I meant 2 disk access, some or another. From what I read they would never be simultaneous anyways.

Either way, this would be useful (actually IS, some solutions do this) in the Business Intelligence field. But the whole point of keeping everything in memory is moot when you have petabytes of information that you need to process during your ETL. What matters in this database is, how well does it behave in a cluster and how would it handle concurrency (ACID? Eventually synchronized?).

I doubt this is all that useful for common DB applications like websites and the like. Relational DB's have been proving to be enough for everything (ex: Youtube uses mysql shards - or used to) purely web related for a while now, I doubt this is a gamechanger at all.

I'd love to see their tests when this DB needs to go into swap / pagefile. It's double the slowdown, needs to write into the swap (disk I/O) and then sync the DB (disk I/O again).

I can't, for the life of me, understand where this will be better than the already available options.

That and memcached (I think that's the name).

This comparison is far from fair... Is it ACID? Or eventually synchs up? How does it compare with other memory based DB's?

Comparing it with a slow relational DB will not give you any kind of credibility.

The phone will lock for 30s after 3 failed attempts or so, so you'd still have a hard time with a pin.

But any android phone has offered the option for a password for the last year, so the whole thing is moot. Want security, pick a strong passsword.

it's not stupid at all, you don't have to slide your finger on the screen!

With a 4.8 screen, imagine how much work you'd have to put into that every single day... It's a godsend, I tell you, a godsend!

Details from Red Hat

RHSA-2012:0720-1 & RHSA-2012:0721-1: It was found that the Xen hypervisor implementation as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 did not properly restrict the syscall return addresses in the sysret return path to canonical addresses. An unprivileged user in a 64-bit para-virtualized guest, that is running on a 64-bit host that has an Intel CPU, could use this flaw to crash the host or, potentially, escalate their privileges, allowing them to execute arbitrary code at the hypervisor level. (CVE-2012-0217, Important)

from the original article

No, I'm saying that for the past 2 years (almost) you cannot do that.

It's like me saying iOS can't handle 3G, send MMS's, GPS or screen resolutions higher than 240x320.

And the whole scenario you explained is, almost certainly, false because a market application cannot be installed to devices that are below the target API level when compiled. That's a fact that I just confirmed after your whole speech, so, please, just shut up already. You ARE wrong.

As I said, NO.

The target is not in the market, is in the application. Open an Eclipse project and you set your target from the start. If you want, for example, to record sound from the bluetooth set you need to set 2.3 in order to get the libraries and you won't be able to "set" anything on the market for previous versions. If what you said is true (and I doubt it is exactly as you said, at least for the past year where I've been using the market), the developers did not set anything at all. When I try to install 4.0 apps on my 2.3 the app won't even install, so no, I do not believe you.

What can happen is your phone being a crap 100$ phone or the app requiring more memory than you can give or even the programmer sucking and making it run badly everywhere (or even not run).

The problem with Android has nothing to do with versions of an application, but when you start messing with a phone's specific details. Some graphic cards suck (or the drivers do), some have the camera on sideways, some have a gyroscope, half the phones I've touched have a non-functioning compass. Most sensors and cameras do follow a standard, but then there's that phone no one knows about that does not - and the customers expect it to work anyways, even though we have no way to test it.

Either way, you are using android 1.6. That's over 3 years old. So, back then, it might have happened what you said. Now, it doesn't, so don't talk as if you know anything about it.

Backwards compatibility claim is FALSE.

Every dev needs to set a version target and if you specify 2.2 no one with 2.1 will be able to get it, but it's guaranteed to work for 2.2.

Android won't LET you sell in the market for a target that came before the one you specified. Stop trying to sound reasonable while saying bullshit.

Google does not make money licensing Android. But they make a shitload of cash serving adds, gathering info on android users, locking you into their ecosystem, etc.

The key is user-based and not browser based. It is used to identify you as the source of the material.

It won't hurt anyone else other than yahoo.

Instead of mocking, lets just assume this happens (in my country it is more or less the same).

What solution do you propose? There are lots of reasons to why people do this:

One to three weeks delay is a lot when you're part of on-line communities. If you are part of any MMORPG your guild chat / world chat will be ripe with spoilers after the episode.
For the same reason people will spend a whole night reading a good book, people will try to watch the next chapter of a good story as soon as possible (that's human nature)
The current distribution model makes it extremely hard to get your hands on an episode even if you're willing to pay. And when I say hard, I mean darn near impossible if you did not see it live.

If HBO does not want people to pirate their shows, distribute them legally. I know people that would gladly pay for the episode on iTunes but aren't able to. I'm sure they have their reasons, but with the ease of distribution pirating channels have, there is no way to fight this torrent without joining the battle. Ignoring the problem will make it worse.

Package managers still require you to manually click them and update.

Windows update is the worst kind of nagware and I've seen people not updating windows for months in a row (and the more time went by, the less likely it would be for them to update). Unless it is silent, automatic and in the background, it won't happen.

You can also not use windows and opt for linux. But is it worth it? For some, yes, I'd say that for most people it isn't.

Java runs some cool software that most have no idea it actually is Java (it can copy the look and feel of your OS). The only way to mostly fix java is to have chrome like updates. Silent, forced on you but safe.

In this case, because it is a false allegation. He should read the article he posted (and so should you)