I've seen multiple sources that say NOT to backup while the database is on-line. Maybe one can get lucky and nothing bad happens regarding pointer references or locks most of the time after hours, but is that good enough? If you want to gamble that much, use MS-Access; it's nimbler to set up and change.
The biggest problem I find with the Express edition is backups. You cannot use a regular file-based backup system to backup such databases due to locks, data pointers, etc. The paid edition has scheduled backup dumps built in.
There are tricks, such as scripts to deactivate the DB, copy the files, and re-activate it, but that's too risky and clunky.
Does anybody know a better way to get backups from E?
How about national voting holiday. Perhaps in March or April where the holidays are sparse.
Require double-time wages if a co. requires somebody to come in for work, or at least double-time if required to stay more than 4 hours to encourage half-days. (A make-up voting day may be needed for those required to work all day, per signed note from employer.)
I always like to create a kind of pseudo-code that fits the problem at hand, and then work backward to turn that sub-language into the base language, be it C# or Python or whatnot.
In other words, brainstorm about which notation and/or command set (API) best fits the domain or problem area without letting the syntax of the base language get in the way. The rest is mostly implementation detail. Sometimes OOP is the best fit, sometimes optional named parameters, sometimes database tables of commands and attributes, etc. (Certain languages do, however, make certain of these choices easier than others. Often it's a trade-off.)
I prefer to shape the "language" (to fit) rather than the other way around. Of course, like anything else, one can get carried away and over-engineer a sub-language. Keep it a light layer.
Spoken languages can kind of be viewed the same way. Languages that are vowel-centric tend to be better for singing and operas, for example. Latin is a good fit for science because it's a dead language, making it a stable naming platform. German is a great language for cussing in because it has a lot of sharp consonants and guttural sounds. (Somehow, I doubt Hitler would have sounded so ominous in French.)
RomneyCare, which ACA is based on, has had a decent reception in MA; and EVERY other industrial country has a gov't-assisted healthcare or healthcare insurance system. It's not like it's uncharted territory. True, the details can use tuning, but the big picture is not new.
It's probably not realistic to get it perfect the first time no matter how long you take. Other big legislation of the past was always adjusted and tuned after initial passage based on actual experience with the bill in practice. But due to the polarized political environment we have now, practical legislative tuning is difficult. A polarized political environment mucks up everything, not just ACA.
Debating speculation on internal motivations rarely goes anywhere because we cannot (legally) rip people's heads open to dissect their neurons and objectively verify motivation claims.
Anyhow, the political window to complete the bill was narrow. Due to the so-called "blue dogs", it barely had enough votes to pass. The long history of failed health-care bills shows that passing such is a very difficult task such that you have to leap on the opportunity when it presents itself or risk getting nothing. The old saying about sausage is quite fitting, and this was a loooong sausage.
How can anyone debate a a piece of legislation that they were not allowed to see or read?
Incorrect. In the meeting some GOP Senators had a large printed stack of the draft sitting on their desk, visible in the video. They actually used the printed draft to make a visual point: "Look, it's too big".
Incidentally, they could have proposed a smaller version. Nobody stopped them from making and presenting a trimmer draft version to show "how to do it right". Don't complain without presenting a work-able alternative.
Incidentally 2, it's typical that details of a final bill is wrangled over in negotiations until the very deadline. Thus, it's very difficult in practice to present the final version for review. If you do submit the final version for review, then you typically receive new change suggestions and then it's no longer the "final". Those who work in an office environment should understand this. Deadlines are necessary to stop such fiddling, but the drawback is that there's no time for a review of the final. If you can present a better decision making system, I'm all ears. Again, don't complain unless you can present a viable alternative.
Not having direct power doesn't mean you can't have influence. They were given a decent opportunity comment on specifics of the ACA, and decided to rant about the bill's very existence and "socialism" instead.
Their direct power level was determined by voters, not by O. You can't blame O for that. I'm thus not clear on what you are faulting O for. What specifically would you do different if you were O?
Incorrect. They did have an open discussion; I watched parts of it. However, it appeared GOP had already decided before the meeting that they wanted to kill ACA rather than shape it. Because of that, the "discussion" quickly morphed into the usual culture-war lectures and slogans rather than bill details.
I do credit O for trying it.
To give an IT analogy, it would be like a GUI design meeting where one side adamantly wanted a command line interface and thought all GUI's stank.
Fred: "Bob, do you think the button should go on the top or the bottom?"
Bob: "Screw buttons, GUI's are for sissies and encourage OS bloat dependency."
Fred: "Mark, how about you, where should the button go?"
Mark: "I'll tell you where to shove the button! I refuse to participate in the GUI take-over of computers. This will ruin the fabric of computing society and kill IT jobs!"
To be fair, "most transparent" relative to the past may be true. If you get a D- while all your predecessors got an F, then you have the "best grades so far". Thus, technically he may be correct, even if misleading.
I'm not sure perfect transparency is good thing anyhow. When they tried an open public discussion on the ACA bill, it turned into a useless posing and rant session. People spend more time performing for a sound-bite-sensitive crowd than doing real work.
Most swings were gradual, and the quicker ones were often triggered by large volcanoes and the like. And species often got spanked by them. We'll be one of the spankies this time also.
Slashdot Mirror
Propose a better study, genius.
Married men learn to ignore nagging.
For comparison, what's an example of something that is forcing democracy, in your view?
I've seen multiple sources that say NOT to backup while the database is on-line. Maybe one can get lucky and nothing bad happens regarding pointer references or locks most of the time after hours, but is that good enough? If you want to gamble that much, use MS-Access; it's nimbler to set up and change.
Search: . . . Don't be evil
No Results Found.
The biggest problem I find with the Express edition is backups. You cannot use a regular file-based backup system to backup such databases due to locks, data pointers, etc. The paid edition has scheduled backup dumps built in.
There are tricks, such as scripts to deactivate the DB, copy the files, and re-activate it, but that's too risky and clunky.
Does anybody know a better way to get backups from E?
Merge Emacs and PostgreSql, and you have the Mother of All Swiss Army Tools, that scales even.
"That dirty dictator O, he's forcing democracy!"
How about national voting holiday. Perhaps in March or April where the holidays are sparse.
Require double-time wages if a co. requires somebody to come in for work, or at least double-time if required to stay more than 4 hours to encourage half-days. (A make-up voting day may be needed for those required to work all day, per signed note from employer.)
Anyhow, it would never pass the Supreme Court.
They merely block 'em, we drone 'em
I'm shocked, shocked to find out there is politics going on in here!
I always like to create a kind of pseudo-code that fits the problem at hand, and then work backward to turn that sub-language into the base language, be it C# or Python or whatnot.
In other words, brainstorm about which notation and/or command set (API) best fits the domain or problem area without letting the syntax of the base language get in the way. The rest is mostly implementation detail. Sometimes OOP is the best fit, sometimes optional named parameters, sometimes database tables of commands and attributes, etc. (Certain languages do, however, make certain of these choices easier than others. Often it's a trade-off.)
I prefer to shape the "language" (to fit) rather than the other way around. Of course, like anything else, one can get carried away and over-engineer a sub-language. Keep it a light layer.
Spoken languages can kind of be viewed the same way. Languages that are vowel-centric tend to be better for singing and operas, for example. Latin is a good fit for science because it's a dead language, making it a stable naming platform. German is a great language for cussing in because it has a lot of sharp consonants and guttural sounds. (Somehow, I doubt Hitler would have sounded so ominous in French.)
RomneyCare, which ACA is based on, has had a decent reception in MA; and EVERY other industrial country has a gov't-assisted healthcare or healthcare insurance system. It's not like it's uncharted territory. True, the details can use tuning, but the big picture is not new.
I knew my Klingon would do me good
But the cover is a "prank, anecdote and gag". It did its job perfectly well it appears to me.
It's probably not realistic to get it perfect the first time no matter how long you take. Other big legislation of the past was always adjusted and tuned after initial passage based on actual experience with the bill in practice. But due to the polarized political environment we have now, practical legislative tuning is difficult. A polarized political environment mucks up everything, not just ACA.
Debating speculation on internal motivations rarely goes anywhere because we cannot (legally) rip people's heads open to dissect their neurons and objectively verify motivation claims.
Anyhow, the political window to complete the bill was narrow. Due to the so-called "blue dogs", it barely had enough votes to pass. The long history of failed health-care bills shows that passing such is a very difficult task such that you have to leap on the opportunity when it presents itself or risk getting nothing. The old saying about sausage is quite fitting, and this was a loooong sausage.
I explained the process that lead to Pelosi's statements here, in the 3rd paragraph.
Incorrect. In the meeting some GOP Senators had a large printed stack of the draft sitting on their desk, visible in the video. They actually used the printed draft to make a visual point: "Look, it's too big".
Incidentally, they could have proposed a smaller version. Nobody stopped them from making and presenting a trimmer draft version to show "how to do it right". Don't complain without presenting a work-able alternative.
Incidentally 2, it's typical that details of a final bill is wrangled over in negotiations until the very deadline. Thus, it's very difficult in practice to present the final version for review. If you do submit the final version for review, then you typically receive new change suggestions and then it's no longer the "final". Those who work in an office environment should understand this. Deadlines are necessary to stop such fiddling, but the drawback is that there's no time for a review of the final. If you can present a better decision making system, I'm all ears. Again, don't complain unless you can present a viable alternative.
Not having direct power doesn't mean you can't have influence. They were given a decent opportunity comment on specifics of the ACA, and decided to rant about the bill's very existence and "socialism" instead.
Their direct power level was determined by voters, not by O. You can't blame O for that. I'm thus not clear on what you are faulting O for. What specifically would you do different if you were O?
Incorrect. They did have an open discussion; I watched parts of it. However, it appeared GOP had already decided before the meeting that they wanted to kill ACA rather than shape it. Because of that, the "discussion" quickly morphed into the usual culture-war lectures and slogans rather than bill details.
I do credit O for trying it.
To give an IT analogy, it would be like a GUI design meeting where one side adamantly wanted a command line interface and thought all GUI's stank.
Fred: "Bob, do you think the button should go on the top or the bottom?"
Bob: "Screw buttons, GUI's are for sissies and encourage OS bloat dependency."
Fred: "Mark, how about you, where should the button go?"
Mark: "I'll tell you where to shove the button! I refuse to participate in the GUI take-over of computers. This will ruin the fabric of computing society and kill IT jobs!"
To be fair, "most transparent" relative to the past may be true. If you get a D- while all your predecessors got an F, then you have the "best grades so far". Thus, technically he may be correct, even if misleading.
I'm not sure perfect transparency is good thing anyhow. When they tried an open public discussion on the ACA bill, it turned into a useless posing and rant session. People spend more time performing for a sound-bite-sensitive crowd than doing real work.
It's called a "punch press"
Oh yah? Where's his real birth certificate?!
Most swings were gradual, and the quicker ones were often triggered by large volcanoes and the like. And species often got spanked by them. We'll be one of the spankies this time also.