I can see Chrome OS as a field solution where the hardware is cheap enough to be throw away. The fact that in a pinch, a techie could bump it up on Ubuntu to have the extra features at a cost of speed would make it a nice plus. I know people that break a laptop a year because of how they handle it when off the desktop. They can't switch down to netbook or other device because they need the visual real estate of a good sized screen.
The first piece of logic on a one way trip is make it work or die. Survival is a strong motivator both for those being sent and for those who are gambling with the lives of others. If the odds of success are good, then I don't have a problem with it. This level of decision making happens daily with medical issues of "operator or die in xx months."
The second piece of logic is that every-thing that goes stays. Modular tech design and repurposing could provide additional resources that would take longer/multiple trips.
Last piece of logic to a one way trip. If planned with a minimum survival date (meaning if all guesses were wrong, it all fails, you are stuck with no way back) that does not exceed the time for a second trip, then it is not a complete do-or-die. It becomes a do-or-pray that the next trip does not have any delays. (Ok, that weakens the first motivator)
In a late braking story, Joe the Spider has just begun the first satellite-to-satellite web hookup. Gone are the days of brick-and-mortar, WWW 3.0 is silk.
While I personally am not a Mac Server Admin, as a Linux Admin, I have from time to time attempted to help a friend whose business is running Mac Servers. It seems like OSx is designed to be so overly userfriendly that it is crippled in many areas, sort of like the logic used during one of KDE's major upgrades (take away interface configs because the choices make it too confusing for some...). The simplest example I can think for OSx vs. *nix is user account creation. Things may have changed since I last poked my head in the OSx world, but the last time I looked, GUI was your only option. GUI for 100+ accounts is the kiss of death in time consumption compared to a command line script.
I would be thrilled if OSx were a superset relative to *nix. As-is, I can do what I need developmentally on a $599 win/linux/bsd notebook. I might look at a Mac Mini if they update it to a real memory and hd level.
While it may be true that the US has stacked the deck in their favor in the past, I believe it is naive to think that every other country is not attempting to do the same. So the pot calling the kettle black rings hollow.
The point missed was the mention of the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org). It is something that would produce in the US a result akin to what took place in Ireland when they changed their tax structure. Fortunately for the rest, those in power in the US are more interested in lining their own pockets than in boosting the US economy. Otherwise the would be moving forward on the Fair Tax.
I don't believe the post was a whine, it was just a statement that we have a solution that money grabbing politicians are avoiding.
Quality set aside, what about prior art? This is too common a concept to be patented. It is a basic concept of all programming languages that include inheritance. So, does this mean OOP is infringing on the patent?
There was a Bio-Sphere test a while back which was going to include people as part of the bio-sphere. The experiment failed if I remembered correctly. The simplest way to test for a viable group is create the same living structure here first and lock them in together. If they can not last 30 months together here, then they sure won't make it 30 months just because they are in space. (reality show meets NASA)
I would guess that a common moral/religious belief relative to marriage would be a benefit.
Not 100% correct. Micro$oft frequently has patches which state, 'only use this patch if you are suffering from the following computing affliction.' Ok, not that exactly, but it is just a variation on, 'if it is not broken, do not minor patch it.'
You have pointed to an example of micro evolution. There is no dispute about the existance of micro evolution. The evolution forms in question are macro/spot/hyper evolution, and as I stated at present, there is no example of these.
With respect to vision, poor vision is a weakness. If the point of natural selection is removing weakness then when is it going to start? Even "fatal" genetic problems have not been selected out. (the ugly and stupid part was a little bit of tongue-in-cheak sorry if I was not being off beat enough, my humour gene isn't too strong).
With respect to the fast breeding/quick changes these are still only examples of micro evolution. As stated in the article, a fly is still a fly. Macro evolution is about a fly becoming a higher order life form.
orig. - If the ID was done by something that is external to our realm of existence (ie a 3-D entity acting upon a 2-D) what is to say that our concept of creation/design and existence has any relevance in the other realm of existance?
response. - Which results in infinite recursion. Who Designed the Designers?
Actually, that assumes that existance within the other realm is also linear.
orig. - Just because something is potentially beyond our scope of comprehension does not mean it does not exist.
response - The same can be said of Santa and Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny. What you are describing is a RELIGION. Not science.
And ignoring an answer which is potentally the truth is science? Imagine if aliens came to the earth after mankind was dead. Some alien scientist wonders, are all these natural or were they designed. He gets ingored because that is religion not science (assuming they have nothing similar to genetic engineering).
Science is about attempting to determine truth. If design/direct manipulation is automatically discounted as weakminded anti-science, then don't expect aliens to ever give us credit for the same. It also goes without saying you have just classified "scientists" who design/direct as being in the realm of religion instead of science.
Just like the study regarding the underwater rock formations. It is a design vs. nature question. It should investigated with a mind set that both are potentially true until proven false.
The problem with Intelligent Design "theory" is that it's not really a theory.
There's no description of the process, as there is with evolution.
The description of the process is - an outside force acted producing the ordered design. That may seem a bit brief, but it is the same theory regarding some underwater rock formations of the coast of an island. It looks like the carvings in the rock are ordered, so a theory is that at one point in time the rock formation was not under water and that people carved the rocks. This is only a theory because the rocks in question can also naturally break and arrive at the same state.
A later individual stated: A theory is a hypothesis that has survived experimental testing.
If there is a test of macro evolution that is successful, I would like to know about it. If there is a test of spot evolution that is successful, I would like to know about it. I do not see evidence that natural selection has removed people with vision problems from the gene pool. It has also done nothing about ugly or stupid people. In other words, the testing issue has been weak on both sides. Those in the side of ID will state that the testing, in part, is showing the consistency of design within related things, ie, dna within animals.
If the ID was done by something that is external to our realm of existence (ie a 3-D entity acting upon a 2-D) what is to say that our concept of creation/design and existence has any relevance in the other realm of existance?
Just because something is potentially beyond our scope of comprehension does not mean it does not exist. I would also be interesting in hearing which religion they think is being backed by the state? Based on my understanding there are people with many religions that believe in ID and others within those same religions who do not believe in ID (including the fundamentalist crowd).
Actually, it is worse for America because of legislation passed by the Dems. and Clinton. The short of it is companies that could have been getting the stuff slowly in order with Kyoto were whacked off at the knees. The legislation passed said, "if you change one piece of equipment, you have to bring ALL your equipment up to emissions code X." So power plants that were running on coal did not gradually replace their equipment with more efficient/cleaner turbines and stuff because the cost was not for just the one upgrade, it was for a complete rework.
...a bookshelf filled with books on old technology, stuff like Linux 9.0
I thought we were only at Linux 2.6;)
Yes, I know you ment RedHat 9.0, but if by some chance you really do have a book on Linux 9.0 that is a bookshelf living in both the past and the future.
Kidding aside, I too have spent too much on texts which are worthless now. My purpose in purchasing texts was/is single problem/solution issues which have a high amount of urgency tied to them. Otherwise, searching the web is and reading cryptic man pages works ok, if a bit slow.
While a person's name may not be unique, katie.com is a unique identification. Penguin has (by ignorance) directly acted against the interests of the person who had katie.com. Freedom of speach does not mean there are not consequences for what you say. A lack of copy right does not change the uniqueness of the identification. This has law $uit writen in the biggest letters I have ever seen.
A guess would be that the script is accessing the database remotely. Thus, if the server is getting slashdotted, there is no way it can talk to the remote database. Instead of die, they should have sent a small text message of "Remote database unreachable."
"Perhaps they could put items or whatever in social areas, like clubs or bars."
I appreciate the humor of the suggestion, but the marketting concept is also too obvious to overlook. Monsters/experience points/encounters in specific stores/bars/etc. There are too many modes of abusing this concept either for legal profit, or for illegal. Imagine getting hundreds of people to show up at a marketting show where in a sence they have paid for the advertisement because they are paying for the cell phone use.
In the cyber age, a fool and his/her money are parted faster.
USB under win 98 was broken by Microsoft's updates. The standard changed, MS's patch was not backwards compatable. Sony's CD-RW is one such device that got mangled by MS patches. The MS patch that killed the older devices (ie devices produced in 2000) was listed as Critical. The same thing also happened with a USB scanner and USB mouse. The scanner and mouse had their own patches for the MS Patch. In the case of the burner, the Sony solution was patch and good luck. In the end, we had to dual boot to use the burner. Patched windows for regular software usage and un-patched windows for burning content.
Let's see, I pay for the dial-up service. I pay for the cd. They use my cd, my computer, and my bandwidth. Therefore they owe the user. Before you laugh, I believe it was Georgia Tech that successfully sued an employee for computer time and bandwidth because he loaded the SETI program (or something similiar) and had lab computers doing computations during screen saving. If they did win, there is then precidence for this type of a law suit.
Therefore, are licenses no longer an asset, and instead a liability?
Functionally, the standard purchase license is like toilet paper. It has value until it is used. That may not be the way it is treated tax wise, but that is the way it is value wise. To that end, software purchased for use by a company should be immediately depreciated to value $0. To do otherwise is not marketwise correct. The license proves that point.
The title is 100% FUD. It might as well have been titled "All nixes full of security holes. MS to make $$$. It is not the kind of thing I expect out of O'Rielly. I am also surprised it was posted here on/. The article is out of date relative to the fixes. It would be one thing if after all this time, there were still no fixes. I think the article should be pulled from/. it is of no value. Anyone who manages a system should have fixes the mentioned problems long ago. It was just a catchy title with no thought or substance.
The 3 points are on target. An additional point to consider is:
4. If you make it illegal to work directly on the digital data, you have most likely closed the door on what will be the next development in data accessibility of the impaired. Think about most of the software advances that exist today. Many of them came about because of people who accessed either proprietory files (Microsoft, Lotus, WordPerfect formatted documents) had the need to get these files into a more functional format (audio devices, brail, etc). Nelson is a former fire cheif. Imagine if the only people allowed to work on the fire engines were mechanics certified by the company that produced the engine (this being done because others might steal ideas from the design). It is the same thing in so far as protecting the digital data is like protecting the physical design.
5. This type of action will also cost the state a ton of money in the educational department. Many of the people working on this type of media and its transmission are associated with the education system. They are working to push the envelop without bleeding the system dry of finances which are already very limited. Close the door on this level of development and you are saying that big buck solutions are the only game in town. So, I guess if you are planning to dump more money into education, the go for it.
The point is, this experiment is being done knowing that the child produced could suffer physically in a similiar manner to the other clone experiments. Think about this from a personal standpoint. Picture being an 8 year old child who has a 80 year old body. Yes, there is a genetic condition which causes rapid aging of the cells, but in your case, it was not an acident of nature. You are just a test. They knew there were things they did not understand that were still going wrong when they made you. Rather than doing more tests to determine what were the causes of the failures, they just decided to roll the dice, make a mutant, become famous, and hope that you had the grace to die quickly, quietly, and with only a little pain.
I think the scientist should be executed the same day as the experiment dies because of "unforseen" defects. Yes, the human birth experience is a roll of the dice, but in this case, the scientist rolling the dice is doing it with the knowledge that there is next to no chance that things will turn out just fine. It would be another issue if we understood and corrected the problems with the other clones.
I personally have nothing against the idea of cloning. I do have a problem when science willfully ignores the individual upon which it inflicts suffering.
...and in fact, Microsoft doesn't actually do this themselves. Several different "pro-Microsoft" groups are undertaking this.
"pro-Microsoft" groups, does this mean employees and groups who have received donations? Or does it mean certified ms techies? Each of these groups would have a strong bias. I do not know of any MS Fan Clubs.
This is like people sending in form letters saying a serial killer was a nice guy. MS broke the law right there in court, but I guess the new rule is if the person in charge is named "BILL" (Clinton, Gates,...), you can get away with anything.
In each case the law was thrown out and popular opinion held sway.
With liberty and justice/injustice for those who can afford it.
Or put more generally, "you can disclose until what you are showing displays your errors or shortsighted lack of bounds checking." Access to source code is not dangerous, bad source is a threat. The most common breaks that I have seen have been due to buffer overflows and hangs due to faulty bounds checking (same thing imho).
Simple example, how many people use time functions in C without realizeing they are dealing with a very limited function which croaks in about 35 plus years. Use one of those functions to calculate a date beyond the range and who knows what you get for data. This bogus data then gets pushed into another function which is not checking because only valid data should come back from a built in function...
In many ways we get tripped up using code/languages which were designed under past limitations (8, 16, and 32 bit). The libraries need some cleaning/correcting, and code in general needs some serious error checking. Error checking along the lines of, "what happens when procedure X receives the impossible?"
"extreme complexity of database management systems is a barrier," this can be taken two ways:
It takes an 8 ton gorilla of a database system to get the job done.
It takes alot to manage an 8 ton gorilla of a database system.
I believe the first may be true depending upon the needs, but the second is a given. What has not been stated is that the more complex the database system is, the more likely there will be errors on the part of those implementing the system if they are not fully trained. In some ways, the difference is similiar to the difference between operating a truck verses operating a jet plane. Both are designed to get stuff from one place to another, but the number of controls on a jet plane and the amount of data being produced by various meters is considerable.
People really need to weigh two parts of the issue.
Does our task require a jet or will a truck suffice?
Are we willing to pay for proven jet pilots, or is it safer to pay for an equal number of proven truckers. The key point here being "proven."
To often I am seeing agencies who buy into the idea that the only "real" solution is the jet. This is a humorous thing to see when the jet is only used for trips across town...
There are two different types of motivation I have seen in this area. 1) A person is trying to get into management. 2) A person is trying to get management to listen.A pure techie is often believed to be 100% business ignorant. The MBA gives the same creds that techie certifications. It mains you knew enough to take and pass tests, but is not proof that you will cut it in the real stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see Chrome OS as a field solution where the hardware is cheap enough to be throw away. The fact that in a pinch, a techie could bump it up on Ubuntu to have the extra features at a cost of speed would make it a nice plus. I know people that break a laptop a year because of how they handle it when off the desktop. They can't switch down to netbook or other device because they need the visual real estate of a good sized screen.
The first piece of logic on a one way trip is make it work or die. Survival is a strong motivator both for those being sent and for those who are gambling with the lives of others. If the odds of success are good, then I don't have a problem with it. This level of decision making happens daily with medical issues of "operator or die in xx months."
The second piece of logic is that every-thing that goes stays. Modular tech design and repurposing could provide additional resources that would take longer/multiple trips.
Last piece of logic to a one way trip. If planned with a minimum survival date (meaning if all guesses were wrong, it all fails, you are stuck with no way back) that does not exceed the time for a second trip, then it is not a complete do-or-die. It becomes a do-or-pray that the next trip does not have any delays. (Ok, that weakens the first motivator)
In a late braking story, Joe the Spider has just begun the first satellite-to-satellite web hookup. Gone are the days of brick-and-mortar, WWW 3.0 is silk.
Go Mighty Joe.
While I personally am not a Mac Server Admin, as a Linux Admin, I have from time to time attempted to help a friend whose business is running Mac Servers. It seems like OSx is designed to be so overly userfriendly that it is crippled in many areas, sort of like the logic used during one of KDE's major upgrades (take away interface configs because the choices make it too confusing for some...). The simplest example I can think for OSx vs. *nix is user account creation. Things may have changed since I last poked my head in the OSx world, but the last time I looked, GUI was your only option. GUI for 100+ accounts is the kiss of death in time consumption compared to a command line script.
I would be thrilled if OSx were a superset relative to *nix. As-is, I can do what I need developmentally on a $599 win/linux/bsd notebook. I might look at a Mac Mini if they update it to a real memory and hd level.
While it may be true that the US has stacked the deck in their favor in the past, I believe it is naive to think that every other country is not attempting to do the same. So the pot calling the kettle black rings hollow.
The point missed was the mention of the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org). It is something that would produce in the US a result akin to what took place in Ireland when they changed their tax structure. Fortunately for the rest, those in power in the US are more interested in lining their own pockets than in boosting the US economy. Otherwise the would be moving forward on the Fair Tax.
I don't believe the post was a whine, it was just a statement that we have a solution that money grabbing politicians are avoiding.
Quality set aside, what about prior art? This is too common a concept to be patented. It is a basic concept of all programming languages that include inheritance. So, does this mean OOP is infringing on the patent?
Where is that brochure on deserted islands?
There was a Bio-Sphere test a while back which was going to include people as part of the bio-sphere. The experiment failed if I remembered correctly. The simplest way to test for a viable group is create the same living structure here first and lock them in together. If they can not last 30 months together here, then they sure won't make it 30 months just because they are in space. (reality show meets NASA)
I would guess that a common moral/religious belief relative to marriage would be a benefit.
Not 100% correct. Micro$oft frequently has patches which state, 'only use this patch if you are suffering from the following computing affliction.' Ok, not that exactly, but it is just a variation on, 'if it is not broken, do not minor patch it.'
You have pointed to an example of micro evolution. There is no dispute about the existance of micro evolution. The evolution forms in question are macro/spot/hyper evolution, and as I stated at present, there is no example of these.
With respect to vision, poor vision is a weakness. If the point of natural selection is removing weakness then when is it going to start? Even "fatal" genetic problems have not been selected out. (the ugly and stupid part was a little bit of tongue-in-cheak sorry if I was not being off beat enough, my humour gene isn't too strong).
With respect to the fast breeding/quick changes these are still only examples of micro evolution. As stated in the article, a fly is still a fly. Macro evolution is about a fly becoming a higher order life form.
orig. - If the ID was done by something that is external to our realm of existence (ie a 3-D entity acting upon a 2-D) what is to say that our concept of creation/design and existence has any relevance in the other realm of existance?
response. - Which results in infinite recursion. Who Designed the Designers?
Actually, that assumes that existance within the other realm is also linear.
orig. - Just because something is potentially beyond our scope of comprehension does not mean it does not exist.
response - The same can be said of Santa and Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny. What you are describing is a RELIGION. Not science.
And ignoring an answer which is potentally the truth is science? Imagine if aliens came to the earth after mankind was dead. Some alien scientist wonders, are all these natural or were they designed. He gets ingored because that is religion not science (assuming they have nothing similar to genetic engineering).
Science is about attempting to determine truth. If design/direct manipulation is automatically discounted as weakminded anti-science, then don't expect aliens to ever give us credit for the same. It also goes without saying you have just classified "scientists" who design/direct as being in the realm of religion instead of science.
Just like the study regarding the underwater rock formations. It is a design vs. nature question. It should investigated with a mind set that both are potentially true until proven false.
The problem with Intelligent Design "theory" is that it's not really a theory.
There's no description of the process, as there is with evolution.
The description of the process is - an outside force acted producing the ordered design. That may seem a bit brief, but it is the same theory regarding some underwater rock formations of the coast of an island. It looks like the carvings in the rock are ordered, so a theory is that at one point in time the rock formation was not under water and that people carved the rocks. This is only a theory because the rocks in question can also naturally break and arrive at the same state.
A later individual stated: A theory is a hypothesis that has survived experimental testing.
If there is a test of macro evolution that is successful, I would like to know about it. If there is a test of spot evolution that is successful, I would like to know about it. I do not see evidence that natural selection has removed people with vision problems from the gene pool. It has also done nothing about ugly or stupid people. In other words, the testing issue has been weak on both sides. Those in the side of ID will state that the testing, in part, is showing the consistency of design within related things, ie, dna within animals.
If the ID was done by something that is external to our realm of existence (ie a 3-D entity acting upon a 2-D) what is to say that our concept of creation/design and existence has any relevance in the other realm of existance?
Just because something is potentially beyond our scope of comprehension does not mean it does not exist. I would also be interesting in hearing which religion they think is being backed by the state? Based on my understanding there are people with many religions that believe in ID and others within those same religions who do not believe in ID (including the fundamentalist crowd).
Actually, it is worse for America because of legislation passed by the Dems. and Clinton. The short of it is companies that could have been getting the stuff slowly in order with Kyoto were whacked off at the knees. The legislation passed said, "if you change one piece of equipment, you have to bring ALL your equipment up to emissions code X." So power plants that were running on coal did not gradually replace their equipment with more efficient/cleaner turbines and stuff because the cost was not for just the one upgrade, it was for a complete rework.
1. Point gun at foot, 2. Pull trigger
I thought we were only at Linux 2.6 ;)
Yes, I know you ment RedHat 9.0, but if by some chance you really do have a book on Linux 9.0 that is a bookshelf living in both the past and the future.
Kidding aside, I too have spent too much on texts which are worthless now. My purpose in purchasing texts was/is single problem/solution issues which have a high amount of urgency tied to them. Otherwise, searching the web is and reading cryptic man pages works ok, if a bit slow.
While a person's name may not be unique, katie.com is a unique identification. Penguin has (by ignorance) directly acted against the interests of the person who had katie.com. Freedom of speach does not mean there are not consequences for what you say. A lack of copy right does not change the uniqueness of the identification. This has law $uit writen in the biggest letters I have ever seen.
A guess would be that the script is accessing the database remotely. Thus, if the server is getting slashdotted, there is no way it can talk to the remote database. Instead of die, they should have sent a small text message of "Remote database unreachable."
;)
Hind sight is 20/20
"Perhaps they could put items or whatever in social areas, like clubs or bars."
I appreciate the humor of the suggestion, but the marketting concept is also too obvious to overlook. Monsters/experience points/encounters in specific stores/bars/etc. There are too many modes of abusing this concept either for legal profit, or for illegal. Imagine getting hundreds of people to show up at a marketting show where in a sence they have paid for the advertisement because they are paying for the cell phone use.
In the cyber age, a fool and his/her money are parted faster.
USB under win 98 was broken by Microsoft's updates. The standard changed, MS's patch was not backwards compatable. Sony's CD-RW is one such device that got mangled by MS patches. The MS patch that killed the older devices (ie devices produced in 2000) was listed as Critical. The same thing also happened with a USB scanner and USB mouse. The scanner and mouse had their own patches for the MS Patch. In the case of the burner, the Sony solution was patch and good luck. In the end, we had to dual boot to use the burner. Patched windows for regular software usage and un-patched windows for burning content.
Let's see, I pay for the dial-up service. I pay for the cd. They use my cd, my computer, and my bandwidth. Therefore they owe the user. Before you laugh, I believe it was Georgia Tech that successfully sued an employee for computer time and bandwidth because he loaded the SETI program (or something similiar) and had lab computers doing computations during screen saving. If they did win, there is then precidence for this type of a law suit.
Therefore, are licenses no longer an asset, and instead a liability?
Functionally, the standard purchase license is like toilet paper. It has value until it is used. That may not be the way it is treated tax wise, but that is the way it is value wise. To that end, software purchased for use by a company should be immediately depreciated to value $0. To do otherwise is not marketwise correct. The license proves that point.
Ok, one three, everyone flush. 1...., 2.....,
The title is 100% FUD. It might as well have been titled "All nixes full of security holes. MS to make $$$. It is not the kind of thing I expect out of O'Rielly. I am also surprised it was posted here on /. The article is out of date relative to the fixes. It would be one thing if after all this time, there were still no fixes. I think the article should be pulled from /. it is of no value. Anyone who manages a system should have fixes the mentioned problems long ago. It was just a catchy title with no thought or substance.
The 3 points are on target. An additional point to consider is:
4. If you make it illegal to work directly on the digital data, you have most likely closed the door on what will be the next development in data accessibility of the impaired. Think about most of the software advances that exist today. Many of them came about because of people who accessed either proprietory files (Microsoft, Lotus, WordPerfect formatted documents) had the need to get these files into a more functional format (audio devices, brail, etc). Nelson is a former fire cheif. Imagine if the only people allowed to work on the fire engines were mechanics certified by the company that produced the engine (this being done because others might steal ideas from the design). It is the same thing in so far as protecting the digital data is like protecting the physical design.
5. This type of action will also cost the state a ton of money in the educational department. Many of the people working on this type of media and its transmission are associated with the education system. They are working to push the envelop without bleeding the system dry of finances which are already very limited. Close the door on this level of development and you are saying that big buck solutions are the only game in town. So, I guess if you are planning to dump more money into education, the go for it.
The point is, this experiment is being done knowing that the child produced could suffer physically in a similiar manner to the other clone experiments. Think about this from a personal standpoint. Picture being an 8 year old child who has a 80 year old body. Yes, there is a genetic condition which causes rapid aging of the cells, but in your case, it was not an acident of nature. You are just a test. They knew there were things they did not understand that were still going wrong when they made you. Rather than doing more tests to determine what were the causes of the failures, they just decided to roll the dice, make a mutant, become famous, and hope that you had the grace to die quickly, quietly, and with only a little pain.
I think the scientist should be executed the same day as the experiment dies because of "unforseen" defects. Yes, the human birth experience is a roll of the dice, but in this case, the scientist rolling the dice is doing it with the knowledge that there is next to no chance that things will turn out just fine. It would be another issue if we understood and corrected the problems with the other clones.
I personally have nothing against the idea of cloning. I do have a problem when science willfully ignores the individual upon which it inflicts suffering.
"pro-Microsoft" groups, does this mean employees and groups who have received donations? Or does it mean certified ms techies? Each of these groups would have a strong bias. I do not know of any MS Fan Clubs.
This is like people sending in form letters saying a serial killer was a nice guy. MS broke the law right there in court, but I guess the new rule is if the person in charge is named "BILL" (Clinton, Gates,...), you can get away with anything.
In each case the law was thrown out and popular opinion held sway.
With liberty and justice/injustice for those who can afford it.
Simple example, how many people use time functions in C without realizeing they are dealing with a very limited function which croaks in about 35 plus years. Use one of those functions to calculate a date beyond the range and who knows what you get for data. This bogus data then gets pushed into another function which is not checking because only valid data should come back from a built in function...
In many ways we get tripped up using code/languages which were designed under past limitations (8, 16, and 32 bit). The libraries need some cleaning/correcting, and code in general needs some serious error checking. Error checking along the lines of, "what happens when procedure X receives the impossible?"
It takes an 8 ton gorilla of a database system to get the job done.
It takes alot to manage an 8 ton gorilla of a database system.
I believe the first may be true depending upon the needs, but the second is a given. What has not been stated is that the more complex the database system is, the more likely there will be errors on the part of those implementing the system if they are not fully trained. In some ways, the difference is similiar to the difference between operating a truck verses operating a jet plane. Both are designed to get stuff from one place to another, but the number of controls on a jet plane and the amount of data being produced by various meters is considerable.
People really need to weigh two parts of the issue.
Does our task require a jet or will a truck suffice?
Are we willing to pay for proven jet pilots, or is it safer to pay for an equal number of proven truckers. The key point here being "proven."
To often I am seeing agencies who buy into the idea that the only "real" solution is the jet. This is a humorous thing to see when the jet is only used for trips across town...
There are two different types of motivation I have seen in this area. 1) A person is trying to get into management. 2) A person is trying to get management to listen.A pure techie is often believed to be 100% business ignorant. The MBA gives the same creds that techie certifications. It mains you knew enough to take and pass tests, but is not proof that you will cut it in the real stuff.