I was told this past week that I could not get any support for my HP network printer because they did not support connecting it to a switch. You are only allowed to connect it to a router.
When is ones time not their own?
When someone else is paying you for that time.
If your job is to stuff N widgets into boxes per hour, and it takes you 45 minutes, what business is it of anyone to tell you to stop using that 15 minutes figuring out to get it to 30?
It depends, but more than likely, it is your employer's business and they would prefer for the hour they paid you for that they get N+whatever you can get in during a 1 hour time span.
They were never able to get my bill correct for the 6 months I was with them after the initial AT&T merger. I left, went with TMobile for a year, and I am now back as an iPhone customer. I probably should review my bill.
You must be one of the idiots who believes in the Bush/9-11 conspiracy.
You see, your logic suggests that because the Bush administration is capable of nefarious deeds, any nefarious deed is by default plausibly a result of their actions.
Your tires are slashed? Must be the Bush administration! After all, they are capable of it!
You need more than the belief they are capable of the act; you need a) a reason and b) an explanation of the action that shows the action is the most logical path to justify the reason.
This fails a) because, simply put, the government does not have the time or resources to deal with every fucking Vista machine on earth constantly pinging it.
It fails b) because, well, if you are going to set up a DoD program to monitor computers clandestinely, are you going to have them dial the DoD direct?
The sick thing is that it was OBVIOUS it was a Cisco problem from the start. If you make the assumption that the iPhones are somehow defective, it's still a Cisco problem because any defective behavior from an iPhone would be indistinguishable from malicious behavior from a student. The fact that the iPhone was involved really was a non-issue all along.
It was terribly irresponsible of them to go off blaming Apple and, worse, absolving Cisco of responsibility.
What was the step forward about the iPod? It was Yet Another MP3 Player.
The step forward was about the design and ease of use. Taking the stupid things we just assume are natural hassles with the device and turning them into something easy.
The touch screen and the auto-landscaping stuff look truly innovative. Nevertheless, what Apple has done with the iPhone is the same thing. Take, for example, the process of purchasing a phone. It's always been a huge hassle. Phones aren't great gifts exactly because you have to go through all the setup hassles in the store. Now, with the iPhone, you just go wherever, buy it like anything else, and take it home. Run through a couple of screens in iTunes and you are done. That's a fundamental change in the relationship with the phone.
It's called marketing. And this marketing has been masterful.
Apple has made sure that there is a valid story on the product to be covered every day. People who cover technology have no choice but to cover these valid news items.
then if all food producers have merged into a few cartels, and then put prices on basic foodstuffs ranging from $100 to $500 per item, like a single bread, then people should just "not buy them" and starve is that it ?
You cannot be so rationally challenged, can you?
Are you literally comparing a luxury item like music to a necessity like food?
As long as there is not a monopoly and the good in question is not a necessity, there will always be price pressures.
You have the option not to by that latest Brittany Spears CD; you don't have the option of not eating.
Price is not a product of the cost of production. It is a function of the value people see in it. If they don't want to pay the cost of the IP, they don't get it.
[i]Wow, never thought a database expert would say this! Paramatized stored procedures surely perform much better and more securly than injected SQL, plus leaving SQL to be optimized by your DBA and not your application programmer leaves the performance of your database in the right hands?[/i]
There are ways to accomplish all of this without embedding your application logic in the database.
First off, using prepared statements instead of plain SQL will take care of the security issues related to SQL injection and performance concerns associated with repeated use of the same statements.
Second of all, with good web application design, you can wall off your SQL access into modules that can be managed by the DBA without undue expertise in the underlying programming language. I am not at all a fan of automated persistence systems that make it hard for you to touch the SQL access code. I have a home grown, open source persistence system at http://www.dasein.org/ that will do automated persistence but then also allow for performance tweaking.
Finally, let's not forget we are talking about MySQL and that one of the key strengths of MySQL is that it does not require a DBA. If you have the resources for a full-time DBA, chances are PostgreSQL or Oracle make more sense.
No, that's not what I was saying there. I was saying the syntax guide is still pretty much what it was for MySQL 4.0.
Now that you say that, however, I would strongly recommend avoiding stored procedures and triggers in any DBMS. They are proprietary and they do nothing that is not better handled in the application logic.
#1 I was actually kinda shocked to see a/. review on this, as the book came out in 2003.
#2 Good news is, I finished up the next edition over the weekend and it should be out (I think) in the early summer. This new edition covers through MySQL 5.1.
#3 If you don't use stored procs or triggers, for the most part, the things you would need in a pocket reference are still all in the old edition and quite valid. Yeah, I also added more useful information on replication and updated all the SQL syntax, but that is stuff 90% of the population does not necessarily need.
Americans already come out of college without any meaningful ability to communicate in writing. Getting rid of the term paper will only make the problem worse.
#1 iPhone is just the first entry. It will be the high-end entry. And there are plenty of people who will pay for a high-end entry. Going to market with a high-end entry is a good practice for getting experience with market acceptance of cutting edge features. You can then separate out what provides you competitive advantage at lower price points versus things people will pay a premium for. Remember IT IS MUCH EASIER TO LOWER PRICES THAN RAISE THEM
#2 iPhone is trying to re-invent the market for mobiles. People are anchored at the current price points for the current set of phones. Just as the original iPod was something people would say "No way I will pay $400 for an MP3 player", people currently for the most part cannot see paying a premium for a cell phone.
Slashdot Mirror
I was told this past week that I could not get any support for my HP network printer because they did not support connecting it to a switch. You are only allowed to connect it to a router.
When is ones time not their own? When someone else is paying you for that time. If your job is to stuff N widgets into boxes per hour, and it takes you 45 minutes, what business is it of anyone to tell you to stop using that 15 minutes figuring out to get it to 30? It depends, but more than likely, it is your employer's business and they would prefer for the hour they paid you for that they get N+whatever you can get in during a 1 hour time span.
He has already made the purchase. They have absolutely no right to search or detain him.
Bell Labs was run by whom?
Oh yeah, a monopolist with absurd margins.
Only businesses with insane margins can afford dedicated R&D like Bell Labs. For most companies, R&D is a luxury.
Then do it on your own time.
This has exactly what to do with AT&T billing practices?
They were never able to get my bill correct for the 6 months I was with them after the initial AT&T merger. I left, went with TMobile for a year, and I am now back as an iPhone customer. I probably should review my bill.
You must be one of the idiots who believes in the Bush/9-11 conspiracy.
You see, your logic suggests that because the Bush administration is capable of nefarious deeds, any nefarious deed is by default plausibly a result of their actions.
Your tires are slashed? Must be the Bush administration! After all, they are capable of it!
You need more than the belief they are capable of the act; you need a) a reason and b) an explanation of the action that shows the action is the most logical path to justify the reason.
This fails a) because, simply put, the government does not have the time or resources to deal with every fucking Vista machine on earth constantly pinging it.
It fails b) because, well, if you are going to set up a DoD program to monitor computers clandestinely, are you going to have them dial the DoD direct?
Doofus.
Or, you are an idiot who does not know what he is talking about...
The sick thing is that it was OBVIOUS it was a Cisco problem from the start. If you make the assumption that the iPhones are somehow defective, it's still a Cisco problem because any defective behavior from an iPhone would be indistinguishable from malicious behavior from a student. The fact that the iPhone was involved really was a non-issue all along.
It was terribly irresponsible of them to go off blaming Apple and, worse, absolving Cisco of responsibility.
What was the step forward about the iPod? It was Yet Another MP3 Player.
The step forward was about the design and ease of use. Taking the stupid things we just assume are natural hassles with the device and turning them into something easy.
The touch screen and the auto-landscaping stuff look truly innovative. Nevertheless, what Apple has done with the iPhone is the same thing. Take, for example, the process of purchasing a phone. It's always been a huge hassle. Phones aren't great gifts exactly because you have to go through all the setup hassles in the store. Now, with the iPhone, you just go wherever, buy it like anything else, and take it home. Run through a couple of screens in iTunes and you are done. That's a fundamental change in the relationship with the phone.
It's called marketing. And this marketing has been masterful.
Apple has made sure that there is a valid story on the product to be covered every day. People who cover technology have no choice but to cover these valid news items.
Not sure what they think they found.
Most people take pictures to put them on Flickr? In what bizarre alternate universe?
And camera phones take pictures as good as a dSLR? You can be 80% blind and still tell that camera phones take inferior pictures.
Well, if I want something, but not enough to pay the ridiculous sum they ask for it, I pirate it :)
And that makes you a thief.
then if all food producers have merged into a few cartels, and then put prices on basic foodstuffs ranging from $100 to $500 per item, like a single bread, then people should just "not buy them" and starve is that it ? You cannot be so rationally challenged, can you? Are you literally comparing a luxury item like music to a necessity like food? As long as there is not a monopoly and the good in question is not a necessity, there will always be price pressures. You have the option not to by that latest Brittany Spears CD; you don't have the option of not eating.
No, it's not.
Price is not a product of the cost of production. It is a function of the value people see in it. If they don't want to pay the cost of the IP, they don't get it.
Huh?
It's not America's job to produce Chinese art. Nor does it make any sense.
America should produce the art it wants to produce and China should either pay for it or not. But if not, the alternative is not to steal.
Sorry to break it to you, but stealing IP is bad.
Bad China.
Tsk Tsk Tsk.
[i]Wow, never thought a database expert would say this! Paramatized stored procedures surely perform much better and more securly than injected SQL, plus leaving SQL to be optimized by your DBA and not your application programmer leaves the performance of your database in the right hands?[/i]
There are ways to accomplish all of this without embedding your application logic in the database.
First off, using prepared statements instead of plain SQL will take care of the security issues related to SQL injection and performance concerns associated with repeated use of the same statements.
Second of all, with good web application design, you can wall off your SQL access into modules that can be managed by the DBA without undue expertise in the underlying programming language. I am not at all a fan of automated persistence systems that make it hard for you to touch the SQL access code. I have a home grown, open source persistence system at http://www.dasein.org/ that will do automated persistence but then also allow for performance tweaking.
Finally, let's not forget we are talking about MySQL and that one of the key strengths of MySQL is that it does not require a DBA. If you have the resources for a full-time DBA, chances are PostgreSQL or Oracle make more sense.
No, that's not what I was saying there. I was saying the syntax guide is still pretty much what it was for MySQL 4.0.
Now that you say that, however, I would strongly recommend avoiding stored procedures and triggers in any DBMS. They are proprietary and they do nothing that is not better handled in the application logic.
#1 I was actually kinda shocked to see a /. review on this, as the book came out in 2003.
#2 Good news is, I finished up the next edition over the weekend and it should be out (I think) in the early summer. This new edition covers through MySQL 5.1.
#3 If you don't use stored procs or triggers, for the most part, the things you would need in a pocket reference are still all in the old edition and quite valid. Yeah, I also added more useful information on replication and updated all the SQL syntax, but that is stuff 90% of the population does not necessarily need.
Americans already come out of college without any meaningful ability to communicate in writing. Getting rid of the term paper will only make the problem worse.
Why?
#1 iPhone is just the first entry. It will be the high-end entry. And there are plenty of people who will pay for a high-end entry. Going to market with a high-end entry is a good practice for getting experience with market acceptance of cutting edge features. You can then separate out what provides you competitive advantage at lower price points versus things people will pay a premium for. Remember IT IS MUCH EASIER TO LOWER PRICES THAN RAISE THEM
#2 iPhone is trying to re-invent the market for mobiles. People are anchored at the current price points for the current set of phones. Just as the original iPod was something people would say "No way I will pay $400 for an MP3 player", people currently for the most part cannot see paying a premium for a cell phone.