It's not necessarily hypocrisy- only if the complaint with US foreign policy is based on a complaint about the use of power rather than on what the US is attempting to force others to do. It would be perfectly consistent to desire an outside force to impose a "good" order while decrying what one sees as an outside for imposing a "bad" one. Humans have done this throughout history; it's the reason why, for instance, a people can oppose an invading religious crusade and then feel completely justified in turning around and attempting to do the same to their neighbors.

Now that's not to say that any of this is anything but absurd, but it's not *necessarily* hypocritical.

Triggers that are poorly written (in *any* language) and perform too much work too frequently. Lots of possibilities here; everything from just poorly written trigger code to triggers that cause huge amounts of extra work to be done unnecessarily or too often.

As I said in my original comment, though, the fact that this *can* happen doesn't mean they can't be very useful when written and engineered by someone competent.

I'm not sure what a native/non-native discussion has to do with this: Postgresql allows for native c-language triggers.

Part of the reason MySQL gets treated as a toy is its release discipline- or lack thereof. At least one of the 5.x releases came out with *known* data-loss bugs; that's just not even remotely acceptable in a database, and that's the sort of impression that's hard to shake: people aren't just going to look at subsequent releases and go "oh, well, they say they're paying more attention this time, I guess that's good enough".

The fact that triggers *can* be inefficient is no reason not to use them when there's a good implementation and competent DBAs to make sure they *aren't*. Also, business logic never belongs in the DB? To the contrary- a lot of business logic is sets of rules to maintain consistency between various things. That sort of logic is *precisely* what belongs in the DB, rather than scattered throughout a variety of applications running on top of it.

I think you've got your databases backward when it comes to integrity and verification...

Err, have you actually used the PostgreSQL manual? It's one of the best manuals I've ever seen for a software product.

The problem is not that these people are *stupid*; rather, it's that they think they're smarter than they are. They convince themselves that they're smart enough not to get caught.

Also: knowing how to make a modern nuclear weapon is a lot harder, and a lot more of a secret, than you'd think. A dirty bomb of the sort we dropped on Hiroshima? No, not necessarily. A hydrogen bomb? That's an order of magnitude more difficult, and requires a huge amount of engineering effort to shape everything properly. There are a number of countries with nuclear capability, but that doesn't mean they all have equal nuclear proficiency, and the most modern stuff is an incredibly well-kept secret.

I think you missed the actual parent to my post: "Technically the sound barrier isn't a barrier either!" I was correcting that statement, not Captain Segfault's.

Nothing.

Use Wikipedia as a jumping-off point for finding sources. It is not a source itself, and should never be cited (unless you're actually discussing Wikipedia itself, in which case a citation might be appropriate).

Actually, if you look at shockwave dynamics during the moment an object crosses from subsonic to supersonic velocity, it can very easily be considered much more of a barrier than 1gkeys/sec can.

Uh, handling of nulls, empty strings, and default values are not the same as in anything else. They're also absolutely horrible practice and encouraging new users to learn them is flat out retarded.

Also, I very pointedly didn't mention PostgreSQL. I advocated any standards-compliant DB. MySQL does not fit that bill.

It is- but *learning* sql via MySQL is a horrible idea. It allows a lot of shortcuts that are both wrong and dangerous if you're not very sure of what you're doing; learners are much better off with *any* database that's more standards-oriented.

No. You may not be able to determine ahead of time that it's not going to halt, but that doesn't mean you can't sandbox it in such a way as to prevent it from blocking other things until you determine, from an external source, that it is likely to not be going anywhere and likely should be killed. Especially in a modern OS and with modern multiprocessor machines, where threading isn't merely convenient but essential for getting good use of the hardware.

It's really not even worth asking that with regards to slashdot moderation, unfortunately.