ting semantics in the land of databases. To make
matters worse, Cassandra’s definitions are not even orthogonal to the existing
ones — they exist in a difficult state of quasi-synonymity."

You assumed that the RDB definition of those words was absolute, and didn't
bother to question if a different kind of database would use them somewhat
differently.

~~~
pohl
_You assumed that the RDB definition of those words was absolute..._

I'm not the author, but I don't see how the portion you quoted requires an
assumption that those definitions are absolute. The only thing one must accept
is that those definitions are pervasive. That doesn't seem controversial, to
me. When selecting the nomenclature, the makers of Cassandra could have made a
practical decision not to create unnecessary confusion.

~~~
jdefarge
The Facebook guys who wrote Cassandra have heavily drawn its design and
terminology from Google's Bigtable. By the way, Column Family (CF) in BT makes
a lot more sense because the compression of data,as well as disk storage
locality, is made on a per-CF basis. They have even filled a patent about this
(<http://bit.ly/ooop2s>).

 _Oddly enough, BigTable's terminology seems fits more naturally in the
classic concepts than Cassandra's. Maybe it's the result of Dynamo's design
choices (DHT, etc) that got into the mix or new concepts like SuperColumn._




Rebol is back - neuro
http://www.rebol.com/cgi-bin/blog.r
======
Garovix
Where was it?




Rolls-Royce Touts Nuclear Reactors as Key to Clean Jet Fuel - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-06/rolls-royce-pitches-nuclear-reactors-as-key-to-clean-jet-fuel
======
nradov
In the long run this will also be the future of merchant shipping. We can't
generally install nuclear reactors in civilian vessels due to high costs and
security concerns. But we can use nuclear power on shore to produce carbon
neutral synthetic fuel, then run ships on that.

~~~
trenchgun
It would in the long run be a lot better solution to run container ships with
nuclear 