I agree with many of the other posters, most of the time my wrists hurt becuase i did some other activity or got stressed out and then kept agrivating the situation by typing on the computer. Usually i take a break for an hour or quit working and go home to sleep (usually happens trying to hit a deadline). I do not, stress out that I've now aquired RSI and my life is ruined. Becuase, I belive that a great percentage of health problems are psychosomatic (the abilities of the placebo pill is abosulte proof of this) and by stessing out over the aquiring of RSI will cause you to clench your writs and agrivate the problem.
An example in daily life is how many times have you picked at a scab til it blead and hurt? There is no benifit to it, your opening yourself up to infection, but in the back of your mind your testing to see if its healed or still hurts. Same goes for wrists, if you think your coming down with RSI your going to test your wrists to see if they hurt, in fact your ignoring how to prevent the pain to check to see if the pain still exists doing the wrong motions.
I do have one example from my old school where a woman destroyed her arms/wrists by using a computer. She did this by updating, by hand, 3500 frames with Anipro (Autodesks 8bit 2D animation program) in the course of 2 days straight (no sleep).
She then got upset because the school did not provide adiquate tables to prevent this from happening and threatened to sue. I suspect there is no way that anyone's wrists/arms in any configuration could have survived those 2 days.
Read the article, that's what SCO is alleging, that they copied line for line. Obviously the developers didn't think they wre violating someone's copyright.
Big Clue revealed
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If there is an exact copy of some comment from Sys V and Linux can't we build a database of comments in Sys V (someones got to have the code) and a database of comments in Linux and check simularities?
Couldn't this be done with a few simple grep or sed commands?
Sure there would be alot of trivial differences, but if SCO is right and there is a complex alogrithm inside Linux copied for SysV then the comments for that code should be fairly obvious.
With the current SCO hub-bub, I think every developer who thinks about submitting code developed at work and every developer accepting new code from outside developers realize that the code you are submitting is the property of the company you work for!
Ultimately its there decisicion, if you feel like doing it without permission to 'Help' the open source community you are actually hurting the project and community almost beyond repair.
Unless you get writen signed off permission from someone who can give permission, 5-7 years from when you submitted the code, your company can still claim ownership to that data. Right now your boss may say "go for it!", 5 years from now, you and him are probably gone and forgotten, yet the company can still sue the project you submitted to because it contains their property.
True, but what a bogus claim. It also shows that SCO, even though they may claim their only sueing over a contract problem with IBM are actualtly still claiming to being able to sue for patent and copyright violations.
In Other news... nice to see SCO take a 24% drop in share value, a kinda of 'slashdot' effect
Ok... what about Agent Smith? Presupositions: Can't trust the Oracle 100% ie Oracle has an agenda
Isn't the One supposed to destroy the matrix? Don't we hear in the preview the Oracle telling neo to stop Smith or we all die?
Perhaps Neo's purpose was to meld his self with an agent to create the 'flaw' that will destroy the Matrix. In the first movie Smith was different then the other Matrixes because he took off his earpiece, etc
One of the key things overlooked, is that at the door to the Archtect, Smith was waiting there, perhaps he got mad and shot the keymaker because HE wanted to meet the Architect!
We did mainly Ecommerce stuff, the DB work was the product of the CTO's pet projects. Email me for more info at john@(the website URL minus the www). Or click through to my website, you can find my email there at the bottom.
(great for things like a doctors office where everyone could have the booking app and if one pc goes down the others could still book appointments. The amount of network traffic and processing would be minimal but the increase in availability would be great)
Actually if you've ever used SaPro for Ebay, i worked at a company where there was 12 continous users on it. Too bad it used an access file as its DB. Talk about slow down. I really think the only application where you might need this is an ecommerce app with a large product database (electronic components). The product database would be fairly static but HUGE, and the profit wouldn't support Oracle.
But, with a 4 CPU license and 2 client licenses, vrs possible hiring someone to manage the 4 DB servers and any development costs. Oracle looks the better deal the more you go. Oracle will never be 'cheap', its priced at the point where companies who feel the pain will pay it, and not a dime cheaper.
Maybe I was confused, under their C-JDBC controller (2 chapters previous) they say under current limitations that RAID-b1ec and RAIDb-2ec aren't supported. I wasn't able to find any distinction made elsewhere that the 'ec' was of any significance.
Still, RAID 1 is not much of a cost savings. RAID 0 is a nightmare with databases. A complex cluster with RAID 1 and 0 as described probably has the same chance of downtime as a single server. a 3 unit Raid0 server have a 3x greater chance of dieing then a 1 unit, mitigated by having 3 3-unit RAID 0 servers.
Again, in thinking of managing (backup, upgrade etc) these mixtures of RAID 0 and 1 servers in a production enviroment, wouldn't it just be better to get the Oracle license, a large hot-swap/failover server with backup and sleep at night?
Yes, putting everything in one server with redundant power supplies, redundant disk with hot swap capability, reduntant network controllers is better! This JDBC hasn't implemented multiple reduntant servers, right now its about speed increases by striping data across multiple servers. RAID 0. Are you going to trust the redunant ability in this software more then your RAID controller?
If I bought 3 dual CPU linux boxes there is a 3x better chance of having a Power Supply die, a network connection die etc a processor burn up then a 6-8 way server with failover in hardware. If there is no failover in the DBC layer, then your whole cluster is down. If any one of those net connections goes down the cluster goes down. The more you add, the more the chance of failure, not less!
Failover is the critical word. If you reed the Limitiations in their documents, they havn't done that yet.
First, they should move more and more features of the DB to the controller layer. The goal should be that you can call plain SQL statements and complex joins directly. Later, you could even have stored procedures execute there and use the cluster as if it were one db.
Then, they should try and work it so that you make low level calls to the DB layer, this would save time in having the seperate DBs compile the SQL statements.
Next, make some kernal mods ala Tux to make the DB calls faster to execute, ie make the DB machines pure DB handlers.
Once you do that, you might want to consider moving the seperate dbs into one rack, maybe making them share power supplies, disk arrays to cut down the points of failure.
As well, have one handler computer handle all incoming connections which would appear to be a stand alone Database. Thus every database instance would apear to be a.... partition of the main database.
It would be powerful to separate the hardware/database tie to allow the Admin to manage which servers would have which partitions, letting them span a partition accross a new server if it got too big. And let the partitions automatically move away from bad servers using parity information stored on a seperate server.
Once you finish developing all that... you should realize that's what Oracle already does. Oracle isn't some MIcrosoftish company that developed a product absent any competition so quailty, reliability and performance wasn't job #1. Oracle has long competed against IBM, Sybase, Microsoft etc and pretty much has the DB thing down.
The only use I could see for this tech, is in a small ecommerce web site that needed to search millions of records (electronics supply store). This would be for when a MYSQL table would start to bog down due to too many records. Even then, having multiple machines should be the very last resort.
I once worked for an opensourced company that tried creating something like this in Perl. We did so to try and lure customers from oracle and prove that open source could handle massive databases. But... we found many problems when trying to sell this to expirenced customers over oracle.
1st... multiple points of failure. By increasing the number or databases your increasing the potential points of failure. What features are there to automatically backup data? If the data is spread randomly across the dbs and one of the drives or servers dies, what failover is there? Will the other databases take over? In a cost/risk analysis, is this really the cheapest way?
2nd...Is any speed increase from multiple databases going to be more then the speed increase from just upgrading the database server? More/faster disks, more processors etc. Sticking to one machine allows you to use the fault tolerance built into the RAID controller or the server itself. You could argue that once you got to the fastest hardware you need to go with more machines, but at that point you might need to look at your application. Quad Xeon 2.2Ghz with GBs of memory and an NetApp disk array is going to powerful enough for alot of apps.
3rd... Is this really faster? With simple SQL queries it might, but what about complex joins etc? Since this lies infront of the dbs, what about stored procedures etc?
The only really application that I could see this for is a small ecommerce website that needs to have millions of potential products to sell. (Electronics supply store etc). Something where the data needing replicating is static and is imported.
And as far as eliminating the need for a high priced Oracle DBA, someone able to support an array of 8-10 mysql databases using this technology is going to be both high price and hard to find.
If I'm not mistaken, Bush is saying we need missle defence to protect us against rogue states, not former/current superpowers. Thus this seems to do the job nicely. These rogue states, while having one or two long range missles, won't have sufficiant air power to overpower a carrier group or two (or ground stationed aircraft).
So... why do we need more? You may ask, perhaps this would be great if things get bad with the Russians and we need to protect ourselves from a large scale nuclear launch? Or perhaps it would protect us from a retalitory strike if we did a first strike. Well, that's what the whole purpose of the ABM treaty was for. The security nuclear arms gave us during the cold war was only because both sides were assured they would be destroyed by the start of any war. How convienent we've gotten out of that.
is like a baterical infestation. I worked on a large perl based ecommerce project and a large Java based Ecommerce project. In the end, to insure quality code we had 100% make sure use strict was used, we had to forbid many things Perl programmers pride themselves on in order to get 8 delveopers to stop duplicating work, stepping on each others code and make our code maleble to changes in specs.
In Java project it was sooo much easier. Sure it took a little longer to start up, creating the Beans, the database layer etc, but once we were going everyone used the code we created, adding features and dealing with changing specs were SOO much easier.
Now comes to the point of the title, we were on a tight deadline, so the bosses got a team from another part of the company to write a PDF generator. That piece came in Perl. Now the piece was writen by good, skilled programers, but dealing with different error log locations, creating processes for the perl interperator to live in etc was a nightmare. If we paid the $$ for a 3rd Party Java PDF writer or developed our own we could have saved a good 2-3 man months off of the code. I learned pretty quickly as the only 'Perl' guy on the Java side of the project, You should NEVER, EVER mix languages in a project.
Scripting languages are fine for small one-two page cgi programs, but unless you can crack a whip and get the programmers to fall in line, you'd better let the language and enviroment do that.
btw, J2EE are frustrating to Script Programmers because they were DESIGNED to be. But if you were ever in charge of divying out tasks in a large project you'll realize how J2EE was designed for you.
Unfortionately, this rapidly degenerates to making any development nearly impossible as you have to do a patent search for every thing your company does. Or else you just do it, and worry about the licensing later.
You say this as if its not happening or hasn't happened in the past. ANY large, medium and most small developers, manufactures have ALWAYS be forced to be patent-aware.
Whether you manufacture widgets or WinWidjets, ignoring a simple search on uspto.gov is incredibly foolish.
I've worked in R&D at a medium sized manufacturer of digital printers and we constantly did patent searches. In fact, you learn to adapt the patent search at the very beginning of the development process. Its amazing that you actually learn what stumbling blocks will be in your way by what was patented in the past to fix them.
The patent process was designed as the FIRST open-source development process. It works like, you come up with an invention, as long as you share with everyone your idea, then you get to use your invention for a number or years.
"Help save your opensourced company and fly across the country on you expense acount. Btw, your amex card is tied to you not the company. "
Then when you finally get back, the company goes under, and you don't get paid severence or your expense account. You suffer through a number of future job offers that make it seem you can start repaying your bills so you don't sell your car and go late, only for the offers to fall through.
Then, finally, when you get that one job offer that will put you back on track, they ask for a fucken credit check.
Btw, no matter how bad your credit is, (i moved down to sillicon valley from canada thus had no credit), you can put up money for a secured credit card, stay at the lesser hotels, eat at the lesser restuarants and rent the lesser cards and still do the client visits. After only 6 months of employement at a director level, you're going to get approved again for card then after a year you probably can get another amex.
If someone said that computer languages and human languages were the same thing, and you said "no way", I would agree with that. They aren't exactly the same. But saying that written languages have nothing in common with programming languages? That's stretching it a lot more, actually.
Ok, I don't see this in the parent comment referenced (#5184232).
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is this. Computer languages resemble natural languages because they were designed to (say.. using english words). Otherwise they are completely different. An analogy would be the twig bug, looks like a twig, really they aren't the same.
Computer languages exist to enable a machine to perform a task. After translation from the pseduo natural language to machine code, all aspects making it similar to natural langues are lost. 1:1, isn't the prime difference, but it is a major one. Consider the directional instructions in how to get to a certain place. Compare these instructions to a work of literature or poem, and compare them to a computer program. You will see that in the directional istructions the words do not indicate direct action, they merely try to communicate ones information to another. ie, "this is how I get to this place and I wish for you to know as I do."
There is no need in computer program to question the ability of the computer to understand what you are saying, there is no inteligence on the other end. That is why there is a fundemental riff between computer languages and natural languages. Any similarities between computer and natural languages are pure asthetic additions to ease the ability of computer programs and to communicate the purpose of the program amoungst fellow developers.
Theoretically I could use the first 10 pages of 1984 as the source of my variable/function names in a perl script that plays blackjack. This script then read as the novel does. That does not make perl a natural language, or make it close, it really shows how different they are. That's because the natural language integration into computer languages is a form of inserting a comment directly into the code. I could go on and on, but I've spent enough work time on this comment, I leave with one more example
Shrieben(x), in your example could be f(x), and in reality the shrieben tag is just a moniker used to help figure out to a human what you are saying. Your mistaking this natural language choice for the computer language, its not. Because the 2 functions have the exact same outcome, regardless of name change, the name shrieben is not a component of the computer language but mearly the use of a natural language moniker.
The big difference here is that if you give the same instructions to 5 computers, each of the 5 computers will interpret the language precisely the same way (assume identical architectures for now -- see below) Well, if I type the most simple "Hello World" program in C++ on my Mac and in DOS on a PC (and assume the syntax is exactly the same), I don't get the same results. In DOS the words will be dumped to the screen, in the system font, probably white on black. On the Mac, probably a text box pops up and displays the text in Geneva in white on black. And when the two compilers took in the code I wrote, they probably translated it to *completely* different machine code. So, saying these two are exactly the same is being very simplistic.
In any case, how is a rule for being a language being able to say the same thing to two people and having them understand it differently?
I think you have just proven his point. He clearly stated "given the same architecture etc". Thus, you and I given the same exact comment post have read and understood it differtly in meaning. Furthemore, he isn't trying to state a 'rule' regarding what is and isn't a language, he's trying to make the point that a computer language isn't the same as a human language. The reason is that when writing for humans, you have to pay attention to double meanings and there is great skill involved in writing to get a specific point/detail/feeling communicated to a wide audience (or specific audience).
The closest equivilent in programming is
Given:
int a = 5; printf("%i\n",a);
My result : 5 Your result : i Someone elses: %i\n
Thus, given the same code, we all read our own interperation on what the answer would be because us being humans, we don't follow EXACTLY what's written.
Also note how much my spelling sucks, yet you still can grasp my meaning. Another difference that I'm using to try and convey the highly complex reasons why I feel that naturalistic computer languages use the form of natural languages but aren't natural languages themselves. This was done to aid in programming and the reason you don't talk to your computer as in star trek.
My ol' company was in there, and for interest to slashdot users, it was an opensourced perl based system.
The problem with Kaplan's review, is that he really just wrote based on that one sentance explanation. After reading that I put the book down. I presume Kaplan had a list made with name and one sentance discription and he just wrote a blurb based on that. There was no research into each company, I'm not sure by reading that you get any insight into each company's workings and problems. A better book, would be to allow an simpathetic former employee write an obituary, then include some of the comments from his website when the company went under to retort and bring some feeling back into it.
Zelerate died for a number of reasons, the least being the capability of the opensourced model to sustain business. Our problems were basically the same as every other.com, the preasure to repay investor's money with a lucritive IPO gave too little time to the proper development of the software, too high a credence to marketing the company and the need for some 'star' founders put too little expierence in the management of the company.
If we just developed, found patient beta company's to develop for, followed the traditional alpha-beta-production timelines, AND got our heads out of the clouds, we just might be still around. But, as anyone who worked in or around.coms back in 99-00 knows, all of that was an impossibility at that time.
A further reduction of rights is not the answer. If "the media" is not impartial, what it gives you is not news. If there is no alternate source of information available, we all have a big problem. You are right to notice that news is hard to come by. The answer, however, is not to make it that much harder for those who would present news in an impartial way.
I disagree with you, lets compare the three sets of rights in question here.
a: the right you have to know and the right of the press to report
b: the right the accused has to a fair trial
c: the right the accused has to face the witnesses against him/her
The question is, when should the public learn and what should they learn... basically the public should learn that a person has been arrested for a crime, that protects that person by letting everyone know what is happening to him. Any more info at this point, harms the persons rights. If the press reports the 'facts' at this time , before the accused has the right to cross examine the source of the facts, how is this respecting the accused right to face his/her accuser? The press does not HAVE to report in any particular style, so therefor the press does not HAVE to present a fair story. Furthermore, what makes that which the press report, a fact? Only during the course of a trial, when both sides can support/attack the authenticity of the evidence can facts emirge. Therefore, what ever the press reports before a trial is rumor and gossip.
Besides your 'recusrive' saying being mearly the use of a 'slippery slope' philosphical flaw, taken that this supression of the publics right is in favor of an individual right, your individual right for freedom against public slavery is STRENGTHENED not weakened in this case. Remember the US, in particular, is a republic where the rights of the individual overway the rights of the public. You may feel that YOUR individual rights are being violated by being denined the latest gossip, but your wrong. Its the publics right that is being suppressed against the right of the individual, and you feeling this supression becasue you, at this time, are a member of the public.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with many of the other posters, most of the time my wrists hurt becuase i did some other activity or got stressed out and then kept agrivating the situation by typing on the computer. Usually i take a break for an hour or quit working and go home to sleep (usually happens trying to hit a deadline). I do not, stress out that I've now aquired RSI and my life is ruined. Becuase, I belive that a great percentage of health problems are psychosomatic (the abilities of the placebo pill is abosulte proof of this) and by stessing out over the aquiring of RSI will cause you to clench your writs and agrivate the problem.
An example in daily life is how many times have you picked at a scab til it blead and hurt? There is no benifit to it, your opening yourself up to infection, but in the back of your mind your testing to see if its healed or still hurts. Same goes for wrists, if you think your coming down with RSI your going to test your wrists to see if they hurt, in fact your ignoring how to prevent the pain to check to see if the pain still exists doing the wrong motions.
I do have one example from my old school where a woman destroyed her arms/wrists by using a computer. She did this by updating, by hand, 3500 frames with Anipro (Autodesks 8bit 2D animation program) in the course of 2 days straight (no sleep).
She then got upset because the school did not provide adiquate tables to prevent this from happening and threatened to sue. I suspect there is no way that anyone's wrists/arms in any configuration could have survived those 2 days.
Read the article, that's what SCO is alleging, that they copied line for line. Obviously the developers didn't think they wre violating someone's copyright.
If there is an exact copy of some comment from Sys V and Linux can't we build a database of comments in Sys V (someones got to have the code) and a database of comments in Linux and check simularities?
Couldn't this be done with a few simple grep or sed commands?
Sure there would be alot of trivial differences, but if SCO is right and there is a complex alogrithm inside Linux copied for SysV then the comments for that code should be fairly obvious.
With the current SCO hub-bub, I think every developer who thinks about submitting code developed at work and every developer accepting new code from outside developers realize that the code you are submitting is the property of the company you work for!
Ultimately its there decisicion, if you feel like doing it without permission to 'Help' the open source community you are actually hurting the project and community almost beyond repair.
Unless you get writen signed off permission from someone who can give permission, 5-7 years from when you submitted the code, your company can still claim ownership to that data. Right now your boss may say "go for it!", 5 years from now, you and him are probably gone and forgotten, yet the company can still sue the project you submitted to because it contains their property.
Please, please if your not sure, don't submit!
It's another bogus claim from SCO.
True, but what a bogus claim. It also shows that SCO, even though they may claim their only sueing over a contract problem with IBM are actualtly still claiming to being able to sue for patent and copyright violations.
In Other news... nice to see SCO take a 24% drop in share value, a kinda of 'slashdot' effect
In this article
CBS MARKETWATCH
it mentions at the very bottom that McBride is thinking of sueing Linus for patent infringement if more linux vendors/users don't agree to licensing?
Anyone have any more data about this? Seems like an under reported issue (or maybe i missed slashdot that day)
SPOILER
Ok... what about Agent Smith?
Presupositions: Can't trust the Oracle 100% ie Oracle has an agenda
Isn't the One supposed to destroy the matrix? Don't we hear in the preview the Oracle telling neo to stop Smith or we all die?
Perhaps Neo's purpose was to meld his self with an agent to create the 'flaw' that will destroy the Matrix. In the first movie Smith was different then the other Matrixes because he took off his earpiece, etc
One of the key things overlooked, is that at the door to the Archtect, Smith was waiting there, perhaps he got mad and shot the keymaker because HE wanted to meet the Architect!
Just a thought
Quick... pull all your money from eToys, cdNow, inkTomi and the like before they dive under $100/share!
We did mainly Ecommerce stuff, the DB work was the product of the CTO's pet projects. Email me for more info at john@(the website URL minus the www). Or click through to my website, you can find my email there at the bottom.
Thnx
(great for things like a doctors office where everyone could have the booking app and if one pc goes down the others could still book appointments. The amount of network traffic and processing would be minimal but the increase in availability would be great)
Actually if you've ever used SaPro for Ebay, i worked at a company where there was 12 continous users on it. Too bad it used an access file as its DB. Talk about slow down. I really think the only application where you might need this is an ecommerce app with a large product database (electronic components). The product database would be fairly static but HUGE, and the profit wouldn't support Oracle.
But, with a 4 CPU license and 2 client licenses, vrs possible hiring someone to manage the 4 DB servers and any development costs. Oracle looks the better deal the more you go. Oracle will never be 'cheap', its priced at the point where companies who feel the pain will pay it, and not a dime cheaper.
Maybe I was confused, under their C-JDBC controller (2 chapters previous) they say under current limitations that RAID-b1ec and RAIDb-2ec aren't supported. I wasn't able to find any distinction made elsewhere that the 'ec' was of any significance.
Still, RAID 1 is not much of a cost savings. RAID 0 is a nightmare with databases. A complex cluster with RAID 1 and 0 as described probably has the same chance of downtime as a single server. a 3 unit Raid0 server have a 3x greater chance of dieing then a 1 unit, mitigated by having 3 3-unit RAID 0 servers.
Again, in thinking of managing (backup, upgrade etc) these mixtures of RAID 0 and 1 servers in a production enviroment, wouldn't it just be better to get the Oracle license, a large hot-swap/failover server with backup and sleep at night?
Yes, putting everything in one server with redundant power supplies, redundant disk with hot swap capability, reduntant network controllers is better! This JDBC hasn't implemented multiple reduntant servers, right now its about speed increases by striping data across multiple servers. RAID 0. Are you going to trust the redunant ability in this software more then your RAID controller?
If I bought 3 dual CPU linux boxes there is a 3x better chance of having a Power Supply die, a network connection die etc a processor burn up then a 6-8 way server with failover in hardware. If there is no failover in the DBC layer, then your whole cluster is down. If any one of those net connections goes down the cluster goes down. The more you add, the more the chance of failure, not less!
Failover is the critical word. If you reed the Limitiations in their documents, they havn't done that yet.
Good starting block though...
.... partition of the main database.
First, they should move more and more features of the DB to the controller layer. The goal should be that you can call plain SQL statements and complex joins directly. Later, you could even have stored procedures execute there and use the cluster as if it were one db.
Then, they should try and work it so that you make low level calls to the DB layer, this would save time in having the seperate DBs compile the SQL statements.
Next, make some kernal mods ala Tux to make the DB calls faster to execute, ie make the DB machines pure DB handlers.
Once you do that, you might want to consider moving the seperate dbs into one rack, maybe making them share power supplies, disk arrays to cut down the points of failure.
As well, have one handler computer handle all incoming connections which would appear to be a stand alone Database. Thus every database instance would apear to be a
It would be powerful to separate the hardware/database tie to allow the Admin to manage which servers would have which partitions, letting them span a partition accross a new server if it got too big. And let the partitions automatically move away from bad servers using parity information stored on a seperate server.
Once you finish developing all that... you should realize that's what Oracle already does. Oracle isn't some MIcrosoftish company that developed a product absent any competition so quailty, reliability and performance wasn't job #1. Oracle has long competed against IBM, Sybase, Microsoft etc and pretty much has the DB thing down.
The only use I could see for this tech, is in a small ecommerce web site that needed to search millions of records (electronics supply store). This would be for when a MYSQL table would start to bog down due to too many records. Even then, having multiple machines should be the very last resort.
I once worked for an opensourced company that tried creating something like this in Perl. We did so to try and lure customers from oracle and prove that open source could handle massive databases. But... we found many problems when trying to sell this to expirenced customers over oracle.
1st... multiple points of failure. By increasing the number or databases your increasing the potential points of failure. What features are there to automatically backup data? If the data is spread randomly across the dbs and one of the drives or servers dies, what failover is there? Will the other databases take over? In a cost/risk analysis, is this really the cheapest way?
2nd...Is any speed increase from multiple databases going to be more then the speed increase from just upgrading the database server? More/faster disks, more processors etc. Sticking to one machine allows you to use the fault tolerance built into the RAID controller or the server itself. You could argue that once you got to the fastest hardware you need to go with more machines, but at that point you might need to look at your application. Quad Xeon 2.2Ghz with GBs of memory and an NetApp disk array is going to powerful enough for alot of apps.
3rd... Is this really faster? With simple SQL queries it might, but what about complex joins etc? Since this lies infront of the dbs, what about stored procedures etc?
The only really application that I could see this for is a small ecommerce website that needs to have millions of potential products to sell. (Electronics supply store etc). Something where the data needing replicating is static and is imported.
And as far as eliminating the need for a high priced Oracle DBA, someone able to support an array of 8-10 mysql databases using this technology is going to be both high price and hard to find.
If I'm not mistaken, Bush is saying we need missle defence to protect us against rogue states, not former/current superpowers. Thus this seems to do the job nicely. These rogue states, while having one or two long range missles, won't have sufficiant air power to overpower a carrier group or two (or ground stationed aircraft).
So... why do we need more? You may ask, perhaps this would be great if things get bad with the Russians and we need to protect ourselves from a large scale nuclear launch? Or perhaps it would protect us from a retalitory strike if we did a first strike. Well, that's what the whole purpose of the ABM treaty was for. The security nuclear arms gave us during the cold war was only because both sides were assured they would be destroyed by the start of any war. How convienent we've gotten out of that.
is like a baterical infestation. I worked on a large perl based ecommerce project and a large Java based Ecommerce project. In the end, to insure quality code we had 100% make sure use strict was used, we had to forbid many things Perl programmers pride themselves on in order to get 8 delveopers to stop duplicating work, stepping on each others code and make our code maleble to changes in specs.
In Java project it was sooo much easier. Sure it took a little longer to start up, creating the Beans, the database layer etc, but once we were going everyone used the code we created, adding features and dealing with changing specs were SOO much easier.
Now comes to the point of the title, we were on a tight deadline, so the bosses got a team from another part of the company to write a PDF generator. That piece came in Perl. Now the piece was writen by good, skilled programers, but dealing with different error log locations, creating processes for the perl interperator to live in etc was a nightmare. If we paid the $$ for a 3rd Party Java PDF writer or developed our own we could have saved a good 2-3 man months off of the code. I learned pretty quickly as the only 'Perl' guy on the Java side of the project, You should NEVER, EVER mix languages in a project.
Scripting languages are fine for small one-two page cgi programs, but unless you can crack a whip and get the programmers to fall in line, you'd better let the language and enviroment do that.
btw, J2EE are frustrating to Script Programmers because they were DESIGNED to be. But if you were ever in charge of divying out tasks in a large project you'll realize how J2EE was designed for you.
Unfortionately, this rapidly degenerates to making any development nearly impossible as you have to do a patent search for every thing your company does. Or else you just do it, and worry about the licensing later.
You say this as if its not happening or hasn't happened in the past.
ANY large, medium and most small developers, manufactures have ALWAYS be forced to be patent-aware.
Whether you manufacture widgets or WinWidjets, ignoring a simple search on uspto.gov is incredibly foolish.
I've worked in R&D at a medium sized manufacturer of digital printers and we constantly did patent searches. In fact, you learn to adapt the patent search at the very beginning of the development process. Its amazing that you actually learn what stumbling blocks will be in your way by what was patented in the past to fix them.
The patent process was designed as the FIRST open-source development process. It works like, you come up with an invention, as long as you share with everyone your idea, then you get to use your invention for a number or years.
To add another tale of woe.. how bout...
"Help save your opensourced company and fly across the country on you expense acount. Btw, your amex card is tied to you not the company. "
Then when you finally get back, the company goes under, and you don't get paid severence or your expense account. You suffer through a number of future job offers that make it seem you can start repaying your bills so you don't sell your car and go late, only for the offers to fall through.
Then, finally, when you get that one job offer that will put you back on track, they ask for a fucken credit check.
Btw, no matter how bad your credit is, (i moved down to sillicon valley from canada thus had no credit), you can put up money for a secured credit card, stay at the lesser hotels, eat at the lesser restuarants and rent the lesser cards and still do the client visits. After only 6 months of employement at a director level, you're going to get approved again for card then after a year you probably can get another amex.
I didn't... I was posting on the distription given by the article submitter, who on hind site, is probably his Girlfriend, Good Friend or Sister.
then the FreeBSD project isn't worth keeping around.
If they let this project revolve around one guy then the project was doomed from the beginning.
Actually this is a good test of FreeBSD, if it survives its because its bigger then this one guy, which is the way projects should be.
First of all you wrote:
To this I said,
If someone said that computer languages and human languages were the same thing, and you said "no way", I would agree with that. They aren't exactly the same. But saying that written languages have nothing in common with programming languages? That's stretching it a lot more, actually.
Ok, I don't see this in the parent comment referenced (#5184232).
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is this. Computer languages resemble natural languages because they were designed to (say.. using english words). Otherwise they are completely different. An analogy would be the twig bug, looks like a twig, really they aren't the same.
Computer languages exist to enable a machine to perform a task. After translation from the pseduo natural language to machine code, all aspects making it similar to natural langues are lost. 1:1, isn't the prime difference, but it is a major one. Consider the directional instructions in how to get to a certain place. Compare these instructions to a work of literature or poem, and compare them to a computer program. You will see that in the directional istructions the words do not indicate direct action, they merely try to communicate ones information to another. ie, "this is how I get to this place and I wish for you to know as I do."
There is no need in computer program to question the ability of the computer to understand what you are saying, there is no inteligence on the other end. That is why there is a fundemental riff between computer languages and natural languages. Any similarities between computer and natural languages are pure asthetic additions to ease the ability of computer programs and to communicate the purpose of the program amoungst fellow developers.
Theoretically I could use the first 10 pages of 1984 as the source of my variable/function names in a perl script that plays blackjack. This script then read as the novel does. That does not make perl a natural language, or make it close, it really shows how different they are. That's because the natural language integration into computer languages is a form of inserting a comment directly into the code. I could go on and on, but I've spent enough work time on this comment, I leave with one more example
Shrieben(x), in your example could be f(x), and in reality the shrieben tag is just a moniker used to help figure out to a human what you are saying. Your mistaking this natural language choice for the computer language, its not. Because the 2 functions have the exact same outcome, regardless of name change, the name shrieben is not a component of the computer language but mearly the use of a natural language moniker.
The big difference here is that if you give the same instructions to 5 computers, each of the 5 computers will interpret the language precisely the same way (assume identical architectures for now -- see below)
Well, if I type the most simple "Hello World" program in C++ on my Mac and in DOS on a PC (and assume the syntax is exactly the same), I don't get the same results. In DOS the words will be dumped to the screen, in the system font, probably white on black. On the Mac, probably a text box pops up and displays the text in Geneva in white on black. And when the two compilers took in the code I wrote, they probably translated it to *completely* different machine code. So, saying these two are exactly the same is being very simplistic.
In any case, how is a rule for being a language being able to say the same thing to two people and having them understand it differently?
I think you have just proven his point. He clearly stated "given the same architecture etc". Thus, you and I given the same exact comment post have read and understood it differtly in meaning. Furthemore, he isn't trying to state a 'rule' regarding what is and isn't a language, he's trying to make the point that a computer language isn't the same as a human language. The reason is that when writing for humans, you have to pay attention to double meanings and there is great skill involved in writing to get a specific point/detail/feeling communicated to a wide audience (or specific audience).
The closest equivilent in programming is
Given:
int a = 5;
printf("%i\n",a);
My result : 5
Your result : i
Someone elses: %i\n
Thus, given the same code, we all read our own interperation on what the answer would be because us being humans, we don't follow EXACTLY what's written.
Also note how much my spelling sucks, yet you still can grasp my meaning. Another difference that I'm using to try and convey the highly complex reasons why I feel that naturalistic computer languages use the form of natural languages but aren't natural languages themselves. This was done to aid in programming and the reason you don't talk to your computer as in star trek.
And even worse, now the .org side of our company is now represented by a porn site!
Not Safe For Work
From once prominate slashdot advertiser, with our famous animal butts banner, to porn...
My ol' company was in there, and for interest to slashdot users, it was an opensourced perl based system.
.com, the preasure to repay investor's money with a lucritive IPO gave too little time to the proper development of the software, too high a credence to marketing the company and the need for some 'star' founders put too little expierence in the management of the company.
.coms back in 99-00 knows, all of that was an impossibility at that time.
The problem with Kaplan's review, is that he really just wrote based on that one sentance explanation. After reading that I put the book down. I presume Kaplan had a list made with name and one sentance discription and he just wrote a blurb based on that. There was no research into each company, I'm not sure by reading that you get any insight into each company's workings and problems. A better book, would be to allow an simpathetic former employee write an obituary, then include some of the comments from his website when the company went under to retort and bring some feeling back into it.
Zelerate died for a number of reasons, the least being the capability of the opensourced model to sustain business. Our problems were basically the same as every other
If we just developed, found patient beta company's to develop for, followed the traditional alpha-beta-production timelines, AND got our heads out of the clouds, we just might be still around. But, as anyone who worked in or around
A further reduction of rights is not the answer. If "the media" is not impartial, what it gives you is not news. If there is no alternate source of information available, we all have a big problem. You are right to notice that news is hard to come by. The answer, however, is not to make it that much harder for those who would present news in an impartial way.
I disagree with you, lets compare the three sets of rights in question here.
a: the right you have to know and the right of the press to report
b: the right the accused has to a fair trial
c: the right the accused has to face the witnesses against him/her
The question is, when should the public learn and what should they learn... basically the public should learn that a person has been arrested for a crime, that protects that person by letting everyone know what is happening to him. Any more info at this point, harms the persons rights.
If the press reports the 'facts' at this time , before the accused has the right to cross examine the source of the facts, how is this respecting the accused right to face his/her accuser? The press does not HAVE to report in any particular style, so therefor the press does not HAVE to present a fair story. Furthermore, what makes that which the press report, a fact? Only during the course of a trial, when both sides can support/attack the authenticity of the evidence can facts emirge. Therefore, what ever the press reports before a trial is rumor and gossip.
Besides your 'recusrive' saying being mearly the use of a 'slippery slope' philosphical flaw, taken that this supression of the publics right is in favor of an individual right, your individual right for freedom against public slavery is STRENGTHENED not weakened in this case. Remember the US, in particular, is a republic where the rights of the individual overway the rights of the public. You may feel that YOUR individual rights are being violated by being denined the latest gossip, but your wrong. Its the publics right that is being suppressed against the right of the individual, and you feeling this supression becasue you, at this time, are a member of the public.