If you're the DBA and you've been given the responsibility of implementing the data storage at your company, you should be the one who decides what system is used.
Gently explain this to your boss. Tell him you understand that he may have a preference toward Access, but you know from past experience that Access will not meet your long-term needs and you recommend something different.
If your boss still insists, it's time to move on. You work for a micro-manager and that's the pits. Trust me. --
Fortunately, they are extremely hard to enforce (which is what every HR person says), but at the same time, if they are so hard to enforce, why bother with them.
If someone can easily kick your front door down, why bother with locking it at all? It's simply a deterrent more than a strictly enforcable contract.
I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that SSH Communications Security applied for two different marks, one a "Word Mark" and one a "Typed Drawing". The word mark registration does not include a picture and is abandoned. The typed drawing, however, includes a picture and is live.
I may be reading into this too much, but it seems to me that a word mark is the word "ssh" and a typed drawing is the specific presentation of "ssh" in the stylized way illustrated in the picture. Much like the words "Coka Cola" and the stylized cursive "Coka Cola" are separate registered marks.
Since OpenSSH is not using the stylized "ssh" anywhere, there can be no confusion between the marks.
If we really wanted to be picky, Fairchild Industries owns the word mark "ssh" for some sort of injection molding temperature control. --
Since GPS uses pseudo-random data streams, couldn't you prove your position at a particular time by somehow inserting the timestamp data from the four satellites you're talking to into the digital signature?
Or would that be easily faked?
I'm not a GPS expert, so I don't really know for certain.
Companies already spend on the order of $120M to build huge skyscrapers in Manhattan... why not spend 120M to shoot an exclusive environment up into space?
Obviously, the ROI on a skyscraper is much easier to digest, but if you've got enough people who want to spend the bank to get a week in space, you could pull your $120M investment back in a few years.
I hate to say this, but couldn't MirCorp just launch another "space station" for the sole purpose of housing people? $40 million obviously wouldn't be enough, but it seems they don't have much trouble raising money to fund a battered and unreliable Mir, so why not raise enough to blast another habital environment into space?
If their purpose is to get civilians into space, I'm sure they'd have a more warm reception if it were on a platform that wasn't prone to random catastrophic failure (and if the tickets were less expensive, thank you).
A Standard Interface is all well and good, but don't we all need different things from our desktops?
People, think! Standardisation isn't necessarily good for all of us- some of us like to work our own way.
It has nothing to do with working your own way or wanting your own desktop colors or borders or icons or anything else. You always have the option of installing whatever window manager you want to fit your needs.
This has everything to do with corporate standardization for training and support purposes. Windows wins big in the corporate market because it is easy to use and allows all the desktops to BEHAVE the same way so the internal help desk folk can deal with it. A HUGE amount of Windows' market share is huge corporations who buy thousands and thousands of copies of Windows because they want everything to be the same.
By coming up with a "standard" desktop and office environment, Linux finally has a chance to penetrate that market and really put a dent in Windows' market share.
Perhaps the Microsoft-free office of the future isn't so far away after all.
The reason that the music, movie, and software industries are such hard-asses when it comes to old work is because they're pack-rats... they never know when their intellectual property is going to be useful/popular/profitable again.
Think of it this way... there's a classic 50's song that Warner Brothers has the rights to. This song hasn't appeared on an album in 30 years, it's not on the radio, and it's not producing a dime. In fact, it probably exists at a loss to Warner Brothers because they are paying to keep it in archival all these years.
BUT, a movie comes out that happens to use this song and it suddenly resurges in popularity. All the sudden, there's a huge demand for this song that hasn't generated a profit in 30 years. Warner Brothers re-releases the song on both the soundtrack and a "best of" album. Suddenly this song is generating real revenue. If Warner Brothers had released this song into the public domain (or was forced to), they'd lose out on this revenue stream.
They hold the rights just in case something like this happens. If you have a million songs and just 1/2% of them produce $250,000 a piece, that's a big chunk of money. Now, I'm sure the percentage is much lower than that, but the music, movie, and software companies aren't relying on that for their sole source of revenue. --
I have to agree with this. The company I work for ordered a dual-proc Penguin box we needed real fast. They were nice enough to hand-truck it over to us (we're on Mission street in San Francisco) rather than delay it further by shipping it.
In addition, they provided us with a second hard drive which was the wrong type and they _immediately_ came by and gave us a replacement when we notified them.
They've always been helpful and they have never made me regret our purchase.
Plus, we got a cute stuffed penguin... awww.
-C --
I personally think this lawsuit is a great thing because I don't think YesMail has a hope in hell of winning.
I'm no lawyer, but I really don't think you can sue someone who simply publishes a list. Think about it... all MAPS does is compile a list of IPs it doesn't like and various ISPs act as subscribers to this information and choose to block them.
If MAPS were to lose, it sets a nasty precident that would allow anybody to sue anyone (such as NetNanny) simply because they are listed as "bad". Think of how far-reaching this could be... you could publish a list of crappy video cards and be sued because sales dropped. --
and what's the probe supposed to do when it's done? land, and sit there for eternity on the hope that no plutonium ever leaks out?
Wow... good point. What the heck would you do about that? What if you found the whole place was just freakin' stuffed full of life and then the heli-probe just nuked everything. Whoops. --
I see some folks saying this outright can't be done and I just disagree.
There are many examples of computers (and not even fast ones by today's standards) controlling aircraft that were once thought impossible to control. Look at the F-16 and the fly-by-wire system... even better, look at the B-2 bomber and it's flying wing design. I remember reading somewhere that the B-2 just simply wouldn't be able to fly in a stable, controlled manner without the assistance of computers.
Now translate this into a completely foreign environment such as Titan. We have to assume we will know nothing about the atmosphere except for an approximation of density and maybe a reasonable idea of temperatures. We also don't have the benefit of GPS or any other method to know for certain where we are precisely on the surface.
Systems based on interia and gyroscopes have been in use on commercial aircraft from the very beginning. There were computers dumber than your TI calculator flying 707's way back in the day.
Titan has gravity, and inertia is constant, so that's really all we need. We of course won't know exactly where we are at any given point, but we could certainly make a reasonable guess.
As for winds and obstacles and so on, doppler radar could determine movement relative to the ground with a high level of precision, as well as altitude and flight-path obstacles.
Someone brought up the point that if the thing dropped on it's side, it would be screwed. This isn't really true because you could build struts that would right the craft if it ever tipped over. You could also provide a detection mechanism to identify when a landing is being attempted on uneven terrain and jump back into the air for another try.
I can't vouch for the fact this will all fit into 1000Kg, though! It sure would be a cool project even here on Earth. Maybe we could even stick some Penguin-love in it.
Isn't it entertaining that the RIAA will scream at the top of their lungs to try to get something to happen only to contradict themselves later.
For instance, in their own brief they stated that making recordings of live concerts didn't constitute infringement, but when asked if an MP3 of that same live concert distributed over the internet was infringement they just kinda ho-humed the whole thing.
It just seems to me that the RIAA wants to outlaw anything that could possibly eat a buck from their coffer versus funding a way for the public (who supports the artists and thus RIAA) to be compensated fairly.
I frankly don't like paying $20 for a CD that I _KNOW_ costs about $1 to actually create. So that means about $19 is going into someone's pocket, and it isn't the artist's. I don't want to support the record label, I want to support the artist.
I would be MUCH more likely to spend about $5 for a digital distribution of an album than I would be to buy a $20 piece of plastic. This is even more true if I knew the artist was getting most of the money.
The artist is entertaining me... the record label isn't doing squat except being greedy.
Slashdot Mirror
It comes down to this:
If you're the DBA and you've been given the responsibility of implementing the data storage at your company, you should be the one who decides what system is used.
Gently explain this to your boss. Tell him you understand that he may have a preference toward Access, but you know from past experience that Access will not meet your long-term needs and you recommend something different.
If your boss still insists, it's time to move on. You work for a micro-manager and that's the pits. Trust me.
--
Fortunately, they are extremely hard to enforce (which is what every HR person says), but at the same time, if they are so hard to enforce, why bother with them.
If someone can easily kick your front door down, why bother with locking it at all? It's simply a deterrent more than a strictly enforcable contract.
--
I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that SSH Communications Security applied for two different marks, one a "Word Mark" and one a "Typed Drawing". The word mark registration does not include a picture and is abandoned. The typed drawing, however, includes a picture and is live.
I may be reading into this too much, but it seems to me that a word mark is the word "ssh" and a typed drawing is the specific presentation of "ssh" in the stylized way illustrated in the picture. Much like the words "Coka Cola" and the stylized cursive "Coka Cola" are separate registered marks.
Since OpenSSH is not using the stylized "ssh" anywhere, there can be no confusion between the marks.
If we really wanted to be picky, Fairchild Industries owns the word mark "ssh" for some sort of injection molding temperature control.
--
Since GPS uses pseudo-random data streams, couldn't you prove your position at a particular time by somehow inserting the timestamp data from the four satellites you're talking to into the digital signature?
Or would that be easily faked?
I'm not a GPS expert, so I don't really know for certain.
-C
--
Companies already spend on the order of $120M to build huge skyscrapers in Manhattan... why not spend 120M to shoot an exclusive environment up into space?
Obviously, the ROI on a skyscraper is much easier to digest, but if you've got enough people who want to spend the bank to get a week in space, you could pull your $120M investment back in a few years.
-C
--
I hate to say this, but couldn't MirCorp just launch another "space station" for the sole purpose of housing people? $40 million obviously wouldn't be enough, but it seems they don't have much trouble raising money to fund a battered and unreliable Mir, so why not raise enough to blast another habital environment into space?
If their purpose is to get civilians into space, I'm sure they'd have a more warm reception if it were on a platform that wasn't prone to random catastrophic failure (and if the tickets were less expensive, thank you).
-C
--
A Standard Interface is all well and good, but don't we all need different things from our desktops?
People, think! Standardisation isn't necessarily good for all of us- some of us like to work our own way.
It has nothing to do with working your own way or wanting your own desktop colors or borders or icons or anything else. You always have the option of installing whatever window manager you want to fit your needs.
This has everything to do with corporate standardization for training and support purposes. Windows wins big in the corporate market because it is easy to use and allows all the desktops to BEHAVE the same way so the internal help desk folk can deal with it. A HUGE amount of Windows' market share is huge corporations who buy thousands and thousands of copies of Windows because they want everything to be the same.
By coming up with a "standard" desktop and office environment, Linux finally has a chance to penetrate that market and really put a dent in Windows' market share.
Perhaps the Microsoft-free office of the future isn't so far away after all.
-C
--
The reason that the music, movie, and software industries are such hard-asses when it comes to old work is because they're pack-rats... they never know when their intellectual property is going to be useful/popular/profitable again. Think of it this way... there's a classic 50's song that Warner Brothers has the rights to. This song hasn't appeared on an album in 30 years, it's not on the radio, and it's not producing a dime. In fact, it probably exists at a loss to Warner Brothers because they are paying to keep it in archival all these years. BUT, a movie comes out that happens to use this song and it suddenly resurges in popularity. All the sudden, there's a huge demand for this song that hasn't generated a profit in 30 years. Warner Brothers re-releases the song on both the soundtrack and a "best of" album. Suddenly this song is generating real revenue. If Warner Brothers had released this song into the public domain (or was forced to), they'd lose out on this revenue stream. They hold the rights just in case something like this happens. If you have a million songs and just 1/2% of them produce $250,000 a piece, that's a big chunk of money. Now, I'm sure the percentage is much lower than that, but the music, movie, and software companies aren't relying on that for their sole source of revenue.
--
I have to agree with this. The company I work for ordered a dual-proc Penguin box we needed real fast. They were nice enough to hand-truck it over to us (we're on Mission street in San Francisco) rather than delay it further by shipping it. In addition, they provided us with a second hard drive which was the wrong type and they _immediately_ came by and gave us a replacement when we notified them. They've always been helpful and they have never made me regret our purchase. Plus, we got a cute stuffed penguin... awww. -C
--
...but those blue LEDs are just damn cool.
--
I personally think this lawsuit is a great thing because I don't think YesMail has a hope in hell of winning.
I'm no lawyer, but I really don't think you can sue someone who simply publishes a list. Think about it... all MAPS does is compile a list of IPs it doesn't like and various ISPs act as subscribers to this information and choose to block them.
If MAPS were to lose, it sets a nasty precident that would allow anybody to sue anyone (such as NetNanny) simply because they are listed as "bad". Think of how far-reaching this could be... you could publish a list of crappy video cards and be sued because sales dropped.
--
Wow... good point. What the heck would you do about that? What if you found the whole place was just freakin' stuffed full of life and then the heli-probe just nuked everything. Whoops.
--
I see some folks saying this outright can't be done and I just disagree.
:)
There are many examples of computers (and not even fast ones by today's standards) controlling aircraft that were once thought impossible to control. Look at the F-16 and the fly-by-wire system... even better, look at the B-2 bomber and it's flying wing design. I remember reading somewhere that the B-2 just simply wouldn't be able to fly in a stable, controlled manner without the assistance of computers.
Now translate this into a completely foreign environment such as Titan. We have to assume we will know nothing about the atmosphere except for an approximation of density and maybe a reasonable idea of temperatures. We also don't have the benefit of GPS or any other method to know for certain where we are precisely on the surface.
Systems based on interia and gyroscopes have been in use on commercial aircraft from the very beginning. There were computers dumber than your TI calculator flying 707's way back in the day.
Titan has gravity, and inertia is constant, so that's really all we need. We of course won't know exactly where we are at any given point, but we could certainly make a reasonable guess.
As for winds and obstacles and so on, doppler radar could determine movement relative to the ground with a high level of precision, as well as altitude and flight-path obstacles.
Someone brought up the point that if the thing dropped on it's side, it would be screwed. This isn't really true because you could build struts that would right the craft if it ever tipped over. You could also provide a detection mechanism to identify when a landing is being attempted on uneven terrain and jump back into the air for another try.
I can't vouch for the fact this will all fit into 1000Kg, though! It sure would be a cool project even here on Earth. Maybe we could even stick some Penguin-love in it.
Any takers?
--
Isn't it entertaining that the RIAA will scream at the top of their lungs to try to get something to happen only to contradict themselves later.
For instance, in their own brief they stated that making recordings of live concerts didn't constitute infringement, but when asked if an MP3 of that same live concert distributed over the internet was infringement they just kinda ho-humed the whole thing.
It just seems to me that the RIAA wants to outlaw anything that could possibly eat a buck from their coffer versus funding a way for the public (who supports the artists and thus RIAA) to be compensated fairly.
I frankly don't like paying $20 for a CD that I _KNOW_ costs about $1 to actually create. So that means about $19 is going into someone's pocket, and it isn't the artist's. I don't want to support the record label, I want to support the artist.
I would be MUCH more likely to spend about $5 for a digital distribution of an album than I would be to buy a $20 piece of plastic. This is even more true if I knew the artist was getting most of the money.
The artist is entertaining me... the record label isn't doing squat except being greedy.
-C
--
Damn I'd really liked to have seen a penguin on the side of that puppy instead.
-C
--