You cannot abstract the reality of remote resources.
Do you have an example or scenario?
The internal guts of an access coordinator could "watch" the timing of requests to know to batch operators together, for example.
Also, one could tell the abstraction how important "recency" is, such as whether it's okay to delay actual writes or not. Perhaps a delay threshold in seconds can be given.
In other words, the abstraction can "ask" one to rank the relative importance of performance-related factors so as to select the best internal or vendor-specific implementation choices to fit the trade-off profile given to it.
That may be difficult or impractical to fully implement, but not necessarily impossible in terms of abstracting away details.
Sometimes a DBA will ask me whether to optimize a database or table for quick writing or quick querying, or an in-between balance. I usually don't have to really know how the DBA does that, only give him/her my or my boss's preference.
Perhaps the existence of performance trade-offs cannot be hidden away, but the implementation of those choices largely can.
Aren't abstractions supposed to hide the need for specialized knowledge? One should only have to ask it to "save", and the details of how to talk to the database should then be hidden away from the abstraction user.
I tried to "get" the philosophy of RoR, but ultimate failed. It seems RoR has a steep learning curve; but once mastered, one is allegedly more productive. Some use the analogy of becoming a medical doctor: a long slog through medical school, but big benefits (such as money) await you in the end. Do you agree with this alleged trade-off profile of RoR?
And, how can this approach work for decentralized departmental groups with lots of coder turn-over, especially if the bureaucracy makes it difficult to hire such that coders from other platforms are to be retrained? The ramp-up time for re-training seems hard to justify under such an environment without a RoR-only edict from on high. Would you agree RoR may not fit certain organizational environments? Thank You.
You want to hand all the browser control to corporate conglomerates?
That being said, I'll wait for a few months for the kinks to be worked out. I'll let others be guinea pigs. Hopefully no security holes are found in version 47.
What if add-ons don't sign? Can we still "force" them in?
Please see the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of my reply again.
As far as Nixon, Wikipedia: "...Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president was obligated to release the tapes to government investigators, and he eventually complied. These audio recordings implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation."
Without regulation they'd make large proprietary systems with no swappable parts so that only their stuff works with their stuff. Any competitor would have to reinvent the entire wheel for miles. Not efficient, not logical, not competitive.
Give me a break. You are just echoing Fox "News" spin-memes.
There is absolutely no evidence she KNOWINGLY lied about her emails or Benghazi*.
Saying there "were no X in my emails" when it turned out there were X is not necessarily lying. She may have honestly not known they contained a problem.
We all agree she was careless with her emails, but I screw up emails also. 30k messages passed her way; that's a lot to get 100% right. My own email error rate is probably about 2%. (They should have put a vetting system in place; a second set of eyes who can focus on those things.)
As far as influence peddling, it's been happening for hundreds of years, and made worse recently by the GOP-pushed Citizens United ruling. Most conservatives didn't appear to care at all UNTIL the Democrats (allegedly) got an advantage from it. Crocodile Tears.
And the majority of the mined ore cannot be sold outside the US, it's only a matter of company ownership, not transfer of ore.
* The Benghazi attack party was likely BOTH pre-planned, and enlarged by video rage. The main perp admitted the video bothered him. It's not an either/or situation, like GOP spins it. Nor did they disprove her claim that the intelligence changed over time. GOP produced no change-log or equiv that contradicted her characterization of events.
Let me put it a different way. The occurrence of that word from executives about mergers often corresponds to a lame future for the merger. The mindset of those using it appears to correspond to naivety about merger success. Why the correspondence, I don't know, it's just an observation of association I and others have made. You are welcome to present your own observations. (I don't have any statically-reliable analysis to back up these anecdotal observations.)
Since when have telecoms been expected to compete fairly? Lopsided local deals are common in the industry, often in the name of "getting a better deal for consumers", but not ending up that way in the longer run.
This doesn't condone the Google deal, but rather should be shining a light on a much wider problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"Political Party"
Basically RT is facing a big coordinated batch of trolls.
Do you have an example or scenario?
The internal guts of an access coordinator could "watch" the timing of requests to know to batch operators together, for example.
Also, one could tell the abstraction how important "recency" is, such as whether it's okay to delay actual writes or not. Perhaps a delay threshold in seconds can be given.
In other words, the abstraction can "ask" one to rank the relative importance of performance-related factors so as to select the best internal or vendor-specific implementation choices to fit the trade-off profile given to it.
That may be difficult or impractical to fully implement, but not necessarily impossible in terms of abstracting away details.
Sometimes a DBA will ask me whether to optimize a database or table for quick writing or quick querying, or an in-between balance. I usually don't have to really know how the DBA does that, only give him/her my or my boss's preference.
Perhaps the existence of performance trade-offs cannot be hidden away, but the implementation of those choices largely can.
Reminds me of a quote:
We "get" to see the meat grinders of politics in action here.
They don't have to; Trump says rude things out loud for the world to hear.
Aren't abstractions supposed to hide the need for specialized knowledge? One should only have to ask it to "save", and the details of how to talk to the database should then be hidden away from the abstraction user.
I tried to "get" the philosophy of RoR, but ultimate failed. It seems RoR has a steep learning curve; but once mastered, one is allegedly more productive. Some use the analogy of becoming a medical doctor: a long slog through medical school, but big benefits (such as money) await you in the end. Do you agree with this alleged trade-off profile of RoR?
And, how can this approach work for decentralized departmental groups with lots of coder turn-over, especially if the bureaucracy makes it difficult to hire such that coders from other platforms are to be retrained? The ramp-up time for re-training seems hard to justify under such an environment without a RoR-only edict from on high. Would you agree RoR may not fit certain organizational environments? Thank You.
The encryption method is steganographically hidden in my reply.
Fog
Both parties having Yuuuuge communication issues: Dems plagued by email, Trump by his mouth.
It's like a boxing match between a quadriplegic and a blind dude.
Sad sad sad.
Rumor is they'll stop using all email and switch to smoke signals. Elizabeth Warren is an alleged expert on that tech.
Who do they think they are, Hillary?
Look, the grammer chekker addon already broken
You want to hand all the browser control to corporate conglomerates?
That being said, I'll wait for a few months for the kinks to be worked out. I'll let others be guinea pigs. Hopefully no security holes are found in version 47.
What if add-ons don't sign? Can we still "force" them in?
Please see the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of my reply again.
As far as Nixon, Wikipedia: "...Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president was obligated to release the tapes to government investigators, and he eventually complied. These audio recordings implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation."
Apples and Kumquats.
Without regulation they'd make large proprietary systems with no swappable parts so that only their stuff works with their stuff. Any competitor would have to reinvent the entire wheel for miles. Not efficient, not logical, not competitive.
Give me a break. You are just echoing Fox "News" spin-memes.
There is absolutely no evidence she KNOWINGLY lied about her emails or Benghazi*.
Saying there "were no X in my emails" when it turned out there were X is not necessarily lying. She may have honestly not known they contained a problem.
We all agree she was careless with her emails, but I screw up emails also. 30k messages passed her way; that's a lot to get 100% right. My own email error rate is probably about 2%. (They should have put a vetting system in place; a second set of eyes who can focus on those things.)
As far as influence peddling, it's been happening for hundreds of years, and made worse recently by the GOP-pushed Citizens United ruling. Most conservatives didn't appear to care at all UNTIL the Democrats (allegedly) got an advantage from it. Crocodile Tears.
And the majority of the mined ore cannot be sold outside the US, it's only a matter of company ownership, not transfer of ore.
* The Benghazi attack party was likely BOTH pre-planned, and enlarged by video rage. The main perp admitted the video bothered him. It's not an either/or situation, like GOP spins it. Nor did they disprove her claim that the intelligence changed over time. GOP produced no change-log or equiv that contradicted her characterization of events.
Good, finally I have a chance to get my 5 grand back
Hmmm, I wonder what the children will look like?
Let me put it a different way. The occurrence of that word from executives about mergers often corresponds to a lame future for the merger. The mindset of those using it appears to correspond to naivety about merger success. Why the correspondence, I don't know, it's just an observation of association I and others have made. You are welcome to present your own observations. (I don't have any statically-reliable analysis to back up these anecdotal observations.)
Since when have telecoms been expected to compete fairly? Lopsided local deals are common in the industry, often in the name of "getting a better deal for consumers", but not ending up that way in the longer run.
This doesn't condone the Google deal, but rather should be shining a light on a much wider problem.
They used the word "synergy". I'd flip the stock-sell switch on that alone.
Maybe they found a bug that makes CSS Turing Complete.
Agreed. JS is like the QWERTY keyboard standard, we use it because everybody else uses it: not because we like it or because it's good.
What a steaming pile of horse stuff. If they really cared, they'd assign somebody to check and verify every week.