@DustinB3403 Yep, using Chrome right now with French dictionary selected, all these words are red, except "beaucoup" and actually Chrome.

@obsolesce said in What are you using for Documentation?:

I use WordPress.

@DustinB3403 You have to add it in your language settings, but it's a French word meaning "a lot" and it's used fairly often in French.

I'll jump in and add: then what does he think reservations do? That's what I'd ask him. Reservations are considered permanent assignments.

@MattSpeller Yes, yes, tea cup in orbit, flying spaghetti monster, etc.

Simply saying religion is worthless, doesn't really have much to do with the discussions in this thread. Secondly, I imagine we've all read these things already, many times, and if it was going to have any sort of sudden impact, it would have already.

And being condescending doesn't win you converts, or de-converts, it just makes you look like a jackass. If you want to convince people there is no God or whatever, you do it by getting them to challenge the concepts of their faith, not by saying "lol pastafari dawg."

I know of no one who read a goofy Italian-cuisine based prayer and said "finally, I get it, of course, there is no God." People lose their faith primarily with intellectual challenge, not by ridicule and mocking, all you do is push people back inward.

@scottalanmiller said in DHCP Logic:

@g-i-jones said in DHCP Logic:

Anyway, he said even if there is a reservation, if that thing goes to sleep, then other things can still snatch up that IP address because it's in the pool.

That makes no sense at all. He's thinking of DHCP Preferences, not related to Reservations. The entire concept of a reservation doesn't mesh with this definition at all.

Imagine if you had a restaurant reservation that only worked if you were already at the restaurant waiting. No need for a reservation if you are already there and have the table, right? Completely nonsensical.

Reminds me of Seinfeld and his car reservation

Youtube Video

@MattSpeller said in What is New Earth:

@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:

@MattSpeller Yes, yes, tea cup in orbit, flying spaghetti monster, etc.

Simply saying religion is worthless, doesn't really have much to do with the discussions in this thread. Secondly, I imagine we've all read these things already, many times, and if it was going to have any sort of sudden impact, it would have already.

And being condescending doesn't win you converts, or de-converts, it just makes you look like a jackass. If you want to convince people there is no God or whatever, you do it by getting them to challenge the concepts of their faith, not by saying "lol pastafari dawg."

If you were not already aware, news alert, I am a jackass.

As for condescending, I do not believe I was, though I stand ready to be corrected happily.

Religion is far from worthless, I can think of quite a few things where it would be highly useful - none of them make it true.

~lol pastafarianisim, dawg.

Let me clarify, I'm saying the general idea of this ridicule and mocking based arguments people use (I know yours was largely copy/paste, I've seen it in tons of places), like pastafari don't do anything except work against whatever you're trying to prove. I just see it all the time, from people who are far more serious about seeming to believe it works, and they look like jackasses.

If one's goal is to challenge faith, there are better ways to do it. To me what you did copy/paste does suggest religion is worthless, even if you don't think so (by your own admission) and I'm addressing what it's talking about.

If you want a good way to really challenge someone's faith, get them to explain it to you, and just ask questions. That alone works for a lot of people, primarily because they don't really have strong faith to begin with, or even so, faith in easily confusing and unsound ideas. It may not turn someone into an atheist, but often it can get them away from certain ideas which may actually be dangerous to their health or family life, or what not.

Sometimes customers just want them for whatever reason, in addition to any sort of legal requirements... based on laws written by people who don't understand technology. Ironically these same laws typically don't require cages if it's in your business or house, even though it's far less secure than in a data centre. Yet plenty of businesses think their crappy glass door and alarm, from a company which isn't likely to respond, is just as good as a secure data centre, if not more secure, and if they're forced into the position they want a cage at the data centre, sometimes they want to try to keep any keys away from anyone who works there making their lives a living hell.

Fire these customers.

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:

http://technology.nasa.gov/patents

Good for NASA.

Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.

Since NASA only gets about half of one percent of the federal budget, why not let them try to make some more fundage?

Because it isn't fundage, it's limiting what we have paid for only to big companies. It's stuff that the public has already paid for. If only big companies can access it, they are then using our tax dollars to withhold our own technology from us so that they can force us to pay for something we already paid for.

My point is that NASA is severely under funded. We can only afford to send our astronauts to the ISS by launching them from Chechnya. If NASA's budget remains the same, it will be Richard Branson and Elon Musk that put colonies on the moon or Mars (a necessity because we have severely f@cked this planet over).

Being afraid of "socialism"

...YAWN. You lost me at "ism". Couldn't care less about politics.

What does it matter if you care about it or not? You're talking about NASA being severely underfunded, NASA's budget is essentially the result of politics alone. I'm simply saying the show is over for NASA long term, aside from smaller projects, until things get crappy and unproductive enough to where that'll be the end of it completely.

I find your post confusing and stupid and wish I could delete it from my mind forever. I thought you should know that, maybe you can google how to write good forum posts, any 5 year old can -- at least you say so. It may be an old thread but these kinds of people come along a lot so this one is for the scholars... the future forum archaeologists.

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:

http://technology.nasa.gov/patents

Good for NASA.

Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.

Since NASA only gets about half of one percent of the federal budget, why not let them try to make some more fundage?

Because it isn't fundage, it's limiting what we have paid for only to big companies. It's stuff that the public has already paid for. If only big companies can access it, they are then using our tax dollars to withhold our own technology from us so that they can force us to pay for something we already paid for.

My point is that NASA is severely under funded. We can only afford to send our astronauts to the ISS by launching them from Chechnya. If NASA's budget remains the same, it will be Richard Branson and Elon Musk that put colonies on the moon or Mars (a necessity because we have severely f@cked this planet over).

Being afraid of "socialism"

...YAWN. You lost me at "ism". Couldn't care less about politics.

What does it matter if you care about it or not? You're talking about NASA being severely underfunded, NASA's budget is essentially the result of politics alone. I'm simply saying the show is over for NASA long term, aside from smaller projects.

I only know about NASA's budget woes because I like science and space. I seriously couldn't give less of a shit about the politics of why, because I can do nothing to affect that. I only concern myself with things that interest me and I only worry about things I can affect (99.999999999% of which are within my arms' length).

ALL politicians should be burned alive.

Well, I can't disagree with this post at all. I was just trying to help promote the idea of privatised space travel and colonisation. I think you're absolutely right that we can't do anything about it either (especially non-Americans), but I think too many people still put faith in NASA to do these things.

But as I'm sure you know, NASA will be sending man to Mars by 2000, 2004, OK 2010, no wait 2025, alight 2050, you know what, check back later (these are all real dates they've said since I was a kid), in fact let's go back to the Moon instead, by 2015, maybe ... 2020ish...

@Reid-Cooper said in ML FavIcon:

Still not working here. Maybe it is theme dependent? I use Yeti on Chrome.

Also does not work for me. I take this as a personal insult! How dare you!

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

Ask yourself why NASA got the funding it did back in the 60's? Because of the space race with the USSR. The public (through the controlled media) came to agree this was a good way to spend money to protect us. That's no longer the case. So the public doesn't care, so it's hard to justify spending billions or trillions on things like that at this time.

You'll never, ever be able to justify it at any time ever again. Even some people then thought "we've got problems here on Earth!" even though they now benefit from all the things created directly or indirectly by the space race. There's always going to be problems, if we try to justify it against something else, we can always think of reasons not to do something, and that's just the American way now. I think what's even crazier is that Russia's space program is now piggy backing parts of the American one.

So who wins, who makes it there first or can keep going without falling apart? Nobody cares about who first figured out how to turn oil into gasoline (aside from people interested in history), and it doesn't play any part today in the success of oil companies. America got things moving, but even Warren McCabe fell into obscurity.

Are there specific technology terrifs in those states that could have resulted in the extremely rich phone providers there?

@MattSpeller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:

I think in addition to private entities on the Moon and/or Mars in the future, it may be governments which aren't afraid to take the same sort of risks America used to take, instead of being locked into an ideology which it never followed in the first place.

Corporations don't take risks. They calculate out what can go wrong, put plans in place to address them and accomplish goals.

It depends, some do, that's what R&D is for. The thing is the risks they do take are subsidised by the state pretty much all the time, so you're right in that governments take risks, but indirectly... at least with this.

Governments take risks. They can spend money on moon shot programs that might end up going no where but create the foundational technological advances that pave the way for companies to do it better and cheaper.

I agree, much like the Internet. What's so ironic too is that now many will deny that the state had any involvement in the creation of the Internet at all.

I do not want my tax dollars spent on space projects that we know we can achieve easily and with current technology. I want a space program that will push the bleeding edge of what's possible and be asking hard questions. More over, giving our children something to aspire to and ensuring the best and brightest of every generation knows that there will be a position in hard science waiting for them if they work bloody hard for it. I am tired of seeing brilliant kids become lawyers instead of astronauts and we change that as a society through programs like NASA.

I absolutely agree. As I said above, I think a lot of "the dream" has been lost, it's seen as largely fictional, hell, some even believe America never even went to the Moon... as if the USSR would let them get away with that.

@Donahue said in SQL security over the LAN:

I don't know this this is to be expected, but a lot of the traffic is also smb2

Since SQL Server 2008 you can use SQL over SMB2 rather than just TCP/IP or named pipes or shared memory. So I imagine that's how they're doing it, seems like needless overhead but based on everything else that's to be expected.

@BBigford said in Boss I want to go to MangoCon....:

Man, I would love to go to this. But I don't get PTO, let alone paid travel to super awesome conventions.

How many (unpaid) vacation days do you get a year? Don't many Americans get something like four?

@Donahue said in SQL security over the LAN:

@tonyshowoff said in SQL security over the LAN:

@Dashrender said in SQL security over the LAN:

@tonyshowoff said in SQL security over the LAN:

@Donahue said in SQL security over the LAN:

I don't know this this is to be expected, but a lot of the traffic is also smb2

Since SQL Server 2008 you can use SQL over SMB2 rather than just TCP/IP or named pipes or shared memory. So I imagine that's how they're doing it, seems like needless overhead but based on everything else that's to be expected.

Curious - why would you want to do it over SMB?

It's sort of pseudo-configureless, you need not worry about ports or IPs and just go by name. The other side of that is you have to deal with SMB locking and other problems and it slows things down sometimes significantly.

plus, it probably ties the customer in tighter into the MS ecosystem.

Exactly, same reason they have all that COM+ garbage and other things that just add layers and layers of complexity to things. Ever wonder why Exchange Server and AD are such a bitch to get working and their clones aren't? Part of the justification for all these extra products is Microsoft tries to put them to use in their own, making them more and more bloated and difficult to get working. They've started to fix this in recent years by abandoning their own product lines and just doing things a more proper way. But if you installed Exchange 2003 or 2007 and had issues with it or with AD around that time, and all the tons of countless tools, scripts, etc you had to use, you'd get why these things happen to Windows but not as often on the same protocols hosted elsewhere.

@Dashrender said in Boss I want to go to MangoCon....:

Is zero PTO legal? even for a part time employee? Damn you're totally getting screwed bro!

Mostly definitely, in America. Most people get no vacation days or sick days at all, as in there's no "at least" amount, it's zero from the beginning and hopefully your boss approves of either. Then again, in America, even lunch and bathroom breaks are not legally enforced AFAIK in most states, if any.

@flaxking said in SQL security over the LAN:

@tonyshowoff said in SQL security over the LAN:

@flaxking said in SQL security over the LAN:

@tonyshowoff said in SQL security over the LAN:

@flaxking That may work and is worth a try, but it's likely not to work because the client is passing along to SQL Server and it's not known whether or not they implemented, or allow, encrypted traffic within their SQL Server connection library. Even if implemented in the library, it doesn't mean the client allows it, and even may be intentionally disabled for God only knows what reason. It isn't an SQL client, it's an application which just connects to SQL Server or passes raw SQL along to an application server to avoid client connection licensing limits.

How would that avoid licencing? The MS SQL licencing doesn't care how a user connects, you have to get CALs for the actual users using it no matter the method used. (Unless using SQL Express)

Because it opens one connection between the application server and the SQL Server rather than a new one for every single client. You can avoid user CAL issues because it's one connection from one user.

I can't speak to there possibility being a point in time when this was true, but it is not true now. You have to get CALs for each actual person, even if they themselves are not in direct communication with the MS SQL Server

I am aware but it isn't relevant, that's just why people do it in the ERP world in addition to having license control over their own client application. There's no inherent transparent encryption with a third party library connecting to SQL Server though. It should be straight forward from the development perspective considering they must be using a fairly modern one to be using SQL over SMB2, but if the company is basically dismissing concerns over encryption by saying "it's up to you to secure your network" that's basically saying "what's encryption? We're morons."