Thank you for pointing out the obvious that so many people have been missing for the past (shoot, I lost count) years. Divide and conquer has always been a tried and true method in ANY type of conflict.
Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your statements, or are you really that partisan? This is not a (D) or (R) issue. The sooner you realize that the better off you will be.
Your statements above should at least give you a clue as to why the Democrat Party has shown decline in the past 10 years, just as there is growing discontent for the Republicans in their own party that is currently happening. It has now passed partisan politics and most people just want a government that will work for ALL the people, not just the people in their own party.
The Trust fund that comprises the SSA is however pretty much solely invested into government backed securities, that they regularly borrow from everyday. To this point they have always payed everything they borrowed back to the trust fund with interest. But unless there is significant legislation done to restore the long term solvency of the fund, they will run out somewhere in 2033 or there about. So invest wisely in the event the congress of then has the same competency as the one we have now.
Here was my experience with Andrew, 1992. We were teaching a Scuba Diving course in West Palm Beach while it was still in the Atlantic and unsure of the landfall. We can into the hotel that night with the announcement that it will hit Miami within the next 48 hours. I packed up my car in WPB, went back to Miami, grabbed as much as I could (computer, VCR, TV, clothes, and of course my cat) and left. This was all before the storm gained intensity and hit Cat 5, I would called my work 4 hours later when I arrived about 200 miles north in Cape Canaveral and said I would not be in for the next couple of days. They said "We understand". I was out of the city before they even suggested that it would be a good idea to evacuate. Called them when it was over and they said take the next week off, paid, as the city is in shambles (of course that was back when companies still cared about their employees).
Now, granted, that as a child I already went through a Cat 2 typhoon (small) on Okinawa (now where to evacuate to) and saw the destruction it had caused and decided then, even as a child, that no inanimate object(s) is/are worth my or another person's life in situations like this. There are still some people that do not seem to grasp that concept.
As for people that intended to stay, that is their choice but they should accept the responsibilities that are associated with their decision. They must live with the fact they could have been responsible for someone else's misfortune who actually needed the resources that they consumed. But, considering their actions to protect inanimate objects over life, I doubt anything anyone can say or do will make them realize their decision was probably not in the best interest of ANYBODY, including themselves. I would leave that type of thinking up to natural selection.
I would probably be more concerned with HOW and even WHEN they perform this unlocking of previously unavailable capacity. How many have been hit with the "Windows will now reboot to apply an important update. Click OK" (notice there is no Cancel) in the middle of using your computer or if you step away and realize it did reboot when you were away. Imagine, stop to recharge your car and come back and having it say "Please wait while we apply an update to your vehicle" and this happening when you need to get the hell out of somewhere quick. Not exactly excited to seeing that.
In addition, if they have the ability to increase the battery, they also have the exact same capability to do the reverse. Could anyone ever conceive this scenario? Sales are not doing good this quarter, CIO to COO, "Decrease the battery capacity of all model X at random intervals that are older than Y years". When I purchase a vehicle and it is legally mine, that vehicle is mine to control. I am not exactly keen on someone else being able to control my property remotely.
2 oz
White rum,
2 oz
Dark rum
1 oz
lime juice,
1 oz
orange juice,
2 oz
Passion fruit juice,
½ oz
Simple syrup,
½ oz
Grenadine.
Served after shaken into the signature Hurricane Glass.
When there is the potential to cause harm to others, how can it not be? If they choose not to allow by default an extension to cause harm that IS their choice, not the users. The important thing to note is they did not implement a permanent blacklist of the functionality, they changed the means in which to enable it. This puts the onus on the extension developer and the users of the extension. They have removed all liability from themselves and placed it back on the extension developer and any users who choose to use it, as it should be. So when this becomes a legal "shit storm", which it will, they will have removed themselves from it by showing that they put measures in place that allow the enable/disable of "said feature". They just chose to explicitly remove themselves from the equation by defaulting it to DISABLED.
Basically, they removed themselves from being blamed for another's actions. Had they not, everyone knows that someone would have taken this defense. It is good to see responsible engineering process that questions "Just because I can do something, should I?"
So whether you take a defensive (retribution) approach to ads or an offensive (retaliation) approach, the choice is still yours. The browser developers chose the defensive approach and is more likely the reason that some are upset about.
It is not that they blocked it, they just advised that you must specifically enable it in about:config to use a different blocking level. I have to agree, extension should be used to provide additional protection of the user of the browser. It should not be used as an attack tool just because you feel that blocking ads are not enough. What you are supporting is that if a website uses an ad server, I will punish you for using it. That is not right. Blocking ads is enough so that you do not see it. Generating false click trail data to flag the web site as an "ad click abuser" to the ad provider is wrong.
And remember that there may be legal repercussions for retaliation type attacks. Do you want to see a one of the last decent browser out there disappear in a legal battle? International law already has this pretty much defined. The International Court of Justice supports the response of cyberattacks if they follow four elements of a lawful counter-measure. These elements include a counter-attack being directed towards those who performed the original cyber act, asking those in the wrong to discontinue the attack, a counter-attack being in proportion with the original act, and the counter-attack being reversible.
With that in mind, what is the attack that the website has done to you that warrants a counter-attack? Presenting something you do not wish to see? DON'T GO THERE or use an ad blocker. You are punishing the wrong person in your counter attack. You may be held liable in the future.
Me, I use an ad blocker, if the site does not function properly with it enabled, I blacklist the site as not useable. It just means I have to look a little harder to find the information I want. When and if they outlaw ad blockers, THEN I will join you in your outrage.
That sounds similar to a situation my folks have with county taxes. They had purchased a parcel of land that is in two different counties. A majority of the land was on one county, but a VERY small portion was in another. You guessed it. The total annual taxes for the smaller portion came to $0.01 (probably $0.25 today) which they dutifully payed every year in person to the tax collectors office all the while of occupying as much time as possible from the county collector (way more cost than their payment's worth of taxes) to point out the stupidity. And this continues to this day.
It is not as uncommon as you think. I have already done this for a Government agency when Oracle upped their price list. They basically were told by an agency that deals with taxpayers money, that they will switch to a less expensive alternative if the price was raised. Well, that was 4 years ago. It was not that difficult to do so either.
To uniformly enforce rules when accommodating multiple applications accessing the same data.
Data Integrity constraints, all for it.
Another reason is that the database will usually be the longest living part of the software architecture.
Absolutely, and when that logic now interferes with the application from progressing, you are now talking a total redesign. I have run into this multiple times. Put too much into the model, and the database becomes the bottleneck.
In terms of things being tightly coupled, defining a set of stored procedures for data access hardly makes the application tightly coupled. Using raw SQL tightly couples your application to the schema. If the schema needs to change for database reasons the stored procedure layer could prevent you from having to modify the applications.
Yes, it will, but that will depend on what the schema change entails. Anyway, ORM's have always been tightly coupled to the schema, in general, what applications aren't? The advantages of store procedures as I see it is only in the execution of mutli-table CRUD that is transactional (which will not even cover multi-homed heterogeneous data stores). That is it. If you rely heavily on stored procedures for anything else, you are asking for maintenance issues later on down the line, especially when you have multiple applications accessing the same database.
So I will disagree with you on that putting business logic into the model is an acceptable choice.
And I have had to work on said systems that have been around for 25+ years when the original "logic" was put in and now has no applications that specifically use it. This is the biggest argument to NEVER put logic into the database that are application specific. When the application is replaced, I have had to fight tooth and nail to get the logic out of the database and put it into a rules engine where it belongs. It's called the Las Vegas syndrome. What in the database, stays in the database.
IMO, let a database do what a database is good at. Store/retrieve data in a reliable fashion. Once the database becomes the application, in most cases, the application will never be able to progress as the database has become the limiting factor.
Soooo, it is painful that you chose hardware that was tethered to specific version of Java, and that is Java's fault?
It seems that you chose the wrong hardware that became outdated with insecure management tools. That is not painful, that is poor choice.
And IF the hardware company refuses to provide an updated software to run in an up to date version, that is what de-compilers are for.
If you are talking constraints put into the model that only allows certain data to be entered into the database, then I agree. That is called data integrity constraints, not necessarily "logic".
PostgreSQL is less of a threat to Oracle than MySQL. If you start building a system with PostgreSQL, you have a reliable database with a decent query optimiser and you'll end up putting a lot of logic into the database. Once you grow to a big enough size that you might be able to afford Oracle, they send along salesmen and convince your least competent C?O that your data would be a lot safer if you migrate to a proper database and they provide migration tools to do this.
Here is the big question. WHY would any SANE programmer put business logic into the model layer? That would tightly couple your database engine to the other layers of the application. Once a more viable solution is available, it may have already become too cost prohibitive to migrate to the next technology. We see this now with a lot of mainframe centered companies. Don't get me wrong, most mainframe based companies have a very highly tuned and efficient solution, but as technology changes, where does that leave them?
And next in the cross hairs, Java. It seems that everything they touch becomes a lock in type technology to their specific design. Yea, their database is good, but that is about it. Everything else they touch seems to become a cluster-f$#k that eventually dies. But who is to say that this was not their plan all along.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for pointing out the obvious that so many people have been missing for the past (shoot, I lost count) years. Divide and conquer has always been a tried and true method in ANY type of conflict.
Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your statements, or are you really that partisan? This is not a (D) or (R) issue. The sooner you realize that the better off you will be.
Your statements above should at least give you a clue as to why the Democrat Party has shown decline in the past 10 years, just as there is growing discontent for the Republicans in their own party that is currently happening. It has now passed partisan politics and most people just want a government that will work for ALL the people, not just the people in their own party.
The Trust fund that comprises the SSA is however pretty much solely invested into government backed securities, that they regularly borrow from everyday. To this point they have always payed everything they borrowed back to the trust fund with interest. But unless there is significant legislation done to restore the long term solvency of the fund, they will run out somewhere in 2033 or there about. So invest wisely in the event the congress of then has the same competency as the one we have now.
Here was my experience with Andrew, 1992. We were teaching a Scuba Diving course in West Palm Beach while it was still in the Atlantic and unsure of the landfall. We can into the hotel that night with the announcement that it will hit Miami within the next 48 hours. I packed up my car in WPB, went back to Miami, grabbed as much as I could (computer, VCR, TV, clothes, and of course my cat) and left. This was all before the storm gained intensity and hit Cat 5, I would called my work 4 hours later when I arrived about 200 miles north in Cape Canaveral and said I would not be in for the next couple of days. They said "We understand". I was out of the city before they even suggested that it would be a good idea to evacuate. Called them when it was over and they said take the next week off, paid, as the city is in shambles (of course that was back when companies still cared about their employees).
Now, granted, that as a child I already went through a Cat 2 typhoon (small) on Okinawa (now where to evacuate to) and saw the destruction it had caused and decided then, even as a child, that no inanimate object(s) is/are worth my or another person's life in situations like this. There are still some people that do not seem to grasp that concept.
As for people that intended to stay, that is their choice but they should accept the responsibilities that are associated with their decision. They must live with the fact they could have been responsible for someone else's misfortune who actually needed the resources that they consumed. But, considering their actions to protect inanimate objects over life, I doubt anything anyone can say or do will make them realize their decision was probably not in the best interest of ANYBODY, including themselves. I would leave that type of thinking up to natural selection.
Wow, do not move to my neighborhood, you are bad luck if you were in the same places as the last 3 big natural disasters.
I would probably be more concerned with HOW and even WHEN they perform this unlocking of previously unavailable capacity. How many have been hit with the "Windows will now reboot to apply an important update. Click OK" (notice there is no Cancel) in the middle of using your computer or if you step away and realize it did reboot when you were away. Imagine, stop to recharge your car and come back and having it say "Please wait while we apply an update to your vehicle" and this happening when you need to get the hell out of somewhere quick. Not exactly excited to seeing that.
In addition, if they have the ability to increase the battery, they also have the exact same capability to do the reverse. Could anyone ever conceive this scenario? Sales are not doing good this quarter, CIO to COO, "Decrease the battery capacity of all model X at random intervals that are older than Y years". When I purchase a vehicle and it is legally mine, that vehicle is mine to control. I am not exactly keen on someone else being able to control my property remotely.
2 oz White rum, 2 oz Dark rum 1 oz lime juice, 1 oz orange juice, 2 oz Passion fruit juice, ½ oz Simple syrup, ½ oz Grenadine. Served after shaken into the signature Hurricane Glass.
When there is the potential to cause harm to others, how can it not be? If they choose not to allow by default an extension to cause harm that IS their choice, not the users. The important thing to note is they did not implement a permanent blacklist of the functionality, they changed the means in which to enable it. This puts the onus on the extension developer and the users of the extension. They have removed all liability from themselves and placed it back on the extension developer and any users who choose to use it, as it should be. So when this becomes a legal "shit storm", which it will, they will have removed themselves from it by showing that they put measures in place that allow the enable/disable of "said feature". They just chose to explicitly remove themselves from the equation by defaulting it to DISABLED.
Basically, they removed themselves from being blamed for another's actions. Had they not, everyone knows that someone would have taken this defense. It is good to see responsible engineering process that questions "Just because I can do something, should I?"
So whether you take a defensive (retribution) approach to ads or an offensive (retaliation) approach, the choice is still yours. The browser developers chose the defensive approach and is more likely the reason that some are upset about.
Japanese I do not have that difficulty pronouncing. Chinese????? That is different story.
It is not that they blocked it, they just advised that you must specifically enable it in about:config to use a different blocking level. I have to agree, extension should be used to provide additional protection of the user of the browser. It should not be used as an attack tool just because you feel that blocking ads are not enough. What you are supporting is that if a website uses an ad server, I will punish you for using it. That is not right. Blocking ads is enough so that you do not see it. Generating false click trail data to flag the web site as an "ad click abuser" to the ad provider is wrong.
And remember that there may be legal repercussions for retaliation type attacks. Do you want to see a one of the last decent browser out there disappear in a legal battle? International law already has this pretty much defined. The International Court of Justice supports the response of cyberattacks if they follow four elements of a lawful counter-measure. These elements include a counter-attack being directed towards those who performed the original cyber act, asking those in the wrong to discontinue the attack, a counter-attack being in proportion with the original act, and the counter-attack being reversible.
With that in mind, what is the attack that the website has done to you that warrants a counter-attack? Presenting something you do not wish to see? DON'T GO THERE or use an ad blocker. You are punishing the wrong person in your counter attack. You may be held liable in the future.
Me, I use an ad blocker, if the site does not function properly with it enabled, I blacklist the site as not useable. It just means I have to look a little harder to find the information I want. When and if they outlaw ad blockers, THEN I will join you in your outrage.
Good thing I gave up on both of them long ago.
Interesting, it is also German as well.
Typhoons you mean? Most people do not speak German.
You are correct. But it is more entertaining to trole the grammer nazis.
So, a self induced wound is painful. SHOCKING!
That sounds similar to a situation my folks have with county taxes. They had purchased a parcel of land that is in two different counties. A majority of the land was on one county, but a VERY small portion was in another. You guessed it. The total annual taxes for the smaller portion came to $0.01 (probably $0.25 today) which they dutifully payed every year in person to the tax collectors office all the while of occupying as much time as possible from the county collector (way more cost than their payment's worth of taxes) to point out the stupidity. And this continues to this day.
It's not their fault. It's their new AI that they have been working on.
It is not as uncommon as you think. I have already done this for a Government agency when Oracle upped their price list. They basically were told by an agency that deals with taxpayers money, that they will switch to a less expensive alternative if the price was raised. Well, that was 4 years ago. It was not that difficult to do so either.
To uniformly enforce rules when accommodating multiple applications accessing the same data.
Data Integrity constraints, all for it.
Another reason is that the database will usually be the longest living part of the software architecture.
Absolutely, and when that logic now interferes with the application from progressing, you are now talking a total redesign. I have run into this multiple times. Put too much into the model, and the database becomes the bottleneck.
In terms of things being tightly coupled, defining a set of stored procedures for data access hardly makes the application tightly coupled. Using raw SQL tightly couples your application to the schema. If the schema needs to change for database reasons the stored procedure layer could prevent you from having to modify the applications.
Yes, it will, but that will depend on what the schema change entails. Anyway, ORM's have always been tightly coupled to the schema, in general, what applications aren't? The advantages of store procedures as I see it is only in the execution of mutli-table CRUD that is transactional (which will not even cover multi-homed heterogeneous data stores). That is it. If you rely heavily on stored procedures for anything else, you are asking for maintenance issues later on down the line, especially when you have multiple applications accessing the same database.
So I will disagree with you on that putting business logic into the model is an acceptable choice.
IMO, let a database do what a database is good at. Store/retrieve data in a reliable fashion. Once the database becomes the application, in most cases, the application will never be able to progress as the database has become the limiting factor.
And IF the hardware company refuses to provide an updated software to run in an up to date version, that is what de-compilers are for.
If you are talking constraints put into the model that only allows certain data to be entered into the database, then I agree. That is called data integrity constraints, not necessarily "logic".
Java painful to use? How? What parts are painful?
PostgreSQL is less of a threat to Oracle than MySQL. If you start building a system with PostgreSQL, you have a reliable database with a decent query optimiser and you'll end up putting a lot of logic into the database. Once you grow to a big enough size that you might be able to afford Oracle, they send along salesmen and convince your least competent C?O that your data would be a lot safer if you migrate to a proper database and they provide migration tools to do this.
Here is the big question. WHY would any SANE programmer put business logic into the model layer? That would tightly couple your database engine to the other layers of the application. Once a more viable solution is available, it may have already become too cost prohibitive to migrate to the next technology. We see this now with a lot of mainframe centered companies. Don't get me wrong, most mainframe based companies have a very highly tuned and efficient solution, but as technology changes, where does that leave them?
And next in the cross hairs, Java. It seems that everything they touch becomes a lock in type technology to their specific design. Yea, their database is good, but that is about it. Everything else they touch seems to become a cluster-f$#k that eventually dies. But who is to say that this was not their plan all along.