Oh oh, the NoSql movement more or less wanted to gain scalability and performance at the expense of A.C.I.D. and other "integrity" features of "traditional" RDBMS. RDBMS are time-tested and thus relatively solid (if done right). NoSql is not.
What do they call the opposite of stocks? "Puts"? Put puts on this now, or sell if you got stocks in the health org.
And if you taxed larger or powerful cars heavily*, people would drive more fuel efficient cars. High gas taxes are doing that in some parts of Europe.
In the USA, at least, cars are a status/phallic symbol and thus are larger and/or more powerful than they need to be in a practical sense. There are times I wanted a more powerful car to compete with other more powerful cars during rush hour. But that's size escalation. If you lower the average then there is less need to compete with beefy cars.
Further, taxing beefy cars would encourage more to take public transportation. I know conservatives will balk, but taxes would help with three problems: traffic, pollution (and GW), and gas dependance. Four actually: gov't revenue to help pay down debt and other uses.
* Exemptions would be made for large families and legitimate business use.
I wish there were an open-source version of FoxPro. There is the Harbour project for xBase, but it's not interpretive, and lacked many of the interactive features the last time I checked.
FoxPro and xBase are great for hobby CRUD-centric or smaller data-centric projects: Lots of functionality with very little code because the imperative code could be tightly bound to the database rather than requiring application-code-to/from-SQL translation layers like the current stuff. One learned to "think in tables", and thus become a Tablizer. It's sort of like APL re-shaped by practical concerns.
There's something magical about it in that it can dance nimbly between high table abstraction and nitty-gritty imperative fiddling code. Some try to compare it to LINQ, but LINQ feels like an add-on to the regular clunky way, and not part of a bigger united experience.
The xBase approach may not work well for "big team" programming, but for certain projects it could scream.
Ah, the good 'ol days. You Ruby-ites get off my lawn!
I agree that 4mbps is generally "good enough" if that's the minimum. But often ISP's make their stated numbers the average, meaning sometimes you may get 2mbps, which is crap, especially for Youtube. (Note that posted videos have been growing in resolution of late, so current metrics may not be worth much soon).
Thus, a compromise may be to require it be at least 4mbps say 95% of the time to qualify as Broadband.
What do you call both forks? The portable one "linux" and the server one "LINUX"? At least it would be easy to remember which is which, although googling with a difference may not work so well since Google mostly is case insensitive.
Are you saying they are scared to detect life? That's a rather odd claim I hope would come with more evidence. And Curiosity is not designed to directly detect life anyhow. Even if they find life-like signs, most likely it would require a follow-up mission(s) to verify it really is life. Thus deflecting the life issue is built into the mission already by not having that ability to begin with.
A more fitting question may be why we haven't sent a direct life-detecting mission since the mid 1970's. But that's a different issue than what is being done with the existing rover. (UK launched a more recent direct-life mission, but it failed to survive landing, unfortunately. They skimped on testing to save money, and "paid for it".)
Granted, detecting life has proven a problem more difficult than originally imagined. Experience from Viking and Mars meteorites is that it's nearly impossible to rule out "funny soil chemistry" until you directly see the little buggers squirming under a microscope.
A sample-return mission is probably the only way to know for sure, and that carries the risk of Mars-to-Earth contamination.
The main bottleneck of "the cloud" is standards. Unless organizations can easily swap vendors and make their own (optional) backups without hassles, the "cloud" will continue to be a fractured, risky, and messy place.
The problem is that there are no incentives to standardize because service companies don't want the market to become a commodity because commoditization usually eats their profits (at least in the industrialized world) just like it did with PC's. They want you to be locked in to Their Way so that you can't leave for competitors.
I don't know how to solve that problem. Telling big players to sacrifice profits will go over like a lead balloon.
Standards would include configuration portals, directory structures, and "stack version sets" that combine application-language + database + web-server versions etc. into a single stack version number for cross-comparison shopping. Shopping based on differing versions of each component is not realistic because it's not realistic for a cloud-provider to test and support kajillion version combo's.
Either that, "the cloud" could support virtual servers such that one can take their virtual server elsewhere when needed, but then "the cloud" is mostly just offering equipment hosting rather than "cloud services", which gets away from the initial concept. It's a chip cloud.
It seems the complaining panel may be trying to "force science" when it's really an exploration or survey mission. Example:
"The proposal lacked specific scientific questions to be answered, testable hypotheses, and proposed measurements and assessment of uncertainties and limitations," Neal wrote.
You don't "prove hypotheses", you collect evidence first. If you find something really interesting, then either spend more time at that place, or drive back to it if oddities are found after-the-fact and are big enough to justify it.
It seems they are asking for premature regimentation. You have to react to circumstances. Essentially, its mission plan should be "drive around and sniff at interesting or odd things".
It's nowhere near completing its actual primary science goal: getting to Mt. Sharp
Part of the problem is that particular area of Mars is rough on the rover's wheels (different than seen by other probes), so they have to be more cautious than expected.
I thought they haven't arrived at the primary target yet. Sampling secondary targets slows down progress toward the primary target.
I can see rationale for "not dwelling" at secondary targets. If these secondary targets are somehow deemed primary or prime targets (not stated), that's a different matter, but doing so detracts from the original primary target.
It seems somebody is using "bean counter" logic whereby you judge quantity instead of quality.
Passengers should have the option of paying $10 more or so for 3 inches or so of knee space or width. Right now you have to pay gobs more for more space. There is no incremental option.
If you do this, then large people will typically end up paying the extra $10 for slightly larger seats, and all will be happy.
I'm not sure how to word this diplomatically, so please don't jump on me if sounds racist, I'm only trying to express my thoughts based on my observations.
Many Asians seem to treat education like a religion and become zealots. It's as if one is going to hell if they don't get into a good college. It's not even about long-term general earning potential it seems, but rather the status of a degree.
Part of it seems to be that as a parent, if your kid gets a big-name degree, you are allowed to feel satisfied that you "did your job well" as a parent in the Asian community. If a child didn't get a good degree yet gradually worked their way up into big money, the parent may not live that long, and so that is a lessor perceived reward even if the kid eventually has 3 mansions and 10 Maserati's: the parent may never get a chance to brag about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The IRS has to inspect for similar business deduction claims already. Increase the inspection force a bit and combine efforts.
Oh oh, the NoSql movement more or less wanted to gain scalability and performance at the expense of A.C.I.D. and other "integrity" features of "traditional" RDBMS. RDBMS are time-tested and thus relatively solid (if done right). NoSql is not.
What do they call the opposite of stocks? "Puts"? Put puts on this now, or sell if you got stocks in the health org.
Humans like cars, not buses.
And if you taxed larger or powerful cars heavily*, people would drive more fuel efficient cars. High gas taxes are doing that in some parts of Europe.
In the USA, at least, cars are a status/phallic symbol and thus are larger and/or more powerful than they need to be in a practical sense. There are times I wanted a more powerful car to compete with other more powerful cars during rush hour. But that's size escalation. If you lower the average then there is less need to compete with beefy cars.
Further, taxing beefy cars would encourage more to take public transportation. I know conservatives will balk, but taxes would help with three problems: traffic, pollution (and GW), and gas dependance. Four actually: gov't revenue to help pay down debt and other uses.
* Exemptions would be made for large families and legitimate business use.
I wish there were an open-source version of FoxPro. There is the Harbour project for xBase, but it's not interpretive, and lacked many of the interactive features the last time I checked.
FoxPro and xBase are great for hobby CRUD-centric or smaller data-centric projects: Lots of functionality with very little code because the imperative code could be tightly bound to the database rather than requiring application-code-to/from-SQL translation layers like the current stuff. One learned to "think in tables", and thus become a Tablizer. It's sort of like APL re-shaped by practical concerns.
There's something magical about it in that it can dance nimbly between high table abstraction and nitty-gritty imperative fiddling code. Some try to compare it to LINQ, but LINQ feels like an add-on to the regular clunky way, and not part of a bigger united experience.
The xBase approach may not work well for "big team" programming, but for certain projects it could scream.
Ah, the good 'ol days. You Ruby-ites get off my lawn!
running for Congress
So an astronaut could be just working away in space and suddenly Booof! they are gob-smacked by one of these and lose an eye?
I suppose a pebble-sized meteor out of nowhere is also a danger to them.
That's one Library of Congress per.....um
Leave it to Comcast to test the boundaries of sleazy practices.
I agree that 4mbps is generally "good enough" if that's the minimum. But often ISP's make their stated numbers the average, meaning sometimes you may get 2mbps, which is crap, especially for Youtube. (Note that posted videos have been growing in resolution of late, so current metrics may not be worth much soon).
Thus, a compromise may be to require it be at least 4mbps say 95% of the time to qualify as Broadband.
What do you call both forks? The portable one "linux" and the server one "LINUX"? At least it would be easy to remember which is which, although googling with a difference may not work so well since Google mostly is case insensitive.
Are you saying they are scared to detect life? That's a rather odd claim I hope would come with more evidence. And Curiosity is not designed to directly detect life anyhow. Even if they find life-like signs, most likely it would require a follow-up mission(s) to verify it really is life. Thus deflecting the life issue is built into the mission already by not having that ability to begin with.
A more fitting question may be why we haven't sent a direct life-detecting mission since the mid 1970's. But that's a different issue than what is being done with the existing rover. (UK launched a more recent direct-life mission, but it failed to survive landing, unfortunately. They skimped on testing to save money, and "paid for it".)
Granted, detecting life has proven a problem more difficult than originally imagined. Experience from Viking and Mars meteorites is that it's nearly impossible to rule out "funny soil chemistry" until you directly see the little buggers squirming under a microscope.
A sample-return mission is probably the only way to know for sure, and that carries the risk of Mars-to-Earth contamination.
The main bottleneck of "the cloud" is standards. Unless organizations can easily swap vendors and make their own (optional) backups without hassles, the "cloud" will continue to be a fractured, risky, and messy place.
The problem is that there are no incentives to standardize because service companies don't want the market to become a commodity because commoditization usually eats their profits (at least in the industrialized world) just like it did with PC's. They want you to be locked in to Their Way so that you can't leave for competitors.
I don't know how to solve that problem. Telling big players to sacrifice profits will go over like a lead balloon.
Standards would include configuration portals, directory structures, and "stack version sets" that combine application-language + database + web-server versions etc. into a single stack version number for cross-comparison shopping. Shopping based on differing versions of each component is not realistic because it's not realistic for a cloud-provider to test and support kajillion version combo's.
Either that, "the cloud" could support virtual servers such that one can take their virtual server elsewhere when needed, but then "the cloud" is mostly just offering equipment hosting rather than "cloud services", which gets away from the initial concept. It's a chip cloud.
Can't they just evolve and grow legs to hike up? We did it, dammit!
Or "very sized-challenged planets"
"warmunists"? No, Bush would call them "warmificationizers". Rework your trolling to make it sound more authentic.
By the way, here's a somewhat more detailed article:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news...
It seems the complaining panel may be trying to "force science" when it's really an exploration or survey mission. Example:
You don't "prove hypotheses", you collect evidence first. If you find something really interesting, then either spend more time at that place, or drive back to it if oddities are found after-the-fact and are big enough to justify it.
It seems they are asking for premature regimentation. You have to react to circumstances. Essentially, its mission plan should be "drive around and sniff at interesting or odd things".
Part of the problem is that particular area of Mars is rough on the rover's wheels (different than seen by other probes), so they have to be more cautious than expected.
and then they complain that too much tax money is spent on panel review panels.
I thought they haven't arrived at the primary target yet. Sampling secondary targets slows down progress toward the primary target.
I can see rationale for "not dwelling" at secondary targets. If these secondary targets are somehow deemed primary or prime targets (not stated), that's a different matter, but doing so detracts from the original primary target.
It seems somebody is using "bean counter" logic whereby you judge quantity instead of quality.
That's how Jar Jar would spell it.
It could be argued it's also racism.
Passengers should have the option of paying $10 more or so for 3 inches or so of knee space or width. Right now you have to pay gobs more for more space. There is no incremental option.
If you do this, then large people will typically end up paying the extra $10 for slightly larger seats, and all will be happy.
Well, you certainly found Uranus.
Can we aim it at ISIS?
I'm not sure how to word this diplomatically, so please don't jump on me if sounds racist, I'm only trying to express my thoughts based on my observations.
Many Asians seem to treat education like a religion and become zealots. It's as if one is going to hell if they don't get into a good college. It's not even about long-term general earning potential it seems, but rather the status of a degree.
Part of it seems to be that as a parent, if your kid gets a big-name degree, you are allowed to feel satisfied that you "did your job well" as a parent in the Asian community. If a child didn't get a good degree yet gradually worked their way up into big money, the parent may not live that long, and so that is a lessor perceived reward even if the kid eventually has 3 mansions and 10 Maserati's: the parent may never get a chance to brag about it.
Human: "That's a pretty small frame-bolt you got there in the front."
Bot: "Mind your own biz, smelly human, or my lawyer will delete you!"