That's not the point. If I want to live in a manner more prevalant in another country, then I will move to that country. But, please, don't get all high and mighty on me merely because I live indoors and have plumbing.
Oh? You don't like that stereotype? Then don't presume that members of a particular industry in a particular country are automatically living extravegant lifestyles. I know plenty of IT workers in the US who are doing anything but.
Yeah, I'm really living like a fat bastard, what with my house, wife and kid, dog, car and eating three times a day. Somebody, please, before it's too late, stop me from my luxurious lifestyle.
This story should be an eye opener to people who feel Americans cannot work in India.
Yeah, let me just pack up my family, sell my house and all of my belongings, kiss off my friends, and break every tie that I have by deserting my country so I can go work for $12 an hour.
Thanks for opening my eyes. I'll take my chances here in the US.
Pressing Ctrl+D will double the size of WinAmp, as will selecting "Double Size" from the options menu. You can find skins that will scale well to the doubled size on their website.
Hmm...5 million songs sold to 1.5 million users. While the numbers might sound impressive that only breaks down to just over three songs per user. That doesn't speak too highly of their offering.
Bullocks. It's written as YHWH simply because, in the Jesish faith, you are forbidden to write out or pronounce the full name of G-d. <-- hence this spelling...
It retails for $30-35 and there's a rebate inside for owners of UT 2003. What more do you want?
Oh, right, it's not *free*.
I actually know one of the members of the UT development team and I asked him for ya...apparently, these things actually cost money to develop. Who knew? Not you, apparently....
When new games are going for upwards of $US70, I don't think that $30 is asking for a lot.
Yes, this is true, it can be used as a front-end for just about any ODBC datasource. However, the context in which it is being used here is its own "native" database. The database was once singular to Access itself, but with its inclusion with Visual Basic 3.0 in (approx) 1993, it quickly because associated with other applications. With Windows 2000 (possibly 98), it became included with the operating system. At that point, Access the program became detached from Access the database.
I think that there is a difference between a product liability claim resulting from negligent manufacturing and/or process and people using a product in an unintended way. Yes, the coffee was hot, but that specific McDonald's location had several complaints registered against it. Your friend, who suffered what I could only imagine to be a horriffic amount of pain and suffering, was correct to seek judgement due to the fault manufacturing.
However, this is very different from other frivolous product liability claims. Gun manufactures are a perfect example of this. Every measure is taken to ensure that guns are not used for illegal purposes. Unfortunately, these measures have not been sufficient enough to prevent people from being murdered. Is this the fault of the manufacturer of the weapon? I've yet to hear a compelling argument that suggests they are.
If, after having a rough day at the office, decide to take my car and drive it through the halls of my local shopping mall, is that Ford's fault? I don't see how it could be. (The Blues Brothers on the other hand...;)
The example that I gave earlier of the woman using a household cleaning product as part of her feminine hygeine routine clearly did not use that product in the manner that it was originally intended. Labelling on the package clearly stated that it was not to be used internally - and this woman was plainly using it internally. How is the manufacturer responsible for that?
You mean like guns, coffee, hot dogs, fast food, children's toys...manufactures of these products get sued all the time because their customers use them in ways that were not intended or simply because of improper perceptions of just how far product liability should extend. A recent story in the newspaper detailed a woman who was feeding her 4 year-old grandson a hot dog. She wasn't paying attention and the kid choked to death. She is now suing the hot dog manufacturer.
Here's one from actual personal experience. Many years ago, I was working for a company that produced cleaning supplies. They got sued and lost because a woman used their floor cleaner as a douche. And, no, this is not an urban legend.
Corporations are continually held responsible for after-sale use. I don't feel, however, that that is right.
Back to the main topic, I would like to take this opportunity to thank HP for making the purchase of my next printer all the more easier. We do a lot of photo reproduction work where color accuracy is critical. We also implement a number of systems that make extensive use of scanning and archiving color photographs. In addition to the whole issue of the various games that HP plays with its ink cartridges, this eliminates any compelling reason to purchase their products.
As for presuming their customers to be criminals as a blanket rule, I see no reason to support any part of their corporate operation.
Access is not a stand-alone database. It is a stand-alone database *file*. Too often, developers make the mistake of confusing Access files with an actual production-capable database. It's great for prototyping and for use as an embedded database, but that's about it. Some important things to understand.
First, the term "Access" is a misnomer. Access is an application, part of the Microsoft Office suite. It is simply a front-end GUI to the JET database library.
Second, interaction with a JET database is conducted on a pure file-base level. In a multiuser environment, each user accessing the database file must do so as if they were reading a simple file across a network. If you execute a query against that file, you must copy that file down into your local memory for manipulation. This is because there is no JET "Server" to marshall calls to the database file from multiple clients. If you want this functionality, you must develop a server process that listens for requests. If you're going this extra step, you might as well use a real database server (e.g. SqlServer, mySQL, Postgres, Oracle, etc). If you're not in the business of writing a database server, it's much better to let someone else do it.
Third, JET files use a very primitive method of data locking. I might be a little behind in the current implementation, but as of Jet 3.5, you could not do row locking. Data in JET is managed in pages. IIRC, the page size is 4k. So, if you need to lock a row of data, you actually end up locking several rows, depending on the size of the rows involved. This creates greater data contention and impacts performance. Again, this might have changed recently, but it is still inefficient.
Fourth, JET is very easy to corrupt. Since each client accesses the database file simultaneously, if one of those clients crashes, they can end up hosing the database. Contrast this with a server where if the client crashes, the database server can manage the crash, as it is an independant process.
Five, JET does not have any ability to maintain itself. It cannot rebuild its own indexes, purge deleted rows or compress itself without manual intervention. Again, this is because there is no server. A maintenance scheme must be developed whereby these functions are performed on a periodic basis. For a database of appreciable size and use, this could be as frequent as hourly and as minimal as daily. In order to pack/compress the database, the maintenance program must have an exclusive lock on the entire database file. If you maintain a 24/7 system, this can have a severe impact. Plus, there is the issue of forcing client applications out of the database programmatically. Easy enough to set up, but still a pain in the ass.
Full database servers perform these functions on their own, in real-time, without excluding the clients.
There are still other reasons not to use JET for anything but the most trivial programs, but I think I've kicked it enough.
So that I am not misunderstood, JET does have its uses. It's suitable for stand-alone applications where the maintenance processes can be integrated within the app itself. It's ubiquity on the Windows platform (since Win2000) allows you to minimize your installation package size and, of course, it's free. However, just like everything else, it's important to know what is appropriate and what should be left for more robust and capable solutions.
Standard disclaimers apply, IMHO, YYMV, yadda yadda.
>>Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will find this fight to be as easy."
Until the next emergency hotfix modifies your DNS to have google.com to resolve to search.msn.com. Sure, you can edit your hosts file, but how many users even know what a hosts file is?
Of course, this will all be done for your convenience and safety, mind you. All part of MS' new focus on protecting you from spam and malicious ne'er-do-wells. After all, you never really know who's on the other side of that web site you're surfing to. Better to leave the driving to us.
Yeah, yeah, I know. It would never happen. Then again, no one would ever make a web browser an "integral" part of an operating system, either.
Good lord...you make one small grammatical error... =)
Sorry folks. I wrote this pretty late.
I didn't mean to imply that Germany went unchallenged, just unchallenged by the US. A huge difference, obviously, and the egg is on my face for that one.
The US is not going unchallenged today (see France's position against the invasion of Iraq), but the responses are a bit less threatening than WWII Europe's. Then, again, the US is practicing a different kind of expansionism - one not as obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
One way to determine if a computer programmer is a computer programmer is to look at their tax return. Your occupation is reported on the return.
That's not the point. If I want to live in a manner more prevalant in another country, then I will move to that country. But, please, don't get all high and mighty on me merely because I live indoors and have plumbing.
Oh? You don't like that stereotype? Then don't presume that members of a particular industry in a particular country are automatically living extravegant lifestyles. I know plenty of IT workers in the US who are doing anything but.
live a less luxurious lifestyle
Yeah, I'm really living like a fat bastard, what with my house, wife and kid, dog, car and eating three times a day. Somebody, please, before it's too late, stop me from my luxurious lifestyle.
This story should be an eye opener to people who feel Americans cannot work in India.
Yeah, let me just pack up my family, sell my house and all of my belongings, kiss off my friends, and break every tie that I have by deserting my country so I can go work for $12 an hour.
Thanks for opening my eyes. I'll take my chances here in the US.
Depends? Luxury! We had to use my roommate's pillowcase when he was home for the weekend! [/yorkshire]
Was his name "Peter Gibbons", by any chance?
Ask Mr. Webster.
Well, what else will M$ call them when you have to "reboot" your DVD player after 15 minutes of viewing?
Pressing Ctrl+D will double the size of WinAmp, as will selecting "Double Size" from the options menu. You can find skins that will scale well to the doubled size on their website.
Hmm...5 million songs sold to 1.5 million users. While the numbers might sound impressive that only breaks down to just over three songs per user. That doesn't speak too highly of their offering.
I guess it's just easier for you to use all *12* fingers then?
>>I wonder what kind of response, if any, I would get?
From SCO? Probably not much. From the Treasury Department, on the other hand....
Giving renewed urgency to the phrase "Beware of Geeks bearing gifts".
I guess that's why they wrote that loophole in that awesome new spam law."
Apparently, someone neglected to tell my spam filter about this loophole.
Sorry about the spelling mistake. My "W" and "S" keys were sitting a little too close to each other.
Bullocks. It's written as YHWH simply because, in the Jesish faith, you are forbidden to write out or pronounce the full name of G-d. <-- hence this spelling...
You're clearly too young to remember Linda Carter as Wonder Woman. *grrrrrrrr*
It retails for $30-35 and there's a rebate inside for owners of UT 2003. What more do you want?
Oh, right, it's not *free*.
I actually know one of the members of the UT development team and I asked him for ya...apparently, these things actually cost money to develop. Who knew? Not you, apparently....
When new games are going for upwards of $US70, I don't think that $30 is asking for a lot.
Yes, this is true, it can be used as a front-end for just about any ODBC datasource. However, the context in which it is being used here is its own "native" database. The database was once singular to Access itself, but with its inclusion with Visual Basic 3.0 in (approx) 1993, it quickly because associated with other applications. With Windows 2000 (possibly 98), it became included with the operating system. At that point, Access the program became detached from Access the database.
I think that there is a difference between a product liability claim resulting from negligent manufacturing and/or process and people using a product in an unintended way. Yes, the coffee was hot, but that specific McDonald's location had several complaints registered against it. Your friend, who suffered what I could only imagine to be a horriffic amount of pain and suffering, was correct to seek judgement due to the fault manufacturing.
;)
However, this is very different from other frivolous product liability claims. Gun manufactures are a perfect example of this. Every measure is taken to ensure that guns are not used for illegal purposes. Unfortunately, these measures have not been sufficient enough to prevent people from being murdered. Is this the fault of the manufacturer of the weapon? I've yet to hear a compelling argument that suggests they are.
If, after having a rough day at the office, decide to take my car and drive it through the halls of my local shopping mall, is that Ford's fault? I don't see how it could be. (The Blues Brothers on the other hand...
The example that I gave earlier of the woman using a household cleaning product as part of her feminine hygeine routine clearly did not use that product in the manner that it was originally intended. Labelling on the package clearly stated that it was not to be used internally - and this woman was plainly using it internally. How is the manufacturer responsible for that?
You mean like guns, coffee, hot dogs, fast food, children's toys...manufactures of these products get sued all the time because their customers use them in ways that were not intended or simply because of improper perceptions of just how far product liability should extend. A recent story in the newspaper detailed a woman who was feeding her 4 year-old grandson a hot dog. She wasn't paying attention and the kid choked to death. She is now suing the hot dog manufacturer.
Here's one from actual personal experience. Many years ago, I was working for a company that produced cleaning supplies. They got sued and lost because a woman used their floor cleaner as a douche. And, no, this is not an urban legend.
Corporations are continually held responsible for after-sale use. I don't feel, however, that that is right.
Back to the main topic, I would like to take this opportunity to thank HP for making the purchase of my next printer all the more easier. We do a lot of photo reproduction work where color accuracy is critical. We also implement a number of systems that make extensive use of scanning and archiving color photographs. In addition to the whole issue of the various games that HP plays with its ink cartridges, this eliminates any compelling reason to purchase their products.
As for presuming their customers to be criminals as a blanket rule, I see no reason to support any part of their corporate operation.
Access is not a stand-alone database. It is a stand-alone database *file*. Too often, developers make the mistake of confusing Access files with an actual production-capable database. It's great for prototyping and for use as an embedded database, but that's about it. Some important things to understand.
First, the term "Access" is a misnomer. Access is an application, part of the Microsoft Office suite. It is simply a front-end GUI to the JET database library.
Second, interaction with a JET database is conducted on a pure file-base level. In a multiuser environment, each user accessing the database file must do so as if they were reading a simple file across a network. If you execute a query against that file, you must copy that file down into your local memory for manipulation. This is because there is no JET "Server" to marshall calls to the database file from multiple clients. If you want this functionality, you must develop a server process that listens for requests. If you're going this extra step, you might as well use a real database server (e.g. SqlServer, mySQL, Postgres, Oracle, etc). If you're not in the business of writing a database server, it's much better to let someone else do it.
Third, JET files use a very primitive method of data locking. I might be a little behind in the current implementation, but as of Jet 3.5, you could not do row locking. Data in JET is managed in pages. IIRC, the page size is 4k. So, if you need to lock a row of data, you actually end up locking several rows, depending on the size of the rows involved. This creates greater data contention and impacts performance. Again, this might have changed recently, but it is still inefficient.
Fourth, JET is very easy to corrupt. Since each client accesses the database file simultaneously, if one of those clients crashes, they can end up hosing the database. Contrast this with a server where if the client crashes, the database server can manage the crash, as it is an independant process.
Five, JET does not have any ability to maintain itself. It cannot rebuild its own indexes, purge deleted rows or compress itself without manual intervention. Again, this is because there is no server. A maintenance scheme must be developed whereby these functions are performed on a periodic basis. For a database of appreciable size and use, this could be as frequent as hourly and as minimal as daily. In order to pack/compress the database, the maintenance program must have an exclusive lock on the entire database file. If you maintain a 24/7 system, this can have a severe impact. Plus, there is the issue of forcing client applications out of the database programmatically. Easy enough to set up, but still a pain in the ass.
Full database servers perform these functions on their own, in real-time, without excluding the clients.
There are still other reasons not to use JET for anything but the most trivial programs, but I think I've kicked it enough.
So that I am not misunderstood, JET does have its uses. It's suitable for stand-alone applications where the maintenance processes can be integrated within the app itself. It's ubiquity on the Windows platform (since Win2000) allows you to minimize your installation package size and, of course, it's free. However, just like everything else, it's important to know what is appropriate and what should be left for more robust and capable solutions.
Standard disclaimers apply, IMHO, YYMV, yadda yadda.
>> high-speed pizza delivery
If ever there was a time when we could use a franchisable Mafia, this would definately be it.
>>Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will find this fight to be as easy."
Until the next emergency hotfix modifies your DNS to have google.com to resolve to search.msn.com. Sure, you can edit your hosts file, but how many users even know what a hosts file is?
Of course, this will all be done for your convenience and safety, mind you. All part of MS' new focus on protecting you from spam and malicious ne'er-do-wells. After all, you never really know who's on the other side of that web site you're surfing to. Better to leave the driving to us.
Yeah, yeah, I know. It would never happen. Then again, no one would ever make a web browser an "integral" part of an operating system, either.
Good lord...you make one small grammatical error... =)
Sorry folks. I wrote this pretty late.
I didn't mean to imply that Germany went unchallenged, just unchallenged by the US. A huge difference, obviously, and the egg is on my face for that one.
The US is not going unchallenged today (see France's position against the invasion of Iraq), but the responses are a bit less threatening than WWII Europe's. Then, again, the US is practicing a different kind of expansionism - one not as obvious.