Nope.

nt

Agreed!

If your system has a complexity of X to build, and using a traditional RDBMS solves Y% up front, it adds an ongoing Z complexity overhead in growing/maintaining the system over time. NoSQL may have a lower Y, but it 's goal is to also have a lower Z, and can often win out in the bigger picture even without talking about massive scale. It's not true all the time, but in my experience it's been the general rule :)

In any sufficiently complex system a combination of both usually work well together. I heard a good offhand comment this week of "80% of the structure should be in an RDBMS and 80% of the data should be via NoSQL" which makes a lot of sense to me.

The first artificial signal we've received via a medium we're only just discovering, perhaps? :)

Ensuring the long-term survival of the species usually means some cost to the individual. I can understand why less evolved organisms appear to be working towards species survival: because they are just following their programming. However, humans are self-aware, and so as individuals we are not brainlessly forced into accepting this cost. We should simply do whatever suits us best as individuals. Our species may ultimately fail, but whose idea was it that it should go on forever?

This thing is amazing, as long as the kids don't start watching youtube :)

I love the allusions, ties to earthly terminology, familiar yet alien setting, deep history and constant geeking out. It's a tremendous book so don't listen to the reviewer. Imagine it as an alien story that someone actually translated/localized in every way possible, then consider what math and theory as a fundamental religion might do for long term stability.

We also already have one of these in the US, a decommissioned underground facility converted to an ultra-secure datacenter with green power, http://usshc.com/ who also hosts a number of open source projects like http://jabber.org/ and has stellar service and commodity rates.

This is probably the strongest point for vegetarianism/veganism. I'm surprised I don't hear it very often. Yes, humans may have depended on animal protein to evolve to our present state. Yes, humans may have generally consumed some meat over the course of history. However, in the present day, it is argued that we can obtain most, if not all, of our necessary nutrients without exploiting animals. This is thanks to our endless abundance of vegan food, and a little bit of modern science. Never could you live so healthy on a vegan diet than you can in the modern era.

This raises an interesting philosophical question: does morality change with time? It was moral to eat meat in the past, but today it is not moral? Or is it more of a matter of chosing the least destructive choice, and avoiding excess? Perhaps we can morally eat meat even in the present day, provided it is the only option. However, most of us have plenty of access to alternatives.

Of course, "the only option" could use some further defining. If you're stuck on an island with only low-protein vegetables and animals, does it become okay to muck with the animals? After all, you could probably survive just fine on the low-protein vegetables only, but it may not be the most healthy approach to living. If you just want to be healthy, more muscular, taller... is it just decadence at that point to eat meat? Or maybe it only becomes immoral to exploit animals when complete alternatives exist. If the island has nuts, beans, and a modern suppliment laboratory, then the animals are off-limits? :)

Just food for thought (no pun intended).

Personally, I do eat meat, but certainly not as often as most people in America do. There are many days where I eat vegetarian. A vegetarian diet is simply easier to manage, foods can require less preparation (Carl's Jr ad featuring the guy nervously prodding a package of ground beef anyone?), and they are often less perishable. And as a guy who counts every gram of intake, I can say that yes I get everything I need. For me, my tendency towards vegetarian eating has nothing to do with morality and all to do with effort and numbers. Don't get me wrong though, meat does offer excellent nutrition, and I occasionally work it into my diet for variety's sake.

That said, most people don't know much about nutrition. Hell, a large percent of people can't even parse the FDA-required labels. I've known fat vegetarians and vegans. Living healthy on a restricted diet *is* possible but most people just don't know how to do it. More philosophy for you: Can people who don't understand nutrition morally eat meat because they don't know any better?

Maybe you should have tried reading the "What's in the box" section:

• Micro-DVI to DVI adapter
• Micro-DVI to VGA adapter

That lets you connect an Off-the-shelf MacBook Air to anything you can connect an Off-the-shelf MacBook Pro.

I'm not saying you won't get nibbled to death in other places (*cough* iTunes rentals *cough*), but this isn't one of them.

I used to always use copy con

If you had to Google for 2^26, does that make you more of a nerd, or less of a nerd?