Microsoft Forums are usually a good place for answers, but now its a good place for humor too, with this question about the weight of a gigabyte.
Credit for the link goes to Raymond Chen and his 2009 mid-year link clearance, which is a wortwhile read for mostly mild chuckles and information.
There are many excellent plugins for Firefox, one of them is Lazarus: Form Recovery. In short, it saves typed forms, so if the browser crashes, a simple click brings back the old text. It has happened to me more than once that i spent quite some time formulating a post only to have all the work get lost on a crash or the website error. I resorted to using Notepad to save text where possible. Now it's just a couple clicks away.
I contacted the author with two requests, to remove the icon from the context menu and to collapse both options into one sub-menu so my context menu is a little less cluttered. He implemented the first as an add-on and sent me a beta, the second was a a bit more complicated and might make it into a new release soon.
I asked what i could do to help. He asked that i spread the word. No problem with that, this is a really good add-on.
Being i'm using SQL Server now, i also hang out in the MSDN forums. They do a good job there, and best of yet, the forum developers and testers have a forum for Forum Issues reporting. There's also one for Suggestions and Feedback.
One thing that really makes me appreciate the team, is that they try to fix Firefox issues as well. To the point where the test lead suggested to use FF as a workaround.
I hear of similar things now and then. It seems that Microsoft the company and Microsoft the development team are two completely different entities.
Oracle's CBO is a complex topic, and its hard to understand all the basics. Richard Foote has posted what ought to be the start of a series CBO basics.
I hope when its done i can take another look at Jonathan Lewis's Cost-Based Oracle Fundamentals and actually understand it this time.
Compression used to give up time for space. Faster CPUs have made it giving of CPU time for time and space. At least in this example.
Stack Overflow's Jon skeet is being treated as the IT version of the Chuck Norris diety. Some of the facts are cute.
Post about a post about a post.
Toon Koppelaars blogged about Robyn Sands blog about Bert Scalzo's recent article "Is Data Modeling Still Relevant?".
Bert's article is excellent. Robyn's post and the following comments are amazing. It's like John Brady worked on our team.
Think about it, read it and you have read a post about a post about a post about a post. Think of the potential!
Raymond blogs People become more trustworthy the more you trust them. I found the linked stories to be interesting and hilarious.
1) Raymond blogs
2) References another entry
3) Comment references books.
4) Search Amazon for books/author
5) Find Irreligion
6) See comment touch upon First Cause
7) Think about it.
Point A to point B. Quite amazing sometimes.
Not all proofs are objective. Indeed, i'd say most are subjective, but there's no way to prove that to you.
To me, First Cause is a proof. Here's the way i see it:
1) Every effect has a cause.
2) Every cause is an effect.
3) Problem: this is circular.
4) Answer: a) Time is circular. b) There is a supernatural prime cause not affected by rule 2.
So, it come down to a choice between time being circular and a supernatural prime cause.
Why do i choose choice b? because it fits with my world view.
Why do i not choose choice a? It's seems illogical.
So, the choice of b based on values. The negation of a is based on logic.
For the opposite approach:
Why choose choice a? because it's answer stays within the system, and relies completely on logic.
Why not choose choice b? The idea of a supernatural explanation is abhorrent.
So, the choice of a is based on logic. The negation of b is based on values.
That the choice of religion is F and science is T, is something i've posted on before.
That the negation of religion is also F, and the negation of science is also T is new to me. An interesting thought perhaps.
Working after my last JE on this topic, i changed the relevant CNAMEs to A Records, and now it works. To me, this is clearly a bug in Exchange of which Microsoft is hiding behind self-righteous denial.
In a previous JE i noted "2) Some systems gets confused." when using my customized email addresses. Well, i found the problem.
external @example.com emails are bounced
chacham.example.com MX example.com
*@chacham.example.com are rewritten internally to chacham@example.com
That works.
At the office if i send an email to me_at_the_office@chacham.example.com it bounces telling me that me_at_the_office@example.com is an invalid address. So it seems that Exchange is writing the envelope based on the MX translation. It is supposed to do the transmission based on MX translation, but it should still put the typed in address to the envelope.
A friend just found KB 153001 that describes the behavior:
To determine mail hosts, the sending server checks for an MX record. Next, the sending server resolves the MX record to an IP address by checking for an address record (A record). If an A record is found, the address is fully canonicalized and mail can be delivered.
However, if an alias record (CNAME) is used for the hostname listed in the MX record, the sending host might re-write the envelope and redirect the RCPT command to the alias hostname and not the original recipient. This might cause the destination SMTP host to reject the message.
As i have chacham.example.com both as an MX and a CNAME record, that definitely explains the problem. Indeed a test with a subdomain that is only MX but not a CNAME does not bounce.
The KB article goes on to justify its actions:
RFC 1123 explicitly states that SMTP mail should be addressed to canonical name hosts. To be canonical, the DNS entry must be an A record or an MX record. CNAME records are not canonical and should not be mixed with MX records.
it then mentions that other senders do not follow this behavior.
OK, so let's look at RFC 1123 (Page 49-50):
The domain names that a Sender-SMTP sends in MAIL and RCPT commands MUST have been "canonicalized," i.e., they must be fully-qualified principal names or domain literals, not nicknames or domain abbreviations. A canonicalized name either identifies a host directly or is an MX name; it cannot be a CNAME.
IOW, use the MX record or the A record (or the ip address) but don't use the CNAME. Sheesh, Microsoft did implement it correctly. However, by their own admission, this is not the way it is usually implemented. And, the way it is usually implemented is also correct, and probably what the user wants. Further, the KB article is incorrect when it states that "CNAME records are not canonical and should not be mixed with MX records." The RFC does not state that. It say that a CNAME cannot be used in the envelope addressing, but makes no comments on having a record be both MX and a CNAME.
I left a comment on the KB article mentioning that mistake. But now, i either have to remove the CNAME, add another MX record, or except the fact that i won't get email from Exchange.
Removing the CNAME seems odd to me. Technically, i did it correctly. I'm just not relying on defaults. I also used to have the CNAME point elsewhere, so i actually required both. Adding another MX record is OK, but that removes half the idea of what i wanted. Not accepting email from Exchange is what i have been doing until now, and isn't too much of a problem. Though it's certainly a restriction i can do without.
Sheena S. Iyengar and Mark R. Lepper posted a report "When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?"
"The three studies described in this report demonstrate for the first time the possibility, that while having more choices might appear desirable, it may sometimes have detrimental consequences for human motivation."
"choosers in extensive-choice contexts enjoy the choice-making process more...but also feel more responsible for the choices they make, resulting in frustration with the choice-making process and dissatisfaction with their choices."
Thanx to Dixie Software Ninja for posting the link to Dan Dascalescu's post on the Paradox of Choice and associated links.
Tim Gorman ranted about Database independence (thanx to Hemant for the link). Nothing too special, but it's a good point that not everyone gets.
My favorite line is: It is clear that, upon retrospection, in-house applications *rarely* have a need to be "database independent", but rather that databases have a need to be "application independent".
A co-worker pointed out the final line as his: Question authority -- especially IT people who have embedded the word "architect" into their job title...
Oh, how true.
Rob van Wijk blogged a good point:
When faced with a challenging problem, most people tend to resort to the language they are most comfortable with. I know I do. For example, I'm way better with PL/SQL than I am with Java. So when faced with a hard algorithm, I'll always use PL/SQL. And I bet a Java programmer reasons the other way round. So when saying that straight SQL is harder to maintain than PL/SQL, I guess you are really saying that your PL/SQL skills are very good, but your SQL skills are, well, somewhat less than very good. That's no problem at all, since you will still be able to build applications effectively. But I don't think the language itself is to blame, it's the skills of the people talking that language.
He's making the simple point that its not that the language is better at the job, it's that the coder is better at the language.
Some things are obvious, but only after you think about them.
Adam Mechanic has posted a T-SQL challenge in his blog, for GROUPed string concatenation.
Even if i don't have the winning entry, the efforts are a learning experience, and the results ought to be enlightening. As for excitement over the prize, i'd rather waste my time thinking about the current Mega Millions jackpot, which is over $200M. The after tax lump sum amount ought to be nearly 75 million, which is amusing to dream about.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer
