This should be marked as flamebait. This is only true of some developers i.e. those who are ignorant about RDBMS. They should make it their business to understand RDBMS especially in large scale applications where performance is critical. This particular aspect alone forces any developer or DBA to have think "hard" about the structure of their data such as transactional vs. analytical needs. If used appropriately, an RDBMS can be quite intuitive and performance/space efficient. It all comes down to understanding the tool you're using. If you don't know how to use a screw driver or a hammer, you probably shouldn't be using it!

He was just being funny about "week." However, you are correct there is indeed a logical problem with imposing more "secure" password policies on users that are simply not feasible for humans to be able to remember the passwords. These policies force users to have to store the passwords somewhere in plain text in order to remember them. Surprise! We just defeated the whole goal of not having passwords stored in plain text except in our heads because it's now on a sticky note under your keyboard or wherever.

The types of policies that are contributing to this are, among others, 1) Requiring frequent changes of passwords, 2) Requiring passwords to be strong in character selection rules, must contain numbers, letters and symbols, cannot be any consecutive letters or numbers, etc. This makes the passwords incredibly difficult to remember as a mnemonic device and 3) Password lengths. We are being required to have longer passwords. Steve Gibson has a very interesting tool called Haystack demonstrating that 8 character passwords are insufficient and trivial to crack with today's computing power.

What is the solution? Heck if I know, but it probably isn't passwords. As computing power increases, the length and complexity of the passwords will also have to increase in order to defeat or greatly discourage brute force attacks. But they will also render passwords useless because no on can remember them.

Self-interest and selfishness are degrees of the same scale. Where is the line? And if we enforce that line to equalize everyone at what point does that become Socialism?

How about we ban other dangerous activities while driving like:

- Changing radio stations
- Putting on makeup
- Reading books or newspapers
- Scolding children in the back seat
- Thumbing through CD wallets looking for CD's
- Eating

Seriously, people have been doing things in their cars that can and have caused accidents, some of them even more utterly ridiculous than using cell phones or texting. Why is this getting so much attention?

Just because they are using a sneaky way to get around a law or regulation doesn't mean that you can't hire an attorney to file a petition to bring it to a court's attention. A judge may decide that what they are doing is logically equivalent to disobeying the law and render a judgment against them anyway. It comes down to having the money for the legal representation.

You may be able to get an attorney to take your case with a low retainer if they feel strongly that you would win the case and be awarded substantial legal expenses and/or damages. It just depends. DISCLAIMER: IANAL

Many people make assumptions about whether they have the ability to fight something that is wrong without ever making it their business to find out. They just assume they are doomed without even trying. You are guaranteed to be a victim and complain incessantly for the rest of your life unless you take responsibility for standing up for yourself.

One time I went to mail some documentation for a legal matter I was involved in where I needed receipt confirmation and had never done that before. First, I went to the post office but the workers there were rude and the lines were so long that I eventually just went to a Fedex Kinko's. While it cost a bit more, the employees at Fedex Kinko's were very friendly and I was in and out of there in less than 10 minutes.

I really don't understand this. Prior to the internet, snail mail was the primary means of communicating in written form across long distance. Now that the internet is nearly ubiquitous in many countries around the globe, there is a natural shift from snail mail to email. Email is technologically superior. Why should USPS expect that taxpayers should continue to foot the bill for services that have become obsolete. It is only natural that USPS should decrease in size now that its technology is used far less because a more superior technology has replaced it. For now, at least until we have some matter disassembler/transmission/re-assembler technology, there will always be a need to send packaged goods. Certified mail is certainly still useful. But obviously, the USPS services are not as relevant in today's world as they were say 20 years ago.

In order for the USPS to stay viable at the size it currently is, it will need to find a way to re-invent itself to make itself more relevant in the so-called digital age. That is the name of the game in business. If you want to stay relevant, you have to adapt. Survival of the fittest.

While I agree that software piracy is probably morally wrong. I don't think it can be classified as stealing. Stealing would be like I break into my neighbor's house and steal his/her property. Notice I said "property". I am transferring his/her physical property into my possession. When you pirate a game, there is no transfer of property. In software piracy, you are making a copy. Now would you say that if I looked in my neighbor's window and saw a piece of artwork he/she made, liked it and created a copy of it and enjoy it in my residence. Is that morally incorrect? Is that a crime? Did I steal something?

Let's see... I can pay $17.98 to get 1 Blu-ray title at a time and unlimited streaming with Netflix or I can pay $7.99 for unlimited streaming with Netflix and use Redbox to rent 6 Blu-ray titles a month or 10 DVD titles a month in addition to my Netflix streaming. How is this a good business plan for Netflix to be competitive?

As an avid computer FPS gamer, I can tell that using a higher end mouse definitely makes a difference. I've used quite a few in my days, mostly Logitech. I currently use an MX518. However, let's say for the sake of argument that the sensors are not of higher quality and don't offer any higher DPI or sensitivity than their mainstream office counterparts. There are other aspects to gaming mice that are quite important. The ergonomic shape of the mouse. The placement of the buttons. The software that allows you to configure the sensitivity very specifically to your preferences. In some mice, you have the ability to add or remove optional weights to suit your specific style. All of these contribute to being able to fine tune your mouse to give you the optimal control that allows you aim more accurately and quickly than a typical mouse that does not have these features.

Ok, time for a bad car analogy. Do car manufacturers require gas companies to pay license fees in order for their gas to be used in the manufacturer's car? I don't think so. Let's try car parts. Does FRAM need a license for their air filters to be used in Fords or Chevies or specific models of either? Don't think so.

I say the business model is logically flawed.

So what? Why don't we, the consumers of console gaming platforms, take matters into our own hands? Those of us that are capable of producing games independently can produce games for the PS3 platform and not be required to have their products officially signed. We, as legitimate and loyal consumers can pay them a fair price for their creations and play their great games so they can make more. We don't really need Sony or any of the big time game publishers that are using price-fixing and other anti-competitive tactics to boost their stock prices for their major shareholders, many of whom have probably never played a video game in their entire life. While we, the consumers pay artificially high prices for products to big publishers and the actual creative minds behind the games get peanuts, long hours and more stress than you can possibly imagine from ridiculous ship dates.

Except the game "Patent" doesn't run on software in a computer system. Unless you argue that the universe is a virtual (Turing?) machine in which the game of life runs and we are all actors interacting with objects but I don't think your case is going to hold up in court. Best of luck to you though. Maybe you can cause a few patent troll lawyers heads to explode and do us all a service. :)

No, it's "dead" because people are playing consoles more than PC's. They don't have to deal with compatibility issues with their operating system, hardware, driver versions, etc. etc. They don't have to deal with DRM and activations. They don't have to install anything. They just plug the disc in and start playing.

I used to be a die-hard PC gamer but as I got older, building PC's and constantly upgrading hardware became too time-consuming. About the only thing I use my computer for is playing a few casual games on facebook and that's about it. For my gaming fix, I play Wii and Playstation 3.