Or, when will it run on GNU/Linux?
Or, when will it run on GNU/Linux?
RDBMs don't require you to define primary keys
Yes, they do. The few of them, that is. SQL DBMSs do not, but they are not relational.
This requirement is where Spanner still looks like a key-value store: the primary keys form the name for a row, and each table denes a mapping from the
primary-key columns to the non-primary-key columns.
This makes little sense to me, because it describes not a key-value store — unless you consider the ‘value’to be all
non-primary key columns, which would stretch the definition of a key-value store —, but a relational database relation.
Codd's original book
Not a Book, but an article. Granted, Codd published a book aftwards, but that was not original anymore.
required every relation to have a primary key, even if the key is composed of all the columns.
Not sure about what do you mean with relationships here. Relationships are a concept of ERDs, not of the relational model.
They were never a price oriented company.
This is not true at all. Nearly all markets Microsoft entered they underpriced, usually a lot. Operating systems, server
software, office suites, you name it — MS products were always cheaper than the then incumbent. What MS always
did was to establish a proprietary lock-in by embracing, extending and extinguishing existing standards, so that they
could avoid lowering prices — software having fat margins, former incumbents would underprice MS once they lost in the
market, so avoiding a price war was of essence.
As far as I know this is the first time Microsoft enters a new market — actually, reenters a redefined market, as they failed to
develop the market for tablets with their MS Windows for Pen Computing OS version and are now playing in a renewed by Apple
and Google market — overpricing it. Netbook history, where Asus created the market with GNU/Linux and forced MS to lower the
price on MS Windows XP, seems to indicate where will MS Windows RT prices will go after a few months. Downhill.
I do see how F1 is a fuller featured DBMS than Spanner, but it seems less relational, if it does not require that tables have
Tables without keys are not relations, so one could argue that Spanner is more, not less, relational than F1 and other SQL
From the original paper linked at the summary post above:
Spanner’s data model is not purely relational, in that rows must have names. More precisely, every table is required to have
an ordered set of one or more primary-key columns.
OK, relational keys should not be ordered. But the fact that each table must have a key makes it a relation, at least in
principle, so Spanner at first looks like it is in fact more relational than SQL. Am I missing anything?
It seems at least one FAA certified product is a set including Flight Gear, so I would not use that to say X Plane is the only serious flight simulator to run on Apple Mac OS X & GNU/Linux.
What makes X Plane more serious than Flight Gear, let alone the only serious one?
its most important push into the smartphone
Why? All the others were equally touted, the difference being the situation was never as dire as it is now for MS WinCE.
Public sector salaries have been around 15% of GDP for a decade. Inflation reduce it, then raises increse it again, so it doesn't change much.
Yes — but ðat was while investment stagnated, commodities buoyed the economy and manufacturing stagnated, and education continues to widen the capability gap to oðer societies. Now public servants feel ðey deserve more, and society will not give ðem anything because it feels illserved; and, ðis being a government of syndicalists, it has to say no but does not know how to.
We are in a serious situation, we may get into a long term crisis. But we are not following the steps of Europe.
Mutatus mutandis, we are. Check my oðer post. To sum it up here, Southern Europe malinvested based on credit in Euros, in real state instead of manufacturing and services capabilities; we not even invested, but spent all we gained from commodities. And both of us are into a demographic transition changing ðe rules of ðe game, yet we are not capable even of acknowledging ðe fact.
I also wonder what you are talking about.
I just can't find the mistakes our current government is making that the EU also made. We aren't getting deeper into debt, we aren't taking any power away from our central bank, and we aren't turning into foreign commerce (that being a mistake or not).
Yes, we are. We are spending like ðere was no tomorrow, and in current expenses, not investments; we are bending public accounting to allow ðe Central Bank to print more money; we are living on exporting commodities, pricing manufacturing out of ðe market (Dutch malady).
If anything, the current brazilian government just shows that the set of available mistakes is huge, and that they can still get completely original ones.
Speaking for my church.
Which church, and what does it have to do with the issue at hand?
Brazil is still one of the better ones when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
I hope so. Actually, for the last decade or so the current government has been lowering the standards on the public sector accounting and manipulating the numbers both on public finance and on mixed capital companies, so we just do not trust the rosy picture the government paints. It is like we are living for the last decade on the trust built on the decade and a half before that.
where I live (one of the larger cities in Europe), a lot of administration has moved to Brazil because of the lower tax cap (at least that is what they told us).
Yes, that is true. But the common citizen, who earns a lot less than his First World counterpart, pays double: he pays taxes to keep roads, but has to change his mini SUV often because asphalt is so bad cars last less; he pays taxes to keep the police force, but has to pay for private security because of violence and criminality; he pays taxes to build schools and hire teachers, to the cost of up to US$5K per pupil (in the Federal District) and then pays another U$5K per children in a private school because public schools are garbage; and he has to live in a closed condominium because public streets are too noisy, since government is not competent enough to police noise levels and mediate between neighbours. Also, plan on the additional risk from a practically nonfuncional judicial system. Many people resort to bribery to get justice done or to navigate state bureaucracy.
Also, taxes on payroll, on manufacturing and imports are ridiculously high. Manufactured or imported goods usually cost triple as they would cost in the US, or double the European prices.
If you earn enough to pay double for all these services government is supposed to provide, and to pay around double for everything imported (which is nearly all electronics and automobiles plus quite some stuff), life is pretty good.
The reason why I, as a foreign investor, would prefer Brazil over, lets say India, is that Brazil is now pretty much in the same position as the US was a long time ago: you have their own natural resources, your own industry and your own sales market. A major drop in foreign demand would not influence Brazil as much as it would influence China or India, who are very dependent on the western demand.
Actually, we are totally dependent on selling commodities, specially to China.
But assuming you are confident Brazil is making the same, you know which mistakes Europe has made. Please elaborate.
We are spending against the future, but not getting much out of it. Government spent a lot on salaries by hiring and raising public sector salaries but managed to invest only a little bit — in (specially Southern) Europe, they invested a lot but much of it was malinvestment, that is, investments in building for a market that would never realise, as demographics did not generate demand.
To expand a bit, government here leaves little room for private investment by a ridiculously high tax level. The resulting dearth of capital makes interest rates relatively high. People have little in return because government simply spends a lot but public services provided are of very low quality. Government development agencies and programs were build and are funded, but these agencies only paid salaries and never managed to build the infrastructure for development they should.
Another similarity to Europe is that we are under demographic transition. We are below population reposition natality levels, but we have no immigration policy to speak of, and compared to Europe we have much lower savings and education to see us through the transition to an hypothetical new economic model which would not rely on growth. And we haven’t even started to think about this supposed new economic model; we do not even know if it is possible to build such a thing.
Now, for where we are quite different from Europe: we are relatively comfortable because we have been exporting lots of commodities for high prices, because of the Chinese industrial growth and living standards improvement. Specially iron ore and soy. We have been lucky. For instance, now that Chinese growth is decelarating, crops have taken a hit in the United States and thus commodity prices are likely to stay high for a while longer, perhaps enough for China to recover and keep our balance of payments healthy. But we are not using the opportunity to build a manufacturing or a services factor: we have bad transportation insfrastructure for manufacturing (Chinese model), and a incredibly low quality education for services (Indian model).
we've been conditioned to assume that these are mistakes, when all the evidence (including history) clearly demonstrates otherwise?
Given I never said which are the mistakes, I wonder what you are talking about.
How can you work when the system's so crowded?