March 15, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Be with who you like. My initial post in this thread wasn't even directed towards her and that post was a joke. Then she goes on bickering back and forth so the thread can remain off track. Stepping up to the plate? Maybe it started that way but that isn't how it turned out.
I'm going to do something Lynn cannot - I'm going to let this go so the thread CAN get back on track.
Cheers
March 15, 2013 at 3:08 pm
jfogel (3/15/2013)
Be with who you like. My initial post in this thread wasn't even directed towards her and that post was a joke. Then she goes on bickering back and forth so the thread can remain off track. Stepping up to the plate? Maybe it started that way but that isn't how it turned out.I'm going to do something Lynn cannot - I'm going to let this go so the thread CAN get back on track.
Now I have to say something. I am not her or she, I am a him or he. Most people who have been around here for a while know that.
Thank you.
March 15, 2013 at 3:19 pm
jfogel (3/15/2013)
You can't control yourself can you? If you are so professional, why are you bickering on a message board? You keep talking about how professional you are but you just can't stop coming back for another bite. Perhaps you should read a manual about how to walk away?
Are you the pot or the kettle???
You seem to have some sort of issue with Lynn. This is not the first time I have seen you be hostile to him for what I can tell is no reason at all. As a third party observer here your posts seem to be overly aggressive when engaged in discussion with Lynn. I don't see the same kind of attitude from you when talking with other people.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
March 15, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Now I have to say something. I am not her or she, I am a him or he. Most people who have been around here for a while know that.
Thank you.
Lynn Pettis--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🙂 I wonder if there are any similarities to the 37 signals article with the statement above
"...the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges..."
-- Optimist with experience and still learning
March 15, 2013 at 4:43 pm
My 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.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
March 15, 2013 at 5:14 pm
I am very open to the idea that I don't know what I don't know about many subjects, especially databases.
A few things come to mind real quick.
The use of cursors
The use of table variables
Parallelism is bad
I 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.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 15, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Say goodnight Gracie!
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
March 15, 2013 at 5:17 pm
Miles Neale (3/15/2013)
Say goodnight Gracie!
Goodnight Gracie
😀
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 15, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Bless You! :-):-D:-P
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
March 15, 2013 at 5:42 pm
The 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.
Rod
March 15, 2013 at 7:47 pm
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.
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.
March 15, 2013 at 11:26 pm
Scott Anderson #2 (3/15/2013)
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.
Have you ever seen nthe 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.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
March 15, 2013 at 11:36 pm
I 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.'
March 16, 2013 at 6:24 am
I 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!
March 16, 2013 at 6:54 am
Yes, so I'll never use correct horse battery stable as a pasword now - the everbody and his dog knows it :laugh:
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.
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.
Tom
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 74 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply