And if you already know the start- and end-points of the bike ride to refine the data, its not actually all that hard to predict the route, or useful to confirm it.
The ability to write well-formed SQL queries that are efficient and correct is also a specialized skill. It may not be one you recognize, presumably because you've had it for so long, but the majority of applicants I've encountered are not suited for doing production SQL work. They might be able to write a simple query, but finding someone who understands keys, indexes, views, and all of the other efficiency-improving features is a rarity indeed.
And yet SQL has been around for decades and has a massively greater installed-base than even the most popular NoSQL tools. How many people out there do you think really understand MongoDB's nuances at scale (remember, if we're not talking billions of rows then it really doesn't matter what tool is being used, including bog-standard MySQL).
All of your arguments - and they are real, and well-reasoned - apply to the NoSQL space far more than the SQL space.
Are you reporting across customers? If not, then sharding totally takes care of your problem. If so, then a combination of sharding and some meaningful aggregation may.
It really sounds like you've already decided on a solution and are looking for affirmation rather than advice. I've regularly inserted millions of rows into a simple 3-node MySQL cluster (unsharded) every day for years... if you don't like SQL, that's fine, but what you're asking for sure sounds like a problem that a halfway competently set up SQL system can handle without breaking a sweat, and almost all of the problems have been encountered, documented, and solved already.
How about letting people choose what methods of healing they want to use?
That's fine.
Selling little bottles of very expensive water with labels that very carefully imply that they do, indeed, cure diseases (while legally not saying anything of the sort) to people who don't know any better is what gets people up in arms.
Which seems to be rules for determine whether you're scrolling, dragging, or flipping apps/tabs.
Forgot that bit - again, they're not describing the rules that they use (which is the whole idea of a patent - you publish what would otherwise be your trade secrets and in exchange you get government protection against anyone copying them without paying you for a small amount of time), they're describing the idea that there could be rules to determine whether you're scrolling, dragging, or flipping apps/tabs.
That's still massively vague and far-reaching. They should be able to patent the specific heuristics themselves. They should not be able to patent the idea of using heuristics to figure out what to do.
Its like patenting the cotton gin as follows:
11. A mechanically-implemented method, comprising: one or more lengths of iron or other metal commonly used in the field of production to separate the fibers of the cotton from their seeds; applying motion to various parts of the machine to determine which portions of the cotton are fibers; inputting energy into the system in order to achieve separation of fibers; a grading to determine when sufficient fibers have been separated; and a mechanism for disposing of the seeds and resetting the device.
Without specifics, they're still describing the idea of a rubber-band display. You could build one using all of your own formulae for behavior and appearance, and you'd still be in violation of their patent.
Really? How many times are you going to spend years of your life creating something awesome... only to have someone else like Facebook or Zynga copy it, market it, and put you out of business?
How many people, right now, are violating Facebook or Zynga patents by taking advantage of their massive design and usability budgets and just solving problems the same way that they solved them, a week later?
It works both ways, you know, and I'd propose that there are far more people in the 2nd camp than there are in the 1st.
The big problem with "software patents" (and yes, I've got 'em too) is that they're too conceptual. A patent was supposed to be a complete description for how to perform an action. These days you can effectively get patents on the actions themselves - as if instead of patenting a superior type of cotton gin, you could actually patent the idea that a machine could separate cotton fibers from seeds. You don't even need to build such a machine, just to posit that it could exist and might be built with metal bits. That, IMO, is far worse even than letting existing works be patented by adding "... on a computer" to their titles. Far worse.
Should you be able to patent, for example, the idea of a compression algorithm that works by finding commonly repeated arrays and referencing them, rather than a specific implementation thereof? I submit that you should not.
It's not wrong to hire some white redneck guy to paint your house or install a sprinkler system for you and pay him with cash, so if you say it's wrong to hire a brown guy to do those things, that makes you a racist.
Actually, its illegal to do that if you're paying him more than $600/yr and you don't get a W-9 from them and file a 1099 to the IRS stating that you've paid someone with that SSN/EIN that amount. The easy workaround is that if they say (rightly or wrongly) that they're representing an incorporated company (even a sole-proprietor can incorporate) then you don't have to do any of that.
This holds true whether you're paying them in cash, checks, used cars, whatever. It doesn't cost you a dime, but it does allow the IRS to follow up and make sure that they're declaring their income accurately.
Not quite true, since you're paying payroll taxes regardless and just not anything for "federal income tax withholding". However, since payroll taxes are a 16% proportional tax on your income, its a little unfair to characterize them as escaping all income taxes, especially in the context of social security and medical benefits, which are taxed regardless even in the "0%" bracket.
Doesn't this story of MtGox completely invalidate the idea of Bitcoin? It was made to appear safe due to an algorithm, but obviously it can disappear without a trace and then what? There was never any sovereign authority behind that currency. Thus no international muscle to go track down the bad guys or figure out what happened. If anything, the international banking community will simply say "told you so..."
Exactly the opposite. Mtgox's failure stresses the need for the original purpose of Bitcoin; removing the need for counter-party trust. Storing your assets in any third party or hot wallet goes against the intention of the Bitcoin protocol and is foolhardy. Bitcoin is just as susceptible to being stolen by con artists, governments, and corporations as greenbacks are. Some users learned the hard way that Bitcoin is as safe or dangerous as you choose to make it.
Worse. Let's say that you accept Bitcoin payment years from now and it turns out that that money was part of the MtGox heist. Congratulations, you've now received stolen property, which in many jurisdictions means that it may be taken away from you at any moment, all quite legally.
The value of a currency is often predicated on having enough of a market in which to spend it.
The US government backs the USD in two important ways; the first, though FDIC et al, by ensuring that there are safe places to store your USD while you're not using them. As we can see, that's not an insignificant benefit.
The second is by guaranteeing that you'll be able to use those USD to pay all of your public debts - taxes, fees, permits, &c. That automatically grants a critical mass as far as having places to spend USD, which means that other people will accept the currency, which then snowballs until you have an effectively universal acceptance rate.
Currently, no Bitcoin backers offer anything close to either of those two benefits.
Oh really? How's that been working out for you so far? How many - even of that self-selected few - actually compile their mobile OS from hand-verified source, pray tell?
Actually, while its had for people to grasp a market of a billion people, its even more staggeringly harder to grasp the idea of a non-market of 3.5 billion people.
I'd push greater commitment to keeping the essential components of the system under FOSS licenses onto the head of that list.
If this really can work for ~3.5 billion people who currently don't have a decent mobile OS (a claim about which I remain skeptical), I guarantee you that at least 3.49 billion of them won't give a damn whether its FOSS or not. Of the remainder, most surely won't care whether its GPL, BSD, or PirateBay licensed.
Badging in a door adds approximately half a second. What precisely are you envisioning that would be fine if stopped in 1 minute (aggressive timespan of notification to someone outside the room to them arriving and taking an action) but complete shite if stopped in 1 minute 1/2 second?
Unfortunately, it is already wired for 200 amp service for a reason. Many American homes with dryer, range, electric AC/heat, and electric hot water cannot take another 50 amp load without the real possibility of exceeding 200 amps. Having a 200 amp service is no guarantee your ready to add Tesla charging.
So set your charger to run between midnight and 6am - easy. Or some other time when you're unlikely to be running the dryer, cooking, cooling your house, and heating lots of water all at the same time.
The stock was up as high as 17%, and closed up just under 14% (+$30 on the day to $248). With Morgan Stanley estimating a $320 price there is probably significant growth left, It seems they will have no problem funding that 5 to 7 Billion dollar battery plant.
You realize that unless they do another offering, are are buying another company with stock, the rise of fall of the price in the secondary market has absolutely no affect whatsoever on Tesla's ability to build a plant?
Slashdot Mirror
And if you already know the start- and end-points of the bike ride to refine the data, its not actually all that hard to predict the route, or useful to confirm it.
The ability to write well-formed SQL queries that are efficient and correct is also a specialized skill. It may not be one you recognize, presumably because you've had it for so long, but the majority of applicants I've encountered are not suited for doing production SQL work. They might be able to write a simple query, but finding someone who understands keys, indexes, views, and all of the other efficiency-improving features is a rarity indeed.
And yet SQL has been around for decades and has a massively greater installed-base than even the most popular NoSQL tools. How many people out there do you think really understand MongoDB's nuances at scale (remember, if we're not talking billions of rows then it really doesn't matter what tool is being used, including bog-standard MySQL).
All of your arguments - and they are real, and well-reasoned - apply to the NoSQL space far more than the SQL space.
The navy will secretly transport it to the moon, there the speed will be enough.
Yes, but who're you going to crew it with, convicts? They'll just build another one and throw rocks at us.
Diesel engines power the supper capacitors
I always thought that a bunch of hard-working 18yo guys had more than enough supper capacity, even when just powered by slop and beer.
Are you reporting across customers? If not, then sharding totally takes care of your problem. If so, then a combination of sharding and some meaningful aggregation may.
It really sounds like you've already decided on a solution and are looking for affirmation rather than advice. I've regularly inserted millions of rows into a simple 3-node MySQL cluster (unsharded) every day for years... if you don't like SQL, that's fine, but what you're asking for sure sounds like a problem that a halfway competently set up SQL system can handle without breaking a sweat, and almost all of the problems have been encountered, documented, and solved already.
How about letting people choose what methods of healing they want to use?
That's fine.
Selling little bottles of very expensive water with labels that very carefully imply that they do, indeed, cure diseases (while legally not saying anything of the sort) to people who don't know any better is what gets people up in arms.
Which seems to be rules for determine whether you're scrolling, dragging, or flipping apps/tabs.
Forgot that bit - again, they're not describing the rules that they use (which is the whole idea of a patent - you publish what would otherwise be your trade secrets and in exchange you get government protection against anyone copying them without paying you for a small amount of time), they're describing the idea that there could be rules to determine whether you're scrolling, dragging, or flipping apps/tabs.
Big difference.
That's still massively vague and far-reaching. They should be able to patent the specific heuristics themselves. They should not be able to patent the idea of using heuristics to figure out what to do.
Its like patenting the cotton gin as follows:
11. A mechanically-implemented method, comprising:
one or more lengths of iron or other metal commonly used in the field of production to separate the fibers of the cotton from their seeds;
applying motion to various parts of the machine to determine which portions of the cotton are fibers;
inputting energy into the system in order to achieve separation of fibers;
a grading to determine when sufficient fibers have been separated; and
a mechanism for disposing of the seeds and resetting the device.
Without specifics, they're still describing the idea of a rubber-band display. You could build one using all of your own formulae for behavior and appearance, and you'd still be in violation of their patent.
s/prostitute/programmer/g
That swap is rarely going to make either side happy.
Really? How many times are you going to spend years of your life creating something awesome ... only to have someone else like Facebook or Zynga copy it, market it, and put you out of business?
How many people, right now, are violating Facebook or Zynga patents by taking advantage of their massive design and usability budgets and just solving problems the same way that they solved them, a week later?
It works both ways, you know, and I'd propose that there are far more people in the 2nd camp than there are in the 1st.
The big problem with "software patents" (and yes, I've got 'em too) is that they're too conceptual. A patent was supposed to be a complete description for how to perform an action. These days you can effectively get patents on the actions themselves - as if instead of patenting a superior type of cotton gin, you could actually patent the idea that a machine could separate cotton fibers from seeds. You don't even need to build such a machine, just to posit that it could exist and might be built with metal bits. That, IMO, is far worse even than letting existing works be patented by adding "... on a computer" to their titles. Far worse.
Should you be able to patent, for example, the idea of a compression algorithm that works by finding commonly repeated arrays and referencing them, rather than a specific implementation thereof? I submit that you should not.
It's not wrong to hire some white redneck guy to paint your house or install a sprinkler system for you and pay him with cash, so if you say it's wrong to hire a brown guy to do those things, that makes you a racist.
Actually, its illegal to do that if you're paying him more than $600/yr and you don't get a W-9 from them and file a 1099 to the IRS stating that you've paid someone with that SSN/EIN that amount. The easy workaround is that if they say (rightly or wrongly) that they're representing an incorporated company (even a sole-proprietor can incorporate) then you don't have to do any of that.
This holds true whether you're paying them in cash, checks, used cars, whatever. It doesn't cost you a dime, but it does allow the IRS to follow up and make sure that they're declaring their income accurately.
Not quite true, since you're paying payroll taxes regardless and just not anything for "federal income tax withholding". However, since payroll taxes are a 16% proportional tax on your income, its a little unfair to characterize them as escaping all income taxes, especially in the context of social security and medical benefits, which are taxed regardless even in the "0%" bracket.
Doesn't this story of MtGox completely invalidate the idea of Bitcoin? It was made to appear safe due to an algorithm, but obviously it can disappear without a trace and then what? There was never any sovereign authority behind that currency. Thus no international muscle to go track down the bad guys or figure out what happened. If anything, the international banking community will simply say "told you so..."
Exactly the opposite. Mtgox's failure stresses the need for the original purpose of Bitcoin; removing the need for counter-party trust. Storing your assets in any third party or hot wallet goes against the intention of the Bitcoin protocol and is foolhardy. Bitcoin is just as susceptible to being stolen by con artists, governments, and corporations as greenbacks are. Some users learned the hard way that Bitcoin is as safe or dangerous as you choose to make it.
Worse. Let's say that you accept Bitcoin payment years from now and it turns out that that money was part of the MtGox heist. Congratulations, you've now received stolen property, which in many jurisdictions means that it may be taken away from you at any moment, all quite legally.
The value of a currency is often predicated on having enough of a market in which to spend it.
The US government backs the USD in two important ways; the first, though FDIC et al, by ensuring that there are safe places to store your USD while you're not using them. As we can see, that's not an insignificant benefit.
The second is by guaranteeing that you'll be able to use those USD to pay all of your public debts - taxes, fees, permits, &c. That automatically grants a critical mass as far as having places to spend USD, which means that other people will accept the currency, which then snowballs until you have an effectively universal acceptance rate.
Currently, no Bitcoin backers offer anything close to either of those two benefits.
Double-whoosh. A reigning monarch reins in when it rains.
Oh really? How's that been working out for you so far? How many - even of that self-selected few - actually compile their mobile OS from hand-verified source, pray tell?
Actually, while its had for people to grasp a market of a billion people, its even more staggeringly harder to grasp the idea of a non-market of 3.5 billion people.
Keep in mind that the median worldwide household income is under $10K/yr...
I'd push greater commitment to keeping the essential components of the system under FOSS licenses onto the head of that list.
If this really can work for ~3.5 billion people who currently don't have a decent mobile OS (a claim about which I remain skeptical), I guarantee you that at least 3.49 billion of them won't give a damn whether its FOSS or not. Of the remainder, most surely won't care whether its GPL, BSD, or PirateBay licensed.
How 'bout a beefy UPS? That allows the simple "continuous power" scenarios to be considered again, and is far cheaper than staffing a desk.
Badging in a door adds approximately half a second. What precisely are you envisioning that would be fine if stopped in 1 minute (aggressive timespan of notification to someone outside the room to them arriving and taking an action) but complete shite if stopped in 1 minute 1/2 second?
Because there's a difference between attracting users and monetizing them?
Unfortunately, it is already wired for 200 amp service for a reason. Many American homes with dryer, range, electric AC/heat, and electric hot water cannot take another 50 amp load without the real possibility of exceeding 200 amps. Having a 200 amp service is no guarantee your ready to add Tesla charging.
So set your charger to run between midnight and 6am - easy. Or some other time when you're unlikely to be running the dryer, cooking, cooling your house, and heating lots of water all at the same time.
The stock was up as high as 17%, and closed up just under 14% (+$30 on the day to $248). With Morgan Stanley estimating a $320 price there is probably significant growth left, It seems they will have no problem funding that 5 to 7 Billion dollar battery plant.
You realize that unless they do another offering, are are buying another company with stock, the rise of fall of the price in the secondary market has absolutely no affect whatsoever on Tesla's ability to build a plant?