Can't understand what schools are doing dishing laptops out to kids. It's obvious that loads'll get nicked. Take donations of old computers, sure, but give them away or sell them cheap. But don't waste valuable resources buying new laptops for kids.
Spend that money on the science labs, or decent math teachers.
In Netherlands. Try gsmweb/2call/phoneplaza, they have unlocked handsets on all networks (including Vodafone). I've got an unlocked one on Vodafone and have the standard App Store.
This probably applies to locked handsets.
They'll just disallow anything which uses lotsa bandwidth & VOIP on locked handsets.
> The Vodafone "Android App Shop" is slated to arrive in The Netherlands, Germany, > Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK this June, and will be part of > Vodafone's 360 package on some new Android phones.
Sorry, MySQL isn't in the slightest comparible to MSSQL or Oracle. It doesn't have half the features, it's buggy, and it's generally slower. Tooling is also poor in comparison. It's still, unforunately, a toy.
MySQL does well in the web. That's because it's free licence is suited to horizontal expansion - throw lots of cheap servers at it (where such expansion is possible). Tight integration with PHP just puts the icing on the cake. However, compared to other stacks it's poor. Both MSSQL/ASP.net and Oracle/Java-application-server perform significantly better (often factors) than the MySQL/PHP stack.
So buying Microsoft/Oracle might seem expensive, that is often not the case.
But the web isn't the world for databases. There are lots of other usages.
MSSQL is for example is ideal for SMEs, you get a heck of a lot for your money - very well performing database with mature, well integrated and well performing stack. Plus a really nice BI implementation built right in, with nice easy GUIs for dummies / business users.
Oracle's the daddy. It's complex but it's a more capable db than MSSQL. As a developer you have fine grain control over how the engine works. For certain enterprise applications it's the only real option (apart from going to IBM). I've been lead to believe that it's the performance king too.
If you're serious about open source databases, then you need to use a serious open source database as an example. Both Ingres and PostgreSQL are mature, well performing and fully featured databases which are available under an open source license. They're what you should be comparing with SQL Server / Oracle. Not MySQL.
I'm colorblind, and it's a pain in the ass. It's as much a disability as having only one eye (no debth perception) or having poor hearing in one ear (poor positional detection).
Have real trouble with electronics (one of my hobbies), and certain seasons look shit to me. For example Xmas is dark, dreary and plain ugly. All these dark reds, dark browns and dark greens. It's depressing. Playing computer games is also effected. Especially FPS, or anything else where they use lots of reds/greens.
There *ARE* some things we can do though. If you use red/green lights when doing electronics you can see the difference between the reds and greens (green is black under red light, and visa versa). So it shouldn't have to exclude you from certain careers.
These free DNS services redirect you to their own 'search engines' which contain (often intrusive) ads and links to various sites. What do you do if you get an error instead of the redirect? You'd either fix the typo, or (as I do) google the site.....and that's google's profit.
In the scheme of things I'd guess that running an DNS service would cost a company like google peanuts. So they're effectively printing money by doing it.
For similar reasons I could see them, say, buying Twitter. For a company like Google the running costs wouldn't be significant, but there's potentially an enormous amount of value for them there. Hell, it's a no brainer for them. It's also probably the reason for Twitter's continued venture funding: it's value is increasing much faster than its costs are..
Know what's really bad? English is my first language, but my grammar's terrible. Was never taught it at school (they may have tried, but they taught languages as an art, which resulted in haphazard teaching).
Move to the netherlands, and learn dutch. The language is taught logically. The grammar is all rule based. Syntax work. Very similar to learning a programming language (actually identical). Results are that an ostentatiously complex grammar system is actually easier to understand than that of an apparently simple one. My knowledge of dutch grammar is better than my knowledge of English grammar. Can't write for shit in it though.
Is it implied that you're refering to the first subject (i.e. the children) and not the second (the CEOs)?
I don't know the rules for English, but I do know that the grammar's pretty forgiving when it comes to the subject. Or at least it is when compared to dutch (and german / other germanic languages). That's what allows a lot of british humour (and it's why you don't see much German humour - the language it too precise for it).
What I love is the fact that Microsoft are taking many ideas from Javascript (and other dynamic/functional languages) and adding them to C#. Last time saw lambdas (notably used in LINQ) and the new version has dynamic objects.
All languages have their strong points:
Java's universal, and has the most logical structure (the super is super, interfaces are implemented. C# has delegates, and now a load of dynamic features. Javascript has anon functions. VB has the With.. End With block. Ruby's extremely concise. Python has list comprehension. Perl has top rate string handling. C/C++ can get as close to the metal as any sane person'd ever need to be. PHP has... erm..... hmm... it's... shit... but it does have character.
> That's 10% 10% barely covers overhead, and employee salaries.
Put simply, Profit = Revenue - Costs.
All overheads, salaries etc ARE costs. So Dell's $1.5b profit on sales of $14b isn't at all bad at all. It's very good.
What you're talking about is margin - the difference between the cost price of something and the sale price. The figure of "30%" is a generally accepted minimum margin for a business. I think it's based on a reseller. If you buy a box of paper in at $10, then you should have to sell it for $15 (plus tax if applicable) in order to survive. That $5 should cover all of your costs, with a little left over for profit.
Large relational? A lot of telecoms and banking systems are based on Oracle. All have massive datasets and require excellent performance.
In google's case then relational's not worth it. Much of their data doesn't have an natural relational structure. All a relational database would do is add massive overheads but no benefits. Plus they're big enough (and smart enough) to gain the efficiencies of scale of building their own data persistance systems.
For some problems relational is more suited, and for some object databases. Then for some a completely custom data persistance / management system is required.
Not sure why I'm arguing with you, you've been trolling slashdot with the 'relational is dead' line for a while now. Plus I'm pro object-dbs when they're the right tool for the job. I'd just like to see them (and their integration with development environments) improved to the point that they're a real alternative to relation databases at the bottom end / for LOBs.
Nice an constructive comment. You must be proud of yourself.
You've quoted me out of context, so for clarity I'll just restate: I'm saying that for me performance and scaling are not reasons to move to an object database. Relational databases already have excellent performance and scale extremely well. So they're going to drive me to switch.
Are you insinuating that I'm suggesting that object databases are slow, or that they don't scale? Because I've not said anything of the sort, and anecdotal evidence (quick google on CouchDb) suggest that they scale very well whilst performing adequately.
The problem is not that it's 'instead of', it's 'as well as'. Sure, you can go all ActiveRecord, but then you loose a lot when it comes to your object design. Which you really don't want to do.
I can only talk about nHibernate or LINQ2SQL, but in either of those cases I have to do something in the database and/or write some XML. That's duplication of work: you've already defined the properties of the object in the class, so adding anything else on top of that is a waste of time.
With ORM you usually end up keeping three seperate definitions in sync - the database table, the ORM metadata (mappings) and the object. That costs time, and time costs money.
Rails have solved this through scaffolding and use of ActiveRecord. That's nice, but your definition's in a database. Not in your programming language. Which is dumb, because as a developer you're spending 90%+ of your time coding in your programming language. So it follows that the best place to define the entities and relationships is there. Then let an object-store handle the persistance, searching, indexing etc.
In my job (building small scale LOB application) the bottlenecks are more my time than scaling or performance (which'd be a problem with an object-store), so an object-cache solution would be idea.
I've seen OLAP systems in the 100TB range which work fantastically well on Oracle.
Object databases could be a nice idea, but not for performance or scaling reasons. An object oriented database would be beneficial as a method to sidestep ORM. So you can, effortlessly and without any significant amount extra work persist the state of your objects.
Then you can build POxOs to represent your objects and just implement a few lines of code to have them persisted.
Not sure if anything like that already exists. I certainly don't know of anything in the C# world, but I expect there's some funky named java project which does it.
What I ment was that I didn't count the calories from green veggies. I figured that because there are so few calories in lettuces/brocolli/cabbages/cucumber/ it was hardly worth counting them. So my diet was low fat, fairly low carbs (60g uncooked rice), normal protein and extremely high veg.
Never lost more than 3lb a week this time with the (exception of the first week).
Started without a plan and generally eating normally, but now Im following the scheme from the body4life book, but taking unbranded shakes and eating slightly more calories to allow me to actually cook stuff which tastes nice. Six weeks in and its going great, should be 87kg by the time it finishes. Then Ill have a break for xmas (probably still doing weights) and try go get the final 7kg off.
What does your training scheme look like? Saw you mention in another post that you're adding a few lb a month without much fat... sounds ideal to me..
They don't measure body fat % in any form other than waist measurements. A drop in waist measurement.
If you're taking obese people and putting them on a treadmill for 40 minutes a day (500kcal), you're giving their legs an intensive weight workout. Not just cardio.
Also worth noting is that the summary doesn't list what they eat, it just says "not changing diet". How did they control this? Did they measure the calorific intake of these people before the study, and compare the measurements after? Did they ration and weigh all food?
Would love to read the study itself to see if it really was so incredibly badly done, but it'll probably cost a fortune:(
So that means that now I'm putting on enough muscle to counter the effects of the loss in the intramuscular fat? Explains why my biceps appear to be three times the size that they were when I started yet I'm only doing sets which are 30% heavier.
Slashdot Mirror
...for stealing the laptop in the first place?
Can't understand what schools are doing dishing laptops out to kids. It's obvious that loads'll get nicked. Take donations of old computers, sure, but give them away or sell them cheap. But don't waste valuable resources buying new laptops for kids.
Spend that money on the science labs, or decent math teachers.
They're right that someone's getting a free ride - only it isn't google.
My telecoms provider sold me my contract for a connection to the internet on the basis of the ability to:
-Download Music
-Download Films
-Watch TV & Videos online
-Play Games online
-Email, chat and web
How much are they paying Google et al for that?
In Netherlands. Try gsmweb/2call/phoneplaza, they have unlocked handsets on all networks (including Vodafone). I've got an unlocked one on Vodafone and have the standard App Store.
This probably applies to locked handsets.
They'll just disallow anything which uses lotsa bandwidth & VOIP on locked handsets.
You should listen to your own words.
From TFA:
> The Vodafone "Android App Shop" is slated to arrive in The Netherlands, Germany,
> Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK this June, and will be part of
> Vodafone's 360 package on some new Android phones.
Guess that's why you post AC.
Sorry, MySQL isn't in the slightest comparible to MSSQL or Oracle. It doesn't have half the features, it's buggy, and it's generally slower. Tooling is also poor in comparison. It's still, unforunately, a toy.
MySQL does well in the web. That's because it's free licence is suited to horizontal expansion - throw lots of cheap servers at it (where such expansion is possible). Tight integration with PHP just puts the icing on the cake. However, compared to other stacks it's poor. Both MSSQL/ASP.net and Oracle/Java-application-server perform significantly better (often factors) than the MySQL/PHP stack.
So buying Microsoft/Oracle might seem expensive, that is often not the case.
But the web isn't the world for databases. There are lots of other usages.
MSSQL is for example is ideal for SMEs, you get a heck of a lot for your money - very well performing database with mature, well integrated and well performing stack. Plus a really nice BI implementation built right in, with nice easy GUIs for dummies / business users.
Oracle's the daddy. It's complex but it's a more capable db than MSSQL. As a developer you have fine grain control over how the engine works. For certain enterprise applications it's the only real option (apart from going to IBM). I've been lead to believe that it's the performance king too.
If you're serious about open source databases, then you need to use a serious open source database as an example. Both Ingres and PostgreSQL are mature, well performing and fully featured databases which are available under an open source license. They're what you should be comparing with SQL Server / Oracle. Not MySQL.
I'm colorblind, and it's a pain in the ass. It's as much a disability as having only one eye (no debth perception) or having poor hearing in one ear (poor positional detection).
Have real trouble with electronics (one of my hobbies), and certain seasons look shit to me. For example Xmas is dark, dreary and plain ugly. All these dark reds, dark browns and dark greens. It's depressing. Playing computer games is also effected. Especially FPS, or anything else where they use lots of reds/greens.
There *ARE* some things we can do though. If you use red/green lights when doing electronics you can see the difference between the reds and greens (green is black under red light, and visa versa). So it shouldn't have to exclude you from certain careers.
Okay, so they've sold your info. So deleting has no practical benefit as far as your existing data is concerned.
What is DOES do is send a message to the less terrible networks (Facebook, Twitter, LastFM, Google) that we, the users, take privacy seriously.
If we can make enough noise, get enough accounts deleted, then these companies will be less likely to flog our info to the highest bidder.
..a far more fitting enemy for a JoJo.
These free DNS services redirect you to their own 'search engines' which contain (often intrusive) ads and links to various sites. What do you do if you get an error instead of the redirect? You'd either fix the typo, or (as I do) google the site... ..and that's google's profit.
In the scheme of things I'd guess that running an DNS service would cost a company like google peanuts. So they're effectively printing money by doing it.
For similar reasons I could see them, say, buying Twitter. For a company like Google the running costs wouldn't be significant, but there's potentially an enormous amount of value for them there. Hell, it's a no brainer for them. It's also probably the reason for Twitter's continued venture funding: it's value is increasing much faster than its costs are..
Ahh, that's what I thought.
Know what's really bad? English is my first language, but my grammar's terrible. Was never taught it at school (they may have tried, but they taught languages as an art, which resulted in haphazard teaching).
Move to the netherlands, and learn dutch. The language is taught logically. The grammar is all rule based. Syntax work. Very similar to learning a programming language (actually identical). Results are that an ostentatiously complex grammar system is actually easier to understand than that of an apparently simple one. My knowledge of dutch grammar is better than my knowledge of English grammar. Can't write for shit in it though.
Is it implied that you're refering to the first subject (i.e. the children) and not the second (the CEOs)?
I don't know the rules for English, but I do know that the grammar's pretty forgiving when it comes to the subject. Or at least it is when compared to dutch (and german / other germanic languages). That's what allows a lot of british humour (and it's why you don't see much German humour - the language it too precise for it).
> but you don't generally tell children that CEOs are trusted authority figures who deserve their respect and obedience.
Well, unless their name is Steve Jobs.
What I love is the fact that Microsoft are taking many ideas from Javascript (and other dynamic/functional languages) and adding them to C#. Last time saw lambdas (notably used in LINQ) and the new version has dynamic objects.
All languages have their strong points:
Java's universal, and has the most logical structure (the super is super, interfaces are implemented.
C# has delegates, and now a load of dynamic features.
Javascript has anon functions.
VB has the With.. End With block.
Ruby's extremely concise.
Python has list comprehension.
Perl has top rate string handling.
C/C++ can get as close to the metal as any sane person'd ever need to be.
PHP has... erm..... hmm... it's... shit... but it does have character.
> That's 10% 10% barely covers overhead, and employee salaries.
Put simply, Profit = Revenue - Costs.
All overheads, salaries etc ARE costs. So Dell's $1.5b profit on sales of $14b isn't at all bad at all. It's very good.
What you're talking about is margin - the difference between the cost price of something and the sale price. The figure of "30%" is a generally accepted minimum margin for a business. I think it's based on a reseller. If you buy a box of paper in at $10, then you should have to sell it for $15 (plus tax if applicable) in order to survive. That $5 should cover all of your costs, with a little left over for profit.
Terry Gilliam made a really good documentry about:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/
I mangled the first link.. http://tinyurl.com/ybepcqr/
For a start, Amazon's system is built on top of MySql: ahref=http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2009/10/mysql-gets-cloudy-with-amazons-new-database-service.ars/rel=url2html-20785http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2009/10/mysql-gets-cloudy-with-amazons-new-database-service.ars/>
Large relational? A lot of telecoms and banking systems are based on Oracle. All have massive datasets and require excellent performance.
In google's case then relational's not worth it. Much of their data doesn't have an natural relational structure. All a relational database would do is add massive overheads but no benefits. Plus they're big enough (and smart enough) to gain the efficiencies of scale of building their own data persistance systems.
For some problems relational is more suited, and for some object databases. Then for some a completely custom data persistance / management system is required.
Not sure why I'm arguing with you, you've been trolling slashdot with the 'relational is dead' line for a while now. Plus I'm pro object-dbs when they're the right tool for the job. I'd just like to see them (and their integration with development environments) improved to the point that they're a real alternative to relation databases at the bottom end / for LOBs.
Nice an constructive comment. You must be proud of yourself.
You've quoted me out of context, so for clarity I'll just restate: I'm saying that for me performance and scaling are not reasons to move to an object database. Relational databases already have excellent performance and scale extremely well. So they're going to drive me to switch.
Are you insinuating that I'm suggesting that object databases are slow, or that they don't scale? Because I've not said anything of the sort, and anecdotal evidence (quick google on CouchDb) suggest that they scale very well whilst performing adequately.
The problem is not that it's 'instead of', it's 'as well as'. Sure, you can go all ActiveRecord, but then you loose a lot when it comes to your object design. Which you really don't want to do.
I can only talk about nHibernate or LINQ2SQL, but in either of those cases I have to do something in the database and/or write some XML. That's duplication of work: you've already defined the properties of the object in the class, so adding anything else on top of that is a waste of time.
With ORM you usually end up keeping three seperate definitions in sync - the database table, the ORM metadata (mappings) and the object. That costs time, and time costs money.
Rails have solved this through scaffolding and use of ActiveRecord. That's nice, but your definition's in a database. Not in your programming language. Which is dumb, because as a developer you're spending 90%+ of your time coding in your programming language. So it follows that the best place to define the entities and relationships is there. Then let an object-store handle the persistance, searching, indexing etc.
In my job (building small scale LOB application) the bottlenecks are more my time than scaling or performance (which'd be a problem with an object-store), so an object-cache solution would be idea.
I've seen OLAP systems in the 100TB range which work fantastically well on Oracle.
Object databases could be a nice idea, but not for performance or scaling reasons. An object oriented database would be beneficial as a method to sidestep ORM. So you can, effortlessly and without any significant amount extra work persist the state of your objects.
Then you can build POxOs to represent your objects and just implement a few lines of code to have them persisted.
Not sure if anything like that already exists. I certainly don't know of anything in the C# world, but I expect there's some funky named java project which does it.
I wasn't very clear ;-)
What I ment was that I didn't count the calories from green veggies. I figured that because there are so few calories in lettuces/brocolli/cabbages/cucumber/ it was hardly worth counting them. So my diet was low fat, fairly low carbs (60g uncooked rice), normal protein and extremely high veg.
Never lost more than 3lb a week this time with the (exception of the first week).
Started without a plan and generally eating normally, but now Im following the scheme from the body4life book, but taking unbranded shakes and eating slightly more calories to allow me to actually cook stuff which tastes nice. Six weeks in and its going great, should be 87kg by the time it finishes. Then Ill have a break for xmas (probably still doing weights) and try go get the final 7kg off.
What does your training scheme look like? Saw you mention in another post that you're adding a few lb a month without much fat... sounds ideal to me..
I've just read the study's summary:
Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3 ±3.63kg (P
They don't measure body fat % in any form other than waist measurements. A drop in waist measurement.
If you're taking obese people and putting them on a treadmill for 40 minutes a day (500kcal), you're giving their legs an intensive weight workout. Not just cardio.
Also worth noting is that the summary doesn't list what they eat, it just says "not changing diet". How did they control this? Did they measure the calorific intake of these people before the study, and compare the measurements after? Did they ration and weigh all food?
Would love to read the study itself to see if it really was so incredibly badly done, but it'll probably cost a fortune :(
Wow, I never knew that.
So that means that now I'm putting on enough muscle to counter the effects of the loss in the intramuscular fat? Explains why my biceps appear to be three times the size that they were when I started yet I'm only doing sets which are 30% heavier.