I know of no lawyer, doctor, or dentist who does not have at least one employee to answer phones, man the office, clean teeth or what have you. I really don't know where you get this fantasy of a single dentist working by him or herself from.
As for computer contractors I thought I made my point already. They charge high rates (fi they can) because they need to insure themselves. How much does your health insurance cost? How much of that does your boss pay? How much does errors and omissions insurance cost? Unemployment, disability, it goes on and on. Of course most people don't pay for that insurance and gamble. For those people unless they are making millions they are one broken hip away from homelessness.
Imagine if you were a computer consultant and got sued by one of your clients? How much money would you have to make to defend yourself?
BTW most people on that web site make under $100.00 per hour which is not much. For most contractors the job is in some city that they don't live in. This means they have to pay for hotels or a temporary living arrangement in that city AND maintain their own house or apt back home. DO the math it's not much take home pay.
Yes. You think making a 100K without a retirement plan, health insurance, life insurance, unemployment insurance, professional liability insurance (errors and omissions) etc is good money?
I guarantee you that a single person who is making 100K is not taking home much. Either that or they are making do without a bunch of personal and professional liability insurance which is bad news for both themselves and their customers.
An underinsured "professional" making 100K is one step away from the welfare rolls and homelessnes. One accident or one lawsuit and it's all over.
Re:Bad adaptation
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not having read the boot it was obvious that the filmmakers failed to capture whatever the movie was about. The script was really lame and the woman who played Clooney's love interest only had one facial expression. She simply could not express any emotion whatsoever. No matter what she was supposed to be feeling she looked like a model posing for the camera with the same vacant look in her eyes.
Also there was too much reliance on silly cinematography tricks. Too many blurred shots, too many false colorations and filters it goes on and on.
Clooney also had a hard time trying to carry the movie, his acting wasn't that good but the women will probably enjoy his ass.
The most ineresting character in the movie was played by jeremy davies. Anytime he was onthe screen it was a movie worth watching.
Well I guess we disagree then. To me anybody working for themselves and by themselves are not a business. To me they are simply trying to eke out a living. Whether they are consultants or street musicians or even beggars (which is pretty hard work when you think about it).
A self employed farmer? Maybe if he has a quarter acre in which he grows tomatoes or something but I know of no farmer who doesn't hire help to at least harvest whatever is being planted.
"The hell it does. A business can exist with just the "boss"
A one person operation is not a business. It's a guy scraping a living. Yes some people (very few) make a living working for and by themsleves but most of them are artists or street musicians. Eventually somebody get hired to answer the phone or keep the books though.
Luckily the people have more choices then "eat my shit or quit".
These days people can organize and of course there is always the court system when your boss is especially assholeish.
BTW for those people who do choose to quit rather then to fight you can allways make a call to the microsoft piracy hotline afterwards, I know of no business that does not have some pirated copies of MS products lying around.
Well Postgres always had a rule subsystem which allowed you to code custom recordsets. Unlike MS SQL stored procedures you could also allow writes!. In other words posrgres rules allow you to code table like structures with both read and write access.
I always thought this was the coolest thing ever in a database. Now postgres has given you another tool in functions which return recordsets.
"# In that conversion, the.adp file contained the forms, reports, and macros. The queries from the old access db were stored on the server either as views or Stored Procedures. Is this also similar (or at least compatible)?"
You had to translate all those queries from access SQL to MS-SQL language right? They are incompatible in many ways. Also many access queries tend to have functions in them like dlookup() all of which won't work in SQL server. SO depending on the complexity of the SQL you will have to translate some of them.
"# MS SQL allows you to use your current windows credentials as the authentication to the SQL server. This is nice because then the users don't have to enter/remember another password. Can I do this in Postgre?"
You can embed a username and a password in the ODBC driver and have everybody log in as the same user or you can write some VB code to get the user name from the windows login and make right registry hacks. Not too big of an ordeal.
" 4. I've found that Access generates absolutely horrid SQL. Fortunately, because all these queries are stored on the SQL server, they can be edited/optimized after the conversion. This question ends up being a two-parter. How compatible is Postre with Access' ugly SQL? And if there's a compatability problem with the generated SQL, can I at least edit it server side and make access not care that that's happened?"
Pretty much the same as SQL server. You can create stored procedures or views and link them up like tables. Study up on the postgres RULE system. It basically allows you to create views with code and also makes all views writable if you want to code the writes.
Look into SQL Porter http://www.realsoftstudio.com/ordersqlporter.php it might save you a ton of work and it does not cost a lot of money.
You can also use "pass through" queries to take advantage of postgres features like regular expressions and such.
The Kompany makes an access like tool. pgaccess does some of what access does. Openoffice has nice database developmet tools. You can build database apps very easily with kylix and there are even open source repirting engines available.
If all of that is not good enough then you can always use postgres as a back end to access via ODBC.
" Get a Clue. Read what the thread is about and try to realise that just because you think linux is great doesn't mean everybody else should otherwise they're automatically wrong."
This whole thread is about you lying about the speed of mozilla. Mozilla renders as fast or faster then IE. Mozilla loads as fast or faster then IE. I am simply trying to counteract your lies that's all.
"There's that "I" again. Trust me, the world does NOT revolve around you."
Neither you nor I have visited every single site on the internet. Furthermore neither one of us is a benchmarking company. I can only speak to my experience. I visit a wide variety of sites in both my personal life and professionally. And I can say with absolutel honesty that over 98% of the sites I visit render perfectly in my presefered browser (mozilla). Very rarely do I have to fire up IE just to read some site. Since these websites I tend to visit are also some of the biggest most profitable businesses in the world I can only conclude that it is perfectly possible to build complex and good looking web sites that render equally well in both IE and mozilla. Anybody who says otherwise is an idiot. If CNN, ebay, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, AOL, ZDNET, CNET, insight, cdw, warehouse.com and tens of thousands of other sites can do it you can too.
All I am asking is that you stop lying about the speed of mozilla. It's not a complex request. Just stop lying.
Your comparisons are invalid because you are not using identical platforms. If you are using freebsd you can not run IE so your comparison is moot to begin with. Also if you are running freebsd you are no way the audiance you are talking about. My comparisons are based on using the two products on the same machine. If you are going to run around lying and spreading FUD like "mozilla is slower then IE" then at least post some details so we can see how full of shit you are.
"Sites that fail to render correctly under mozilla aren't exclusively done my FrontPage dunces."
No mostly dunces and the rest are idiots.
"Most large companies couldn't give a shit about 2% when they're dealing with a user base of millions. The "smarter people" you describe who have their jobs still are the people who give management what management want, not what they want."
Only an idiot is unable to deliver a site that can't render in mozilla. It's perfectly possible to design web sites that work, look good, and render in both IE and Mozilla. The fact that mozilla renders over 98% of the web sites I have ever been to is ample evidence of that.
Repeating a lie does not make it true. Once again Mozilla renders as fast if not faster then IE on all the sites I use.
Opening new tabs in mozilla is much faster then opening new windows in IE. Not only that but I set my preference to open up new tabs in the background which does not change my focus when I open up a new tab. I never times opening new windows because I rarely do that. Mozilla tabs are a killer feature which MS will eventually steal because they always steal other peoples innovations but until then anybody who uses IE is cheating themselves.
Not only is Mozilla faster it has more features. Popup blocking, control of image animations, ability to block images and cookies from specific sites, tabbed browsing, better email and news, ability to bookmark a set of tabs, tons of bookmarklets and last but not least the availability of awsome skins make mozilla a clearly superior browser in every way.
It's the idiot morons who design web sites with front page that can only be rendered in IE that need to get their heads out of their asses. Why a company would let a addled dunce develop their web sites is beyond me but it happens. Luckily those stupid idiots are now losing their jobs and being replaced by smarter people.
Mozilla will be adapted by the public eventually. It's a better product and better products usually (although not always) win. Sure MS will rely on every underhandhanded, sleazy, unethical, criminal thing to undermine it but I remain hopeful that there are enough people out there who are willing to educate our neighbors on the wonders of mozilla to counteract their slime.
You would be surprised at how much most CIO's are afraid of MS. Some of them actually hide the linux servers so that the MS reps won't see them. I really don't know what they are afraid of but they are definately afraid of MS.
Mozilla is not slow please stop spreading that bit of fud. I have four computers and on every single one of them Mozilla is as fast or faster then IE in rendering all the web sites I visit.
AS for mangled web sites that's not the fault of mozilla. There is nothing anybody can do about crappy web masters writing ie specific code.
This is why you should thank the open source developers every night before you go to sleep. If it wasn't for them your choices would be expensive software or nothing. Because of all the selfless work by other people you can have something which is almost as good for free.
I can't believe how much people whine about getting stuff for free. It'f fucking free goddamnit quit your bitching.
Before you go on to annoint Bill GAtes as a saint keep in mind that the stock Gates is giving away cost him NOTHING. That's right the stock cost him zero dollars.
He is not giving away money he is giving away potential future income if he was to ever sell that stock.
That is not to say that the stock is worthless just that Bill Gates did not pay money for it so it really does not hurt him at all.
No it does not, I think you are confusing macOS-X which does promise to be a viable replacement for windows. You may have seen the commercials but I assure you they are made by apple. There are no Linux commercials which promise such a thing.
Linux does however have a very nice desktop environment which I greatly enjoy using.
As George Orwell made so abundantly clear those who control the language control the world. This is why you are called a thief and a bomb that wipes out villages is called the daisy cutter.
Slashdot Mirror
apt-get install apache
WOW that was real hard.
I know of no lawyer, doctor, or dentist who does not have at least one employee to answer phones, man the office, clean teeth or what have you. I really don't know where you get this fantasy of a single dentist working by him or herself from.
As for computer contractors I thought I made my point already. They charge high rates (fi they can) because they need to insure themselves. How much does your health insurance cost? How much of that does your boss pay? How much does errors and omissions insurance cost? Unemployment, disability, it goes on and on. Of course most people don't pay for that insurance and gamble. For those people unless they are making millions they are one broken hip away from homelessness.
Imagine if you were a computer consultant and got sued by one of your clients? How much money would you have to make to defend yourself?
BTW most people on that web site make under $100.00 per hour which is not much. For most contractors the job is in some city that they don't live in. This means they have to pay for hotels or a temporary living arrangement in that city AND maintain their own house or apt back home. DO the math it's not much take home pay.
How you spend your money is in many more ways more important then how you vote.
Yes. You think making a 100K without a retirement plan, health insurance, life insurance, unemployment insurance, professional liability insurance (errors and omissions) etc is good money?
I guarantee you that a single person who is making 100K is not taking home much. Either that or they are making do without a bunch of personal and professional liability insurance which is bad news for both themselves and their customers.
An underinsured "professional" making 100K is one step away from the welfare rolls and homelessnes. One accident or one lawsuit and it's all over.
You are a business when you have employees.
Not having read the boot it was obvious that the filmmakers failed to capture whatever the movie was about. The script was really lame and the woman who played Clooney's love interest only had one facial expression. She simply could not express any emotion whatsoever. No matter what she was supposed to be feeling she looked like a model posing for the camera with the same vacant look in her eyes.
Also there was too much reliance on silly cinematography tricks. Too many blurred shots, too many false colorations and filters it goes on and on.
Clooney also had a hard time trying to carry the movie, his acting wasn't that good but the women will probably enjoy his ass.
The most ineresting character in the movie was played by jeremy davies. Anytime he was onthe screen it was a movie worth watching.
Well I guess we disagree then. To me anybody working for themselves and by themselves are not a business. To me they are simply trying to eke out a living. Whether they are consultants or street musicians or even beggars (which is pretty hard work when you think about it).
A self employed farmer? Maybe if he has a quarter acre in which he grows tomatoes or something but I know of no farmer who doesn't hire help to at least harvest whatever is being planted.
"The hell it does. A business can exist with just the "boss"
A one person operation is not a business. It's a guy scraping a living. Yes some people (very few) make a living working for and by themsleves but most of them are artists or street musicians. Eventually somebody get hired to answer the phone or keep the books though.
Luckily the people have more choices then "eat my shit or quit".
These days people can organize and of course there is always the court system when your boss is especially assholeish.
BTW for those people who do choose to quit rather then to fight you can allways make a call to the microsoft piracy hotline afterwards, I know of no business that does not have some pirated copies of MS products lying around.
Well Postgres always had a rule subsystem which allowed you to code custom recordsets. Unlike MS SQL stored procedures you could also allow writes!. In other words posrgres rules allow you to code table like structures with both read and write access.
I always thought this was the coolest thing ever in a database. Now postgres has given you another tool in functions which return recordsets.
"# In that conversion, the .adp file contained the forms, reports, and macros. The queries from the old access db were stored on the server either as views or Stored Procedures. Is this also similar (or at least compatible)?"
You had to translate all those queries from access SQL to MS-SQL language right? They are incompatible in many ways. Also many access queries tend to have functions in them like dlookup() all of which won't work in SQL server. SO depending on the complexity of the SQL you will have to translate some of them.
"# MS SQL allows you to use your current windows credentials as the authentication to the SQL server. This is nice because then the users don't have to enter/remember another password. Can I do this in Postgre?"
You can embed a username and a password in the ODBC driver and have everybody log in as the same user or you can write some VB code to get the user name from the windows login and make right registry hacks. Not too big of an ordeal.
" 4. I've found that Access generates absolutely horrid SQL. Fortunately, because all these queries are stored on the SQL server, they can be edited/optimized after the conversion. This question ends up being a two-parter. How compatible is Postre with Access' ugly SQL? And if there's a compatability problem with the generated SQL, can I at least edit it server side and make access not care that that's happened?"
Pretty much the same as SQL server. You can create stored procedures or views and link them up like tables. Study up on the postgres RULE system. It basically allows you to create views with code and also makes all views writable if you want to code the writes.
Look into SQL Porter http://www.realsoftstudio.com/ordersqlporter.php it might save you a ton of work and it does not cost a lot of money.
You can also use "pass through" queries to take advantage of postgres features like regular expressions and such.
The Kompany makes an access like tool.
pgaccess does some of what access does.
Openoffice has nice database developmet tools.
You can build database apps very easily with kylix and there are even open source repirting engines available.
If all of that is not good enough then you can always use postgres as a back end to access via ODBC.
Some of that stuff would be nice to have, some of it can be done by other tools (espcially forms and reports).
But really it's free and it's great. If you want oracle like features you are going to pay oracle prices.
Why is this guy rated up so high?
Doesn't he know that exchange, SQL server etc need their own servers? Hasn't he read the MS best best practices which state that explicitly?
Not only that but he then claims that windows servers are more hands off then unix servers? WTF.
" Get a Clue. Read what the thread is about and try to realise that just because you think linux is great doesn't mean everybody else should otherwise they're automatically wrong."
This whole thread is about you lying about the speed of mozilla. Mozilla renders as fast or faster then IE. Mozilla loads as fast or faster then IE. I am simply trying to counteract your lies that's all.
"There's that "I" again. Trust me, the world does NOT revolve around you."
Neither you nor I have visited every single site on the internet. Furthermore neither one of us is a benchmarking company. I can only speak to my experience. I visit a wide variety of sites in both my personal life and professionally. And I can say with absolutel honesty that over 98% of the sites I visit render perfectly in my presefered browser (mozilla). Very rarely do I have to fire up IE just to read some site. Since these websites I tend to visit are also some of the biggest most profitable businesses in the world I can only conclude that it is perfectly possible to build complex and good looking web sites that render equally well in both IE and mozilla. Anybody who says otherwise is an idiot. If CNN, ebay, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, AOL, ZDNET, CNET, insight, cdw, warehouse.com and tens of thousands of other sites can do it you can too.
All I am asking is that you stop lying about the speed of mozilla. It's not a complex request. Just stop lying.
Your comparisons are invalid because you are not using identical platforms. If you are using freebsd you can not run IE so your comparison is moot to begin with. Also if you are running freebsd you are no way the audiance you are talking about. My comparisons are based on using the two products on the same machine. If you are going to run around lying and spreading FUD like "mozilla is slower then IE" then at least post some details so we can see how full of shit you are.
"Sites that fail to render correctly under mozilla aren't exclusively done my FrontPage dunces."
No mostly dunces and the rest are idiots.
"Most large companies couldn't give a shit about 2% when they're dealing with a user base of millions. The "smarter people" you describe who have their jobs still are the people who give management what management want, not what they want."
Only an idiot is unable to deliver a site that can't render in mozilla. It's perfectly possible to design web sites that work, look good, and render in both IE and Mozilla. The fact that mozilla renders over 98% of the web sites I have ever been to is ample evidence of that.
Repeating a lie does not make it true. Once again Mozilla renders as fast if not faster then IE on all the sites I use.
Opening new tabs in mozilla is much faster then opening new windows in IE. Not only that but I set my preference to open up new tabs in the background which does not change my focus when I open up a new tab. I never times opening new windows because I rarely do that. Mozilla tabs are a killer feature which MS will eventually steal because they always steal other peoples innovations but until then anybody who uses IE is cheating themselves.
Not only is Mozilla faster it has more features. Popup blocking, control of image animations, ability to block images and cookies from specific sites, tabbed browsing, better email and news, ability to bookmark a set of tabs, tons of bookmarklets and last but not least the availability of awsome skins make mozilla a clearly superior browser in every way.
It's the idiot morons who design web sites with front page that can only be rendered in IE that need to get their heads out of their asses. Why a company would let a addled dunce develop their web sites is beyond me but it happens. Luckily those stupid idiots are now losing their jobs and being replaced by smarter people.
Mozilla will be adapted by the public eventually. It's a better product and better products usually (although not always) win. Sure MS will rely on every underhandhanded, sleazy, unethical, criminal thing to undermine it but I remain hopeful that there are enough people out there who are willing to educate our neighbors on the wonders of mozilla to counteract their slime.
You would be surprised at how much most CIO's are afraid of MS. Some of them actually hide the linux servers so that the MS reps won't see them. I really don't know what they are afraid of but they are definately afraid of MS.
Mozilla is not slow please stop spreading that bit of fud. I have four computers and on every single one of them Mozilla is as fast or faster then IE in rendering all the web sites I visit.
AS for mangled web sites that's not the fault of mozilla. There is nothing anybody can do about crappy web masters writing ie specific code.
This is why you should thank the open source developers every night before you go to sleep. If it wasn't for them your choices would be expensive software or nothing. Because of all the selfless work by other people you can have something which is almost as good for free.
I can't believe how much people whine about getting stuff for free. It'f fucking free goddamnit quit your bitching.
Before you go on to annoint Bill GAtes as a saint keep in mind that the stock Gates is giving away cost him NOTHING. That's right the stock cost him zero dollars.
He is not giving away money he is giving away potential future income if he was to ever sell that stock.
That is not to say that the stock is worthless just that Bill Gates did not pay money for it so it really does not hurt him at all.
No it does not, I think you are confusing macOS-X which does promise to be a viable replacement for windows. You may have seen the commercials but I assure you they are made by apple. There are no Linux commercials which promise such a thing.
Linux does however have a very nice desktop environment which I greatly enjoy using.
As George Orwell made so abundantly clear those who control the language control the world. This is why you are called a thief and a bomb that wipes out villages is called the daisy cutter.
It's all double plus good.
What would cause the court system to extract it's nose out of Bill Gates' ass?