The documentation beats Oracle's hands down, but I've never looked at MS SQL docs. That's because I always assumed it was just like most of their documentation, and didn't need to because I was working with some top DBAs by the time I had any contact with it. Nice to know that my assumption was wrong, now I have one more source to use.
Now, it is completely understandable that any FOSS developer refuses to accept things that are based on a Microsoft product. There are all kinds of threats by their part, why should the developer choose to make himself vulnerable? Not touching anything that comes from near Microsoft is a very sensible rule.
MySQL is quite good at handling big amounts of transactions. What it doesn't seem to be able to do is handling a big number of transactions wile guaranteeing the integrity of the data.
I don't know if it changed, but I checked it recently and one still needed a plugin to get foreign keys on MySQL (I wasn't even concerned about transactions, if I were I wouldn't be looking at MySQL). Now, maybe it got fixed, or maybe MySQL is trying to get the same internal organization of Postgresql (making everything a plugin), so I might be wrong, but the database not having it as a core feature simply trowed me out.
When you have a performance critical application, you often have to choose between reliability and speed. Maybe those developers didn't want to choose, and ended up committing to the database lots of data that could be lost without much repercussion if ever the game had a problem.
That said, the most probable situation is that the game used the database for synchronization. That is a normal, and often preferred way to code multi-threaded applications, but on this specific case that can lead to commits every second or so for every single player. That is a huge performance bottleneck that would go away if the developers used a cache layer between the application and the database, for example.
The point was that column triggers will improve readability over what current triggers give you. Anyway, triggers may not increase readability of the code, but they surely can increase the readability of the dataset, and the later is way more important, since normally lots of pieces of code depend on the same data.
Anyway, as the GP said, anything can be abused. The most certain way of improving readability of your code is hiring better coders (may them be programmers, DBAs, or whatever) and giving them flexible tools. That is an example that a tool that got more flexible, not less.
"NTFS does avoid fragmentation in the same ways that ext3, HFS+ any any other modern filesystem try to do. It will naturally write files to sequential blocks when they are available."
You should take a look on how ext3 works. Yes, it does write files to sequential blocks when they are available, but that is not enough to avoid fragmentation.
And they'll say that a DDoS is wrong? That would be quite a nice response from them, but will raise the question of why are they doing the same thing...
Before you observe, you don't know where the particle is. Worse yet, its position isn't a point (it couldn't just be on some unknown place). After observation, the particle is at a defined position, and you may or may not know it (you can always throw the data away), but every time you observe after that, you'll see it at the same position. That is, unless it's moving, of course, and you can't be sure that it isn't moving anymore, since you observed its position...
Then, you observe the velocity, and you can't be sure of the position anymore. Next time you look at it, it may well be at a different position, but if, instead of position, you look at velocity again, you'd get the eact same result of the previous reading.
So, they did a programmable maze with some interference at the last stage so they could apply something like the last step of Shor's algorithm? I couldn't read that in the article.
"He is also implying that private sector == closed, government sector == open."
On the case of Brazil, that is somewhat true.
"Innovation arises from need. If the private sector can't (or doesn't) fulfill the need, the government has no choice but to do it themselves."
It has a chioce, the governement can quite well left the need not fulfilled. It does so most of the time, and I say that being part of a governemnt (more specificaly, part of the Brazilian Government). You wouldn't belive how hard it is to fulfill some basic and obvious need when you have an entire bureocracy to stop you. Innovation comes mainly from the private sector (and universities, ok, but not direct government). Now, he is implying several things with this sentence that are wrong. The worst offender is that he is equating support and all kinds of software development with innovation; that is very wrong.
"Firstly, see #1. Secondly, is he claiming that private sector == Microsoft?"
Yep, but he didn't say anything like that anywhere. The guy is good at it...
"In Brazil, "agitar" also is a slang for creating interest -- much in the same way "stir" or "stir something up" is used. It's often associated with creating a positive, youthful, fast-paced climate to fight stagnation."
A concept that, in english is expressed by the verb "to troll" (except by that "positive" part, that isn't really needed, it can very well be negative). Oh, and woosh.
As a native portuguese speacker, well, that article is quite funny. Some translations (without much context, since the article is mainly composed of small out of context paragraphs, I stopped reading Folha de São Paulo because it had a very bad journalism...)
"a inovação de softwares não acontece nas mãos de governos e sim do setor privado."
"Innovation in software ins't made by governements, but by the private sector" - From the article, he said that after being questioned about the Brazilian government position about open source.
"Os governos têm que se perguntar: o negocio deles é servir os cidadãos ou desenvolver software? A inovação está no setor privado"
"Governements must question themselves: Are they in the business of developping software or of serving the citizens? Innovation happens at the private sector" - In a meeting of latin american journalists on the US state of Washington. (WTF were the latin american journalists meeting at the US?)
"programas livres demandam mais trabalho e investimento do governo para mantê-los funcionando e atualizados --o que não aconteceria quando empresas cuidam disso para o governo."
That is not a literal citation (at the original article). It is again the old argument, some company can make your software work for you, so why bother doing it yourself.
"Quando você não pode competir, você se declara aberto. Isso mascara a incompetência"
That is the sentence that is on TFA. It is literaly translated there, no error watsoever. He was talking about "an open and gratis solution, like Google". MS people insist on confusing gratis and libre in portuguese, despite the fact that we have different words for them. It must be on their manual, translated from english.
Then he goes saying that Brazil has a good potential for growth, and so does its IT sector, and disclames that the journalist's travel was paid by Microsoft. Except for that confusion about free and libre, I could somewhat agree with the literal meaning of every sentense, yet, they are worded in a way that strongly imply something that is very different from their literal meaning. Well, marketing at its best, I guess.
Well, it seems there is no article yet to be read, and I couldn't understand anything from the press release. What does it mean a "one photon quantum walk", and what is the difference from any other kind of transformation that happens on a photon? Also, what is the difference of "two-photon quantum walk" and normal interference?
Well, I'm not very pedantic... But, after reading it I tough, if they can't even know the exact size, there is no chance they are going to release it. Ever.
Ok, the researcher probably had an exact size in mind, but that took a quite long time to cross my mind.
My bet is that most home users use at least one ninche app. It doesn't need to be a game to put Linux out of reach.
That said, Linux applications fill way more ninches than Windows ones. But, as most people use Windows, most people want applications to fill a ninche that is better supported on Windows.
Number 2 requires the development of new, specialized hardware, while using common, know good crypto would make them able to use stock chips. I'd go with number 1.
Slashdot Mirror
The documentation beats Oracle's hands down, but I've never looked at MS SQL docs. That's because I always assumed it was just like most of their documentation, and didn't need to because I was working with some top DBAs by the time I had any contact with it. Nice to know that my assumption was wrong, now I have one more source to use.
Now, it is completely understandable that any FOSS developer refuses to accept things that are based on a Microsoft product. There are all kinds of threats by their part, why should the developer choose to make himself vulnerable? Not touching anything that comes from near Microsoft is a very sensible rule.
MySQL is quite good at handling big amounts of transactions. What it doesn't seem to be able to do is handling a big number of transactions wile guaranteeing the integrity of the data.
I don't know if it changed, but I checked it recently and one still needed a plugin to get foreign keys on MySQL (I wasn't even concerned about transactions, if I were I wouldn't be looking at MySQL). Now, maybe it got fixed, or maybe MySQL is trying to get the same internal organization of Postgresql (making everything a plugin), so I might be wrong, but the database not having it as a core feature simply trowed me out.
When you have a performance critical application, you often have to choose between reliability and speed. Maybe those developers didn't want to choose, and ended up committing to the database lots of data that could be lost without much repercussion if ever the game had a problem.
That said, the most probable situation is that the game used the database for synchronization. That is a normal, and often preferred way to code multi-threaded applications, but on this specific case that can lead to commits every second or so for every single player. That is a huge performance bottleneck that would go away if the developers used a cache layer between the application and the database, for example.
The point was that column triggers will improve readability over what current triggers give you. Anyway, triggers may not increase readability of the code, but they surely can increase the readability of the dataset, and the later is way more important, since normally lots of pieces of code depend on the same data.
Anyway, as the GP said, anything can be abused. The most certain way of improving readability of your code is hiring better coders (may them be programmers, DBAs, or whatever) and giving them flexible tools. That is an example that a tool that got more flexible, not less.
You should take a look on how ext3 works. Yes, it does write files to sequential blocks when they are available, but that is not enough to avoid fragmentation.
If people really wanted a fast browser, they'd use linx. Most people I know want features and security.
And they'll say that a DDoS is wrong? That would be quite a nice response from them, but will raise the question of why are they doing the same thing...
Of course they win at consistency. They couldn't fail on everything if they didn't win something.
Not raytracing. Maybe particle physics could get some nice speed-ups from a quantum computer, that depends on the specific problem.
People like sience journalists?
Ok, getting serious here :)
Before you observe, you don't know where the particle is. Worse yet, its position isn't a point (it couldn't just be on some unknown place). After observation, the particle is at a defined position, and you may or may not know it (you can always throw the data away), but every time you observe after that, you'll see it at the same position. That is, unless it's moving, of course, and you can't be sure that it isn't moving anymore, since you observed its position...
Then, you observe the velocity, and you can't be sure of the position anymore. Next time you look at it, it may well be at a different position, but if, instead of position, you look at velocity again, you'd get the eact same result of the previous reading.
So, they did a programmable maze with some interference at the last stage so they could apply something like the last step of Shor's algorithm? I couldn't read that in the article.
On the case of Brazil, that is somewhat true.
It has a chioce, the governement can quite well left the need not fulfilled. It does so most of the time, and I say that being part of a governemnt (more specificaly, part of the Brazilian Government). You wouldn't belive how hard it is to fulfill some basic and obvious need when you have an entire bureocracy to stop you. Innovation comes mainly from the private sector (and universities, ok, but not direct government). Now, he is implying several things with this sentence that are wrong. The worst offender is that he is equating support and all kinds of software development with innovation; that is very wrong.
Yep, but he didn't say anything like that anywhere. The guy is good at it...
By the explanation there, any kind of quantum transformation would cause a quantum walk. Is that right? If so, what is new?
A concept that, in english is expressed by the verb "to troll" (except by that "positive" part, that isn't really needed, it can very well be negative). Oh, and woosh.
As a native portuguese speacker, well, that article is quite funny. Some translations (without much context, since the article is mainly composed of small out of context paragraphs, I stopped reading Folha de São Paulo because it had a very bad journalism...)
"Innovation in software ins't made by governements, but by the private sector" - From the article, he said that after being questioned about the Brazilian government position about open source.
"Governements must question themselves: Are they in the business of developping software or of serving the citizens? Innovation happens at the private sector" - In a meeting of latin american journalists on the US state of Washington. (WTF were the latin american journalists meeting at the US?)
That is not a literal citation (at the original article). It is again the old argument, some company can make your software work for you, so why bother doing it yourself.
That is the sentence that is on TFA. It is literaly translated there, no error watsoever. He was talking about "an open and gratis solution, like Google". MS people insist on confusing gratis and libre in portuguese, despite the fact that we have different words for them. It must be on their manual, translated from english.
Then he goes saying that Brazil has a good potential for growth, and so does its IT sector, and disclames that the journalist's travel was paid by Microsoft. Except for that confusion about free and libre, I could somewhat agree with the literal meaning of every sentense, yet, they are worded in a way that strongly imply something that is very different from their literal meaning. Well, marketing at its best, I guess.
He was probably not refering to anything in particular, just making some FUD.
Well, it seems there is no article yet to be read, and I couldn't understand anything from the press release. What does it mean a "one photon quantum walk", and what is the difference from any other kind of transformation that happens on a photon? Also, what is the difference of "two-photon quantum walk" and normal interference?
Or, in other words, what did they actualy do?
Just open your eyes, and see where you are. After seeing it you are not going to be anywhere else, but before looking, I can't really tell you.
Well, I'm not very pedantic... But, after reading it I tough, if they can't even know the exact size, there is no chance they are going to release it. Ever.
Ok, the researcher probably had an exact size in mind, but that took a quite long time to cross my mind.
It should. Computers got 30x faster, memories got nearly 1000x bigger... It would be expected that something changed from then.
My bet is that most home users use at least one ninche app. It doesn't need to be a game to put Linux out of reach.
That said, Linux applications fill way more ninches than Windows ones. But, as most people use Windows, most people want applications to fill a ninche that is better supported on Windows.
Number 2 requires the development of new, specialized hardware, while using common, know good crypto would make them able to use stock chips. I'd go with number 1.
HDMI != HDCP