Your statements are not true and you need to get up to speed. Accessing the Internet is no longer an option but a requirement. Internet access is not only available in public schools, it is now required by the schools for doing homework, finding out about homework assignments, and accessing current grade results and test scores.
To do or say nothing about pornography is a cowardly copout.
The Internet is a public place and decency laws that apply to public conduct ought to apply.
We protect our kids by not allowing coitus to be publicly viewable on Main Steet and Broadway but it is there for all to see on the Internet without any restriction whatsoever. This is shameful but the smut-peddlers have no shame. If there's a strip club on Broadway and Main they have signs to indicate what the content on the inside is going to be like so my kids can't accidently walk inside. Not only that, there is usually someone at the door to prevent entry by minors. It's not like that on the Internet but it should be.
The "it's to hard to do" and "cultural difference" excuses are lame. It may take hard work and courage to address the need for decency but trying to do something about it is more honorable than doing nothing. I'm not being an idealist, I'm trying to be a brave realist about the need for decency and morality.
Do you have the moral courage to take a stance or are you a coward? Everyone answers this question one way or another.
"GoogleBase?" Just wait a minute, I invented that and I've got the sketches on a napkin to prove it. You owe me big time and until you pay up I'm going to have a judge slap on a restraining order.
A friend of mine was suffering iron toxicity because he took too many iron supplements. He went to the doc to find out what was wrong and went through a battery of tests. A week later he got the report in the mail saying that he had liver cancer. He had a week before his next appointment and started reading up on liver cancer only to find out that it's almost always fatal and it involves a long drawn out time of excruciating suffering before the ultimate demise. So for a week he lived with that knowledge until he went to the doc only to find out that it was a "data entry error."
It turns out that the code behind the checkbox for liver cancer defaulted to the affirmative and the data entry person had just clicked submit after they complete a separate section of the form. So what programmer bozo would default such a data entry field to yes? Was he/she not thinking or was it sadistic humor?
Yeah, why do people always blame the database? I get the "it's the database" accusation all the time from Duhvelopers.
A friend of mine was suffering iron toxicity because he took too many iron supplements. He went to the doc to find out what was wrong and went through a battery of tests. A week later he got the report in the mail saying that he had liver cancer. He had a week before his next appointment and started reading up on liver cancer only to find out that it's almost always fatal and it involves a long drawn out time of excruciating suffering before the ultimate demise. So for a week he lived with that knowledge until he went to the doc only to find out that it was a data entry error. It turns out that the code behind the checkbox for liver cancer defaulted to the affirmative and the data entry person had just clicked submit after they complete a separate section of the form. So what programmer bozo would default such a data entry field to yes? Was he/she not thinking or was it sadistic humor?
Finally someone has got to the essence of the request for information. It's summary data merely intended to support the case that child porn continues unencumbered and that children have unfettered access to porn.
Instead of "Do no evil" Google has gone to the extreme of "Report no evil." Like an ostrich with its head in the sand Google wants to pretend that there is no evil in the world when in fact their tool can be used as an instrument of evil.
Here's my new slogan, "Combat evil." Alas, that takes moral clarity and moral courage so I doubt a for profit company will have the integrity to do it.
Everyone is still thinking way too small. I've been thinking that I want something like HDTV on a computer with a 60 inch screen but that's still too small. So now I'm thinking about an interface consisting of a ceiling mounted projector with images on the wall from floor to ceiling. I want to be able to walk around and still see images no matter where I am in the room so I guess that means the projector needs to be on the other side of the wall in a closet. At work we have a 6 monitor solution that displays the status of servers in datacenters around the world so now I'm thinking a 6 monitor solution is barely an acceptable minimum.
My human machine interface should be something like my home theatre... A big screen, a powerful 7.1 surround sound system and a comfortable recliner. I don't want to be bothered with a mouse, pointing my finger and uttering a few sounds should be sufficient. Waving my empty 12 oz bottle at the screen should be enough for my computing assistant to know that a refill is in order.
Though I make a living working with machines I maintain that computers and robots are here to serve me and answer my every beck and call.
It looks like a duck.. It quacks like a duck... It's not that insurance company... it's AFLAX... http://www.aflax.org/
You don't know (A)JAX sh*t.
on
Ajax in Action
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How many replied without even reading the book? I started it a month ago with the pre-release PDF made available before the book was published. (This book was the number 1 seller on Amazon just last week.)
My complaint is that the book is LONG on theory and SHORT on small, reproduceable code snippets. It's not until chapter 9 that you get into meaningful code and most of that is dependent on technologies you may not care about like SquealServer and VisualBasic. The last thing I want to have to do is install half a dozen things in order to get some sample code going. It seems the book is not so much about AJAX as it about "The software development process." It drones on about design patterns and MVC. The book is also very verbose saying in 100 words what could be said in 10. Good software engineering discipline is needed of course (especially with Javascript), but this book beats it to death where it should just relate it to AJAX and move on.
All the excitement about AJAX is warranted considering the stupidity of webapp development heretofore. It's really dumb to have to regenerate an entire web page when you just want to return some additional data or reflect a state change. How many production, revenue generating web pages have I seen where the mere click of an HTML select input causes the entire page to be redisplayed? Zillions. This stupidity is overcome by asynchronous part of AJAX. Do you know asynchronous JAX shit? That's the salient improvement over mere DHTML. There's a ton of websites desperately needing richer UI's and people who know asynchronous JAX shit will be in demand.
Long ago (1994) Oracle acquired Rdb which came with VMS and people were alarmed thinking the sky was falling because Oracle would convert the customer base to its flagship database engine and let Rdb wither. Well it didn't exactly happen like that. What withered was VMS but Rdb is still maintained and improved by Oracle as a separate database product. http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/rdb/inde x.html/
Of course Oracle makes money on Rdb. Oracle's strategy is probably to make money with InnoDB too. They may be sneaky and improve InnoDB and keep quiet for a few years and then when people get dependent on it they will up the license fees.
How to make money on open source: Get people addicted with "free" open source software but charge them for key critical components, training, and support. Oracle is not alone here.
Hey man, I got some really good stuff for ya here and I'll give ya some for free just because I like you and I'm so nice. It's really good shit. Here, try some on me.
You beat me to referencing the later and much more important link on the PHP Builder site. The first link is pretty much irrelevant without the superceding conclusions of the content of the 2nd.
It's funny how MySQL AB just hasn't had time to write a multi-user benchmark. Based on the age of the link they haven't had time for a long time now. Yet they say benchmarking is important? Give me a break!
I just completed my own multi-user benchmark tests and the great performance of PostgreSQL vs the not so great performance of MySQL with InnoDB was quite revealing. PostgreSQL's performance was stunning! MySQL with InnoDB hit the wall as I cranked up the number of sessions.
Maybe the reason MySQL AB hasn't "had time" to create a multi-user benchmark is that it really IS hard to come up with one that shows them in a good light. The reason they haven't come up with such a benchmark is that it wouldn't survive the scrutiny of the open source community. If you need ACID compliance and you need performance then beware. InnoDB isn't "native" support for transactions and despite MySQL AB's claims there isn't any atomicity in locking. In fact, there really isn't any row level locking with MySQL... At least the InnoDB web site is more accurate (and honest) and explains that locking is a next-key value locking mechanism that is indexed based. MySQL AB's claim to support row level locking is deceptive.
I haven't found any queries which perform well on MySQL and don't perform equally well on PostgreSQL. But I have found the opposite... a lot of queries that run just fine on PostgreSQL but not on MySQL. MySQL doesn't perform complex joins or subqueries but I guess you could work a little harder and code around these limitations to get some decent performance. But why bother when you can just use PostgreSQL with its full set of features and its absolutely stunningly good performance?
Seems like lots of folks are stuck on past impressions with PostgreSQL version 6.5 and haven't kept up. Those who have not looked at PostgreSQL lately should throw all their prior conclusions out the door and compare the current state of MySQL vs. the current state of PostgreSQL. Ignore the MySQL AB marketing hype and see for yourself.
MySQL may be "free" but it can become very costly if you have to engineer around limitations or its non-ANSI SQL compliance. The lack of subselects, unions, ACID compliant transactions, etc ad nauseum could be hugely significant. The same is true for many other open source databases, SAPDB included. Do your applications need a HIGHLY scalable concurrent multi-user OLTP database engine that is always on 24X365.25 (24X7) and does your database have proven, easy, and dependable backup and recovery capabilities? Will your apps ever grow and need a database engine that is robust enough to support this? If you're paying engineer/administrator salaries to work around these limitations of open source databases then it doesn't take too long to eat up and surpass the license costs of a commercial database. Too many people are making database decisions based on very simplistic and shallow criteria such as, "How much does it cost?" and they're only thinking in simplistic terms of cash outlay. The real cost includes learning curves for your developers and how much work is needed to work around the limitations. If your solution isn't scalable then you will have higher hardware costs. Are there standard DBA practices which you can depend on or do you have to figure it our yourself and hope you didn't miss anything? Can you risk data loss? Can you risk down time? Some people conclude that MySQL is fast but they only look at it from a single query perspective which is pretty stupid if you need concurrent multi-user OLTP access where MySQL can actually turn out to be pretty slow. The "benchmarks" provided by MySQLAB are shallow and poorly reflect on their sense of what is important. InnoDB can provide some solution but what if you can't take the database down but need to because that's the only way to add storage? SAPDB may handle some of these things better but if it's new, poorly documented, and its future is still uncertain is it worth the risk? If you have to spend time futzing with this stuff then that detracts from your focus on your own software/service/business solution. I guess some folks like to futz instead of focusing on the business at hand. Some folks think they can do anything and everything and would rather re-invent the wheel via an open source database engine than pay for perfectly good database software and focus attention on the business solution. It's kind of a perverse "not engineered here" mentality. If you standardize on a database with significant limitations then you are starting out by saying, "I will never need scalable, fault tolerant 24X7 access with a guarantee of no data loss. I have no ambition for the business and I don't want to be prepared for successful growth. My web service could never become an amazon.com or I don't care about this stuff because I'm willing to risk everything on the notion that I can do it all myself with free stuff I download off the net." There's a "nerd think" which says it's more fun and technically respectful to futz with open source stuff than it is to focus on a business solution.
All this having been said, it is quite possible to have a very good business solution which is built on top of an open source database engine but you had better know good and well what you're getting into and know what the limitations and challenges are BEFORE you get started. This in itself could become a major "research project." What's "tried and true" may not work for you. Looking for a "free" open source database engine? "Buyer beware." "You get what you pay for..." one way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
Your statements are not true and you need to get up to speed. Accessing the Internet is no longer an option but a requirement. Internet access is not only available in public schools, it is now required by the schools for doing homework, finding out about homework assignments, and accessing current grade results and test scores.
To do or say nothing about pornography is a cowardly copout.
The Internet is a public place and decency laws that apply to public conduct ought to apply.
We protect our kids by not allowing coitus to be publicly viewable on Main Steet and Broadway but it is there for all to see on the Internet without any restriction whatsoever. This is shameful but the smut-peddlers have no shame. If there's a strip club on Broadway and Main they have signs to indicate what the content on the inside is going to be like so my kids can't accidently walk inside. Not only that, there is usually someone at the door to prevent entry by minors. It's not like that on the Internet but it should be.
The "it's to hard to do" and "cultural difference" excuses are lame. It may take hard work and courage to address the need for decency but trying to do something about it is more honorable than doing nothing. I'm not being an idealist, I'm trying to be a brave realist about the need for decency and morality.
Do you have the moral courage to take a stance or are you a coward? Everyone answers this question one way or another.
"GoogleBase?" Just wait a minute, I invented that and I've got the sketches on a napkin to prove it. You owe me big time and until you pay up I'm going to have a judge slap on a restraining order.
Sincerely yours,
Al Gore-Rhythm
A friend of mine was suffering iron toxicity because he took too many iron supplements. He went to the doc to find out what was wrong and went through a battery of tests. A week later he got the report in the mail saying that he had liver cancer. He had a week before his next appointment and started reading up on liver cancer only to find out that it's almost always fatal and it involves a long drawn out time of excruciating suffering before the ultimate demise. So for a week he lived with that knowledge until he went to the doc only to find out that it was a "data entry error."
It turns out that the code behind the checkbox for liver cancer defaulted to the affirmative and the data entry person had just clicked submit after they complete a separate section of the form. So what programmer bozo would default such a data entry field to yes? Was he/she not thinking or was it sadistic humor?
Yeah, why do people always blame the database? I get the "it's the database" accusation all the time from Duhvelopers.
A friend of mine was suffering iron toxicity because he took too many iron supplements. He went to the doc to find out what was wrong and went through a battery of tests. A week later he got the report in the mail saying that he had liver cancer. He had a week before his next appointment and started reading up on liver cancer only to find out that it's almost always fatal and it involves a long drawn out time of excruciating suffering before the ultimate demise. So for a week he lived with that knowledge until he went to the doc only to find out that it was a data entry error. It turns out that the code behind the checkbox for liver cancer defaulted to the affirmative and the data entry person had just clicked submit after they complete a separate section of the form. So what programmer bozo would default such a data entry field to yes? Was he/she not thinking or was it sadistic humor?
Your ignorance is showing. That you ask such questions shows you not only lack moral clarity but are morally bankrupt.
Finally someone has got to the essence of the request for information. It's summary data merely intended to support the case that child porn continues unencumbered and that children have unfettered access to porn.
Instead of "Do no evil" Google has gone to the extreme of "Report no evil." Like an ostrich with its head in the sand Google wants to pretend that there is no evil in the world when in fact their tool can be used as an instrument of evil.
Here's my new slogan, "Combat evil." Alas, that takes moral clarity and moral courage so I doubt a for profit company will have the integrity to do it.
Everyone is still thinking way too small. I've been thinking that I want something like HDTV on a computer with a 60 inch screen but that's still too small. So now I'm thinking about an interface consisting of a ceiling mounted projector with images on the wall from floor to ceiling. I want to be able to walk around and still see images no matter where I am in the room so I guess that means the projector needs to be on the other side of the wall in a closet. At work we have a 6 monitor solution that displays the status of servers in datacenters around the world so now I'm thinking a 6 monitor solution is barely an acceptable minimum.
My human machine interface should be something like my home theatre... A big screen, a powerful 7.1 surround sound system and a comfortable recliner. I don't want to be bothered with a mouse, pointing my finger and uttering a few sounds should be sufficient. Waving my empty 12 oz bottle at the screen should be enough for my computing assistant to know that a refill is in order.
Though I make a living working with machines I maintain that computers and robots are here to serve me and answer my every beck and call.
D. B. Dweeb
It looks like a duck.. It quacks like a duck... It's not that insurance company... it's AFLAX... http://www.aflax.org/
How many replied without even reading the book? I started it a month ago with the pre-release PDF made available before the book was published. (This book was the number 1 seller on Amazon just last week.)
My complaint is that the book is LONG on theory and SHORT on small, reproduceable code snippets. It's not until chapter 9 that you get into meaningful code and most of that is dependent on technologies you may not care about like SquealServer and VisualBasic. The last thing I want to have to do is install half a dozen things in order to get some sample code going. It seems the book is not so much about AJAX as it about "The software development process." It drones on about design patterns and MVC. The book is also very verbose saying in 100 words what could be said in 10. Good software engineering discipline is needed of course (especially with Javascript), but this book beats it to death where it should just relate it to AJAX and move on.
All the excitement about AJAX is warranted considering the stupidity of webapp development heretofore. It's really dumb to have to regenerate an entire web page when you just want to return some additional data or reflect a state change. How many production, revenue generating web pages have I seen where the mere click of an HTML select input causes the entire page to be redisplayed? Zillions. This stupidity is overcome by asynchronous part of AJAX. Do you know asynchronous JAX shit? That's the salient improvement over mere DHTML. There's a ton of websites desperately needing richer UI's and people who know asynchronous JAX shit will be in demand.
Now there's a timeless theme I can identify with. But the question is, "Does she really want to be rescued?" Yes, yes, oh YES!!!
You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you.
Long ago (1994) Oracle acquired Rdb which came with VMS and people were alarmed thinking the sky was falling because Oracle would convert the customer base to its flagship database engine and let Rdb wither. Well it didn't exactly happen like that. What withered was VMS but Rdb is still maintained and improved by Oracle as a separate database product. http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/rdb/inde x.html/
Of course Oracle makes money on Rdb. Oracle's strategy is probably to make money with InnoDB too. They may be sneaky and improve InnoDB and keep quiet for a few years and then when people get dependent on it they will up the license fees.
How to make money on open source: Get people addicted with "free" open source software but charge them for key critical components, training, and support. Oracle is not alone here.
Hey man, I got some really good stuff for ya here and I'll give ya some for free just because I like you and I'm so nice. It's really good shit. Here, try some on me.
You beat me to referencing the later and much more important link on the PHP Builder site. The first link is pretty much irrelevant without the superceding conclusions of the content of the 2nd.
It's funny how MySQL AB just hasn't had time to write a multi-user benchmark. Based on the age of the link they haven't had time for a long time now. Yet they say benchmarking is important? Give me a break!
I just completed my own multi-user benchmark tests and the great performance of PostgreSQL vs the not so great performance of MySQL with InnoDB was quite revealing. PostgreSQL's performance was stunning! MySQL with InnoDB hit the wall as I cranked up the number of sessions.
Maybe the reason MySQL AB hasn't "had time" to create a multi-user benchmark is that it really IS hard to come up with one that shows them in a good light. The reason they haven't come up with such a benchmark is that it wouldn't survive the scrutiny of the open source community. If you need ACID compliance and you need performance then beware. InnoDB isn't "native" support for transactions and despite MySQL AB's claims there isn't any atomicity in locking. In fact, there really isn't any row level locking with MySQL... At least the InnoDB web site is more accurate (and honest) and explains that locking is a next-key value locking mechanism that is indexed based. MySQL AB's claim to support row level locking is deceptive.
I haven't found any queries which perform well on MySQL and don't perform equally well on PostgreSQL. But I have found the opposite... a lot of queries that run just fine on PostgreSQL but not on MySQL. MySQL doesn't perform complex joins or subqueries but I guess you could work a little harder and code around these limitations to get some decent performance. But why bother when you can just use PostgreSQL with its full set of features and its absolutely stunningly good performance?
Seems like lots of folks are stuck on past impressions with PostgreSQL version 6.5 and haven't kept up. Those who have not looked at PostgreSQL lately should throw all their prior conclusions out the door and compare the current state of MySQL vs. the current state of PostgreSQL. Ignore the MySQL AB marketing hype and see for yourself.
Excellent comment... a keeper!
MySQL may be "free" but it can become very costly if you have to engineer around limitations or its non-ANSI SQL compliance. The lack of subselects, unions, ACID compliant transactions, etc ad nauseum could be hugely significant. The same is true for many other open source databases, SAPDB included. Do your applications need a HIGHLY scalable concurrent multi-user OLTP database engine that is always on 24X365.25 (24X7) and does your database have proven, easy, and dependable backup and recovery capabilities? Will your apps ever grow and need a database engine that is robust enough to support this? If you're paying engineer/administrator salaries to work around these limitations of open source databases then it doesn't take too long to eat up and surpass the license costs of a commercial database. Too many people are making database decisions based on very simplistic and shallow criteria such as, "How much does it cost?" and they're only thinking in simplistic terms of cash outlay. The real cost includes learning curves for your developers and how much work is needed to work around the limitations. If your solution isn't scalable then you will have higher hardware costs. Are there standard DBA practices which you can depend on or do you have to figure it our yourself and hope you didn't miss anything? Can you risk data loss? Can you risk down time? Some people conclude that MySQL is fast but they only look at it from a single query perspective which is pretty stupid if you need concurrent multi-user OLTP access where MySQL can actually turn out to be pretty slow. The "benchmarks" provided by MySQLAB are shallow and poorly reflect on their sense of what is important. InnoDB can provide some solution but what if you can't take the database down but need to because that's the only way to add storage? SAPDB may handle some of these things better but if it's new, poorly documented, and its future is still uncertain is it worth the risk? If you have to spend time futzing with this stuff then that detracts from your focus on your own software/service/business solution. I guess some folks like to futz instead of focusing on the business at hand. Some folks think they can do anything and everything and would rather re-invent the wheel via an open source database engine than pay for perfectly good database software and focus attention on the business solution. It's kind of a perverse "not engineered here" mentality. If you standardize on a database with significant limitations then you are starting out by saying, "I will never need scalable, fault tolerant 24X7 access with a guarantee of no data loss. I have no ambition for the business and I don't want to be prepared for successful growth. My web service could never become an amazon.com or I don't care about this stuff because I'm willing to risk everything on the notion that I can do it all myself with free stuff I download off the net." There's a "nerd think" which says it's more fun and technically respectful to futz with open source stuff than it is to focus on a business solution.
All this having been said, it is quite possible to have a very good business solution which is built on top of an open source database engine but you had better know good and well what you're getting into and know what the limitations and challenges are BEFORE you get started. This in itself could become a major "research project." What's "tried and true" may not work for you. Looking for a "free" open source database engine? "Buyer beware." "You get what you pay for..." one way or another.