Remember that time Google promised to hand out 10 million dollars, based on poorly conceptualized public participation, and then ran the participation part of it, got huge press for it, and then, SO SORRY! didn't follow through at all?
No, I remember something that's kind of like that, except for the fact that they did follow through and give out the $10 million dollars, split among several projects.
That was, gosh, exactly like this.
Yes, in that it received a huge response beyond what Google expected, it was exactly like this. Sometimes, Google doesn't realize how popular Google's ideas will be. I'm sure many other businesses wish they could have that "problem" with their initiatives.
I call bullshit on this and all future Google projects that involve a charitable act and massive public input.
This project isn't about a charitable act. This project is about seeking a place to do a demonstration project aimed at improving the market conditions for Google's products. Its looking for an opportunity to shift the market for internet connectivity by exerting pressure the same way Google has on the browser market with Chrome, and the handheld device OS market with Android.
It may be win-win with the community (or communities) selected to be part of the demonstration, but its not charitable in any sense.
What if some of those 1100 communities were to just build the fiber out themselves, instead of looking for Google to do it for them?
Access to capital to pay for the up front costs is probably an issue here. The success of the Google demonstration could make it easier for others to get capital to do similar things (presuming, of course, that the success of the roll-out isn't attributed to factors that independent parties can't easily replicate.)
Considering the high demand, Google Fiber should make multiple awards.
Conceivably, that could be part of the reason for delay; if they have decided to scale up the resources devoted to the initial effort, from one community to more than one, there could be additional scaling-out time needed.
There is a difference, and a significant one at that, between all of the following statements:
1) Fox News makes its viewers less informed. (What headline said, which is impossible.)
Actually, its not at all impossible that watching Fox News makes it viewers less able to recall accurate facts on current events than they would be, all other things being equal, without watching Fox News.
Studies have shown for decades that television news viewing, generally:
1) Produces voters whose preference for particular candidates is less-connected to any articulable reason, 2) Produces people that are less-informed about current events than those who watch less television.
Television drives the public agenda, and does so by suppressing rather than informing reasoned views of current events. That's pretty much been the result of the studies of media consumption, knowledge of current events, and political preferences and behavior since at least the mid-to-late 1970s.
Fox News is perhaps the purest example of a media outlet built from the ground up to exploit these facts, which were well-established by the time Fox was founded, but the problem is much broader than Fox News.
The ANSI SQL standard way to do this is to create "INSTEAD OF" triggers, which means you're permanently modifying how INSERT works on a given table.
The pre-SQL:2008 ANSI standard SQL way to do it is with an UPDATE and INSERT pair; every MySQL INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE statement can be trivially mapped to an UPDATE/INSERT sequence.
SQL:2008 introduced the MERGE INTO command to do things in a single command. Several DBs have implemented it, PostgreSQL hasn't yet.
As I pointed out, this is something that is so OBVIOUS in retrospect that it's a wonder other database products haven't gotten around to implementing it.
Several other database products have instead implemented the functionally-similar but slightly more verbose SQL:2008 standard MERGE INTO statement where MySQL has non-standard ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE clause on the INSERT statement, some other databases (SQLite, for instance) implement similar functionality using INSERT OR REPLACE INTO.
Until PostgreSQL gets ON DUPLICATE KEY support, it's off the table (pardon the pun). ON DUPLICATE KEY is just so handy, and solves so many problems, that it's amazing most people aren't using it.
To my view ON DUPLICATE KEY is less useful than support of SQL common table expressions (which Postgres has and MySQL lacks). INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY can be expressed simply as an UPDATE/INSERT pair, whereas replacing a query using -- particularly recursive -- CTEs without support for them often can't be done without resorting to procedural code.
And no, creating a function to handle it as an exception is not a real solution.
Using a PL to create a function is unnecessary to replace INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY (though it may be a reasonable choice if the query is already being used in procedural code to start with.)
Assuming a table t with a primary key of k, a MySQL expression of the form:
INSERT INTO t [source expression] ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE [update expression];
Can be trivially transformed into PostgreSQL as:
UPDATE t SET [update expression] WHERE k IN (SELECT k FROM [source expression]); INSERT INTO t SELECT * FROM [source expression] WHERE k NOT IN (SELECT k FROM t);
While INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY is a a nice shorthand, it doesn't increase one bit what you can do within pure SQL, and in saves at most one SQL statement. Weighed against all the advantages that PostgreSQL in terms of SQL language support (not even getting into comparing the two systems outside of SQL language support), I can't see it as being that big of a deal.
But if you find it critical to your use, then MySQL obviously is the choice for you.
Wrong. A layman would tell you that 1 + 1 = 2. Layman means someone who understands a subject and can even work with it to some extent, but is NOT an expert.
No, "layman" doesn't mean "someone who understands a subject and can even work with it to some extent but is NOT an expert." It means simply "someone who is not a member of a particular profession", full stop. (That's actually the second, but relevant, definition, which evolved from the earlier and still primary definition, which is specifically someone who is not a member of the clergy.)
"Layman" is sometimes prefixed with an adjective like "experienced", and so modified may mean something like what you suggest, but that isn't what it means on its own.
Isn't this a vital piece of data on how the Cloud works?
No, it has nothing to do with the cloud.
Grow something "free as in beer" until people get used to it, then "monetize" it.
That was a fairly well-worn business model long before the internet, and certainly has been particularly common on the internet, but has nothing special to do with cloud computing.
Its unclear as to whether letting google or some other third party feed ads is more or less warping than politics or bias.
The question is irrelevant, since adding commercial bias through ad-dependence wouldn't eliminate personal bias ("politics" and "bias" aren't, contrary to your presentation, two separate sources of distortion, its two different ways of referring to the personal biases of editors) unless it also involved eliminating community editing completely.
So it doesn't matter if advertising is, on its own, more distorting than the existing sources of distortion, since advertising adds to, rather than replacing, those sources.
Since when is the US enforcing the laws of other countries?
Since, approximately, forever.
Foreign laws often have relevance in U.S. cases, especially, e.g., breach of contract cases where the the breach occurs in the U.S., at least one of the parties is a U.S. person, and the contract itself was executed outside of the U.S. and is, expressly or because of the circumstances of its execution, governed by foreign law.
It should be unconstitutional to appoint someone to the Court who won't be able to serve for years
Assuming that Kagan, as would seem to me to be appropriate, recuses herself from every case in which she, as Solicitor-General, argued or filed a brief on behalf of the U.S. either as a party or as an amicus, that will only affect cases that were already before the Supreme Court at the time she was Solicitor-General.
The Solicitor-General only represents the U.S. in the Supreme Court.
The Solicitor-General's office also approves decisions to appeal on behalf of the U.S. from trial court decisions, but doesn't have responsibility for appellate cases at the lower level the way they do for cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan might feel the need to recuse herself from cases that were decided against the U.S. at trial court and for which her office had approved the appeal to the Circuit Court, but wouldn't, as I understand it, have had any direct involvement in cases to which the U.S. was a party or amicus at the appellate level but where the U.S. wasn't the party appealing the trial court decision.
So there were lots of recusals this term where the cases currently before the Court were ones in which, as S-G, she had argued or filed briefs, and there might be some smaller number in the next few terms for cases where her office had some involvement in approving appeals by the U.S. from trial court decisions. But it is not at all the case that Kagan "won't be able to serve for years".
She recused herself because of having been the solicitor general of the US.
She recused herself not for that reason, but because, as S-G, she had filed a brief in this case.
Having argued so many other cases for the [...] Obama Administration, she'll be recusing herself a lot as cases work their way up to the court.
That's not really true. The Solicitor-General doesn't represent the U.S. in most cases, only those cases that are before the Supreme Court. She recused herself from a lot of cases this term, because she would have been responsible for any brief filed by the U.S., either as a party or as an amicus, for most of the cases that were on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time she was confirmed to the court. But that's really not going to be an issue much going forward -- any court that hadn't worked its way up to the Supreme Court by the time she left the S-G's office won't present a conflict from that time, because the S-G's office wouldn't have taken responsibility for it while she was in the office.
This case is practically a carbon copy, and the Supreme Court decided there were no new facts that made it necessary to reverse themselves or consider this case separately.
Wrong. The Supreme Court decided to hear this case, heard it, and failed (with the 8 judges that participated) to reach a majority on any decision, coming to a 4-4 deadlock.
The result is essentially as if the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case in terms of precedential effect, but in fact they did decide to hear the case, which also suggests that, were a case raising the same legal question to come up on appeal, they would be inclined to hear it as well -- and with a new case, a recusal would be unlikely.
Also, since this was a 4-4 decision, at least one of the 5 members of the current Court that were on the Court that heard Quality King (a 9-0 decision) must have either seen this case as distinguished from Quality King or voted to overrule Quality King.
It's quite clear from the study that Chrome 6 was the most recent full release of the browser when these tests were performed in September.
Which would (considering only the browser versions, and not the scope of the test and other issues that have been raised) have made the test valid, relevant, and meaningful, if the study compared it to the then-current general-release version of IE (IE 8), and was released at a time when that comparison was meaningful to the current market options.
Don't forget that Google Chrome is on a six-week major release schedule.
I don't forget that. No one (well, except maybe Microsoft, who was paying for the study and controlled the timing of its release for its own marketing purposes) forced the report to be delayed nearly three months from the time it was current.
If Microsoft and/or their paid agent decide to delay their report until, even ignoring questions as to the relevance and accuracy of its findings, the comparison it makes is irrelevant to the current options, that's hardly anyone else's fault but their own.
The reason the test used Chrome 6 was it was performed Sept 17-27, before the Chrome 7 release of Oct 21.
Which made it, at the time, merely beta Apples to stable Oranges, which is slightly-less-bad -- but the relevance of the report when it was written isn't important to anyone, the relevance when it is released matters, since that's when people will be reading it and potentially making decisions based on it.
Had the report been released when it was current (leaving aside issues of who was paying for it, and whether what it actually tested was particularly meaningful on its own) it would be a bad comparison of IE's current beta to Chrome's current stable release. Released now, its a really bad comparison of IE's current beta to an outdated version of Chrome.
It means they get paid whether they get the results Microsoft wants or not.
Which isn't really independent. I mean, if it was blind, such that Microsoft wouldn't know who was performing the test and couldn't retaliate against them by not paying them to do future tests if they didn't like the results of this one, then that would be independent.
The real warning flag is that it doesn't say that on NSS Lab's site nor does it say it anywhere in the report. So if I was being paid to do this, I would have that in big bold letters as a disclaimer on the front page of the report if I wanted to maintain credibility.
The report is of greater value to Microsoft, the paying customer, the less obvious it is the Microsoft is the paying customer.
You have valid points, still Google didn't deny the results and in a sense, confirmed it. Read Google's response again: NSS says IE is better than Chrome in X, but hey, they didn't say Chrome is better at Y and Z.
I think you missed the other important part: "Also, the version of Chrome that NSS says all this about is two major versions behind the current stable release, while the version of IE they say is better is the current beta release."
A more relevant comparison would be IE 8 to Chrome 8 (current generally release version of both version), or IE 9 to Chrome 9 (current publicly available pre-release version of each browser.)
Perhaps someone should do a similar comparison, but using Chrome 9 and IE 6, instead...
I am sure that the computer you are on now was made AND purchased in another country.
I'm pretty sure that the current owner purchased in the United States. Since even under the Ninth Circuit decision that was allowed to stand here, it is uncontested that the somewhat-poorly-named "doctrine of first sale" applies to any goods that were made or previously sold in the United States (whether or not they were first sold outside of the U.S.), the doctrine of first sale applies.
Or to make it more understandable: If you are a company, you have more rights then if you are in individual, where you have no rights over what you 'bought'.
Except that is accurate neither as a summary of the statement in GP it claims to make "more understandable", or of the impact of the Ninth Circuit ruling that was allowed to stand.
Companies and individuals have the exact same (lack of) rights under this decision when they purchase foreign-made goods abroad. Companies and individuals also have the same rights (those rights that they lack in the preceding circumstance) when they buy goods that are made in the U.S., or buy goods in the U.S. no matter where they are made.
Slashdot Mirror
My current DSL ISP is a small, local, boutique ISP.
No, I remember something that's kind of like that, except for the fact that they did follow through and give out the $10 million dollars, split among several projects.
Yes, in that it received a huge response beyond what Google expected, it was exactly like this. Sometimes, Google doesn't realize how popular Google's ideas will be. I'm sure many other businesses wish they could have that "problem" with their initiatives.
This project isn't about a charitable act. This project is about seeking a place to do a demonstration project aimed at improving the market conditions for Google's products. Its looking for an opportunity to shift the market for internet connectivity by exerting pressure the same way Google has on the browser market with Chrome, and the handheld device OS market with Android.
It may be win-win with the community (or communities) selected to be part of the demonstration, but its not charitable in any sense.
Access to capital to pay for the up front costs is probably an issue here. The success of the Google demonstration could make it easier for others to get capital to do similar things (presuming, of course, that the success of the roll-out isn't attributed to factors that independent parties can't easily replicate.)
Conceivably, that could be part of the reason for delay; if they have decided to scale up the resources devoted to the initial effort, from one community to more than one, there could be additional scaling-out time needed.
Its a curated, annotated list of bookmarks (for installable hosted web apps) and download links (for packaged apps).
Plus, of course, it has functions associated with purchase for non-free apps, and some other features beyond just being a list.
Actually, its not at all impossible that watching Fox News makes it viewers less able to recall accurate facts on current events than they would be, all other things being equal, without watching Fox News.
Studies have shown for decades that television news viewing, generally:
1) Produces voters whose preference for particular candidates is less-connected to any articulable reason,
2) Produces people that are less-informed about current events than those who watch less television.
Television drives the public agenda, and does so by suppressing rather than informing reasoned views of current events. That's pretty much been the result of the studies of media consumption, knowledge of current events, and political preferences and behavior since at least the mid-to-late 1970s.
Fox News is perhaps the purest example of a media outlet built from the ground up to exploit these facts, which were well-established by the time Fox was founded, but the problem is much broader than Fox News.
What is this supposed to mean? PostgreSQL obviously handles multiple user accounts.
The pre-SQL:2008 ANSI standard SQL way to do it is with an UPDATE and INSERT pair; every MySQL INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE statement can be trivially mapped to an UPDATE/INSERT sequence.
SQL:2008 introduced the MERGE INTO command to do things in a single command. Several DBs have implemented it, PostgreSQL hasn't yet.
Several other database products have instead implemented the functionally-similar but slightly more verbose SQL:2008 standard MERGE INTO statement where MySQL has non-standard ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE clause on the INSERT statement, some other databases (SQLite, for instance) implement similar functionality using INSERT OR REPLACE INTO.
To my view ON DUPLICATE KEY is less useful than support of SQL common table expressions (which Postgres has and MySQL lacks). INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY can be expressed simply as an UPDATE/INSERT pair, whereas replacing a query using -- particularly recursive -- CTEs without support for them often can't be done without resorting to procedural code.
Using a PL to create a function is unnecessary to replace INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY (though it may be a reasonable choice if the query is already being used in procedural code to start with.)
Assuming a table t with a primary key of k, a MySQL expression of the form:
INSERT INTO t [source expression] ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE [update expression];
Can be trivially transformed into PostgreSQL as:
UPDATE t SET [update expression] WHERE k IN (SELECT k FROM [source expression]);
INSERT INTO t
SELECT *
FROM [source expression]
WHERE k NOT IN (SELECT k FROM t);
While INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY is a a nice shorthand, it doesn't increase one bit what you can do within pure SQL, and in saves at most one SQL statement. Weighed against all the advantages that PostgreSQL in terms of SQL language support (not even getting into comparing the two systems outside of SQL language support), I can't see it as being that big of a deal.
But if you find it critical to your use, then MySQL obviously is the choice for you.
No, "layman" doesn't mean "someone who understands a subject and can even work with it to some extent but is NOT an expert." It means simply "someone who is not a member of a particular profession", full stop. (That's actually the second, but relevant, definition, which evolved from the earlier and still primary definition, which is specifically someone who is not a member of the clergy.)
"Layman" is sometimes prefixed with an adjective like "experienced", and so modified may mean something like what you suggest, but that isn't what it means on its own.
No, it has nothing to do with the cloud.
That was a fairly well-worn business model long before the internet, and certainly has been particularly common on the internet, but has nothing special to do with cloud computing.
Its unclear as to whether letting google or some other third party feed ads is more or less warping than politics or bias.
The question is irrelevant, since adding commercial bias through ad-dependence wouldn't eliminate personal bias ("politics" and "bias" aren't, contrary to your presentation, two separate sources of distortion, its two different ways of referring to the personal biases of editors) unless it also involved eliminating community editing completely.
So it doesn't matter if advertising is, on its own, more distorting than the existing sources of distortion, since advertising adds to, rather than replacing, those sources.
Since, approximately, forever.
Foreign laws often have relevance in U.S. cases, especially, e.g., breach of contract cases where the the breach occurs in the U.S., at least one of the parties is a U.S. person, and the contract itself was executed outside of the U.S. and is, expressly or because of the circumstances of its execution, governed by foreign law.
Assuming that Kagan, as would seem to me to be appropriate, recuses herself from every case in which she, as Solicitor-General, argued or filed a brief on behalf of the U.S. either as a party or as an amicus, that will only affect cases that were already before the Supreme Court at the time she was Solicitor-General.
The Solicitor-General only represents the U.S. in the Supreme Court.
The Solicitor-General's office also approves decisions to appeal on behalf of the U.S. from trial court decisions, but doesn't have responsibility for appellate cases at the lower level the way they do for cases before the Supreme Court. Kagan might feel the need to recuse herself from cases that were decided against the U.S. at trial court and for which her office had approved the appeal to the Circuit Court, but wouldn't, as I understand it, have had any direct involvement in cases to which the U.S. was a party or amicus at the appellate level but where the U.S. wasn't the party appealing the trial court decision.
So there were lots of recusals this term where the cases currently before the Court were ones in which, as S-G, she had argued or filed briefs, and there might be some smaller number in the next few terms for cases where her office had some involvement in approving appeals by the U.S. from trial court decisions. But it is not at all the case that Kagan "won't be able to serve for years".
She recused herself not for that reason, but because, as S-G, she had filed a brief in this case.
That's not really true. The Solicitor-General doesn't represent the U.S. in most cases, only those cases that are before the Supreme Court. She recused herself from a lot of cases this term, because she would have been responsible for any brief filed by the U.S., either as a party or as an amicus, for most of the cases that were on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time she was confirmed to the court. But that's really not going to be an issue much going forward -- any court that hadn't worked its way up to the Supreme Court by the time she left the S-G's office won't present a conflict from that time, because the S-G's office wouldn't have taken responsibility for it while she was in the office.
Wrong. The Supreme Court decided to hear this case, heard it, and failed (with the 8 judges that participated) to reach a majority on any decision, coming to a 4-4 deadlock.
The result is essentially as if the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case in terms of precedential effect, but in fact they did decide to hear the case, which also suggests that, were a case raising the same legal question to come up on appeal, they would be inclined to hear it as well -- and with a new case, a recusal would be unlikely.
Also, since this was a 4-4 decision, at least one of the 5 members of the current Court that were on the Court that heard Quality King (a 9-0 decision) must have either seen this case as distinguished from Quality King or voted to overrule Quality King.
The limit is based on the restrictions of making tweets SMS-compatible, so, no.
Which would (considering only the browser versions, and not the scope of the test and other issues that have been raised) have made the test valid, relevant, and meaningful, if the study compared it to the then-current general-release version of IE (IE 8), and was released at a time when that comparison was meaningful to the current market options.
I don't forget that. No one (well, except maybe Microsoft, who was paying for the study and controlled the timing of its release for its own marketing purposes) forced the report to be delayed nearly three months from the time it was current.
If Microsoft and/or their paid agent decide to delay their report until, even ignoring questions as to the relevance and accuracy of its findings, the comparison it makes is irrelevant to the current options, that's hardly anyone else's fault but their own.
Which made it, at the time, merely beta Apples to stable Oranges, which is slightly-less-bad -- but the relevance of the report when it was written isn't important to anyone, the relevance when it is released matters, since that's when people will be reading it and potentially making decisions based on it.
Had the report been released when it was current (leaving aside issues of who was paying for it, and whether what it actually tested was particularly meaningful on its own) it would be a bad comparison of IE's current beta to Chrome's current stable release. Released now, its a really bad comparison of IE's current beta to an outdated version of Chrome.
Which isn't really independent. I mean, if it was blind, such that Microsoft wouldn't know who was performing the test and couldn't retaliate against them by not paying them to do future tests if they didn't like the results of this one, then that would be independent.
The report is of greater value to Microsoft, the paying customer, the less obvious it is the Microsoft is the paying customer.
I think you missed the other important part: "Also, the version of Chrome that NSS says all this about is two major versions behind the current stable release, while the version of IE they say is better is the current beta release."
A more relevant comparison would be IE 8 to Chrome 8 (current generally release version of both version), or IE 9 to Chrome 9 (current publicly available pre-release version of each browser.)
Perhaps someone should do a similar comparison, but using Chrome 9 and IE 6, instead...
I'm pretty sure that the current owner purchased in the United States. Since even under the Ninth Circuit decision that was allowed to stand here, it is uncontested that the somewhat-poorly-named "doctrine of first sale" applies to any goods that were made or previously sold in the United States (whether or not they were first sold outside of the U.S.), the doctrine of first sale applies.
Except that is accurate neither as a summary of the statement in GP it claims to make "more understandable", or of the impact of the Ninth Circuit ruling that was allowed to stand.
Companies and individuals have the exact same (lack of) rights under this decision when they purchase foreign-made goods abroad. Companies and individuals also have the same rights (those rights that they lack in the preceding circumstance) when they buy goods that are made in the U.S., or buy goods in the U.S. no matter where they are made.