An international conglomerate give up a potential share of the market without a fight?

Bwahaahahhahahha!

Simply put: I don't.

I set MY OWN priorities based on the technical analysis of the problems and the resources available, and publish them.

The company priorities are NOT IT priorities. They are a factor in the decision about IT priorities, but they do not SET IT's priorities unless you're fool enough to LET THEM.

Every user or department who is allowed to set IT's priorities will claim their pet project is priority one, regardless of what's good for the company. Only the people who KNOW the resources available and have to deal with ALL the customer departments can set realistic priorities for the IT department itself.

And the company that OWNS the trademark denies that the company that SOLD it had the right to do so.

It's about time an American company got pimp-slapped for trying to steal someone else's REGISTERED trade mark.

Fine, but how has the GPS industry been culpable for the actions of the FCC? They submit their recommendations and concerns to the FCC the same as any other interested party, but it's the FCC who makes the call, not the GPS industry.

How is the GPS industry to blame for being legitimately concerned that Lightsquared technology will interfere with their EXISTING, LICENSED USE OF SPECTRUM?!?!?!!

Well, let's just say that SANE countries like Canada, Australia, and Germany have felt no need to go to the INSANE measures imposed by the UK and US governments on it's people.

Israel needs the security and surveillance because it literally has bombers and shooters in it's midsts.

We don't.

If you read the article, they're only talking about surveillance of staff, not student, accounts. i.e. Employee emails.

Privacy laws in Canada dictate that a service provider or business have you sign a document granting permission to use your data, and explaining how your data is going to be used, and usually verifying that they will not give away nor sell your data to third parties.

But if you sign a contract that grants "above average" priveleges such as surveillance of professor's accounts, the contract is perfectly legal because you signed it. It is not "illegal" to "abuse" customer data, only to do so without notifying the customer of how you intend to abuse it.

Contrary to popular opinion, in Canada your business email account is considered property of the business, so the company can grant whatever access it wants to employee emails. Cry, bitch, and scream all you like, that's just the way precedent has worked out in Canada over the years.

If you want private email, use a private account, even if it's from a free provider like Google/GMail, Microsoft/Hotmail/Live or Yahoo/YMail. Your BUSINESS account is not yours, and your manager is likely to get pissed off if you abuse it by sending PERSONAL email through it anyhow. Your business account is a tool for doing the job, nothing more.

And if you have to use SQL for whatever reason, don't use indices unless absolutely necessary. It seldom is, despite what school has taught you. The index has to get updated too, which causes additional non-sequential writes. The minor speed boost you may get from selects are easily eaten up by the major speed bumps you cause on inserts and updates.

100% true!

The issue is so common that a virtual index that is not maintained by the database is often referred to as a "business index". With small datasets, application performance is often increased overall by relying on full-table scans for non-indexed data rather than applying an index.

Another situation where this often crops up is keys that have a low variance. For example, a hundred thousand record table where one of the index columns only has a dozen values. There are no hard numbers, but as a rule of thumb, if there are 10% the number of keys that there are records for an expected table size, I test a business index approach to see how the performance works out.

But most programmers aren't professionals who test performance before releasing code. As long as "it works", they ship it. Performance tuning will only get done if enough paying customers are complaining that the revenue stream is threatened.

Not surprisingly, most of the work seems to have been for platforms other than Linux, but maybe the upgraded OpenGL rendering pipeline will prove of benefit when full-screening 1080p videos. My box periodically stutters a frame or two when viewing such videos on a 1600x1200 monitor, because I've only got a crufty old P4-3.8GHz CPU with 4G of fast RAM. My video card is more than capable, and I never used to see any frame loss under Windows.

Mind you, I didn't have a pile of servers running when I had this CPU chugging under XP instead of Ubuntu 10.04.1.

Alas, the odds are not in my favour that I'll see this update unless I build from source.