...perhaps Cubans would have already overthrown their dictatorship and established a free way of life.
...and perhaps the Cuban government would've used that incoming tech to have far more efficient means and methods of keeping their citizens oppressed.
That sword cuts both ways. Maybe you may not want to use it to make a political statement?
TBH, I doubt that technology would've helped the people much - by simple dint of "priority" being given to the government and military, and everyone else being frozen out. After all, the only thing keeping cell phones out of North Korea (IIRC) is the North Korean government denying the possession of one to any person who isn't a government official or high-ranking military member. Many anti-NoKo organizations actually go out of their way to smuggle satellite-capable phones (and similar) into the country. Fact is, most North Koreans are too damned imporverished to be secure in getting their next meal, let alone a good cell signal. I'm thinking that most ordinary Cubans aren't (in a socioeconomic sense) too far above that point.
Unlike the patent trolls and the **AA, at least these guys do it right. You don't find a summons showing up without knowing that one is coming, there's no extortionist tactics, and they're not doing it for profit motive.
Now why in the hell don't we see state/federal laws that require such behavior? I mean, why not have something sane like a law detailing that first the litigant must prove that they spent at least x days/weeks/months trying to negotiate a change in behavior first, and must prove that they had done so in a good faith effort? (that last part is important, as otherwise one could see the likes of the RIAA sending some ungodly demand down, then claiming that they "tried")?
Not really seeing it... I mean, they already have (fairly) low-end versions of Oracle already out there (starting with "Express"), which are basically stripped versions of the high-end products.
What would they gain from replacing those with a product based on a fairly incompatible and radically different codebase? You're supposed to up-sell customers, which MySQL likely won't do very well.
Question is, will they care? Most folks consume content, not create it. Also, as we've seen in the whole Microsoft vs. FOSS wars, the closed-source guys seem to have better, slicker marketing.
Well, any other route to global domination would be a bit too obvious, dontcha think? I mean, why make blatantly obvious laws that everyone notices immediately? Instead, you can make opaque, confusing, and outright obscure laws to sneak in and swipe individual liberty, one piece at a time, just like seawater eroding a sand castle on the beach. After all, it's far easier to point at a pile of obfuscation and say "don't worry - only those nasty artist-raping copyright pirates will have to worry about it - you're fine". Next, you can impose laws in the name of, oh, "the environment", then "safety", then "health", of course "the children", and then... well, you get the idea. Give it a pretty name, gloss over the ugly parts, and market it, one small piece at a time. As long as the proletariat is comfortable, they won't mind the ride until it's too late to actually do anything about it.
Besides, fascism-by-bureaucracy is far less messy to accomplish than staging an armed coup. Certainly a bit slower to do, but far more certain (as a bonus, you can condition the masses to actually be comfortable in the new environment. All you have to do is keep them distracted with neat little toys, lots of sexual entertainment, and the occasional celebrity gossip, just like they did it in the old days of Rome...)
Just curious, since I'm not a DB guy and rarely get to work on servers, why exactly would you WANT to run a non UI version of Winserver?
Judging by Exchange, the way things are going you may not have a choice... Right now in Exchange 2k7, half the tools you need to get the job done requires PowerShell, whether you like it or not (given the syntax, lack of flexibility, and Microsoft's fondness for overly-long command names, I'm voting "not". I can do it, but it's like getting a root canal sometimes). I suspect that SQL Server may head down the same road once they get a CLI-version of that going.
Other than that, when you start crawling up into getting that last drop of performance, it's nice to ditch a UI that only the sysadmins see on odd occasion.
I have to amplify what sibling (Antique Geekmeister) said... there's a massive difference between master/slave and actual no-kidding 2-way replication. We're not talking two separate DB's here, but a perfect two-way interchangeable (down to the transaction logs) clone of one DB on two distinct servers.
Oracle, PG, and SQL Server can do it... MySQL can barely do it in 5.1 (that is, if you have testicles of iron and dig deep into munging with Federated Tables).
I was taking a stab at a guess on it, but I think that the next iteration of SQL Server is supposed to do something of that nature (though to be honest I'd hate to see the command syntax if Exchange is any indication).
Agreed. As a big ferinstance, MySQL just barely got two-way replication w/ 5.1, and even then you had to do some seriously weird hoodoo on it to make that happen (hint: it's not a listed feature)... this is a basic function of any full-on enterprise-level DB.
Now Postgres comes fairly close, but everyone else can't even touch it.
If Postgres ever got something resembling the ease and power of RAC, then Oracle would have something to worry about. Until then, they're in a position to dictate whatever terms they want to. (I would've put MS SQL Server as a contender, but clustering that into something resembling RAC is a friggin' nightmare to build and maintain, and I doubt that too many MCDBAs have quite wrapped their heads around using SQL Server on a Core (read: non-UI) install of Windows Server just yet.)
Depends on a lot of factors. For instance, the state of Oregon requires that a certain minimum number of trees be replanted after logging - even the "least productive areas" (their term) requires that a minimum of 100 tree seedlings per acre be replanted for every acre of logging... IMHO that's likely more than enough to cover the far smaller number of mature trees that had been cut down. They have to replant within a year of logging, and have to insure that by the fifth year, the seedlings must all be "healthy and out-competing the surrounding vegetation" (again, their term). The burden for this is on the landowner, be it a logging company or someone selling his/her timber to one.
Other states have very similar laws (see cite above).
Err, GM trees? I can grok the existence of GM food crops, but somehow I'm not seeing trees as being that easily modified on a commercial scale (mostly because it takes so damned long to grow them and test the results by comparison).
Now selective 'breeding' and grafting, okay - but to be honest, both would barely qualify for the moniker "genetically modified" - Hell, Dachshunds would be better suited to the term "GM" than a selectively-bred Douglas Firs would).
If you have evidence of actual GM trees being sown and grown commercially, I'd be interested to find out where.
...is Arrington laying it on a bit thick, firing every bit of ammo he can muster?
I mean, sure the guy has an understandable grievance and all, but seriously - why not stick to the points that aren't nearly as easy to drag off to the philosophical
"There are plenty of serious capitalists on board with environmentalism, who probably don't give a damn about AGW being fact or fiction, but are positioning themselves to profit like hell from it."
Fixed that for you... after all, a pure capitalist entity or person (at least according to the detractors) thinks of the profit motive first.;)
...there's also the option of coming up with a scary-as-fuck new theory, using the most bullet-proof of your predecessors' theories to back it up ( like String Theory ferinstance...)
The problem is some idea that science should be "fair and balanced", and that every view, from any source, is valid, or at least should be debated or considered. Scientists should tell MORE people to STFU, if you ask me.
...you do realize that Albert Einstein was shut of out academia for years (as he was only a so-so student with a poor grasp of academic politics), which is why he was a Swiss patent clerk in the first place (and not considered as a "scientist" for many years)? By your logic, what right did a (then) non professional scientist like Albert Einstein have, meddling in a respected and obviously 'more-qualified-than-thou' field of professional science? Maybe Einstein should've shat the fuck up too, as you so eloquently put it...
There is another problem with your view... insofar that it treads dangerously close to representing something else. Here, I'll paraphrase your quote and show you how it would parse:
'The problem is some idea that christianity should be "fair and balanced", and that every view, from any source, is valid, or at least should be debated or considered. Bishops and priests should tell MORE people to STFU, if you ask me.' (after all, only someone trained in, say, Canon Law would be qualified to speak authoritatively on christianity, right?)
It'd be a long list... (Sophos is reporting that 8 of 10 bits of common Vista malware run just fine on Windows 7. Mind you they tested trojans as well, but there's enough non-trojans in the pile to make the cite valid).
Please list all non-trojan malware for OSX. Even a small sampling will suffice. Hell, even one would suffice.
(Bugs? Certainly. Trojans? There have been roughly a handful of variants that require a user to find a shady pr0n website, download the trojan, then enter an admin password in spite of all warnings telling them that it might not be a good idea... one simply cannot fix stupid).
...that would have to be a lot of life, no? Or would the gas have been created by long-dead/extinct lifeforms, and the gas is just that stable in the atmosphere?
Also, titan is almost literally drowned in Methane (as in, lakes and oceans of the stuff). There ain't that many meteors floating around for that volume, and there's no volcanic activity to speak of, IIRC.
I'm thinking that a lot of people add folks they don't know into their friends' pile for the applications, esp. games. After all, Mafia Wars and the like are rigged to get you more in-game "power" (more defense, offense, etc) with the larger number of friends you add (and then subsequently add into your "Mafia", or "Neighbors", or "Crew").
Slashdot Mirror
...perhaps Cubans would have already overthrown their dictatorship and established a free way of life.
That sword cuts both ways. Maybe you may not want to use it to make a political statement?
TBH, I doubt that technology would've helped the people much - by simple dint of "priority" being given to the government and military, and everyone else being frozen out. After all, the only thing keeping cell phones out of North Korea (IIRC) is the North Korean government denying the possession of one to any person who isn't a government official or high-ranking military member. Many anti-NoKo organizations actually go out of their way to smuggle satellite-capable phones (and similar) into the country. Fact is, most North Koreans are too damned imporverished to be secure in getting their next meal, let alone a good cell signal. I'm thinking that most ordinary Cubans aren't (in a socioeconomic sense) too far above that point.
So, err, there's no risk of a lawsuit by stealing someone else's proprietary code? I sincerely beg to differ on that one.
Unlike the patent trolls and the **AA, at least these guys do it right. You don't find a summons showing up without knowing that one is coming, there's no extortionist tactics, and they're not doing it for profit motive.
Now why in the hell don't we see state/federal laws that require such behavior? I mean, why not have something sane like a law detailing that first the litigant must prove that they spent at least x days/weeks/months trying to negotiate a change in behavior first, and must prove that they had done so in a good faith effort? (that last part is important, as otherwise one could see the likes of the RIAA sending some ungodly demand down, then claiming that they "tried")?
Not really seeing it... I mean, they already have (fairly) low-end versions of Oracle already out there (starting with "Express"), which are basically stripped versions of the high-end products.
What would they gain from replacing those with a product based on a fairly incompatible and radically different codebase? You're supposed to up-sell customers, which MySQL likely won't do very well.
...if you're not participating in FreeNet by now, you'd damned well better start. It's likely to be the last place left (assuming it isn't outlawed).
Question is, will they care? Most folks consume content, not create it. Also, as we've seen in the whole Microsoft vs. FOSS wars, the closed-source guys seem to have better, slicker marketing.
Well, any other route to global domination would be a bit too obvious, dontcha think? I mean, why make blatantly obvious laws that everyone notices immediately? Instead, you can make opaque, confusing, and outright obscure laws to sneak in and swipe individual liberty, one piece at a time, just like seawater eroding a sand castle on the beach. After all, it's far easier to point at a pile of obfuscation and say "don't worry - only those nasty artist-raping copyright pirates will have to worry about it - you're fine". Next, you can impose laws in the name of, oh, "the environment", then "safety", then "health", of course "the children", and then... well, you get the idea. Give it a pretty name, gloss over the ugly parts, and market it, one small piece at a time. As long as the proletariat is comfortable, they won't mind the ride until it's too late to actually do anything about it.
Besides, fascism-by-bureaucracy is far less messy to accomplish than staging an armed coup. Certainly a bit slower to do, but far more certain (as a bonus, you can condition the masses to actually be comfortable in the new environment. All you have to do is keep them distracted with neat little toys, lots of sexual entertainment, and the occasional celebrity gossip, just like they did it in the old days of Rome...)
Just curious, since I'm not a DB guy and rarely get to work on servers, why exactly would you WANT to run a non UI version of Winserver?
Judging by Exchange, the way things are going you may not have a choice... Right now in Exchange 2k7, half the tools you need to get the job done requires PowerShell, whether you like it or not (given the syntax, lack of flexibility, and Microsoft's fondness for overly-long command names, I'm voting "not". I can do it, but it's like getting a root canal sometimes). I suspect that SQL Server may head down the same road once they get a CLI-version of that going.
Other than that, when you start crawling up into getting that last drop of performance, it's nice to ditch a UI that only the sysadmins see on odd occasion.
I have to amplify what sibling (Antique Geekmeister) said... there's a massive difference between master/slave and actual no-kidding 2-way replication. We're not talking two separate DB's here, but a perfect two-way interchangeable (down to the transaction logs) clone of one DB on two distinct servers.
Oracle, PG, and SQL Server can do it... MySQL can barely do it in 5.1 (that is, if you have testicles of iron and dig deep into munging with Federated Tables).
I was taking a stab at a guess on it, but I think that the next iteration of SQL Server is supposed to do something of that nature (though to be honest I'd hate to see the command syntax if Exchange is any indication).
Agreed. As a big ferinstance, MySQL just barely got two-way replication w/ 5.1, and even then you had to do some seriously weird hoodoo on it to make that happen (hint: it's not a listed feature)... this is a basic function of any full-on enterprise-level DB.
Now Postgres comes fairly close, but everyone else can't even touch it.
If Postgres ever got something resembling the ease and power of RAC, then Oracle would have something to worry about. Until then, they're in a position to dictate whatever terms they want to. (I would've put MS SQL Server as a contender, but clustering that into something resembling RAC is a friggin' nightmare to build and maintain, and I doubt that too many MCDBAs have quite wrapped their heads around using SQL Server on a Core (read: non-UI) install of Windows Server just yet.)
Your cite talks about trials and R&D, but nothing in place now (GP was claiming that the lumber industry was using GM trees commercially now).
Depends on a lot of factors. For instance, the state of Oregon requires that a certain minimum number of trees be replanted after logging - even the "least productive areas" (their term) requires that a minimum of 100 tree seedlings per acre be replanted for every acre of logging... IMHO that's likely more than enough to cover the far smaller number of mature trees that had been cut down. They have to replant within a year of logging, and have to insure that by the fifth year, the seedlings must all be "healthy and out-competing the surrounding vegetation" (again, their term). The burden for this is on the landowner, be it a logging company or someone selling his/her timber to one.
Other states have very similar laws (see cite above).
Err, GM trees? I can grok the existence of GM food crops, but somehow I'm not seeing trees as being that easily modified on a commercial scale (mostly because it takes so damned long to grow them and test the results by comparison).
Now selective 'breeding' and grafting, okay - but to be honest, both would barely qualify for the moniker "genetically modified" - Hell, Dachshunds would be better suited to the term "GM" than a selectively-bred Douglas Firs would).
If you have evidence of actual GM trees being sown and grown commercially, I'd be interested to find out where.
...is Arrington laying it on a bit thick, firing every bit of ammo he can muster?
I mean, sure the guy has an understandable grievance and all, but seriously - why not stick to the points that aren't nearly as easy to drag off to the philosophical
"There are plenty of serious capitalists on board with environmentalism, who probably don't give a damn about AGW being fact or fiction, but are positioning themselves to profit like hell from it."
Fixed that for you... after all, a pure capitalist entity or person (at least according to the detractors) thinks of the profit motive first. ;)
True, but that statement does cut both ways (including out-of-hand dismissals of hypotheses and evidence which opposes the 'consensus').
...there's also the option of coming up with a scary-as-fuck new theory, using the most bullet-proof of your predecessors' theories to back it up ( like String Theory ferinstance...)
The problem is some idea that science should be "fair and balanced", and that every view, from any source, is valid, or at least should be debated or considered. Scientists should tell MORE people to STFU, if you ask me.
There is another problem with your view... insofar that it treads dangerously close to representing something else. Here, I'll paraphrase your quote and show you how it would parse:
'The problem is some idea that christianity should be "fair and balanced", and that every view, from any source, is valid, or at least should be debated or considered. Bishops and priests should tell MORE people to STFU, if you ask me.' (after all, only someone trained in, say, Canon Law would be qualified to speak authoritatively on christianity, right?)
It'd be a long list... (Sophos is reporting that 8 of 10 bits of common Vista malware run just fine on Windows 7. Mind you they tested trojans as well, but there's enough non-trojans in the pile to make the cite valid).
They (Macs) have malware and bugs aplenty,...
Please list all non-trojan malware for OSX. Even a small sampling will suffice. Hell, even one would suffice.
(Bugs? Certainly. Trojans? There have been roughly a handful of variants that require a user to find a shady pr0n website, download the trojan, then enter an admin password in spite of all warnings telling them that it might not be a good idea... one simply cannot fix stupid).
Anyrate - let me know what you find.
...that would have to be a lot of life, no? Or would the gas have been created by long-dead/extinct lifeforms, and the gas is just that stable in the atmosphere?
Also, titan is almost literally drowned in Methane (as in, lakes and oceans of the stuff). There ain't that many meteors floating around for that volume, and there's no volcanic activity to speak of, IIRC.
I'm thinking that a lot of people add folks they don't know into their friends' pile for the applications, esp. games. After all, Mafia Wars and the like are rigged to get you more in-game "power" (more defense, offense, etc) with the larger number of friends you add (and then subsequently add into your "Mafia", or "Neighbors", or "Crew").
Are you kidding? I had the same situation, and took the time to breathe one hell of a big sigh of relief that I didn't marry her.
I was tempted to install the app to see if I could filter them somehow, but ultimately said forget it.
Facebook does allow you to block apps... and that IIRC includes the announcements that come with them.