I can't comment on the speed of the two first hand, though I've read very positive things about PostgreSQL's performance against MySQL with the MyISAM and InnoDB table types and especially so with very complex queries. I'm not putting MySQL down - I have extensive experience with it professionally, but for projects where I've had a choice (just home projects) I've gone with PostgreSQL. I can tell you that it is robust, more so than MySQL. And it is powerful. There are a few moments where if you're moving to it from MySQL you'll stop and go "huh?", e.g. good luck setting a column to autoincrement.;) But don't let anything put you off learning it. It is a great database - very powerful and capabale. If you want shortcuts, look at pgAdmin which provides a nice GUI to it (but learn to do things properly).
I hope that helps. I use both databases and enjoy working with both. But it's PostgreSQL that I am most impressed by.
They're doing a bit more than just cutting out the middle men. I'm fine with that if it means that authors can sell directly to their fans without having to go through anther company. But there are big problems with what Google are doing. It's "opt-out" meaning that unless you are careful, Google will start selling your books whether you want them to or not. There are going to be a lot of books Google get their hands on that the author or their agent wouldn't want them to. This particularly applies on the international market. And keep in mind that Google are international. If an author doesn't have rights to a work in the USA for some reason, they'll find Google snapping it up and selling it. Aside from the moral issue of Google selling other people's work unless they take all the necessary steps to stop each work, the effect on the market will be a negative one. You put far, far too much power in the hands of a few small companies.
4.0 was a huge break from the 3.x series. That's what moving to a different version number means. If it's incremental, you add to the number after the decimal point. You know that 4.0 was not incremental but was a substantial re-write, so it had to move to a new number. Unless you accidentally blundered into the Subversion repositories (who does that?) you couldn't download it without seeing a statement saying that it wasn't suitable for end user usage yet. If you ignore what the people who write the software tell you, it's your fault, not theirs.
Well whether the "grand activation date" is determined by settings in the code or by a hidden author releasing the new payload, the case is the same - it isn't doing anything yet but at some date will be turned on, whatever behaviour "on" turns out to be. So the question remains that if the purpose is something like DOS or spam and the network is already huge, which it is, why are they squandering the useful lifetime of this virus?
You're fine to install apps from either in the other. I try to avoid it because I'm obsessively purist about minimising memory and hard drive usage, but I can't argue the case on rational grounds. The way it works is this: Both KDE and Gnome have a whole slew of libraries that apps written for them depend on. If you have Gnome installed then you already have all the Gnome libraries and if you already have KDE then you have all the KDE libraries installed (slight simplification but never mind). Now if you install a KDE app on Gnome of vice versa, then your package manager (you may think of this as the front end such as Synaptic or Adept, although they are actually the same system underneath), will bring down all the extra libraries that the app needs. So your nice clean KDE install suddenly inherits a lot of libgnome files or whatever.;) Now the libraries don't interfere with each other, they are just... well, libraries. There's not even an issue with having to load multiple libraries that a human is likely to notice. So unless you are an obsessive purist like me who enjoys running df frequently to see how much space a newly installed library has left you, or unless you object aesthetically to seeing a mix of styles of apps on your desktop, then there's no real reason not to mix and match. I think.
I really feel for the poor KDE developers with the slating that 4.0 got. It came out with the statement that it wasn't ready for end user use, but was for developers to get an early start on. When you downloaded it, the page said it wasn't stable and to use 3.5. The Kubunutu distribution (and others) stayed with KDE3.5. If you wanted to get the KDE4 version of Kubunutu you had to go to a separate page where it said this build was less stable and more intended for developers and people who wanted to experiment.
What happened? People downloaded it in droves and started complaining en masse online about how it wasn't ready. Poor, poor KDE developers.;9
I think it will pay off well though in the long run. KDE4.2 is already a good system and it clearly has the basis for much more in the near future. For developers, from the little playing around I've done, it's absolutely great and QT promises easier portability. I've alternated between Gnome and KDE over the few years, but I think I'll be sticking with KDE for a while this time.
If this is the aim, why would it make sense for the worm to have a grand activation date, rather than just increasing the size of the botnet as fast as it can? Time is money, and if there are as many infected machines as its thought there are, then this is just wasted opportunity since it was released into the wild.
Genuine question. Maybe in its inactive state it makes it harder to trace and shutdown? But if not, it seems that if the purpose is a botnet it would be better to have it working as such from the get go.
Interesting to consider that while your self-awareness allows you to describe and analyse your pain, the sensation that you are discussing isn't actually dependent on your "stream of thought" as you call it. So why are you saying it matters or not depending on a part of your neurology that the pain itself doesn't depend on. Presumably you are arguing that concious thought makes pain worse. If we're discussing the ethics of inflicting pain, I think it would actually be on yourself to prove that concious thought makes pain worse, rather than others to prove that crabs have concious thought. Self-awareness allows the anticipation of pain which can be distressing, but that's not what we're talking about. In fact, it can actually reduce pain by understanding its necessity or temporary nature (for example, the person who cut off his own hand to escape when it was trapped by a rock).
What's wrong with just teaching kids facts? Good, old fashion knowledge, that they can carry around in their heads. Stuff that they won't learn under their own steam.
I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's hard to teach. The degree to which children have successfully been taught the facts can be assessed and measured and inadequate schooling can thus be exposed.
We need to shift away from traditional subjects that can be assessed formally and shift to trendier and woolier subjects that, ideally, children already know anyway. This way ever decreasing educational standards can be concealed because there are no previous examples to compare it against and there are no easy metrics with which to judge it. Also, facts can be used to contradict and disagree with the authoritative sources of opinions and beliefs that are handed down.
I have witnessed similar incidents where it's an internal email and there's a chance of getting it off the server before it's collected, but no email incident has ever been as funny to me as an old fashioned letter a director once sent from a place I worked. Nothing special about it except that he missed the 'o' out of County Hall.
That's really strange. I went into it expecting it to be violent and gory and came out of it surprised at how low-key it was. Strange how differently we saw it.
I also despise the creation of child pornography. But I believe that various governments are deliberately mixing the issue up with others so that it can be used to justify totalitarian measures. If we adopt a passive acceptance that whenever "child pornography" is mentioned the government can overpower any law or objection to their behaviour, then we'll be hearing the a Hell of a lot about "child pornography". Which come to think of it, we are.
So wait, are you criticizing him for considering to donate, or for not actually donating?
I think he's criticizing me for the sake of pleasing his own sense of self-righteousness, actually.;)
Actually, I haven't donated yet, but I emailed them earlier to ask for details to set up a regular payment. It will only be small but I'll feel good about it.
You mean I'll get bumped up to a higher priority? It's possible. But it's like being arrested for something. Before it happens, you're worried about getting caught for any little thing and possibly getting a record. But once that's actually happened to you and you've been through it, you're no longer afraid of being arrested for its own sake, afraid of being judged or labelled, but only because of estimated consequences which you weigh up for yourself. The emotional 'omg - I'll be accused of something' side of things is gone. This is particularly the case if you were hassled falsely or otherwise don't feel what you did was wrong. Going on a government watch list is the same - there might be different degrees of consequence but once the initial "we might add you to the list" threat is gone, it loses a lot of its power over you. I now accept that I'm probably on a list somewhere (not through actions, but through speaking my mind and membership of a few human rights organizations) and my behaviour has gone from a vague unease that something I might do could make me look suspicious to a feeling of what the Hell, they already said they don't trust me.
Have you seen these hysterical new posters for the UK police "anti-terrorism" campaign. It's hard to believe that those producing them think they'll have any actual anti-terrorism effect and that it isn't just a deliberate attempt to promote fear and distrust amongst people. Honestly - telling people to inspect their neighbour's rubbish for bomb-making materials? You could not make it up! When "lists" get too pervasive and warnings get so dumb,the concern about being labelled a suspect loses its power to control you because pretty much everyone you know and associate with is in the same boat. At this rate the only people not on the list will be the police themselves, at which point it becomes society vs. authority again and history takes its usual course.
I'm just waiting for the first "Terrorist Pride" march.
Wow! I think I might actually start making donations to these people - If they're getting this much hassle and attitude of various governments and agencies, they must be doing something right.
Sure, I'll probably go on a government watch list, but the way things are going we either all already are or soon will be, so why should that be a discouragement?
to use a car analogy, Shell has gotten off the future express way and is driving down a dead end street. it may be a very long road, but it will come to an end.
True, but you're thinking of Shell in terms of a company only. That company is comprised by investors and directors and employees. The investors and directors (those with the money) are simply relying on small start-ups to make the innovations and break open new markets. When oil starts to die as an industry and the newcomers are starting to flower, the big money will simply abandon Shell and try to take over the newer industries. Now in practice they might do so using Shell rather than invest directly, but the principle is simply one of let others do the work, amass as much money as you can in the meantime and then use that money to take over the newcomers when the time is right.
The employees of the dying industry will be the ones to lose out as always however as they are abandoned by the rich for more profitable avenues.
It's not about protection money. The big labels would love to apply a blanket cost to ISPs to legitimise file sharing of copyrighted materials.
Firstly, administration of the divvying up of funds between artists
would be very lucrative for whichever body won such a task, providing
plenty of opportunity to charge overhead for staff and resources. This
body would almost certainly be the BPI in the UK or the RIAA & MPAA in the USA or made at least made up of the same people and
friends of people who are employed in these organisations. Secondly, the selection of
which artists earn from the compulsory charges is open to very
financially awarding abuse. You can be certain that big labels would be
carving off large chunks of the revenue for their star artists and
less-publicised artists or independent artists would be getting far less
or nothing at all. This power encourages artists to sign with the big
labels, rather than act independently. With modern technology and
communication, there is far less reason for artists to sign exclusive
deals with the big labels so a new way to pressure them to do so is much
wanted by groups like the BPI and RIAA. As if the above was not sufficient temptation to the big labels there are further
very strong reasons. This enables profit to be made from people who
would never buy the music the big labels put out. Musical tastes change
as people age and the general rule is that individuals become much
choosier in their music purchasing as well as less immersed in
mainstream media, thus less subject to buying heavily promoted tracks /
albums. A blanket music tax allows the big labels to profit from such
people despite changing or lessening purchasing habits. How earnings
would be distributed amongst artists is an open question, but as
self-proclaimed experts, you would likely see the BPI / RIAA / MPAA having a hand in
defining the system and it would probably be based around popular charts
despite that not accurately reflecting total purchasing habits.
Furthermore (as if we need more reasons), this allows charging for music
that has gone out of copyright - a body of work that is, logically, ever
increasing.
More than all of this however, is that such an approach eliminates the
free market. The proposal prevents artists from exercising their normal
legal rights to sue those distributing their work against their wishes
(and the proposal does not make sense if it does not do this). In doing
so, it forces the BPI and RIAA / MPAA's business model on everyone. There are thus none
of the normal controls of the free market on the pricing of recordings
or on artists' ability to negotiate with the big labels for better terms.
In short, compulsory charging of ISPs for file-sharing is Christmas for the big lables if this ever goes
through. A permanent entitlement to our money regardless of what they
produce or if we want it. Indeed, they get paid for what other people do.
What is the phrase I'm looking for, oh yes... "It's a trap!"
true you need to be insulting just to be taken seriously.
I disagree. Many work environments will take seriously someone who has expertise and will actively seek out such expertise. But in those environments where you do need to be forceful to be taken seriously (and if you are, find somewhere better), you don't need to be insulting. You just need to be strong. The two are not the same and people who think they are demonstrating strength by insulting other people are usually compensating for some weakness and they also tend to suffer through people's quiet sabotage of them.
In my view, I see a bad trend where companies overvalue specific skill sets instead of recognizing universal intelligence. Perhaps the hiring manager is wrong because he failed to place the new hire in the right area.
Well we don't hire people and then find somewhere to slot them. We're not IBM. We have a need and a vacancy and we try to find someone to fill it. If someone lies on their CV, in this case saying that I have experience and expertise in MySQL, then they run the risk of being placed in the wrong area.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't comment on the speed of the two first hand, though I've read very positive things about PostgreSQL's performance against MySQL with the MyISAM and InnoDB table types and especially so with very complex queries. I'm not putting MySQL down - I have extensive experience with it professionally, but for projects where I've had a choice (just home projects) I've gone with PostgreSQL. I can tell you that it is robust, more so than MySQL. And it is powerful. There are a few moments where if you're moving to it from MySQL you'll stop and go "huh?", e.g. good luck setting a column to autoincrement.
I hope that helps. I use both databases and enjoy working with both. But it's PostgreSQL that I am most impressed by.
They're doing a bit more than just cutting out the middle men. I'm fine with that if it means that authors can sell directly to their fans without having to go through anther company. But there are big problems with what Google are doing. It's "opt-out" meaning that unless you are careful, Google will start selling your books whether you want them to or not. There are going to be a lot of books Google get their hands on that the author or their agent wouldn't want them to. This particularly applies on the international market. And keep in mind that Google are international. If an author doesn't have rights to a work in the USA for some reason, they'll find Google snapping it up and selling it. Aside from the moral issue of Google selling other people's work unless they take all the necessary steps to stop each work, the effect on the market will be a negative one. You put far, far too much power in the hands of a few small companies.
4.0 was a huge break from the 3.x series. That's what moving to a different version number means. If it's incremental, you add to the number after the decimal point. You know that 4.0 was not incremental but was a substantial re-write, so it had to move to a new number. Unless you accidentally blundered into the Subversion repositories (who does that?) you couldn't download it without seeing a statement saying that it wasn't suitable for end user usage yet. If you ignore what the people who write the software tell you, it's your fault, not theirs.
Well whether the "grand activation date" is determined by settings in the code or by a hidden author releasing the new payload, the case is the same - it isn't doing anything yet but at some date will be turned on, whatever behaviour "on" turns out to be. So the question remains that if the purpose is something like DOS or spam and the network is already huge, which it is, why are they squandering the useful lifetime of this virus?
You're fine to install apps from either in the other. I try to avoid it because I'm obsessively purist about minimising memory and hard drive usage, but I can't argue the case on rational grounds. The way it works is this: Both KDE and Gnome have a whole slew of libraries that apps written for them depend on. If you have Gnome installed then you already have all the Gnome libraries and if you already have KDE then you have all the KDE libraries installed (slight simplification but never mind). Now if you install a KDE app on Gnome of vice versa, then your package manager (you may think of this as the front end such as Synaptic or Adept, although they are actually the same system underneath), will bring down all the extra libraries that the app needs. So your nice clean KDE install suddenly inherits a lot of libgnome files or whatever.
I really feel for the poor KDE developers with the slating that 4.0 got. It came out with the statement that it wasn't ready for end user use, but was for developers to get an early start on. When you downloaded it, the page said it wasn't stable and to use 3.5. The Kubunutu distribution (and others) stayed with KDE3.5. If you wanted to get the KDE4 version of Kubunutu you had to go to a separate page where it said this build was less stable and more intended for developers and people who wanted to experiment.
What happened? People downloaded it in droves and started complaining en masse online about how it wasn't ready. Poor, poor KDE developers.
I think it will pay off well though in the long run. KDE4.2 is already a good system and it clearly has the basis for much more in the near future. For developers, from the little playing around I've done, it's absolutely great and QT promises easier portability. I've alternated between Gnome and KDE over the few years, but I think I'll be sticking with KDE for a while this time.
If this is the aim, why would it make sense for the worm to have a grand activation date, rather than just increasing the size of the botnet as fast as it can? Time is money, and if there are as many infected machines as its thought there are, then this is just wasted opportunity since it was released into the wild.
Genuine question. Maybe in its inactive state it makes it harder to trace and shutdown? But if not, it seems that if the purpose is a botnet it would be better to have it working as such from the get go.
Because Texas has a different standard for "mentally retarded" than the rest of the USA.
Interesting to consider that while your self-awareness allows you to describe and analyse your pain, the sensation that you are discussing isn't actually dependent on your "stream of thought" as you call it. So why are you saying it matters or not depending on a part of your neurology that the pain itself doesn't depend on. Presumably you are arguing that concious thought makes pain worse. If we're discussing the ethics of inflicting pain, I think it would actually be on yourself to prove that concious thought makes pain worse, rather than others to prove that crabs have concious thought. Self-awareness allows the anticipation of pain which can be distressing, but that's not what we're talking about. In fact, it can actually reduce pain by understanding its necessity or temporary nature (for example, the person who cut off his own hand to escape when it was trapped by a rock).
I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's hard to teach. The degree to which children have successfully been taught the facts can be assessed and measured and inadequate schooling can thus be exposed.
We need to shift away from traditional subjects that can be assessed formally and shift to trendier and woolier subjects that, ideally, children already know anyway. This way ever decreasing educational standards can be concealed because there are no previous examples to compare it against and there are no easy metrics with which to judge it. Also, facts can be used to contradict and disagree with the authoritative sources of opinions and beliefs that are handed down.
THAT'S what's wrong with facts.
I have witnessed similar incidents where it's an internal email and there's a chance of getting it off the server before it's collected, but no email incident has ever been as funny to me as an old fashioned letter a director once sent from a place I worked. Nothing special about it except that he missed the 'o' out of County Hall.
That's really strange. I went into it expecting it to be violent and gory and came out of it surprised at how low-key it was. Strange how differently we saw it.
I also despise the creation of child pornography. But I believe that various governments are deliberately mixing the issue up with others so that it can be used to justify totalitarian measures. If we adopt a passive acceptance that whenever "child pornography" is mentioned the government can overpower any law or objection to their behaviour, then we'll be hearing the a Hell of a lot about "child pornography". Which come to think of it, we are.
Yeah. The poster telling you to report anyone looking at CCTV cameras is particularly entertaining. For now... : /
I think he's criticizing me for the sake of pleasing his own sense of self-righteousness, actually. ;)
Actually, I haven't donated yet, but I emailed them earlier to ask for details to set up a regular payment. It will only be small but I'll feel good about it.
Bugger! Mistyped a tag. The UK government's parody-defying "anti-terrorism" posters are here.
Honestly - an Anti-Terrorism hotline? Are they so swamped with calls that they need to filter them off from regular police calls?
You mean I'll get bumped up to a higher priority? It's possible. But it's like being arrested for something. Before it happens, you're worried about getting caught for any little thing and possibly getting a record. But once that's actually happened to you and you've been through it, you're no longer afraid of being arrested for its own sake, afraid of being judged or labelled, but only because of estimated consequences which you weigh up for yourself. The emotional 'omg - I'll be accused of something' side of things is gone. This is particularly the case if you were hassled falsely or otherwise don't feel what you did was wrong. Going on a government watch list is the same - there might be different degrees of consequence but once the initial "we might add you to the list" threat is gone, it loses a lot of its power over you. I now accept that I'm probably on a list somewhere (not through actions, but through speaking my mind and membership of a few human rights organizations) and my behaviour has gone from a vague unease that something I might do could make me look suspicious to a feeling of what the Hell, they already said they don't trust me.
Have you seen these hysterical new posters for the UK police "anti-terrorism" campaign. It's hard to believe that those producing them think they'll have any actual anti-terrorism effect and that it isn't just a deliberate attempt to promote fear and distrust amongst people. Honestly - telling people to inspect their neighbour's rubbish for bomb-making materials? You could not make it up! When "lists" get too pervasive and warnings get so dumb,the concern about being labelled a suspect loses its power to control you because pretty much everyone you know and associate with is in the same boat. At this rate the only people not on the list will be the police themselves, at which point it becomes society vs. authority again and history takes its usual course.
I'm just waiting for the first "Terrorist Pride" march.
Wow! I think I might actually start making donations to these people - If they're getting this much hassle and attitude of various governments and agencies, they must be doing something right.
Sure, I'll probably go on a government watch list, but the way things are going we either all already are or soon will be, so why should that be a discouragement?
Can you give some examples of "politically undesirable sites"? What sort of thing are we talking about here?
True, but you're thinking of Shell in terms of a company only. That company is comprised by investors and directors and employees. The investors and directors (those with the money) are simply relying on small start-ups to make the innovations and break open new markets. When oil starts to die as an industry and the newcomers are starting to flower, the big money will simply abandon Shell and try to take over the newer industries. Now in practice they might do so using Shell rather than invest directly, but the principle is simply one of let others do the work, amass as much money as you can in the meantime and then use that money to take over the newcomers when the time is right.
The employees of the dying industry will be the ones to lose out as always however as they are abandoned by the rich for more profitable avenues.
It's not about protection money. The big labels would love to apply a blanket cost to ISPs to legitimise file sharing of copyrighted materials.
Firstly, administration of the divvying up of funds between artists would be very lucrative for whichever body won such a task, providing plenty of opportunity to charge overhead for staff and resources. This body would almost certainly be the BPI in the UK or the RIAA & MPAA in the USA or made at least made up of the same people and friends of people who are employed in these organisations. Secondly, the selection of which artists earn from the compulsory charges is open to very financially awarding abuse. You can be certain that big labels would be carving off large chunks of the revenue for their star artists and less-publicised artists or independent artists would be getting far less or nothing at all. This power encourages artists to sign with the big labels, rather than act independently. With modern technology and communication, there is far less reason for artists to sign exclusive deals with the big labels so a new way to pressure them to do so is much wanted by groups like the BPI and RIAA. As if the above was not sufficient temptation to the big labels there are further very strong reasons. This enables profit to be made from people who would never buy the music the big labels put out. Musical tastes change as people age and the general rule is that individuals become much choosier in their music purchasing as well as less immersed in mainstream media, thus less subject to buying heavily promoted tracks / albums. A blanket music tax allows the big labels to profit from such people despite changing or lessening purchasing habits. How earnings would be distributed amongst artists is an open question, but as self-proclaimed experts, you would likely see the BPI / RIAA / MPAA having a hand in defining the system and it would probably be based around popular charts despite that not accurately reflecting total purchasing habits. Furthermore (as if we need more reasons), this allows charging for music that has gone out of copyright - a body of work that is, logically, ever increasing.
More than all of this however, is that such an approach eliminates the free market. The proposal prevents artists from exercising their normal legal rights to sue those distributing their work against their wishes (and the proposal does not make sense if it does not do this). In doing so, it forces the BPI and RIAA / MPAA's business model on everyone. There are thus none of the normal controls of the free market on the pricing of recordings or on artists' ability to negotiate with the big labels for better terms.
In short, compulsory charging of ISPs for file-sharing is Christmas for the big lables if this ever goes through. A permanent entitlement to our money regardless of what they produce or if we want it. Indeed, they get paid for what other people do.
What is the phrase I'm looking for, oh yes... "It's a trap!"
H.
I don't think that's parasmut. I think parasmut is female werewolves feeling horny etc. etc. There's a lot of that sort of stuff about at the moment.
I disagree. Many work environments will take seriously someone who has expertise and will actively seek out such expertise. But in those environments where you do need to be forceful to be taken seriously (and if you are, find somewhere better), you don't need to be insulting. You just need to be strong. The two are not the same and people who think they are demonstrating strength by insulting other people are usually compensating for some weakness and they also tend to suffer through people's quiet sabotage of them.
Or related?
Well we don't hire people and then find somewhere to slot them. We're not IBM. We have a need and a vacancy and we try to find someone to fill it. If someone lies on their CV, in this case saying that I have experience and expertise in MySQL, then they run the risk of being placed in the wrong area.