
... somebody other than Bill Gates can afford 16 TB of RAM