Help your neighbors all you want. Who's stopping you?
Help your neighbors all you want. Who's stopping you?
Fuck you too, leftard.
If you control more than 50% of the nodes storing the blockchain, you can manipulate the currency to your heart's content.
Except that you can't. If you have more hashing power than the rest of the world combined, you can: change the order of transactions. That's all that you can do.
Sorry Bram, but you are missing the point. Hashing is used in bitcoin precisely because it is useless. It can't be faked, and it can't be stored for later. It is an irrevocable commitment right now.
I wish you luck with monetizing distributed storage, or decentralized distribution, or whatever your new project ends up as. But the design of bitcoin is not a programming challenge for you to solve. It is a carefully interlocked design, made by someone (or some people) who has (or have) a far beyond average understanding of money and cryptography. Many people with less insight have attempted to "improve" things, and all have failed.
Well, thank you for admitting you were wrong at least, I guess.
Shame you've still decided to bask in wilful ignorance though by refusing to listen to a word anyone else with actual experience of multiple products is telling you, and still amazed you think lock-in is even possible in a product that supports standard SQL and doesn't force you into any extensions (which just about all SQL RDBMS have btw) but hey, you don't know much so I shouldn't be too surprised that you're again mouthing off about something you have no clue about in the name of an unfounded anti-MS rant though I guess.
...the choice made in this Directive
... should not affect existing recharging points deployed before the entry into force of this Directive....require compliance of the infrastructures to be deployed or renewed with the technical specifications...
It says the Directive only applies to new or "renewed" stations. I don't see anything which would require Tesla to retrofit existing stations. But, feel free to point out where it says that, if you think otherwise.
But there we are again - changing the terms of the discussion, your problem with it now is merely that you're complaining it isn't open source (hint: it's in preview still), and that it has incomplete Linux support.
Yet here is your original post where you apparently didn't make a sweeping comment and where you claim you merely asked a question:
"You've been able to use Python for a while in Postgres [postgresql.org], MySQL [mysqltutorial.org], SQLite [python.org], and even DB2 [ibm.com].
I can't quite figure out why anybody would want to use Microsoft SQL Server."
Want to retract that now? It's pretty clear you're backpedalling - I don't care if you want to ignore me, just don't pretend you're here to learn when you're clearly not interested in that, and just end up backpedalling when you get called out. People like me are more than happy to share our experience with such products, but don't waste our time if you're not willing to listen and are actually just busy being a zealot whilst pretending otherwise.
Society wants wealth redistribution
Speak for yourself. Some of us want to keep what we earn, not steal from our neighbors.
"So you actually know nothing about MS SQL Server yourself, you just like it because... what?"
This is precisely the point I'm making - you say you want to learn, but you're not listening. I pointed out that I've worked with many other RDBMS in the past. Oracle is unnecessarily convoluted and proprietary just for the sake of trying to sell specialist training, though it is powerful and performant. MySQL is a joke - the very fact it even has (or had) to be bundled with a tool to fix broken datafiles is in itself farcicle, and as I said, in a production environment I saw it collapse for exactly this reason roughly every 3 - 6 months. I've never used DB2, but I've also never heard of anywhere using it in recent years either and frankly even their 3 case studies on their product site are companies I've never heard of. Maybe it's great, who knows, but it's just not a prominent option anymore, and with reduced prominent comes reduced training availability, reduced available skill sets on the market, reduced peer support when things go wrong.
So again, I like MS SQL server because it's stable unlike MySQL, it's easy to use, diagnose, maintain, and debug unlike Oracle, it offers centralised security configuration, as I've explained already, it integrates excellently not just with
On performance it can easily hold it's own against Oracle and PostgreSQL, I'll admit I have seen faster throughput on MySQL, but let's be clear, that's because MySQL cuts corners, and hence why it suffers from data integrity issues. If I wanted to sacrifice any of the ACID principles then I'd use a data storage system that intentionally does that and is designed for that from the outset, rather than because of failure of implementation - e.g. I'd look at a NoSQL solution if that fit my needs.
We use it for massive, massive databases, probably one of the highest use case scenarios you'll see without getting into Google index or Facebook use scale applications and here it does well too, it scales well, and it's easy to scale. We use it in a scenario where we're bound by contract in terms of response times, where any loss of reliability for even a short period can have literally millions of pounds of impact. Microsoft's support has been great - even on their existing closed source version they listen and make product changes based on our feedback, and that of other customers.
Others here have made the point that there's plenty of reasons to hate Microsoft, but SQL server isn't one of them, and that's absolutely true. Microsoft do a lot wrong, but products like Visual Studio, languages like C#, and products like SQL server are prime examples of things they absolutely do right.
I would suggest, rather than assuming you know it all and making sweeping comments about products you do not understand that you turn your thinking around and instead consider that something might be okay until you have reason to think otherwise. Because once again, by jumping to the conclusion that something is bad just because Microsoft, then hating people and childishly making them your foe because they explained why you're wrong, you're making a fool of yourself.
I could jump to conclusion too, I could assume that because you have a relatively high UID that you're probably relatively young and utterly naive, thinking you know better than those of us who have some extensive experience in the industry. I'm not going to do that though because I might be wrong - I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just stressed, and venting your anger here or some such by trolling regardless of your circumstances, but ultimately it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, and would do well to listen to all those explaining why if you ever want to get anywhere in this industry. A successful career has no room for zealotry and willful ignorance, you simply evaluate the options and take the best one for your use case, as many companies have found, hence the sales figures, that's quite often MS SQL server.
You're making it pretty clear by the fact you can't even answer these questions for yourself that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Even if I do do your research for you wants the point where you're clearly a zealot? The fundamental fact you're making assertions about a peace of software you're demonstrably highlighting you have no idea alone means that any discussion with you is a losing proposition.
If you genuinely had an open mind you wouldn't be calling something you have never used, and have no knowledge of a pointless proposition. The fact you are means any suggestion you're capable of holding an open mind on the topic is already well and truly null and void - an open mind requires you to not jump to conclusions, yet that's the entire premise of your thread here - your conclusions based on zero actual experience of the subject at hand.
If I've learnt anything about Slashdot it's that I have way better ways to spend my time than trying to convince a zealot of the facts, so here's a better idea - fire up Google and go and find the answers to your own question if you care. If you're not going to bother to do that then you merely prove my point - you're not here with an open mind, you're here to spread your zealotry.
"That's lock-in, not a technical advantage, as are most of the other things you list."
Call it what you want, there's real practical benefit in being able to have centralised security configuration. Knowing that when you lock out a user account on the domain, that they also can no longer log into every database server and so on has massive practical benefit.
"Well, and there are several enterprise-grade relational databases that don't come from Microsoft and don't come with Microsoft's strings attached: Oracle, DB2, and Spanner for example."
I already mentioned Oracle, and sure, DB2, though it's a small player. Spanner is neither a true RDBMS, nor used widely in the enterprise.
I get it, you hate Microsoft, that's fine. But don't pretend MS SQL server isn't widely used, and it's widely used for good reason - it's a good product.
Besides, even your argument about vendor lock-in makes no sense. SQL server for Linux is open source, the whole point being that it's easy to migrate to.
The reality is most companies would rather pay for something solid and reliable like MS SQL server that integrates well into the rest of their ecosystem, than have something free but shit like MySQL. As I said before, you may have your own reasons not to want MS SQL, or for just hating Microsoft, fine, but don't expect everyone else to agree with you when some of us actually have a wide range of RDBMS experience and aren't just pulling nonsensical theories about a particular product out of our arses as you clearly are.
Probably because it has deep integration with windows networks and security that most businesses run on, coupled with the fact it's a proven reliable, fast, and highly scalable RDBMS. MySQL for example just isn't reliable, last time I ran it it would corrupt the data store on disk and you had to run a fix tool provided with MySQL to get the server to even start and load your database again.
Beyond that though it has great surrounding services for ETL, analysis, and reporting, coupled with clean and easy integration into the
I think the mistake you're making is that you're assuming that because it's not right for you, it's not right for anyone. But you're not everyone, some companies have the cash to blow on software that's proven, and integrates fantastically with their environment. If your budget is zero or near enough then fine, of course MS SQL server isn't for you, but not everyone is doing basic zero budget stuff. There are big businesses out there that need something enterprise grade, and that typically means Oracle, MS SQL.
The two things aren't mutually exclusive, reef doesn't just go from perfect to dead in an instant, the death was caused by damage.
So over 90% of the reef was damaged, 20% of that damaged reef then outright died.
Put a sticker on it.
I helped a friend set up his new router recently. Common brand, I forget which. The serial number sticker also had a password on it. If you went through the hardware reset process, the default password was the one on the sticker. In most cases, this would require paying an extra couple of cents for a serialized flash chip and a few minutes to add a routine to the reset code to generate the password based on the flash chip's serial number.
Oh good. Climate models that are unphysical, unskilled at prediction and understood by no one are now "basic" science. I dread to ask what "advanced" science looks like.
Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.