But if Oracle require special performance tuning which none of the other databases does, then it does suck in 90+ percent of all usecases for sql servers(That is: The usecases where there is no fulltime person hired just to tune the database).
This is very true. I work on many different projects and move from company to company setting up web applications, usually for in-house use - well, after I'm finished, I don't have time to constantly come back and re-tune the database, nor would the company want me to do that and keep paying for an application that is essentially "completed". Also, hiring a full-time database tuner would be ridiculous for all of the cases I've been involved in (monetarily crazy and otherwise). Some places using MySQL for my application is more than enough, however, when its not, I setup PostgreSQL. It only requires a little more design time on my part and the results and great.
I just walked out of a mountain wilderness. So no code for me...
I've whipped out my jailbroken phone, gone into terminal mode and then SSH'd into a computer on my internal network through my router to work on some functionality for a project while on a Camping Trip before. Unless you have no signal - you have no excuses.. and you must, since you just posted on Slashdot! Damn your eyes!
Exactly. Why should a non-american trying to search a access *outside* the U.S., limited to a list of sites approved by the U.S. law? Just because he's using an american search engine?
This sucks. It seems it wasn't enough for the U.S. to destroy the global economy, they want to destroy the internet, too?
Link to Original Source
I completely agree. I've come to believe that Agile development is a fad invented by some marketing genius to get big loads of buck from gullible enterprises. While TDD might be useful for, say... a linux kernel module, there's very little use for it in your standard "make me a module which reports in detail our budget surplus and deficits" project.
It's much more efficient to hire a small team of beta-testers available on-demand ("Jim wrote this new model, can you test it please?") than wasting hundreds of man hours per-month in "agile" development.
It doesn't compute because they're brainwashed by Enterprise flim flam. "Degree this! Company that!" They don't understand shit except for whatever a company shows them with nice colorful pie charts. But here's a hint: There ARE good companies who exactly know what they're looking for. At the company where I work at, we give candidates a skill test: Make a blog application in PHP without using any external libraries (except if you've developed them yourself). So, you got a degree in web development, huh? Let's see if you really know what your title says you should know.
Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.
Wrong. The diversified investment portfolios only give money to the current shareholders and the "financial advisors" (read as: investment salesmen). When you buy stock, you don't buy it from the company, but from the previous stockholder (unless it happens to be from a current company associate). The companies whose stock is public, ALREADY got their money from their Initial Public Offerings.
Boycotts do affect companies, as you don't affect their initial invetment, but their cashflow. Boycott a company long enough (and with enough people), and then they'll start worrying. By the way, with negative publicity, their stock values will decrease, and the stock the current owners are already holding will see their investment in jeopardy. The trick is to have your boycott reach enough people.
Alternate suggestion: Publish the negative stuff on twitter (I am not a lawyer, so be careful with libel lawsuits).
Get it while it's hot!
I think the only part that I got interested in was Quorra becoming human. They could make a WHOLE movie about that, did you know? What does it mean to be human? Why is pain so awful? What are these things called emotions? Et cetera.
I expected to see more stuff about "the user has superpowers" that Flynn displayed in the original TRON (after all, he's the USER). But I guess they chickened out from being compared to Matrix just because the user can do things that programs can't.
Anyway, the 3D was awesome and I got out of the theater with a smile. It was a nice weekend.
In addition to salting the password, I design my systems to sleep for one second after each failed password attempt, and for 3 seconds before booting the guy off. That should take care of brute force attacks.
I was thinking more or less the same thing.
The point is that a good domain name system implementation needs to be secure against protocol attacks. DNSSEC secures it against hackers, but makes it more vulnerable to political attacks. Because DNS was designed to be centralized.
The problem with currently emerging alternatives is that they're designed to be decentralized, making them vulnerable to protocol attacks. However, a good p2p implementation would use an underlying hierarchy based on the anonymity of the name authorities, and they would be able to establish further authority points. But that protocol isn't even invented yet as far as I recall, and it would require a hell lot of thought and encryption.
In any case, more cryptographic security is better, not worse. If you want someone to blame, it's the inventors of DNS for establishing a US-based name authority. Oh wait, the Internet was invented in the US, by none other than the DARPA. Go figure.
I guess this is the time when the veil's opened and we realize that the web designed by Tim Berners-Lee, is dead.
The Internet has stopped being the land of free-speech as we know it. At any time that corporate or government interests are against free speech, they just hit the political off-switch. If someone decides to install internet routers and domain systems in another country, expect that country to be labelled "terrorist" and invaded by those with power.
Expect peer-to-peer information sources and services to be outlawed. Guess the cyberpunks authors got it right after all.
I read TFA, and they're storing the data in the Bacteria's DNA. I assume there is a minimum chance of this happening, but if somehow the bacteria mutate and reproduce, perhaps with horizontal gene transfer, I don't know what could happen to existing species. What if suddenly one gene is changed and suddenly harmless bacteria become harmful?
Seriously, have they done a study on the safety of this method? Worst of all, we're not talking about a species which can easily be handled and captured if it ever escapes. We're talking about freaking bacteria.