If you need to scale-out, the ArangoDB packages are more affordable then MongoDB Atlas, as you don't need to spin-up a whole 3 node replica-set to add another shard to your cluster. The smaller instances are cheaper in Atlas, here you benefit from the established cloud service, which can negotiate better conditions with the large cloud providers. However, we will pass on lower cloud costs to customers, so there is hope that we will move closer over time. But, I don't see ArangoDB in direct competition with smaller, pure document-use cases. Most users need the multi-model capabilities and use graphs in combination with document operations.
(ArangoDB developer here) MongoDB is a document store, ArangoDB is multi-model, so you have graphs and key/value and search as a additional benefits. The query language AQL is also a huge plus. Price comparisons are always hard, but for similar deployments Oasis will be a bit cheaper. One really has to look at the details here, in particular with respect to sharding and resilience.
had the same problem with Scribd recently. I've cancelled my subscription in the end of April, but still got a notification from PayPal about the money transfer in the end of May. I had to contact them per email and luckily they were very friendly and accommodating, they've cancelled my subscription on the same day and I've got my money back in two days.
> Texts from Irisagrig were scattered everywhere, some popping up on eBay and at auction sites, and as far and wide as Australia and South America.
This makes me so sad. With all those looting going on, whether in Iraq, Syria or Egypt, we lose our history. With all those artifacts scattered all over the world, the scientists straggle to reconstruct the history because of the lost context.
I understand, this all comes down to money at the end of the day, but on at least ethical grounds (not to mention the legal ones) Ebay and other auction houses bear the responsibility for looting practices, encouraging the looters. They have to work on some mechanism to make it stop, like a strict provenance control policy before the objects are listed for sale.
They have to work on some mechanism to make it stop, like a strict provenance control policy before the objects are listed for sale.
This is the obvious response to these kinds of situations, but is it actually a good solution? What if the visibility provided by having them on eBay is more helpful in tracking these items down, compared to having these deal happen on more "underground" markets?
We don't particularly care who has these items, but we want to remove incentives for randomly digging them up. The archeological value of documenting the context of an item is larger than any analysis of item itself, and once an item is removed to be sold, that contextual value is permanently destroyed.
Gaining an ability to track and possibly recover existing artifacts is nice to have, but it's actually harmful if it means creating a financial motivation for removing new artifacts and thus destroying the context for them; ideally, we want to create a situation where they get left in the ground because it's not worth for the looters to spend effort digging them up.
I don't think there is only one good solution for this. This is a very complex problem, which, in my opinion, needs diverse approaches and combined co-operations of the governments, museums, and international and intergovernmental institutions (like ICOM, for example) and agencies (like UNESCO) and organizations (like UNIDROIT).
There are already a couple of conventions (some of them I have posted in the comment below), which proved to be ineffective in the face of Iraqi (destroyed sites of Nineveh, looted Mosul museum and Mari temple, etc.) and Syrian(destroyed Palmyra) wars and not only (forever lost Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan). Those international conventions will never be 100% effective, unless all parties are involved and working on the problem and websites like Ebay and the auction houses have to be part of it.
What would be of a great help in this whole story, is if the cyber security specialists (please correct me if I used the wrong term for it)would co-operate and help track down the black markets.
I'm not a specialist myself and I believe there are far more experienced people working on this problem already. I just think that a combination of 'powers' would bring far more effective results.
+1 on that one. What I don't get is that they are already giants, why would they undermine and hinder other companies from developing? I found this article very interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices
I agree that there's a lot of low quality staff on amazon, but hey, it's not ebay, not everyone can post everything there for selling, so Amazon is kind of responsible for what's listed there.
I don't think that monopolizing market is a good idea.. a healthy competition keeps the quality level of the products high.
> So Amazon is kind of responsible for what's listed there
They don't want to be and they're not really acting like it. Thus their store's quality is similar to or below that of ebay and far below that of directly chinese stores like Banggood or Ali Express.
> Thus their store's quality is similar to or below that of ebay and far below that of directly chinese stores like Banggood or Ali Express.
I've been using Alibaba/Ali Express more often lately, and am finding that they are improving rapidly. For most products manufactured in Asia, they're significantly cheaper.
Quality is more consistent. It's not that everything there is better quality, but that you can more easily determine the level of quality you're willing to pay for and can be relatively confident what you're going to get.
Shipping time and (perceived) shipping cost are the big things that prevent Ali from growing rapidly in the US market. They're a few warehouses away from being a serious competitor to Amazon's retail business.
As explained in the article: The "library part" of our executables is very small in comparison to the executable size. Furthermore, the memory usage of the database itself is usually much greater than the size of the executable itself. Finally, one rarely deploys multiple instances of an ArangoDB server on the same machine, so savings by shared libraries are also not that great.
Therefore the "waste" is very minor and the advantages outweigh the slight increase in memory usage.
