InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comWed, 19 Jun 2013 02:47:59 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]majorbloodnock (3/19/2013)[/b][hr]First of all, Craig, thanks very much for the compliment; I do my best.[/quote]My pleasure, I assure you.[quote]Regarding your question, I'm embarrassed to say I'm not entirely clear what you're asking, so I'll try to clarify what I originally meant.[/quote]My apologies and you've answered it thoroughly. I blame a distraction from about 3 hours ago that was quite cute and looked amazing through a beer bottle. Thus, my fault. You asked a question I felt you already had the answer to, and was hoping for the clarification you've already made.My personal opinion, and that's all it is before I get swamped in PMs, an opinion, is that a majority of the tech wars revolve around two concepts. What is the most usable for a particular user, and what a techie is most involved with for their continued career. There are outliers to be sure of people stuck in one tech who desperately wish they could use another to provide solutions, but I find those people to be rare and not zealots that are usually found in the tech/religious wars. I will support SQL Server until it dies. Why? I've based my continued career around it. I will advocate it's TCO, its adaptability, and the ease of finding lower level (and thus cheaper) support for it than the majority of other platforms. I'll also tell a client to hire an Access developer on occassion and leave my number should they grow at some point. Our newbies need work too. ;-)The end result is that our clients must use our products. They decide what they want. Windows 8, as much as it annoys me in simply its display, is based on countless hours of marketing research. Someone must want this thing. I'll wait for the next server deploy, personally. The tool we make them with means nothing until the user is happy. The rest is who got hired to build it, Bob the <sometechhere> guru... or me.Tue, 19 Mar 2013 05:22:23 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxJust to add that Craig wrote his latest post whilst I was writing mine, so I didn't get a chance to agree wholeheartedly with all he has said in it. Words of wisdom, Craig.Tue, 19 Mar 2013 05:07:19 GMTmajorbloodnockhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxFirst of all, Craig, thanks very much for the compliment; I do my best.Regarding your question, I'm embarrassed to say I'm not entirely clear what you're asking, so I'll try to clarify what I originally meant.In my opinion, the people who pay for a company's IT don't care what technologies we use. Any users of IT will judge our work in their terms, not ours, so they won't care if we use SQL Server or Oracle, but will care if they can't access their data. As a result, I believe we should concentrate on achieving what our users need achieved and only worry about technical elegance after that. A technically elegant solution may well be important in terms of ongoing maintenance and so on, but is irrelevant if the solution doesn't meet the business's needs.The uniqueness for IT is its ability to touch all areas of the business, so our capacity to make [b][i]the[/i][/b] difference relies on our ability to understand the business and the processes it both uses and needs. If we can do that, we should be able to switch between which db platform we use, which server OS, which client OS, which CRM package, which financial package end so on according to what we can afford, what is currently available and how well it meets our current needs. Eventually, the business will judge us on how much value IT provides to the business, not on the tools we use.Tue, 19 Mar 2013 05:02:40 GMTmajorbloodnockhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Gary Varga (3/19/2013)[/b][hr]Phone wars are the funniest: my Mrs hates my brilliant Windows Phone and I can't get on with her adored iPhone. Solution: she has an iPhone and I have a Windows Phone. Simple :-)[/quote]Couldn't agree more. To quote an antique: "Different Strokes for Different Folks."I like Droid, personally, but more for what I don't have to deal with than what it does.There was a question in the editorial as to what has changed for me. I figure it's only fair to answer. Everything.In 3 years.I used to think I was excellent at my job. I learned I was, but that I had sooo much more to learn. Ignorance assumes perfection, I guess. Then I came here.Allow me to explain just how wrong I was.I showed up here for the last 5/6 years or so prior to my first post. I opened an account simply to read an article sometime in the past century (me, exagerate? never. I also can't spell at 4:30 in the morning). Off and on I'd slip in and pick up some tidbit.Then I realized I needed help when I decided the deep end of the pool wasn't so deep and realized I couldn't swim there... after going in headfirst.Jeff Moden whapped me one upside the head and explained to me that this resource wasn't simply for me to show up and beat on when I chose, I'd better behave by what the forum expected if I wanted some help. Well crap. It took one post (slight pride on my part) and I fixed that error. I got some of the most amazing help to what was a simple problem to this forum and moved on. Then I decided the forum was a place I should probably get more involved in, there was a lot of knowledge here. Ever felt like a mosquito at the lion's feast?I've learned that although I'm pretty damned good at my job, I am not a guru... even in any particular aspect. I've learned that although I know a lot of tricks, I simply can't know all of them. I've learned (once again recently) that someone with 10 posts can point me at a solution that people with thousands couldn't. I've learned that respect from intelligent people, that I want to earn it from, isn't earned through humor nor ability; but by presentation backed with knowledge. I've been reminded of something that the internet made me forget; an argument is not a debate and a debate is sure as hell not an argument if you want to actually have a debate and learn something.I've learned that the most obnoxious presence I know on the internet (and I usually eat the trolls, they're tasty) can actually teach me something if you read through the trash. Those of you who know who I'm talking about please leave out the name, I did on purpose.I've been forcibly reminded recently that late data is useless data. A rough idea, known for being worth that value, is better than perfection delivered 3 days later.I've learned tons. I don't think anyone in this industry can HELP but learn... or die through attrition to those who can, though they may have weaker skills presently.I'll keep learning. I'm not dead yet. Now present your ankles.Tue, 19 Mar 2013 05:00:47 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]lptech (3/18/2013)[/b][hr]In the last 1-2 years, I have given up on religious wars in technology (this should not be taken in any way to have anything to do with real religion). Just part of the list from the last 20 years or so: Mainframe-PC, Windows-UNIX, DB2-IMS/IDMS, Sybase-Oracle-Informix-Ingress, SQL Server-Oracle, PC-MAC, iPhone/Pad-Android, I don't argue about it anymore. Each technology is good for something, and works better for some people. Life is too short, and nobody convinces the other side anyway. I think that my oldest son misses these arguments, at least WRT Apple products :-)[/quote]I never went in for those kinds of arguments (they are rarely discussions or debates). I tend to find that most technology has its value but all could be better. Perhaps a little unfair but I've yet to see perfection and time always highlights that anything could be better.Phone wars are the funniest: my Mrs hates my brilliant Windows Phone and I can't get on with her adored iPhone. Solution: she has an iPhone and I have a Windows Phone. Simple :-)Tue, 19 Mar 2013 04:35:38 GMTGary Vargahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]majorbloodnock (3/19/2013)[/b]Utterly agree. The more experience I gain (for that, read "the older I get" ;-) ) the more I see the technologies I work with purely as tools, and it's not the tool that is important but what you end up producing. A cabinet maker is judged professionally by the furniture he or she produces, not by the make of planes and chisels he or she uses, so why should it be different in the IT world?[/quote]At the risk of firing up another "discussion"... we risk losing our unique place to make THE difference, instead of A difference; or worse, backing a winning horse that eventually loses. You've always struck me as reasonably logical when it comes to evaluating the human condition, Bloodnock, so was this a rhetorical question?Tue, 19 Mar 2013 04:24:15 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]lptech (3/18/2013)[/b][hr]In the last 1-2 years, I have given up on religious wars in technology (this should not be taken in any way to have anything to do with real religion). Just part of the list from the last 20 years or so: Mainframe-PC, Windows-UNIX, DB2-IMS/IDMS, Sybase-Oracle-Informix-Ingress, SQL Server-Oracle, PC-MAC, iPhone/Pad-Android, I don't argue about it anymore. Each technology is good for something, and works better for some people. Life is too short, and nobody convinces the other side anyway. I think that my oldest son misses these arguments, at least WRT Apple products :-)[/quote]Utterly agree. The more experience I gain (for that, read "the older I get" ;-) ) the more I see the technologies I work with purely as tools, and it's not the tool that is important but what you end up producing. A cabinet maker is judged professionally by the furniture he or she produces, not by the make of planes and chisels he or she uses, so why should it be different in the IT world?Tue, 19 Mar 2013 03:46:28 GMTmajorbloodnockhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx+1Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:19:43 GMTnwernerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxIn the last 1-2 years, I have given up on religious wars in technology (this should not be taken in any way to have anything to do with real religion). Just part of the list from the last 20 years or so: Mainframe-PC, Windows-UNIX, DB2-IMS/IDMS, Sybase-Oracle-Informix-Ingress, SQL Server-Oracle, PC-MAC, iPhone/Pad-Android, I don't argue about it anymore. Each technology is good for something, and works better for some people. Life is too short, and nobody convinces the other side anyway. I think that my oldest son misses these arguments, at least WRT Apple products :-)Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:02:23 GMTlptechhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Lynn Pettis (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]Okay, drop the religious debate. It will go where we really don't want it to go really fast.[/quote]Sorry. My facetious comment was not aimed at any religion but a jocular poke at TravisDBA as he appears to enjoy the banter. My mistake (about the post, not TravisDBA having a sense of humour), sorry.Mon, 18 Mar 2013 04:58:12 GMTGary Vargahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote]Yes, which leads to yet another problem, password staleness. You make have thought up the easiest to remember, hardest to crack password, but unless you change it often, then you are still in a world of problem attack vectors.This is one of the nastiest security myths that exists[/quote]Re-reading my comment, I didn’t fully qualify my brief comment, oops you are exactly right.What I should have said was, as people generally re-use passwords across systems, thereby opening themselves up to multiple attacks vectors. If one of those systems is compromised then it’s not hard to find others to try it with. Like with Antivirus that only detects 99% of issues, all you need is to be unlucky to get that 1% which made that 99% not even matter. One can get in a habit of password re-use (or staleness) and suddenly find themselves in trouble. I agree, frequent password changes is never a good thing for the user. Yes, if your password cannot be worked out and the system containing it doesn't get hacked, you can safely use the same password and never need to change it, but does that really happen?[quote]Only someone completely incompetent at serious security believes in changing passwords often (unless they have a situation where compromise is unlikely to be dsetected within the period between changes).[/quote]This one I don't agree with so much. How easy is it to detect a compromise? How do you know when others have your password? How many systems display the number of recent failed attempts (or even since the last successful login) or successful ones, plus when they do, do you even take note? Until something destructive or unwanted happens and especially if you are only a user and cannot access the logs, you wouldn't know what read-only activity has happened. No, a stale password is no benefit here.Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:06:45 GMTScott Anderson #2http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Scott Anderson #2 (3/17/2013)[/b][hr][quote]Have you ever seen nthe [url=http://xkcd.com/936/]XKCD[/url] view?[/quote]Yes, which leads to yet another problem, password staleness. You make have thought up the easiest to remember, hardest to crack password, but unless you change it often, then you are still in a world of problem attack vectors.[/quote]This is one of the nastiest security myths that exists, and had done quite a lot of damage through having created systems which force people to change passwords frequently, thus ensuring that they can never remember them so they are always sitting there on a post-it note for everyone to see. Only someone completely incompetent at serious security believes in changing passwords often (unless they have a situation where compromise is unlikely to be dsetected within the period between changes).The whole "frequent password changes" idea is total nonsense. Changing your password has no effect whatsoever on the chance of it being guessed, or being broken by brute force attack. The only effect it has is on the duration of a compromise - and since a the typical time for a broken password to do all the damage it can is rather short, changing your password every rather long time stands very little (approximately zero) chance of reducing the damage - far smaller a chance than the risk that consequences of changing (maybe communicating passwords, maybe time to learn passwords) will do rather a lot of damage.If you change your password once a fortnight instead of once a year, you reduce the expected time that a broken password is valid [i]if you don't notice it[/i] from six months to a week - so you gain some wonderful extra protection provided it takes you more than a week to notice that someone is misusing your account. What a pitiful benefit that is!Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:44:33 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote]Have you ever seen nthe [url=http://xkcd.com/936/]XKCD[/url] view?[/quote]Yes, which leads to yet another problem, password staleness. You make have thought up the easiest to remember, hardest to crack password, but unless you change it often, then you are still in a world of problem attack vectors.With this idea, your password (how you enter it) is changing slightly every time you access it. The system could get to know that you get tired mid-afternoon and have a slower typing speed or the first thing in the morning have a hard time getting the little finger over to that tricky "Q" key. Other times you like to enter the text "Mary had a little lamb" and highlight the "had" text.That way it's not the data (user name & password) that really is authorised, it's your persona or you.Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:30:29 GMTScott Anderson #2http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Jim P. (3/16/2013)[/b][hr]How about autos world needs gas.Four simple words is still much harder to crack.:Wow:[/quote]I think the XKCD cartoon actually under estimates the entropy of four common words. Lets call that 11 bits per word - I suspect that most people intelligent enough to be able to type a password have an active vocabulary quite a lot bigger than 2000 words. Even so, I have a large number of different passwords, and I'm not going to remember them all, so I need a password safe or dictionary and I want that to be locked by something with a lot more than 44 bits and even for some of the passwords themselves I want nearly twice that. So I use quite long passphrases - much more than 4 words - and make sure they are something I already know (ie quoting something that's already there) and not something I might forget. That's one of my beliefs that has changed: I used to think it sensible to introduce the odd error into the phrase, but soon experience taught me that this increased the chances of forgetting it by a large factor - years ago I lost my PGP keys that way (and of course couldn't revoke them) - so now I believe it's better to keep the orignal phrase without perturbation - the perturbation has only negligible effect on the probability of the phrase being found by guessing. Within the safe or dictionary the original passwords can or course have much less entropy - I don't think I have any need for more than 80 bits for any of the individual passwords (except for ones that are protecting the private keys of public key encryption pairs), and most things could have much less entropy than that.[quote]We just had a the financial user from a nursing home call in and say that the clinical users had given her their user names and passwords in case she needed to add a diagnosis to make the claims work. WTF? :crazy:[/quote]Not crazy, or at least no exceptionally so, just ordinary people doing what ordinary people do.Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:40:52 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (3/16/2013)[/b][hr]Yes, so I'll never use correct horse battery stable as a pasword now - the everbody and his dog knows it :laugh:[/quote]How about autos world needs gas.Four simple words is still much harder to crack.:Wow:We just had a the financial user from a nursing home call in and say that the clinical users had given her their user names and passwords in case she needed to add a diagnosis to make the claims work. WTF? :crazy:Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:43:34 GMTJim P.http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Jim P. (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]Have you ever seen nthe [url=http://xkcd.com/936/]XKCD[/url] view?[/quote]Yes, so I'll never use correct horse battery stable as a pasword now - the everbody and his dog knows it :laugh:[quote]Setting the screensaver to 10 minutes (which can be a conversation time with a coworker) by group policy and a lockout policy is about ridiculous. [/quote]I agree, doing settings by group policy that need to be under individual control is always ridiculous. Sometimes for privilaged logins 10 minutes is much too long, unless you put a "lock now" button in the systray and use it whenever you leave the desk, for other logins it can be too short.Sat, 16 Mar 2013 06:54:57 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxI think I've learnt that even the well informed and smart people only have a vague clue about what the future will hold.Even the guys who guess right are only shown to be right in retrospect. Things can change in the blink of an eye and everything you thought was your comfort zone becomes a barren and rock strewn field.The strange thing is that technology is like fashion. What was thought to be long dead comes back to life and is touted as the shiny, new and the next big thing!Sat, 16 Mar 2013 06:24:26 GMTDavid.Poolehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxI moved from mainframe work into PC's in the late 80's, developing on OS/2. When Microsoft divorced IBM and re-named their version of that OS "NT", I was convinced that the big blue product would be recognized as superior and would be the end of MS dominance. I even bought into the Microsoft bashing (I hate to admit), referring to "win-doze". By the end of the 90's, I'd clipped and hung on our fridge a Nicole Hollander "Sylvia" cartoon that summed up my experience and new attitude (it's dated 8/12/98). I hope I'm not pushing copyright law too far by quoting it. She introduces her character as 'the woman who worries about everything, doesn't have a computer, cell phone or smart card because she knows what's new today will be obsolete tomorrow.' Then, the character, sitting a desk lit by a hurricane lamp muses 'You'll notice that no one's bidding on old computers at Sotheby's. You can't give them away. No, they molder down in the basement... along with that Beta VCR you thought you were so clever buying because it was better than VHS and cheaper.'Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:36:24 GMTjohn.arnotthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Scott Anderson #2 (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]Jim P. - I also thought that more secure meant less useable, until I realised that we are looking at securing the wrong way. Instead of the Accept\Reject model (ie. user name\password great for computer to break, bad for human to remember) why not be more human like and security via reference and familiarity. You do totally lose privacy and the system "knows" you but you do get a much more secure and useable environment.They all promote a model where an intruder can only get so far unless they actually are you.[/quote]Have you ever seen nthe [url=http://xkcd.com/936/]XKCD[/url] view?Setting the screensaver to 10 minutes (which can be a conversation time with a coworker) by group policy and a lockout policy is about ridiculous. The other side I had an Access DB that processed many GB of data overnight. I forgot to lock my desktop before I left for the night. I just had to move the mouse to bring the desktop up.I had near admin level access.But if you had to enter four words to get to your desktop each time -- the user will find a way to subvert it. But making the password so odious, the user will find a way to subvert it.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:26:18 GMTJim P.http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxJim P. - I also thought that more secure meant less useable, until I realised that we are looking at securing the wrong way. Instead of the Accept\Reject model (ie. user name\password great for computer to break, bad for human to remember) why not be more human like and security via reference and familiarity. You do totally lose privacy and the system "knows" you but you do get a much more secure and useable environment.Reference and familiarity = resource sensitivity dependency on required user access or Authent-a-Key as I like to call it.eg. How about having low secure read only activities like running a report only require a user name, but it's how you enter the user name that the system can decide on if you are you or not. It's the speed of each letter press, the time of gap between letters, and the prior stats determine and if the system can't know for sure, the fail over to getting another human to vouch for you.What about other access methods that cannot be forged? Like pass-sound, pass-click, pass-highlight, pass-drag, etc.They all promote a model where an intruder can only get so far unless they actually are you.The bottom line is only require enough security for the sensitivity of the task; instead of all or nothing.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:47:07 GMTScott Anderson #2http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxThe opinion of mine that I've changed, is an older one, and developer related, so perhaps not everyone on this list can relate. Years ago, when I first came to where I now work (I've been there for a long time), we wrote a couple of apps which are still in use today. They started life as VB4 apps, but are now VB6 apps. The opinion I had (in fact, the opinion we all had), back in the day, was the data binding was unreliable. We devoted a lot of time writing our own code to bind data from our SQL Server databases, to the apps that we wrote. Most of those apps are still in use today.But now, years later, I've changed to use C# instead of VB (I only use VB if I have to, such as if I absolutely have to do maintenance on that old stuff), but along the way I've had a chance to learn data binding. Man, what a difference that makes!! Much faster to code in, than writing your own stuff, and a lot less error prone.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:42:41 GMTDoctor Who 2http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxBless You! :-):-D:-PFri, 15 Mar 2013 17:31:25 GMTMiles Nealehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Miles Neale (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]Say goodnight Gracie![/quote]Goodnight Gracie:-DFri, 15 Mar 2013 17:17:09 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxSay goodnight Gracie!Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:15:47 GMTMiles Nealehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote]I am very open to the idea that I don't know what I don't know about many subjects, especially databases.[/quote]A few things come to mind real quick.The use of cursorsThe use of table variablesParallelism is badI used to be strongly opposed to the use of cursors. But that is just silly. There are many good uses - if used properly.Table variables are a good tool. But they are not necessarily the absolute to replace temp tables as was a huge push for a while. Table variables can be a good tool or a really bad tool.Parallelism can be a wonderful thing. In a well tuned query, parallelism can be that turbo button :-D. In a poorly tuned query parallelism can be, well - a pain. But the fact that parallelism exists doesn't imply that something is wrong or bad.Those are a few things I have had to change my mind about over the years. And that is a good thing because that means I have hopefully learned something.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:14:50 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxMy belief:The more secure you try to make systems and software makes them either less secure or become unused and useless.Some examples locking down Windows that a regular user has problems even changing the the background image on the desktop. They will then find every possible way to bypass that rule, or if it is a privately owned system they will turn off all security.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:43:40 GMTJim P.http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxI think we got off track in an area Steve said to avoid. He specifically said to "Please avoid political or socials issues and stick to something in technology that's you have altered your standing on. And if you haven't changed your mind on anything, perhaps that's something to think about as well.":-DFri, 15 Mar 2013 14:38:44 GMTjlennartzhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TravisDBA (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]True story, but the rub with that is you got to treat and pay "good people" well, or they leave sooner or later and you are then left with "not so good people" running your business into the ground. i have seen this so many times in the industry it is not even funny anymore. [b][u]You really do get what you pay for, good or bad[/u][/b].:-D[/quote]Not always true - Last couple of rounds with some purchased software has proven that even though you may pay top dollar for something and it may look like a good fit, it ends up being a Lemon with no sugar around to make lemonade.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:51:04 GMTEd Salvahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxTrue story, but the rub with that is you got to treat and pay "good people" well, or they leave sooner or later and you are then left with "not so good people" running your business into the ground. i have seen this so many times in the industry it is not even funny anymore. You really do get what you pay for, good or bad.:-DFri, 15 Mar 2013 13:32:16 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]cdonlan 18448 (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]... the definition of an information system as: people, processes, and technology (and in that order). I see a lot of "technology will solve all our problems" attitudes in big and small shops (mostly small), but [b]without good people and processes [/b](DR,Change Management,Security protocols,etc.) [b]you won't get anywhere near your true potential [/b]organizationally.[/quote]I learned this a long time ago when I was working for a group of industrial engineers. And I still find this true today. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:04:13 GMTEd Salvahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxNo problem, it's all good. I have developed a pretty hard shell over the years, so nothing really gives offense to me anymore. Like I said, it was just a comparison response to someone else's comment. Sorry, if it offended anyone. No worries, it's all good.:-DFri, 15 Mar 2013 12:30:38 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TravisDBA (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]I'm sorry if you were offended by my comparison and I'm also sorry if I offended any Scientologist either. I was simply making a comparison. We were asked what we have changed our minds on over time and I did not know that was just absolutely restricted to just IT. I thought there was some leeway to express here.. Sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. :-D[/quote]I wasn't looking for an apology here (even though I was offended by your comparision). I was trying to stop something before others took offense, and more importantly before others gave offense.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:23:18 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxI'm sorry if you were offended by my comparison and I'm also sorry if I offended any Scientologist either. I was simply making a comparison. We were asked what we have changed our minds on over time and I did not know that was just absolutely restricted to just IT. I thought there was some leeway to express here.. Sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. :-DFri, 15 Mar 2013 12:03:11 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TravisDBA (3/15/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]Lynn Pettis (3/15/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]TravisDBA (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]No problem Lynn, since I am not that crazy about it either. However, with all due respect, the last time I checked you are not the forum police force around here either . Who are you to tell anyone on this forum what to drop or where a thread should go? :-D[/quote]You know what, we are a self policing group here and if you don't like it take it up with Steve.Also, I have come to learn the the phrase "With all due respect" means none is intended.[/quote]In my experience "self policing" is a slippery slope. It's also a two way street in the future. :-D[/quote]I have been on the other side. I have been called on what some thought was unprofessional comments. I even went back to those threads and apologized. In some cases also removing the offending comments.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:57:17 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Lynn Pettis (3/15/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]TravisDBA (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]No problem Lynn, since I am not that crazy about it either. However, with all due respect, the last time I checked you are not the forum police force around here either . Who are you to tell anyone on this forum what to drop or where a thread should go? :-D[/quote]You know what, we are a self policing group here and if you don't like it take it up with Steve.Also, I have come to learn the the phrase "With all due respect" means none is intended.[/quote]In my experience "self policing" is a slippery slope. It's also a two way street in the future. :-DFri, 15 Mar 2013 11:53:38 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Lynn Pettis (3/15/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]TravisDBA (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]No problem Lynn, since I am not that crazy about it either. However, with all due respect, the last time I checked you are not the forum police force around here either . Who are you to tell anyone on this forum what to drop or where a thread should go? :-D[/quote]You know what, we are a self policing group here and if you don't like it take it up with Steve.Also, I have come to learn the the phrase "With all due respect" means none is intended.[/quote]Thank you Lynn, you are correct. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:47:33 GMTMiles Nealehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TravisDBA (3/15/2013)[/b][hr]No problem Lynn, since I am not that crazy about it either. However, with all due respect, the last time I checked you are not the forum police force around here either . Who are you to tell anyone on this forum what to drop or where a thread should go? :-D[/quote]You know what, we are a self policing group here and if you don't like it take it up with Steve.Also, I have come to learn the the phrase "With all due respect" means none is intended.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:45:26 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxmy "Strong Opinion": that I know what's right and what worksThe "Change": what was right and worked yesterday may not be right and/or work tomorrow!(I still think Change Control / Change Management of software is necessary though - seen too many "whoops" moments to think otherwise.):hehe:Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:36:45 GMTStephanie J Brownhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxNo problem Lynn, since I am not that crazy about it either. However, with all due respect, the last time I checked you are not the forum police force around here either . Who are you to tell anyone on this forum what to drop or where a thread should go? :-DFri, 15 Mar 2013 11:35:39 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1431343-263-1.aspxOkay, drop the religious debate. It will go where we really don't want it to go really fast.Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:29:52 GMTLynn Pettis