I've heard the same complaints... From (pro bono) clients who were in prison.
That's a very good point. I'd say that my situation today was a taster of such a situation - although with the crucial disctinction that it was only my desire to make my journey keeping me there; I could have walked at any point (or at least after I'd retrieved my checked hand luggage)
What's the betting that you just made it onto a watchlist?:)
I think you might be joking there, but as you've been modded Insightful rather than Funny I'll answer seriously:)
Personally, I think that's unlikely - particularly as I did actually check in and clear security before offloading, I was far from the only person doing it, and I don't think I fit the profile in a number of ways. I suspect that a more suspiscious profile would be for someone to be booked for a flight but fail to check in (as the plan was effectively disrupted, why bother subjecting yourself to scrutiny?). But there are a lot of people who that would apply to also - many people will have failed to make their flights today.
Besides, I don't really think that the attack was planned for today - rather some point over the next few days - so the behaviour of passengers today may not be quite so scrutinised.
I arrived at Heathrow for an early flight to Frankfurt just as news was breaking for this at about 06:00. It was a tough decision to part with my laptop, PDA and mobile but I decided to take my chances. It only really then dawned on me the extent to which I depend on these items when I was waiting for hours to clear security... While I could have found a public payphone, all my phone numbers are stored in my mobile & PDA and I actually remember very few of them. I could speak to people, after somehow getting their numbers, but they could not call me back. All the usual channels that are normally avalable to me to get information about a delay were unavailable to me - no web access or even SMS messages to friends with access. You just have to stand in a queue like a sheep.
I didn't take my flight in the end, despite it being one of the few that wasn't cancelled - when I finally got to the gate they still had an additional delay of over an hour and I was only due to be there one day. With half of it gone, and the prospects of being able to fly back to the UK this evening looking distinctly dubuious, I offloaded myself.
This was obviously an inconvenience for me, but I have nothing but praise for our security services who foiled this and the airport staff who managed to handle the whole thing pretty well, considering.
As has been reported, items allowed were limited to wallets/travel documents and baby/health-specific products. However, many of us brought books and papers with us also. Interestingly, Duty Free shops were open airside - although I didn't see if any electronics shops were. The focus this morning was really on what can be brought from landside to airside and they didn't seem to have thought about what you buy airside so much (although I would speculate that electronic items bought airside do not pose such a threat in that trrrsts would use pre-modified devices to detonate explosives). The search at security was a remove shoes, belts etc. job - rather like being in the US:)
It will be very interesting if this policy is made permanent. Like many companies mine has a policy of not putting laptops into checked luggage - for good reason. And when you are on the move much of the time you need your tools to keep productive - I've previously found time in the lounge or on board to be really valuable sometimes. However, I think in light of all the other ways that security can be compromised this can't continue as an indefinite measure - the risk:hassle/cost ratio is all wrong.
I'm just thinking of the overhead of Oracle, which may not be that suited to an embedded application. Of course, if this free version has lower hardware requirements, then yes that would be appropriate. However in this case I doubt that this would be suitable for say, mobile devices.
I agree, it has a significant overhead - particularly in memory and disk footprint. I should clarify though - when I referred to mobile use, I was thinking of users with reasonably high end laptops who need to use a database-dependent application while offline. So while in the office, they could connect to a main server running 'proper' Oracle with live data, and when on the road, they could use a personal installation with the XE server and cached data. The advantage for the vendor is that they can use the same database for both.
I think that for embedded database storage, this would be overkill
Not necessarily. Some vendors offer products that use a database to (say) store metadata. It's not unusual for such vendors to only offer support for databases where there is sufficient proven commercial demand - and (right or wrong) in many fields, that means Oracle, DB2, MSSQL. Sure, something like MySQL would be far better suited for embedded use, but that would be a whole other platform to do QC on etc. and it might not make commercial sense.
So, if you had a free version of a database that you already support, you could easily use that as an embedded version - for a mobile version of your product, for example.
There can be reasons why crew might need access to the cockpit from the main cabin during a flight. One is the crew rotation situation other posters have described. Others might be due to emergencies.
It's not a terribly good example (as it crashed, killing everyone on board), but the recent Helios crash, where decompression at altitude knocked out the pilots, might have been averted if cabin crew were able to bring one of the portable oxygen units through to the pilots (on the assumption here that the pilots' oxygen supply was faulty or (more likely) accidentially left turned off).
I'm sure there are numerous other emergency situations where external access to the flight deck might save a plane. I think the current solution of a secure door with reasonably secure override mechanism is better than sealing off entirely.
I think we should remember that terrorists adapt their tactics. We should not focus on ever-more elaborate schemes to protect the cockpit even more when we should be looking at general prevention (intelligence, diplomacy) and trying to anticipate how they may evolve their attacks.
Going back on topic, I think a subtle way of notifying the cockpit of problems is a good thing; inpenetrable flight decks and automatic flight controls less so.
Privacy and security issues aside, my concern with electronic monitoring is that it is absolutely no substitute for physical inspection by engineers/mechanics. There are lots of problems that do not show up in telemetry data that pose a real safety issue (I know, because my car's had many of them...)
Now, there is no suggestion in the article that physical inspections stop or reduce in frequency, and in the UK at least there is a legal requirement for an annual safety check of vehicles. However, I am concerned that people blindly trust such electronic systems to an ever increasing degree - how many people already think that because there is no red light on the dashboard there is absolutely nothing wrong?
Cars still need to go into garages and be physically inspected, so the plus point for me was the line "The e-mails will also include reminders about when a vehicle is due for oil changes or other scheduled service, when customers actually have to pay a visit their local dealership" - I personally could do with a little more proactive reminding from my car as I always forget...
I disagree also with the G8 anarchists theory, and given that Tonly Blair has referenced Islamists in his last speech after he's had a detailed briefing, I think there would probably be evidence to point to islamists that he has been made aware of.
I heard an interview with a doctor on the radio earlier, and he stated 10 fatalities at the scene for the bus bombing - this dopcutor was one of those on the scene. The bus actually exploded next to the offices of the British Medical Association, so medical care was actually quite close at hand for them.
I find it odd that the authorities have released NO figures for fatalities on the bus at this stage, given that they have given numbers for the far less accessible underground lines.
Also, it is strange that only a single bus was attacked. One theory is that a device was simply being transported on the bus, but this is only a theory and it has its share of holes.
Driving home to London from the airport this afternoon, I was comforted to notice the two police cars, two pursuit bikes and about a dozen officers stoically protecting us from terrorists by, er, running a speed trap.
Gotta keep the revenue flowing, eh?
Seriously though, the response of the emergency services, and the attitude of those caught in London has been impressive. Makes one proud to be British. As so many others have pointed out, the terrorists will not truly win with tactics like this.
It was a one time incident and it was because it was an American car. If it had been Japanese, that would have never happened. American cars are shit.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not serially scream down hills fuelled by out of control cruise control, but the juxtaposition of your comments did strike me as ironic.
More generally, I find the trend towards abdicating responsibility for aspects of driving to various items of automation (such as cruise control) to be a bad thing. I feel that they encourage the driver to mentally switch off.
On the other hand, technology such as ABS is very definitely a good thing, so there is a balance to be had. In general, technology that intervenes when things go wrong is good, while I'm suspicious of technology that takes things out of the hands of the driver for convenience or the illusion of greater safety (and I'd classify the subject of this story as the latter btw)
Personally, my car has a feature that beeps at me when I exceed a set speed, and this generally works quite well. I would be happy to have something that I can control that beeps at me depending on my speed and the local speed limit. I would not be happy to have something that does any more than alert me.
After all, the smart driver knows that it is ultimately his or her responsibility for whatever they may cause if they don't drive with due care and attention... Even if they do drive an American car:)
In nearly 20 years of driving, I've gotten one citation and it was waived because I was using cruise control and it failed to keep the speed on a hill.
So your reliance on cruise control caused you to fail to keep to a posted limit?
By the way, the smartest drivers use cruise control because it helps you stay within the speed limit without having to think about it.
And now you say that the "smartest" drivers use cruise control because it helps you obey limits?
Perhaps you should tone down the sanctiminious lecture about how the "smartest" drivers use cruise control in the face of your own evidence that reliance on it caused you to not be in adequate control of your vehicle, to the extent that you got pulled over?
bzip2 can't compress streams, but more efficient to compress files
Where on earth did you get this idea? Bzip2 operates on streams. Aside from the algorithm and some minor differences in command line operations, gzip and bzip2 work in very similar ways.
Perhaps you are confused because bzip2 will not write to the terminal - but if you redirect the output to something it is fine. Unless you actually want to write compressed bzip2 to a terminal session of course, in which case you have other problems:)
Check the manpage:
If no file names are specified, bzip2 compresses from standard input to standard output. In this case, bzip2 will decline to write compressed output to a terminal, as this would be entirely incomprehensible and therefore pointless.
It would possibly be valid to argue that the fact that bzip2 takes a much longer time to compress a given bit of data makes it less suitable for some streaming applications, but that's not what you wrote.
What does the US get that's better than what you have in the UK? Lost?
Well, yes - Lost. It might not be to your taste for some reason, but I think the general consensus is that it's pretty damn good. Yet the first season has now finished in the US but not even started here in the UK (slated for August now, apparently)
Buyers here in the UK missed a trick with that one I think - how many of us will never watch it now on legitimate TV (and never see those adverts) because we would not wait?
On the other hand, you can argue that the minority of us that have taken the torrent route and have nothing but nice things to say about it will cause more than that number to watch it thanks to word of mouth.
But where TV companies are concerned, I generally favour the incompetence explanation over a cunning plan... Either way, it's the viewer in the UK that loses out.
Obviously there is a license at work, otherwise I may as well break the law at home.
But if you break the law at work, you're less likely to get caught when TV licensing turn up at your home:)
You make a fair point that, if you don't watch any TV at all at home, then you should not pay a license or be harassed to pay for one.
I'm a stong proponent of the BBC's funding model (although I would be open to see it replaced by something that has similar merits), and I always see red at the often heard argument of "I don't watch BBC, so I shouldn't pay the license fee". This usually comes from those who claim to just watch Mr Murdoch's channels for example. I should not lump you in with these people - if you say that you watch no TV at home (and I have no reason to disbelieve that), then you are within both the letter and the spirit of the law.
I was going to ask "But how can you live without programme X?" But then I realised that most of the stuff I watch is actually downloaded American stuff. Since they stopped showing any form of Trek, I only watch for the news and current affairs (still worth the fee IMHO). And the good Doctor of course.
Of course, the grey area is the web output. If you access the BBC online content, and you live in the UK, should you not morally pay someting? But then again, there's all those darn furrners that access BBC online for free and noone asks them for a license fee.
I'll also admit that TV Licensing are a little overzealous (I recall the fantistic job they did of harassing students in halls of residence for example), but I still contend that likening them to Nazis devalues the meaning of the word Nazi. But I guess that's an argument that's been flogged to death many times...
We heard you the first time. You neglected to say whether your workplace has a license.
It is ironic that I am reading your, er, trenchant views on the day that many BBC staff are on strike over massive cutbacks, brought on because the funding of the BBC is under constant threat (and because the director general is a tosser, but that's only a side point)
I view the BBC funding model as the way forward personally, slightly akin to the so-called MP3 tax. No ads, broadcast free to all, because our country has democratically decided that such a service should be publically funded, with all those who consume TV meeting the cost. It's a busines model that should bear up to things like p2p sharing very well (exept that they would have to extend the license to cover DSL connections...)
The world would be a culturally poorer place without the BBC, and it's a fallacy to believe that anything like the BBC could exist based on a strictly commercial model.
I am sorry that you have such trouble with the "licensing nazis", but they are just enforcing something that we as a society on the whole believe is a Good Thing.
And last I checked, the TV licensing authorities were not gassing millions of innocent men, women and children, so I suggest you find a less over the top way of referring to them (are you familiar with Godwin's Law btw?)
I view it more as a statistics exercise, from the producers' point of view.
For whatever you produce, a certain proportion of the potential market will not ever pay for it, for whatever reason. A proportion will very likely pay for it. Another proportion might pay for it.
If you're going to assume that a degree of piracy will happen, then your commercial maths when considering a new business venture (a.k.a. artistic project) should account for how many people fit into each camp, and how you might sway them into the right camp.
For example, you might choose to target those who download illegally but are borderline purchasers - offer something to buy that they will choose to part with money for.
Some people will never pay for a particular thing; some will never pay for anything. But that's just the way of things. In any case, the better the thing that you produce, the higher the proportion of people that will want to own a copy of it. Look at how many committed downloaders own a LOTR DVD for example. My copy is sat right next to my Star Wars Trilogy boxed set...
The **AA don't seem to take this view. for them, you are either with or against. Binary. More fool them, I say, because I think (and I hope) this attitude is doomed to failure.
Incidentally, I paid good money to see Sith in the cinema. I shall almost certainly buy it on DVD. I might download a copy in the meantime, as I quite liked it. Guess that would put my on the MPAA dark side...
I use an Orange SPV C500 (HTC Voyager/iMate SP3) and it has an option to switch it into "Flight Mode", where the GSM portion is disabled but everything else (PDA, MP3, DivX, games, etc) still works fine.
All very well in theory, but British Airways at least explicitly tells passengers to turn off phones including those with a flight-safe mode. I assume their rationale is that cabin crew cannot be expected to know all phones with this feature, and don't necessarily trust people to use it properly anyway.
This may seem over-protective, and it probably is, but I just lump it in with all those other over-cautious things that airlines insist on (such as forbidding me from listening to my iPod not only during actual takeoff and landing but also during ascent and approach (which takes up most of many of my flights)).
And let's not even get into the whole phones-on-planes bikeshed:)
perhaps you've got the right idea dressing like your customers - Hell, it's the approach I use:)
In a consulting role, the advice I've generally heard is to dress one notch up from your customers - so if they're totally casual, you wear smart casual etc. The theory is that this gives you an air of being authoritative and respectable while still being near to the customer's level (and hence not seeming too distant)
Of course, if the customer wears a full business suit, you should probably not turn up in top hat and tails...
I think the point that was being made was that, as the 'legitimate' channel for downloads both costs money and attempts to take away your fair use rights under copyright law, it represents an astonishingly bad deal compared to pirated versions, which are both free and DRM-free.
I will happily pay a fair price for fair use music, and would do so exclusively from now on if it was available. But while the only legal downloads are hobbled by DRM, I can't bring myself to pay for them.
"the computer industry is not immure from the ephemeralizing virtuous cycles wrought by IT adoption"
"whence goeth the pomo coder"
.. to pick a couple. This guy seems to be of the school of thought that if you make your language as complex and idiosyncratic as possible, you will appear to be intelligent.
Personally, I think he missed the point, or at least failed to consider alternative interpretations. Bookkepping is knowledge/mental work; smithying is physical/skilled work. Much coding is also mental work (although I concede that much of it could be, and is, done by monkeys).The physical/skilled type of work is far more easily made redundant by engineering advances.
Sure, it may be that in the future more and more knowledge work is taken up by AI developments, but I reckon that at least then we'll be able to rest happy in the knowledge that the beancouters are out of a job too...
As Lucas won't include the originals because "to me, it doesn't really exist anymore", that means he won't be able to release them separately in a few years to maximise his $$$$ income.
Sorry - it was honestly not a troll. I didn't think anyone would take my comment at all seriously. I guess I just find the occasional mismatch of advertising/sponsorship and editorial content amusing sometimes (in a not all that funny really sort of way).
Oh, and I had checked the other pages - interestingly, the Oracle logo is not appended to the DB2 section of the site. Very sensitive of them.
But I'm not seriously suggesting that they are any sort of Oracle stooge, if that was how you read my post.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you might be joking there, but as you've been modded Insightful rather than Funny I'll answer seriously :)
Personally, I think that's unlikely - particularly as I did actually check in and clear security before offloading, I was far from the only person doing it, and I don't think I fit the profile in a number of ways. I suspect that a more suspiscious profile would be for someone to be booked for a flight but fail to check in (as the plan was effectively disrupted, why bother subjecting yourself to scrutiny?). But there are a lot of people who that would apply to also - many people will have failed to make their flights today.
Besides, I don't really think that the attack was planned for today - rather some point over the next few days - so the behaviour of passengers today may not be quite so scrutinised.
I arrived at Heathrow for an early flight to Frankfurt just as news was breaking for this at about 06:00. It was a tough decision to part with my laptop, PDA and mobile but I decided to take my chances. It only really then dawned on me the extent to which I depend on these items when I was waiting for hours to clear security... While I could have found a public payphone, all my phone numbers are stored in my mobile & PDA and I actually remember very few of them. I could speak to people, after somehow getting their numbers, but they could not call me back. All the usual channels that are normally avalable to me to get information about a delay were unavailable to me - no web access or even SMS messages to friends with access. You just have to stand in a queue like a sheep.
:)
I didn't take my flight in the end, despite it being one of the few that wasn't cancelled - when I finally got to the gate they still had an additional delay of over an hour and I was only due to be there one day. With half of it gone, and the prospects of being able to fly back to the UK this evening looking distinctly dubuious, I offloaded myself.
This was obviously an inconvenience for me, but I have nothing but praise for our security services who foiled this and the airport staff who managed to handle the whole thing pretty well, considering.
As has been reported, items allowed were limited to wallets/travel documents and baby/health-specific products. However, many of us brought books and papers with us also. Interestingly, Duty Free shops were open airside - although I didn't see if any electronics shops were. The focus this morning was really on what can be brought from landside to airside and they didn't seem to have thought about what you buy airside so much (although I would speculate that electronic items bought airside do not pose such a threat in that trrrsts would use pre-modified devices to detonate explosives). The search at security was a remove shoes, belts etc. job - rather like being in the US
It will be very interesting if this policy is made permanent. Like many companies mine has a policy of not putting laptops into checked luggage - for good reason. And when you are on the move much of the time you need your tools to keep productive - I've previously found time in the lounge or on board to be really valuable sometimes. However, I think in light of all the other ways that security can be compromised this can't continue as an indefinite measure - the risk:hassle/cost ratio is all wrong.
So, if you had a free version of a database that you already support, you could easily use that as an embedded version - for a mobile version of your product, for example.
It's not a terribly good example (as it crashed, killing everyone on board), but the recent Helios crash, where decompression at altitude knocked out the pilots, might have been averted if cabin crew were able to bring one of the portable oxygen units through to the pilots (on the assumption here that the pilots' oxygen supply was faulty or (more likely) accidentially left turned off).
I'm sure there are numerous other emergency situations where external access to the flight deck might save a plane. I think the current solution of a secure door with reasonably secure override mechanism is better than sealing off entirely.
I think we should remember that terrorists adapt their tactics. We should not focus on ever-more elaborate schemes to protect the cockpit even more when we should be looking at general prevention (intelligence, diplomacy) and trying to anticipate how they may evolve their attacks.
Going back on topic, I think a subtle way of notifying the cockpit of problems is a good thing; inpenetrable flight decks and automatic flight controls less so.
Now, there is no suggestion in the article that physical inspections stop or reduce in frequency, and in the UK at least there is a legal requirement for an annual safety check of vehicles. However, I am concerned that people blindly trust such electronic systems to an ever increasing degree - how many people already think that because there is no red light on the dashboard there is absolutely nothing wrong?
Cars still need to go into garages and be physically inspected, so the plus point for me was the line "The e-mails will also include reminders about when a vehicle is due for oil changes or other scheduled service, when customers actually have to pay a visit their local dealership" - I personally could do with a little more proactive reminding from my car as I always forget...
Sorry. Could not resist.
I disagree also with the G8 anarchists theory, and given that Tonly Blair has referenced Islamists in his last speech after he's had a detailed briefing, I think there would probably be evidence to point to islamists that he has been made aware of.
I heard an interview with a doctor on the radio earlier, and he stated 10 fatalities at the scene for the bus bombing - this dopcutor was one of those on the scene. The bus actually exploded next to the offices of the British Medical Association, so medical care was actually quite close at hand for them.
I find it odd that the authorities have released NO figures for fatalities on the bus at this stage, given that they have given numbers for the far less accessible underground lines.
Also, it is strange that only a single bus was attacked. One theory is that a device was simply being transported on the bus, but this is only a theory and it has its share of holes.
Gotta keep the revenue flowing, eh?
Seriously though, the response of the emergency services, and the attitude of those caught in London has been impressive. Makes one proud to be British. As so many others have pointed out, the terrorists will not truly win with tactics like this.
More generally, I find the trend towards abdicating responsibility for aspects of driving to various items of automation (such as cruise control) to be a bad thing. I feel that they encourage the driver to mentally switch off.
On the other hand, technology such as ABS is very definitely a good thing, so there is a balance to be had. In general, technology that intervenes when things go wrong is good, while I'm suspicious of technology that takes things out of the hands of the driver for convenience or the illusion of greater safety (and I'd classify the subject of this story as the latter btw)
Personally, my car has a feature that beeps at me when I exceed a set speed, and this generally works quite well. I would be happy to have something that I can control that beeps at me depending on my speed and the local speed limit. I would not be happy to have something that does any more than alert me.
After all, the smart driver knows that it is ultimately his or her responsibility for whatever they may cause if they don't drive with due care and attention... Even if they do drive an American car :)
Perhaps you should tone down the sanctiminious lecture about how the "smartest" drivers use cruise control in the face of your own evidence that reliance on it caused you to not be in adequate control of your vehicle, to the extent that you got pulled over?
Just a random thought.
Perhaps you are confused because bzip2 will not write to the terminal - but if you redirect the output to something it is fine. Unless you actually want to write compressed bzip2 to a terminal session of course, in which case you have other problems :)
Check the manpage:
It would possibly be valid to argue that the fact that bzip2 takes a much longer time to compress a given bit of data makes it less suitable for some streaming applications, but that's not what you wrote.
Buyers here in the UK missed a trick with that one I think - how many of us will never watch it now on legitimate TV (and never see those adverts) because we would not wait?
On the other hand, you can argue that the minority of us that have taken the torrent route and have nothing but nice things to say about it will cause more than that number to watch it thanks to word of mouth.
But where TV companies are concerned, I generally favour the incompetence explanation over a cunning plan... Either way, it's the viewer in the UK that loses out.
You make a fair point that, if you don't watch any TV at all at home, then you should not pay a license or be harassed to pay for one.
I'm a stong proponent of the BBC's funding model (although I would be open to see it replaced by something that has similar merits), and I always see red at the often heard argument of "I don't watch BBC, so I shouldn't pay the license fee". This usually comes from those who claim to just watch Mr Murdoch's channels for example. I should not lump you in with these people - if you say that you watch no TV at home (and I have no reason to disbelieve that), then you are within both the letter and the spirit of the law.
I was going to ask "But how can you live without programme X?" But then I realised that most of the stuff I watch is actually downloaded American stuff. Since they stopped showing any form of Trek, I only watch for the news and current affairs (still worth the fee IMHO). And the good Doctor of course.
Of course, the grey area is the web output. If you access the BBC online content, and you live in the UK, should you not morally pay someting? But then again, there's all those darn furrners that access BBC online for free and noone asks them for a license fee.
I'll also admit that TV Licensing are a little overzealous (I recall the fantistic job they did of harassing students in halls of residence for example), but I still contend that likening them to Nazis devalues the meaning of the word Nazi. But I guess that's an argument that's been flogged to death many times...
We heard you the first time. You neglected to say whether your workplace has a license.
It is ironic that I am reading your, er, trenchant views on the day that many BBC staff are on strike over massive cutbacks, brought on because the funding of the BBC is under constant threat (and because the director general is a tosser, but that's only a side point)
I view the BBC funding model as the way forward personally, slightly akin to the so-called MP3 tax. No ads, broadcast free to all, because our country has democratically decided that such a service should be publically funded, with all those who consume TV meeting the cost. It's a busines model that should bear up to things like p2p sharing very well (exept that they would have to extend the license to cover DSL connections...)
The world would be a culturally poorer place without the BBC, and it's a fallacy to believe that anything like the BBC could exist based on a strictly commercial model.
I am sorry that you have such trouble with the "licensing nazis", but they are just enforcing something that we as a society on the whole believe is a Good Thing.
And last I checked, the TV licensing authorities were not gassing millions of innocent men, women and children, so I suggest you find a less over the top way of referring to them (are you familiar with Godwin's Law btw?)
For whatever you produce, a certain proportion of the potential market will not ever pay for it, for whatever reason. A proportion will very likely pay for it. Another proportion might pay for it.
If you're going to assume that a degree of piracy will happen, then your commercial maths when considering a new business venture (a.k.a. artistic project) should account for how many people fit into each camp, and how you might sway them into the right camp.
For example, you might choose to target those who download illegally but are borderline purchasers - offer something to buy that they will choose to part with money for.
Some people will never pay for a particular thing; some will never pay for anything. But that's just the way of things. In any case, the better the thing that you produce, the higher the proportion of people that will want to own a copy of it. Look at how many committed downloaders own a LOTR DVD for example. My copy is sat right next to my Star Wars Trilogy boxed set...
The **AA don't seem to take this view. for them, you are either with or against. Binary. More fool them, I say, because I think (and I hope) this attitude is doomed to failure.
Incidentally, I paid good money to see Sith in the cinema. I shall almost certainly buy it on DVD. I might download a copy in the meantime, as I quite liked it. Guess that would put my on the MPAA dark side...
This may seem over-protective, and it probably is, but I just lump it in with all those other over-cautious things that airlines insist on (such as forbidding me from listening to my iPod not only during actual takeoff and landing but also during ascent and approach (which takes up most of many of my flights)).
And let's not even get into the whole phones-on-planes bikeshed :)
Of course, if the customer wears a full business suit, you should probably not turn up in top hat and tails...
I will happily pay a fair price for fair use music, and would do so exclusively from now on if it was available. But while the only legal downloads are hobbled by DRM, I can't bring myself to pay for them.
"the computer industry is not immure from the ephemeralizing virtuous cycles wrought by IT adoption"
"whence goeth the pomo coder"
Personally, I think he missed the point, or at least failed to consider alternative interpretations. Bookkepping is knowledge/mental work; smithying is physical/skilled work. Much coding is also mental work (although I concede that much of it could be, and is, done by monkeys) .The physical/skilled type of work is far more easily made redundant by engineering advances.
Sure, it may be that in the future more and more knowledge work is taken up by AI developments, but I reckon that at least then we'll be able to rest happy in the knowledge that the beancouters are out of a job too...
Right? Right??
A 2-digit ID only got $115?
Shit - I'm going to have to reconsider my retirement plan now.
Oh, and I had checked the other pages - interestingly, the Oracle logo is not appended to the DB2 section of the site. Very sensitive of them.
But I'm not seriously suggesting that they are any sort of Oracle stooge, if that was how you read my post.