"NoSQL" is a pretty bad name actually. They should be called non-relational databases. In many cases you can use SQL or something like SQL on them.

People never use NoSQL to get away from the SQL language (although I don't like SQL at all). They use it to change the trade-offs in ACID complacence and to not have to keep their data completely relational.

In a hundred years, there will be nothing but abandoned cities under flood waters. Humans and many other animals will be dead. But there will be some bacteria with this extra base pair.

In a hundred million years, there will be no other evidence we were even here. Perhaps a future intelligent species will look back and wonder why some bacteria has more DNA than other life. They will make many interesting theories. Some will theorize that a previous intelligent species created the third base pair. And those that do will be called crackpots.

Almost everything goes away when there is a crash. And good diversification requires a lot of money.

What are you going to do, live off your 401k? It grows 10% a year. Oh wait, when the market inevitably crashes it won't be worth anything. You see you put your retirement money in a stock speculation game that is stacked against you. You simply will not be able to retire. When you can't work anymore, you will go hungry.

"Okay, there are not infinite bugs, but let's assume there are and make strong conclusions based the on concept of infinity..."

This guy is a fucking idiot. The VERY REASON that you don't find all the bugs in a complex piece of software is the diminishing returns on your effort to find bugs. There are a finite number of bugs, you offer the bounty and get the easiest ones found out. Then there are diminishing returns for finding additional bugs, so the payouts stop. To talk about finding bugs without acknowledging the diminishing returns on finding bugs is mindbogglingly dumb.

It is also worth noting it is not truly impossible to eliminate all bugs, it is just highly unlikely, and the efforts are constrained by the diminishing returns problem.

It's not a quark-antiquark pair. It's not three quarks of different colors. So what is it? Four quarks? Something else?

Are you saying that another employees wife was harassing her and yelling at her for being a bad employee? What the fuck are you talking about? Read the fucking article!

Who says many college graduates buy new cars upon graduation? Most of them don't have the income and credit scores for it.

My employer explicitly says they keep your Lync messages. Do other employers pretend they don't?

I mean they give you an email and they keep the record. Tied to that email is your Lync. They keep that data too.

I like coding. I don't love it. I have a wide variety of interests in my life, such as family, movies, reading about other topics.

I have met a very few coders who are really all code all the time. And you know what? I find them insufferable.

A person should be well rounded and have many interests.

So many disconnected entities are independently deciding that global warming deniers are crackpots? That's interesting. I think Steyn is going to have a rough court case trying to prove that Mann literally committed fraud.

If some journalist for Mother Jones got into legal trouble, I'm pretty sure they'd have his back. But the National Review just throws people aside when it's convenient. It would be one thing if what Steyn argued (that global warming is BS) wasn't conservative dogma, but it is. He pretty much just strongly worded their position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... Comparing people to Nazis is not a argument fallacy. You can't change the rules of logic.

It probably does. Let's see if Steyn can prove any of that.

He is debating Steyn in court about whether he is a fraud. If Steyn can just prove he is a fraud, he wins, if not, he is in a lot of trouble.