Second line in README on the Github page...
"If you are currently using CouchDB and struggle with view build times then AvanceDB should be a seamless replacement for your view workload."
269 karma · joined December 14, 2011
"If you are currently using CouchDB and struggle with view build times then AvanceDB should be a seamless replacement for your view workload."
I just learned this myself recently as I was kindly corrected for using the term improperly. I then had to do the research to verify and found that THRIFT (thrive) in this case refers to success or prosperity. A SPENDTHRIFT is someone that wastes (SPENDS) their success (THRIFT). In modern usage it is someone wasteful with money. This is contrary to the assumed or obvious "being thrifty with spending" where thrift=frugal.
Gibson also uses proper names for everyday objects that severely date the material (ie: Porsche sunglasses ), which has the same effect.
I guess we should be glad that he didn't give his characters Wireless Apple Newton's for all their communication and research and entertainment. ;)
Imagine if he had been more particular about the tech behind VR, how poorly would the writing have aged then?
Instead he chose a set of workable metaphors to encapsulate the ideas and ran with it. In the end succeeded in transmitting those ideas so thoroughly that (arguably) the entire first round of VR (and thus the nascent 2nd) was largely inspired by his writing.
Transportation alternates are also highly variable and make a huge difference.
I find the original description absurdly accurate.
I don't drive/have a car and it is crippling.
We should be sure to only show people patriotic words on July 4th so they can think patriotic thoughts and suffer none of that negative criticism stuff about the government they are so abused with normally. Maybe we should do that for all National holidays. Or maybe we should just do that all the time.
Good thing it wasn't a military branch providing funding for this. That would be scary.
Steal Like an Artist by Austin Kleon
http://austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artis...
There are times when you should absolutely throw out the rules.
The purpose of language is to communicate. More often than not, sticking to the rules enables more effective communication. But sometimes, not so much.
"Do you wrestle with dreams? Do you contend with shadows? Do you move in a kind of sleep? Time has slipped away. Your life is stolen. You tarried with trifles, victim of your folly."
Life is short. It is time to see through the trap you have woven around yourself and move along. Just do it constructively so that in the end, EVERYONES interests will be better served.
I decided Goliath was just too big and unstoppable, so I now I just follow him around and sharpen his sword.
Cheers!
I think there needs to be a corollary in terms of responsibility.
Of course, the entire raison d'etre of modern corporations is to indemnify the members against responsibility for the actions of the group.
I guess I don't get the use case, as I would generally think anonymity from people I already am acquainted with would be the least useful (to me).
It really seems like there is an entire class of applications that have risen to answer problems that exist solely because of Facebook's dominance and policies (ie: data collection/retention policies and insistence on identity).
This app requires a Facebook account. Facebook is a service that all but defines itself on identity verification.
"You get what you pay for" is an adage you will have to take into account when considering perceptions of your product by potential customers.
Whether correct or not, most people correlate price with quality such that a lower cost (to them) product is assumed to be of lower quality. Even those with an actual understanding of supply chains and intermediaries and their effect on pricing will do this, despite that knowledge.
What an interesting choice of words.
He might want to read the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution (just as a good place to start).
Seems like a near perfect real world example of "HOW TO" and "HOW NOT TO" accomplish modern web design.
Are you sure that 27 years worth of data storage within the bulk of that time frame was easier and/or more cost effective than deletion?
The militia was intended to be the primary form of military organization.
Fundamentally, an armed citizenry was to be the final check against the abuse of power by the state.
I stumbled upon this once long ago and have not been able to (re)discover the source since. In my memory, it was attributed to Leo Tolstoy (or may have been a comment made by one character in reference to another in one of Tolstoy's novels). Or maybe I made the whole thing up and was simply chastising myself while trying to learn Russian by being clever instead of diligent.
It near perfectly distills so much.
I would prefer diligence over cleverness every single time, most especially within myself.
Apparently the author finds the notion of a fair-value exchange impossible to understand.
"First off, App.net's interests are not economically aligned with its users. It wants money from those users, and all things being equal, those users want to keep their money. So their goals are actually diametrically opposed."
I would bother with an introduction to the fundamentals of how economic exchange work.. but I honestly believe this was written with so much foaming froth on the lips of the author that he cannot possibly see sense enough to understand reason.
I hope he got the jacked up page view count he was hoping for.
..somewhere along the line, someone (smartly) decided that PAID television might just work. That people were tired of what was broadcast over the air for free and all of the attendant issues that "free" brought to the table.
How big a market is paid TV now?
I guess it speaks to the erosion of values and the disappearance of "words have meaning" to call app.net an altruistic project. I mean, really. They are offering to take money in exchange for providing a service.. so that the core values of the business arrangement remain focused on the people using (and building) the service. If a quid-pro-quo arrangement like that is the new version of altruistic heroism, no wonder things in the US are so #^&*ed up.
I know of a number of people within my own circle that refuse to use Facebook or Twitter due to privacy concerns. I have heard a growing number of stories from people concerned about protecting themselves and their friends, families from the potential down sides to an over-shared life and deleting or abandoning accounts due to those concerns. These are not people inside of the echo chamber on Hacker News or the technology field or Silicon Valley, these are people in retail, in investments, in hospitality, education.. from all walks of life.
Facebook (as an example) wants to become an identity service. They are selling themselves on their ability to authenticate identity. It is impossible to delete a facebook account, and attempting to do so will merely ensure that you are the only one without access to the collected data.
I reiterate the point that "in the future" people will see $50/yr as a bargain for privacy and data control. My first thought when seeing App.net was "awesome idea.. 18-24 months too soon, especially at that price point."
I dont know that app.net hits the right ($) spot for that user group. The implication of facebook's revenue is that users are willing to trade privacy and data ownership for about $4/yr (the current monetization rate of a facebook user), which means getting to $50/yr seems somewhat arbitrary and hard to decode.
I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain. I do today, and backed this proposal due to these concerns.
I think driving developer investments may be critical to getting to their funding goal, and frankly they are offering to take away a potential threat and not making a strong enough case about what value they are adding. It often requires an explicit threat to get people to pony up for security, not an implied threat.
You are behaving like a (very poorly behaved) four year old.
Most of the reasoning behind it appears to be that the legal system has been modified in such fashion that it favors other forms of firm structure.
Hardly indicative of any natural decline, it would be easy to take from this article that the Pump & Dump style IPOs (and other massive erosions of trust) are strangling the effectiveness of Capital Markets by scaring away investors and inviting increased regulation.
The notion that "the modern IPO is chiefly about giving early investors and staff an exit ticket" is a near perfect example of how "Silicon Valley, I hate to say it, has its head so far up its ass that it's eating its own bullshit."
The investors purchasing Facebook at IPO and after are not looking to reward early investors or hand some sweet exit to a founder.. they are looking for a return on their investment dollars.
If this is the prevailing attitude regarding the purpose of capital markets in Silicon Valley, I would be shocked if the IPO market for new tech stocks didn't shrivel up and die in the next (last?) few months.
How odd that there is an excellent article sharing the front page about American "Looterism" replacing American Capitalism.
<http://www.information-age.com/channels/security-and-continu...;