Still, why would a company say "We're using MS-SQL now, we'll move to something else later"?
IIRC, this particular instance was a case of building a business environment on MS-SQL, then looking at several new business management (i.e. ERP) systems, none of which worked on MS-SQL. Combine that with a C-level mandate to have "one standard database system, everywhere"... well, you get the idea.
In many mid-size organizations, business concerns often trump technical ones, and the business people often have the authority to ignore the technical people. Frustrating, but a fact of life.
I've never seen a case when portability across several unknown databases was a concern. What kind of project would necessitate that?
Given your history as a developer, I'm surprised you never encountered that. May I hazard a guess that you mostly worked with large corporations with significant IT investment in a given database platform (or the availability of any major DB platform)?
I ask because the several times I have seen the requirement, it was phrased something along the lines of "We're an MS-SQL shop. But we don't want to stay an MS-SQL shop, because of/some reason/. We don't know what we're changing to — might be Oracle or DB2 — but your app has to work on it."
The other scenario I can anticipate is constructing a database-driven application for sale. If your performance is still acceptable, then you benefit by supporting as many database platforms as possible.
I've never seen one where an added layer would be necessary. I'd almost say that if somebody came to me with requirements for "database portability", that would raise a major red flag for me that the project may have some bigger issues.
Several such layers exist, for several development platforms. Some of the really nifty ones ($$) even generate stored procedures optimized for common databases during the install phase, and use slower portable queries on unknown databases. This suggests that there is significant demand (not that it really means anything). I, for one, am glad of it, since the project before the last one I finished absolutely required portability between MS-SQL and an unknown future replacement.
You're a non-database person that doesn't understand the difference between a query and a compiled, cached stored procedure that lives right next to the DB engine itself. If you can, find an experienced database person and have them sit down with you to explain the difference between a stored procedure and a query.
Ah, assumptions. I'm a certified DBA for both MS-SQL and Oracle databases, and have extensive experience developing for those and other architectures.
You seemed to miss the all-important "might" in my original post, as a counter to your assertion that the only choice a competent developer would make is that which would favor performance to portability. I don't know if you're a developer yourself, but if you are, surely you can see cases where portability might be more important than raw performance?
Again, I still contend that a competent database architect/developer/DBA will use database-specific stored procedures where performance is important.
Ah, but you added to your original comment, and herein lies the crux of my point. A competent developer will know what his/her choices are and understand the tradeoffs associated with those choices. If performance was important, then a competent developer would likely choose to use stored procedures and lock into the features of a particular database. If performance was less important than portability, the same competent programmer might use the abstraction approach, thus making porting to many databases essentially work-free. If this consideration is important enough, a competent developer would work with a competent integrator/admin to insure that performance gains are realized elsewhere to mitigate the loss incurred through portability.
I repeat: the main thrust of competence is the understanding of available choices, and what the tradeoffs in making those choices are.
There are advantages to a corporate-wide scheduling system, especially one that can manage resources like video-conference suites and teleconference bridges. Planning a 20-person meeting would be hell to coordinate over-the-phone -- with an enterprise scheduler, it's a snap to see everyone's schedules and select a time that works for everyone, and where the room and materials you need are available.
What I've always failed to understand is why an extremely small company needs such features, and why it's always Exchange (which, IMO, is the worst of them all).
Need groupware that syncs with PDA's? Great! Use the stuff that comes with KDE or Gnome. Or, use one of the excellent web-based FOSS groupware packages that export to iCal, combined with an iCal conduit. Yeah, you have to write a couple of scripts, but really... that cost is insignificant compared to the cost of maintaining a Windows2003/Exchange2003 server and supporting (and tracking licensing of) Outlook clients.
I think so many small businesses get caught up in the game of playing "big company" that they waste their money on products that may make perfect sense in gigantic corporations, but have little advantage for smaller organizations and come with a corporate-sized price tag.
Economies of scale are important, yes. But, a well-run, diverse group of developers and integrators could obtain better economies of scale through open code and billing for time to create customized solutions.
Imagine the following scenario:
It costs $10,000 to build a shipping system from scratch. However, a group of developers sees that many people need shipping systems that share many common elements, and eats the time-cost of development (same as would happen in a closed-source model).
Instead of charging $200 for a pre-built piece of software that will likely not cover every need (as is common with commerical, closed software), this opens the code and allows free access to anyone who needs shipping software.
Now, however, when the software doesn't do/exactly/ what is needed, instead of hiring 2 developers to write a custom extension to a closed piece of software (and spending $2000 in addition to the original $200), they can hire 2 developers who have intimate knowledge of the product and can create the customization more quickly -- perhaps this costs $1800. The company has now saved $400 on the software.
Alternatively, a pooling model can work quite well. I had the honor of participating in a project where several competing companies were organized to solve a common problem with inventory control that was specific to the type of business. The consulting firm that developed the solution billed over $8,000,000; however, no company payed more than $1,000,000 themselves. At the end, they had their product and/all/ of the consulting needed to integrate it into their business.
Compared to commercially available solutions, they all saved significantly. The nearest competition was a $70,000 piece of software -- but the consulting quotes to integrate it into the business were typically around $1.5M (depending on specifics). That's an *average* $500,000 savings.
Of course, convincing competitors that it is in their best interests, occasionally, to cooperate on common goals is a Herculean task - the Prisonner's Dilemma demonstrates that such things tend to be against human nature.
If your company is doing anything with the database more complicated than a recipie list, any competent database developer is going to use stored procedures heavily, which are ALL database-specific.
Not true. A competent developer might use an abstraction system to deal with all queries in a cross-database manner. For example, Perl's Class::DBI module, which uses the DBI/DBD interface set to generate queries for database systems for whichever database an application connects to.
Competence has many facets, but the main thrust of competence is knowing which tools to use based on the tradeoffs and specific requirements of each individual project.
Microsoft's font smoothing works only in the horizontal dimension and makes even small text look smooth and pleasing to the eye. Apple, on the other hand, tries to smooth things both vertically and horizontally. This looks fantastic at really big sizes, but at a normal size such as 12 point, horizontal bars (such as in "H" and "E" become gray and cause eyestrain.
Yeah, I had the same problem, as a new convert to the Mac. Working through the advanced calibration allowed me to change some things about smoothing, including setting a lower bound on the font-size for which smoothing operates. I had to calibrate a couple of times to get things right for each monitor I use, but it was worth it!
Yes, guarana contains caffiene (and TFA acknowledges this, saying the beer has about 35mg per serving [less than coffee]). However guarana also contains other stimulants.
I prefer guarana-based drinks during the day, as the caffeine is still there but (1)is less per serving, which is great for pacing; (2)is combined with other stimulants, reducing the potential of caffeine dependency and increased tolerance; and (3)I feel better about naturally-occuring caffeine than the chemical powder that is added to many caffinated drinks -- this is also why I drink coffee and tea in lieu of soda, but I don't like much of those in the warmer months.
Reason (1) is a personal consideration: I don't like to be "perky" at work, just awake and able to concentrate. When I start to get tired, I have an "energy drink" that's made locally and contains guarana. This perks me up enough, but not so much as a cup of coffee. Ideally, I'd have an espresso (25mg caffeine, on average), but the only purveyors within a reasonable distance of work have rank espresso.
Reason (2) is nice because on the weekends, I don't want to consume caffeine. This is better, long-term, for my heart. Caffeine dependency isn't "dangerous", but I hate the headaches and such that come from withdrawal; when I'm not at work, if I get tired I can merely take a nap -- and that's better than stimulants, period!
Reason (3) is probably just psychology. There are no studies showing the processed caffeine powder is any more harmful than naturally-occuring caffeine. In fact, it may be better since it's a controlled dose. I still feel better about the naturally-occurring stuff; call it an irrational hunch if you will.;-)
No, the full source is available. However, it does link against some non-free libraries.;-) For the DIY-er, you can always use home-grown solutions for those libraries, in this case, literally. Growing your own grains (even hops) can be enjoyable. However, I recommend paying the license fee for the yeast, as growing your own is rather difficult.
The bill that created federal funding for roadways says that all citizens have a right to access roadways for personal or commercial use, including vehicles. Driving is not a "privilege", unless you look at it from the "only financially secure individuals can afford to drive" perspective. Legally, you have a right to be on the road.
That right has been limited through licensure for the general safety of the populace. We have the right to drive, but we have the responsibility to meet licensing requirements or that right is revoked or restrained.
a traffic ticket is not a crime, it is a code violation
Traffic tickets are crimes, but they are typically 'summary offences' (more minor than a misdemeanor). A summary offence is anything you get a citation for; the difference between a summary offence and other crimes is in the prosecution of the crime. If you pay the fine, you automatically plead guilty. Also, you don't have a right to jury trial for summary offences except in particular circumstances. You can still plead "not guilty" and pursue the matter all the way to a trial by judge; the burden of proof remains on the State, as it does in all criminal cases.
The practical difference is that most people are not willing to pursue a traffic ticket to such extents, because the costs in time, effort, and legal research and/or representation are more than the costs of the ticket. However, if you do pursue it, the State needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were speeding -- your job as the defense is to poke holes in the theories the State presents to demonstrate that doubt. For example, the State says "we know you were speeding because we have RADAR equipment that measures speed". That, unchallenged, would probably be enough to convict you. You, however, could say "do you have proof that the equipment was properly calibrated? This Exhibit is a study that RADAR is inaccurate, and the inaccuracy is so great I could have been going below the limit. There were 3 lanes full of other cars moving at various rates of speed; how do you know the RADAR registered my vehicle?" Things like this may demonstrate that the State can't prove the case against you.
Hm, Dvorak wonders what CC sets out to do, and then says crap about how CC makes it seem like you're losing your fair-use rights, and that you have no way to use something for a commercial purpose. Now, the simple fact that the "no comercial uses" clause is optional, the following appears on ever CC Deed (the plain-English version of the license that clicking anyone's CC grant button will take you to):
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.
The emphasis there isn't even mine, it's bold on the Deed. It's not like there's a lot to read, there, Dvorak -- the man clearly can't be bothered to do 30 seconds worth of actual research, but he can "beg" people to explain it to him without results? I smell a rat.
I know several people who are, I won't say hypochondriac... let's just say "highly emotional and reactive". My mother-in-law (an RN) is one of them. Several weeks ago, after spending a few days at a cabin on a local lake, I developed a slight rash. First thought: probably a reaction to something in the lake water or something at the cabin property.
My mother-in-law saw this rash and nearly demanded that I go to urgent care. Naturally, she raised my concern. First, though, I waded through the WebMD diagnostic criteria -- they help you narrow your symptoms and decide if and when you should see a doctor (and of what type). Based on this information, I decided not to go to the doctor, and two days later my symptoms were completely gone. Saved me an $80 co-pay, some serious stress, etc.
So yeah, the information on the Web may be a playground for hypochondriacs, but it also allows those of us capable of critical thinking and analysis to avoid unnecessary trips to a physician.
I think you're thinking of the wrong part of the chuck. The chuck can become "stripped out", not along the threads where one uses the key, but along its axis. It's rare, but trying to drill through the wrong materials with the wrong bits can cause it to happen on a mid-range drill. A really good drill will strip out your wrist, first.;-)
I think I saw them at Sam's Club last week. Crap, mind you.
So the better drill now has a cheapo cord I gots to babysit?
If you decide to buy a nicer cordless drill, then I suppose it would be equivalent to following proper charging procedures and maintenance for the batteries. Most serious home-hobbyists I know use corded drills because really nice cordless drills are extremely expensive. The cord isn't "cheapo", but you still need to exercise basic care.
Maybe because Unix's problems are much worse? Have you ever read the Unix-Hater's Handbook, or are you just interested in spewing propaganda?
All software sucks. Windows has problems, UNIX has problems, Linux has problems -- never did I attempt to suggest otherwise. The major difference between Windows and, say, Linux, is that when something sucks in the Linux world, most users don't just shrug and accept it. Instead, they complain loudly, work to make changes if they have the skills, and so on until the problems are fixed (either by the project at hand, or by a competing project).
In other words, my comment was about attitude. MS won't fix things unless users get really irritated -- enough to vote with their pocketbook -- or they get sued. Since the average computer user just puts up with the problems in the OS they use (which is usually Windows), the problems will not get fixed. Most users have no recourse, here. At least with a *NIX, the user has a bit more flexibility of choice -- hate Gnome? use KDE; hate KDE? use FVWM; hate FVWM? use Englightenment; etc. And that's just for the window manager.
The number one complaint I hear from Windows users about Linux is that there is too much choice, and that makes things hard to learn. All I'm saying is, well, pick your problem set. Do you want something a bit harder to learn that is unlikely to get malware-ridden, or do you want something painfully easy to learn that hassles you with security issues? Users' call...
My life? How is an anti-spyware tool on my computer going to really affect my life? Or how is my computer going to help me take control of my life?
My computer is just a stupid, noisy, power-sucking box that sits on the floor. I am the one that gives it life, not the other way around. Whatever operating system it runs doesn't really affect my life at all- I just use the thing.
I think you're missing the point. A computer is a very powerful tool, and the more you use it to communicate and work (research, etc. counts as work), the more its correct operation impacts your life. This is analogous to buying a nice power drill -- if you rarely use it, a $20 cordless from Wal-Mart will suffice you; but, if you are remodelling your house and use it every day, you will need to buy a better drill and put some effort toward maintaining it (keeping the cord from getting worn, making sure not to strip out the chuck, etc.), or you will find your projects significantly delayed.
Viruses and other malware (spyware included) have become a fact of life for most Windows users. The more they use their tool (the computer), the more impact that being hit by malware will have on their life. Most people are at least somewhat aware of this, so they purchase anti-malware software to protect their Windows machines. The fact that such software is so popular indicates that people are aware that malware significantly impacts their lives if they are regular computer users.
The problem is that people have just accepted that malware is out there, and feel that forking over a few hundred dollars for someone to detect and fix infections is the only real course of action. This is akin to getting the flu frequently, accepting that we all get sick, and paying a doctor for medication for every infection; yet, if one were to simply wear properly-warm clothing, eat balanced meals, and ensure a sufficient supply of Vitamin C, etc., one could reduce their vulnerabilities significantly. This is how I see suggesting a user switch to Linux or Mac OSX. Yes, it requires some effort, some discipline and some self-education (just as changing your diet and other habits would), but the end result is significantly less vulnerability.
Why people continue to accept Windows' problems without much ire is a mystery to me.
No, it's not OK to vandalize. But Indymedia didn't. Someone posted to an Indymedia site about their involvement with a vandal act; that person is Indymedia's anonymous source. Traditionally (and for good reason), the UK has respected the media's right of free expresion by not forcing journalists or journalistic organizations to reveal confidential sources.
If a society suffers confidential sources to be revealed, it means that they will not come forward to a reporter. We wouldn't hear about government mismanagement, we'd never have had Watergate exposed in the US, etc.
And, for the same basic reason that governments refuse to negotiate with terrorists, society should refuse to allow the police to force revelation of confidential sources' identities in any case.
In this particular case, Indymedia was asked for their IP logs, which they refused on the grounds that the Police would be able to determine the identities of not only the alleged criminal in question, but other confidential sources as well. That is something that should not be supported by anyone who cares about free (as in libre) media.
Did you read my comment? I *am* making money with OSS. And I never said that companies don't buy software from single-person vendors, just that, in general, they don't like to.
In other words, companies prefer to buy from large vendors, and will only buy from smaller vendors if there is a significant advantage for them.
sigh. Why is it that when people can't figure out how something is done, they simply say "it CAN NOT be done"?
Firstly, let's get something clear: hardly anyone makes money simply selling software. A perfect example is databases -- for all but the high-end database projects, a free database works just as well (sometimes better) than a commercial, closed-source DB. Yet, people still buy MS-SQL server, and Oracle, and the like for even small projects. Why? They are buying the support of MS and Oracle: not just the telephone support but the "this large company has vetted my software" support. They are buying trust and service.
Now that that's clear, let me explain that I make money by selling OSS solutions, and that RedHat and Novell make money from my work. I contract as an OSS developer/integrator. I sell my development ability and support. But, my clients buy Linux from Novell or RedHat; they are getting support from me, so why would they buy these OS, when they can be had for free?
The answer is simple: people (and to a greater extent, corporations) see value in something they've paid for. If something happens to me, they know someone will stand behind the product. They know that someone they've paid is working on security patches and improvements. And, ultimately, they know the product is less likely to be abandoned.
So, when my clients buy Linux from RedHat, they are buying exactly the same thing as when they buy Windows from Microsoft: trust. Trust that the software has some degree of quality, trust that it will be patched and maintained, and trust that it will continue to be available. With OSS, however, they get the bonus of knowing that migration to another vendor will be relatively painless because the vendors of OSS software have access to each other's code.
It is possible to make money with OSS, but it is a lot harder to start your own OSS business. People don't like buying software (closed *or* open) from one-person organizations.
Interesting. I have found a slightly different system which appears to work well with most distros (I use Mandriva, FC3, Debian, and SuSE [hey, I test apps on Linux for a living]):
Boot Linux install CD.
Jump to partitioner section (I use the term option, but the GUI partitioner works well too)
Set up partitions:/dev/(h|s)da1 is usually/boot and/dev/(h|s)da2 is NTFS for Win. The remaining partitions depend on the config, of course.
Remove Linux install CD and shut down.
Install WinXP Pro on NTFS partition.
Finish XP setup (install SP2, drivers, etc.)
Re-boot Linux install CD
Install Linux
This keeps XP from trying to bjork the MBR, but allows for it to be installed cleanly. Further, it allows the Linux install to detect the Windows partition for dual-boot. This has been, for me, the most painless way to install a dual-boot Win/Lin system.
And this is why most self-appointed "critics" of software design are out of their mind; they fail to realize that different people make different assumptions. The author complains that "nothing is where you EXPECT it to be", while forgetting that it might be exactly where I expect it to be, but not where he expects it to be.
That's why good interfaces make things easy to find, and do not rely on expectations.
Users get "good benefits", eh? Since when are benefits bad?
Anyhow, the Volume->Folder->File metaphor has always been a bit strained, and I'm glad to see that quality search tools and filesystem metadata are chipping away at the average user's need to use such a metaphor as a crutch. Hopefully, this the first step toward establishing a new filesystem metaphor: one where the data can be somewhat independent of the logical location on a disk, and that doesn't treat the user like a cripple hobbling toward his/her data.
The addition of metadata especially interests me, as it opens the door to having the filesystem exposed as several different metaphors at once -- the logical layout of the filesystem need have nothing to do with its navigation metaphor.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, why would a company say "We're using MS-SQL now, we'll move to something else later"?
IIRC, this particular instance was a case of building a business environment on MS-SQL, then looking at several new business management (i.e. ERP) systems, none of which worked on MS-SQL. Combine that with a C-level mandate to have "one standard database system, everywhere"... well, you get the idea.
In many mid-size organizations, business concerns often trump technical ones, and the business people often have the authority to ignore the technical people. Frustrating, but a fact of life.
I've never seen a case when portability across several unknown databases was a concern. What kind of project would necessitate that?
/some reason/. We don't know what we're changing to — might be Oracle or DB2 — but your app has to work on it."
Given your history as a developer, I'm surprised you never encountered that. May I hazard a guess that you mostly worked with large corporations with significant IT investment in a given database platform (or the availability of any major DB platform)?
I ask because the several times I have seen the requirement, it was phrased something along the lines of "We're an MS-SQL shop. But we don't want to stay an MS-SQL shop, because of
The other scenario I can anticipate is constructing a database-driven application for sale. If your performance is still acceptable, then you benefit by supporting as many database platforms as possible.
I've never seen one where an added layer would be necessary. I'd almost say that if somebody came to me with requirements for "database portability", that would raise a major red flag for me that the project may have some bigger issues.
Several such layers exist, for several development platforms. Some of the really nifty ones ($$) even generate stored procedures optimized for common databases during the install phase, and use slower portable queries on unknown databases. This suggests that there is significant demand (not that it really means anything). I, for one, am glad of it, since the project before the last one I finished absolutely required portability between MS-SQL and an unknown future replacement.
You're a non-database person that doesn't understand the difference between a query and a compiled, cached stored procedure that lives right next to the DB engine itself. If you can, find an experienced database person and have them sit down with you to explain the difference between a stored procedure and a query.
Ah, assumptions. I'm a certified DBA for both MS-SQL and Oracle databases, and have extensive experience developing for those and other architectures.
You seemed to miss the all-important "might" in my original post, as a counter to your assertion that the only choice a competent developer would make is that which would favor performance to portability. I don't know if you're a developer yourself, but if you are, surely you can see cases where portability might be more important than raw performance?
Again, I still contend that a competent database architect/developer/DBA will use database-specific stored procedures where performance is important.
Ah, but you added to your original comment, and herein lies the crux of my point. A competent developer will know what his/her choices are and understand the tradeoffs associated with those choices. If performance was important, then a competent developer would likely choose to use stored procedures and lock into the features of a particular database. If performance was less important than portability, the same competent programmer might use the abstraction approach, thus making porting to many databases essentially work-free. If this consideration is important enough, a competent developer would work with a competent integrator/admin to insure that performance gains are realized elsewhere to mitigate the loss incurred through portability.
I repeat: the main thrust of competence is the understanding of available choices, and what the tradeoffs in making those choices are.
There are advantages to a corporate-wide scheduling system, especially one that can manage resources like video-conference suites and teleconference bridges. Planning a 20-person meeting would be hell to coordinate over-the-phone -- with an enterprise scheduler, it's a snap to see everyone's schedules and select a time that works for everyone, and where the room and materials you need are available.
What I've always failed to understand is why an extremely small company needs such features, and why it's always Exchange (which, IMO, is the worst of them all).
Need groupware that syncs with PDA's? Great! Use the stuff that comes with KDE or Gnome. Or, use one of the excellent web-based FOSS groupware packages that export to iCal, combined with an iCal conduit. Yeah, you have to write a couple of scripts, but really... that cost is insignificant compared to the cost of maintaining a Windows2003/Exchange2003 server and supporting (and tracking licensing of) Outlook clients.
I think so many small businesses get caught up in the game of playing "big company" that they waste their money on products that may make perfect sense in gigantic corporations, but have little advantage for smaller organizations and come with a corporate-sized price tag.
Economies of scale are important, yes. But, a well-run, diverse group of developers and integrators could obtain better economies of scale through open code and billing for time to create customized solutions.
/exactly/ what is needed, instead of hiring 2 developers to write a custom extension to a closed piece of software (and spending $2000 in addition to the original $200), they can hire 2 developers who have intimate knowledge of the product and can create the customization more quickly -- perhaps this costs $1800. The company has now saved $400 on the software.
/all/ of the consulting needed to integrate it into their business.
Imagine the following scenario:
It costs $10,000 to build a shipping system from scratch. However, a group of developers sees that many people need shipping systems that share many common elements, and eats the time-cost of development (same as would happen in a closed-source model).
Instead of charging $200 for a pre-built piece of software that will likely not cover every need (as is common with commerical, closed software), this opens the code and allows free access to anyone who needs shipping software.
Now, however, when the software doesn't do
Alternatively, a pooling model can work quite well. I had the honor of participating in a project where several competing companies were organized to solve a common problem with inventory control that was specific to the type of business. The consulting firm that developed the solution billed over $8,000,000; however, no company payed more than $1,000,000 themselves. At the end, they had their product and
Compared to commercially available solutions, they all saved significantly. The nearest competition was a $70,000 piece of software -- but the consulting quotes to integrate it into the business were typically around $1.5M (depending on specifics). That's an *average* $500,000 savings.
Of course, convincing competitors that it is in their best interests, occasionally, to cooperate on common goals is a Herculean task - the Prisonner's Dilemma demonstrates that such things tend to be against human nature.
Not true. A competent developer might use an abstraction system to deal with all queries in a cross-database manner. For example, Perl's Class::DBI module, which uses the DBI/DBD interface set to generate queries for database systems for whichever database an application connects to.
Competence has many facets, but the main thrust of competence is knowing which tools to use based on the tradeoffs and specific requirements of each individual project.
Men have breasts, and can therefore get breast cancer. The ovarian cancer quip is amusing, though.
Yeah, I had the same problem, as a new convert to the Mac. Working through the advanced calibration allowed me to change some things about smoothing, including setting a lower bound on the font-size for which smoothing operates. I had to calibrate a couple of times to get things right for each monitor I use, but it was worth it!
Yep. Search for 'XXX chromosome'; returns no porn on front page, and this in the first 10 results: http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/xxxsyn.ht m
I prefer guarana-based drinks during the day, as the caffeine is still there but (1)is less per serving, which is great for pacing; (2)is combined with other stimulants, reducing the potential of caffeine dependency and increased tolerance; and (3)I feel better about naturally-occuring caffeine than the chemical powder that is added to many caffinated drinks -- this is also why I drink coffee and tea in lieu of soda, but I don't like much of those in the warmer months.
Reason (1) is a personal consideration: I don't like to be "perky" at work, just awake and able to concentrate. When I start to get tired, I have an "energy drink" that's made locally and contains guarana. This perks me up enough, but not so much as a cup of coffee. Ideally, I'd have an espresso (25mg caffeine, on average), but the only purveyors within a reasonable distance of work have rank espresso.
Reason (2) is nice because on the weekends, I don't want to consume caffeine. This is better, long-term, for my heart. Caffeine dependency isn't "dangerous", but I hate the headaches and such that come from withdrawal; when I'm not at work, if I get tired I can merely take a nap -- and that's better than stimulants, period!
Reason (3) is probably just psychology. There are no studies showing the processed caffeine powder is any more harmful than naturally-occuring caffeine. In fact, it may be better since it's a controlled dose. I still feel better about the naturally-occurring stuff; call it an irrational hunch if you will. ;-)
No, the full source is available. However, it does link against some non-free libraries. ;-) For the DIY-er, you can always use home-grown solutions for those libraries, in this case, literally. Growing your own grains (even hops) can be enjoyable. However, I recommend paying the license fee for the yeast, as growing your own is rather difficult.
The bill that created federal funding for roadways says that all citizens have a right to access roadways for personal or commercial use, including vehicles. Driving is not a "privilege", unless you look at it from the "only financially secure individuals can afford to drive" perspective. Legally, you have a right to be on the road.
That right has been limited through licensure for the general safety of the populace. We have the right to drive, but we have the responsibility to meet licensing requirements or that right is revoked or restrained.
a traffic ticket is not a crime, it is a code violation
Traffic tickets are crimes, but they are typically 'summary offences' (more minor than a misdemeanor). A summary offence is anything you get a citation for; the difference between a summary offence and other crimes is in the prosecution of the crime. If you pay the fine, you automatically plead guilty. Also, you don't have a right to jury trial for summary offences except in particular circumstances. You can still plead "not guilty" and pursue the matter all the way to a trial by judge; the burden of proof remains on the State, as it does in all criminal cases.
The practical difference is that most people are not willing to pursue a traffic ticket to such extents, because the costs in time, effort, and legal research and/or representation are more than the costs of the ticket. However, if you do pursue it, the State needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were speeding -- your job as the defense is to poke holes in the theories the State presents to demonstrate that doubt. For example, the State says "we know you were speeding because we have RADAR equipment that measures speed". That, unchallenged, would probably be enough to convict you. You, however, could say "do you have proof that the equipment was properly calibrated? This Exhibit is a study that RADAR is inaccurate, and the inaccuracy is so great I could have been going below the limit. There were 3 lanes full of other cars moving at various rates of speed; how do you know the RADAR registered my vehicle?" Things like this may demonstrate that the State can't prove the case against you.
My mother-in-law saw this rash and nearly demanded that I go to urgent care. Naturally, she raised my concern. First, though, I waded through the WebMD diagnostic criteria -- they help you narrow your symptoms and decide if and when you should see a doctor (and of what type). Based on this information, I decided not to go to the doctor, and two days later my symptoms were completely gone. Saved me an $80 co-pay, some serious stress, etc.
So yeah, the information on the Web may be a playground for hypochondriacs, but it also allows those of us capable of critical thinking and analysis to avoid unnecessary trips to a physician.
I think you're thinking of the wrong part of the chuck. The chuck can become "stripped out", not along the threads where one uses the key, but along its axis. It's rare, but trying to drill through the wrong materials with the wrong bits can cause it to happen on a mid-range drill. A really good drill will strip out your wrist, first. ;-)
I think I saw them at Sam's Club last week. Crap, mind you.
So the better drill now has a cheapo cord I gots to babysit?
If you decide to buy a nicer cordless drill, then I suppose it would be equivalent to following proper charging procedures and maintenance for the batteries. Most serious home-hobbyists I know use corded drills because really nice cordless drills are extremely expensive. The cord isn't "cheapo", but you still need to exercise basic care.
All software sucks. Windows has problems, UNIX has problems, Linux has problems -- never did I attempt to suggest otherwise. The major difference between Windows and, say, Linux, is that when something sucks in the Linux world, most users don't just shrug and accept it. Instead, they complain loudly, work to make changes if they have the skills, and so on until the problems are fixed (either by the project at hand, or by a competing project).
In other words, my comment was about attitude. MS won't fix things unless users get really irritated -- enough to vote with their pocketbook -- or they get sued. Since the average computer user just puts up with the problems in the OS they use (which is usually Windows), the problems will not get fixed. Most users have no recourse, here. At least with a *NIX, the user has a bit more flexibility of choice -- hate Gnome? use KDE; hate KDE? use FVWM; hate FVWM? use Englightenment; etc. And that's just for the window manager.
The number one complaint I hear from Windows users about Linux is that there is too much choice, and that makes things hard to learn. All I'm saying is, well, pick your problem set. Do you want something a bit harder to learn that is unlikely to get malware-ridden, or do you want something painfully easy to learn that hassles you with security issues? Users' call...
My computer is just a stupid, noisy, power-sucking box that sits on the floor. I am the one that gives it life, not the other way around. Whatever operating system it runs doesn't really affect my life at all- I just use the thing.
I think you're missing the point. A computer is a very powerful tool, and the more you use it to communicate and work (research, etc. counts as work), the more its correct operation impacts your life. This is analogous to buying a nice power drill -- if you rarely use it, a $20 cordless from Wal-Mart will suffice you; but, if you are remodelling your house and use it every day, you will need to buy a better drill and put some effort toward maintaining it (keeping the cord from getting worn, making sure not to strip out the chuck, etc.), or you will find your projects significantly delayed.
Viruses and other malware (spyware included) have become a fact of life for most Windows users. The more they use their tool (the computer), the more impact that being hit by malware will have on their life. Most people are at least somewhat aware of this, so they purchase anti-malware software to protect their Windows machines. The fact that such software is so popular indicates that people are aware that malware significantly impacts their lives if they are regular computer users.
The problem is that people have just accepted that malware is out there, and feel that forking over a few hundred dollars for someone to detect and fix infections is the only real course of action. This is akin to getting the flu frequently, accepting that we all get sick, and paying a doctor for medication for every infection; yet, if one were to simply wear properly-warm clothing, eat balanced meals, and ensure a sufficient supply of Vitamin C, etc., one could reduce their vulnerabilities significantly. This is how I see suggesting a user switch to Linux or Mac OSX. Yes, it requires some effort, some discipline and some self-education (just as changing your diet and other habits would), but the end result is significantly less vulnerability.
Why people continue to accept Windows' problems without much ire is a mystery to me.
No, it's not OK to vandalize. But Indymedia didn't. Someone posted to an Indymedia site about their involvement with a vandal act; that person is Indymedia's anonymous source. Traditionally (and for good reason), the UK has respected the media's right of free expresion by not forcing journalists or journalistic organizations to reveal confidential sources.
If a society suffers confidential sources to be revealed, it means that they will not come forward to a reporter. We wouldn't hear about government mismanagement, we'd never have had Watergate exposed in the US, etc.
And, for the same basic reason that governments refuse to negotiate with terrorists, society should refuse to allow the police to force revelation of confidential sources' identities in any case.
In this particular case, Indymedia was asked for their IP logs, which they refused on the grounds that the Police would be able to determine the identities of not only the alleged criminal in question, but other confidential sources as well. That is something that should not be supported by anyone who cares about free (as in libre) media.
In other words, companies prefer to buy from large vendors, and will only buy from smaller vendors if there is a significant advantage for them.
sigh. Why is it that when people can't figure out how something is done, they simply say "it CAN NOT be done"?
Firstly, let's get something clear: hardly anyone makes money simply selling software. A perfect example is databases -- for all but the high-end database projects, a free database works just as well (sometimes better) than a commercial, closed-source DB. Yet, people still buy MS-SQL server, and Oracle, and the like for even small projects. Why? They are buying the support of MS and Oracle: not just the telephone support but the "this large company has vetted my software" support. They are buying trust and service.
Now that that's clear, let me explain that I make money by selling OSS solutions, and that RedHat and Novell make money from my work. I contract as an OSS developer/integrator. I sell my development ability and support. But, my clients buy Linux from Novell or RedHat; they are getting support from me, so why would they buy these OS, when they can be had for free?
The answer is simple: people (and to a greater extent, corporations) see value in something they've paid for. If something happens to me, they know someone will stand behind the product. They know that someone they've paid is working on security patches and improvements. And, ultimately, they know the product is less likely to be abandoned.
So, when my clients buy Linux from RedHat, they are buying exactly the same thing as when they buy Windows from Microsoft: trust. Trust that the software has some degree of quality, trust that it will be patched and maintained, and trust that it will continue to be available. With OSS, however, they get the bonus of knowing that migration to another vendor will be relatively painless because the vendors of OSS software have access to each other's code.
It is possible to make money with OSS, but it is a lot harder to start your own OSS business. People don't like buying software (closed *or* open) from one-person organizations.
- Boot Linux install CD.
- Jump to partitioner section (I use the term option, but the GUI partitioner works well too)
- Set up partitions:
/dev/(h|s)da1 is usually /boot and /dev/(h|s)da2 is NTFS for Win. The remaining partitions depend on the config, of course.
- Remove Linux install CD and shut down.
- Install WinXP Pro on NTFS partition.
- Finish XP setup (install SP2, drivers, etc.)
- Re-boot Linux install CD
- Install Linux
This keeps XP from trying to bjork the MBR, but allows for it to be installed cleanly. Further, it allows the Linux install to detect the Windows partition for dual-boot. This has been, for me, the most painless way to install a dual-boot Win/Lin system.And this is why most self-appointed "critics" of software design are out of their mind; they fail to realize that different people make different assumptions. The author complains that "nothing is where you EXPECT it to be", while forgetting that it might be exactly where I expect it to be, but not where he expects it to be.
That's why good interfaces make things easy to find, and do not rely on expectations.
Users get "good benefits", eh? Since when are benefits bad?
Anyhow, the Volume->Folder->File metaphor has always been a bit strained, and I'm glad to see that quality search tools and filesystem metadata are chipping away at the average user's need to use such a metaphor as a crutch. Hopefully, this the first step toward establishing a new filesystem metaphor: one where the data can be somewhat independent of the logical location on a disk, and that doesn't treat the user like a cripple hobbling toward his/her data.
The addition of metadata especially interests me, as it opens the door to having the filesystem exposed as several different metaphors at once -- the logical layout of the filesystem need have nothing to do with its navigation metaphor.
In-FUCKING-formative? The University of California at Los Angeles. UCLA. No damned typo. Ugh... moderators...