Your point would be fair if the Kyoto treaty was actually being met by member nations. Most every nation is improving but they are falling far short of their goals which is the stated reason why the U.S. didn't get involved because they knew the standards were too high and could not be reasonably met without serious compromises to profitability.
Before Bush came into office the U.S. had tough emissions controls on manufacturing and power generation facilities. Things have gotten worse since Bush rolled back the regs but they still aren't near as bad as they were in the 50's and 60's when entire lakes were being rendered toxic.
That also said, cars in the U.S. have stricter regulations than in Europe in terms of emissions which is why all the people with truly fast cars have to import them. Of course America has a lot more cars so that is probably why you feel the way you do about our output.
You are right in that acknowledging and investigating global effects of all things we do is a worthy endeavor.
Of course with that said, what about the U.S. energy policy has been hypocritical? Or are you just trolling about an obviously failed foreign policy which is widely condemned inside the country?
The last thing I'll add is that measures are already being taken to improve matters in the U.S. China is not budging on its position and quite clearly sees no need to. I know my home town is cleaner today than it was in the 80's. Here in Arizona Phoenix is getting worse as more and more people move here but outside the valley the air is quite clear and quite healthy which is more than 75% of the state. Arizona is also going to build a rather large solar array just north of here hopefully becoming one of the largest.
A lot of research is being done right here in the valley to help improve conditions, our malls have recharge stations for electric vehicles. The U.S. is hardly standing still, more can and should be done but why agree to benchmarks you know you can't meet?
Well said, it all pretty much started with Nixon when he opened trade and continued through Clinton and Bush. Everyone couldn't resist the money that China had to offer so they'd do anything and accept anything despite the human rights abuses as well as pollution. China never had to compromise their position even in the slightest. At least as far as I'm aware.
A tax or tariff based on pollution involved would encourage people to buy goods from places which are more neighbor friendly and would be fair since it's based on something tangible. The money could be used to help fund energy research or perhaps even more importantly cleanup efforts. This wouldn't be a bad idea per company instead of per country as some items produce less pollution than others during manufacturing.
The problem with taxing like this is that it wouldn't really have to stop at pollution as other causes could easily be picked up as well which could start a downward spiral so I'm not exactly sure what the correct course of action is beyond my own purchasing habits.
SS does not have one goal. Many people who have been disabled in some way draw from SS. My cousin with down-syndrome who was hit by a car causing brain damage when he was six for instance gets SS money to pay for his care which his parents could not afford otherwise. They work to give him a good place and of course they have two other children who turned out a lot luckier.
I think the major issue with SS is that you can't change the rules at the end of the game. People, boomers mostly grew up with the expectation that it would help out and so they contributed most of their lives to support it. Now that they are in a position to benefit from it people don't want to pay for it because the money wasn't well managed partially because SS is used for more than just retirement.
I would also say that if people had an extra 12% in their wallets they would squander it just like they do right now with their money living at or above their means.
That isn't an argument to force everyone to save through government as I'm sure you and I are quite capable of handling our finances on our own but I'd say the majority of people out there aren't as capable. Of course that's just based on my impression of people I've encountered so I could be off base.
I see nothing wrong with revolving credit as long as it is managed responsibly. If you can't buy a tv with cash then you can't buy it with credit. For instance with me, I paid off all my credit card debt and then bought a tv on the card. Now I have four more months to pay for the tv on terms that suit me. If I want to go out a few more times in a month I can and just pay more the following month. Alternatively and more common for me, if I end up not spending as much as I usually do in a given month then I can throw the rest at the revolving debt.
Living without credit does suck as it means you have to wait a lot longer for anything big you want to buy and more importantly, if anything unexpected happens and you don't have credit then there goes cash which is needed for necessities like rent or a mortage. I like a nice buffer, I try to keep a buffer in checking, obviously contribute to savings, and then of course manage credit card debt effectively.
Or you end up like my family where my parents had three kids putting themselves in a dependency position which I take care of as a family provider. I pay the loans that they took out for my college in terms of direct depositing money every paycheck into their account.
Of course I come from a rural area where farmers would have large families to help with work on the farm. Even though kids cost a lot in the beginning as they get older the work comes back assuming they've parented in a way that results in the kid wanting to contribute back to the family while they break out on their own like I did moving 3000 miles from home and landing a job that pays quite well for someone my age.
That's what happens when you watch the Hannity and Colmes coverage of the convention.
That's all on top of the speakers who spoke before him outlining his plans as well.
I also think if anything, Obama's lack of experience is a good thing being the antithesis of what McCain offers and what the Bush cabinet got us. He hasn't been tainted as heavily.
Yeah, it's tough finding a balance. Your users have to of course be able to use the system and they have their own requirements for the system. My particular problem is that the big wigs like to just say yes whenever a mid-level big wig asks for something even if it conflicts with corporate policy. As a result I end up creating a separate less secure network for them and rely on full-disk encryption to make sure that theft of their laptop won't result in any data theft. My database is nice and protected but spreadsheets that the CFO creates while he's at home are a lot more difficult to secure, that is of course the reason for full disk encryption.
I think I've done a great job of maintaining proper security and it's only getting better as I get more skilled and as my budget increases. My budget increased a significant digit or two recently so that has allowed me to get the right tools to automate a lot.
My strategy is to deploy one thing at a time while testing multiple other projects. One week deploy one project, if successful test deployment for next project and deploy the following week. So far it's been successful as I've not had any unplanned downtime and very little planned downtime as technologies like DFS let me change file-servers on the fly.
How about distributed warehousing like every major retailer does? The parent even alluded to it by mentioning inventories. It's cheaper for them to send a package from the same state as the customer.
Honestly the data helps a lot of companies also decide where to grow. You can argue that names aren't necessary for most tasks but addresses definitely are.
Then of course there are sites like ours which dynamically charge tax based on the person or company combined with location. Some customers the company picks up tax for and for some customers they don't.
There are a lot of scenarios out there where all of that information can become useful, especially in my business where you wind up with people bringing in lots of cash trying to dodge taxes. Of course it doesn't work since we track who gave us what and are obligated to keep the information for seven years for IRS purposes.
We don't however store social security numbers or credit card info beyond the time needed to complete the transaction.
I'm finding myself in an odd position these days, on the one hand I'm a tired IT Manager posting on slashdot during what should be my lunch break. On the other hand I think privacy and security are very important and breaches shouldn't be taken lightly. I'm not given the resources to cover any and all bases though so I make security the priority at deployment time, if my deadline gets brought forward significantly which happens from time to time some of my testing might go by the wayside since the application or feature works. Should I be criminally liable for these conditions?
I'll move forward, should the CEO or CIO be criminally liable for this? What if I report to him incorrectly that I've secured a certain list of vulnerabilities? The cost of independently verifying all of that is astronomical especially when you factor in lost productivity for me while I introduce the auditor to the system.
One of these days they'll hire someone to help me with the back-end stuff. In the meantime I'll just keep moving forward auditing what I can where I can.
Full disk encryption for the win on any laptop storing sensitive information. Although since we're growing VDI and a VPN connection starts to make a lot more sense. Then there is limited data on the laptop which can more importantly be controlled centrally.
You make a fair point that nobody can expect Iran to just accept Isreal's position. Both sides have committed so many atrocities that there really is no mediation path.
That said you answered your own question about why it's internationally acceptable for Isreal to have nukes while Iran doesn't. There is an illusion of control, Isreal knows where the line is drawn and there is consensus that they will not cross it by launching a nuclear attack.
Iran is not seen as a controlled party. Who do they answer to? That is why there is so much resistance to their program. Combined with all the saber rattling in the past and everyone is uneasy about them having real destructive power. Of course launching a nuclear attack on any country in the middle east is probably a bad idea given collateral damage crossing borders especially with modern ICBMs.
What are you talking about? Windows doesn't require the user to run as administrator. Certain applications require it but there are thousands of corporations out that which don't give users that much access to their systems.
The underlying result here is that if the user didn't have permission to install software in the first place then this vulnerability would be a moot point.
In short, people aren't being smart and are being taken advantage of. It's no surprise, its why I always create a separate installation user for computers I setup for other people. They run their machines as limited users and then they don't wind up with too much crap on their systems.
You make a fair point that they do make available a good amount of old music as well. I too use my phone instead of an ipod. I also have Pandora on my phone although who knows how long that'll keep working.
You're right, BT isn't the answer to everything but all it would take is another service seeding music. The only expensive part about the whole process is the licensing of the music. I understand the concept that artists should be paid and I've even supported some of them. Why should they be paid millions though? Combined with all the extra overhead in both the music and movie industry which is horribly bloated. It's incredible the number of people involved in the production of anything when it could easily be done with modern tools and far fewer people.
I learned that the hard way when I started looking at media asset management solutions. I realized they were all just reinventing the wheel rather than just building off a real live relational database. Instead I opted for two weeks of development with my one programmer and achieved more functionality than I could buy. Why is metadata even an issue for media? It's like that have no clue what was happening in the rest of the world. So I don't feel sorry that they won't make due with less, there is simply no need for them to have so many people involved which jacks up the price of the product we all enjoy.
Honestly, I've no interest in iTunes are any music store, their selects are always more limited than you find out there in torrent land. iTunes has a decent selection although I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole as the interface sucks and is highly invasive to a Windows machine adding a number of other services.
Then of course there is the problem that the library is difficult to move around, the whole plugging an ipod into a Windows machine wiping the ipod if you're a mac user primarily. Lots of little stuff Apple did either intentionally or unintentionally made it annoying. There is also the fact that it does nothing that I couldn't do with Audiogalaxy and Winamp way back in the day when Napster was just starting out and not on the RIAA's radar yet.
Now contrast all that BS with any random torrent site and your favorite music player on any platform and you see why people like p2p so much. There's also the fact that it is easy to download a few thousand songs off p2p, if you do that with iTunes have fun looking at your bill. It doesn't take long to rack up quite a bill.
Look at Kevin Nealon as an example, that guy bought 300k (his exaggeration) in iTunes and doesn't even back it up. It's easy just to click another song and spend another dollar.
The laptop isn't slow in the least, it cold boots in under 20 seconds and that includes time to open firefox and connect to wifi.
A 1.6ghz Intel Atom is not really that slow. I have an external DVD-RW drive powered off of USB that I keep with it to watch DVDs. The whole point is that you get something fully functional and with the Windows version you are running Windows XP Home so its completely familiar to most people although the Linux version is dead easy to use.
There are no locks to prevent you from adding apps on either platform, as I said, I install openswan, putty, and a remote desktop client. Maybe not all netbooks are created equal then?
My last step is to install the development tools using yum like I would on any Fedora box. Once I do that I can effectively use my usb-to-serial adapter. Thing really bothers me, I've never gotten it to work on any machine before but I'm determined.
The Aspire One at least does not leave any user feeling restricted, I'm even going to buy one for my sister so she can stop mooching off my computer. The latest models will even have 3G support if you wish so always being online is a snap.
My Acer Aspire One netbook runs a modified version of Fedora, there are no limitations to it. It has a brain dead simple interface for the majority of people and I can still get cli access and install openswan for VPN connectivity back to the office. It even has a built-in webcam and comes in a very nice price.
I guess we have different definitions of retarded. The alternate version of this netbook with Windows XP on it costs the same and is similarly fully functional. Combined with a 6 cell battery you even get 7 hours of battery life with wifi on and browser playing youtube.
Methinks you haven't kept up with the changes in the market. Netbooks are incredibly useful. This one has replaced my workstation class laptop when I'm mobile since I have putty and a usb to serial adapter for any switch I come across that's misbehaving badly enough that I can't manage it from the network. Since 90% of my switches are setup and torn down in less than a month this is pretty common for me.
I went and bought a usb powered dvdrw drive to go with it all so I can watch movies on the plane.
So yeah, this has already been done successfully even with OpenOffice to create documentation remotely.
Actually no she wasn't. There is a whole mess of a difference between copyright infringement and theft. The fact that you make such a claim shows you've bought what the RIAA has been saying all this time.
One is civil and the other is criminal. No threat of jail-time although you could argue threat of loss of life given how much it costs to defend yourself against a civil suit with such a large plaintiff.
They are doing a lot more than just that. Brazil changed to a sugar-based ethanol strategy for fueling their cars. They also have lots of oil which helps the other local markets.
You'll also note that Venezuela for instance exports oil at market prices and so has a lot of extra money available to lower the cost of locally refined fuel.
If environmental regulations are preventing oil companies from drilling land then why are the oil companies holding on to the property? Regulations exist for a reason and it's probably quite unwise to lift them. Of course that depends, some regulations are over the top.
Coal has a number of other issues as well, mining it is quite toxic so there's no free lunch there. That said, we would be wise to diversify our resources so it wouldn't be a bad idea add it to the mix given the infrastructure we already have in place.
What correlation is that? Last I checked the CEO of IBM cut jobs while increasing his salary and he's far from alone.
Even the company I work for, the owner just got a huge infusion of cash and what's he doing? Cutting jobs because the economy is weak despite the fact that it actually costs him more money to retrain temporary staff creating a productivity sink for those still left that are already overworked.
There are those out there where direct income results in more jobs, same owner of said company pays for his yard work to be done so you could argue that way. Whether that is a good trade-off for contributing back to society is left up to debate. I'd bet the majority of people feel taxes are a far better recourse as we've seen what happens when you let rich people do whatever they want with their money.
That said, just because they are rich doesn't mean they should be stripped of all the fruits of their labor. A larger slice seems pretty fair since the odds are, they would not have gotten where they were without the help of some social service somewhere along the line.
I can understand an additional middle tier approach with something like a websphere approach which gives you another level of abstraction. In truly large environments this makes sense.
4 tiers is a lot of work and creates a lot of places where things can go wrong which is why I like the 3 tier approach which is more like a traditional hub and spoke type model. Application servers can be clustered and load-balanced to achieve necessary performance, reporting servers and data-sources can similarly be scaled out and the best part is that there isn't any added complexity as troubleshooting is always limited between two points instead of n points in an n-tier system.
I think the main concern about reusing stored procedures is that db documentation is usually separate from application documentation and so its easy to disconnect, one app might require a change to the proc while the other app depends on the proc performing the way it does. Of course if its well documented then you'd know to just create a new proc for the app requiring a change.
Isn't that specifically why you should use stored procedures? Then you only have to change your connection string in your code and change the functions in the procedures as necessary.
Of course I'm a dba so I think changing a proc is easier than changing code. I think a healthy division of the work is a good thing though. Why write code in your app to do what the db already can?
Are you serious? EXEC is a basic privilege in SQL. EXEC, Select, Alter, Create, drop, update, and delete are all basic privileges and can be enabled per user. Beyond that, individual stored procs can be disabled per user so this isn't really a concern for most of us who already secure their databases. I do the same thing on Oracle which also allows local commands to be executed through SQL statements if you allow the user to do it that is. As a dba for the box I have lots of reasons to do this but my application server users obviously don't.
I'm using FF3 on Ubuntu right now and sometimes it has JS issues with Youtube mostly. That's a combination though as flash plays a major part in the performance issue.
Hell, these days, even Slashdot occasionally has flash banner ads so every once in a while I'll experience a lock up and have to kill FF.
You make a very bad assumption that anyone was complaining or whining about Noscript doing exactly what it was designed to do. It doesn't disable features in your browser, it allows you to control those features to a much larger extent.
For the rest of us that care about security which doesn't seem to be a concern of yours, we'll continue using Noscript and won't look back.
It's a problem if you run noscript, when you go to allow the site to run the script you can't refresh and it screws everything up. So basically you have to know that your merchant uses Verified by Visa and enable it globally before you click the final checkout.
Of course once you're done you turn that feature off. I had noscript screw up my Newegg order before. The OS doesn't matter, it's purely FF where I've seen this and strictly because of noscript. Firefox without noscript has no problems with it.
yeah, the only problem is that botnets only control a few million Windows machines while a few hundred million are installed. That's about the same ratio of broken down cars causing rush hour congestion around here at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Your point would be fair if the Kyoto treaty was actually being met by member nations. Most every nation is improving but they are falling far short of their goals which is the stated reason why the U.S. didn't get involved because they knew the standards were too high and could not be reasonably met without serious compromises to profitability.
Before Bush came into office the U.S. had tough emissions controls on manufacturing and power generation facilities. Things have gotten worse since Bush rolled back the regs but they still aren't near as bad as they were in the 50's and 60's when entire lakes were being rendered toxic.
That also said, cars in the U.S. have stricter regulations than in Europe in terms of emissions which is why all the people with truly fast cars have to import them. Of course America has a lot more cars so that is probably why you feel the way you do about our output.
You are right in that acknowledging and investigating global effects of all things we do is a worthy endeavor.
Of course with that said, what about the U.S. energy policy has been hypocritical? Or are you just trolling about an obviously failed foreign policy which is widely condemned inside the country?
The last thing I'll add is that measures are already being taken to improve matters in the U.S. China is not budging on its position and quite clearly sees no need to. I know my home town is cleaner today than it was in the 80's. Here in Arizona Phoenix is getting worse as more and more people move here but outside the valley the air is quite clear and quite healthy which is more than 75% of the state. Arizona is also going to build a rather large solar array just north of here hopefully becoming one of the largest.
A lot of research is being done right here in the valley to help improve conditions, our malls have recharge stations for electric vehicles. The U.S. is hardly standing still, more can and should be done but why agree to benchmarks you know you can't meet?
Well said, it all pretty much started with Nixon when he opened trade and continued through Clinton and Bush. Everyone couldn't resist the money that China had to offer so they'd do anything and accept anything despite the human rights abuses as well as pollution. China never had to compromise their position even in the slightest. At least as far as I'm aware.
A tax or tariff based on pollution involved would encourage people to buy goods from places which are more neighbor friendly and would be fair since it's based on something tangible. The money could be used to help fund energy research or perhaps even more importantly cleanup efforts. This wouldn't be a bad idea per company instead of per country as some items produce less pollution than others during manufacturing.
The problem with taxing like this is that it wouldn't really have to stop at pollution as other causes could easily be picked up as well which could start a downward spiral so I'm not exactly sure what the correct course of action is beyond my own purchasing habits.
SS does not have one goal. Many people who have been disabled in some way draw from SS. My cousin with down-syndrome who was hit by a car causing brain damage when he was six for instance gets SS money to pay for his care which his parents could not afford otherwise. They work to give him a good place and of course they have two other children who turned out a lot luckier.
I think the major issue with SS is that you can't change the rules at the end of the game. People, boomers mostly grew up with the expectation that it would help out and so they contributed most of their lives to support it. Now that they are in a position to benefit from it people don't want to pay for it because the money wasn't well managed partially because SS is used for more than just retirement.
I would also say that if people had an extra 12% in their wallets they would squander it just like they do right now with their money living at or above their means.
That isn't an argument to force everyone to save through government as I'm sure you and I are quite capable of handling our finances on our own but I'd say the majority of people out there aren't as capable. Of course that's just based on my impression of people I've encountered so I could be off base.
And a higher credit rating.
I see nothing wrong with revolving credit as long as it is managed responsibly. If you can't buy a tv with cash then you can't buy it with credit. For instance with me, I paid off all my credit card debt and then bought a tv on the card. Now I have four more months to pay for the tv on terms that suit me. If I want to go out a few more times in a month I can and just pay more the following month. Alternatively and more common for me, if I end up not spending as much as I usually do in a given month then I can throw the rest at the revolving debt.
Living without credit does suck as it means you have to wait a lot longer for anything big you want to buy and more importantly, if anything unexpected happens and you don't have credit then there goes cash which is needed for necessities like rent or a mortage. I like a nice buffer, I try to keep a buffer in checking, obviously contribute to savings, and then of course manage credit card debt effectively.
Or you end up like my family where my parents had three kids putting themselves in a dependency position which I take care of as a family provider. I pay the loans that they took out for my college in terms of direct depositing money every paycheck into their account.
Of course I come from a rural area where farmers would have large families to help with work on the farm. Even though kids cost a lot in the beginning as they get older the work comes back assuming they've parented in a way that results in the kid wanting to contribute back to the family while they break out on their own like I did moving 3000 miles from home and landing a job that pays quite well for someone my age.
That's what happens when you watch the Hannity and Colmes coverage of the convention.
That's all on top of the speakers who spoke before him outlining his plans as well.
I also think if anything, Obama's lack of experience is a good thing being the antithesis of what McCain offers and what the Bush cabinet got us. He hasn't been tainted as heavily.
Yeah, it's tough finding a balance. Your users have to of course be able to use the system and they have their own requirements for the system. My particular problem is that the big wigs like to just say yes whenever a mid-level big wig asks for something even if it conflicts with corporate policy. As a result I end up creating a separate less secure network for them and rely on full-disk encryption to make sure that theft of their laptop won't result in any data theft. My database is nice and protected but spreadsheets that the CFO creates while he's at home are a lot more difficult to secure, that is of course the reason for full disk encryption.
I think I've done a great job of maintaining proper security and it's only getting better as I get more skilled and as my budget increases. My budget increased a significant digit or two recently so that has allowed me to get the right tools to automate a lot.
My strategy is to deploy one thing at a time while testing multiple other projects. One week deploy one project, if successful test deployment for next project and deploy the following week. So far it's been successful as I've not had any unplanned downtime and very little planned downtime as technologies like DFS let me change file-servers on the fly.
How about distributed warehousing like every major retailer does? The parent even alluded to it by mentioning inventories. It's cheaper for them to send a package from the same state as the customer.
Honestly the data helps a lot of companies also decide where to grow. You can argue that names aren't necessary for most tasks but addresses definitely are.
Then of course there are sites like ours which dynamically charge tax based on the person or company combined with location. Some customers the company picks up tax for and for some customers they don't.
There are a lot of scenarios out there where all of that information can become useful, especially in my business where you wind up with people bringing in lots of cash trying to dodge taxes. Of course it doesn't work since we track who gave us what and are obligated to keep the information for seven years for IRS purposes.
We don't however store social security numbers or credit card info beyond the time needed to complete the transaction.
I'm finding myself in an odd position these days, on the one hand I'm a tired IT Manager posting on slashdot during what should be my lunch break. On the other hand I think privacy and security are very important and breaches shouldn't be taken lightly. I'm not given the resources to cover any and all bases though so I make security the priority at deployment time, if my deadline gets brought forward significantly which happens from time to time some of my testing might go by the wayside since the application or feature works. Should I be criminally liable for these conditions?
I'll move forward, should the CEO or CIO be criminally liable for this? What if I report to him incorrectly that I've secured a certain list of vulnerabilities? The cost of independently verifying all of that is astronomical especially when you factor in lost productivity for me while I introduce the auditor to the system.
One of these days they'll hire someone to help me with the back-end stuff. In the meantime I'll just keep moving forward auditing what I can where I can.
Full disk encryption for the win on any laptop storing sensitive information. Although since we're growing VDI and a VPN connection starts to make a lot more sense. Then there is limited data on the laptop which can more importantly be controlled centrally.
You make a fair point that nobody can expect Iran to just accept Isreal's position. Both sides have committed so many atrocities that there really is no mediation path.
That said you answered your own question about why it's internationally acceptable for Isreal to have nukes while Iran doesn't. There is an illusion of control, Isreal knows where the line is drawn and there is consensus that they will not cross it by launching a nuclear attack.
Iran is not seen as a controlled party. Who do they answer to? That is why there is so much resistance to their program. Combined with all the saber rattling in the past and everyone is uneasy about them having real destructive power. Of course launching a nuclear attack on any country in the middle east is probably a bad idea given collateral damage crossing borders especially with modern ICBMs.
What are you talking about? Windows doesn't require the user to run as administrator. Certain applications require it but there are thousands of corporations out that which don't give users that much access to their systems.
The underlying result here is that if the user didn't have permission to install software in the first place then this vulnerability would be a moot point.
In short, people aren't being smart and are being taken advantage of. It's no surprise, its why I always create a separate installation user for computers I setup for other people. They run their machines as limited users and then they don't wind up with too much crap on their systems.
You make a fair point that they do make available a good amount of old music as well. I too use my phone instead of an ipod. I also have Pandora on my phone although who knows how long that'll keep working.
You're right, BT isn't the answer to everything but all it would take is another service seeding music. The only expensive part about the whole process is the licensing of the music. I understand the concept that artists should be paid and I've even supported some of them. Why should they be paid millions though? Combined with all the extra overhead in both the music and movie industry which is horribly bloated. It's incredible the number of people involved in the production of anything when it could easily be done with modern tools and far fewer people.
I learned that the hard way when I started looking at media asset management solutions. I realized they were all just reinventing the wheel rather than just building off a real live relational database. Instead I opted for two weeks of development with my one programmer and achieved more functionality than I could buy. Why is metadata even an issue for media? It's like that have no clue what was happening in the rest of the world. So I don't feel sorry that they won't make due with less, there is simply no need for them to have so many people involved which jacks up the price of the product we all enjoy.
Honestly, I've no interest in iTunes are any music store, their selects are always more limited than you find out there in torrent land. iTunes has a decent selection although I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole as the interface sucks and is highly invasive to a Windows machine adding a number of other services.
Then of course there is the problem that the library is difficult to move around, the whole plugging an ipod into a Windows machine wiping the ipod if you're a mac user primarily. Lots of little stuff Apple did either intentionally or unintentionally made it annoying. There is also the fact that it does nothing that I couldn't do with Audiogalaxy and Winamp way back in the day when Napster was just starting out and not on the RIAA's radar yet.
Now contrast all that BS with any random torrent site and your favorite music player on any platform and you see why people like p2p so much. There's also the fact that it is easy to download a few thousand songs off p2p, if you do that with iTunes have fun looking at your bill. It doesn't take long to rack up quite a bill.
Look at Kevin Nealon as an example, that guy bought 300k (his exaggeration) in iTunes and doesn't even back it up. It's easy just to click another song and spend another dollar.
The laptop isn't slow in the least, it cold boots in under 20 seconds and that includes time to open firefox and connect to wifi.
A 1.6ghz Intel Atom is not really that slow. I have an external DVD-RW drive powered off of USB that I keep with it to watch DVDs. The whole point is that you get something fully functional and with the Windows version you are running Windows XP Home so its completely familiar to most people although the Linux version is dead easy to use.
There are no locks to prevent you from adding apps on either platform, as I said, I install openswan, putty, and a remote desktop client. Maybe not all netbooks are created equal then?
My last step is to install the development tools using yum like I would on any Fedora box. Once I do that I can effectively use my usb-to-serial adapter. Thing really bothers me, I've never gotten it to work on any machine before but I'm determined.
The Aspire One at least does not leave any user feeling restricted, I'm even going to buy one for my sister so she can stop mooching off my computer. The latest models will even have 3G support if you wish so always being online is a snap.
My Acer Aspire One netbook runs a modified version of Fedora, there are no limitations to it. It has a brain dead simple interface for the majority of people and I can still get cli access and install openswan for VPN connectivity back to the office. It even has a built-in webcam and comes in a very nice price.
I guess we have different definitions of retarded. The alternate version of this netbook with Windows XP on it costs the same and is similarly fully functional. Combined with a 6 cell battery you even get 7 hours of battery life with wifi on and browser playing youtube.
Methinks you haven't kept up with the changes in the market. Netbooks are incredibly useful. This one has replaced my workstation class laptop when I'm mobile since I have putty and a usb to serial adapter for any switch I come across that's misbehaving badly enough that I can't manage it from the network. Since 90% of my switches are setup and torn down in less than a month this is pretty common for me.
I went and bought a usb powered dvdrw drive to go with it all so I can watch movies on the plane.
So yeah, this has already been done successfully even with OpenOffice to create documentation remotely.
Actually no she wasn't. There is a whole mess of a difference between copyright infringement and theft. The fact that you make such a claim shows you've bought what the RIAA has been saying all this time.
One is civil and the other is criminal. No threat of jail-time although you could argue threat of loss of life given how much it costs to defend yourself against a civil suit with such a large plaintiff.
They are doing a lot more than just that. Brazil changed to a sugar-based ethanol strategy for fueling their cars. They also have lots of oil which helps the other local markets.
You'll also note that Venezuela for instance exports oil at market prices and so has a lot of extra money available to lower the cost of locally refined fuel.
If environmental regulations are preventing oil companies from drilling land then why are the oil companies holding on to the property? Regulations exist for a reason and it's probably quite unwise to lift them. Of course that depends, some regulations are over the top.
Coal has a number of other issues as well, mining it is quite toxic so there's no free lunch there. That said, we would be wise to diversify our resources so it wouldn't be a bad idea add it to the mix given the infrastructure we already have in place.
What correlation is that? Last I checked the CEO of IBM cut jobs while increasing his salary and he's far from alone.
Even the company I work for, the owner just got a huge infusion of cash and what's he doing? Cutting jobs because the economy is weak despite the fact that it actually costs him more money to retrain temporary staff creating a productivity sink for those still left that are already overworked.
There are those out there where direct income results in more jobs, same owner of said company pays for his yard work to be done so you could argue that way. Whether that is a good trade-off for contributing back to society is left up to debate. I'd bet the majority of people feel taxes are a far better recourse as we've seen what happens when you let rich people do whatever they want with their money.
That said, just because they are rich doesn't mean they should be stripped of all the fruits of their labor. A larger slice seems pretty fair since the odds are, they would not have gotten where they were without the help of some social service somewhere along the line.
I can understand an additional middle tier approach with something like a websphere approach which gives you another level of abstraction. In truly large environments this makes sense.
4 tiers is a lot of work and creates a lot of places where things can go wrong which is why I like the 3 tier approach which is more like a traditional hub and spoke type model. Application servers can be clustered and load-balanced to achieve necessary performance, reporting servers and data-sources can similarly be scaled out and the best part is that there isn't any added complexity as troubleshooting is always limited between two points instead of n points in an n-tier system.
I think the main concern about reusing stored procedures is that db documentation is usually separate from application documentation and so its easy to disconnect, one app might require a change to the proc while the other app depends on the proc performing the way it does. Of course if its well documented then you'd know to just create a new proc for the app requiring a change.
Isn't that specifically why you should use stored procedures? Then you only have to change your connection string in your code and change the functions in the procedures as necessary.
Of course I'm a dba so I think changing a proc is easier than changing code. I think a healthy division of the work is a good thing though. Why write code in your app to do what the db already can?
Are you serious? EXEC is a basic privilege in SQL. EXEC, Select, Alter, Create, drop, update, and delete are all basic privileges and can be enabled per user. Beyond that, individual stored procs can be disabled per user so this isn't really a concern for most of us who already secure their databases. I do the same thing on Oracle which also allows local commands to be executed through SQL statements if you allow the user to do it that is. As a dba for the box I have lots of reasons to do this but my application server users obviously don't.
The odds overwhelmingly lean towards both being wrong. Might makes right though!
I'm using FF3 on Ubuntu right now and sometimes it has JS issues with Youtube mostly. That's a combination though as flash plays a major part in the performance issue.
Hell, these days, even Slashdot occasionally has flash banner ads so every once in a while I'll experience a lock up and have to kill FF.
You make a very bad assumption that anyone was complaining or whining about Noscript doing exactly what it was designed to do. It doesn't disable features in your browser, it allows you to control those features to a much larger extent.
For the rest of us that care about security which doesn't seem to be a concern of yours, we'll continue using Noscript and won't look back.
It's a problem if you run noscript, when you go to allow the site to run the script you can't refresh and it screws everything up. So basically you have to know that your merchant uses Verified by Visa and enable it globally before you click the final checkout.
Of course once you're done you turn that feature off. I had noscript screw up my Newegg order before. The OS doesn't matter, it's purely FF where I've seen this and strictly because of noscript. Firefox without noscript has no problems with it.
yeah, the only problem is that botnets only control a few million Windows machines while a few hundred million are installed. That's about the same ratio of broken down cars causing rush hour congestion around here at least.