Hate to say "agreed" here, but this is the case: You bought a phone with specific functionality (which apparently you didn't like - not sure why you bought it in the first place). You voided the warranty when you modified it (just like you void automobile warranties when you pimp your ride). You lose. Apple wins. I seriously don't see any other options here.
Well good grief... it's the first of its kind. The first of everything is usually not the way things will be in a few years. I remember the first CD players - they were all vertical load (I guess cause it was cool looking) but not long afterward they were all flat-tray load.
Agreed. I was a guest of China for a couple of weeks (adopting a girl). My translators (who shall remain nameless) told me how bad/corrupt things are. It was very dangerous for them to even tell me and my wife, but they wanted to make sure as many people as possible knew how bad it was. I fear for their lives.
They sold it, you know, thats when something changes from one owner to another. It's supposed to be *your* iPhone. Ok, I'll rephrase then: They sold you a phone with certain functionality. If you don't like it then don't buy it. If you modify it, just like just about anything you modify, the manufacturer will void the warranty, and they have no obligation to fix it for you.
I don't buy (no pun intended) the fact that if you buy something, you're entitled to break it and have the manufacturer fix it for you.
I quite frankly cannot understand what the fuss is about. Apple releases a really cool product that only works on AT&T. Ok, I don't buy it because I don't like AT&T. Done deal. I have patience, I can wait until something else comes along. You messed with a product that voids the warranty. Apple has every right to protect what they've sold. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Really, is that so hard???
Oh, and don't give me the line that you have the right to do whatever you want with it. Sure, you can, and you did. Pay the consequences.
I just want to point out that we humans *in general* can take responsibility for the rules we impose in our society. Children and mentally retarded are not the norm. The Norm is the average adult that understands our society and all the responsibilities that goes with it.
So, Children, even though they can't think for themselves, learn to think for themselves over time. The mentally retarded have to be taken care of, and cannot be expected to behave responsibly, and therefore have to be protected in varying degrees. You would not hand a gun to one, would you? And if you did and he/she shot you, would a mentally retarded person be held legally responsible for it?
If we give the monkey human rights, then we have to expect it to behave responsibly. Ain't gonna happen.
I see these heartburn ads on TV and think to myself: These people on the screen are actors, in good health and probably don't get heartburn. The target audience gets heartburn because they eat too much and are overweight.
I know this because I am friends with a general practitioner (been an MD for about 15 years now) and he tells me that people in shape, like the actors in the commercials - in general - don't get heartburn.
I also know this because I was one of those people that got heartburn regularly. Once I started eating properly and getting back in shape, my heartburn disappeared.
I was one of those persons. I had had some racing heart problems for some time before my Atrial Fibrullation kicked in. The evening before I had the serious problems, I had a super-sized cup of iced-tea.
I see one problem as the oversizing of food portions in general. I have found that we simply don't need to eat nearly as much as we do - and all the overweight people I see around me are proof of that. I eat about 1/3 what I used to eat. I desire to eat more because I love food. When I was little, I was always taught to eat what was on my plate. No more. The portions served at restaurants are ridiculous (I travel a great deal). The waitresses typically ask me if I didn't like the food. I generally do, but I only need about 1/4 to 1/3 of what they serve.
For the purposes of this story, I don't think anybody needs caffeine. At all. Yes, it's my opinion, live with it. Since my bout with a-fib I have cut out all intake of caffiene, with the exception of a bite of chocolate (about 1/6 of a bar of chocolate at a sitting). At the beginning, this was hard. It was about a week of tourture (and frankly wasn't all that bad in the overall scheme of things). Since then, while I would like to have a drink of Dr. Pepper on occasion, I have been just fine. I don't need a pick-me-up to get me started, or get me through the day. Proper sleep and eating small portions will perk you right up. Don't forget a little exercise goes a long way.
"worrying about "breaking something critical" is not a good excuse"
Tell me, if your data was tied up in an [Oracle] database (and really, any database could be replaced between the [] for this question) and that data was key to your business processes - now we're talking about multi-billion $$$ corporations whose data is their livelyhood - and Oracle were to release a patch and all of a sudden their data started corrupting or simply stopped working. You don't call that a good excuse???
Sorry, that doesn't fly with me - I would call *that* ridiculous.
I was going to mod this up, but I thought I'd post instead. Oracle database work is my livelyhood. Oracle makes no qualms about the number of bugs they have. Many of them are posted for all to see on their MetaLink support site. Many of them are not public for security reasons - and well they should be.
I've found several Oracle bugs in my dealings with the software. I create a reproduceable test-case and send it to them. They always respond with 1) this is a known bug, and it's bug #nnn; or 2) bug reproduced in lab on version n.n.n - filed as bug #nnn
If I found a bug related to security, I am *certain* they would do the same, and not publish it. It would be foolish to do so. Why oh why do people like this need to publish security related bugs so everyone can get comprimised? It's simply irresponsible.
Oracle software is a *huge* moving target, and to fix a bug in something used by so many is a long, involved process. Break something critical in a patch and watch all hell break loose. Let the bug fixers do their jobs. It takes time, and exposing flaws like this does nobody any good.
...how about a database abstraction layer and support for anything that speaks SQL...
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't work in practice. Database abstraction is horribly difficult, and quite simply doesn't work.
All of the SQL vendors use different methods to accomplish their tasks - SQL Server, MySQL, DB2, Oracle, Firebird, etc - all of them have different transaction capabilities, different locking mechanisms, different isolation, etc, etc - none are completely compatible with any other, and hence abstraction is an impossibility.
Well, ok... I take that back. Abstraction is a possibility, as long as you can live with piss-poor performance from *all* of the DB vendors. I think if this could work, somebody would have come up with a solution by now.
I remember watching something on Discovery Channel - a few years ago. Basically it was a show about Global Warming and they can detect this by counting the number of lightning strikes. More lightning strikes == warmer globe.
That all seemed plausible until near the end of the show when they revealed that they had been building better, more sensitive sensors to detect lightning. The conclusion in my mind (and they didn't bring it up in the show) was that they were detecting more lightning because of better sensors, and passing that off as global warming.
-- Ford sold trucks with Goodyear-branded tires, and recalled same. --
It was Firestone, not Goodyear
Re:Definitely has uses but..
on
Oracle Linux?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Uh sorry, but you're wrong on most of your points.
Oracle runs on Red Hat Enterprise or SUSE Enterprise (I might have the names mangled a bit) both with relatively straight-forward settings. Everything is included in the distributions. Yes, Oracle donated some of the code that makes it into those distros.
Furthermore, Oracle provides *full* support for the Linux OS itself when you have a properly licensed copy of Oracle.
As the parent eludes to, the only way to do it The Right Way (tm) is to have a Development environment, a QA environment, and a Production system.
Each of these systems should be using the same architecture when it comes to hardware and configuration.
The Development system is always in a state of flux, as its name implies.
The QA system should *at least* approximate (if not be identical to) the data and load of the production system, and it should be treated like a production system that QA tries to break.
It is only in this fashion that you will be able to test and make sure your system will work as expected. Leave nothing to chance. Expensive, yes. But it's less expensive than a downed production system, and definitely less expensive than building a complete system and realising it doesn't perform as expected.
... but I've been trying to find an inexpensive (read: not cheap) computer *without an OS* so I don't have to pay the M$ tax. Where can I find such a thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to say "agreed" here, but this is the case: You bought a phone with specific functionality (which apparently you didn't like - not sure why you bought it in the first place). You voided the warranty when you modified it (just like you void automobile warranties when you pimp your ride). You lose. Apple wins. I seriously don't see any other options here.
Well good grief... it's the first of its kind. The first of everything is usually not the way things will be in a few years. I remember the first CD players - they were all vertical load (I guess cause it was cool looking) but not long afterward they were all flat-tray load.
Agreed. I was a guest of China for a couple of weeks (adopting a girl). My translators (who shall remain nameless) told me how bad/corrupt things are. It was very dangerous for them to even tell me and my wife, but they wanted to make sure as many people as possible knew how bad it was. I fear for their lives.
Ok, I'll rephrase then: They sold you a phone with certain functionality. If you don't like it then don't buy it. If you modify it, just like just about anything you modify, the manufacturer will void the warranty, and they have no obligation to fix it for you.
I don't buy (no pun intended) the fact that if you buy something, you're entitled to break it and have the manufacturer fix it for you.
I quite frankly cannot understand what the fuss is about. Apple releases a really cool product that only works on AT&T. Ok, I don't buy it because I don't like AT&T. Done deal. I have patience, I can wait until something else comes along. You messed with a product that voids the warranty. Apple has every right to protect what they've sold. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Really, is that so hard???
Oh, and don't give me the line that you have the right to do whatever you want with it. Sure, you can, and you did. Pay the consequences.
How abouts we look at it this way: If someone leaves a hose running into the street, it would be the RIGHT THING TO GO AND SHUT OFF THE WATER!
It would be the right thing to help your neighbor secure their network. I do it, and my neighbors like me for it.
Look into Aircraft Avionics Displays - contact some of those manufacturers (there are quite a few).
I just want to point out that we humans *in general* can take responsibility for the rules we impose in our society. Children and mentally retarded are not the norm. The Norm is the average adult that understands our society and all the responsibilities that goes with it.
So, Children, even though they can't think for themselves, learn to think for themselves over time. The mentally retarded have to be taken care of, and cannot be expected to behave responsibly, and therefore have to be protected in varying degrees. You would not hand a gun to one, would you? And if you did and he/she shot you, would a mentally retarded person be held legally responsible for it?
If we give the monkey human rights, then we have to expect it to behave responsibly. Ain't gonna happen.
A terrible post that got modded "Informative" with NO BASIS FOR THE CLAIM!!! Sheesh! Tell me exactly *why* DB2 is better.
I see these heartburn ads on TV and think to myself: These people on the screen are actors, in good health and probably don't get heartburn. The target audience gets heartburn because they eat too much and are overweight.
I know this because I am friends with a general practitioner (been an MD for about 15 years now) and he tells me that people in shape, like the actors in the commercials - in general - don't get heartburn.
I also know this because I was one of those people that got heartburn regularly. Once I started eating properly and getting back in shape, my heartburn disappeared.
I was one of those persons. I had had some racing heart problems for some time before my Atrial Fibrullation kicked in. The evening before I had the serious problems, I had a super-sized cup of iced-tea.
I see one problem as the oversizing of food portions in general. I have found that we simply don't need to eat nearly as much as we do - and all the overweight people I see around me are proof of that. I eat about 1/3 what I used to eat. I desire to eat more because I love food. When I was little, I was always taught to eat what was on my plate. No more. The portions served at restaurants are ridiculous (I travel a great deal). The waitresses typically ask me if I didn't like the food. I generally do, but I only need about 1/4 to 1/3 of what they serve.
For the purposes of this story, I don't think anybody needs caffeine. At all. Yes, it's my opinion, live with it. Since my bout with a-fib I have cut out all intake of caffiene, with the exception of a bite of chocolate (about 1/6 of a bar of chocolate at a sitting). At the beginning, this was hard. It was about a week of tourture (and frankly wasn't all that bad in the overall scheme of things). Since then, while I would like to have a drink of Dr. Pepper on occasion, I have been just fine. I don't need a pick-me-up to get me started, or get me through the day. Proper sleep and eating small portions will perk you right up. Don't forget a little exercise goes a long way.
In the realm of computing, code [...is...]: The symbolic arrangement of instructions that a computer can understand - like "Your PHP code is shit"
That made my day!!! Priceless!
so they will stop giving permission to the old hammer owners to keep using their purchased hammers.
Now, I'm realizing that I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes anyway...
You did *not* purchase a hammer, you bought a license to *use* a hammer at the manufactures discretion.
Unfortunately, that's how software sales works now. I hate it.
The lack of command-line features meant that many operational activities that could be automated required a dba to manually do the job via the gui
You're joking, right? The GUI executes the command-line interface. You need to learn how to use SQL Server
"worrying about "breaking something critical" is not a good excuse"
Tell me, if your data was tied up in an [Oracle] database (and really, any database could be replaced between the [] for this question) and that data was key to your business processes - now we're talking about multi-billion $$$ corporations whose data is their livelyhood - and Oracle were to release a patch and all of a sudden their data started corrupting or simply stopped working. You don't call that a good excuse???
Sorry, that doesn't fly with me - I would call *that* ridiculous.
I was going to mod this up, but I thought I'd post instead. Oracle database work is my livelyhood. Oracle makes no qualms about the number of bugs they have. Many of them are posted for all to see on their MetaLink support site. Many of them are not public for security reasons - and well they should be.
I've found several Oracle bugs in my dealings with the software. I create a reproduceable test-case and send it to them. They always respond with 1) this is a known bug, and it's bug #nnn; or 2) bug reproduced in lab on version n.n.n - filed as bug #nnn
If I found a bug related to security, I am *certain* they would do the same, and not publish it. It would be foolish to do so. Why oh why do people like this need to publish security related bugs so everyone can get comprimised? It's simply irresponsible.
Oracle software is a *huge* moving target, and to fix a bug in something used by so many is a long, involved process. Break something critical in a patch and watch all hell break loose. Let the bug fixers do their jobs. It takes time, and exposing flaws like this does nobody any good.
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't work in practice. Database abstraction is horribly difficult, and quite simply doesn't work. All of the SQL vendors use different methods to accomplish their tasks - SQL Server, MySQL, DB2, Oracle, Firebird, etc - all of them have different transaction capabilities, different locking mechanisms, different isolation, etc, etc - none are completely compatible with any other, and hence abstraction is an impossibility.
Well, ok... I take that back. Abstraction is a possibility, as long as you can live with piss-poor performance from *all* of the DB vendors. I think if this could work, somebody would have come up with a solution by now.
I remember watching something on Discovery Channel - a few years ago. Basically it was a show about Global Warming and they can detect this by counting the number of lightning strikes. More lightning strikes == warmer globe.
That all seemed plausible until near the end of the show when they revealed that they had been building better, more sensitive sensors to detect lightning. The conclusion in my mind (and they didn't bring it up in the show) was that they were detecting more lightning because of better sensors, and passing that off as global warming.
I've been quite the sceptic ever since
-- Ford sold trucks with Goodyear-branded tires, and recalled same. --
It was Firestone, not Goodyear
Uh sorry, but you're wrong on most of your points.
Oracle runs on Red Hat Enterprise or SUSE Enterprise (I might have the names mangled a bit) both with relatively straight-forward settings. Everything is included in the distributions. Yes, Oracle donated some of the code that makes it into those distros.
Furthermore, Oracle provides *full* support for the Linux OS itself when you have a properly licensed copy of Oracle.
As the parent eludes to, the only way to do it The Right Way (tm) is to have a Development environment, a QA environment, and a Production system.
Each of these systems should be using the same architecture when it comes to hardware and configuration.
The Development system is always in a state of flux, as its name implies.
The QA system should *at least* approximate (if not be identical to) the data and load of the production system, and it should be treated like a production system that QA tries to break.
It is only in this fashion that you will be able to test and make sure your system will work as expected. Leave nothing to chance. Expensive, yes. But it's less expensive than a downed production system, and definitely less expensive than building a complete system and realising it doesn't perform as expected.
http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/aboutus/presski t/press/index.shtml
... but I've been trying to find an inexpensive (read: not cheap) computer *without an OS* so I don't have to pay the M$ tax. Where can I find such a thing?
Because MP3s suck in comparison to AAC. That's why.
Just one comment... "Passion" was not Hollywood. Nobody in Holloywood would touch it.