You drive your car quite fast on roads with on-coming traffic separated by nothing more than a stripe of paint.

There's no limit to the amount of security that you can add to a network. But in the end, the odds are fairly good that fixing the few problems likely to occur is far simpler and more cost-effective than preventing them in the first place.

Obviously, we're talking about a small business, that isn't subject to large and persistent attacks. And should the day come when it is, that's when increased security can come around.

Regarding the ecommerce side of things, most small companies use ecommerce to receive money. So the worst thing that can happen is that they receive more money. That'll be noticed. Providing they aren't storing credit cards, then there's nothing to lose.

Safety third: first the job needs to actually get done, otherwise there was no point in starting it. second, the job needs to be worth doing, or there was no benefit to having done it. third it needs to be done safely. think of all of the great achievements that came from numbers one and two without any degree of reasonable safety. think the discovery of new worlds, exploration, animals, major construction, and every dangerous job out there. the line of what's considered "safe" moves quite freely to accomodate the other two priorities.

Safety Third.

just a guess: none. Unless, of course, we're comparing it to other activities like running, cycling, playing with children, sex, and driving the right kind of car. Then it's less than none.

Compared to alcoholic drinking, computer use is very healthy.

It's never been about cost. Even at the early prices, it was "affordable" for a one-off life-changing surgery.

The issue is the same as it's always been. There is risk. There is virtually zero reward. My vision isn't poor enough that I can't go to the bathroom at night. I wear glasses all day every day, minus sleeping, sex, and swimming. Right now, I have zero problems, and a set of light glasses on my face.

Why would I ever risk damage to my eyes -- which I use to earn every dollar of revenue to fund my life -- when I can do nothing and having everything that I plan to have?

It's an easy decision. I don't opt for voluntary surgery. That's the rule.

Depends on the humidity.

Consider all of the tasks that you do as a part of your job. Identify which ones should absolutely never be automated -- maybe they're too dangerous, maybe the risk is too great, maybe they're too much fun. I'd bet that upgrading the OS would be pretty well the top of your never-automate-this list.

Yeah, um, just, no. Once a decade at the science centre is one thing; weekly in public is something totally different.

I ain't touching that with a ten-foot pole.

So let me get this straight. Humans are bad because they create computer viruses. . .that apparently the conscious computers can't easily resist. Thanks for re-iterating 100 years of sci-fi non-sense.

I, for one, look forward to living the life of a pet. Like a puppy; safe and happy.

Of course, I may be a wee-little-bit different from most. I guard ants in my house and spiders have my full protection -- but that's because I'm smarter than most humans.

So if a language is particularly awful, and troublesome to use, or used by students discussing homework exercises, then it'll score high here. Thanks for the useless popularity sketch.

v5.8.8. So yeah, it winds up suddenly auto-vivifying a few million array elements. You must have gotten lucky that your memory address just happened to look like a negative number.

Yup, that's what I did too! Now I laugh hysterically at it in hind-sight.

Ok, here's another simple bug that had an unexpected symptom..
my $spi = [5,6];
my $ind = [2];
$spi->[$ind] = 7;

Why might line three take thirty full seconds to execute?

A bit of a difference though. I'm Canadian as well. Our economy doesn't struggle the way theirs does.

I can tell the difference quite easily. Americans buying european cars improves european economies. Americans buying chinese cars improves chinese economies. What I can't figure out is what would happen if Americans were to buy american cars. hmmm.

I have no intention to take away from the good-will intentions here. What Starbucks is providing is very nice, and very neat. But you just know that it's profitable too right? So much is likely left out. Obviously starbucks isn't paying full price, business relationships are discounted all the time. And obviously the university is offering retail space to starbucks as a result too. In two years, you'll see government agencies giving money to starbucks for this program, especially as retail profits get channeled through this program's obvious expenses and losses, which will again save starbucks some money in the form of taxes. They'll likely also have avenues where they qualify as a charity, or as an educational agency. And since they are funding later-year students (only teasing early-year students) they'll wind up getting employees who plan to finish university, which means they'll get higher-quality employees from the start -- for those four years at least. And parents won't argue with students working more if that's what's paying for the school.

It's a great business tactic in every way.

Wow, you are incredibly confused. b = {}; doesn't modify b, it re-assigns b. Please learn how variables work. And if you think that "1" and true are different values, then you don't understand what a "value" is.

So you and I are obviously done here. You're either really old, used to bit-registers not complex objects, or you're really young reading text books, or you've navigated the industry by avoiding business-level programming. I've focussed on business-level programming. In this sub-industry, everything you've said simply isn't true. a==b, b==c, would never presume a==c. It's never true in real-world business, so I'd never want it to be true in business programming.

So I'll leave you with this, because it makes one angle very clear. Have you ever used perl? Perl does something interesting in this regard. Printing a reference to a variable (we'll call these objects conversationally here) never attempts to cast anything. It simply prints out the type and memory address. So a = {foo:1,bar:[123]} might be "HASH(32598763)". It actually is the memory address, but it's more than that. Because if you're numerically comparing it to another variable, it'll get cast as a number -- the memory address. In perl, using the value of a reference requires explicitly dereferencing it, making this particular issue quite straight-forward -- especially since casting is done on operators, not on values, which is awesome by the way.

Javascript does some of the same stuff, but conceals it all. Like most languages, lvalues are cast differently than rvalues. But because javascript is designed, primarily, for non-algothimic and non-scientific use, of course [] is 0. There are six versions of nothing, and whether you have nothing once or you have nothing multiple times, you still have nothing. But you've only gone half-way with your last example there. Add a numerical 0, as well as a null value, then the fun really happens. Try "0happy" too. Woah the fun you'll have!

Here's the skinny. I've been using javascript for professional profit for 17 years. I've needed to use === merely four times. Let's ignore, for the moment, how stupid javascript is in many ways, and especially in this crazy-casting way -- because it is crazy-cryptic to anyone who hasn't memorized it all, and there's always one thing that's forgotten. The real question is what would a programmer expect from string == object? Why would a programmer be comparing a string to an object in the first place?

If we're talking about a complete logic error, then I don't really care what a language does when I screw up my entire concept. If it's a convenience service, then as long as the language is consistent then I'm fine with whatever it's going to do.

Pop quiz. What do you think perl does with "5" + "information". The answer may surprise you. Here's a hint, it actually casts "information" to a number because the first three letters match a defined numerical value.

Well, seeing as how I guarantee that my clients won't need stuff re-written, that I maintain their loyalty for years and sometimes decades at a time, and that I guarantee minor changes forever for free, if that were me I'd have gone bankrupt long ago.

But I certainly agree that my previous reply is consistent with what you describe. Alas, it was one of many replies, each incomplete as a character description of my business.