(you can always get it back from the repo)
Mind you, they did miss the following very important points tooData integrity—In order to achieve high performance despite massive size, non-relational database systems compromise data correctness guarantees. The traditional rules about writing data are loosened, making it far more likely that data can be lost or overwritten. Thus the best applications for a non-relational approach are those that have low-to-medium requirements for data integrity, for example, social media applications. Any application whose data integrity requirements are absolute requires a relational database; NoSQL is a non-starter.Flexible indexing—Relational databases are very good at letting users query data from multiple perspectives. Joins and indexes are not weaknesses of relational databases, they are strengths. To achieve speed and scale, NoSQL technology relies on assumptions about how data will need to be viewed; it can be extremely difficult or even impossible to achieve an alternate view of data.Interactive updating of data—Many NoSQL solutions are designed for bulk updates and quick reads. They are not optimized for applications requiring fine-grain updates and rapid saves.Concurrency guarantees—When many people are accessing a database it can be important to define and guarantee when and how updates are revealed to concurrent users. NoSQL generally provides no guarantees for the propagation of updates.
Q. [...] What do you think in general about the influence of people with your means on the political process?...I actually happen to think he is correct. They do have "insufficient influence".
A. [...] I think they actually have an insufficient influence. Those who have enjoyed the benefits of our system more than ever now owe a duty to protect the system that has created the greatest nation on this planet ... Not for themselves, but for their kids and for their grandchildren ...
i.e., be careful when messing with the future...Every time you ask a real living person to suffer for some future goal you have to know that you are betting their well-being on your being right about the future.How sure are you that you are right?Austerity costs with probability one. Attempting to effect long term growth is always a gamble.
[The] Apple approach is software dominated while the "other" approach is fixated on hardware specs.
Think about it - after an initial flurry of "How great is this iPhone display, wah! wah! w00t!", you pretty much hear nothing else about it, but do hear a metric ton about Siri, iCloud, Apps, etc. In the Android world however, virtually all the discussion about the new phones tends to be the exact opposite, i.e., after an initial flurry of "How great is Ice Cream Sandwich, rejoice!", its all about pen-tile displays, quad-core processors, NFC, etc.
To hammer the point home, just look at the discussion of any set of PCs vs Macs - the PCs are all about the latest processor from Intel, screen size, etc. while the Macs have always been about "oooh check out this totally cool way in which I can ... on my Mac!"But post the "New iPad" launch (No link here. You know damn well what I'm talking about), all the articles have been about the retina display, 1 GB of RAM, A5X CPU etc. Where, on the other hand, are all the articles talking about the cool new abilities, the nifty things you can do, the ground-breaking revolutionary whatever?
“Java is not the new Cobol,” Ritter said. “I've seen analyst reports where Java is the new Cobol where it drifts off into insignificance but I don't believe it is that way.”which, of course, smacks of Bill Clinton's plaintive "The president is still relevant" line. I mean, come on, you don't say stuff like that...
“This requires more discussion, to make Java a true Object-Oriented language,” Ritter said of the potential move to OO.Which, of course, promptly causes furious head-scratching from the billions of java-dweebs out there who are thinking to themselves "Huh? I thought it was OO?". Of course, there is the simultaneous snickering from all seventeen smalltalk developers out there saying "Well, d-uh. About time too!".
(referring to Kirk Cameron) I will defend to the death your right to say whatever ridiculous, ignorant and bigoted thing that has been fermenting in that cracked clay pot you call a brain pan. But the First Amendment also means that when you say such things, other people have the a right to mock you and the silly, stupid words that have dribbled out of your skull through that word hole above your chin. If you call someone “unnatural,” they might call you an “asshole.” That’s the deal.To put it another way: The First Amendment guarantees a right to speech. It does not guarantee a right to respect. As I am fond of saying, if you want people to respect your ideas, get better ideas. Likewise, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. If you’re going to parade around on television engaging in hateful bastardry, then, strangely enough, people will often call you out on it. They may also call you out on the hypocrisy of maintaining that when you say that the way someone else lives is unnatural and detrimental to civilization, you mean it with love, but when they call your words bigoted trollspeak, they’re crossing a line or engaging in slander — the legal concept of which, incidentally, you don’t appear to understand very well, nor libel, which generally speaking is probably more applicable in this case, you crazy public figure, you.
[...]Kirk Cameron, I fully support your right to speak your mind about moral views. I also fully support the rights of other people to criticize you and those views, and also their right to be mean to you while doing so, and not justbecause, in my opinion, it’s mean and not in the least bit loving to suggest gays are detrimental and destructive, simply by existing and loving who they choose to love and refusing to accept your desire for them not to be who they are. You’re entitled to your stupid, petty, awful, hateful bigoted opinion. Everyone else is entitled to call it exactly what it is.Oh, the reference is that
"I should be able to express moral views on social issues," he told ABC News via email, "especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach 'tolerance' that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I'm in the public square."He called for learning how to debate such issues "with greater love and respect."
2.13 Key Words & Search Terms
This is a current list of terms that will be used by the NOC when monitoring social media sites to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture. As natural or manmade disasters occur, new search terms may be added.The new search terms will not use PII in searching for relevant