I mean, you can use a hammer for a lot of things. One of them is smashing yourself in the head for a couple hours.
I don't consider that the hammer's fault.
An absolute expert will have twenty tools in their toolbox for solving whatever problems they encounter, and each tool will have a different application. Just because there are programmers who range in skill level from, "Master of all things hammer," to "Barely able to hammer in nail without breaking thumb," to "Will use hammer to drive in screws and bolts, because they are an absolute master of the hammer," to, "Master of all things hammer AND SCREWDRIVER," doesn't mean the hammer is a bad tool.
I actually enjoyed writing Assembly more than C# and Java. My version of hell involves some idiot making me write factory classes to do basic RegEx comparisons.
Actually, it's kinda a logical extension of their original (somewhat overblown) mission of collecting as much data as possible, organizing it, and disseminating it as useful information to people. Lots of people have tried it (there was a disaster a few years ago where Wikipedia was used as an information store, as I remember) and it seems like a decent thing to do.
On top of that, Google is an advertising-based Internet startup that seems to have incongruously lasted 10 years longer than its expected lifespan. What part of, "Jump on every fad," doesn't fit into that?
Not necessarily true. We have one onsite desktop support tech in an office of twenty or thirty people. He gets everything done in approximately half time, because we use Google cloud apps for a huge percentage of our overall applications. He also does purchasing of all new machines, etc. in that half time....
So, yeah, cloud stuff is slightly more efficient in my view. The backups required for all that e-mail, all the setup stuff, etc...... Just harder to do without cloud apps.
And, of course, there are consulting companies selling cloud apps like mad at the moment, too. Salesforce consultants are some of the most highly paid in the industry, I'm fairly certain.
There must be some way to solve a problem like that, where you have a series of pointers to files, if not the files themselves as well, with the ability to add markers of some kind to each of those pointers. (maybe we can call them, "Records!!!" like CD's used to be called) And then! Then! We can disguise how the management of these 'records' are organized from the user, so they don't have to think about it. And give them a simple, logical way to get data about those 'records' out of the big, organized whole. It'd be, like, a whole new basic way to store our records! We could easily find what we wanted in our basic data storage. I can't believe noone's thought of it before.;)
My point here isn't that you should use a database to store your data about your files, (unfortunately, a unified markup system for files doesn't exist yet; it would be nice, but all that stuff is in the OS right now) my point is that the author of the article is missing that even if in-memory data systems do become extremely large, the underlying theory of the technology will not change much.
And the underlying theory relies heavily on caching, limiting how much of your overall dataset is currently relevant, and so on. While I will admit it's possible many databases' useful data size will eventually be outgrown by RAM-style memory storage, when that happens market forces will probably make it comparatively expensive to hold all your data in memory at once. Partially because clean, concise code is generally far more expensive to produce than sloppy crap that chews through your data storage.
Discarding data is something that, as a programmer, I don't often do. Too often I will need it later. Real time analytics are not going to change this. As long as hard drive storage continues to get cheaper, there's going to be more data stored. Partially because the easier it is to store large blocks the more likely I am to store bigger packets. I'd LOVE to store entire large XML blocks in databases sometimes, and we decide not to because of space issues. So, yeah, no. Datacenters aren't going anywhere. Things just get more complicated on the hosting side.
Note that the article writer is a strong stakeholder in his earthshattering predictions coming true.
This opinion is inane, trollish, and should be modded into oblivion. The very idea that a major publication could do any reporting at all if they meant actual harm to the US military is ludicrous. Their embedded reporter numbers would go down in comparison to their competitors, their assistance in foreign countries would be less on the ball, etc. Life's rough for actual investigative reporting right now, anyways, so they're not picking any fights.
Want to see an agency with every reason to kick the US military when it's down? Check out the BBC. They're...... Not very nice. And actually more informative than a lot of our outlets.
But I think getting a huge piece of IBM would be a better idea. The patent porfolio alone would allow them to do neat things to everyone else in the software industry, and they would be in a good place to start Linux litigation worldwide.
Yeah, liberal arts degrees are worthless. It's obvious we have too many broadly educated people paying attention to the things that matter. We've got such good, well run, smartly limited government. It does everything we expect it to, and not much more.
I was Mothmar Friedsquid. I made huge huge piles of ships. I loved the crafting system. However, LucasArts continually shoved things down the throat of SOE (not that SOE was doing all that well in the first place) and pushed the game downwards.
Even if I weren't an ex-gamer, I'd boycott this one.
See, I want to take this another level. There was a tremendous amount of experimentation done with online games. How many MUD's are there? I'd bet the best of those MUD's ended up giving their best programmers / designers to online gaming. And so the stuff people liked about MUD'ding got pushed into the online games, and the online games cross-pollinated. This, indeed, has nothing to do with what happened with tabletop games. I've met many, many people with custom systems.... And they didn't cross-pollinate as much. It's just harder to do. So computers made making the game a better process.
Re:Why wouldn't there be disjoint partitions?
on
Six Degrees of Wikipedia
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Meh. There's a path I found manually in about a minute. There's probably a shorter one, though; Ossa Motorcycle Toyota Honda Nikon Nikon D300
Personally, I think a better way to solve the problem would be to spec out exactly how much time it would take to implement what would be necessary to accomplish the task at hand. Mention how long the first pass of addressing what the task would require would take, and be open and honest with exactly how much money this will cost, as well as what kind of system resources it would consume.
If your database isn't designed for separation of customer data, and your data structure needs to be somewhat reorganized, you are going to come up with a fairly large number. Mention that there will be downstream issues, and that it's partial system redesign.
Present options; you know what they are, you know what they will cost as far as your time is concerned. Is this account worth bringing someone on to take over some of your duties, or paying you overtime at double time for the next two or three months? Saying, "No, I don't wanna," is fairly ineffective; showing people (in numbers) why you're uneasy about the issue might help.
That's not an ad hominem. It's essentially an ad absurdum or appeal to ridicule. The argument is essentially, "If the government is tracking you in an extreme manner, and you're just an average Joe, the government would be wasting a lot of resources to track everyone like that, wouldn't they?"
Decent argument if well presented, actually. An ad hominem would be something like, "You're nuts, but our viewers want to watch me make fun of you. So would you like a clown nose to make it easier on me?"
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, now. Remember the administration you've got.
'Ivanka Trump Cloud Services, Inc." has a better chance at this contract than Oracle, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon combined.
I mean, you can use a hammer for a lot of things. One of them is smashing yourself in the head for a couple hours.
I don't consider that the hammer's fault.
An absolute expert will have twenty tools in their toolbox for solving whatever problems they encounter, and each tool will have a different application. Just because there are programmers who range in skill level from, "Master of all things hammer," to "Barely able to hammer in nail without breaking thumb," to "Will use hammer to drive in screws and bolts, because they are an absolute master of the hammer," to, "Master of all things hammer AND SCREWDRIVER," doesn't mean the hammer is a bad tool.
I actually enjoyed writing Assembly more than C# and Java. My version of hell involves some idiot making me write factory classes to do basic RegEx comparisons.
Don't blame tools for the things that people do with them. You'll find the same problems wherever you go.
Actually, it's kinda a logical extension of their original (somewhat overblown) mission of collecting as much data as possible, organizing it, and disseminating it as useful information to people. Lots of people have tried it (there was a disaster a few years ago where Wikipedia was used as an information store, as I remember) and it seems like a decent thing to do.
On top of that, Google is an advertising-based Internet startup that seems to have incongruously lasted 10 years longer than its expected lifespan. What part of, "Jump on every fad," doesn't fit into that?
Not necessarily true. We have one onsite desktop support tech in an office of twenty or thirty people. He gets everything done in approximately half time, because we use Google cloud apps for a huge percentage of our overall applications. He also does purchasing of all new machines, etc. in that half time....
So, yeah, cloud stuff is slightly more efficient in my view. The backups required for all that e-mail, all the setup stuff, etc...... Just harder to do without cloud apps.
And, of course, there are consulting companies selling cloud apps like mad at the moment, too. Salesforce consultants are some of the most highly paid in the industry, I'm fairly certain.
There must be some way to solve a problem like that, where you have a series of pointers to files, if not the files themselves as well, with the ability to add markers of some kind to each of those pointers. (maybe we can call them, "Records!!!" like CD's used to be called) And then! Then! We can disguise how the management of these 'records' are organized from the user, so they don't have to think about it. And give them a simple, logical way to get data about those 'records' out of the big, organized whole. It'd be, like, a whole new basic way to store our records! We could easily find what we wanted in our basic data storage. I can't believe noone's thought of it before. ;)
My point here isn't that you should use a database to store your data about your files, (unfortunately, a unified markup system for files doesn't exist yet; it would be nice, but all that stuff is in the OS right now) my point is that the author of the article is missing that even if in-memory data systems do become extremely large, the underlying theory of the technology will not change much.
And the underlying theory relies heavily on caching, limiting how much of your overall dataset is currently relevant, and so on. While I will admit it's possible many databases' useful data size will eventually be outgrown by RAM-style memory storage, when that happens market forces will probably make it comparatively expensive to hold all your data in memory at once. Partially because clean, concise code is generally far more expensive to produce than sloppy crap that chews through your data storage.
Discarding data is something that, as a programmer, I don't often do. Too often I will need it later. Real time analytics are not going to change this. As long as hard drive storage continues to get cheaper, there's going to be more data stored. Partially because the easier it is to store large blocks the more likely I am to store bigger packets. I'd LOVE to store entire large XML blocks in databases sometimes, and we decide not to because of space issues. So, yeah, no. Datacenters aren't going anywhere. Things just get more complicated on the hosting side.
Note that the article writer is a strong stakeholder in his earthshattering predictions coming true.
That's what Champions Online was supposed to be. Same company, same theme, didn't turn out as well as hoped. Very sad.
That's weird, all my friends love it.
Yeah, one distro dominating is always a problem with Linux.
This opinion is inane, trollish, and should be modded into oblivion. The very idea that a major publication could do any reporting at all if they meant actual harm to the US military is ludicrous. Their embedded reporter numbers would go down in comparison to their competitors, their assistance in foreign countries would be less on the ball, etc. Life's rough for actual investigative reporting right now, anyways, so they're not picking any fights.
Want to see an agency with every reason to kick the US military when it's down? Check out the BBC. They're...... Not very nice. And actually more informative than a lot of our outlets.
Bah. Got buried down below.
But I think getting a huge piece of IBM would be a better idea. The patent porfolio alone would allow them to do neat things to everyone else in the software industry, and they would be in a good place to start Linux litigation worldwide.
IBM
I would like to send a personal thank you to whomever came up with Cesparnar.
Can you say it? Hindoo's DOOOOOOOOOOOOMM.....
Mod me down, please.
All these other people fail.
I put my left hand on the left wall, and start walking.
Yeah, liberal arts degrees are worthless. It's obvious we have too many broadly educated people paying attention to the things that matter. We've got such good, well run, smartly limited government. It does everything we expect it to, and not much more.
I was Mothmar Friedsquid. I made huge huge piles of ships. I loved the crafting system. However, LucasArts continually shoved things down the throat of SOE (not that SOE was doing all that well in the first place) and pushed the game downwards.
Even if I weren't an ex-gamer, I'd boycott this one.
Read the wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Microsoft_antitrust_case
It appears that the government had fairly inept (or hobbled) lawyers. Disappointing, but not surprising; Gates is a huge donor to the Bubblicans.
Heh. Star Wars Galaxies: Jump to Light Speed had all six. :)
And More.
It's just that the gameplay wasn't as good as x-wing.
I should know, I was a starship manufacturer. :P
See, I want to take this another level. There was a tremendous amount of experimentation done with online games. How many MUD's are there? I'd bet the best of those MUD's ended up giving their best programmers / designers to online gaming. And so the stuff people liked about MUD'ding got pushed into the online games, and the online games cross-pollinated. This, indeed, has nothing to do with what happened with tabletop games. I've met many, many people with custom systems.... And they didn't cross-pollinate as much. It's just harder to do. So computers made making the game a better process.
Meh. There's a path I found manually in about a minute. There's probably a shorter one, though;
Ossa
Motorcycle
Toyota
Honda
Nikon
Nikon D300
Now, now. If you're going to quote Eddie Izzard so extensively, you should at cite him.
Personally, I think a better way to solve the problem would be to spec out exactly how much time it would take to implement what would be necessary to accomplish the task at hand. Mention how long the first pass of addressing what the task would require would take, and be open and honest with exactly how much money this will cost, as well as what kind of system resources it would consume.
If your database isn't designed for separation of customer data, and your data structure needs to be somewhat reorganized, you are going to come up with a fairly large number. Mention that there will be downstream issues, and that it's partial system redesign.
Present options; you know what they are, you know what they will cost as far as your time is concerned. Is this account worth bringing someone on to take over some of your duties, or paying you overtime at double time for the next two or three months? Saying, "No, I don't wanna," is fairly ineffective; showing people (in numbers) why you're uneasy about the issue might help.
That's not an ad hominem. It's essentially an ad absurdum or appeal to ridicule. The argument is essentially, "If the government is tracking you in an extreme manner, and you're just an average Joe, the government would be wasting a lot of resources to track everyone like that, wouldn't they?"
Decent argument if well presented, actually. An ad hominem would be something like, "You're nuts, but our viewers want to watch me make fun of you. So would you like a clown nose to make it easier on me?"