Personally I wouldn't use MySql for any production work, nor would I choose PHP.
You're saying PHP is good for quick apps that you don't need to worry about maintence, but I'm saying that you pretty much always need to worry about maintence, which rules out PHP.
I think MySQL should be kept out of the question as it's more coincidence that it ended up being a PHP bed fellow, when PostgreSQL could've been in with a chance given the right circumstances.
I agree. If you want a free (OSS) database, I don't understand why more people didn't go with PostgreSql. It was a real transactional database from the first time I heard about it (10 years ago).
Wow, good way to retain your customers. Customers don't want to pay out the ass again for you to add a simple feature because you didn't take the time to do it properly the first time around.
You've never really done web applications have you? PHP over Java? Bullshit. You'll likely get it done faster in Java than PHP, just like building web apps in ASP.Net is fair easier than building one in ASP.
If you want high-performance access to single DB tables (which many webapps do), use MySQL.
Um, I think many web apps are more application than anything else. So you want things like transaction support, views, security, etc.
If you want to quickly put together a site because your purpose isn't actually maintaining the site but putting up some content, use PHP.
How often do those quickly slapped together sites which aren't meant to stay around actually end up staying around, and now you DO have to support it? Quite a few.
If all you want to do is create a simple program to do a one-off task, use BASIC.
Why basic? You can use just about any programming language for a one-off task. I've created plenty of things in C# for one-off tasks. Also, see above about 'throw away' sites. The same happens pretty frequently to one-offs.
If you want to create a straightforward GUI for a database, use Delphi.
Or VB, or one of the.Net languages. I'm sure there are others. Why Delphi?
The fact is, MySql blows for a reliable database, and PHP (or any scripting language for that matter) blows for anything you need to maintain. Scripting is a good tool for your one-off stuff, but to build an application, it just slows you down.
I'd have to go along with your comment. I don't know if its their incompetance, or that HD sucks. However, they want to sell you the more expensive HD tv, so you'd think they be SURE to set it up properly.
The appeal of a home-theater system for watching movies is pretty limited. I always find "home theaters" to be dark and isolating, and a big space hog.
Yet I find it increasingly prefered to going to the movies. No overpriced snack food, no 14 yr old girls running their mouth the whole movie, no one bringing infants into an R rated movie, no one talking on their cell phone, not fat guy smelling up the place or having his fat ass protrude onto your seat as well as his.
Ya, who would want to have a home theater when they have the pleasure of going out to the movies?
I've checked out HDTV every time I'm in an electonics store. It doesn't look any better to me than regular TV. in some aspects, it looks worse, because the big TVs show the blockies in great detail.
The problem is that the health care facility doesn't care either.
My wife works in a hospital processing insurance. She complies with HIPPA (because privacy of her medical records is important to her), and will report the many violations she sees (technically, she could be fired for not reporting). However, her manager and upper management never do anything but give a verbal warning.
There have been some pretty major violations too. They just don't care.
I thought I was being screwed by the management company. But I was worried about my credit rating and just wanted it done with. I don't suppose that I could sue for some of the money back? Do you happen to work near Willow Grove PA? Personally I wouldn't care if a lawyer took it and I never got a dime; just would be satisifying to screw them back.
Yes, I would recommend the cell phone company (Cingular). I'd sign up with them in a second too, if they got coverage in my area. But from what they told me, that will never happen, as they have an agreement with another carrier (who I never even knew sold phones in my area) not to come in there.
Yes, you explaination makes sense re ex-ante and ex-post. for me though, logically, buying something that loses value and promising to buy something (which loses value before the sale is complete) are different beasts. I totally agree that if i buy something and it loses value, oh well. But if I haven't yet purchased it, and it loses value, then I think I should be able to back out. You choose stocks, but what about buying a house? We are all set to actually do the purchase, but it burns down. I shouldn't be forced to follow through. Of course I realize that there are probably a whole other, different, set of rules for properties and such.
In our defense, sometimes it seems as they lawyers ramble on to reach conclusions that don't make sense too:-) I mean no offense, I really would like to know more about law.
I've thought of getting a law degree, to specialize in traffic law. But just so i can argue my way out of tickets:-) I know, a person who represents themself has a fool for a client. Or something. I'm sure you know where I'm going with that.
Sorry if I'm being dense here; i've had to make a long car trip due to a family emergency.
You say on the backing out of a car is a loser; but I'm not sure what you mean by the 'dealership will get the expected profits...' Does that mean that even if you back out he can reasonablly expect to make a profit selling the car to someone else? Or do you mean he can force you to live up to your agreement? (Although by 'backing out' I meant that they buyer had not yet given any form of payment or signed anything. Would it make a difference if papers were signed, but the buyer hasn't taken possion of the car and has not yet given any money for the purchase?)
I responded to another post you made in reply to me (about an apartment and cell phone). Would the complex owner reasonablly be able to rent the apartment again, and so if I moved out they actually didn't have any recourse?
Sorry for all the questions; I do have a curiosity about law, but many times don't even know where to begin looking for the relevent laws (never mind case law). I'm not looking for free legal advice (since my situations are in the past and already resolved, and I staying put for a long while), so I hope you don't mind the questions. I apppreciate any light you can give on the subject.
Its nice to finally have someone with a real knowledge of law here, instead of us 'guessers.'
Latin for before and after. Although I wasn't aware that contracts only had to be mutually benefital beforehand, not after.
If you don't mind, what is the rational behind that? I have two examples from my own life.
I signed a lease and moved into an apartment; a few months after I moved in, I had to find a new job which required me to relocate. I told the landlord I was leaving, and at first they said I'd still have to pay rent, even if I wasn't living there. She then compared it to leasing a car. I responded that if I didn't pay the lease on the car, I'd lose the car, and that I'm willing to lose the apartment. IN the end, she ended up accepting a lump some ofa few months rent to release me. To me it seems logical that if I'm not living in the apartment (and thus not benefiting from any rent she expected me to pay) than I simply lose the apartment.
Along a similar vain; a contract with my cell phone company at the same time. I told them I'd like to cancel, because I moved and they didn't offer coverage in the new area. They released me without question or the standard early termination fee. From what you've said, it sounds like they could have forced the fee.
I'm sure I'm not the only one to have found this to be anything but the case. They break games from one version of Direct X to another, more less the whole OS.
I'm going to call bullshit here. For the last 3 or 4 versions of DX, the previous API remains in place, unchanged. To code to the new version of DX, you must code to a new (but similar) API.
The thing about spilling the coffee on her lap is that it was also her fault, as I think most of us can agree that you put drinks in the damned cupholder before driving away from the window, to prevent, you know... spilling.
Which is why the amount of the judgement was later cut in half...either that, or the jury only gave her half to begin with.. I don't recall exactly, but the number that everyone heard about was greatly reduced, which nobody really heard about.
Adverse possession is possibly one of the stupidist laws on the books. Someone can just take land which you purchased because you never told them to get off? And they're never responsible for even attempting to find out if its already owned by someone? Its beyond silly. Why can't i just take somebody's car, and as long as i am never told by the owner they want it back (which just means avoiding them) i get to keep it?
I think its time we get rid of these moronic laws. Unless you paid for the property, its not yours, period.. that's how it should be. Assume it belongs to someone else.
Its true that its the SC's role to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, but why does that free Congress from having to think about the Constitutional ramifications of the laws they wish to pass? Shouldn't they consider people's rights and Constitutional restrictions on government when they are deciding to pass a law?
As it is, it seems its too much trouble for Congressmen to even read laws before voting on them. I think that is a pretty large breakdown in the system.
Re: vonage: there's nothing weird about sueing someone who breaches a contract (even a verbal contract) with you.
IANAL, but I also think that contract law dicates that said contract must be mutually benefital. I don't see any benefit for those that backed out of the purchase. I also fail to see how not buying something you agreed to buy would be illegal. You choose not to pay, you don't get the item you promised to buy.
Anyone know what happens if you make a verbal (or written agreement) to back out of a car sale? Does the car dealer have any recourse?
Basically, Vonage has got their consent to the online form and the fact that they had to open up a brokerage account to participate as proof that the people entered into the agreement knowingly.
This may be true, but I thought one of the basic tenents of contract law was that the contract must be mutually benefital. I fail to see how paying $17 for a $12 stock is benefiting the investor. I would think (IANAL) that since there's only a one sided benefit, the people that backed out do have a legal reason to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure if I re-iterated anything..
Personally I wouldn't use MySql for any production work, nor would I choose PHP.
You're saying PHP is good for quick apps that you don't need to worry about maintence, but I'm saying that you pretty much always need to worry about maintence, which rules out PHP.
I think MySQL should be kept out of the question as it's more coincidence that it ended up being a PHP bed fellow, when PostgreSQL could've been in with a chance given the right circumstances.
I agree. If you want a free (OSS) database, I don't understand why more people didn't go with PostgreSql. It was a real transactional database from the first time I heard about it (10 years ago).
Wow, good way to retain your customers. Customers don't want to pay out the ass again for you to add a simple feature because you didn't take the time to do it properly the first time around.
You've never really done web applications have you? PHP over Java? Bullshit. You'll likely get it done faster in Java than PHP, just like building web apps in ASP.Net is fair easier than building one in ASP.
If you want high-performance access to single DB tables (which many webapps do), use MySQL.
.Net languages. I'm sure there are others. Why Delphi?
Um, I think many web apps are more application than anything else. So you want things like transaction support, views, security, etc.
If you want to quickly put together a site because your purpose isn't actually maintaining the site but putting up some content, use PHP.
How often do those quickly slapped together sites which aren't meant to stay around actually end up staying around, and now you DO have to support it? Quite a few.
If all you want to do is create a simple program to do a one-off task, use BASIC.
Why basic? You can use just about any programming language for a one-off task. I've created plenty of things in C# for one-off tasks. Also, see above about 'throw away' sites. The same happens pretty frequently to one-offs.
If you want to create a straightforward GUI for a database, use Delphi.
Or VB, or one of the
The fact is, MySql blows for a reliable database, and PHP (or any scripting language for that matter) blows for anything you need to maintain. Scripting is a good tool for your one-off stuff, but to build an application, it just slows you down.
I'd have to go along with your comment. I don't know if its their incompetance, or that HD sucks. However, they want to sell you the more expensive HD tv, so you'd think they be SURE to set it up properly.
This is true, but if you read the Founders words, sometimes a revolution is the only way to take back freedom, and actually is the moral thing to do.
Actually I was refering to BestBuy...
I haven't seen anything there that looks better than standard, and on some models, the picture looks worse.
The appeal of a home-theater system for watching movies is pretty limited. I always find "home theaters" to be dark and isolating, and a big space hog.
Yet I find it increasingly prefered to going to the movies. No overpriced snack food, no 14 yr old girls running their mouth the whole movie, no one bringing infants into an R rated movie, no one talking on their cell phone, not fat guy smelling up the place or having his fat ass protrude onto your seat as well as his.
Ya, who would want to have a home theater when they have the pleasure of going out to the movies?
I've checked out HDTV every time I'm in an electonics store. It doesn't look any better to me than regular TV. in some aspects, it looks worse, because the big TVs show the blockies in great detail.
The problem is that the health care facility doesn't care either.
My wife works in a hospital processing insurance. She complies with HIPPA (because privacy of her medical records is important to her), and will report the many violations she sees (technically, she could be fired for not reporting). However, her manager and upper management never do anything but give a verbal warning.
There have been some pretty major violations too. They just don't care.
I appreciate your clear explainations.
I thought I was being screwed by the management company. But I was worried about my credit rating and just wanted it done with. I don't suppose that I could sue for some of the money back? Do you happen to work near Willow Grove PA? Personally I wouldn't care if a lawyer took it and I never got a dime; just would be satisifying to screw them back.
Yes, I would recommend the cell phone company (Cingular). I'd sign up with them in a second too, if they got coverage in my area. But from what they told me, that will never happen, as they have an agreement with another carrier (who I never even knew sold phones in my area) not to come in there.
Yes, you explaination makes sense re ex-ante and ex-post. for me though, logically, buying something that loses value and promising to buy something (which loses value before the sale is complete) are different beasts. I totally agree that if i buy something and it loses value, oh well. But if I haven't yet purchased it, and it loses value, then I think I should be able to back out. You choose stocks, but what about buying a house? We are all set to actually do the purchase, but it burns down. I shouldn't be forced to follow through. Of course I realize that there are probably a whole other, different, set of rules for properties and such.
In our defense, sometimes it seems as they lawyers ramble on to reach conclusions that don't make sense too :-) I mean no offense, I really would like to know more about law.
:-) I know, a person who represents themself has a fool for a client. Or something. I'm sure you know where I'm going with that.
I've thought of getting a law degree, to specialize in traffic law. But just so i can argue my way out of tickets
It is a sad state of affairs. I would also consider it treason, but I don't really matter I suppose.
Sorry if I'm being dense here; i've had to make a long car trip due to a family emergency.
You say on the backing out of a car is a loser; but I'm not sure what you mean by the 'dealership will get the expected profits...' Does that mean that even if you back out he can reasonablly expect to make a profit selling the car to someone else? Or do you mean he can force you to live up to your agreement? (Although by 'backing out' I meant that they buyer had not yet given any form of payment or signed anything. Would it make a difference if papers were signed, but the buyer hasn't taken possion of the car and has not yet given any money for the purchase?)
I responded to another post you made in reply to me (about an apartment and cell phone). Would the complex owner reasonablly be able to rent the apartment again, and so if I moved out they actually didn't have any recourse?
Sorry for all the questions; I do have a curiosity about law, but many times don't even know where to begin looking for the relevent laws (never mind case law). I'm not looking for free legal advice (since my situations are in the past and already resolved, and I staying put for a long while), so I hope you don't mind the questions. I apppreciate any light you can give on the subject.
Its nice to finally have someone with a real knowledge of law here, instead of us 'guessers.'
Latin for before and after. Although I wasn't aware that contracts only had to be mutually benefital beforehand, not after.
If you don't mind, what is the rational behind that? I have two examples from my own life.
I signed a lease and moved into an apartment; a few months after I moved in, I had to find a new job which required me to relocate. I told the landlord I was leaving, and at first they said I'd still have to pay rent, even if I wasn't living there. She then compared it to leasing a car. I responded that if I didn't pay the lease on the car, I'd lose the car, and that I'm willing to lose the apartment. IN the end, she ended up accepting a lump some ofa few months rent to release me. To me it seems logical that if I'm not living in the apartment (and thus not benefiting from any rent she expected me to pay) than I simply lose the apartment.
Along a similar vain; a contract with my cell phone company at the same time. I told them I'd like to cancel, because I moved and they didn't offer coverage in the new area. They released me without question or the standard early termination fee. From what you've said, it sounds like they could have forced the fee.
I'm sure I'm not the only one to have found this to be anything but the case. They break games from one version of Direct X to another, more less the whole OS.
I'm going to call bullshit here. For the last 3 or 4 versions of DX, the previous API remains in place, unchanged. To code to the new version of DX, you must code to a new (but similar) API.
The thing about spilling the coffee on her lap is that it was also her fault, as I think most of us can agree that you put drinks in the damned cupholder before driving away from the window, to prevent, you know... spilling.
Which is why the amount of the judgement was later cut in half...either that, or the jury only gave her half to begin with.. I don't recall exactly, but the number that everyone heard about was greatly reduced, which nobody really heard about.
You'd expect her reflexes to take over, and she'd jump out of the way as soon as she starts to get burned.
Please tell me where you expected her to jump to, considering she was strapped into the drivers seat of her car?
And apparently the burns were sufficent enough to see the doctor, which is why she won her case.
Personally I wish more laywers would post here, just so that everyone is clear on the law.
Adverse possession is possibly one of the stupidist laws on the books. Someone can just take land which you purchased because you never told them to get off? And they're never responsible for even attempting to find out if its already owned by someone? Its beyond silly. Why can't i just take somebody's car, and as long as i am never told by the owner they want it back (which just means avoiding them) i get to keep it?
I think its time we get rid of these moronic laws. Unless you paid for the property, its not yours, period.. that's how it should be. Assume it belongs to someone else.
So if you're not allowed to shoot trespassers, how do you remove someone from your property?
Its true that its the SC's role to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, but why does that free Congress from having to think about the Constitutional ramifications of the laws they wish to pass? Shouldn't they consider people's rights and Constitutional restrictions on government when they are deciding to pass a law?
As it is, it seems its too much trouble for Congressmen to even read laws before voting on them. I think that is a pretty large breakdown in the system.
Re: vonage: there's nothing weird about sueing someone who breaches a contract (even a verbal contract) with you.
IANAL, but I also think that contract law dicates that said contract must be mutually benefital. I don't see any benefit for those that backed out of the purchase. I also fail to see how not buying something you agreed to buy would be illegal. You choose not to pay, you don't get the item you promised to buy.
Anyone know what happens if you make a verbal (or written agreement) to back out of a car sale? Does the car dealer have any recourse?
Basically, Vonage has got their consent to the online form and the fact that they had to open up a brokerage account to participate as proof that the people entered into the agreement knowingly.
This may be true, but I thought one of the basic tenents of contract law was that the contract must be mutually benefital. I fail to see how paying $17 for a $12 stock is benefiting the investor. I would think (IANAL) that since there's only a one sided benefit, the people that backed out do have a legal reason to do so.