Now I can get a small cup of coffee and free WiFI for only $7!
Fixed that for you. Now I can get a small cup of BURNED coffee and free WiFI for only $7!
Yes, Starbucks is literally proud of the fact they burn their beans so every store delivers the same burned coffee flavor. I've very rarely tasted worse coffee than what Starbucks serves - and at premium prices.
This well was going to produce at something like 0.1% of U.S. consumption, that is enough to impact prices some, but it isn't enough to send futures into a shitstorm, it is certainly less of an issue than increasing Chinese consumption.
And yet BP was punished some $85 billion. You seem to falsely believe the price of oil is related to actual events. They usually are not. In fact, just about any excuse, no matter how stupid or irrelevant is typically used to drive prices drastically up. That's entirely the point of my previous post.
I completely agree with you. The difference here is, after you learn the world doesn't exist in a vacuum, you still know absolutely nothing about how the economics of oil/diamonds work; at least not based on traditional economics. Excluding products such as those, at least both before and after your "vacuum realization", you had some vague understanding of the economies around you. Which is, after all, entirely the point of why they are taught.
"ZOMG ALL PLANTS SHOULD PRODUCE AT MAXIMUM CAPACITY OR ITS MANIPULATION"
Please get a clue. Everyone makes it very clear that despite modest increases in production capabilities, we are woefully under producing. This in turn is used to justify higher prices. When asked why they don't increase production, they state no one wants a refinery in their back yard. Which is odder since they have shutdown plants and have old plants which could be recycled as an existing site.
And yet, if demand is so high and oil is available (it is), why wouldn't you increase production, especially to allow for peak demand and emergencies, unless you wanted to maintain artificial control by scarcity. Exactly.
Apparently that oil well had not previously produced oil for sale,
Oil prices are set based on speculative futures. In other words, normally people would say, opps - that means less oil coming to market down the road so the price needs to jump - and it does. Odd that it didn't do what it has always done in this case.
People need to understand that there exists a few products which are absolutely NOT part of free market economies and are not directly driven by supply and demand. Both diamonds and oil are such products. Their prices and supplies are artificially manipulated at every corner. While oil, unlike diamonds, truly are a scarce resource, they are both so heavily manipulated before and after they enter the market, their prices do not reflect reality of market demands - not in the least. If it were any other goods, talk of conspiracy, price fixing, price gouging and lots of serious investigations would be par for the course.
And no, this isn't crazy talk. I encourage you to do some modest investigation for yourself. You'll find lots and lots and lots and lots of completely legitimate sources stating all this.
Did you know if too much gas is produced and/or accidentally scheduled for delivery to the US, its dumped on non-US markets; traditionally south America? We certainly wouldn't want the price of gas to fall. Did you know refinery plants have been shut down but no new refineries have been created? Did you know one of the most cost effective refineries was one of the ones shut down? In fact, it was purchased for the explicit purpose of shutting it down? Following its shutdown, the price of fuel steadily went up stating they were at production limits and no one wants them to create a refinery in their back yard?
The amount of fraud, conspiracy, and market manipulation is so criminal, it makes criminals in awe of how complex and complete the oil industry fucks everyone - without prosecution.
In short, EVERYTHING you learned in economics 101 does NOT apply to oil/diamonds. Period.
Embarassing, in that, "Yes we screwed up, and we shouldn't have." or embarassing as in, "Oh shit, open source really isn't any better than security through obfuscation!"?
Actually, it doesn't even mean that. Not in the least. This is about poor developers and a woefully obviously broken development process and broken developers.
For this to be allowed to happen means no one is monitoring what is committed to the repository, let alone what is merged into production releases. This basically means those in charge of the development process are idiots. Did I mention they are absolute fucking idiots? This is the expected result be it open source or commercial software. Period. The morale doesn't have anything to do with obscurity. The morale is, don't release anything and everything simply because it was committed. Find me any developer who subscribes to the merge/release everything, without any sort of review, and I'll show you an unfit developer - without fail.
In open source projects, like say the Linux Kernel, this stuff doesn't happen because people care what is being committed, merged, and released. This is FAR more a condemnation of the project and the developers in charge than it have anything to with open source. In short, if you ever needed an excuse to never use their code, now you have it. Unless lots of heads role, rest assured this type of stupidity is very likely to happen again with this project.
Actually, if you do some checking, this is par for the course. There is nothing out of the ordinary about this case aside from the fact the litigants have much deeper pockets than normal, and accordingly are perhaps more press worthy.
Data breakpoints (memory write traps) are an absolute godsend.
I used to think so too - but not with the GCC tools. Its so slow that I just don't do it any more. I now almost exclusively use some form of logging. Any debugger which allows for the use of write traps again is absolutely a big improvement.
Between the speed of symbol loading and use of several advanced features, debugging with gdb is frequently not an option worth consideration. I sure hope this debugger changes all that.
They may be able to drag out the process for a few more months, perhaps even years,
And people argue the US legal system isn't broken. If that's not proof, I don't know what is. There is a huge difference between ensuring a fair trail and the "travesty of justice", which this case exemplifies of the US legal system.
I hear this time and time again but frankly I can't identify. Did you have SQL RDBMS experience prior to trying MySQL? Can you please expand on that some. I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious.
In general a database is pretty much as good as its DBA.
This has always been true. Accordingly, these discussions assume an equally competent DBA, which frankly is far, far less likely with MySQL given its target audience. The simple fact is, MySQL became popular precisely because DBAs were NOT part of picking the solution. There is a HUGE difference between a web developer and a knowledgeable DBA.
For the DBMS corner cases that MySQL doesn't do, there are some incredibly important things that Postgre doesn't do.
Such as? The fact you make such statements clearly shows you know nothing of PostgreSQL. MySQL has been chasing PostgreSQL's features for a long time now. Some they've obtain over the years, some they're still chasing. Regardless, MySQL is still in pursuit and there are no signs that will change.
I see in the updates that PostgreSQL [fixed for you] is finally doing Streaming Replication? Just now? Before this, you had to rely on 3rd party "hacks".
Except those "hacks" are far more reliable and robust than MySQL's out of the box replication solution. The only thing superior about MySQL's replication vs pre-9.0 PostgreSQL replication is that its plain simple to get running and comes out of the box. Robustness is generally considered crap and reliability is generally considered extremely poor with MySQL's solution. That's not true with PostgreSQL's third party replication add-ons.
Using your irrational, fanboyism logic, InnoDB is a complete crap "hack" - yet its the primary add-on which prevents MySQL from being complete crap, and almost totally useless. The fact this isn't obvious to you, well, says a lot about the validity of your position.
Meanwhile, MySQL has done instant replication and failover for quite some time.
Actually PostgreSQL has supported WAL shipping for some time now. With a multitude of third party solutions you have many options of how PostgreSQL replicates; including synchronous or asynchronous.
Much of your position seems to hang on the fact that MySQL is superior because it has an out of the box replication solution. Even though that doesn't hold true, the simple fact is, the majority of users don't even use replication. Its a higher-end feature. The fact that its a higher end feature means most users who require replication are already NOT using MySQL. But what it does mean is, those very high end PostgreSQL users now have yet another replication solution in their toolbox. Likewise, for the lower end users who might otherwise consider MySQL yet require an easy to use replication solution, PostgreSQL is now an option; rather than requiring semi-complex, third party solutions.
I think a lot of it stems from the fact that its different from what they first learned, MySQL, no matter how initiative. It may be brilliant, it may be obvious, and it may be easy to use, but since its not what they "learned" but reading nothing at all, just one product experience, its hard. In other words, if I don't know it for absolutely no reason, "its hard."
As I said before in one of my other posts, MySQL is the lazy "DBA's" database.
You don't seem to understand what's being talked about.
Pot - kettle - you.
That's the response for attempting to provide additional detail for the subject matter? I never asserted anything other than additional information can be found - including an example - and provided a link. The link does provide an example of how the feature benefits people as well as explains how the feature works. Frankly, I'm really not sure how he believes his stated use case is benefited by this feature. But then again, I never asserted anything, one way or the other. I assumed you could glean that for yourself.
Regardless, the confusion is absolutely not on my end. Clearly, lack of comprehension rest squarely between your keyboard and chair. A "Thanks." would be more appropriate next time. Or perhaps even, "Thanks, that indicates the op doesn't know what he's talking about." I'm completely at a loss how providing additional, topical information, allowing you to agree or disagree on your own, establishes I'm confused. WTF?!?
Next time, just say you don't understand anything and anyone attempting to provide additional information to allow you to decide for your self is a complete waste of time. Or that you must be lead to a conclusion by the nose. As in this case, that's exactly what you are - a complete waste of time.
In fairness, Google elected to compete with Apple in the mobile space with Android, the desktop space with the Google OS
Except what Apple is doing is generally considered illegal because it is anti-competitive for the sake of being anti-competitive. I will be surprised if the FTC doesn't have something to say about Apple's latest move - especially since its to the detriment of developers and the market place.
Here's some cut-n-paste action and some additional reading.
Join removal -- this is a feature that will remove joins from the execution plans where they are not needed. For example where you have a left join that doesn't appear in a where or as a column in select. This is important for people like us that rely on views to allow less skilled users to be able to write meaningful queries without knowing too much about joins or creating ad-hoc query tools that allow users to pick from multiple tables
And it continues with:
When people talk to me about the (limited implementation of) join removal that will be part of PostgreSQL 9.0, the conversation usually goes in two ways. Some people ask how the feature works and then say something like "oh, I guess that could be useful every once in a while". Other people already know exactly how the feature works and usually say some variant of "this is an amazingly wonderful feature that I am looking forward to with great enthusiasm".
The difference between these two groups of people (I think) is not so much their level of technical knowledge or how closely they've been following pgsql-hackers, but their use case. If your database is primarily a data warehouse, my guess is that you won't have many occasions to benefit from join removal. Where this feature really comes in handy is in OLTP workloads with highly normalized data, in situations where users are generating queries against views (perhaps through some sort of reporting interface) and expecting to get results back immediately.
the Windows version didn't work as well as the Unix
That was true back when PostgreSQL was a cygwin port; many, many years ago. For many years now PostgreSQL is a first rate sibling application on Windows. In fact, one of the killer performance combinations is 64-bit windows with 32-bit PostgreSQL - despite the fact 64-bit PostgreSQL is also available on Windows. The combination allows for 64-bit file cache from the OS (PostgreSQL heavily relies on the OS to provide robust file caching) and 32-bit binaries which further enhances the CPU's cache for executing instructions and caching data. Unless your queries require "64-bit datasets", performance is said to be excellent.
Bluntly, anyone who tells you PostgreSQL is not a first rate Windows DB either has an ax to grind or is simply ignorant and in no position to be making such recommendations.In the end, you are absolutely correct. The lack of a proper PostgreSQL Windows port not only hindered general use adoption of PostgreSQL, but directly helped catapult MySQL's adoption, all those years ago. That fact was identified and is the reason why a first rate Windows port exists today.
I completely understand that. Regardless, a study isn't going to provide new answers to what's already obvious. If you can't see, you must provide mechanisms to reliably see. And to see you must be able to do so in all directions as well as have a redundant solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, he did say "arguably", which is arguably the worst weasel word in the history of mankind.
Or arguably, it means you understand both sides of the coin and are open to discussion. No weaseling required.
Now I can get a small cup of coffee and free WiFI for only $7!
Fixed that for you. Now I can get a small cup of BURNED coffee and free WiFI for only $7!
Yes, Starbucks is literally proud of the fact they burn their beans so every store delivers the same burned coffee flavor. I've very rarely tasted worse coffee than what Starbucks serves - and at premium prices.
Bullshit. Period.
In a world where Exxon has yet to pay for its cleanup, liability caps, exposure for BP, contrary to media hype, is bullshit.
This well was going to produce at something like 0.1% of U.S. consumption, that is enough to impact prices some, but it isn't enough to send futures into a shitstorm, it is certainly less of an issue than increasing Chinese consumption.
And yet BP was punished some $85 billion. You seem to falsely believe the price of oil is related to actual events. They usually are not. In fact, just about any excuse, no matter how stupid or irrelevant is typically used to drive prices drastically up. That's entirely the point of my previous post.
Woosh...
I completely agree with you. The difference here is, after you learn the world doesn't exist in a vacuum, you still know absolutely nothing about how the economics of oil/diamonds work; at least not based on traditional economics. Excluding products such as those, at least both before and after your "vacuum realization", you had some vague understanding of the economies around you. Which is, after all, entirely the point of why they are taught.
Another example: Internet Explorer.
Actually the government had its hand in that correction - at least somewhat.
"ZOMG ALL PLANTS SHOULD PRODUCE AT MAXIMUM CAPACITY OR ITS MANIPULATION"
Please get a clue. Everyone makes it very clear that despite modest increases in production capabilities, we are woefully under producing. This in turn is used to justify higher prices. When asked why they don't increase production, they state no one wants a refinery in their back yard. Which is odder since they have shutdown plants and have old plants which could be recycled as an existing site.
And yet, if demand is so high and oil is available (it is), why wouldn't you increase production, especially to allow for peak demand and emergencies, unless you wanted to maintain artificial control by scarcity. Exactly.
Apparently that oil well had not previously produced oil for sale,
Oil prices are set based on speculative futures. In other words, normally people would say, opps - that means less oil coming to market down the road so the price needs to jump - and it does. Odd that it didn't do what it has always done in this case.
People need to understand that there exists a few products which are absolutely NOT part of free market economies and are not directly driven by supply and demand. Both diamonds and oil are such products. Their prices and supplies are artificially manipulated at every corner. While oil, unlike diamonds, truly are a scarce resource, they are both so heavily manipulated before and after they enter the market, their prices do not reflect reality of market demands - not in the least. If it were any other goods, talk of conspiracy, price fixing, price gouging and lots of serious investigations would be par for the course.
And no, this isn't crazy talk. I encourage you to do some modest investigation for yourself. You'll find lots and lots and lots and lots of completely legitimate sources stating all this.
Did you know if too much gas is produced and/or accidentally scheduled for delivery to the US, its dumped on non-US markets; traditionally south America? We certainly wouldn't want the price of gas to fall. Did you know refinery plants have been shut down but no new refineries have been created? Did you know one of the most cost effective refineries was one of the ones shut down? In fact, it was purchased for the explicit purpose of shutting it down? Following its shutdown, the price of fuel steadily went up stating they were at production limits and no one wants them to create a refinery in their back yard?
The amount of fraud, conspiracy, and market manipulation is so criminal, it makes criminals in awe of how complex and complete the oil industry fucks everyone - without prosecution.
In short, EVERYTHING you learned in economics 101 does NOT apply to oil/diamonds. Period.
Embarassing, in that, "Yes we screwed up, and we shouldn't have." or embarassing as in, "Oh shit, open source really isn't any better than security through obfuscation!"?
Actually, it doesn't even mean that. Not in the least. This is about poor developers and a woefully obviously broken development process and broken developers.
For this to be allowed to happen means no one is monitoring what is committed to the repository, let alone what is merged into production releases. This basically means those in charge of the development process are idiots. Did I mention they are absolute fucking idiots? This is the expected result be it open source or commercial software. Period. The morale doesn't have anything to do with obscurity. The morale is, don't release anything and everything simply because it was committed. Find me any developer who subscribes to the merge/release everything, without any sort of review, and I'll show you an unfit developer - without fail.
In open source projects, like say the Linux Kernel, this stuff doesn't happen because people care what is being committed, merged, and released. This is FAR more a condemnation of the project and the developers in charge than it have anything to with open source. In short, if you ever needed an excuse to never use their code, now you have it. Unless lots of heads role, rest assured this type of stupidity is very likely to happen again with this project.
Actually, if you do some checking, this is par for the course. There is nothing out of the ordinary about this case aside from the fact the litigants have much deeper pockets than normal, and accordingly are perhaps more press worthy.
Data breakpoints (memory write traps) are an absolute godsend.
I used to think so too - but not with the GCC tools. Its so slow that I just don't do it any more. I now almost exclusively use some form of logging. Any debugger which allows for the use of write traps again is absolutely a big improvement.
Between the speed of symbol loading and use of several advanced features, debugging with gdb is frequently not an option worth consideration. I sure hope this debugger changes all that.
They may be able to drag out the process for a few more months, perhaps even years,
And people argue the US legal system isn't broken. If that's not proof, I don't know what is. There is a huge difference between ensuring a fair trail and the "travesty of justice", which this case exemplifies of the US legal system.
Postgres is a lot harder to use.
I hear this time and time again but frankly I can't identify. Did you have SQL RDBMS experience prior to trying MySQL? Can you please expand on that some. I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious.
In general a database is pretty much as good as its DBA.
This has always been true. Accordingly, these discussions assume an equally competent DBA, which frankly is far, far less likely with MySQL given its target audience. The simple fact is, MySQL became popular precisely because DBAs were NOT part of picking the solution. There is a HUGE difference between a web developer and a knowledgeable DBA.
For the DBMS corner cases that MySQL doesn't do, there are some incredibly important things that Postgre doesn't do.
Such as? The fact you make such statements clearly shows you know nothing of PostgreSQL. MySQL has been chasing PostgreSQL's features for a long time now. Some they've obtain over the years, some they're still chasing. Regardless, MySQL is still in pursuit and there are no signs that will change.
I see in the updates that PostgreSQL [fixed for you] is finally doing Streaming Replication? Just now? Before this, you had to rely on 3rd party "hacks".
Except those "hacks" are far more reliable and robust than MySQL's out of the box replication solution. The only thing superior about MySQL's replication vs pre-9.0 PostgreSQL replication is that its plain simple to get running and comes out of the box. Robustness is generally considered crap and reliability is generally considered extremely poor with MySQL's solution. That's not true with PostgreSQL's third party replication add-ons.
Using your irrational, fanboyism logic, InnoDB is a complete crap "hack" - yet its the primary add-on which prevents MySQL from being complete crap, and almost totally useless. The fact this isn't obvious to you, well, says a lot about the validity of your position.
Meanwhile, MySQL has done instant replication and failover for quite some time.
Actually PostgreSQL has supported WAL shipping for some time now. With a multitude of third party solutions you have many options of how PostgreSQL replicates; including synchronous or asynchronous.
Much of your position seems to hang on the fact that MySQL is superior because it has an out of the box replication solution. Even though that doesn't hold true, the simple fact is, the majority of users don't even use replication. Its a higher-end feature. The fact that its a higher end feature means most users who require replication are already NOT using MySQL. But what it does mean is, those very high end PostgreSQL users now have yet another replication solution in their toolbox. Likewise, for the lower end users who might otherwise consider MySQL yet require an easy to use replication solution, PostgreSQL is now an option; rather than requiring semi-complex, third party solutions.
if your goal is to simply throw up... mysql is perfectly adequate.
There, fixed that for you. ;)
I think a lot of it stems from the fact that its different from what they first learned, MySQL, no matter how initiative. It may be brilliant, it may be obvious, and it may be easy to use, but since its not what they "learned" but reading nothing at all, just one product experience, its hard. In other words, if I don't know it for absolutely no reason, "its hard."
As I said before in one of my other posts, MySQL is the lazy "DBA's" database.
That issue is one of the last MySQL staples
That's why streaming replication/hot standby is also included in the 9.0 release. That feature was hoped for 8.4 but didn't make it until 9.0.
Stating the truth doesn't make one bitter.
Why are you projecting? A PostgreSQL DBA fuck your wife or something?
You don't seem to understand what's being talked about.
Pot - kettle - you.
That's the response for attempting to provide additional detail for the subject matter? I never asserted anything other than additional information can be found - including an example - and provided a link. The link does provide an example of how the feature benefits people as well as explains how the feature works. Frankly, I'm really not sure how he believes his stated use case is benefited by this feature. But then again, I never asserted anything, one way or the other. I assumed you could glean that for yourself.
Regardless, the confusion is absolutely not on my end. Clearly, lack of comprehension rest squarely between your keyboard and chair. A "Thanks." would be more appropriate next time. Or perhaps even, "Thanks, that indicates the op doesn't know what he's talking about." I'm completely at a loss how providing additional, topical information, allowing you to agree or disagree on your own, establishes I'm confused. WTF?!?
Next time, just say you don't understand anything and anyone attempting to provide additional information to allow you to decide for your self is a complete waste of time. Or that you must be lead to a conclusion by the nose. As in this case, that's exactly what you are - a complete waste of time.
In fairness, Google elected to compete with Apple in the mobile space with Android, the desktop space with the Google OS
Except what Apple is doing is generally considered illegal because it is anti-competitive for the sake of being anti-competitive. I will be surprised if the FTC doesn't have something to say about Apple's latest move - especially since its to the detriment of developers and the market place.
Do you have an actual example?
Here's some cut-n-paste action and some additional reading.
Join removal -- this is a feature that will remove joins from the execution plans where they are not needed. For example where you have a left join that doesn't appear in a where or as a column in select. This is important for people like us that rely on views to allow less skilled users to be able to write meaningful queries without knowing too much about joins or creating ad-hoc query tools that allow users to pick from multiple tables
And it continues with:
When people talk to me about the (limited implementation of) join removal that will be part of PostgreSQL 9.0, the conversation usually goes in two ways. Some people ask how the feature works and then say something like "oh, I guess that could be useful every once in a while". Other people already know exactly how the feature works and usually say some variant of "this is an amazingly wonderful feature that I am looking forward to with great enthusiasm".
The difference between these two groups of people (I think) is not so much their level of technical knowledge or how closely they've been following pgsql-hackers, but their use case. If your database is primarily a data warehouse, my guess is that you won't have many occasions to benefit from join removal. Where this feature really comes in handy is in OLTP workloads with highly normalized data, in situations where users are generating queries against views (perhaps through some sort of reporting interface) and expecting to get results back immediately.
Let's take an example...
You can read more about Why Join Removal is Cool as well as lots more general information on the new PostgreSQL features at Planet PostgreSQL.
the Windows version didn't work as well as the Unix
That was true back when PostgreSQL was a cygwin port; many, many years ago. For many years now PostgreSQL is a first rate sibling application on Windows. In fact, one of the killer performance combinations is 64-bit windows with 32-bit PostgreSQL - despite the fact 64-bit PostgreSQL is also available on Windows. The combination allows for 64-bit file cache from the OS (PostgreSQL heavily relies on the OS to provide robust file caching) and 32-bit binaries which further enhances the CPU's cache for executing instructions and caching data. Unless your queries require "64-bit datasets", performance is said to be excellent.
Bluntly, anyone who tells you PostgreSQL is not a first rate Windows DB either has an ax to grind or is simply ignorant and in no position to be making such recommendations.In the end, you are absolutely correct. The lack of a proper PostgreSQL Windows port not only hindered general use adoption of PostgreSQL, but directly helped catapult MySQL's adoption, all those years ago. That fact was identified and is the reason why a first rate Windows port exists today.
I completely understand that. Regardless, a study isn't going to provide new answers to what's already obvious. If you can't see, you must provide mechanisms to reliably see. And to see you must be able to do so in all directions as well as have a redundant solution.
Where's the "+1 super genius" mod tag when you need it? I completely agree with you!
Please mod up.
For what its worth, Congress just passed funding as well as raised aviation taxes to fund the next generation of FAA/airport improvements.