That is simple sounding process, indeed. But i bet it took you more than just 3 minutes for the download alone, let alone creating a bunch of DBs, users etc.
Your fingers can type only finitely fast, and your hand can move the mouse only finitely fast, and your internet connection finite bandwidth, and your macbook is only finitely fast.
The reboot alone most likely took way more than the 3minutes.
Either all of the above, or i would like to know where to get the timebubble device you are using aswell.
Comparison CentOS, no gui installation: - Login as root or sudo - yum install mysql wait couple minutes for it to download and install the package - type/etc/init.d/mysql start if you want it to start automatically on reboot: - type chkconfig --level345 mysql on
Done. Actual timespent is really few minutes. Ofc, add to that changing the rootpwd and creating dbs and users.
And that's what i tried to make my point, and being modded troll & flamebait for that.
Added complexity adds time required to manage and get familiar, and time being a finite resource...
That goes for code as well i have to maintain: I'll take slow & easy to maintain piece of code anyday over infinitely superior code in every other segment. Faster to maintain = More work done any given day, and how much i get work done is what i'm getting paid for, not the time spent on the task.
Linden Lab got greedy. That's what happened. They do all kinds of things to drive their revenue higher and higher, on th expense of the users, and i don't mean just their wallets, but enjoyability.
And yes, it's become quite desolent place, empty and eerie due to that. Nevermind, technically it's not very good work either...
I tried whatever latest coming with CentOS was couple months back last time.
And it definitely still sucks.
It doesn't matter how shiny and nice it is under the hood, if things are more complex than they should necessarily be.
You said it yourself: Slightly more complicated for non-techies, means techies as well needs to put that much more effort in it. Despite all terms being familiar, ideas being familiar etc. if it requires more, it simply requires more.
There's a reason why everything Apple makes is so huge a success: Simplicity. Techies and non-techies a like use them for that sake, despite it sucking completely as a phone. It's the ease of use, and the cool factor.
Then again, if you cannot comprehend why simplicity is such a virtue, i really hope you aren't working a tech job, perhaps a store clerk would be more suitable.
GSM Association would have that power over Nokia? Doubtfull, Nokia being the company mostly responsible for GSM Association to exist in the first place... No Nokia's GSM R&D in the early days, No GSM Association....
Reasonable... Apple would get so insanely good deal if they get access to most Nokia's patents. Nokia's phone related patents count has to be quite phenomenal... what you should expect for the #1 mobile maker in the world, and #1 mobile R&D company
I see tons of hype lately of ARM based netbooks, desktops etc etc. yet i cannot find them for sale anywhere. Not newegg, not local stores etc. and google results tend to produce only reviews. No one sells, but lots of reviews sounds to me like most of these devices are completely vaporware.
and Corolla GT does 36mpg, in a 950kg, 124hp package from mid 80s and BMW M3 first model does 29-30mpg with ~200hp.
200SX does ~30mpg aswell.
BMW 750 does around 20-22mpg aswell.
A 80s RWD corolla 1.6l does around 30mpg aswell.
A Skyline GT-R i'd assume does around 20-22mpg aswell.
As you can see, mpg has very little to do with engine size, power, vehicle weight etc. when all the other variables keeps changing.
What if the Corvette utilizes direct port injection, direct ignition etc, while RX8 utilizes normal fuel injection and say wasted spark ignition? These are variables which has to be accounted for when doing a serious comparison of the engine type.
I would assume they are so restricted engines due to emissions, and/or fuel consumption is not really on their "TODO" list when they design the cars.
Many sports cars consume A LOT, despite being highly efficient engines, so i would assume they don't really even try to cut the consumption at all for travel.
Big cars are always designed consumption in mind because they would have so so high consumption otherwise. ie. small trucks tend to consume a minimum of over 20l/100km when empty, and highway, that's around 12mpg. (Small truck just over 6000 pounds)
Same goes for Wankel engines. It's ridiculous that they are measured with the same standards than a completely differently working engine.
By design, Wankel is way more efficient (all rotating parts, no complete turns in direction). Downside with Wankel is inexistant low rpm torque, which comes from a multitude of factors (ie. lower rotating mass for one)
In wankel, on 1-cycle you have 3 ignitions, while on 4-stroke you have 1 ignition, and 4-stroke cycle is longer than wankel's....
Actually, higher fuel efficiency does likely translate to more power. But when it translates to more power, it's swapped to smaller engine, underpowered one, and then the fuel consumption is again higher because it's currently going on high loads.
For example, an old RWD corolla.
Stock 1.6liter, carburated engine. Producing around 70JIS HP. Sounds like doesn't consume much, yes? minimum 8liters per 100km (@80km/h highway), practically mixed city + highway (@100km/h) translates to 12liters per 100km, sometimes you can get as low as 10l/100km. RPM limit: 6,000RPM
Newer, high power, high rev 1.6liter, fuel injected, twin cam engine, from early 90s. Same engine has been used as a very tuned up version in Formula Atlantic, and continues to be used in Rally and Drifting. Produces 124 to 165JIS HP, depending upon engine variation. No low rpm torque to speak of, especially with the very first versions. RPM limit 6,800 to 8,500RPM depending upon version.
As for the oil companies stopping highly efficiently engines: I agree with you 100%. There's so many cool, very high fuel efficiency motors invented, but none makes in the market?
Currently the only reason my car still goes forward is duct tape holding a crucial sensor in place.... Due to it being a hot place, every few weeks attach a bit more so it's tight and nice again...
Oh and that works better than using the original attachment screws which fell out due to vibration...
Best of all: This car is being used for snow racing...
Underneath lies tho larger problems than just that. Sure it's been obfuscated to make harder for 3rd party modifications, but they actually fail to implement proper MVC pattern, just to name one problem. (Nevermind that 12k files in a fresh install...)
Slashdot Mirror
Adding to that, there indeed is quite a bit software out there using MySQL or other databases as their backend, targeted for non-techies.
That is simple sounding process, indeed. But i bet it took you more than just 3 minutes for the download alone, let alone creating a bunch of DBs, users etc.
Your fingers can type only finitely fast, and your hand can move the mouse only finitely fast, and your internet connection finite bandwidth, and your macbook is only finitely fast.
The reboot alone most likely took way more than the 3minutes.
Either all of the above, or i would like to know where to get the timebubble device you are using aswell.
Comparison CentOS, no gui installation: /etc/init.d/mysql start
- Login as root or sudo
- yum install mysql
wait couple minutes for it to download and install the package
- type
if you want it to start automatically on reboot:
- type chkconfig --level345 mysql on
Done. Actual timespent is really few minutes. Ofc, add to that changing the rootpwd and creating dbs and users.
Amen to that!
And that's what i tried to make my point, and being modded troll & flamebait for that.
Added complexity adds time required to manage and get familiar, and time being a finite resource...
That goes for code as well i have to maintain: I'll take slow & easy to maintain piece of code anyday over infinitely superior code in every other segment.
Faster to maintain = More work done any given day, and how much i get work done is what i'm getting paid for, not the time spent on the task.
Linden Lab got greedy. That's what happened. They do all kinds of things to drive their revenue higher and higher, on th expense of the users, and i don't mean just their wallets, but enjoyability.
And yes, it's become quite desolent place, empty and eerie due to that. Nevermind, technically it's not very good work either ...
I tried whatever latest coming with CentOS was couple months back last time.
And it definitely still sucks.
It doesn't matter how shiny and nice it is under the hood, if things are more complex than they should necessarily be.
You said it yourself: Slightly more complicated for non-techies, means techies as well needs to put that much more effort in it. Despite all terms being familiar, ideas being familiar etc. if it requires more, it simply requires more.
There's a reason why everything Apple makes is so huge a success: Simplicity. Techies and non-techies a like use them for that sake, despite it sucking completely as a phone. It's the ease of use, and the cool factor.
Then again, if you cannot comprehend why simplicity is such a virtue, i really hope you aren't working a tech job, perhaps a store clerk would be more suitable.
Except pgsql utterly sucks ...
or Apple isn't willing to pay.
The counter-sue is just a smokescreen PR, the dog which barks is the dog which got hit and so forth.
GSM Association would have that power over Nokia? Doubtfull, Nokia being the company mostly responsible for GSM Association to exist in the first place ... No Nokia's GSM R&D in the early days, No GSM Association....
Reasonable... Apple would get so insanely good deal if they get access to most Nokia's patents. Nokia's phone related patents count has to be quite phenomenal... what you should expect for the #1 mobile maker in the world, and #1 mobile R&D company
Nokia's R&D might even dwarf the annual revenue apple is making ...
Nokia does other communication hardware than just mobile phones, for example during the early days of xDSL Nokia's routers were everywhere...
Correct that, already ordered one for testing ;)
Finally just not vaporware? :)
Going to get one.
I wish i could get even cheaper ones without screen, keyb, battery, wifi etc. just PS/2, USB, VGA and Ethernet connections? ;)
I see tons of hype lately of ARM based netbooks, desktops etc etc. yet i cannot find them for sale anywhere. Not newegg, not local stores etc. and google results tend to produce only reviews. No one sells, but lots of reviews sounds to me like most of these devices are completely vaporware.
and Corolla GT does 36mpg, in a 950kg, 124hp package from mid 80s and BMW M3 first model does 29-30mpg with ~200hp.
200SX does ~30mpg aswell.
BMW 750 does around 20-22mpg aswell.
A 80s RWD corolla 1.6l does around 30mpg aswell.
A Skyline GT-R i'd assume does around 20-22mpg aswell.
As you can see, mpg has very little to do with engine size, power, vehicle weight etc. when all the other variables keeps changing.
What if the Corvette utilizes direct port injection, direct ignition etc, while RX8 utilizes normal fuel injection and say wasted spark ignition? These are variables which has to be accounted for when doing a serious comparison of the engine type.
I would assume so aswell, rarity and different operating principle.
They are very cool indeed, and i would love to see someone taking the full advantage of a rotary engine, that means extremely high revving engine.
Wankel can be efficient, it's been demonstrated many times in the past.
The problem with wankel is the low torque, high rev nature. Emissions limit it to extremely small engine sizes.
I wonder what would happen if wankel's idle rpm is allowed to be say 1500rpm, and the whole band at the same ratio higher.
You do realize 2-stroke is usually considered to be especially high emission engine? Yet, Lotus managed to build this very low emission engine ...
I would assume they are so restricted engines due to emissions, and/or fuel consumption is not really on their "TODO" list when they design the cars.
Many sports cars consume A LOT, despite being highly efficient engines, so i would assume they don't really even try to cut the consumption at all for travel.
Big cars are always designed consumption in mind because they would have so so high consumption otherwise. ie. small trucks tend to consume a minimum of over 20l/100km when empty, and highway, that's around 12mpg. (Small truck just over 6000 pounds)
Same goes for Wankel engines.
It's ridiculous that they are measured with the same standards than a completely differently working engine.
By design, Wankel is way more efficient (all rotating parts, no complete turns in direction). Downside with Wankel is inexistant low rpm torque, which comes from a multitude of factors (ie. lower rotating mass for one)
In wankel, on 1-cycle you have 3 ignitions, while on 4-stroke you have 1 ignition, and 4-stroke cycle is longer than wankel's ....
Actually, higher fuel efficiency does likely translate to more power. But when it translates to more power, it's swapped to smaller engine, underpowered one, and then the fuel consumption is again higher because it's currently going on high loads.
For example, an old RWD corolla.
Stock 1.6liter, carburated engine. Producing around 70JIS HP. Sounds like doesn't consume much, yes?
minimum 8liters per 100km (@80km/h highway), practically mixed city + highway (@100km/h) translates to 12liters per 100km, sometimes you can get as low as 10l/100km.
RPM limit: 6,000RPM
Newer, high power, high rev 1.6liter, fuel injected, twin cam engine, from early 90s.
Same engine has been used as a very tuned up version in Formula Atlantic, and continues to be used in Rally and Drifting.
Produces 124 to 165JIS HP, depending upon engine variation. No low rpm torque to speak of, especially with the very first versions.
RPM limit 6,800 to 8,500RPM depending upon version.
Comparison engine: Latest 16v (circa 91-93), steel exhaust manifold, freeflow air filter, 8k rpm rev limit, produces ~135HP
Fuel consumption highway 100-120km/h: 6.5-7l/100km
Mixed fuel consumption average 8l/100km
As for the oil companies stopping highly efficiently engines: I agree with you 100%. There's so many cool, very high fuel efficiency motors invented, but none makes in the market?
And you should keep a consistent naming scheme, along with consistent typecasing....
investment.calculateRiskInvestment() // investment.calculateRisk()
and int employeeRating
Nawh, i intend to replace the sensor with one which actually has holes for the screws on both sides, new screws and some loctite :)
the hard part tho, is that it has to be really sensitively adjusted, and after adjustment, it's gonna be tricky to open screws to apply loctite
Yeah, it would. There's no excuse for being lazy ;)
Currently the only reason my car still goes forward is duct tape holding a crucial sensor in place .... Due to it being a hot place, every few weeks attach a bit more so it's tight and nice again...
Oh and that works better than using the original attachment screws which fell out due to vibration ...
Best of all: This car is being used for snow racing ...
Amen to that!
Underneath lies tho larger problems than just that. Sure it's been obfuscated to make harder for 3rd party modifications, but they actually fail to implement proper MVC pattern, just to name one problem. (Nevermind that 12k files in a fresh install...)