Why not? Everything costs money. If the cost to business was the sole criterea for choosing what's good for mankind we would all be slaves. Every industry is regulated so that they exersize a modicum (read minimal) bit of restraint in their pollution levels and general harm to society.
According to your logic we should have no emissions controls at all because it's VASTLY CHEAPER just to dump all your pollutants into the air or water or whatever.
Screw costs to the industry. What is the cost to farmers if you don't take action, what is the cost to all the extra people who get cancer, what is the cost of the untold misery industry has and continues to cost everybody who happens to live in their neighborhoods. When you are calculating cvosts you better add into the cost of all those malformed babies my friend.
Only factoring the costs to industry while neglecting the cost to society at all is voodoo economics.
BTW it's not at all like what you say. This not me running around saying california is going to sink this is a bunch of scientists who have studied this their whole lives. Ignoring what they have to say because it costs too much is totally insane. This is their best guess at what they think is going to happen not some wild guess by an ignoramous.
Although there is some disagreement amongst scientists (like any other corss section of the population it's impossible to get 100% agreement on anything) your statement that there is "significant" disagreement is flat out wrong. A significant majority of athmospheric scientists do agree that there is a significan problem here.
Sure it's a prediction based on theory what the hell else are you going to make a prediction from. You make observations, you make your best effort at trying to figure out what is causing the observation (theory) and then you make a prediction. It's not like these guys are some bums off the steet or economists or businesspeople. They are people who have dedicated their lives to studying the atmosphere which is one of the most complex systems around. Whatever their theory is I bet it's a hell of lot more likely then what some businessman or ecomomists thinks. Just because something isn't proven to be 100% accurate that does not mean it's likely to happen. You can not know for sure if the sun was going to come up tommorow but you sure as hell act like it will.
As for your solution of throwing dirt into the air maybe you can calculate the amount of energy it would take to ground up rock and throw it into the air 25 ot 30 thousand feet and keep it there. What the consequences of hauling all that rock around and grinding it up and putting it on rockets (or whatever) and sending it up are going to be. After all that try and calculate how much it's going to cost and who is going to pay for it. I will bet you not one nation, no group of corporations or an individual would be willing to pay for something like this. Why would someone spend billions if it's not going to benefit them exclusively.
And then maybe you can think of an even simpler solution. Here is mine.
Save energy, use alternative fuels, cut down on CFCs. You see it's easier then throwing rocks in the air.
That's because it actually cost more then SQL server. If the dolts over there at borland marketing dropped the prices and actually advertised it once in a while it might have stayed competitive. Of course their loss is your gain.
You can go download a multiplatform, stable, easy to manage and maintain database that has been in production forever and is rock solid and has great documentation.
Interbase IS a commercial grade database. It has been for years and many companies paid big bucks for licenses until it became open source. It's really really solid.
What's conversion rate for australian dollars?. SQL server 2000 costs $5000.00 (US) per processor. If I wanted to do that in the US it would most likely cost much more. A dual processor machine runnng NT, sqlserver 2000, and a few odds and ends (a decent FTP server, remote control, admin utils, reskit, backup etc would easily set you back 10-12K or so.
Re:rLowe's Review .... :)
on
'Snatch'
·
· Score: 1
Read "Naked Lunch" by William S. Burroughs and you'll understand the concorde flight bit. In that book a character is in a bar in New York in one sentence and in the next sentence he is in london. After a bit the author interrupts his own book and says something to the effect.
"look if a character is in a bar in one scene and in the next scene he is london, do I really have to tell you that he bought a ticket, drove to the airport, got in a plane, and flew to london?"
Anyways it's a good book and that bit was either a rip off or an homage.
You see in logic there is a concept of neccesity and a concept of sufficiency. Although it's neccesary to kill foot soldiers to win a war it's not sufficient just to kill the soldiers. Along with spilling of blood and maiming there needs to be tactics, strategy, will to win etc.
I would urge you and all other human beings to at least briefly contemplate a book on logic.
You only get those cheap licenses if MS likes you. It's obvious this company had a spat with MS. For all you know MS is selling it to them for $500.00 a piece.
Ms charges according to how "loyal" you are to them. If they don't like you you get screwed. Just ask gateway.
The point is to make your job so misrable that you'd quit or ask for a raise. Either way we win. Right now one in a million does something goofy. If that number reached 10 to 20% this would consume most of your time. The company would have to hire more people (may 10 times as much) just to deal with pranksters.
As a net result it would be too expensive for the company to conduct a mailing campaign. They don't give a rats ass about you or me but you can be sure they care about paying you more money or hiring more people.
As a consequence of spending time cleaning shit off of their machines this particulat compnay will most likely increase their rates to the said company or will refuse to handle their mail. If people regularly did this then the processing companies would all raise their rates and make it prohibitive to send junk mail to people who don't want it.
"Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of business."
Accepting risk and responsibility is for suckers. The smart people form corporations. This simple act shields them from accepting risk and responsibility for their actions. Don't belive me ask firestone.
Well then you ought to name this wonderful company that is going to change the world. Also tell us what the dream or vision of this company is. I always presumed the dream of any company is to make more money but maybe your company is different.
If you so proud come clean and let the whole world know.
Yes that's exactly what I mean. Social security should be a safety net. It should cover only those people who could not support themselves in their later years.
"If people were responsible enough to look after themselves, we wouldn't need it in the first place. "
Unfortunately it's a byproduct of capitalism that money has to flow. At the end of any exchange of capital one person has less of it ans one person has more of it. For whatever reason some people end up having more money flow out then flow in.
If you want to live in a society where the sick, old, mentally ill, and poor are begging in the street and freezing or starving to death I guess that's one thing but for whatever reason we as a society have decided that we don't like that. We have taken measures to see that the old and the indigent don't end up living in misery and poverty. This does not mean however that we ought to be supporting those who are perfectly able to support themselves. BTW For every dollar you put into social security you get many more back. If each person only got out what they put in plus interest most retirees would run out of money in a few years.
The same for medicare I say we should means test every govt program only those who are truly needy should get help.
I think that your real argument is to actually not even have social security and let every body take care of themselves. This is another argument alltogether and one that you have basically lost. Like it or not our society feels like it ought to help the poor and the elderly. Even the non stop preaching of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have not been able convince americans to abandon the less fortunate. They have had some success but most people still seem to think they'd rather follow the advice of Jesus then Rush. As an atheist I find that puzzling but what the hell.
In his world anybody who critizes any corporation is a communist. Only communists think that people are actual human beings, to a capitalist humans are better refered to as "human resources", "biological assets", or "expenses".
I doubt the eventual fall of social security will lead to socialism. How do you come to that conclusion? BTW it's easy to save social security if you do the two things.
1) extend the retirement age to something more reasonable (like 70)
2) means test the recipients so that people like Bill gates don't get it.
Remove one little regulation here, a little regulation there. Each tiny step to less government regulation is another foot down the path to pure anarchy. If you oppose total anarchy, as I do, then anything which leans society to that eventual direction is something that I will oppose.
Hey here is an idea why not judge each regulation on it's merits? Would that be too hard to deal with in your ideology?
1) I upgraded from win98 to w2k
2) SQL server was not running on my machine only the client components were. You see you have to apply the service pack both to the server and the management machine.
3) I will broadcast to everybody I know from now on that Dells are not compatible with windows 2000. I will point out to them that people being payed by MS are saying this on public forums.
4) I did have to wipe out windows98 and re-install w2K from scratch which cost me dearly in productivity.
5) If someone like me who has been in the computer business for almost 20 years is unable to install and use W2K properly then what can the average user expect?
Here is the summation of the points you made.
1) Windows 2000 is unstable on dells (and presumably most off the shelf computers as well)
2) Windows 2000 is too hard to install and maintain except by highly paid professionals.
3) Even when installed by highly paid professionals it's possible for users to dusrupt the system severly.
Funny how even when being paid to defend W2K you seem to be dissing it. Perhaps it's something subconcious at work here.
I guess it all goes to show you. You may think htat you live in a free country where your skills and know how allow freedom of employment and choice but it's all a delusion. Bill gates can crush you and the people you work for like a bug. Give up any delusion of freedom.
Look at the bind these guys are in. No matter where they go if they get hired MS will sue the people who hired them, if they form their own company MS will sue them. With a legal team in the hundreds and a budget in the hundred millions they can crush anyone they want at will.
Pg is nice but you'll miss the nice client tools you get with IB.
PG has some features that IB does not have like user defined operators! and loadable SP and trigger languages. It does not have domains but it does have user defined datatypes.
The query optimizer is pretty nice (IB gets confused sometimes) and the import export facility is way better then IB.
It does not run on windoes tho. It has it's annoyances too (no outer joins yet but coming soon) but all and all a very nice DB that is actually fun to work with.
My story.
I upgraded my windows 98. Bad mistake it crashed about 5 times a day. I bit the bullet and reinstalled it in another directory and re installed every single piece of software I had on it. All in all this took about a month (I reinstalled them as I needed them). For two months after it stayed relatively stable. In the last two weeks it has gone back to it's unstable self. I am not sure what threw it into a tizzy I am guessing it was the SQL server service pack three (client components). I could be wrong though who know what registry setting is goofy or what DLL is corrupt.
BTW please don't say hardware this is a relatively new DELL 700 pentium factory stock. I will bet a thousand dollars that if I wiped it and installed linux I would never have a problem with it. It ran windows 98 OK and it ran win2K Ok for two months.
I have seen high school kids run linux smoothly. It really doesn't take much. I do both and I find it easier to whip up a perl script or two then to dig through endless tabs or clicking through the tenth screen of a wizard. Once you set it up (which might take a while) it really just humms along no muss, no fuss, no bother. NT is very finicky and IMHO very high maintenance.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? Everything costs money. If the cost to business was the sole criterea for choosing what's good for mankind we would all be slaves. Every industry is regulated so that they exersize a modicum (read minimal) bit of restraint in their pollution levels and general harm to society.
According to your logic we should have no emissions controls at all because it's VASTLY CHEAPER just to dump all your pollutants into the air or water or whatever.
Screw costs to the industry. What is the cost to farmers if you don't take action, what is the cost to all the extra people who get cancer, what is the cost of the untold misery industry has and continues to cost everybody who happens to live in their neighborhoods. When you are calculating cvosts you better add into the cost of all those malformed babies my friend.
Only factoring the costs to industry while neglecting the cost to society at all is voodoo economics.
BTW it's not at all like what you say. This not me running around saying california is going to sink this is a bunch of scientists who have studied this their whole lives. Ignoring what they have to say because it costs too much is totally insane. This is their best guess at what they think is going to happen not some wild guess by an ignoramous.
What if you wrote stories without illustrations?
Although there is some disagreement amongst scientists (like any other corss section of the population it's impossible to get 100% agreement on anything) your statement that there is "significant" disagreement is flat out wrong. A significant majority of athmospheric scientists do agree that there is a significan problem here.
Sure it's a prediction based on theory what the hell else are you going to make a prediction from. You make observations, you make your best effort at trying to figure out what is causing the observation (theory) and then you make a prediction. It's not like these guys are some bums off the steet or economists or businesspeople. They are people who have dedicated their lives to studying the atmosphere which is one of the most complex systems around. Whatever their theory is I bet it's a hell of lot more likely then what some businessman or ecomomists thinks. Just because something isn't proven to be 100% accurate that does not mean it's likely to happen. You can not know for sure if the sun was going to come up tommorow but you sure as hell act like it will.
As for your solution of throwing dirt into the air maybe you can calculate the amount of energy it would take to ground up rock and throw it into the air 25 ot 30 thousand feet and keep it there. What the consequences of hauling all that rock around and grinding it up and putting it on rockets (or whatever) and sending it up are going to be. After all that try and calculate how much it's going to cost and who is going to pay for it. I will bet you not one nation, no group of corporations or an individual would be willing to pay for something like this. Why would someone spend billions if it's not going to benefit them exclusively.
And then maybe you can think of an even simpler solution. Here is mine.
Save energy, use alternative fuels, cut down on CFCs. You see it's easier then throwing rocks in the air.
That's because it actually cost more then SQL server. If the dolts over there at borland marketing dropped the prices and actually advertised it once in a while it might have stayed competitive. Of course their loss is your gain.
You can go download a multiplatform, stable, easy to manage and maintain database that has been in production forever and is rock solid and has great documentation.
"Now, would that be Interbase with or without a compiled in superuser backdoor account?"
It took open sourcing to ferret that one out.
Makes you wonder what other back doors exist in all other products too.
Interbase IS a commercial grade database. It has been for years and many companies paid big bucks for licenses until it became open source. It's really really solid.
What's conversion rate for australian dollars?. SQL server 2000 costs $5000.00 (US) per processor. If I wanted to do that in the US it would most likely cost much more. A dual processor machine runnng NT, sqlserver 2000, and a few odds and ends (a decent FTP server, remote control, admin utils, reskit, backup etc would easily set you back 10-12K or so.
Read "Naked Lunch" by William S. Burroughs and you'll understand the concorde flight bit. In that book a character is in a bar in New York in one sentence and in the next sentence he is in london. After a bit the author interrupts his own book and says something to the effect.
"look if a character is in a bar in one scene and in the next scene he is london, do I really have to tell you that he bought a ticket, drove to the airport, got in a plane, and flew to london?"
Anyways it's a good book and that bit was either a rip off or an homage.
You see in logic there is a concept of neccesity and a concept of sufficiency. Although it's neccesary to kill foot soldiers to win a war it's not sufficient just to kill the soldiers. Along with spilling of blood and maiming there needs to be tactics, strategy, will to win etc.
I would urge you and all other human beings to at least briefly contemplate a book on logic.
You only get those cheap licenses if MS likes you. It's obvious this company had a spat with MS. For all you know MS is selling it to them for $500.00 a piece.
Ms charges according to how "loyal" you are to them. If they don't like you you get screwed. Just ask gateway.
The point is to make your job so misrable that you'd quit or ask for a raise. Either way we win. Right now one in a million does something goofy. If that number reached 10 to 20% this would consume most of your time. The company would have to hire more people (may 10 times as much) just to deal with pranksters.
As a net result it would be too expensive for the company to conduct a mailing campaign. They don't give a rats ass about you or me but you can be sure they care about paying you more money or hiring more people.
wars are won by killing and maiming foot soldiers.
As a consequence of spending time cleaning shit off of their machines this particulat compnay will most likely increase their rates to the said company or will refuse to handle their mail. If people regularly did this then the processing companies would all raise their rates and make it prohibitive to send junk mail to people who don't want it.
You see it would work in the end.
"Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of business."
Accepting risk and responsibility is for suckers. The smart people form corporations. This simple act shields them from accepting risk and responsibility for their actions. Don't belive me ask firestone.
Your company would probably fire you if someone just as qualified would be willing to work for 5 or 10K less.
You can not disrespect a company. A company is not a human being. It's a soul-less immortal being.
Well then you ought to name this wonderful company that is going to change the world. Also tell us what the dream or vision of this company is. I always presumed the dream of any company is to make more money but maybe your company is different.
If you so proud come clean and let the whole world know.
Yes that's exactly what I mean. Social security should be a safety net. It should cover only those people who could not support themselves in their later years.
"If people were responsible enough to look after themselves, we wouldn't need it in the first place. "
Unfortunately it's a byproduct of capitalism that money has to flow. At the end of any exchange of capital one person has less of it ans one person has more of it. For whatever reason some people end up having more money flow out then flow in.
If you want to live in a society where the sick, old, mentally ill, and poor are begging in the street and freezing or starving to death I guess that's one thing but for whatever reason we as a society have decided that we don't like that. We have taken measures to see that the old and the indigent don't end up living in misery and poverty. This does not mean however that we ought to be supporting those who are perfectly able to support themselves. BTW For every dollar you put into social security you get many more back. If each person only got out what they put in plus interest most retirees would run out of money in a few years.
The same for medicare I say we should means test every govt program only those who are truly needy should get help.
I think that your real argument is to actually not even have social security and let every body take care of themselves. This is another argument alltogether and one that you have basically lost. Like it or not our society feels like it ought to help the poor and the elderly. Even the non stop preaching of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have not been able convince americans to abandon the less fortunate. They have had some success but most people still seem to think they'd rather follow the advice of Jesus then Rush. As an atheist I find that puzzling but what the hell.
In his world anybody who critizes any corporation is a communist. Only communists think that people are actual human beings, to a capitalist humans are better refered to as "human resources", "biological assets", or "expenses".
I doubt the eventual fall of social security will lead to socialism. How do you come to that conclusion? BTW it's easy to save social security if you do the two things.
1) extend the retirement age to something more reasonable (like 70)
2) means test the recipients so that people like Bill gates don't get it.
Remove one little regulation here, a little regulation there. Each tiny step to less government regulation is another foot down the path to pure anarchy. If you oppose total anarchy, as I do, then anything which leans society to that eventual direction is something that I will oppose.
Hey here is an idea why not judge each regulation on it's merits? Would that be too hard to deal with in your ideology?
1) I upgraded from win98 to w2k
2) SQL server was not running on my machine only the client components were. You see you have to apply the service pack both to the server and the management machine.
3) I will broadcast to everybody I know from now on that Dells are not compatible with windows 2000. I will point out to them that people being payed by MS are saying this on public forums.
4) I did have to wipe out windows98 and re-install w2K from scratch which cost me dearly in productivity.
5) If someone like me who has been in the computer business for almost 20 years is unable to install and use W2K properly then what can the average user expect?
Here is the summation of the points you made.
1) Windows 2000 is unstable on dells (and presumably most off the shelf computers as well)
2) Windows 2000 is too hard to install and maintain except by highly paid professionals.
3) Even when installed by highly paid professionals it's possible for users to dusrupt the system severly.
Funny how even when being paid to defend W2K you seem to be dissing it. Perhaps it's something subconcious at work here.
I guess it all goes to show you. You may think htat you live in a free country where your skills and know how allow freedom of employment and choice but it's all a delusion. Bill gates can crush you and the people you work for like a bug. Give up any delusion of freedom.
Look at the bind these guys are in. No matter where they go if they get hired MS will sue the people who hired them, if they form their own company MS will sue them. With a legal team in the hundreds and a budget in the hundred millions they can crush anyone they want at will.
Pg is nice but you'll miss the nice client tools you get with IB.
PG has some features that IB does not have like user defined operators! and loadable SP and trigger languages. It does not have domains but it does have user defined datatypes.
The query optimizer is pretty nice (IB gets confused sometimes) and the import export facility is way better then IB.
It does not run on windoes tho. It has it's annoyances too (no outer joins yet but coming soon) but all and all a very nice DB that is actually fun to work with.
My story.
I upgraded my windows 98. Bad mistake it crashed about 5 times a day. I bit the bullet and reinstalled it in another directory and re installed every single piece of software I had on it. All in all this took about a month (I reinstalled them as I needed them). For two months after it stayed relatively stable. In the last two weeks it has gone back to it's unstable self. I am not sure what threw it into a tizzy I am guessing it was the SQL server service pack three (client components). I could be wrong though who know what registry setting is goofy or what DLL is corrupt.
BTW please don't say hardware this is a relatively new DELL 700 pentium factory stock. I will bet a thousand dollars that if I wiped it and installed linux I would never have a problem with it. It ran windows 98 OK and it ran win2K Ok for two months.
I have seen high school kids run linux smoothly. It really doesn't take much. I do both and I find it easier to whip up a perl script or two then to dig through endless tabs or clicking through the tenth screen of a wizard. Once you set it up (which might take a while) it really just humms along no muss, no fuss, no bother. NT is very finicky and IMHO very high maintenance.