Posts by A J Stiles 2669 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Apr 2006
Freakin' Windows users! If they're still using it after all the warnings, they deserve everything they get.
Anyway, I bet the movie is so degraded in quality that it contains little enough of the original source material as to fall within the bounds of Fair Dealing, even if it doesn't contain enough original material (punters coughing, munching popcorn, getting up and going to the toilet) to count as a new work in its own right.
"Since being a victim of child sexual abuse can destroy a person's whole life, isn't it more important to do everything we possibly can to minimize the risk of this than to be scrupulously fair to every job applicant?"
I put it to you, John Savard, that being falsely accused of a sexual offence does not do a person one iota less harm than being a victim of an actual sexual offence. The law needs to be changed to reflect this.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is mentioned (indirectly) in the hated Human Rights Act 1998, which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law: see Article 6(2) of the Convention. Article 8 of the same Convention makes it clear that what happens off the clock, stays off the clock.
Scrap the Vehicle Excise Duty (tax disc) but DON'T increase the price of fuel. Just call it a gift.
The real problem is the 09:00 to 17:00 working day, a throwback to the days before universal electric lighting. If every business had different starting and finishing times, then the times of high traffic density would be staggered, resulting in less congestion.
Please do not confuse the problems associated with the use of certain drugs with the problems associated with the illegality of certain drugs.
"The peson who caught a knife in the lungs because a (jobless) addicted needed money for his next fix" -- it happened because illegality inflates the prices of drugs and transfers control of the supply chain to criminals. If you're already going down anyway just for taking a hit, then it doesn't matter if you do something else you could go down for in order to get it.
"The parent who finds the corpse of their kid" -- it most probably happened because there is no quality control or strength marking on illegal drugs; therefore someone might occasionally find an adulterated batch, or a batch that is stronger than they are used to. If you're going to go down for dealing it anyway, irrespective whether it's decent product, then it doesn't matter too much how good it is. Obviously you don't really want to kill off your customer base, but you just have to hope they are mostly sensible.
You do realise that our caveman ancestors had been cultivating plants for the express purpose of getting high for thousands of years before anyone worked out that they could just as easily cultivate plants for food, don't you?
There is a better way to determine whether software is trustworthy, without relying on digital certificates issued by faceless absentee corporations: read the Source Code!
If you can't understand it yourself, then show it to a competent programmer whom you trust and ask them what they think. Get it straight from the horse's mouth.
But always insist on the Source Code. It's the only guarantee you've got.
..... and were glad of them.
If you're on the dole, you can have your payments cut for refusing an offer of work.
Ryanair should be pleased that people are sending business their way. I hope they lose.
AC, "Evil but right" -- you've hit the nail on the head. People used to stick together and did this thing where if you were cut, your neighbour would bleed. (Remember the Miners' Strike, or the Poll Tax?) Nowadays ..... they don't. Something changed.
Surely aggregators are a net win for RyanAir? It's not as though they don't get paid the full price for the flights, or anything; and without them, they would be getting less business. So what exactly is RyanAir's problem?
The comparison with piracy is laughable. Piracy is dishonestly obtaining something that somebody was expecting you to pay for, without paying for it but without depriving them of anything either.
Whereas what these aggregators are doing is no different from an old-fashioned travel agent obtaining price lists and timetables from various airlines, bus and train companies, hotels, camp sites &c. and using this information to help customers plan their holidays.
The distiction between "healthy" and "unhealthy" will be entirely arbitrary and based on the nutritional content of someone's idea of a standard portion. (For instance, the rules on advertising "junk food" in children's TV programmes actually forbid adverts for cheese, due to the fact that it contains too much saturated fat. That's the sort which *doesn't* have an evil twin trans-stereoisomer, by the way.)
Anyway, wherever the line may be drawn, it *will* creep, slowly and inexorably, until eventually *all* foodstuffs are taxed -- which is the real goal behind the demonisation of obesity. Of course, people may still be able to evade the food tax by growing their own: so expect a smear campaign against home-growing anytime soon -- possibly culminating with a nationwide outbreak of some virulent plant disease, eventually being traced to some poor sod's vegetable patch. Or maybe just a heavily-hyped TV series about exactly that scenario.
Home-growing of food probably won't be banned altogether, but it almost certainly will be controlled and bureacratised to the point where it becomes impracticable; getting the necessary licence for an allotment (assuming they haven't all had one- and two-bedroom luxury apartments built on them) will be a nightmare of paperwork (unless, of course, you submit your details online; via a government website designed to work only with a two-service-pack-old version of Internet Exploder and running on a temperamental server apparently hanging off a shared dial-up connection).
..... and it's not cooking!
Hands up anyone who honestly doesn't believe the Government is angling to impose some sort of tax on "unhealthy" foods, and using obesity scare stories to groom us into accepting it?
Since the opening-up of the European market, the government have not been making nearly so much in fag tax as they used to (when was the last time you saw a packet of cigarettes or tobacco with English writing on it?) and so have decided almost, but not quite, to ban smoking altogether. (Another effect of this move was that smugglers stopped importing Moroccan solid, which was heavy and had limited appeal, and switched instead to importing cigarettes which weighed considerably less and had much wider appeal; thus prompting a short-term upsurge in consumption of harder drugs until people started growing dope at home.)
Meaning that, in order to fund more pay rises for MPs and tax cuts for the obscenely rich, another source of revenue is required. They tried taxing fuel, but people beat that by walking. But people can't not eat! A tax on food would be the Holy Grail -- if, and only if, it could be made to fly. Hence the constant bombardment with stories about obesity. Even better are stories about **childhood** obesity; because that gives them an excuse to get kids thoroughly used to the idea of being weighed, measured and having their lunchbox contents inspected like good little citizens.
Don't fall for it, people! Tomorrow it will be taxes on chips and chocolate. Two budgets down the line, you won't be able to buy a small organic rocket salad with fat-free, salt-free, vinegar-free, oil-free, taste-free dressing without paying tax on it.
Well, the fragmentation in the market may be due at least in part to the lack of a complete Open Source toolkit ..... people re tempted to write their own, incompatible ones, and if nobody opens up their Source Code then everybody's one ends up being incompatible with everyone else's.
The existence of a GPL toolkit means that anyone can use it, without paying for it, just as long as they don't try to bogart any changes they may make to it. What's not to like?
I see you too appear to have fallen for the propaganda peddled by the producers of "Star Trek" when the BBC refused to show their series with such an obvious grammatical error in the opening title voiceover.
You'll be telling me next that a preposition is a good thing to end a sentence with!
How do I get a Chip-and-Signature card?
In the meantime, is it good enough to write "DO NOT ACCEPT THIS CARD FOR ANY CHIP AND PIN TRANSACTIONS" across my bank card using an indelible marker?
The real risk of Chip-and-PIN **isn't** sophisticated criminals doing transactions abroad -- it's street robbers demanding the PIN that goes with your card, along with your card, your mobile and any loose change (so you won't be able to report it straight away). One of the gang makes a test purchase to confirm the PIN, while the others detain you and administer any necessary punishment if the PIN was wrong.
The other risk is of someone observing a PIN being entered, surreptitiously stealing the card and then replacing it before you even notice it went missing.
But Chip and PIN was never about security; it was always about shifting liability from the banks and the retailers to the customer. The law says that if the correct PIN was entered, then the transaction is valid and the customer is liable.
The problem with signatures not being checked is really one of people not doing their job properly. Since there is an audit trail generated, the operator who allowed the fraudulent transaction can be traced -- and the money taken from their wages. Maybe it will teach them to do their job properly: you know, check that the signature looks like the one on the card and that the person signs with a single, fluid motion, not all stilted and robotic like somebody trying to copy someone else's signature.
It takes at least an hour to learn to forge a signature even to the standard that somebody who didn't see you actually writing it would think it's genuine; and even longer if you want to make it look as if it's your own signature that you dash off several times a day. That gives the real owner of the card a window of time in which to notice and report it missing.
Also, you can't speed up the process of learning to forge a signature by holding a knife to the throat of someone you are robbing. You can, on the other hand, obtain a PIN by the same method -- and keep the knife there while an accomplice makes a test purchase with the card to show the PIN is genuine. If I were truly evil, I would patent such "PINpoint robbery", but from the victim's point of view: as a method for enriching people and safeguarding one's welfare by revealing personal details. That way, any royalties due for the use of this patented method would be owed by the victim (whom you already have), rather than the perpetrator (who is away on their toes).
Allow me to add my voice to the crowd of "I Told you this was going to happen!"
How about using a form of biometric security when paying for goods in stores? Just as a rough germ of an idea, you could give someone a pen and paper, and ask them to perform a gesture, unique to them, using the pen in such a way that a record is left (and can be retained). A person ought to be able, with minimal self-training, to reproduce such a gesture with a fair accuracy at will; yet someone who has not become accustomed to that gesture would have difficulties and so reproduce it only either with detectable artefacts in the written record or with some aberrant feature in their behaviour.
Determining the validity or not of such a recorded gesture, by comparing it to a reference sample and observing the behaviour of the individual as they performed it, is the sort of task which probably would require a human being rather than a machine; but since there is already a human being sitting at every till in a supermarket, no additional staff would be required in practice.
OK, so maybe it wouldn't have been noticed in time if the Source Code had been out there with the customers. We have no way to know.
But the fact remains that there is absolutely no good reason that will stand up to the briefest moment's scrutiny why customers should not be given full access to the Source Code of any applications that they intend to run on their computers. Not one single reason.
Therefore I stand resolutely by my position, calling for mandatory Source Code disclosure and stiff penalties for non-compliance. Vendors who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.
Note, I'm NOT saying people should necessarily be allowed to distribute copies of software at will; although since the absence of Source Code has done nothing to prevent this, it is unreasonable to suppose that the presence of Source Code will make this any easier. I AM saying that people should be allowed to examine and modify the Source Code to any software they are properly authorised to use, to delegate such activities to third parties and to pass on details of any modifications they may make to other authorised users of the same software without let or hindrance from the vendor.
This would open up a lucrative secondary market, creating jobs within the IT sector: certifying software as fit for a particular application, and adapting it to the way people do business, as opposed to vice-versa.
Nobody would eat a cake if it didn't have on the packet a list of the ingredients and how much fat, protein and carbohydrate it contained, would they? And I don't think many people would buy a car if the manufacturer refused to allow them to fit fluffy dice, transfers, beaded seat covers or anything that plugs into the cigarette lighter, but forced them instead to trade in their car for a brand-new model with ever-so-slightly-different controls because the old one would not drive down roads that had already been driven on by one of the spiffy new ones.
I am convinced that the only reason anybody puts up with this sort of behaviour around computer software is that most people just haven't been around computers long enough to have seen that there used to be a better way.
(Oh, and by the way: I don't download pr0n. When you've seen one naked body, you've seen them all; and when you've actually seen a real one, computer graphics don't cut it anymore.)
There's no good reason not to ship the Source Code to the paying customer.
It doesn't do anything to prevent piracy. And code plagiarism would be obvious anyway, if your competitors were also obliged to ship their Source Code.
All it does is create problems for users.
Until it becomes law to supply Source Code, or a decompiler exists, issues like this -- and worse -- will keep on happening.
How much more incidents like this have to happen, before somebody in an IT ministry somewhere in the world decides it's high time that software vendors were obliged by law to supply Source Code with every product precisely in order to prevent precisely this sort of scenario?
My guess is that their barrister is advising them to blame their actions on the game (which they were too young to be playing), as a sort of "diminished responsibility" plea. Which sounds like an excellent idea; and surely, if their responsibility was diminished, the most logical thing to do then is to remove them forthwith to the kind of environment where they will never, ever have to take responsibility for any of their actions again.
"The ballot is counted electronically twice and left on paper for audit. What could be simpler? What could be cheaper?"
How about just counting the paper ballots by hand?
Every candidate sends an unpaid volunteer to help them do the count. The adversarial relationship between counting personnel already ensures that the only way to reach agreement between all parties, is to tell the truth.
There was one event billed as "green" whose organisers attempted to ban petrol and diesel generators from site.
Such a policy would almost certainly have led to most of the electricity used there originating from disposable batteries; probably about the most magenta* way of getting the stuff, especially given that this was in the days before white LEDs, so torch bulbs were filament bulbs. Disposable batteries create way more pollution than even those cheaply-made 2-stroke generators that have suspiciously-increasing VA ratings every time they are advertised.
* work it out .....
If you really want microgeneration, it would be more sensible to build yourself a CHP system using a diesel (read: used cooking oil) engine, some 24V truck alternators, open-vented lead-acid batteries and old UPSes -- basically, just 24-to-230V inverters, but they can be picked up very cheaply second-hand when the original crappy sealed lead-acid batteries can no longer hold a charge. The engine's cooling system is plumbed through your existing radiator circuit using a three-way valve to select between it and the boiler. You can also add a 230V alternator into the mix, but you might end up having to buy this new rather than bodging it out of scrap.
The electricity you generate won't be suitable for feeding back into the grid, but you should cut down on your gas consumption by transferring heating to biodiesel (aside: since this is a non-roadgoing application, it won't impact on your 2500, or 5000 if you have a climate-change-denialist in your street, litres p.a.) and generate a fair proportion of your electricity needs. The batteries mean you can have your juice when it's needed. And it doesn't depend on the sun shining brightly enough or the wind blowing at the right speed -- only on people eating chips!
If the government really want to do something useful, then they would retro-fit every gas appliance currently relying on a permanent pilot burner with electronic ignition. It's obscene that each of these appliances is wasting enough gas every week to cook three Sunday roasts, just so the main burner can be lit when a demand occurs. One popular model of combination boiler even has to run the fan on half speed all the time, just to keep the pilot alight! The technology has been around since the 1970s, and is even cheaper to manufacture than permanent pilot -- but was restricted to "premium" appliances because it **sounded** more expensive!
Central heating boilers are the easiest ones to do, because they have to have an electrical supply available for the solenoid valve and the pump (NB, better fit a pump over-run timer while you're at it. There was at least one boiler made featuring a combined, single probe intermittent pilot ignition sequence and pump over-run control, which together with its gas valve could almost have been designed to be retro-fitted to old appliances).
Multipoint water heaters may be more of a problem -- a subsidised replacement programme may prove more effective (and we could also be sure all open-flued ones are replaced with room-sealed ones).
It'd be a massive job, for sure; but they already did one big retro-fit to every gas appliance .....
The obvious solution is to raise speed limits where conditions favour it and cut speed limits where that would be more sensible.
We could have 18.64mph around schools, 31.07mph or 37.28mph in urban areas, 62.14mph on single carriageways, 74.56mph on dual carriageways and 86.99mph on motorways.
And while we busy putting up all the new signs, we could do them in kilometres -- like they do in every other country in the whole world!
"Rather contraversially, i think that all ratings should be 'a' although without the silly 'a' on, i was ok to watch some 18 films when i was 10-17, so my parents let me, same with 15's. Ultimately what a child watches is the parent's responsibility so give them the flixibility to decide both ways, both preventing or allowing." -- Exactly! Let's have a bit of individual responsibility here, for crying out loud.
Don't blame the movie studio for making a film with scenes that some people might find unpleasant (but others will find highly enjoyable).
Don't blame the BBFC for giving it a 12A rating (suitable for 12-year-olds and particularly mature others).
Don't blame the local councils for not exercising their powers to re-certify the film as 15 or 18 (or invent a special new 21 certificate, or ban it altogether, or whatever).
Blame the person who is holding a knife to your throat and forcing you to watch the film against your will.
You're obviously a Londoner. Compared to what exists elsewhere in Britain, London has absolutely amazing public transport!
Try visiting Derby sometime (despite what you may have heard, the air outside the M25 *is* actually breathable ..... we're on the electric now, and some people even have indoor toilets, although that sounds a bit unhygienic if you ask me) and you'll see what I mean.
It was never about reducing congestion or cutting pollution, and it was only a little bit about raising revenue. London has public transport to the sort of standard that almost makes car ownership unnecessary, so the CC can easily be avoided.
No, the London Congestion Charge was first and foremost a justification to introduce congestion charging in other cities (where public transport is invariably **much** worse than London). That will be the **real** revenue source.
Multiple, incompatible competing proprietary standards lead to nobody getting anywhere. Those who have paid for licences end up producing overpriced products with limited appeal, and draw the conclusion that the public does not want them; and by the time the standards end up entering the public domain, nobody cares anymore.
The best thing any government could do to encourage the adoption of a single standard, is annul any patents covering it and thus ensure its adoption by cheap manufacturers. Eventually, quality manufacturers will spot the market and join the show.
Tut, tut. Blaming the programming language for your own inability to read the manual pages for stripslashes() and addslashes().
With that attitude, you are obviously management material. Get yourself some subordinates at once -- it feels even better to blame *people* for your own shortcomings.
SQL injection attacks are actually trivial to defeat. All you need to do is perform -- in the application layer -- a regular expression substitution on any incoming form data to ensure that nothing in there can be mistaken for a closing speech mark.
PHP actually used to do that by default ..... until some people started changing their local defaults not to be the same as the default defaults, and what should have been secure by default ended up insecure by default.
I guess dat's default of de one dat changed de settings .....
So basically they want to omit all the things that never used to be in MySQL (because, you know, if you really needed them, they could always be dealt with at the application level) ?
Sounds like a nice straightforward array persistence layer.
And if it's successful, I don't doubt that in a few years' time, they will be talking of adding foreign keys. And maybe stored procedures. Then triggers .....
Imagine a stranger with a dodgy foreign accent coming up to you and telling you he has a super-secret code, and his brother are the only two people in the world who know it: if you dictate a message to him, word by word, he will transcribe it into code, send it to his brother and his brother will then decode it and read it out to the intended recipient.
That's Hushmail, basically.
"No [a receipt] doesn't [help], but strangely one of the main objections to electronic voting is that there's no receipt, which seems odd." -- That's because the objectors know that *something* is wrong, but not exactly what; so they pick something just so they can have a concrete objection.
"Besides a secure receipt that holds either encrypted or no information could be used to confirm that a vote was recorded by you (abstention would have to be a vote option). In the event of disputes it could form part of the audit trail that currently doesn't exist with paper." -- **No** **it** **couldn't**. Not if the Town Hall are in on the scam, anyway.
Suppose Candidate A receives 500 votes, B receives 390 and C receives 110. These are the actual votes, remember. The announced result, however, is A 380, B 500, C 120. (Note that those figures are not so far out as to be utterly implausible. If they wanted to get a candidate elected in the face of very strong opposition, they might have to field a few extra candidates of their own just in order to split the vote.) You voted for A. You go with your receipt to the Town Hall to check how your vote was recorded, and are correctly told you voted for A. And that's as far as you can take the matter.
Even if all 499 of the other people who voted for A go and check, they'll be told -- rightly -- that their vote was for A. And because (1) they all go in one at a time and (2) there are also many B- and C-voters in there, *not one single one* of the A-voters will be the slightest bit the wiser that there are really 500 of them, as opposed to the 380 that was announced.
You could only determine that something was amiss if all those A-voters produced their receipts for Candidate A at the same time. And in reality, the proportion of voters who will actually bother to check their vote will be minuscule.
If needs be, the officials can even produce forged ballot papers in the correct quantities. And can you really be bothered to search through 380 little pieces of paper to find the one which has the numbers 1 to whatever in your own handwriting, while a Town Hall official is breathing down your neck?
By the time an election has been rigged, it's already too late to do anything about it except re-run the election from scratch. Forget about building in error correction and concentrate instead on prevention and detection.
The beauty of a hand-marked paper ballot (besides Universal Comprehensibility, and that should not be underestimated) is that the same object that was marked by the voter is the actual object that is counted. This removes a huge potential failure mode. And we can make sure that interfering with a marked ballot paper before the count is if not impossible then highly noticeable.
"I _do_ want my vote counted, the margin of error is hard to measure precisely when you never had an accurate count in the first place." -- but the problem, as I am sick of pointing out, is that *your* vote isn't the one that made the difference. It's *everybody else's* votes, all jumbled together in a great anonymous pile, that made the difference. And you most probably have to produce some form of identification to check your vote -- which means they know whose vote to show correctly.
"- If you don't have any arms, then it's hard to write a cross" -- then vote by proxy. Special arrangements can be made for disabled people to accompany their proxy into the polling booth. The point is that arrangements made for disabled persons should not impact upon the able-bodied majority.
"The count comes in quicker, look at the tension when it takes weeks to reach a conclusion" -- give me **right** over **fast** any day.
"Fewer staff are needed" -- So what? It's not as if they are getting paid.
"The counters have no loyalties" -- but that's the whole genius with manual counting! Each candidate is directly involved in the count, and none of them trust any of the others. Everyone counts their own votes and everyone else's, and the results are only announced when all parties agree. And the only way they can possibly agree is if everyone is telling the truth.
A receipt doesn't really help. It can't really show *how* you voted, otherwise it could be used for voter coercion (think "everybody who has taken time out of work to go to the polling station, please show your receipt showing your vote for the factory owner's brother-in-law in order to avoid losing a day's wages"). It can only show *that* you voted. And an abstention is a valid vote, so you ought to be able to ask for a receipt even if you did not vote. So all that your receipt proves is that you were *entitled* to vote -- and in a democracy, that's the same thing as being alive.
Even if we sacrificed the confidentiality of the ballot and issued everyone with receipts showing who they voted for and when, the problem would not be solved. In order to contest the result, you would have to get every single voter and their receipt together in the same room at the same time. Otherwise the result is meaningless, and certainly not worth compromising voter secrecy over.
The point is, most of the other voters in any election in which you are voting are strangers to you and you will have no idea how they might vote. Even if you can supposedly check how your vote was counted, and maybe even if you can check how a few people's votes were counted, you *don't* know how *everyone else* voted. And there are always more of them than there are of you.
I have already showed on here somewhere before just how easily an election could be rigged, while apparently affording every voter the chance to see see how they and everyone else voted; but basically, the trick is that each person gets to see a slightly different version of The Big List, which shows their votes and the votes of their friends, neighbours and family correctly, while deliberately misrepresenting the votes of just enough strangers to make up the announced result.
Pencil and paper and manual counting by the actual candidates is the only sane way to do it. It takes advantage of the implicit adversarial relationship: none of the candidates trust any of the others, so any attempt on a lie will be called out immediately.
"In the mean time people - please stop paying huge amount of money for films. The price is only that high because people are prepared to pay it, and the exorbitant prices are just funding a market for illegal copies."
Won't work. If they released a movie and nobody bought it, they would still just blame it on "pirates" and introduce even worse restrictions.
It's not just mis-heard lyrics for which you have to thank downloads; they are also responsible for the shameful inability of today's youth to roll a decent joint.
An LP cover is just the right size and shape for constructing a proper multi-skinner e.g. the famous Camberwell Carrot or the Scout. (Also, getting up to turn over the LP provides a convenient excuse to skin up.) Even a CD box can be useful in creating a three-skinner.
But with downloads, there's no physical surface to use for rolling -- hence the popularity of pills and powders among the younger generation.
Been getting these via "ordinary" e-mail as well. Subject is an unbelievable news headline, message encourages reader to view a video clip which turns out to be a malicious download.
The real question is, WHY would any web browser allow executable content to be downloaded and run? There is **never** an excuse for that behaviour. Running a program, especially a freshly-downloaded one, should **always** require a deliberate action on the part of the user.
Copyright is an agreement administered by the Government. They would have been entirely within their powers just to annul the copyright on the software in question, and cite National Security if anyone asks for a reason.
Still, the Air Force must have lose somt credibility points for allowing this to happen.
There's an old saying, "Don't pay the ferryman until he gets you to the other side". Maybe we should update that: "Don't pay the Programmer until he gives you the Source Code".
The winning format will be whichever one the pr0n industry uses, and that industry runs on discretion.
Beta wiped the floor with VHS, quality-wise; but Sony insisted to control too many aspects, demanding that dealers and repairers be registered and approved; a process which involved many probing questions. Whereas JVC and friends would quite happily supply machines and spare parts to anyone with the money.
When it has to be working as good as new before the wife gets home, ready availability of spare parts, assembly and wiring diagrams and no questions asked are important considerations.
Go with Asterisk, hardware SIP phones (Grandstream if you are on a budget, Zultys if someone else is paying) and get an ISDN card with a GPL-ed driver (such as one of the Digium ones). And then you'll never, ever have to worry about manufacturer-enforced obsolescence again.
In the meantime, write to your elected representative and request a new law to push IP into the Public Domain in the circumstances you describe, in order that nobody can be held to ransom in such a fashion. (You could point out that it's creating e-waste for no good reason, but it seems that the government don't actually want to *prevent* anyone from polluting: they just want to make them pay for it, to the point where "not throwing things away" is tantamount to tax evasion.)
"The increased value justifies the additional expense... when you make comparisons between SAP and Oracle and SAP and Microsoft, our offering has significantly more value."
Yes. And when you make comparisons between SAP and MySQL and between SAP and PostgreSQL, you realise just how little value that is.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
