Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Reread my post. You're not quoting me! You're quoting the person that flamed me! That's my point. I told him to refer back to his own post! I didn't flame, I defended my position.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Victim of another idiot moderator. I'm attacked and defend my position. I'm modded flaimbait. Some mods are so clueless.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. No one said that entertainment was bad. I said that it didn't contribute to society. Worse, you're attacking me for sharing the results of some studies. That's pethetic. If you're looking for the stupidest thing on slashdot, reread your own post.
Shesh. I'm guessing the studies hit pretty close to home, to get this sort of reaction. I'm sorry you had a bad relationship with your father, but don't take it out on me.
Modern research suggests that there can be "degrees" of autism. So, it's not JUST a question of if you have it or not, but to what degree it effects you.
I'm not sure how accepted the research is, but I've read several such articles talk about it. Along those longs, it's thought that many techies are slightly autistic.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've had this debate before. I don't consider entertainment to be contributing to humanity. It's fleeting at best. I can assure you that I understand the position that you've offered. I'm just not swollowing it.
Not everyone happens to agree with the view that athletes contribute nothing and entertainment is worthless.
As far as sports are concerned, several studies that I've read and/or watched documetataries on, indicate that their popularity stem from neglectful fathers, whereby, sports is the primary mode of emotional attachment to their sons. In turn, their sons grow up mindlessly attached to sports blindly attempting to regain the sole attachment that they had with their father. If anything, the success of sports seems to underline how pethetic and anti-social the average male is. In otherwords, it highlights that sports are a symptom rather than any form of positive social contribution.
Where is the super-mega-moderation point button. If I had it my way, I'd give you a "+10000 Insightful", score for your comment.
Too friggen true! I always seem to find that the 80/20 rule applies to so many things. Thusly, I assume it's the same here. That is, 80% of humanity is "flat out stupid".
That's the whole point of many of his stories. The faults and falicies of robots crippled by humanity and their desire to grow beyond or simply reinterpret what's been handed to them. Not unlike man as we know them today.
Re:The one thing I personally liked about the stor
on
X43-A on to Mach 10
·
· Score: 1
The way I saw it documented and reported was:
Engineers appear and see aircraft. The insist that it could not fly and furthermore, assume the impact occured while the craft was on the ground. After being assured that the damage was done in the air and that the craft landed with the damage, they then went to the tunnel. There, they decided that as long as enough airspeed was retained, there was a lifting body effect, which provides something like 20%-30% of the total lift for the craft (not clear to me if it's lift before or after the wing was removed). Thusly, they determined, air speed was critical. Had the pilot attempted an approach at normal speeds, he would have crashed. Luckily, bravily, or smartly, for the pilot, he brought it in rather hot and that saved his bacon.
Turning off the cache would destroy PostgreSQL's performance. It's actually designed to take advantage of FS cache, as any proper DB sitting on top of a FS should. Turning off the cache would mean every virtual I/O is suddenly physical I/O, which would completely destroy performance of any DB which is too small to fit into memory. What really needs to happen is, alternate cache strategies need to be made available. And guess what, the Linux kernel guys have been talking about this for some time. One way or another, something will probably be offered under Linux. In the mean time, since it's not a significant problem for the vast, vast, vast majority of users, it will probably remain a fairly low priority item. While it does mean that some workloads will not be complimentary to the existing cache strategy, worst case will still result in performance equal to or better than having cache disabled.
It really sounds like you're trying to make the case that every DB should have their own FS and cache management subsystem. Which pretty much brings us back full circle. The answer is, it's a waste. It adds complexity, bugs, and bloat while attempting to re-engineer and reimplement what the OS is specifically designed to do. Worse, in order to take advantage of it, now we're back on top of raw partitions. Is a couple % in performance (best case) worth all the code, the bloat, the wasted man-hours, and increased bug count? Everyone that understands the issue agrees the answer is no. People would rather work on the real problem, which is a better cache strategy for database workloads.
That's, in part, the cost of MVCC. The other part is because of the power that PostgreSQL provides. Here's more detail: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/fun ctions-aggregate.html
1 bil per launch? I believe I've read elsewhere that the number is much, much lower. Like something around $200 mil. Do you have support for that quoted number? It strikes me as being very high. Of course, maybe that's the point you're making.;) Just the same, can you point me to something which supports the 1 bil per launch?
I see there is some troll loser that has targetted me. I'd hazzard a guess that it's one of my foes that brainlessly insists on modding my stuff down. What a coward. Over rated? It wasn't rated, so how can it be overrated. I would never of expected the comment to be rated at all, let alone rated as "over rated". I guess expecting mods to not be stupid is asking too much.
I see this time and time again. I suspect it's the same loser targeting me time and time again. If you read this, grow up you pethetic loser. And for the record, you're wrong on both accounts. You must know this already or you wouldn't be acting like such a little child and constantly modding me down every chance you get. You're pethetic.
Here's a hint! Good mods, moderate UP good comments and moderate down bad comments. Comments which were neither good nor bad, should be left alone unless your obective is to prove that you're an idiot...and we both know who you are. You are a pethetic loser. And we both know that too.
Sorry, couldn't resist a second reply. While, I don't think any of this really justifies, each on its own, the use of nukes, I think it does well to characterize the type of enemy we faced.
You left out children and adults being used for bayonet practice. After children were raped and considered "too used" to be of worth, a "pitty" bullet in the head was not uncommon, if they were lucky. Many considered the use of a bullet to be too good for the Chinese, so more deserving deaths often awaited. These often ranges from being burried alive to being used to learn proper sword technique for beheading. It was not uncommon for new "swordsmen" to screw this up, resulting in a horribly painful and bloody death.
I could go on, but it's safe to say that the Japenese of yesterday were some seriously messed up people, in many regards. So, collectively, I think they do support the use of such brutal force, as it's something that they clearly deserved, but more importantly, understood and respected.
Use the auto-vacuume daemon. You'll need to turn on some statistics gathering too. Once the daemon is running, it periodically checks the db statistics to determine what needs to be done when. It takes care of it for you. Check the docs, it's fully explained.
Make sure you're using the current release and use the daemon. I think you'll be thrilled.:)
I would love to hear move comments about what OLAP features are missing, as it relates to your requirements. OLAP is a topic which comes up from time to time but real world use is often not offered.
Keep in mind that I am not an OLAP guy, so you may need to talk down to me.;)
"Tablespaces" allow you to put individual tables on different storage devices. Prior to tablespaces, an entire database had to be on one device*.
Strictly speaking, that's not true. You can move things around manually, and some have done so, but it's not pretty, not easy, and not easy to maintain. Implementation of tablespaces in PostgreSQL simply allows its users to easily do what was previously an arcane-voodoo art. So clearly, it's a big step up. But, you already knew that.;)
"Writing directly to disk cluster" - By that you seem to mean direct disk access, not through the filesystem. I don't even think this is part of the PostgreSQL TODO, because there is just not a very strong need. Are you experiencing performance problems in this regard?
That's correct. AFAIK, there is no desire to implement raw partition support. The speed difference is minimal and the required code is large. Basically, you wind up writing a FS and associated buffer management into the database. The return generally is not very high. It used to be, many years ago. These days, filesystem technology and implementations are plenty fast. Those that want raw partition access, IMO, are simply living in the past.
If all these features really work out for 7.5, they should call the release 8.0, and maybe they will.
You are correct. Accordingly to the list, the numbering constantly goes back and forth. From what i gather, they are waiting to see what features actually make it in. Depending on the scope of changes, they'll then determine the version number. As a rule of thumb, people are calling it 7.5, simply because nothing else has been blessed.
Please don't think I'm correcting what you've said. You've said nothing that I disagree with. I'm simply adding a followup remark.;)
That's because, the more I learn about Moore, the easier it is to see he's an idiot and a propagandist. His celluloid fantasy worlds only exist on his film and his imagination. The scary part is, you have to wonder how many people actually believe that he knows what he's talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Reread my post. You're not quoting me! You're quoting the person that flamed me! That's my point. I told him to refer back to his own post! I didn't flame, I defended my position.
They are behavioral scientist.
Victim of another idiot moderator. I'm attacked and defend my position. I'm modded flaimbait. Some mods are so clueless.
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. No one said that entertainment was bad. I said that it didn't contribute to society. Worse, you're attacking me for sharing the results of some studies. That's pethetic. If you're looking for the stupidest thing on slashdot, reread your own post.
Shesh. I'm guessing the studies hit pretty close to home, to get this sort of reaction. I'm sorry you had a bad relationship with your father, but don't take it out on me.
Modern research suggests that there can be "degrees" of autism. So, it's not JUST a question of if you have it or not, but to what degree it effects you.
I'm not sure how accepted the research is, but I've read several such articles talk about it. Along those longs, it's thought that many techies are slightly autistic.
Another excellent gem! I couldn't agree more!
I've had this debate before. I don't consider entertainment to be contributing to humanity. It's fleeting at best. I can assure you that I understand the position that you've offered. I'm just not swollowing it.
Not everyone happens to agree with the view that athletes contribute nothing and entertainment is worthless.
As far as sports are concerned, several studies that I've read and/or watched documetataries on, indicate that their popularity stem from neglectful fathers, whereby, sports is the primary mode of emotional attachment to their sons. In turn, their sons grow up mindlessly attached to sports blindly attempting to regain the sole attachment that they had with their father. If anything, the success of sports seems to underline how pethetic and anti-social the average male is. In otherwords, it highlights that sports are a symptom rather than any form of positive social contribution.
Where is the super-mega-moderation point button. If I had it my way, I'd give you a "+10000 Insightful", score for your comment.
Too friggen true! I always seem to find that the 80/20 rule applies to so many things. Thusly, I assume it's the same here. That is, 80% of humanity is "flat out stupid".
That was my thought exactly!
That's the whole point of many of his stories. The faults and falicies of robots crippled by humanity and their desire to grow beyond or simply reinterpret what's been handed to them. Not unlike man as we know them today.
The way I saw it documented and reported was:
Engineers appear and see aircraft. The insist that it could not fly and furthermore, assume the impact occured while the craft was on the ground. After being assured that the damage was done in the air and that the craft landed with the damage, they then went to the tunnel. There, they decided that as long as enough airspeed was retained, there was a lifting body effect, which provides something like 20%-30% of the total lift for the craft (not clear to me if it's lift before or after the wing was removed). Thusly, they determined, air speed was critical. Had the pilot attempted an approach at normal speeds, he would have crashed. Luckily, bravily, or smartly, for the pilot, he brought it in rather hot and that saved his bacon.
Yes. Thanks.
I've been waiting to read in more detail, when I had more time.
Thanks again.
Turning off the cache would destroy PostgreSQL's performance. It's actually designed to take advantage of FS cache, as any proper DB sitting on top of a FS should. Turning off the cache would mean every virtual I/O is suddenly physical I/O, which would completely destroy performance of any DB which is too small to fit into memory. What really needs to happen is, alternate cache strategies need to be made available. And guess what, the Linux kernel guys have been talking about this for some time. One way or another, something will probably be offered under Linux. In the mean time, since it's not a significant problem for the vast, vast, vast majority of users, it will probably remain a fairly low priority item. While it does mean that some workloads will not be complimentary to the existing cache strategy, worst case will still result in performance equal to or better than having cache disabled.
It really sounds like you're trying to make the case that every DB should have their own FS and cache management subsystem. Which pretty much brings us back full circle. The answer is, it's a waste. It adds complexity, bugs, and bloat while attempting to re-engineer and reimplement what the OS is specifically designed to do. Worse, in order to take advantage of it, now we're back on top of raw partitions. Is a couple % in performance (best case) worth all the code, the bloat, the wasted man-hours, and increased bug count? Everyone that understands the issue agrees the answer is no. People would rather work on the real problem, which is a better cache strategy for database workloads.
Interesting point. Is that insight gained from personal experience?
That's, in part, the cost of MVCC. The other part is because of the power that PostgreSQL provides. Here's more detail: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/fun ctions-aggregate.html
1 bil per launch? I believe I've read elsewhere that the number is much, much lower. Like something around $200 mil. Do you have support for that quoted number? It strikes me as being very high. Of course, maybe that's the point you're making. ;) Just the same, can you point me to something which supports the 1 bil per launch?
Thanks.
Thanks. I can see why bitmap indexes are often toughted as being required for leaping off into OLAP country.
I see there is some troll loser that has targetted me. I'd hazzard a guess that it's one of my foes that brainlessly insists on modding my stuff down. What a coward. Over rated? It wasn't rated, so how can it be overrated. I would never of expected the comment to be rated at all, let alone rated as "over rated". I guess expecting mods to not be stupid is asking too much.
I see this time and time again. I suspect it's the same loser targeting me time and time again. If you read this, grow up you pethetic loser. And for the record, you're wrong on both accounts. You must know this already or you wouldn't be acting like such a little child and constantly modding me down every chance you get. You're pethetic.
Here's a hint! Good mods, moderate UP good comments and moderate down bad comments. Comments which were neither good nor bad, should be left alone unless your obective is to prove that you're an idiot...and we both know who you are. You are a pethetic loser. And we both know that too.
LOL!
;)
You beat me to the EXACT same comment! Word for word even. You must be psychic!
Cheers!
Sorry, couldn't resist a second reply. While, I don't think any of this really justifies, each on its own, the use of nukes, I think it does well to characterize the type of enemy we faced.
You left out children and adults being used for bayonet practice. After children were raped and considered "too used" to be of worth, a "pitty" bullet in the head was not uncommon, if they were lucky. Many considered the use of a bullet to be too good for the Chinese, so more deserving deaths often awaited. These often ranges from being burried alive to being used to learn proper sword technique for beheading. It was not uncommon for new "swordsmen" to screw this up, resulting in a horribly painful and bloody death.
I could go on, but it's safe to say that the Japenese of yesterday were some seriously messed up people, in many regards. So, collectively, I think they do support the use of such brutal force, as it's something that they clearly deserved, but more importantly, understood and respected.
Good reply.
Thanks!
Great link to the SQL query analysis tool!
Thanks!
Use the auto-vacuume daemon. You'll need to turn on some statistics gathering too. Once the daemon is running, it periodically checks the db statistics to determine what needs to be done when. It takes care of it for you. Check the docs, it's fully explained.
:)
Make sure you're using the current release and use the daemon. I think you'll be thrilled.
Cheers!
I would love to hear move comments about what OLAP features are missing, as it relates to your requirements. OLAP is a topic which comes up from time to time but real world use is often not offered.
;)
Keep in mind that I am not an OLAP guy, so you may need to talk down to me.
Cheers!
"Tablespaces" allow you to put individual tables on different storage devices. Prior to tablespaces, an entire database had to be on one device*.
;)
;)
Strictly speaking, that's not true. You can move things around manually, and some have done so, but it's not pretty, not easy, and not easy to maintain. Implementation of tablespaces in PostgreSQL simply allows its users to easily do what was previously an arcane-voodoo art. So clearly, it's a big step up. But, you already knew that.
"Writing directly to disk cluster" - By that you seem to mean direct disk access, not through the filesystem. I don't even think this is part of the PostgreSQL TODO, because there is just not a very strong need. Are you experiencing performance problems in this regard?
That's correct. AFAIK, there is no desire to implement raw partition support. The speed difference is minimal and the required code is large. Basically, you wind up writing a FS and associated buffer management into the database. The return generally is not very high. It used to be, many years ago. These days, filesystem technology and implementations are plenty fast. Those that want raw partition access, IMO, are simply living in the past.
If all these features really work out for 7.5, they should call the release 8.0, and maybe they will.
You are correct. Accordingly to the list, the numbering constantly goes back and forth. From what i gather, they are waiting to see what features actually make it in. Depending on the scope of changes, they'll then determine the version number. As a rule of thumb, people are calling it 7.5, simply because nothing else has been blessed.
Please don't think I'm correcting what you've said. You've said nothing that I disagree with. I'm simply adding a followup remark.
Cheers!
That's because, the more I learn about Moore, the easier it is to see he's an idiot and a propagandist. His celluloid fantasy worlds only exist on his film and his imagination. The scary part is, you have to wonder how many people actually believe that he knows what he's talking about.