Some things are just easier if you memorize them though, times tables being the most obvious. It is extremely useful to know instantaneously that 9*7 is 63, rather than having to do the 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42. 49. 56, 63 thing in your head like they teach kids nowadays.
Hmm...
I simply did 3 * 7 is 21 and 3 times 21 is 63 - I did that as fast as anyone could do it by rote. Once I could see a pattern, I did not spend too much time rote learning. When others recited 1 * 4 is 4, 2 * 4 is 8 etc., i would simply add 4 to the last answer. I think I got a better idea of the number patterns than those who purely rote learnt.
Later I found I could not do subtractions like 13 - 5, until I developed my own conceptual way of handling it (a hybrid of visual and abstract thinking) - 'borrowing and paying back' is pure nonsense!
It is the very nature of any entity deemed to be a god, how they came about, how they fit in, etc. - that is more than just problematic.
Belief is not a valid alternative to proof, and there are no valid arguments to support the existence of even one god.
Christianity is simply another family of superstitious beliefs.
The universe is a fascinating place and there are many very fundamental questions that we can not presently answer satisfactorally. Postulating one or more gods creates further complications and logical inconsistencies, without providing any real answers.
Probably just an indirect reference to the fact that the notion of the existence of one, or more, gods contradicts reality - belief, or lack of belief, not relevant.
Applefication of the Desktop - Re:With Gnome 3
on
Fedora 16 Released
·
· Score: 2
Applefication (The doctrine that designers know better than users, and that users should not worry their tiny little minds about how to configure something to be useful for them) of desktops and applications may be fine for Sheeple, but not for people who want to get the most out of their desktops.
GNOME 3 is a total disaster, it is simply unworkable for people who actually want to do serious work - unless your use of a computer is somewhat trivial and you're happy with what appears to be something that seems to be based on a mobile phone interface for large screens.
GNOME 3 is a triumph of fashion over functionality.
As Linus, and others have said, xfce is better than GNOME 3, but not as good as GNOME 2.
What are they smoking? Were they bought out by Apple or Microsoft???
When I was 25 I went on a course to learn assembly language programming on an ICL mainframe, it is similar to IBM360 code. I read through the first 6 chapters of the text before I started.
Okay, key points of relevance,
(1) that was about 37 years ago (May 10th 1973)
(2) I still remember the addressing is base displacement: each address of an instruction took 2 bytes, that is 16 bits. There were 4 bits to specify the register, and 12 bits for the displacement. This allowed one register to access anything in a 4096 byte (4 kilobytes) block - hence the prevalence of of 4k blocks in Linux file systems.
(3) The first time I used linked lists in anger was in a university project when I had 4 doubly linked lists that I had to move items between. Took me the best part of the day to figure it out in C. Now I could probably do it in an hour or so, in either C or Java. I had never been formally taught linked lists.
So if you are technically good, you should still remember the basics for almost forever, or at least the rest of your working life - I feel.
Do you have a free copy of your 3rd book I can scrounge?:-)
I would like to read it, but don't have the budget.:-(
I became a better programmer, after I became a Systems Analyst and considered things from a wider perspective.
I remember being asked to provide some notes about the Software Development Life Cycle, about 10 years after starting programming. I wrote down about a dozen lines, then about 20 minutes later I inserted a line in the middle about coding and testing. If I had been asked that in my first 3 years, that one line would have been expanded to be the major part!
"Visual Programming" is the opposite of Computer Science. Telling someone those tools are related to CS is like correctly hooking up your cable modem and declaring you are a networking genius.
If you want to get some real, visually-integrated programming going on, I recommend something like C# or VB.NET. The code side of things is a lot easier than a non-managed language, and there is the visual element of "Drop this button where I want it on the form, and then double-click it to code what happens when someone clicks it".
No way!
Point and click does not help you understand things in depth, and does not scale well to non-trivial systems.
Even for GUI work, beyond the most trivial, visual designers tend to suck and the code they generate is abysmal. The only exception I've found is in a report generation tool.
C# and VB only work on Microsoft platforms (ignoring mono).
I have a friend who is an extremely experienced.Net developer, he uses Linux at home and is in the process of moving over to Java at work
Java is cross platform, as are most languages to some extent - other than C# and VB. Also Java has an IDE that runs on several platforms called Eclipse.
Linux will be the dominant platform in less than 10 years.
Linux is already the dominant O/S in the mobile and server spaces. Hints: what is Android based on?, what O/S is used in eBooks?, in smart TV's?, what O/S is on over 90% of the top 500 super computers?
So in less than 10 years Microsoft will be a legacy O/S that will attract no new development, and the company will be much smaller (even assuming it is still around)! I am being pessimistic, it may be as short as 5 years.
I starting programming in the early 1970's, so I have watched O/S history unfold. At one time CP/M was the dominant O/S - how many people now have ever heard of it?
There may be other O/S's besides Linux (highly likely), but Microsoft O/S families will not be there to any significant extent.
So get skills that are useful on Linux, and preferably cross platform.
When I was 40, I went back to university to do a DippAppSci, a 12 month course roughly half the value of an MSc.
A 3 credit Computer Science course took more than 3 times the effort of a 6 credit 'Management of Innovation' paper I did at the same level!
Debugging is often very tedious and time consuming, but you still need to stray awake and keep your wits about you.
If you can not tolerate being outside your comfort zone for more than a minute, then don't attempt CS. At times, I spend days outside your comfort zone when moving into new phases. Every time I get into multi threading, there are new requirements to implement - and there have been at least 3 major changes/improvements in thread handling provided by the Java libraries.
In software development, you have to keep running just to stay in the same place.
Scary, I once met a 25 year old who thought he was too old to learn programming. In the last 5 years, I've programmed in 3 new languages: Python, Groovey, and Octave (since I completed my DippAppSci).
The Linux kernel is written in C, and many applications are written in C++.
Python is a fine language, many useful applications have been written in it. Unfortunately it does not scale well when you need to use multi core processors and multi-threading.
I did my DipAppSCi (about half the value of an M.Sc.) using C, with a little C++. Many moons ago I also got paid to write FORTRAN and COBOL, but I would not recommend them now.
For serious Enterprise work, nothing beats Java, and some games have been written in Java.
Java is cross platform, scales well for complicated systems, and has awesome Just-in-Time compilers, plus extensive libraries. It also has a very good IDE named Eclipse.
Ensure that they have some notion of what a database is, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of different RDMS's.
For example contrast MySQL and PostgreSQL: the former is much more widely used, but the latter is more secure and has greater reliability & performance.
I have worked with both; but I find PostgreSQL easier to work with, both as a DBA and a developer.
Please mention the GPL & LGPL and their significance, along with the Apache & BSD licences. Make sure they understand the importance of software licences in general, especially the benefits and dangers. For promoting standards, an Apache/BSD style licence is probably best; but for an important piece of software (Linux kernel) you want to keep free, then the GPL style licence is probably best.
Ensure they know how licences affect end users, the software developers, and other parties.
Not to mention the nature and danger of software patents, groklaw.net has resources to cover this (& the GPL).
> > As far as I can tell, there are no valid arguments to > > support the notion of one or more gods. > > Well, since I have basis to think it's necessary here, what do
> you consider "valid" and "supporting"?
It very much depends on the nature of the argument you present. There is no point in me preparing to shoot something with the equivalent of 150mm shell when a 30mm cannon is sufficient.
[...]
> My guess, based on previous experience, is you mean by > "valid", "whatever I need it to mean to exclude what I'm > presented with", but if not, please give a clearer indicator > of your expectations.
Since the notion of a god conflicts with reality at a fundamental level, the flaw in a pro-god argument depends on the argument.
I am interested in your arguments to support the notion of the existence of one or more gods, rather than yet more stuff to read on the web (I already spend too much time reading in general as is!). So you should be able to at least give me an outline of an argument, we can home in on specific points as appropriate â" so leave referring to other sources for when requested.
I want to understand things, rather than to prove or disprove. So I rigorously check my understanding for self consistency, and consistency with other understandings and observations. The nature of the checks is subject matter dependent.
What is valid for looking into the fundamental nature of space and time is quite different to that required for understanding the difference between a star and a planet.
It is important to have some idea of the domain of applicability of a theory (or model), along with its strengths and weaknesses. Newtonian Mechanics is flawed, and Einstein's General Relativity better reflects reality. However, for most engineering requirements, an approximation based on Newtonian Mechanics is sufficient.
Whether I like something or not, does not change the validity of fundamental understandings.
The claims made by people who insist on the existence of one or gods, fail reasonability checks.
> Without that, it's difficult to offer you what you say you want > that you absolutely don't want. Yes, I do in fact know that > from your demand for "proof" in a manner you'd do so for no > other form of human endeavor or knowledge, including > hundreds of like acceptances outside of religion you do > every single day. > > But, on with the request. I offered "evidence", per what a > non-biased request in any similar domain would be. Is > this qualifying for you?
Religion is its own domain AFAICT, accept that marketing and politics have similarities â" but I have not considered those fields in the same depth nor particularly rigorously.
> As for evolution, I'm not sure why you are bringing that > up. Most theists accept evolution, including myself, > except in the narrow sense that you need to equivocate > the meaning to, but which happens to also be > completely untestable and unscientific, that is, "only > evolution occurs". As an advocate of science, of course > I reject that usage, as an implied exhaustive explanation > of origins, as everyone actually following science > (including the principle of falsifiability) must.
I sat through six long session of someone trying to discredit evolution: finding flaws in their arguments was tedious, but not intellectually demanding â" I only needed to consult a competent geologist for one aspect.
Bring in 'horizontal evolution', ring species, the existence of RNA based life, etc - would have been unnecessary refinements that would have caused confusion. The different aspects of evolutionary modes, and other ways (non evolutionary) the pattern of life could change - would not be understood by creationists, and mentioning them would reinforce their belief that 'evolution' was 'wrong'.
> Please supply a valid argument to prove any principle of
> any of the sciences.
This is not relevant to this discussion, this is a distraction.
Although this is a very interesting area of philosophy, and
one of my interests. Possibly some other time we can discuss
this.
> I made it easy on you, and didn't even ask for proof of the
> views of the political party you ascribe to, or the principle
> of economics you agree with. And yes, you unquestionably
> agree with -one of the alternatives-. Don't be a hypocrite
> now--prove it.
This is not relevant to this discussion, this is a distraction
Though it does raise interesting topics that could be
discussed some other time. (I could take time out to prove
that a minus number times a minus number is a positive
number in some mathematical systems. However, while
interesting, it would not be relevant to the topic at hand).
> Switching instead to the intellectually-honest form of the
> request you could have made, rather than suggest you want
> to make your decision based on a degree of "proof" that
> would -force you to decide in that way-, are you actually
> meaning you are asking for "evidence", here?
You are obviously being evasive.
As far as I can tell, there are no valid arguments to support
the notion of one or more gods. Your evasions, and
attempts to distract, support that notion. You seem to imply
that there exists one or more gods, but you don't appear to
actually state that there are one or more gods.
This is an area I have spent considerable time over the years.
I once sat through six long sessions were someone
attempted to discredit evolution, this was in a church
that insisted that everything in the Christian Bible
was true. Every single attempt to discredit evolution
was either flawed or irrelevant, if not both. If one had
never heard of evolution, nor any of the theory, but
had a keen intellect, they would get the impression
that evolution was superior to creationism - as many
of the attempted arguments were logically flawed and
did not need external knowledge to refute them.
However, whether evolution is right or wrong is not
relevant in this particular discussion. The sessions did
provide considerable food for thought on the nature of
religious arguments, including those relating to the
existence, or non existence, of one or more gods.
So the focus here, is on your apparent insistence that
there exists one or more gods.
No better way to eliminate the plausibility of design than by designing it.
The main problem behind the idea of 'Intelligent Design' to justify the existence of a god as the ultimate designer: is that in doing so, you need another designer to design your god, and another one to design that...
So, in practice, the 'design' of living organisms is driven what improves the survivability of a species in its habitat.
Well I think you are right, that a lot of users will migrate to MariaDB.
However, a small but significant minority will migrate to PostgreSQL. Especially where data integrity and robustness in the face of power failure is important - or where there are lots of concurrent users and/or complicated queries required.
Note that Postgres 9.0 had replication built in to the core, 9.1 had true serialisation, and 9.2 will be able use just indexes to satisfy some queries. There are a lot of other major functional and performance improvements I've omitted.
Interesting, that people were moving from both MySQL and Oracle DB to Postgres, when it was still version 8.x and versions 9.x give even more reasons to move.
I have worked with both MySQL and PostgreSQL. I find PostgreSQL much easier to work with: in installing and writing SQL queries. I keep reading that MySQL is 'easier' than PostgreSQL - yet, I have not seen anything to substantiate that, quite the reverse.
I think you will find that a lot of corporates with heavy workloads currently using MySQL will seriously consider moving to Postgres. There are many considerations beyond the technical and performance issues - so not all of them will move to PostgreSQL. However, I think that more and more people will move away from MySQL, one way or another.
ARM got to the desktop years ago (1987, according to wikipedia), as the first computer to use the ARM chip was a desktop computer - the Acorn Archimedes!
I had one, it was a lovely computer easy to program, and a GUI for in advance of its time.
Slashdot Mirror
Some things are just easier if you memorize them though, times tables being the most obvious. It is extremely useful to know instantaneously that 9*7 is 63, rather than having to do the 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42. 49. 56, 63 thing in your head like they teach kids nowadays.
Hmm... I simply did 3 * 7 is 21 and 3 times 21 is 63 - I did that as fast as anyone could do it by rote. Once I could see a pattern, I did not spend too much time rote learning. When others recited 1 * 4 is 4, 2 * 4 is 8 etc., i would simply add 4 to the last answer. I think I got a better idea of the number patterns than those who purely rote learnt.
Later I found I could not do subtractions like 13 - 5, until I developed my own conceptual way of handling it (a hybrid of visual and abstract thinking) - 'borrowing and paying back' is pure nonsense!
Bad example.
x^0=1 for all x in R
is taken as an axiom.
also z^0=1 is true for all z in C (Complex numbers)
It is the very nature of any entity deemed to be a god, how they came about, how they fit in, etc. - that is more than just problematic.
Belief is not a valid alternative to proof, and there are no valid arguments to support the existence of even one god.
Christianity is simply another family of superstitious beliefs.
The universe is a fascinating place and there are many very fundamental questions that we can not presently answer satisfactorally. Postulating one or more gods creates further complications and logical inconsistencies, without providing any real answers.
"There is no $deity"
Probably just an indirect reference to the fact that the notion of the existence of one, or more, gods contradicts reality - belief, or lack of belief, not relevant.
Applefication (The doctrine that designers know better than users, and that users should not worry their tiny little minds about how to configure something to be useful for them) of desktops and applications may be fine for Sheeple, but not for people who want to get the most out of their desktops.
GNOME 3 is a total disaster, it is simply unworkable for people who actually want to do serious work - unless your use of a computer is somewhat trivial and you're happy with what appears to be something that seems to be based on a mobile phone interface for large screens.
GNOME 3 is a triumph of fashion over functionality.
As Linus, and others have said, xfce is better than GNOME 3, but not as good as GNOME 2.
What are they smoking? Were they bought out by Apple or Microsoft???
You think every country drives on the right side of the road?
Ever been to England, New Zealand, Japan... ?
I agree.
When I was 25 I went on a course to learn assembly language programming on an ICL mainframe, it is similar to IBM360 code. I read through the first 6 chapters of the text before I started.
Okay, key points of relevance,
(1) that was about 37 years ago (May 10th 1973)
(2) I still remember the addressing is base displacement: each address of an instruction took 2 bytes, that is 16 bits. There were 4 bits to specify the register, and 12 bits for the displacement. This allowed one register to access anything in a 4096 byte (4 kilobytes) block - hence the prevalence of of 4k blocks in Linux file systems.
(3) The first time I used linked lists in anger was in a university project when I had 4 doubly linked lists that I had to move items between. Took me the best part of the day to figure it out in C. Now I could probably do it in an hour or so, in either C or Java. I had never been formally taught linked lists.
So if you are technically good, you should still remember the basics for almost forever, or at least the rest of your working life - I feel.
I was being deliberately cheeky in asking for a copy! :-)
I actually have spent over a $1000 on technical books over the last 5 years.
Thanks for the background on technical book economics.
Do you have a free copy of your 3rd book I can scrounge? :-)
:-(
I would like to read it, but don't have the budget.
I became a better programmer, after I became a Systems Analyst and considered things from a wider perspective.
I remember being asked to provide some notes about the Software Development Life Cycle, about 10 years after starting programming. I wrote down about a dozen lines, then about 20 minutes later I inserted a line in the middle about coding and testing. If I had been asked that in my first 3 years, that one line would have been expanded to be the major part!
"Visual Programming" is the opposite of Computer Science. Telling someone those tools are related to CS is like correctly hooking up your cable modem and declaring you are a networking genius.
If you want to get some real, visually-integrated programming going on, I recommend something like C# or VB.NET. The code side of things is a lot easier than a non-managed language, and there is the visual element of "Drop this button where I want it on the form, and then double-click it to code what happens when someone clicks it".
No way!
.Net developer, he uses Linux at home and is in the process of moving over to Java at work
Point and click does not help you understand things in depth, and does not scale well to non-trivial systems.
Even for GUI work, beyond the most trivial, visual designers tend to suck and the code they generate is abysmal. The only exception I've found is in a report generation tool.
C# and VB only work on Microsoft platforms (ignoring mono).
I have a friend who is an extremely experienced
Java is cross platform, as are most languages to some extent - other than C# and VB. Also Java has an IDE that runs on several platforms called Eclipse.
Linux will be the dominant platform in less than 10 years.
Linux is already the dominant O/S in the mobile and server spaces. Hints: what is Android based on?, what O/S is used in eBooks?, in smart TV's?, what O/S is on over 90% of the top 500 super computers?
So in less than 10 years Microsoft will be a legacy O/S that will attract no new development, and the company will be much smaller (even assuming it is still around)! I am being pessimistic, it may be as short as 5 years.
I starting programming in the early 1970's, so I have watched O/S history unfold. At one time CP/M was the dominant O/S - how many people now have ever heard of it?
There may be other O/S's besides Linux (highly likely), but Microsoft O/S families will not be there to any significant extent.
So get skills that are useful on Linux, and preferably cross platform.
When I was 40, I went back to university to do a DippAppSci, a 12 month course roughly half the value of an MSc.
A 3 credit Computer Science course took more than 3 times the effort of a 6 credit 'Management of Innovation' paper I did at the same level!
Debugging is often very tedious and time consuming, but you still need to stray awake and keep your wits about you.
If you can not tolerate being outside your comfort zone for more than a minute, then don't attempt CS. At times, I spend days outside your comfort zone when moving into new phases. Every time I get into multi threading, there are new requirements to implement - and there have been at least 3 major changes/improvements in thread handling provided by the Java libraries.
In software development, you have to keep running just to stay in the same place.
Scary, I once met a 25 year old who thought he was too old to learn programming. In the last 5 years, I've programmed in 3 new languages: Python, Groovey, and Octave (since I completed my DippAppSci).
In this business you gotta keep learning!
The Linux kernel is written in C, and many applications are written in C++.
Python is a fine language, many useful applications have been written in it. Unfortunately it does not scale well when you need to use multi core processors and multi-threading.
I did my DipAppSCi (about half the value of an M.Sc.) using C, with a little C++. Many moons ago I also got paid to write FORTRAN and COBOL, but I would not recommend them now.
For serious Enterprise work, nothing beats Java, and some games have been written in Java.
Java is cross platform, scales well for complicated systems, and has awesome Just-in-Time compilers, plus extensive libraries. It also has a very good IDE named Eclipse.
Java is now my preferred programming language.
Ensure that they have some notion of what a database is, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of different RDMS's.
For example contrast MySQL and PostgreSQL: the former is much more widely used, but the latter is more secure and has greater reliability & performance.
I have worked with both; but I find PostgreSQL easier to work with, both as a DBA and a developer.
Also mention normalisation, and what it means.
Please mention the GPL & LGPL and their significance, along with the Apache & BSD licences. Make sure they understand the importance of software licences in general, especially the benefits and dangers. For promoting standards, an Apache/BSD style licence is probably best; but for an important piece of software (Linux kernel) you want to keep free, then the GPL style licence is probably best.
Ensure they know how licences affect end users, the software developers, and other parties.
Not to mention the nature and danger of software patents, groklaw.net has resources to cover this (& the GPL).
> > As far as I can tell, there are no valid arguments to
> > support the notion of one or more gods.
>
> Well, since I have basis to think it's necessary here, what do
> you consider "valid" and "supporting"?
It very much depends on the nature of the argument you present. There is no point in me preparing to shoot something with the equivalent of 150mm shell when a 30mm cannon is sufficient.
[...]
> My guess, based on previous experience, is you mean by
> "valid", "whatever I need it to mean to exclude what I'm
> presented with", but if not, please give a clearer indicator
> of your expectations.
Since the notion of a god conflicts with reality at a fundamental level, the flaw in a pro-god argument depends on the argument.
I am interested in your arguments to support the notion of the existence of one or more gods, rather than yet more stuff to read on the web (I already spend too much time reading in general as is!). So you should be able to at least give me an outline of an argument, we can home in on specific points as appropriate â" so leave referring to other sources for when requested.
I want to understand things, rather than to prove or disprove. So I rigorously check my understanding for self consistency, and consistency with other understandings and observations. The nature of the checks is subject matter dependent.
What is valid for looking into the fundamental nature of space and time is quite different to that required for understanding the difference between a star and a planet.
It is important to have some idea of the domain of applicability of a theory (or model), along with its strengths and weaknesses. Newtonian Mechanics is flawed, and Einstein's General Relativity better reflects reality. However, for most engineering requirements, an approximation based on Newtonian Mechanics is sufficient.
Whether I like something or not, does not change the validity of fundamental understandings.
The claims made by people who insist on the existence of one or gods, fail reasonability checks.
> Without that, it's difficult to offer you what you say you want
> that you absolutely don't want. Yes, I do in fact know that
> from your demand for "proof" in a manner you'd do so for no
> other form of human endeavor or knowledge, including
> hundreds of like acceptances outside of religion you do
> every single day.
>
> But, on with the request. I offered "evidence", per what a
> non-biased request in any similar domain would be. Is
> this qualifying for you?
Religion is its own domain AFAICT, accept that marketing and politics have similarities â" but I have not considered those fields in the same depth nor particularly rigorously.
> As for evolution, I'm not sure why you are bringing that
> up. Most theists accept evolution, including myself,
> except in the narrow sense that you need to equivocate
> the meaning to, but which happens to also be
> completely untestable and unscientific, that is, "only
> evolution occurs". As an advocate of science, of course
> I reject that usage, as an implied exhaustive explanation
> of origins, as everyone actually following science
> (including the principle of falsifiability) must.
I sat through six long session of someone trying to discredit evolution: finding flaws in their arguments was tedious, but not intellectually demanding â" I only needed to consult a competent geologist for one aspect.
Bring in 'horizontal evolution', ring species, the existence of RNA based life, etc - would have been unnecessary refinements that would have caused confusion. The different aspects of evolutionary modes, and other ways (non evolutionary) the pattern of life could change - would not be understood by creationists, and mentioning them would reinforce their belief that 'evolution' was 'wrong'.
I had a professo
> Please supply a valid argument to prove any principle of
> any of the sciences.
This is not relevant to this discussion, this is a distraction.
Although this is a very interesting area of philosophy, and
one of my interests. Possibly some other time we can discuss
this.
> I made it easy on you, and didn't even ask for proof of the
> views of the political party you ascribe to, or the principle
> of economics you agree with. And yes, you unquestionably
> agree with -one of the alternatives-. Don't be a hypocrite
> now--prove it.
This is not relevant to this discussion, this is a distraction
Though it does raise interesting topics that could be
discussed some other time. (I could take time out to prove
that a minus number times a minus number is a positive
number in some mathematical systems. However, while
interesting, it would not be relevant to the topic at hand).
> Switching instead to the intellectually-honest form of the
> request you could have made, rather than suggest you want
> to make your decision based on a degree of "proof" that
> would -force you to decide in that way-, are you actually
> meaning you are asking for "evidence", here?
You are obviously being evasive.
As far as I can tell, there are no valid arguments to support
the notion of one or more gods. Your evasions, and
attempts to distract, support that notion. You seem to imply
that there exists one or more gods, but you don't appear to
actually state that there are one or more gods.
This is an area I have spent considerable time over the years.
I once sat through six long sessions were someone
attempted to discredit evolution, this was in a church
that insisted that everything in the Christian Bible
was true. Every single attempt to discredit evolution
was either flawed or irrelevant, if not both. If one had
never heard of evolution, nor any of the theory, but
had a keen intellect, they would get the impression
that evolution was superior to creationism - as many
of the attempted arguments were logically flawed and
did not need external knowledge to refute them.
However, whether evolution is right or wrong is not
relevant in this particular discussion. The sessions did
provide considerable food for thought on the nature of
religious arguments, including those relating to the
existence, or non existence, of one or more gods.
So the focus here, is on your apparent insistence that
there exists one or more gods.
Please supply a valid argument to prove one or more gods exist.
'Intelligent Design' is just one of many attempts to justify the existence of a god.
Every attempt to prove the existence of a god is fallacious, at least amongst the attempts I have seen
The ultimate in Man Machine Interface???
No better way to eliminate the plausibility of design than by designing it.
The main problem behind the idea of 'Intelligent Design' to justify the existence of a god as the ultimate designer: is that in doing so, you need another designer to design your god, and another one to design that...
So, in practice, the 'design' of living organisms is driven what improves the survivability of a species in its habitat.
That was me not logged in!
Well I think you are right, that a lot of users will migrate to MariaDB.
However, a small but significant minority will migrate to PostgreSQL. Especially where data integrity and robustness in the face of power failure is important - or where there are lots of concurrent users and/or complicated queries required.
Note that Postgres 9.0 had replication built in to the core, 9.1 had true serialisation, and 9.2 will be able use just indexes to satisfy some queries. There are a lot of other major functional and performance improvements I've omitted.
Interesting, that people were moving from both MySQL and Oracle DB to Postgres, when it was still version 8.x and versions 9.x give even more reasons to move.
I have worked with both MySQL and PostgreSQL. I find PostgreSQL much easier to work with: in installing and writing SQL queries. I keep reading that MySQL is 'easier' than PostgreSQL - yet, I have not seen anything to substantiate that, quite the reverse.
I think you will find that a lot of corporates with heavy workloads currently using MySQL will seriously consider moving to Postgres. There are many considerations beyond the technical and performance issues - so not all of them will move to PostgreSQL. However, I think that more and more people will move away from MySQL, one way or another.
'skip it' What is this new Internet service? and who provides it?
I saw it coming years ago - but, I forgot until just now...
ARM got to the desktop years ago (1987, according to wikipedia), as the first computer to use the ARM chip was a desktop computer - the Acorn Archimedes!
I had one, it was a lovely computer easy to program, and a GUI for in advance of its time.