Considering that the bank that I work for used to have most of their servers named after childrens TV characters, I don't think it would be a major issue.
Tried the boot media and no luck. It's probably the hard drive, but a bit odd that it died during an upgrade. As the box is so slow these days, I can't really be bothered to buy a new drive for it.
I have an eMac. About 3 months ago, it told me that I needed to install a few updates. So I followed its advice - after about 5 hours of telling me it was progressing, I decided that it was probably stuck, so I decided to reboot. I've now got an eMac that refuses to even recognise the hard disk and I've got absolutely no idea how to fix it.
What about if you want to convert it to another format (maybe your phone only plays.WMP format, and you've got an iPod that doesn't - or maybe some new fancy format comes out next year)? If you capture it in anything other than lossless, the quality is going to get worse every time you convert.
This is irrelevant. Xbox and PS3 are not in the radar of people who wants a Wii. Not even a chance.
Not on the radar of some people who want a Wii. Those people are also quite likely to be the ones that want a Wii simply because it's not avaiable ("if it's sold out, it must be great"). On the other hand, there's people who just love to spend money on new tech for Christmas - and the Wii still just about fits into that category. If they can't get one at the moment, they'll go out and spend the money on something else. By the time stocks are fully available, many of them will no longer care as it will be old hat.
The Wii is certainly our office's must have toy this year, and I've seen both types around here. Thanks to online stock-watch sites, not one of them's had a real problem getting hold of one but I suspect if they'd all failed for Christmas, at least 50% of them would never bother getting one.
So the sequence is IF you use a Mac and IF you're a.Mac member and IF you use iDisk and IF you check your iDisk from a public browser THEN someone could potentially access those files.
Sorry, but the aggregate of all of those conditions is probably 0.000001%. Is it a problem? Yes? A major flaw? No.
So are you saying that it's impossible to have major flaws in niche products?
It may not be a major flaw in the grand scheme of things, but it's a major flaw in iDisk.
Nope. If you use it like a mobile phone and don't make a single call on it (turn off bluetooth, make sure there's no programs running in the background etc), you might get 2 days out of if you're really lucky. If you leave bluetooth on, it's down to a matter of hours. My last phone (a Windows smartphone) lasted around a week without recharging, and that might drop to 5-6 days if I didn't turn bluetooth off.
Of course YMMV, but I've had 4 different N95s so far (yet to find one without an annoying whistle in the earpiece), and two separate batteries and got pretty much the same battery life out of all of them.
With the car and the chips, you are depriving the rightful owner of their possession. With the wi-fi (unless your traffic is causing a DOS), you are depriving the owner of nothing.
But if you are a habitual stealer, then you are no different than a shop-lifter.
If you're a heavy user and causing a DOS for the owner, then maybe. But if you're a light user and it doesn't affect their usage at all then, at worst, you are like someone who reads a magazine in a newsagents without buying it.
I appreciate that, but was replying to a post that seemed to be claiming English Law didn't allow people to talk about others in a negative way in public. It does.
If you've been slandered (or libelled in this case) then the relevant laws are applicable whatever the policy of the forum's owner is. The only issue that I can see from the article is that it's letting anonymous users post these comments, and at that point I'd assume that the owner becomes responsible for proving that it wasn't him that made the comment.
The Gadget Show in the UK tested one of these against an iPod with a rugged case (can't remember which one) last week. Tests included encasing them in cement and using a pneumatic drill to get them out, and using a car crusher on them.
Sure, but unfairly leeveraging your monopoly position in one area to gain an advantage in another is unfair.
It's not unfairly leveraging your monopoly. If someone made a better console with better games, people would buy it. Not simply allowing everyone else to piggyback on Nintendo's R&D investment would continue to drive innovation.
Not on all music, but they do on DRMed music downloads.
Whoopie doo. The public don't want to buy DRM'd music. They want to buy music. And they can still buy that from plenty of non-Apple sources.
And remember many US online music stores don't exist in Norway.
So because some US companies can't be bothered to deal with Norway, the one that does should be punished?
Apple quickly issued a "security update" which did nothing but disable playing the Real files.
Now, that is something that should be tackled. Actively preventing the player from playing other peoples' files is restrictive practice, but I don't agree that selling tracks that only work on iPods is.
Personally, I won't buy anything from iTunes (unless it's the only place I can get it from, and then I burn it straight onto CD as well) because of the DRM, but that's my choice as a consumer - I don't need legislation preventing me from even having the choice.
But they should certainly be forced to if they ever reached a monopoly on game sales.
Why? If everyone decided that the Wii was the only games console to buy, why should they be punished? They wouldn't be preventing anyone else from creating a different console. Anyway, Apple is far from having a monopoly on music sales.
ut not from their own stores - real tried to license the drm to do that, remember?
That doesn't prevent Real from setting up a music store, putting other DRM on it, and even selling it to iPod users though.
But nintendo will license you to make wii games at a reasonable and non-discriminatory fee,
But would they licence you to make hardware that would play Nintendo games? Apple will already lets plenty of companies sell their music (the equivalent of the games) through iTunes.
What I can't understand is why people complain so much about dupes. If it's a dupe you've already seen, then you can simply ignore it. If it's a dupe that you haven't already seen then you've got a second chance to catch the story.
Whether Starbucks are right or wrong, the tone of the article is quite clearly Astroturfing (or at least written by a sycophant) - you just need to look at the emotive language of the intro - "Starbucks video calmly addresses the Oxfam allegations", ", the move on Starbucks' part comes off as unmistakably in touch with today's communication modes and methods".
And as far as I can tell, AVG is anti-virus software for Microsoft products.
It's not a Good Thing that this is necessary (which, I'm guessing, was GP's point - Microsoft, and its software development lifecycle, produces OSes that are so insecure that they require anti-virus tools to be updated daily).
A phrase often said by managers who ignored all the warnings and dismissed the people giving them as "negative".
Of course you are sometimes hit by things that you couldn't expect, or should have been able to ignore. But in my experience it's the blatantly obvious, but overlooked/ignored (the "elephant under the carpet") that's going to get you 9 times out of 10.
Science can answer the "How?" questions but not the "Why?" questions.
Only if you take the question to mean "for what purpose are we here?" - in which case, you are making an assumption that there is a purpose. If you mean "what is the cause of us being here?", then science does a pretty good job of answering that (or at least it's getting there). It's certainly making a better job than religion is managing with "what caused God?"
The one place that the Open Source products have a long way to go is support. Companies don't think mysql and postgres are unreliable, they're just not backed enough. The company I work for could give a rat's hindquarters about TCO -- they just want to outsource their risk so that if something breaks, the CIO/CEO/Chairman has someone to argue with.
That's less about support and more about image.
The quality of the support (such as likelihood of getting someone to be able to fix your DB when it's fallen over at 3am etc) and therefore the level/cost of risk that this incurs is something that should already be right there in your TCO.
What you're talking about is how it will look to your boss (and who you can blame) if things do go wrong. Oracle's support could (theoretically) be 10 times as costly and half as good as some local MySQL support company but if Oracle screw up, it's seen as Oracle's fault not the person that chose them.
Deciding against a supplier because the level of support/liability is not acceptable to you is a good reason to make that choice. Deciding against it simply because you'd look like an idiot if it did go wrong is not a good reason (but it's the one most people seem to take).
uhm - that is pretty much saying the same thing I said.
Uhm, no it's not. I'm saying that your statement was not an answer to the question "why do we need Firebird?".
My post was not attempting to be an answer to that question (as I have no idea why someone would need Firebird rather than, say, Postgresql). It was pointing out what your answer lacked - specific examples of what Firebird does (or does better) than other free DBs.
If I asked you why people should pick (for example) Linux instead of Windows, a good answer would not be "because some people think it's better". A much better answer would be "because it's free, more stable, more secure and it's open source so if you don't like something about it you can change it". A good answer for "why use Firebird" would look like the latter - yours looked like the former.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that the bank that I work for used to have most of their servers named after childrens TV characters, I don't think it would be a major issue.
Tried the boot media and no luck. It's probably the hard drive, but a bit odd that it died during an upgrade. As the box is so slow these days, I can't really be bothered to buy a new drive for it.
I have an eMac. About 3 months ago, it told me that I needed to install a few updates. So I followed its advice - after about 5 hours of telling me it was progressing, I decided that it was probably stuck, so I decided to reboot. I've now got an eMac that refuses to even recognise the hard disk and I've got absolutely no idea how to fix it.
What about if you want to convert it to another format (maybe your phone only plays .WMP format, and you've got an iPod that doesn't - or maybe some new fancy format comes out next year)? If you capture it in anything other than lossless, the quality is going to get worse every time you convert.
The Wii is certainly our office's must have toy this year, and I've seen both types around here. Thanks to online stock-watch sites, not one of them's had a real problem getting hold of one but I suspect if they'd all failed for Christmas, at least 50% of them would never bother getting one.
It may not be a major flaw in the grand scheme of things, but it's a major flaw in iDisk.
Nope. If you use it like a mobile phone and don't make a single call on it (turn off bluetooth, make sure there's no programs running in the background etc), you might get 2 days out of if you're really lucky. If you leave bluetooth on, it's down to a matter of hours. My last phone (a Windows smartphone) lasted around a week without recharging, and that might drop to 5-6 days if I didn't turn bluetooth off.
Of course YMMV, but I've had 4 different N95s so far (yet to find one without an annoying whistle in the earpiece), and two separate batteries and got pretty much the same battery life out of all of them.
With the car and the chips, you are depriving the rightful owner of their possession. With the wi-fi (unless your traffic is causing a DOS), you are depriving the owner of nothing.
I appreciate that, but was replying to a post that seemed to be claiming English Law didn't allow people to talk about others in a negative way in public. It does.
If you've been slandered (or libelled in this case) then the relevant laws are applicable whatever the policy of the forum's owner is. The only issue that I can see from the article is that it's letting anonymous users post these comments, and at that point I'd assume that the owner becomes responsible for proving that it wasn't him that made the comment.
Doesn't that involve you saying something that's not true (or more precisely, under UK law, something that you can't prove to be true)?
As I understand it (IANAL) there's nothing legally stopping you making factual statements, however harmful, about someone in public.
The Gadget Show in the UK tested one of these against an iPod with a rugged case (can't remember which one) last week. Tests included encasing them in cement and using a pneumatic drill to get them out, and using a car crusher on them.
The iPod won.
Personally, I won't buy anything from iTunes (unless it's the only place I can get it from, and then I burn it straight onto CD as well) because of the DRM, but that's my choice as a consumer - I don't need legislation preventing me from even having the choice.
Only if you don't count "house might burn down" as a possible cause of injury.
What I can't understand is why people complain so much about dupes. If it's a dupe you've already seen, then you can simply ignore it. If it's a dupe that you haven't already seen then you've got a second chance to catch the story.
He could be referring to Cobal-1000 .
"To treat pernicious anemia, you will have to use this medication [Cobal-1000] on a regular basis for the rest of your life."
Or maybe it was just a typo...
Whether Starbucks are right or wrong, the tone of the article is quite clearly Astroturfing (or at least written by a sycophant) - you just need to look at the emotive language of the intro - "Starbucks video calmly addresses the Oxfam allegations", ", the move on Starbucks' part comes off as unmistakably in touch with today's communication modes and methods".
Surely it's not a Don Corleone quote if he actually said something slightly different...
And as far as I can tell, AVG is anti-virus software for Microsoft products.
It's not a Good Thing that this is necessary (which, I'm guessing, was GP's point - Microsoft, and its software development lifecycle, produces OSes that are so insecure that they require anti-virus tools to be updated daily).
A phrase often said by managers who ignored all the warnings and dismissed the people giving them as "negative".
Of course you are sometimes hit by things that you couldn't expect, or should have been able to ignore. But in my experience it's the blatantly obvious, but overlooked/ignored (the "elephant under the carpet") that's going to get you 9 times out of 10.
The quality of the support (such as likelihood of getting someone to be able to fix your DB when it's fallen over at 3am etc) and therefore the level/cost of risk that this incurs is something that should already be right there in your TCO.
What you're talking about is how it will look to your boss (and who you can blame) if things do go wrong. Oracle's support could (theoretically) be 10 times as costly and half as good as some local MySQL support company but if Oracle screw up, it's seen as Oracle's fault not the person that chose them.
Deciding against a supplier because the level of support/liability is not acceptable to you is a good reason to make that choice. Deciding against it simply because you'd look like an idiot if it did go wrong is not a good reason (but it's the one most people seem to take).
My post was not attempting to be an answer to that question (as I have no idea why someone would need Firebird rather than, say, Postgresql). It was pointing out what your answer lacked - specific examples of what Firebird does (or does better) than other free DBs.
If I asked you why people should pick (for example) Linux instead of Windows, a good answer would not be "because some people think it's better". A much better answer would be "because it's free, more stable, more secure and it's open source so if you don't like something about it you can change it". A good answer for "why use Firebird" would look like the latter - yours looked like the former.