No, because if who you vote for is known, the voting public can be corrorsed into voting for or against someone or something, and if you don't there could be any number of possible threats held against you (even if you don't vote at all).
But all of that still applies to a petition. If petitions are public, those same bullies could require you to either sign, or not sign, a petition.
The outcome of a vote has more of a direct effect on who gets voted into gov. or if public option laws/ordinances are passed.
So when the bully shows up, I need to sit down with them and explain that the petition is not actually binding, and therefore they shouldn't break my legs.
Once again, another reason for network neutrality. It should be illegal to modify my HTTP requests. That's not what my computer sent: the job of a router, and an ISP, is to blindly pass-on what I send. The phone company doesn't insert words into my telephone conversations - that's illegal. Yet it is somehow okay to insert information into my web pages? How about my emails? Will that be next?
I work in a similar environment, and although I can't recommend a virus program, I can suggest ways to prevent it. It sounds like the company is creating an embedded device, but is not using an embedded operating system. Microsoft Windows embedded forbids writes to the C: drive when you enable EWF or FBWF. EWF gives you a memory overlay so software *can* write to C:, but if you get infected, you just reboot the machine. Alternatively, a good Micro-ATX BIOS will support making the drives read-only.
I think people are mistaken about video phones. I think that they have not taken off for the usual technical reasons. - Bad image quality - Lag - Poor voice quality - Web cameras were not ubiquitous enough - No open standard!
What is NOT a reason? - Lack of interest
There's tons of interest: You know who *really* loves video phone calls? Parents and grandparents. I realized this after having a child that there are lots of long-distance relatives and friends who want to see the kids. Yet we video conference very rarely. Why? Because one person uses Skype, and another uses whatever came with their Mac, and another wants me to sign-up for MSN messenger. We just can't communicate without a common system in place.
Remember when the iPhone wouldn't do MMS messages? There was an outcry. People take pictures and short video clips and mail them to each other. They are entirely common on Facebook. You even have devices dedicate to this purpose (like the Microsoft Kin).
Most of the barriers I listed exist out of sheer laziness. But now that we are streaming video on a daily basis, and the internet is poised to replace TV, those limitations are going away. Cameras now come with most laptops, and many desktops. I propose that Apple's entry into the video conference marketplace on the iPhone will draw enough attention that suddenly everyone will be doing video phone calls. Not all the time, but it won't be a rare thing any more.
As a sysadmin...I don't give a flying fsck about "someone's data"... My job is to implement our filtering policy.
*facepalm* This sentence exemplifies so much of what is wrong here...
A system administrator's job is to keep "someone's data" secure. All you are supposed to care about is protecting someone's data. You are not the thought police.
Since when did system administrators filter web pages? Does the school librarian inspect books in backpacks to look for porn? Does the school have a custom cell-phone tower to intercept phone communications? Does the janitor inspect the trash to see what students printed or wrote on paper? Does the art teacher examine drawings to see if they are appropriate? Does the school chef look at everyone's lunch to see if it has illegal substances?
No!
Janitors clean, chefs cook, artists draw. If you are a system administrator, then administer the system! If you wanted to become big brother, then go into Australian politics. The world was just fine before the institutions hired thought police to watch everyone.
Is building power lines really that big of an obstacle? We have power lines all over the country - are they so expensive that they are a big part of the cost of the plant? Or is it the logistics/planning of running the lines? It seems absurd that something as simple as power lines is a showstopper for something as important as renewable energy.
All you need is one guy with a problem like that to download some kiddie porn and your business will be shut down and you go to jail
I want to challenge this. This has been posted 10+ times in this discussion with nothing to back it up. Why would the activities of an individual in the company result in shutting down the company and sending anyone to jail? That makes no sense.
On a related note: This is how EULAs come to exist. Someone assumes that they might be liable for some action someone else performs. So they try to get around it by making you agree to some big contract that waives liability. Over time the EULA grows, filled with such legal fallacies until it becomes 20 pages of legaleeze. In reality, there never was any liability in the first place.
Ignoring whether or not monitoring is good or bad: Why is it IT's responsibility to actively perform the monitoring? Of course it is their job to setup the monitoring hardware and software, but why pay an IT technician to watch people browse the web? That's like paying an optical engineer to watch someone through a two-way mirror. The engineer designs the mirror and installs it, but they shouldn't be doing the actual monitoring.
Traditionally, Postgres on Windows has been as a second-tier effort. I think that is changing now that they are supporting 64-bit versions, and with npgsql 2.0. I went to a conference and constantly heard "There's this add-in for postgres, cross-platform, works on anything" and I would raise my hand and ask "What about Windows?" and they would basically say "welll... it works on everything else."
Not faulting those developers. But this is part of why someone might use MS SQL server.
The wealth of the deposits completely flattens the current GDP of Afghanistan, estimated at about $12 billion.
Only if it was all extracted in one year. If it was extracted over 83 years, then 1 trillion / 83 years = 12 billion, so it would double the economy. And only if it was started now, at 100% efficiency, and cost nothing to extract. So basically, this is potentially really good, but it isn't going to suddenly "flatten" the current GDP.
Websites ain't magic. I can't just replace "op=reply" in the slashdot url with an SQL command and expect a result. It must be a variable that is used in a query.
That's exactly my point. The summary says that this effects IIS and SQL server. That is wrong. It affects whatever script it was intended to target.
SQL injections don't target SQL servers or web servers. They target poorly written scripts. This does not "target Web servers running Microsoft's IIS software" as the summary says. It targets some stupid advertising script that all the sites had in common. Look at the analysis of the attack. It does s GET on/page.aspx and passes it utm_content which contains an escaped SQL statement.
A quick Google search shows that utm_content is part of Google Analytics. Does this mean it is a bug in Google Analytics?
I can't think of a religion that advocates the idea of government forcing privacy corporations to record it's citizens. Maaybe Islam? I don't think religion is the problem in this case.
First, unlike other SQL engines Postgres is language-independent. There is a plug-in system, and it already ships with a few different SQL variants.
Second, the primary language is PL/PGSQL which is a clone of Oracle's PL/SQL. As a whole, Postgres started as an open-source Oracle clone. If you do a Google search, you will find several success stories of OraclePostgreSQL migrations because the stored procedure language is so similar.
However, you are correct: there needs to be a standard. I see that someone posted and said "SQL is the standard" but that isn't good enough. Raw SQL doesn't provide control structures. There's no loops, no if-then-else, etc. As a whole, I like to avoid those, but they are inevitable.
Re:Any concept of what's involved in migration?
on
Time To Dump XP?
·
· Score: 1
Leasing a computer has to be the worst investment next to leasing cars. Leases are the worst mix of renting and buying. You may just as much as buying it, but you don't get the product in the end. And if your disposal process isn't actually making you money, you are doing it wrong. That's how the leasing company profits from it: they lease it to you, then get it back from you, then dispose of it for a profit.
The only real benefit to leasing is the creative accounting it allows.
I agree with all of your post except the overbroad generalization at the bottom.
Why upgrade if it still works?
Because once it finally doesn't work, you are in hell. I work at a Fortune 500 company with legacy software that requires particular versions of legacy operating systems, or things like exact versions of internet explorer. This is because they run 15 year-old versions of the software. There were perfectly valid migration paths that they opted not to take. So now, those old migration tools won't run any longer because they are DOS, then 16-bit, etc. So now, what would have been a few hours of migration every few years has accumulated and amplified. Today it is a multi-month task involving virtual machines, tech support, and voodoo.
If you are smelling the plastic, then it is because something in the plastic is escaping. According to the Wikipedia article on BPA, it is a solid, and more dense than water. So that means if I can smell it, it can leech into the drink. Where I am confused is: does that mean it would dissolve into the drink, or sink to the bottom? (I am assuming the drink is water. Other drinks could vary the results).
Slashdot Mirror
No, because if who you vote for is known, the voting public can be corrorsed into voting for or against someone or something, and if you don't there could be any number of possible threats held against you (even if you don't vote at all).
But all of that still applies to a petition. If petitions are public, those same bullies could require you to either sign, or not sign, a petition.
The outcome of a vote has more of a direct effect on who gets voted into gov. or if public option laws/ordinances are passed.
So when the bully shows up, I need to sit down with them and explain that the petition is not actually binding, and therefore they shouldn't break my legs.
Once again, another reason for network neutrality. It should be illegal to modify my HTTP requests. That's not what my computer sent: the job of a router, and an ISP, is to blindly pass-on what I send. The phone company doesn't insert words into my telephone conversations - that's illegal. Yet it is somehow okay to insert information into my web pages? How about my emails? Will that be next?
I work in a similar environment, and although I can't recommend a virus program, I can suggest ways to prevent it. It sounds like the company is creating an embedded device, but is not using an embedded operating system. Microsoft Windows embedded forbids writes to the C: drive when you enable EWF or FBWF. EWF gives you a memory overlay so software *can* write to C:, but if you get infected, you just reboot the machine. Alternatively, a good Micro-ATX BIOS will support making the drives read-only.
...just as incompetent and corrupt (especially with their favouritism towards big business and their contributions) as male politicians.
Of course. Were you unclear on the definition of politician?
I think people are mistaken about video phones. I think that they have not taken off for the usual technical reasons.
- Bad image quality
- Lag
- Poor voice quality
- Web cameras were not ubiquitous enough
- No open standard!
What is NOT a reason?
- Lack of interest
There's tons of interest: You know who *really* loves video phone calls? Parents and grandparents. I realized this after having a child that there are lots of long-distance relatives and friends who want to see the kids. Yet we video conference very rarely. Why? Because one person uses Skype, and another uses whatever came with their Mac, and another wants me to sign-up for MSN messenger. We just can't communicate without a common system in place.
Remember when the iPhone wouldn't do MMS messages? There was an outcry. People take pictures and short video clips and mail them to each other. They are entirely common on Facebook. You even have devices dedicate to this purpose (like the Microsoft Kin).
Most of the barriers I listed exist out of sheer laziness. But now that we are streaming video on a daily basis, and the internet is poised to replace TV, those limitations are going away. Cameras now come with most laptops, and many desktops. I propose that Apple's entry into the video conference marketplace on the iPhone will draw enough attention that suddenly everyone will be doing video phone calls. Not all the time, but it won't be a rare thing any more.
As a sysadmin...I don't give a flying fsck about "someone's data" ... My job is to implement our filtering policy.
*facepalm* This sentence exemplifies so much of what is wrong here...
A system administrator's job is to keep "someone's data" secure. All you are supposed to care about is protecting someone's data. You are not the thought police.
Since when did system administrators filter web pages? Does the school librarian inspect books in backpacks to look for porn? Does the school have a custom cell-phone tower to intercept phone communications? Does the janitor inspect the trash to see what students printed or wrote on paper? Does the art teacher examine drawings to see if they are appropriate? Does the school chef look at everyone's lunch to see if it has illegal substances?
No!
Janitors clean, chefs cook, artists draw. If you are a system administrator, then administer the system! If you wanted to become big brother, then go into Australian politics. The world was just fine before the institutions hired thought police to watch everyone.
You just argued against a hyperbole using a hyperbole.
Every site can't have HTTPS until every site has it's own IP address. HTTPS does not support multiple hosts with different names on a single IP.
Is building power lines really that big of an obstacle? We have power lines all over the country - are they so expensive that they are a big part of the cost of the plant? Or is it the logistics/planning of running the lines? It seems absurd that something as simple as power lines is a showstopper for something as important as renewable energy.
All you need is one guy with a problem like that to download some kiddie porn and your business will be shut down and you go to jail
I want to challenge this. This has been posted 10+ times in this discussion with nothing to back it up. Why would the activities of an individual in the company result in shutting down the company and sending anyone to jail? That makes no sense.
On a related note: This is how EULAs come to exist. Someone assumes that they might be liable for some action someone else performs. So they try to get around it by making you agree to some big contract that waives liability. Over time the EULA grows, filled with such legal fallacies until it becomes 20 pages of legaleeze. In reality, there never was any liability in the first place.
Ignoring whether or not monitoring is good or bad: Why is it IT's responsibility to actively perform the monitoring? Of course it is their job to setup the monitoring hardware and software, but why pay an IT technician to watch people browse the web? That's like paying an optical engineer to watch someone through a two-way mirror. The engineer designs the mirror and installs it, but they shouldn't be doing the actual monitoring.
Traditionally, Postgres on Windows has been as a second-tier effort. I think that is changing now that they are supporting 64-bit versions, and with npgsql 2.0. I went to a conference and constantly heard "There's this add-in for postgres, cross-platform, works on anything" and I would raise my hand and ask "What about Windows?" and they would basically say "welll... it works on everything else."
Not faulting those developers. But this is part of why someone might use MS SQL server.
LCD screens are taxed. Yachts are taxed. Food and clothes are not taxed. (usually). Items bought on food stamps is not taxed.
The wealth of the deposits completely flattens the current GDP of Afghanistan, estimated at about $12 billion.
Only if it was all extracted in one year. If it was extracted over 83 years, then 1 trillion / 83 years = 12 billion, so it would double the economy. And only if it was started now, at 100% efficiency, and cost nothing to extract. So basically, this is potentially really good, but it isn't going to suddenly "flatten" the current GDP.
Also, opium is renewable.
Websites ain't magic. I can't just replace "op=reply" in the slashdot url with an SQL command and expect a result. It must be a variable that is used in a query.
That's exactly my point. The summary says that this effects IIS and SQL server. That is wrong. It affects whatever script it was intended to target.
SQL injections don't target SQL servers or web servers. They target poorly written scripts. This does not "target Web servers running Microsoft's IIS software" as the summary says. It targets some stupid advertising script that all the sites had in common. Look at the analysis of the attack. It does s GET on /page.aspx and passes it utm_content which contains an escaped SQL statement.
A quick Google search shows that utm_content is part of Google Analytics. Does this mean it is a bug in Google Analytics?
I can't think of a religion that advocates the idea of government forcing privacy corporations to record it's citizens. Maaybe Islam? I don't think religion is the problem in this case.
Wow! Good to know.
interesting. Thank you!
Google has improved so much that my Google Reader showed this article twice!
add-on procedural languages like Oracle's PL/SQL aren't going to be supported as-is anytime soon on PostgreSQL
Actually, PostgreSQL ships with PL/PGSQL which is pretty-much a clone of PL/SQL.
Postgres actually does this... almost.
First, unlike other SQL engines Postgres is language-independent. There is a plug-in system, and it already ships with a few different SQL variants.
Second, the primary language is PL/PGSQL which is a clone of Oracle's PL/SQL. As a whole, Postgres started as an open-source Oracle clone. If you do a Google search, you will find several success stories of OraclePostgreSQL migrations because the stored procedure language is so similar.
However, you are correct: there needs to be a standard. I see that someone posted and said "SQL is the standard" but that isn't good enough. Raw SQL doesn't provide control structures. There's no loops, no if-then-else, etc. As a whole, I like to avoid those, but they are inevitable.
Leasing a computer has to be the worst investment next to leasing cars. Leases are the worst mix of renting and buying. You may just as much as buying it, but you don't get the product in the end. And if your disposal process isn't actually making you money, you are doing it wrong. That's how the leasing company profits from it: they lease it to you, then get it back from you, then dispose of it for a profit.
The only real benefit to leasing is the creative accounting it allows.
I agree with all of your post except the overbroad generalization at the bottom.
Why upgrade if it still works?
Because once it finally doesn't work, you are in hell. I work at a Fortune 500 company with legacy software that requires particular versions of legacy operating systems, or things like exact versions of internet explorer. This is because they run 15 year-old versions of the software. There were perfectly valid migration paths that they opted not to take. So now, those old migration tools won't run any longer because they are DOS, then 16-bit, etc. So now, what would have been a few hours of migration every few years has accumulated and amplified. Today it is a multi-month task involving virtual machines, tech support, and voodoo.
That's why. :-)
If you are smelling the plastic, then it is because something in the plastic is escaping. According to the Wikipedia article on BPA, it is a solid, and more dense than water. So that means if I can smell it, it can leech into the drink. Where I am confused is: does that mean it would dissolve into the drink, or sink to the bottom? (I am assuming the drink is water. Other drinks could vary the results).
(I am not a chemist)