My server logs are full of relay attempts coming from cable modem and dsl users.
I think that they just start scanning for SMTP servers and then attempt relays. I see various attempts addressed to "test9483@hotmail.com" or such, probably from the open relay probe. Once they get a live one, the spam spews forth.
One could argue that anyone who operates an open relay should have their server overloaded, maybe then they would take care of their problem.
OTOH, it's entirely possible that it is you that they'd go after, rather than the legions of spammers.
I run Ximian and Evolution for day-to-day work on a number of systems, ranging from my 1GHz PIII workstation to an old Fujitsu Lifebook (P-166MMX). Very responsive on all systems -- certainly moreso than Winduhs on any of these platforms.
I've got an FX220 on which I happily run RedHat 7.1. The built-in modem (a WinModem) won't go, so I have a PCMCIA Xircom. The built-in network adapter (Intel EtherExpress 100) works fine. The CD/DVD-ROM works fine. The on-board sound (i815) works fine with the OSS drivers. The video (i815 also) works fine.
Sadly, it seems their Fn+ key controls require software to work, so I can't adjust screen brightness or that sort of thing.:-(
I use this box on the road for development (PostgreSQL, Tomcat, etc.), so can actually use the extra power this box provides.
I wouldn't run Windoze on this for any reason. Linux is what I need, and Linux is what I run.
I only had the NFS locking problem when the server was running RH's kernel 2.4.9-6, which has a bug in the NFS locking code. Upgrading the kernel to 2.4.9-12 solves this (as well as some scurity issues).
See kernel (RHSA-2001-142) for RH 7.1 You'll see links to download kernels for all supported RH versions.
Sure, there are some companies that run some databases in the category you describe.
But there are more companies running more databases that aren't.
Those are the prime candidates for Linux RDBMSs. They're often still large databases, and usually important. But Linux handles them just fine in my experience.
Are there things that Solaris or AIX does that Linux doesn't? Of course. Are some databases better implemented on AIX/DB2? Of course. But that doesn't mean that Linux shouldn't be used for hosting RDBMSs (even large ones), or that everything requires AIX/DB2.
A quad-processor Intel box is nothing to sneeze at anymore. Neither is Linux.
It is my experience that, while Linux is not ready for the very largest most mission-critical databases, it is ready for large, important databases. We use it here for 8+GB databases (PostgreSQL v7.1.3), and are very happy with the performance, reliability, and functionality we have.
The bottom line is that Linux and Linux-based RDBMSs are constantly improving, raising the top-end ever higher. Use your judgement (and test-test-test!) when making your decisions. But don't brush of Linux because we can't (yet) run the 100-TB super-database. Most people won't be doing that anyway.
We run a large auditing system (OLAP-oriented rather than OLTP-oriented) on PostgreSQL (v7.1.3) on Linux (RH 7.1), using Tomcat (v4.0.1) as the front-end. We're running it on a Dell PowerEdge 2400 (2x PIII-866) with their Perc RAID controller with a Raid 1 and a raid 0+1 volume.
Our database is currently a bit over 8 GB, with many of the tables exceeding one million records. Queries typically join > 5 tables.
We moved from an MS Access/SQL Server environment and are much happier with the functionality , performance, and stability we now have.
Not to slam DB2, as I think it's a great product and have successfully used it for some really big projects, but for this application I found the PostgreSQL delivered ~4x the performance on many of our key queries. The lower cost and lower administrative overhead sealed the deal in favor of PostgreSQL.
The only moral response is to identify and destroy the organizations responsible and any governments who gave aid and comfort to the terrorists.
The issue is justice. Those who initiate force against others must be identified and punished.
We (the US) should not rely on the fiction of "international law" -- there is no such thing. This is an act of war and war is the appropriate response.
I'm glad you're not a citizen of the US. You clearly don't deserve to be.
Not a new section. It is the south side of the E Ring (there are five rings A-E from the center). The Pentagon is undergoing significtant refurbishment, section by section. Fortunately, much of the affected area is under renovation.
It looks like there was some blow-through to the D Ring. Current reports are that the aircraft was a Boeing 757. They impacted near the center of the South Entrance. It appears that maybe a 50-meter width of the E Ring has collapsed. Can't see through the smoke to determine whether any of the D Ring is down.
I am quite proficient with DB2. It wasn't a question of proficiency, it was a question of price/performance. Price includes the additional admin labor DB2 requires.
The only migrating I had to do was some very minor fiddling with the Perl scripts which pre-process the data and some of the queries. The application code is all in the Java web server.
It took less than a day to bring up a working, populated PostgreSQL version of the database and hook the web server up to it.
But yes, thank you, it is great to be a consultant! I love having the freedom to create the best possible solutions for my clients. They seem to like it, too.:-)
I've moved a major (~8GB) database from DB2 to PostgreSQL for a client. It runs faster and is easier to feed and administer now. I'm in the process of moving a similar-sized database and app from MS SQL Server to PostgreSQL for the same reasons (plus the openness of PostgreSQL and Linux).
I really like DB2, it's very powerful, robust, and scalable. But it requires a fair amount of admin expertise and time. Not so much as Oracle, but much more than PostgreSQL.
What, frankly, suprised the heck out of me was the fact that nearly all of my queries (this is an audit system, OLAP, not OLTP) ran between two and four times faster under PostgreSQL. That adds up pretty quickly!
As far as the application development support infrastructures, I'm not really sure what is meant by that. The current implementation of stored procedures in PostgreSQL falls short of what DB2 provides, I'll grant. But support for C, Java, Perl, PHP, Python is all there. It's a pretty high-speed/low-drag setup, IMHO.
The set of problems for which PostgreSQL is the best solution is expanding pretty rapidly. I won't pretend that it's the be-all RDBMS, I don't think such a thing exits. I would say that it's worth a serious look for many situations.
Dr. Jerry Pournelle, who has been involved in
the field for many years, has some insights into this. It's do-able, it's safe, and let's get on with it already.
I'm not guessing, I'm uncertain. Yes, I see them rolling out ASE 12. Very good. But I don't see them marketing it in any visible way. They have been marketing their portal and, to a lesser extent, EAServer.
I like ASE. A lot. I have clients who happily and productively use it. At the same time, I don't see Sybase marketing it. It's a tough sell when clients haven't even heard of it, but have heard (and heard) of Oracle.
Here's an example. The local Barnes&Noble has an entire section of Oracle books. Two, maybe three titles for Sybase ASE. Now, you and I might look at that and say "Dang! That Oracle must be really tough to use.". But most people (in my experience) instead see that as a sign that Oracle is widely used and can do a lot, whereas Sybase doesn't seem to have much demand. Oracle has captured mindshare. Sybase hasn't. I hope they start.
On the other hand, I know DB2 will be around, because I see IBM aggressively developing and marketing it. That's a much easier sell.
Not all applications need a feature rich database. If you dont need transactions or triggers and you can architect the application to cache result sets in memory in the application server tier -- why not use something cheap like MySQL or Sybase??
Sybase has transactions and triggers (and stored procedures and DRI and...)
It's a high-end RDBMS.
I'll grant you that Oracle have not had the
success MSFT have in implementing the
goal. But I think they both have the same goal
of domination. MSFT are ahead, having largely
secured the desktop. Oracle, on the other hand,
have targetted the server space. Oracle appear
to be agnostic about the desktop/userbox (including thin clients, etc.) for now, but I'm not counting on it remaining so.
Oracle have historically engaged in some
sharp business practices, as well.
I maintain that the difference between Oracle
and MSFT is one of degree, rather than of kind.
I won't deal with either, except as a legacy
system from which I am liberating a client.
I agree with you about MS-SQL, I have
another post about that.
Actually you can (for now) access MS-SQL from *nix using PHP, Perl, Java, etc. Use the Sybase Open Client libraries, which you can d/l free from sybase.com.
Once MSFT drops TDS (Tabular Data Stream), then we would have to look for other middleware. Unless, of course, we've migrated the heck away from MS-SQL. Sybase would be the easiest target,
but I'm not sure of their ongoing commitment to Adaptive Server Enterprise. Thus, my migrations
are to DB2, often on Linux.
I'm assuming that the statement "none of these databases can comete with Oracle head to head" applies to the open-source databases. I'd be
most happy to put DB2 up against Oracle (and Oracle up against a wall.;-)
Cross-platform support requires using
third-party tools which are themselves highly
dependent upon MSFT's whims vis-a-vis
APIs and protocols.
"Easier" is not always "better", and the
way MSFT have made administering MS-SQL easier
is by:
making most configuration "automatic", meaning you get what MSFT thinks you ought to have, rather than what I think I ought to have.
wrapping all of the administrative functionality up in that blasted (and slow) GUI tool.
DB2, Sybase, and Oracle all provide cross-platform support, the ability to use a CLI admin interface which facilitates scripting, and cross-platform support. (I list it twice, because for me it is very important).
With MSFT, there is a real risk of vendor-lock -- they aren't just selling the RDBMS, they're selling the OS and the apps. I've found it to
be much more difficult to get MS-SQL to play nice
in a multi-platform environment, particularly when it's not MS-SQL that's the "main" system.
MSFT's claims of scalability are highly exaggerated. While it may run decently once
the data are loaded, indexed, etc., the real
limitations of MS-SQL become apparent while
doing the loading, indexing, etc., as well
as the day-to-day data management tasks. Their
tools are inadequate at best. I don't think MSFT
yet understands data processing.
IMHO, Oracle is not the price/performance
leader in the commercial RDBMS market, nor
is it the easiest with which to develop or
to administer.
Sybase has long combined relative ease of
use, development, and administration with
pretty good performance. Lately, though,
it seems Sybase would rather be in a different
market -- not sure what market, though.
For projects which require a commercial RDBMS,
I now choose DB2 UDB v7.1. And, yes, I tend to run
it on Linux. It falls between Sybase and Oracle
in the ease of use, development, and administration department. Performance-wise,
for the kind of work I do, it's at least as
good. Price-wise, it's a better deal.
Culturally, I rank Oracle alongside Microsoft.
No, thanks!
PostgreSQL is under active and aggressive
development, which is bringing major new
features, such as outer joins, to their
product. Version 7.1 should be out by
mid-March. For small and medium projects
with limited budgets, it's almost ideal.
(I'd like to see stored procedures which
can return results sets.)
There are many smaller companies and organizations
who can benefit from web-based applications, but
who have limited budgets. All of the commercial
RDBMS products have fairly hefty licensing for
Internet connectivity. That can price many of
these organizations right off of the web (or
force them to violate the license agreement,
exposing them to costly litigation). PostgreSQL
(and MySQL, I'm sure), are a viable solution for
these businesses.
When I get some time, I'm going to try
implementing one of my DB2 projects in
PostgreSQL 7.1, just to see how it does.
I already know I have to re-write the
stored procedures as queries, so there
will be a labor impact. It will be an
interesting experiment.
Just be prepared to bend waaaaay over when they mention price. I think even with our (significant) CA discount we were going to pay something on the far side of $5K for a single seat.
No, it's around US$3.5K. If you get ModelMart, web publishing, etc, then it can go up.
I have it, and like it, generally. The biggest problem I have with it is that since they were bought twice (LogicWorks -> Platinum -> CA), they
have been very slow to update the product.
It does not support PostgreSQL, MySQL, or any of the other open source database systems. They are also falling behind on support for commercial databases, such as DB2. They do not support any of the features in DB2 introduced since UDB 5.2 a few years ago.
They've been promising a major upgrade for ages, and it's way late. As a paying customer, I'm pretty unhappy with them, as I've been forced to go back to the "old school" method of keeping my DDL in flat files.
A pox on Computer Associates and all their houses, unless they get their act together Real Soon Now.
Yes, that is a concern, but there are already
some 140 million guns in the US. Perhaps they'd
mandate retro-fitting, backed by suitable Draconian penalties.
Personally, I'm much more concerned with mandated so-called "smart gun" technology. Most of it is RF or IR based, leaving it vulnerable to jamming by criminals or the government (but I repeat myself).
We must not allow our tools to be taken from us
and used against us.
If you go around saying "Kill Cops Kill Cops" and then...wow amazingly... some half-wit kills a cop because you said that, you should accept the fact that you are responsible. That cops death was instigated by your speach. Furthermore, I think the courts should also hold you as liable. Because you are. You are not being cesored. You can say what you want. However if what you say leads to ramifications such as that, then you should face the consequences.
Actually, if you put it to a beat, you stand a good chance to get a lucrative contract with Time-Warner.
It increasingly seems that freedom of speech in the US depends upon who is doing the speaking...
And don't forget, individuals are responsible
for their own actions.
The fact that you can't countenance the idea of someone taking offense at what someone else says makes you just as politically correct and fascist as the authorities trying to take the site down.
No, it doesn't.
There is a world of difference between Karma Sinkwriting a message disagreeing
with you and governmentwielding force to silence someone.
In other words, there is a difference between
speech and force.
As for the extra footage they added to the movie from the cutting room floor: Oh boy! more passes around the Enterprise.
That doesn't sound like what it will be.
Though I like to pop the tape in every once in
a while just to look at the Enterprise, as
I think this refit version is the most beautiful
of all of the versions.
I've had a regular TV set for quite some time,
and I have to say I'm significantly less than impressed with the extremely poor programming choices available.
There are a few good programs, but even they aren't worth the coming hassle. When it gets so that I can't time-shift, I'll give TV up altogether.
Frankly, though, the only real "advantage" that I see to HDTV is that it provides a pretense for converting the signal path to all-digital and requiring the replacement of existing hardware with new, controlled-access hardware.
Bah. 'Bye Hollywood, it was fun while you were sane.
Slashdot Mirror
My server logs are full of relay attempts coming from cable modem and dsl users.
I think that they just start scanning for SMTP servers and then attempt relays. I see various attempts addressed to "test9483@hotmail.com" or such, probably from the open relay probe. Once they get a live one, the spam spews forth.
One could argue that anyone who operates an open relay should have their server overloaded, maybe then they would take care of their problem.
OTOH, it's entirely possible that it is you that they'd go after, rather than the legions of spammers.
Gordon.
I wonder what's wrong with your systems, then...
I run Ximian and Evolution for day-to-day work on a number of systems, ranging from my 1GHz PIII workstation to an old Fujitsu Lifebook (P-166MMX). Very responsive on all systems -- certainly moreso than Winduhs on any of these platforms.
Count me as very pleased with Ximian's work.
Gordon.
Odd that your boss can't run Linux on his Vaio...
I've got an FX220 on which I happily run RedHat 7.1. The built-in modem (a WinModem) won't go, so I have a PCMCIA Xircom. The built-in network adapter (Intel EtherExpress 100) works fine. The CD/DVD-ROM works fine. The on-board sound (i815) works fine with the OSS drivers. The video (i815 also) works fine.
Sadly, it seems their Fn+ key controls require software to work, so I can't adjust screen brightness or that sort of thing. :-(
I use this box on the road for development (PostgreSQL, Tomcat, etc.), so can actually use the extra power this box provides.
I wouldn't run Windoze on this for any reason. Linux is what I need, and Linux is what I run.
It's not that hard...
Gordon
I only had the NFS locking problem when the server was running RH's kernel 2.4.9-6, which has a bug in the NFS locking code. Upgrading the kernel to 2.4.9-12 solves this (as well as some scurity issues).
See kernel (RHSA-2001-142) for RH 7.1 You'll see links to download kernels for all supported RH versions.
Gordon.
How the heck is this "Offtopic"?
Sure, there are some companies that run some databases in the category you describe.
But there are more companies running more databases that aren't.
Those are the prime candidates for Linux RDBMSs. They're often still large databases, and usually important. But Linux handles them just fine in my experience.
Are there things that Solaris or AIX does that Linux doesn't? Of course. Are some databases better implemented on AIX/DB2? Of course. But that doesn't mean that Linux shouldn't be used for hosting RDBMSs (even large ones), or that everything requires AIX/DB2.
A quad-processor Intel box is nothing to sneeze at anymore. Neither is Linux.
It is my experience that, while Linux is not ready for the very largest most mission-critical databases, it is ready for large, important databases. We use it here for 8+GB databases (PostgreSQL v7.1.3), and are very happy with the performance, reliability, and functionality we have.
The bottom line is that Linux and Linux-based RDBMSs are constantly improving, raising the top-end ever higher. Use your judgement (and test-test-test!) when making your decisions. But don't brush of Linux because we can't (yet) run the 100-TB super-database. Most people won't be doing that anyway.
Gordon
We run a large auditing system (OLAP-oriented rather than OLTP-oriented) on PostgreSQL (v7.1.3) on Linux (RH 7.1), using Tomcat (v4.0.1) as the front-end. We're running it on a Dell PowerEdge 2400 (2x PIII-866) with their Perc RAID controller with a Raid 1 and a raid 0+1 volume.
Our database is currently a bit over 8 GB, with many of the tables exceeding one million records. Queries typically join > 5 tables.
We moved from an MS Access/SQL Server environment and are much happier with the functionality , performance, and stability we now have.
Not to slam DB2, as I think it's a great product and have successfully used it for some really big projects, but for this application I found the PostgreSQL delivered ~4x the performance on many of our key queries. The lower cost and lower administrative overhead sealed the deal in favor of PostgreSQL.
As always, though, your mileage may vary.
Gordon.
The only moral response is to identify and destroy the organizations responsible and any governments who gave aid and comfort to the terrorists.
The issue is justice. Those who initiate force against others must be identified and punished.
We (the US) should not rely on the fiction of "international law" -- there is no such thing. This is an act of war and war is the appropriate response.
I'm glad you're not a citizen of the US. You clearly don't deserve to be.
Gordon.
Not a new section. It is the south side of the E Ring (there are five rings A-E from the center). The Pentagon is undergoing significtant refurbishment, section by section. Fortunately, much of the affected area is under renovation.
It looks like there was some blow-through to the D Ring. Current reports are that the aircraft was a Boeing 757. They impacted near the center of the South Entrance. It appears that maybe a 50-meter width of the E Ring has collapsed. Can't see through the smoke to determine whether any of the D Ring is down.
Gordon.
LOL! ROFL!
I am quite proficient with DB2. It wasn't a question of proficiency, it was a question of price/performance. Price includes the additional admin labor DB2 requires.
The only migrating I had to do was some very minor fiddling with the Perl scripts which pre-process the data and some of the queries. The application code is all in the Java web server.
It took less than a day to bring up a working, populated PostgreSQL version of the database and hook the web server up to it.
But yes, thank you, it is great to be a consultant! I love having the freedom to create the best possible solutions for my clients. They seem to like it, too. :-)
Gordon.
I've moved a major (~8GB) database from DB2 to PostgreSQL for a client. It runs faster and is easier to feed and administer now. I'm in the process of moving a similar-sized database and app from MS SQL Server to PostgreSQL for the same reasons (plus the openness of PostgreSQL and Linux).
I really like DB2, it's very powerful, robust, and scalable. But it requires a fair amount of admin expertise and time. Not so much as Oracle, but much more than PostgreSQL.
What, frankly, suprised the heck out of me was the fact that nearly all of my queries (this is an audit system, OLAP, not OLTP) ran between two and four times faster under PostgreSQL. That adds up pretty quickly!
As far as the application development support infrastructures, I'm not really sure what is meant by that. The current implementation of stored procedures in PostgreSQL falls short of what DB2 provides, I'll grant. But support for C, Java, Perl, PHP, Python is all there. It's a pretty high-speed/low-drag setup, IMHO.
The set of problems for which PostgreSQL is the best solution is expanding pretty rapidly. I won't pretend that it's the be-all RDBMS, I don't think such a thing exits. I would say that it's worth a serious look for many situations.
Gordon.
Dr. Jerry Pournelle, who has been involved in the field for many years, has some insights into this. It's do-able, it's safe, and let's get on with it already.
Gordon.
I'm not guessing, I'm uncertain. Yes, I see them rolling out ASE 12. Very good. But I don't see them marketing it in any visible way. They have been marketing their portal and, to a lesser extent, EAServer.
I like ASE. A lot. I have clients who happily and productively use it. At the same time, I don't see Sybase marketing it. It's a tough sell when clients haven't even heard of it, but have heard (and heard) of Oracle.
Here's an example. The local Barnes&Noble has an entire section of Oracle books. Two, maybe three titles for Sybase ASE. Now, you and I might look at that and say "Dang! That Oracle must be really tough to use.". But most people (in my experience) instead see that as a sign that Oracle is widely used and can do a lot, whereas Sybase doesn't seem to have much demand. Oracle has captured mindshare. Sybase hasn't. I hope they start.
On the other hand, I know DB2 will be around, because I see IBM aggressively developing and marketing it. That's a much easier sell.
Gordon.
Sybase has transactions and triggers (and stored procedures and DRI and ...)
It's a high-end RDBMS.
Gordon.
I'll grant you that Oracle have not had the success MSFT have in implementing the goal. But I think they both have the same goal of domination. MSFT are ahead, having largely secured the desktop. Oracle, on the other hand, have targetted the server space. Oracle appear to be agnostic about the desktop/userbox (including thin clients, etc.) for now, but I'm not counting on it remaining so.
Oracle have historically engaged in some sharp business practices, as well.
I maintain that the difference between Oracle and MSFT is one of degree, rather than of kind. I won't deal with either, except as a legacy system from which I am liberating a client.
I agree with you about MS-SQL, I have another post about that.
Gordon.
Actually you can (for now) access MS-SQL from *nix using PHP, Perl, Java, etc. Use the Sybase Open Client libraries, which you can d/l free from sybase.com.
Once MSFT drops TDS (Tabular Data Stream), then we would have to look for other middleware. Unless, of course, we've migrated the heck away from MS-SQL. Sybase would be the easiest target, but I'm not sure of their ongoing commitment to Adaptive Server Enterprise. Thus, my migrations are to DB2, often on Linux.
I'm assuming that the statement "none of these databases can comete with Oracle head to head" applies to the open-source databases. I'd be most happy to put DB2 up against Oracle (and Oracle up against a wall. ;-)
Gordon.
I have two main problems with MS-SQL:
DB2, Sybase, and Oracle all provide cross-platform support, the ability to use a CLI admin interface which facilitates scripting, and cross-platform support. (I list it twice, because for me it is very important).
With MSFT, there is a real risk of vendor-lock -- they aren't just selling the RDBMS, they're selling the OS and the apps. I've found it to be much more difficult to get MS-SQL to play nice in a multi-platform environment, particularly when it's not MS-SQL that's the "main" system.
MSFT's claims of scalability are highly exaggerated. While it may run decently once the data are loaded, indexed, etc., the real limitations of MS-SQL become apparent while doing the loading, indexing, etc., as well as the day-to-day data management tasks. Their tools are inadequate at best. I don't think MSFT yet understands data processing.
Gordon.
IMHO, Oracle is not the price/performance leader in the commercial RDBMS market, nor is it the easiest with which to develop or to administer.
Sybase has long combined relative ease of use, development, and administration with pretty good performance. Lately, though, it seems Sybase would rather be in a different market -- not sure what market, though.
For projects which require a commercial RDBMS, I now choose DB2 UDB v7.1. And, yes, I tend to run it on Linux. It falls between Sybase and Oracle in the ease of use, development, and administration department. Performance-wise, for the kind of work I do, it's at least as good. Price-wise, it's a better deal.
Culturally, I rank Oracle alongside Microsoft. No, thanks!
PostgreSQL is under active and aggressive development, which is bringing major new features, such as outer joins, to their product. Version 7.1 should be out by mid-March. For small and medium projects with limited budgets, it's almost ideal. (I'd like to see stored procedures which can return results sets.)
There are many smaller companies and organizations who can benefit from web-based applications, but who have limited budgets. All of the commercial RDBMS products have fairly hefty licensing for Internet connectivity. That can price many of these organizations right off of the web (or force them to violate the license agreement, exposing them to costly litigation). PostgreSQL (and MySQL, I'm sure), are a viable solution for these businesses.
When I get some time, I'm going to try implementing one of my DB2 projects in PostgreSQL 7.1, just to see how it does. I already know I have to re-write the stored procedures as queries, so there will be a labor impact. It will be an interesting experiment.
Gordon.
Yes, it is still sold and supported (though CA are dragging their feet about updates). You can find the support page at:
Gordon.
No, it's around US$3.5K. If you get ModelMart, web publishing, etc, then it can go up.
I have it, and like it, generally. The biggest problem I have with it is that since they were bought twice (LogicWorks -> Platinum -> CA), they have been very slow to update the product.
It does not support PostgreSQL, MySQL, or any of the other open source database systems. They are also falling behind on support for commercial databases, such as DB2. They do not support any of the features in DB2 introduced since UDB 5.2 a few years ago.
They've been promising a major upgrade for ages, and it's way late. As a paying customer, I'm pretty unhappy with them, as I've been forced to go back to the "old school" method of keeping my DDL in flat files.
A pox on Computer Associates and all their houses, unless they get their act together Real Soon Now.
Gordon.
Yes, that is a concern, but there are already some 140 million guns in the US. Perhaps they'd mandate retro-fitting, backed by suitable Draconian penalties.
Personally, I'm much more concerned with mandated so-called "smart gun" technology. Most of it is RF or IR based, leaving it vulnerable to jamming by criminals or the government (but I repeat myself).
We must not allow our tools to be taken from us and used against us.
Gordon.
Actually, if you put it to a beat, you stand a good chance to get a lucrative contract with Time-Warner.
It increasingly seems that freedom of speech in the US depends upon who is doing the speaking...
And don't forget, individuals are responsible for their own actions.
No, it doesn't.
There is a world of difference between Karma Sink writing a message disagreeing with you and government wielding force to silence someone.
In other words, there is a difference between speech and force.
Gordon.
That doesn't sound like what it will be.
Though I like to pop the tape in every once in a while just to look at the Enterprise, as I think this refit version is the most beautiful of all of the versions.
Gordon.
I've had a regular TV set for quite some time, and I have to say I'm significantly less than impressed with the extremely poor programming choices available.
There are a few good programs, but even they aren't worth the coming hassle. When it gets so that I can't time-shift, I'll give TV up altogether.
Frankly, though, the only real "advantage" that I see to HDTV is that it provides a pretense for converting the signal path to all-digital and requiring the replacement of existing hardware with new, controlled-access hardware.
Bah. 'Bye Hollywood, it was fun while you were sane.
Gordon.