why didn't you mention MSSQL 2005 [...] You shooldn't forget about one of slashdot's main sponsor, Microsoft
You get your knickers so far into a knot because a major version update of a Microsoft product gets a story here that you don't even notice the irony of still bitching about it when a minor version update of the alternative is posted!
you cannot download from Newzbin with a few exceptions. The only available files for download are NFO files and NZB (Message-ID) files, which allow you to set up a queue in your Usenet client to download files automatically. The reason why we do not provide any other downloads is: We are an information based resource and do not exist to provide you with the content of Usenet, merely the information of what is currently on it.
MySQL is an SQL implementation, with its own set of extensions
Worse - unless things have changed it's an incomplete SQL (even SQL92) implementation.
Consequently, it certainly was necessary, in previous versions, to review the link between relational calculus/algebra and 'SQL', since one couldn't even rely on the normal advice about normalisation when subqueries were not supported...
(Btw, I'd be very interested to know if this still stands - I gave up with it when I found out how far from a relational DBMS it was a few years back...)
Don't tell me this, just as I'm (re-)reading War of the Worlds!
Re:"Essentially" the same data?
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Hmm. I've been running MS Office 2003 for over a year and have yet to experience a single crash with Word or Excel. I've had Outlook freeze up numerous times...
Likewise. What's more I've had (win32) xemacs, yap, (cygwin) xfig and ghostscript crash inumerable times this week, let alone this year...
White papers and flashy websites (when they're working - Data Mobility Group) are all very well, but if you want to read a real journal article on the subject, Andrew McAfee (an Associate Professor at Harvard) recently had one such in the MIT Sloan Management Review : 'Will Web Services Really Change Collaboration' (though like a real journal article, it's not free and doesn't have Flash adverts and videos in the middle).
... but, to contradict you, they are being used to display - from TFA:
After we figured out that the iPods were a practical way of carrying these images, Apple brought out the photo iPod a few months later. That meant the images could also be viewed on the devices.
Instead of the usual jpeg format, medical images are stored in a format called Diacom (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) so we had to create a function on the software that allowed the format to be modified so they could be visible on the iPod.
Yes, I'm understanding your position now (and forgive me where I restate to check). For my part I'm primarily a LaTeX user for offline doc preparation, so a strong believer in separation of presentation and document structure. It's on that basis (hoping that someone else cares about presentation) that I agree with Nelson - i.e. that online the 'traditional' document structures are needlessly rigid and tied to the paper model - LaTeX might track references for me, assemble a bibliography etc. but ultimately it's geared towards a linear final text. As such your criticism must apply as much to me, and I accept your different perspective...
That would be why the documents themselves, as is repeatedly spelled out in detail, are never actually modified under this scheme.
Or else no version of a document is modified, once published - again, this approach is partially implemented by Wiki (to maintain authorship information etc.), and by the WWW not at all. (True) Hypertext is a model of permanent links, WWW is a chaos of broken links...
I believe that for representing human documents and thought, which are parallel and interpenetrating- some like to say "intertwingled"- hierarchy and paper simulation are all wrong.
This is not about "a mechanism for referencing documents", that much the WWW model did implement of hypertext, but about the internal structure of the documents themselves...
OK, it never occurred to me for a moment that you were talking about that hierarchy. I see no rational alternative to heirarchical structure for the text itself. If you have a better design for hyperTEXT markup...
Perhaps it you'd RTFA, you would have known what the topic was!
The point is that somewhere along the line you have to present the information in a human-readable format
As I said above, this much I willingly concede.
One very good reason for not abandoning the discrete document format is that it is (or should be, anyway) a concise presentation of relevant information in a humn-digestable format
Wait, now both you and Nelson are arguing from artificial poles - it's neither necessary to completely throw away hierarchical linear documents nor completely ignore alternatives.
Did the magazine format, with its profusion of sidebars, inlain photographs and interleaving of articles (headers at the front - sometimes in panels on the same page - continuation after others at the back) mean the end of the linear all-text periodical? No, because only a zealot would argue that one thing must do for all...
Don't make yourself sound like a zealot just because Prof. Nelson comes across that way!
[Nelson's proposals] would require immense indexing and storage overhead [...] The whole concept assumes continuous access to a vast, non-transient, universal information base. We ain't got that, and it ain't coming any time soon either
As I've argued elsewhere, the WWW model as it is doesn't scale without searching, which was neither provided for, nor possible without the vast server farms at Google etc.
If I understood you correctly, you are complaining that you can't link to a specific point in a HTML page, unless the page make has specifically marked that position
No, that at the level of displayed document, the whole notion of linking specialises only to a linear offset, which presupposes that the document is a linear text (forcing a hierarchical if anything, rather than a graph-like, structure).
Slashdot Mirror
Charlie Papazian in the 'Bible' of homebrew talks about the use of coffee in brewing beer, and I believe this stands since the first edition in 1984.
Consequently, it certainly was necessary, in previous versions, to review the link between relational calculus/algebra and 'SQL', since one couldn't even rely on the normal advice about normalisation when subqueries were not supported...
(Btw, I'd be very interested to know if this still stands - I gave up with it when I found out how far from a relational DBMS it was a few years back...)
(Is it watched, as well? I've not seen the movie...)
Don't tell me this, just as I'm (re-)reading War of the Worlds!
White papers and flashy websites (when they're working - Data Mobility Group) are all very well, but if you want to read a real journal article on the subject, Andrew McAfee (an Associate Professor at Harvard) recently had one such in the MIT Sloan Management Review : 'Will Web Services Really Change Collaboration' (though like a real journal article, it's not free and doesn't have Flash adverts and videos in the middle).
The PSP has a bigger, higher-res screen and built-in wireless networking. Was the iPod really the best choice of commodity devices?
Did the magazine format, with its profusion of sidebars, inlain photographs and interleaving of articles (headers at the front - sometimes in panels on the same page - continuation after others at the back) mean the end of the linear all-text periodical? No, because only a zealot would argue that one thing must do for all...
Don't make yourself sound like a zealot just because Prof. Nelson comes across that way!
As I've argued elsewhere, the WWW model as it is doesn't scale without searching, which was neither provided for, nor possible without the vast server farms at Google etc.The basic unit there isn't hierarchical documents (HTML), but graphs formed via triples (over RDF).