1,316 karma · joined April 11, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/quinoa-boom-offers-hard-less...
If the amount of work mattered, we would be digging holes with spoons instead of backhoes.
I may try to edit this post to compare those operations, as it may be more meaningful.
Thanks for posting the link. TIL.
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/c_redshift-and...
Sure, they are. The point is that the API is similar, so developers already familiar with SQL, or libraries that speak SQL (SQLAlchemy in our case) can speak to Redshift. I attempted to make that point in the post, hopefully I can make that more clear.
> For reasons unknown, the article dismissed Hadoop without listing any reasons.
I didn't feel that it was the place for it, but the basics are that we didn't have the skills in place to restructure our system to use Hadoop. Second, our data structures are constantly changing, which Hadoop didn't accommodate very well. Third, we were not able to accommodate ad-hoc queries as every reduce operation needed to be figured out prior to running. Last, we were looking for something to handle "large" data sets, but not "big data." Hadoop works great for "big data" (petabytes) but it was overkill for us (working with terabytes).
I'm sure all of these problems could have been resolved, but the point of my write-up is not to kick dirt at Hadoop so much as to explain how Redshift fit our needs. Other companies, I'm sure, have different needs and should of course make their own evaluations.
As much as I'd like to get a newer vehicle I'm not sure I want to buy something with a dock that will be obsolete within the first quarter of the car's life.
I got a technical error on checkout, but when I re-submitted it went through. Go figure.
What does this strategy get them? Are they afraid of cannibalizing Fire sales? It would seem to me that this would be a short-sighted concern, given the number of Android owners out there that would happily pay for Instant Video (myself included).
I don't think the higher-ups at Amazon are slow in the head, so I assume they have some reason for this, but I can't think of it.
- The headline is sensational (goes from "Django doesn't support NoSQL" to "Django is falling behind").
- Author says Django "claimed to be SQL-agnostic" then goes on to conclude that it isn't because it doesn't support NoSQL data housing. What? SQL-agnostic doesn't mean storage agnostic. It means /SQL/-agnostic.
We're looking for a upper-mid to senior-level Python developer who is also familiar with the web stack. More information on who we are and what we're looking for here:
https://gist.github.com/1028734
I'm going on an offline vacation this week so it may be next week before I can respond to emails, but I will attempt to respond to each one as soon as I return.
Ride safely. Leave the headphones in your pocket and pull them out when you're safely at your desk hacking some code.
I develop on a Macbook Air, and that works quite well for me.