In today's world, creating a happy and stress free life, mindfulness training is very essential. The most amazing advantage of this training is in developing a laser like focus and it helps you to quit the stressed and suffering mind. It also helps you to direct your attention where you want instead of wandering around. Now the question arises just how mindfulness training is beneficial for your daily life? Subconscious mind hides various awareness activities associated with our five senses. Mindfulness training helps you to get out of the subconscious mind and make you more conscious. To be a good observer, this training helps a lot. As subconscious mind is not a really good observer which leads to number of mistakes. Better sleep is very essential for a successful life. In this training you learn better sleep patterns. It helps in positive functioning of mind and you will begin thinking in positive terms. It helps you to develop the idea of being calm and self-aware which leads to knowing what is going on in the present moment. Taking a successful training builds up the new neural pathways in your brain which helps in conscious working of your brain. Consistent practise will prepare your mind to deal with whatever life sends your way. Brain muscles become stronger and faster. By increasing the focus of your mind you will be able to achieve your daily goals that may be outside of your comfort zone. It stops your mind from wandering aimlessly that leads to procrastination and inactivity. Above given points clearly explains the benefits you can reap while mindfulness training. Becoming more aware of what is happening in your internal environment is first and very important step in achieving mindfulness. Your subconscious mind can lead you to failure as it is very sensitive to your thoughts. Sometimes, controlling your mind becomes very difficult and you react very weirdly to some situations. Mindfulness training is all about training your mind in such a way that it makes your communications more effective. This will help you in accomplishing tasks and meeting your goals. So program your mind with mindfulness training London only at -mersea-meditation.com and make your brain work in a conscious mode throughout the day. This will help you to lead a happy and stress free life.

UUID really start coming in handy is when you start synchronizing data across servers.

A new book looks at how DevOps affects architectural decisions, and a software architect’s role in DevOps.

When you first learn to develop you see overly broad statements about different features to be bad, for design, performance, clarity, maintainability, it feels like a hack, or they just don't like it. In this post, I look at some of the feature people like to hate and why I think that used correctly, they should be a force for good. Features are not as yes/no, good/bad as many like to believe. Checked Exceptions I am often surprised at the degree that developers don't like to think about error handling. New developers don't even like to read error messages. It's hard work, and they complain the application crashed, "it's not working". They have no idea why the exception was thrown when often the error message and stack dump tell them exactly what went wrong if they could only see the clues. When I write out stack traces for tracing purposes, many just see the log shaped like a crash when there was no error. Reading error messages is a skill and at first it can be overwhelming. Similarly, handling exceptions in a useful manner is too often avoided. I have no idea what to do with this exception, I would rather either log the exception and pretend it didn't happen or just blow up and let the operations people or to the GUI user, who have the least ability to deal the error. Many experienced developers hate checked exceptions as a result. However, the more I hear this, the more I am glad Java has checked exception as I am convinced they really will find it too easy ignore the exceptions and just let the application die if they are not annoyed by them. Checked exceptions can be overused of course. The question should be when throwing a checked exception; do I want to annoy the developer calling the code by forcing them to think a little bit about error handling? If the answer is yes, throw a checked exception. Was Thread.currentThread().stop(e) unsafe? The method Thread.stop(Throwable) was unsafe when it could cause another thread to trigger an exception in a random section of code. This could be a checked exception in a portion of code which didn't expect it, or throw an exception which is caught in some portions of the thread but not others leaving you with no idea what it would do. However, the main reason it was unsafe is that it could leave atomic operations in as synchronized of locked section of code in an inconsistent state corrupting the memory in subtle and untestable ways. To add to the confusion, the stack trace of the Throwable didn't match the stack trace of the thread where the exception was actually thrown. But what about Thread.currentThread().stop(e)? This triggers the current thread to throw an exception on the current line. This is no worse than just using throw exception you are performing an operation the compiler can't check. These are only two worthless features but if you want to read full and detail then check Geek On Java - Hub for Android and Java

written by tim brock. scatter plots are a wonderful way of showing ( apparent ) relationships in bivariate data. patterns and clusters that you wouldn't see in a huge block of data in a table can become instantly visible on a page or screen. with all the hype around big data in recent years it's easy to assume that having more data is always an advantage. but as we add more and more data points to a scatter plot we can start to lose these patterns and clusters. this problem, a result of overplotting, is demonstrated in the animation below. the data in the animation above is randomly generated from a pair of simple bivariate distributions. the distinction between the two distributions becomes less and less clear as we add more and more data. so what can we do about overplotting? one simple option is to make the data points smaller. (note this is a poor "solution" if many data points share exactly the same values.) we can also make them semi-transparent. and we can combine these two options: these refinements certainly help when we have ten thousand data points. however, by the time we've reached a million points the two distributions have seemingly merged in to one again. making points smaller and more transparent might help things; nevertheless, at some point we may have to consider a change of visualization. we'll get on to that later. but first let's try to supplement our visualization with some extra information. specifically let's visualize the marginal distributions . we have several options. there's far too much data for a rug plot , but we can bin the data and show histograms . or we can use a smoother option - a kernel density plot . finally, we could use the empirical cumulative distribution . this last option avoids any binning or smoothing but the results are probably less intuitive. i'll go with the kernel density option here, but you might prefer a histogram. the animated gif below is the same as the gif above but with the smoothed marginal distributions added. i've left scales off to avoid clutter and because we're only really interested in rough judgements of relative height. adding marginal distributions, particularly the distribution of variable 2, helps clarify that two different distributions are present in the bivariate data. the twin-peaked nature of variable 2 is evident whether there are a thousand data points or a million. the relative sizes of the two components is also clear. by contrast, the marginal distribution of variable 1 only has a single peak, despite coming from two distinct distributions. this should make it clear that adding marginal distributions is by no means a universal solution to overplotting in scatter plots. to reinforce this point, the animation below shows a completely different set of (generated) data points in a scatter plot with marginal distributions. the data again comes from a random sample of two different 2d distributions, but both marginal distributions of the complete dataset fail to highlight this separation. as previously, when the number of data points is large the distinction between the two clusters can't be seen from the scatter plot either. returning to point size and opacity, what do we get if we make the data points very small and almost completely transparent? we can now clearly distinguish two clusters in each dataset. it's difficult to make out any fine detail though. since we've lost that fine detail anyway, it seems apt to question whether we really want to draw a million data points. it can be tediously slow and impossible in certain contexts. 2d histograms are an alternative. by binning data we can reduce the number of points to plot and, if we pick an appropriate color scale, pick out some of the features that were lost in the clutter of the scatter plot. after some experimenting i picked a color scale that ran from black through green to white at the high end. note, this is (almost) the reverse of the effect created by overplotting in the scatter plots above. in both 2d histograms we can clearly see the two different clusters representing the two distributions from which the data is drawn. in the first case we can also see that there are more counts from the upper-left cluster than the bottom-right cluster, a detail that is lost in the scatter plot with a million data points (but more obvious from the marginal distributions). conversely, in the case of the second dataset we can see that the "heights" of the two clusters are roughly comparable. 3d charts are overused, but here (see below) i think they actually work quite well in terms of providing a broad picture of where the data is and isn't concentrated. feature occlusion is a problem with 3d charts so if you're going to go down this route when exploring your own data i highly recommend using software that allows for user interaction through rotation and zooming. in summary, scatter plots are a simple and often effective way of visualizing bivariate data. if, however, your chart suffers from overplotting, try reducing point size and opacity. failing that, a 2d histogram or even a 3d surface plot may be helpful. in the latter case be wary of occlusion.

Introduction Here in this article we are trying to discuss about the finding reference object within stored procedure and also finding the calling procedure references. Hope you like it and it will be informative. What We Want Developers are writing several stored procedure almost every day. Sometimes developers need to know about the information such as what object is used within the stored procedure or from where (SP) the specified stored procedure call. This is the vital information for the developer before working on a particular stored procedure. Here we are representing a pictorial diagram to understand the nature of implementation. Now we have to answer some question 1. What are the DB Object used in Stored Procedure1 and there type. 2. In case of Store Procedure3 which procedure calls the Store Procedure3 So we are not going to read the Stored Procedure to find the answer. Suppose the each procedure have more than 3000 line. How We Solve the Answer To solve the answer first we take the example and create an example scenario to understand it. -- Base Table CREATE TABLE T1 (EMPID INT, EMPNAME VARCHAR(50)); GO CREATE TABLE T2 (EMPID INT, EMPNAME VARCHAR(50)); GO --1 CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[Procedure1] AS BEGIN SELECT * FROM T1; SELECT * FROM T2; EXEC [dbo].[Procedure3]; END GO --2 CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[Procedure2] AS BEGIN EXEC [dbo].[Procedure3]; END GO --3 CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[Procedure3] AS BEGIN SELECT * FROM T1; END GO Now we are going to solve the question What are the DB Object used in Stored Procedure1 and there type. sp_depends Procedure1 In case of Store Procedure3 which procedure calls the Store Procedure3 SELECT OBJECT_NAME(id) AS [Calling SP] FROM syscomments WHERE [text] LIKE '%Procedure3%' GROUP BY OBJECT_NAME(id); Hope you like it.

Sometimes we intentionally make our work more visible so that we can more easily see what’s going on. We do this so that, as a group, we get a better picture of the whole of the group’s effort. At it’s best, this is more than a dashboard that displays information. Instead, it’s a tool that’s used by the people doing the work in the process of doing that work. It’s important for such a display to be able to accurately describe the state of the work. If it leaves some state or aspect to be implicitly understood, it damages the tale that the tool can tell. One of the advantages of using a physical manifestation for such a tool is that the arrangement can be easily modified to handle special cases or situations that were not envisioned when the tool was first set up. Sometimes people ask the tool to control people’s behavior. Of course, it cannot do that. People will behave the way they behave. If you try to use the tool to control behavior, perhaps by making it impossible for the tool to display a situation you want to discourage, you certainly damage the tools value. Rather than prevent the behavior, the inability will merely make it invisible. There must be a corollary of Goodhart’s Law here. Instead, a good Visual Management Tool will display whatever is the reality, both desired and undesired. This makes visible the more abstract reality. Once it is visible, we can notice it, see patterns in it, and have a conversation about it. It is the conversation and the resulting mutual decisions that can change behavior.

Git offers several types of workflows. Learn what they are and which type is best suited for your specific purpose.

16 Apr 2015 In a year defined by international expansion and investments in new infrastructure to enhance operational efficiency, Gulftainer recorded robust growth across its entire terminal portfolio. Iain Rawlinson, Group Commercial Director of Gulftainer said: “The positive growth recorded by Gulftainer across its terminals globally underlines the confidence of our partners in our ability to meet their requirements efficiently. Our extensive network and technological expertise are the strengths that have enabled us to expand our footprint to new locations. We continuously invest in enhancing our infrastructure, thus boosting reliability, operational efficiency and productivity.” He added: “The growth in volume achieved throughout our terminals is strong testament to the expertise and dedication of our employees and the strong productivity levels we are able to achieve on a consistent basis. In the dynamic global trade routes linking Asia and Europe, our terminals today play an increasingly significant role. Even as we expand and grow our business, we also remain committed to the communities we serve in by creating new jobs and supporting the domestic economy.” In global markets, Gulftainer’s Saudi terminals recorded impressive growth with Northern Container Terminal accounting for 1.9 million TEUs, sustaining previous-year trends, while Jubail Container Terminal (JCT) noted a growth of 22 per cent to over 396,000 TEUs. The total volume at the Saudi terminals was over 2.29 million TEUs. Gulftainer’s Umm Qasr terminal also accomplished a significant growth of 46 per cent in 2014, while the Recife terminal in Brazil marked a growth in volume of 7 per cent. Gulftainer’s UAE terminals recorded a total volume of 3.8 million TEUs in line with the all-round growth in business. The company marked another significant milestone, with the Sharjah Container Terminal (SCT) surpassing 400,000 TEUs in annual throughput for the very first time. Operations at SCT were energised by the positive growth in global trade and the arrival of new services, such as UASC’s Gulf India Service (GIS1), which now connects Sharjah with Sohar in Oman, Mundra in India and Karachi in Pakistan. The addition of this service represented a significant development for Sharjah and boosted the national carrier’s volumes through SCT last year. The only fully fledged operational container terminal in the UAE located outside the Strait of Hormuz, Khorfakkan Container Terminal (KCT) has today emerged as one of the most important transshipment hubs for the Arabian Gulf, the Indian Sub-continent, the Gulf of Oman and the East African markets. Further strengthening the operations at KCT, Gulftainer has received and commissioned new state-of-the-art Ship to Shore (STS) and Rubber Tyred Gantry (RTG) cranes that will further increase overall performance and productivity. This enhanced infrastructure marks an investment of over US$60 million. Gulftainer has set an ambitious target to triple the volume over the next decade through organic growth across existing businesses, exploring green field opportunities and potential M&A activities.

This is a really simple way to provide high-availability with failover and load balancing to any Java backend using JDBC and Spring Boot .

Gulftainer, a privately owned, independent terminal operating and logistics company, marked another significant milestone with the Sharjah Container Terminal (SCT) surpassing 400,000 TEUs (Twenty Foot Equivalent Units) in annual throughput during 2014. SCT has again recorded double-digit growth compared to last year’s volumes. The achievement was reached with an impressive safety record under challenging conditions including space constraints. Iain Rawlinson, Group Commercial Director of Gulftainer said that the professional approach of Gulftainer’s management, along with consistently high productivity levels, was a driving force behind the Terminal’s success. “SCT has always marketed itself as ‘The Flexible Alternative’ and the individual attention we extend to our customers offers us an advantage over competitors.” The 400,000th unit was discharged from Mag Container Lines’ vessel, ‘Mag Success’, one of the Terminal’s regular callers, which considers Sharjah as her base port. Speaking on behalf of Mag Line’s CEO, BDM Jamal Saleh congratulated the Terminal for its achievement. He said: “The announcement today reflects how Gulftainer and MCL have grown together over the years and, in partnership, managed to reach this target. The continuous support, flexibility and excellent operational performance MCL receives from Gulftainer, both operationally and logistically, has contributed greatly to this achievement.” The milestone was achieved on the shift of Duty Superintendent Mehmood Malik, the longest serving employee at over 38 years at the Terminal and part of the team when the first TEU crossed the quay. Mehmood has witnessed several records and milestones and recalls handling 2,500 TEUs in 1976: “At that time we could not imagine reaching the levels of throughput we have today, so this is a very special moment for me.” SCT, which is managed and operated by Gulftainer on behalf of the Sharjah Port Authority, has the honour of being the site of the first container terminal in the Gulf, commenced operations in 1976. SCT is located in the heart of Sharjah and is an ideal gateway for import and export cargo with direct links throughout the Gulf, Asia, Europe, Americas and Africa. The strong performance of the Sharjah economy has supported the growth of many of SCT’s customers, enabling them to increase their throughput and contribute to a record year for the Terminal. The relationships built with our customers have been strengthened by the joint efforts of Gulftainer’s sales and marketing team and the high levels of service and operational efficiency at the terminal, “When looking at the Sharjah market, the dedicated team at SCT listen to and address the many requirements of our diverse and interesting customer base,” said Iain Rawlinson. SCT’s figures have been further boosted with the arrival of new services throughout the year, including UASC’s Gulf India Service (GIS1), which now connects Sharjah with Sohar in Oman, Mundra in India and Karachi in Pakistan, which has boosted in the national carrier’s volumes through SCT in November and December. Gulftainer’s current portfolio covers UAE operations in Khorfakkan Port and Port Khalid in Sharjah as well as activities at Umm Qasr in Iraq, Recife in Brazil, Jeddah and Jubail in Saudi Arabia and in Tripoli Port in Lebanon, which will be operational in April 2016. It also marked another milestone in 2014 with its expansion to the US by signing a long-term agreement to operate the container and multi-cargo terminal at Port Canaveral in Florida. With a current handling activity of over 6 million TEUs, the company has set an ambitious target to triple the volume over the next decade through organic growth across existing businesses, exploring green field opportunities and potential M&A activities.

In a speech given by Michael T. Nygard at the W-JAX 2014 conference last November (see Speech) but was again recently posted at the “JaxEnter” site, he postulated as to how Information Technology needs to change itself to adjust to the working realities of business. I can agree with many of the things that Michael presented in his talk. However, as a forty-something he can be forgiven for not realizing that much of what he presented was also presented in many articles and similar talks 20 years ago. Nothing has changed. As a 65 year old senior software engineer, this precipice in life is felt when someone much younger is touting a technology that may be the latest new thing since "sliced bread" but for one who has done so much in the field is just another form of redundancy since the underlying technologies on which this new thing is supposed to exist on hasn't changed all that much. As a result, I am very much a proponent of the "Old Ways" when it comes to such things because they are simpler and easier to work with. In the early 1990s as the emergence of the Internet was upon us I listened to many such talks about how to use technology and technology personnel effectively. The London Financial Times (probably one of the few mainstream papers worth reading on the planet) at the time had a very extensive article on new organizational structure that should be considered to make companies more effective. It suggested basically the very same things that Michael suggested; a cross between the centralized and the non-centralized operation. No one listened then and no one will listen now. Why? The concept of structural change whether it be for an entire business or an organization within it such as IT is not something that can be simply implemented from a logical construct. This is because organizational structures are sociological in nature and not in any way logical. They may appear to be logically constructed but the people who make them up are not. The organization no matter what size, especially in the United States with its celebrity, narcissistic culture where I live and have spent my career, is not an entity that is run in a logical fashion. If it were, people like Michael wouldn’t be giving talks such as the one posted here and neither would have his predecessors. His ideas and the many similar ones of his earlier counterparts would have already been considered and tested with an eye for actual improvement. But corporations simply don’t like change because they are now (and have been for a long time) centers of power for many and are run mostly by corrupt psychopaths with their own agendas. And psychopathy is found at all levels in the management infrastructure. The best of the documents that have substantially proven this point is the small book, “The Corporation”, by noted Canadian jurist, Joel Bakan. And there is an avalanche of corroborative documentation on the subject. The US 2008 stock market crash was a classic case in point. To review an in-depth psychoanalysis on the subject, please see, "Snakes in Suits", by Babiak and Hare (available at Amazon). Trying to restructure such entities has been attempted numerous times over the many years our profession has been in existence. In some instances, even the corporations themselves attempted some of these changes on their own knowing that there was good reason to do so. All such endeavors have been complete failures. At one major financial institution where I was a software engineer I actually participated in the process of such change only to see it all blown up in my division by a foolish senior manager whose only interest was to pay lip-service to the corporate, sanctioned process. This level of intransigence has resulted in the continuation of attempts by IT analysts (like Michael and many others) to foster change within IT to satisfy the ever increasing and nonsensical requirements of business management. This too has failed since an IT organization within a larger construct must adhere to the overriding cultural aspirations of the overall entity. So what we get out of all this began with the completely failed “Extreme Programming (XP)” paradigm (read the history on this ridiculous excuse for idiocy), which then morphed into “Agile” and its variants. And now we have a new buzzword, “DevOps”. So far none of these development paradigms have changed the fairly consistent project failure rate in the Information Technology profession (a good 70% since the inception of statistical recording on this matter; Michael states in his speech a failure rate of 66%). Why? There is good reason to believe that corporate structures do in fact have their definitive part to play in this situation. However, added to this constricting influence we have the Information Technology profession itself whose many technical professionals are as much to blame as their business-user counterparts. Many professional technical personnel engage in a constant game of personal and organizational suicide every time they promote a new technology because they believe it’s the latest innovative technique or tool to provide benefits to existing problems. Well guess what? The business problems that every professional developer and engineer face on a daily basis are the same types of problems we have all been facing since the advent of commercial IT. The idea that somehow such problems have morphed into something unique and new in the 21st century is all marketing hype for vendors to sell new products. It is this way because the corporate entities, which we serve, never change. Solving old problems with constantly evolving tools has been the “battle cry” of “innovative” technical personnel and vendors throughout our profession’s rather short history. Every time technical personnel push a new tool and\or technique they also push to eliminate entire mature knowledge bases that have been built through long years of personnel working through the bugs and idiosyncrasies of these products. And with the removing of the old so too is everyone forced at some point to begin learning how to basically do the same thing all over again but with different methodologies and tools. Again, a new knowledge base is created, which in turn will be tossed aside when the cycle repeats itself. Pretty stupid and there is not a single argument that can support this constant change except by those ignorant enough to think they have one. The disastrous result is that the Information Technology profession has no real standardized knowledge base to refer to and train new personnel with. The end result is that things never really get better they just keep on going the way they are. In short, the entire profession is a bloody mess of cross-purposes and self-interest, the combination of which inflicts horrible technical wounds on everyone involved. “Change is part of the profession!”, so it is often said; its done a bang up job of making things so rosy. At least Michael can look forward to giving more talks on the subject. Maybe we should apply such change to the ever modernizing aircraft Boeing builds or the latest in tank weaponry that Russia is creating. Maybe we should ask all those engineers to throw out long known principals to try something new and see how far we get. What we did get in fact was the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner, an excellent plane but fraught with some serious issues or earlier, the F-111 fighter-bomber of the Vietnam War that killed more of its pilots on takeoff than in combat. The fact of the matter is, if you want to change the world stop trying to change it; it will eventually change itself in due time. In other words, stop throwing out “the baby with the bathwater” as has been done with many new software tools and techniques; my personal favorite is the move from ASP.NET to ASP.NET MVC, which the latter brings nothing more than mind-blowing complexity to basically simple straight-forward processes. In short, ASP.NET is one of those “simpler tools” that Michael talks about in his speech and we have acquired a 10plus-year knowledge base along with it. ASP.NET MVC shows up on the horizon and everyone starts rushing for the new idea, which is nothing more than “Classic ASP” wrapped up in a shiny, new package. Suddenly, standard ASP.NET is no longer good enough to compete with the shiny new paradigm and its tools. Yet it has done quite a good job for over a decade and can still do a fine job of helping developers create complex web-sites. What happened; something change in the universe of business besides more stupidity? Michael forgot to mention one very critical factor at making IT work properly with its surrounding organizations. It is not about new paradigms, techniques, or simpler tools. It is about using common-sense; something that Humans and all their new smart-devices have in very short supply these days (Yes, that has been well documented also.). Common-sense approaches have been outlined for many years by prescient software engineering analysts and in 1996 Stephen McConnell wrote the standard on the subject with his “Rapid Application Development” publication. It is still in print and it’s concepts are still very much in use in the software engineering world; at least in those areas where software engineering is taken seriously. Why mess with success? I have worked in all types of companies, large and small and on all types of projects. And what I have found is that while professional technical personnel are currently busy slitting their own technical throats, technical management is no better. No other engineering profession has the host of stupidity in its management ranks as that of Information Technology; people who have no idea as to how to control their own projects properly let alone their own supervisors who make increasingly preposterous demands of them, which are in turn then passed back to the developers to implement. If this weren’t true, cars would simply die on the road, trains would derail (And they do quite often from such ridiculous reasons such as a lack of funds for safety measures. Its a public service, it is supposed to be safe!), airplanes would fall out of the sky, and ships would sink. It’s a dance in which the play-card is never used up… The finest example of a truly great software engineering project was the software systems developed for the Boeing 757/767 aircraft in the 1990s. Everything was very tightly controlled with one very unique attribute attributed to the project director; he knew how to say no to unnecessary requirements; the project won the “International Project Management Award” in 1995 for excellence. And this was before all the new whiz-bang development paradigms entered the lexicon of our profession. So where Michael’s suggestions are quite cognizant his emphasis is in the wrong area. Instead of trying to change existing organizations, younger professionals should endeavor to start their own small firms where the bureaucratic morasses of their much larger counterparts are non-existent. To build quality software products, like in any engineering profession, you need to use time tested tools and techniques that both the Microsoft, Java, and other communities have been successful with in the past that already have deep knowledge bases and forget all of the paradigms and techniques you thought would save the world of your profession. It simply is not going to happen and real software engineers who have built great products will tell you that. Besides, true software engineering has all of the techniques and methodologies you will ever need for every situation you will face. It's standards, principals, and practices, all tested over a long period of time have been around much longer than most professionals today…

Nessa postagem vamos dar uma breve explicação de forma simples e fácil do que é o que faz um servidor de hospedagem. Hospedagem de sites nada mais é do que o disco virtual que fica online 24 horas por dia que o hospeda os arquivos do seu site, e é justamente por isso que quando você digita o domínio do site a qualquer hora do dia e da noite seu site está sempre no ar. Mas um servidor de hospedagem é muito mais do que um simples disco de armazenamento online que mantém seu site no ar. Poucas pessoas sabem, mas o uso de e-mails está vinculado ao seu serviço de hospedagem, dizemos isso por que as pessoas nunca vinculam a hospedagem com os serviços de e-mail. Enfim, saibam que sempre que contratar uma hospedagem o serviço de envio e recebimento de e-mails também está incluso no pacote. Como escolher uma excelente hospedagem de sites? Bom agora que temos noção do que é uma hospedagem de sites vamos falar sobre quais fatores devemos levar em consideração antes de contratarmos uma empresa que nos preste serviço. Começamos dizendo que preço não é tudo. Muitas pessoas acham que quanto mais cara e de melhor marca a hospedagem de sites é mais seguros estão. Isso é um erro muito comum cometido por diversos usuários novos na internet. Antes de contratar pesquise no Google os seguintes quesitos: Preço, estabilidade do servidor e velocidade e tempo de resposta. Já citamos o primeiro item, que é o preço. Um preço médio de uma boa hospedagem varia entre R$ 10,00 e R$ 30,00, mas como dissemos essa é nossa ultima preocupação, pois o mais importante são os outros fatores envolvidos na qualidade. Estabilidade do Servidor A estabilidade de um servidor de hospedagem esta diretamente ligada à quantidade de banda larga disponibilizada para o servidor que você está hospedado, isso sem contar que se junto ao seu site tiver muitos outros sites hospedados no mesmo servidor com certeza ocorreram quedas frequentes e seu site ficará fora do ar. Por isso colocamos a quantidade de sites que estarão junto ao seu como um de nossos quesitos. Contrate sempre uma hospedagem com no mínimo 100 Giga bytes de tráfego de transferência, se possível com tráfego ilimitado, mas com no mínimo 100 GB você já fica tranquilo com a estabilidade do serviço. Velocidade e Tempo de Resposta Esse é o segundo quesito mais importante em diversos aspectos. O primeiro deles é, se o tempo de carregamento de um site for lento com certeza o usuário vai procurar outro site que ofereça os mesmos serviços que o seu, então sempre consulte o tempo de resposta junto a empresa de hospedagem de sites. O tempo médio de resposta de servidores é um tempo menor que 2 segundos. Outro fator que influencia na velocidade é a localidade do servidor. Se sua empresa está no Brasil tente comprar um serviço de hospedagem onde você saiba onde está localizado o servidor. Não vá me comprar uma hospedagem na China, pois com certeza você terá problemas. A melhor opção é comprar um servidor no Brasil, onde com certeza o tempo de resposta será menor. Mas existem muitos servidores localizados nos Estados Unidos que podemos confiar fielmente. Outro aspecto importante na velocidade é que, se você planeja vender seu negócio pela busca orgânica do Google e seu tempo de resposta for maior do que 2 segundos tenha ciência que você irá perder muito posicionamento nos resultados de busca. Hoje me dia além de termos um site bem assessorado em SEO precisamos também contar um serviço que hospedagem que não nos deixe na mão. Como ultimo fator preste atenção em quantos sites estão hospedados juntos no servidor compartilhado, pois muitos sites ainda fazem muito SPAM e esses spams prejudicam a estabilidade e velocidade do servidor. Sempre ligue para a hospedagem e pergunte se no seu servidor compartilhado eles têm sites suspeitos, se tiver escolha outra empresa de hospedagem. Se tiver um dinheiro sobrando e quiser ter tranquilidade contrate uma hospedagem dedicada, onde o servidor é só seu, mas isso se seu site for daqueles que não pode ficar fora do ar de jeito nenhum, pois em muitas vezes alguns ajustes na taxa de transferência resolvem o problema.

How can you map a complex JSON structure to another JSON structure in Java? I think there are a few possible solutions in Java. The first solution is to use a serialization framework like Jackson, GSON or smart-json. The mapping is a piece of awkward Java code with a lot of if-else conditions. The result is hard to test and hard to maintain. Schematic it looks like this: JSON -> Java objects -> Mapping -> Java objects -> JSON An second approach is to use a templating framwork (like Freemarker or Velocity) in combination with a serialization framwork. The logic of the mapping has moved to the template. Schematic it looks like this: JSON -> Java objects -> Apply template -> JSON One of the issues with this approach is that the template must enforce that the result is a valid JSON structure. I have tried this approach and it is really hard to produce a valid JSON structure in all use cases. You could also map your JSON to XML and create the mapping with an XSL transformations. Schematic it looks like this: JSON -> XML -> XSL transformation -> XML -> JSON But the ideal schema looks like this: JSON -> Mapping -> JSON With JDK 8 and the Nashorn Javascript engine this becomes possible! This implementation provides JSON.parse() and JSON.stringify() by default. Example Javascript: function convert(val) { var json = JSON.stringify(val); var g = JSON.parse(json); var d = { chunkId: g.chunk.id, timestamp: g.chunk.timestamp }; return JSON.stringify(d); } Java code: private ScriptEngineManager engineManager; private ScriptEngine engine; public MyConverter() { ClassPathResource resource = new ClassPathResource("/converter.js"); InputStreamReader reader = new InputStreamReader(resource.getInputStream()); engineManager = new ScriptEngineManager(); engine = engineManager.getEngineByName("nashorn"); engine.eval(reader); } public String convert(String val){ return (String) engine.eval("convert(" + source + ")"); } I think this is -at this moment- the best approach, Java 9 will ship with native JSON support. Perhaps it will become more easier in the future. More info can be found on my blog.

Sell your house in San Antonio with Markette Properties. Contact us now and we will get back to you with best deal at maximum price.

Sell your house in San Antonio with Markette Properties. Contact us now and we will get back to you with best deal at maximum price.

The financial services industry is clearly undergoing a period of rapid change. At FINRA’s 2015 Annual Conference, key topics of discussion centered on changes surrounding digital content and supervision strategies — which came as no surprise given the proliferation of content and digital communication channels in recent years. Even today, people around the world are sending roughly 183 billion emails a day and sharing another 1.5 billion photos. This ever-increasing volume of content is having a big impact on regulation as a whole, as well as financial industry regulators who are required to review, monitor, record and retrieve content. In the session “Top Technology Challenges,” panelists from both large and small firms with diverse business models led the audience through a conversation on the top tech issues facing broker-dealers today, mainly the challenges around communication channels and the required supervision and record keeping we’re all familiar with. Of note, text messaging and the lack of adequate supervisory tools is a big area of concern. This, in combination with Bring Your Own Device “BYOD” programs at firms has compliance professionals concerned about limited ability to supervise advisor-client communication. Joe Nadreau, Managing Director of the Innovation and Strategy Group of Wells Fargo Advisors shared that they still have to find a better solution for mobile communications, so that their advisors “can communicate with clients the way they want to communicate.” Participants agreed that they can control some of this communication via policy, but that the industry needs to find a better technology solution. Another challenge is that even advisors with the best intentions can sometimes accidentally break the rules. One example that was shared is when a client, who is also a personal contact, reaches out to an advisor using their personal email or phone number. Joe shared that they caught an advisor who had received work emails to his personal email account and the panelists agreed that this type of breach of policy is a concern, but they have limited way to monitor for it. With the large volume of communication types that firms are now supervising, the supervision/compliance technologies are also causing areas of concern. The panelists discussed “vendor fatigue” and the issues caused by having multiple systems for compliance review and record keeping. Jim Webb, Principal and CEO of Cape Securities had such issues with the technologies they were using that they custom built a solution to meet his firm’s needs. While some of the larger firms discussed looking to large technology companies, (like Apple or Facebook) to drive their technology, it was noted that smaller organizations actually look to the to the larger firms, such as Wells Fargo and Pershing (who were on the panel), to drive innovation and technology decisions. The smaller companies don’t have as much power to influence technology or policy, so they rely upon the larger organizations to influence technology roadmaps provide example use-cases. In the session, “Communications with the Public: Rule Retrospective and Beyond” representatives from FINRA Tom Pappas and Joe Savage participated on a panel with Rajib Chanda, Partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Alex Gavis, SVP and Deputy General Counsel FMR/Fidelity Investments where they discussed key takeaways and changes from the Retrospective Rule Review on Communications with the Public. Referring also to this report, a majority of respondents said FINRA should provide increased flexibility and clarity on the application of its rules to social media and mobile communications. In addition, there was a lot of discussion on the types of content that must be filed for review and what type of changes require re-review. Regulatory Notice 15-16 was released in response to the Retrospective Review. One type of content they discussed was templates, clarifying that they did not require filing. Another key takeaway from this session was how receptive FINRA was to exploring better ways to address the disclosure requirements as technology changes. Pappas discussed a variety of options for displaying disclosures and agreed that in today’s age of ever-changing technology, disclosure requirements can be met with a hyperlink, QR code or “info” button. Many of the rules around disclosures were created before the mobile web and social were as prevalent as they are today. And, this evolution of devices and access points, from desktop to laptop to mobile, is making it critical to stay current and revisit how disclosures are displayed. With disclosures, it was discussed, that firms and advisors must keep the customers in mind. The goal is to encourage client understanding and awareness, and so, as we consider how they are displayed, we must keep this in mind. Download our free guide on US Social Media Compliance. View additional highlights of the 2015 FINRA Annual Conference.

The last few years has seen a tremendous boom in the number of sources online relaying information about restaurant quality. Whether it’s review sites or more general social media, there is no shortage of feedback on how people have found a particular restaurant. I wrote a few years ago about a project from the University of Rochester that aimed to mine Twitter for mentions of eating out, with the hope of producing a detailed and comprehensive map of food hygiene standards throughout restaurants in New York. The system, called nEmesis, analyzed millions of tweets, and was on the hunt for people sharing an attack of food poisoning after visiting a restaurant. You might think, or hope at least, that this would be a relatively small number, but over a four month period they found 480 such mentions in New York City alone from a total of 23,000 restaurant visitors. What’s more, the data collected correlated well with public health data on those diners. Crowdsourcing food hygiene A recent Harvard led project is hoping to provide similar assistance to the Boston food hygiene authorities by providing more intelligent information for the authorities to base their inspection checks on. Rather than using Twitter for data however, the Harvard project is turning to the review website Yelp. They have launched a NetFlix style competition to create an algorithm that can search through the ratings of restaurants in Boston and produce recommendations for which restaurants warrant a visit from the hygiene police. The competition, organized by the data company DrivenData, will see the raw data posted online and then an army of data scientists charged with solving the puzzle. The founders observed that whilst the collection of machine readable data was now mandated by the government, there was a literacy problem that rendered much of that data left dormant and unused. Bringing data science to the masses And so the competition was born to try and make data science affordable for organizations with a clear social need but no budget to afford what are still very expensive skill sets. Of course, the food hygiene challenge is but one of the challenges on the DrivenData website, with the venture coming along way from their first challenge to make a better algorithm for improving spending in schools. The organization try and ensure that whatever winning entries emerge from the competitions receive support and help to grow and improve. The winner of that initial competition, for instance, eventually turned their algorithm into a software tool for schools to use. The eventual aim is to establish a community of data scientists that are happy to deploy their talents for socially worthwhile endeavors. “Our mindset has grown; we want to solve the big-picture data literacy and data capacity problems in the social and public sectors,” the creators say. “We think competitions are a great mechanism to do that right now, but our goal is to do more, to serve that community in other ways.” Suffice to say, challenges have come a long way from their beginnings in the 18th century when the UK government launched such a competition to help find longitude more easily. The likes of the X Prize has taken them to newfound heights, and it’s great to see organizations like DrivenData apply the concept to more manageable challenges. Of course, they aren’t the only organization seeking to make algorithms more accessible. I wrote last year about the Algorithmia social network, which aims to connect up organizations with lots of data with algorithms that are being under-utilized. The aim is that this match up will create not just new insights but extra profits. Data science is undoubtedly a burgeoning field, and it’s one with a great many exciting developments in it. Original post

Business has changed remarkably since the end of the last century. It’s become more global and customer-focused. Process execution time and product lifecycles have shrunk as the overall pace of business has increased. Business now places a premium on traits such as speed and agility, rather than resilience and predictability. Intranets have been around to support businesses since the 1990s. While the capabilities of most vendors’ intranet products and services have evolved and expanded since then, many organizations have not yet considered or deployed them. Too many companies have not upgraded their intranets, even though the nature of business has changed, as noted. Those organizations are, in effect, stuck in the past, held prisoner by outdated intranet technology. In the swirl of these larger trends, there are at least four specific reasons why companies should take stock of their intranet now, evaluate how it compares to their competitors’ and peers’, and determine how large the gaps are between its capabilities and those currently available from vendors. Reason One: Increasing Pace of Business The pace at which business is done has increased exponentially since the 1990s. To address this challenge, organizations have begun to push decision-making and action-taking down the organization to line managers and front-line employees. Rather than waiting to be told what to do, employees are now expected to work together to quickly vet new business ideas and opportunities, and to solve operation problems. However, older intranet technology doesn’t support that operating model. Legacy intranets were designed to help companies create and broadcast top-down communication of decisions and actions. Organizations with older intranets simply can’t use it to support modern work. Reason Two: The Customer is King This fact has not changed since the 1990’s and probably not since commerce was first conducted between people. Peter Drucker recognized the supreme importance of the customer when he wrote, in 1954: “There is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer.” Today, organizations in every industry are refocusing on their customers. They are listening to what they are saying about existing products and services, as well as seeking their ideas for new ones. By definition, customers do not directly touch a company’s intranet, but customer-facing employees do. As more decision-making and action-taking is put in the hands of those employees, they must have an intranet that will provide and help them find the information they need to serve their customers. Those employees also must be able to use the intranet as a megaphone with which to communicate the voice of the customer to the rest of the organization, so it understands what its customers need and want. Reason Three: Aging Intranet Technology is Dead or Dying The technology that serves as the core of many companies’ intranets is getting long in the tooth. Its vendors have continued to add features, to be sure, but too often these are bolted on in a way that creates more issues than new capabilities. These monolithic intranet offerings are beginning to collapse under their own weight; even their vendors recognize this truth and are beginning to develop newer, more componentized offerings. These new intranet offerings are increasingly delivered as cloud-based services, rather than deployed on premises as packaged software. This is forcing customers to create hybrid environments, where new cloud-based capabilities are integrated with older, on-premises ones. Customers that don’t want to do that have the choice of staying with their existing intranet, even though it is becoming more outdated by the month, or to completely abandon it in favor of one built on newer technology. Basically, their options are to refresh or to rip and replace. Reason Four: New Intranet Capabilities Foster Interactivity The final reason that now is the time for organizations to take a careful look at their existing intranet is because newer technology is available that can help them make it more interactive. By combining the structure of a traditional intranet with the abilities to connect, communicate and work together that are afforded by Enterprise Social Networking software and services, companies can create an interactive intranet. Now it’s possible to have an intranet that supports the pace and style in which companies must operate to succeed today, not twenty years ago. Today’s organizations need: An intranet through which important information and valuable knowledge flows between individual employees and groups. A communication tool that gives everyone in the company—and indirectly, customers—a voice while still supporting top-down communication of important information. A network that fosters the exploration of new ideas and helps employees be productive. Now is the time to re-evaluate your existing intranet, if you aren’t already doing so. You can choose to evolve your current intranet to meet today’s business requirements, or be forced to do so by the supplier of your intranet’s core technology. Don’t get trapped. Be proactive.

Wharton’s Ethan Mollick is undoubtedly one of my favorite thinkers, and I’ve written about a number of his papers previously, whether it’s on the role of middle managers in innovation, or how successful crowdfunding has been at picking winners (compared to traditional venture capital). This apparent wisdom of crowds is something he has returned to for his latest paper, which looks at how successful crowds are versus experts in the funding of art. The study measures the artistic judgment of the crowd versus a team of experts to see how closely they’re matched. The art in question was a collection of 120 theatrical ventures listed on Kickstarter. There have been a number of studies down the years that highlight how effective the ‘uneducated masses’ tend to be when compared to an educated elite, and this one was no exception. “On average, we find a remarkable degree of convergence between the realized funding decisions by crowds and the evaluation of those same projects by experts,” Mollick says. “Projects that were funded by the crowds received consistently higher scores from experts … and were much more likely to have received funding from the experts.” How important crowdfunding is for arts funding The study was inspired by the finding that more money is raised for artistic ventures via Kickstarter than via the National Endowment for the Arts, which is the primary way the US government gives money to the arts. That obviously represents a sizable shift in how money is raised, so the authors were keen to explore what that meant. Were these new patrons ensuring the same quality of art? Does a greater range of art get funded? The authors recruited a team of well established experts from the art world and asked them to judge the projects funded on Kickstarter. The aim was to see if they would have funded those projects via more official channels. Interestingly there was indeed a broad level of consensus between the experts and the crowd. The experts agreed with many of the projects that got funded, and where disagreement existed, it was usually that the experts would not have funded a particular project. So, in reality, the crowd were ensuring a wider and more diverse range of projects received funding. What’s more, the crowd also seemed a good judge of potential success, with a strong track record of picking ‘winners’ in terms of commercial or artistic success. The study provides further insight into the potential for crowds to perform as well, if not better than, supposed experts. Certainly food for thought. Original post