Yes, a lot of people like a large screen. So since they're doing two sizes, why not make one of them small, or at least medium, instead of one large and one ridiculously large?
The business model they choose is subject to change. What might start out as a 'free-to-play' game with premium cosmetic additions can over time shift to a Freemium or Pay-to-Win model. I've invested my time and reasonable amounts of money in free-to-play games in the past, only to be burned later when they change to a more aggressive model.
If by 'people' you mean English speaking North Americans, then you're probably right. In (all?) other English speaking countries, Autumn is the term used, and fall is only heard on American and Canadian TV shows and films.
Congratulations. I just don't speed or run red lights. Simpler, safer, cheaper and less restrictive.
The rules of the game are clear. Malfunction voids all games. That works BOTH directions. That means neither side whens in the case of an error in the machine.
So they will be refunding money to everyone who lost money on this machine?
My six year old *Vista* PC
Get out. *taps foot impatiently*
If the justice department or any company affected by this wants to, they could claim Computer Fraud and Abuse.
Yet somehow I doubt the "researches" will get any jail time.
Comparing DynamoDB with MongoDB is like comparing apples and oranges. The only thing the two share in common really is the fact that neither supports SQL (and for that reason are called NoSQL databases). Their intended purpose is completely different which is why I found it strange that the author of the original Slashdot story would pit them against each other the way he did.
If DynamoDB is to be compared against another datastore, the most similar alternative would probably be Google App Engine's Datastore/big table.
Similarities between DynamoDB and GAE Datastore
- both use "schema-less" table structures for storing items (i.e. two items in a single table can have different columns)
- both support relatively simple primary keys (GAE only allows a single column PK, Dynamo allows a pseudo-two-column PK)
- both encourage only efficient queries (GAE forces it, Dynamo allows full table scans but they are highly discouraged)
- both support list properties (a column with multiple string values for example)
- both are hosted "in the cloud" and scale horizontally almost infinitely
- both are billed based on reads/writes + total stored data (Dynamo has an extra dimension to cost which is throughput)
- both have very limited support for referential integrity between items (GAE supports "embedded" entities and recently added basic relationships but nothing like many to many)
- GAE supports transactions across entities within the same group (i.e. on the same server) and recently added support for XA transactions (tx's across entities in different groups/on different servers). Dynamo does not have transactions but it supports some atomic operations on an individual item like compare and get.
Differences between DynamoDB and GAE Datastore
One major difference between GAE Datastore and DynamoDB is that GAE supports single and multi property indexes while Dynamo does not support indexes at all aside from a table's primary key. GAE datastore supports efficient queries that use the indexes (if you try to run a query that does not use an index it will fail) along with some basic predicates like equality, inequality, greater than and less than expressions, etc. In DynamoDB, if you want an index, you have to build it yourself in a supplementary table.
GAE Datastore Self-Merge Joins
GAE datastore also supports what they call "self-merge joins" which are super powerful. I don't know if any other schema-less datastore has this.
The main reason one would use DynamoDB is when they need scalable throughput; in other words, when your needs for write and/or read speeds fluctuate drastically and when you know you will occasionally spike to extremely high throughput requirements. For times when you expect to have huge throughput for writing, you can pay to scale for that small period of time and then you can reduce your costs by throttling down to a more sane limit. You can run MapReduce jobs over DynamoDB tables using Amazon Elastic Map Reduce. And you can also copy a DynamoDB table into an Amazon Redshift "warehouse"; once the data is copied into Redshift you can run efficient SQL queries over it and Redshift can efficiently do that over petabytes worth of data.
For the TLDR-crowd:
- GAE datastore is a great mix of schema-less design, denormalized datasets + self-merge-join + some RDBMS functionality like indexes and SQL style queries with predicates
- DynamoDB is for systems that need the ability to scale reading/writing throughput to very high levels, on demand. It is pretty low-level in terms of features and datatypes and creating indexes are up to the user. Great integration with other AWS tools.
- MongoDB is great way for easily storing and retrieving object graphs (represented as JSON) with great read/write performance and some RDBMS functionality like indexes and queries with predicates
I am not familiar with CouchDB but I think it would belong in the MongoDB family.
But owning more guns isn't going to make the TSA going away.
It sounds like you want to justify guns for fear of our government turning into North Korea.
Sorry, but I think voting is a better deterrent for that than guns.
Most other civilized countries in the world do not allow regular people to own guns and they are not turning into totalitarian regimes. It would never happen in America. If you think it can, you've watched too many movies. And even if it did, then pistols and rifles in the hands of a bunch of untrained gun fanatics aren't going to prevent it. Our freedom is not sustained by guns, it is sustained by other values.
Video games and movies don't make people violent. Getting bullied at school, broken families, poverty, lack of family values, and mental disorders cause people to be violent.
Your theory that people will kill even if they don't have "advanced weaponry" is pretty ridiculous.
If you have an AR15 , and I have a knife, which of us has a higher chance of taking out 20 people in a movie theatre?
Honestly, who cares if there are other ways to kill people. Sure I can drive over a person crossing the street. I can put poison in their food. I can strangle them from behind. The objective is to reduce deaths caused by bullets ripping through a person's flesh and bones. If you reduce the number of deaths by one by banning guns, then you have improved society.
There are two ways of doing this.
1. Identify people who are violent or potentially violent
2. Reduce the chances that a violent person will successfully kill others if he/she fails to be identified by 1.
Obviously 1 is much harder than 2. Getting rid of guns is the easiest solution to 2.
the idea that the assailant may simply try a different weapon if he doesn't have access to a gun doesn't really hold much water. a gun leaves a victim with essentially no possibility to resist death. if the attacker were using a hammer or knife or banana, the victim would have a much better chance of survival.
in short, yes, guns kill people. the fact that you fail to accept this does not mean it's not true.
In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses.
New York state Senator Greg Ball (republican) called the removal of the data a "huge win."
On Saturday, an anonymous user leaked the raw data used to build The Journal News maps."
Link to Original Source
Your arguments would make more sense if a parent's decision to lock their baby in the car resulted in the death of 27 people.
<quote>Why don't we try to help the nutters before they kill our children?</quote>
Because in practice it is is much harder to control a person's will, mental state and 20-year upbringing than it is to control the guns and ammunition that he has access to.
<quote>Since alcohol doesn't benefit society, should we bring back prohibition for the safety of the children?</quote>
No, a gun with a 9 bullet clip has the potential to cause much more damage than a drunk driver.
If gun fanatics are so intent on having guns, then we should simply restrict ammunition sales and only permit gun clips that hold 1 bullet.