February 14, 2015 at 11:16 am
TomThomson (2/14/2015)
Eirikur Eiriksson (2/7/2015)
TomThomson (2/7/2015)
Grant Fritchey (2/5/2015)
Really? Yankees fans? Are they even human?Usually not - they're mostly American.
Tom, must say that I find this comment totally inappropriate
😎
How can it be appropriate to question whether Yankee fans are human but no to question whether Americans are human? You should recognise a pretty ordinary means of calling into question a piece of stupidity, generalisation to include the author of the stupidity into its range.
I imagine you wil have collected a lot of comments agreeing with you - hence one can deduce the validity of my generalisation.
Heh... then you won't mind us generalizing about Europeans based on the behavior of soccer fans, correct? 😉
It was a wee bit over the top, Tom.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 14, 2015 at 11:18 am
Brandie Tarvin (2/9/2015)
TomThomson (2/7/2015)
Grant Fritchey (2/5/2015)
Really? Yankees fans? Are they even human?Usually not - they're mostly American.
OW! ZING! SLAM!
But which "American"? There are three, you know. South, North, and Central. @=)
Actually all the Yankee fans I ever met were North Americans, apart from a couple of Europen Americans - we have some pretty stange people this side of the pond, too :w00t: .
Tom
February 14, 2015 at 11:27 am
Brandie Tarvin (2/10/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (2/10/2015)
So in a fit of inspiration this morning, I decided to see if I could pull a global temp table across different instances.And what do you know... Even using linked servers, I got bubkiss. @=(
"Database name 'tempdb' ignored, referencing object in tempdb."
Apparently it only wants to use the local temp db. I'm heartbroken. Really truly heartbroken. (Well, okay, not so much. I have other ways around this. But I so wanted to be able to cheat...)
Interestingly enough, though, I can "instance hop" by opening an Import Wizard to Instance 1, using a Query with a linked server to Instance 2, and pull the data into Instance 3.
The things I learn by experimenting. Next, when it's not so urgent, I'm going to build a linked server from Instance 3 to Instance 1 and see if I can do the same thing (using the linked server to Instance 2 to pull the data to Instance 3).
Oh, Brandie, why weren't you in sight 10 years ago when I was looking for someone to take over my job so I could retire? Experiment, experiment. experiment, measure, and get it working - the only sensible procedure, it was the only way to keep the customers happy and the company alive, as well as the only way to understand what the hell I was doing.
Tom
February 14, 2015 at 11:40 am
TomThomson (2/14/2015)
Eirikur Eiriksson (2/7/2015)
TomThomson (2/7/2015)
Grant Fritchey (2/5/2015)
Really? Yankees fans? Are they even human?Usually not - they're mostly American.
Tom, must say that I find this comment totally inappropriate
😎
How can it be appropriate to question whether Yankee fans are human but no to question whether Americans are human? You should recognise a pretty ordinary means of calling into question a piece of stupidity, generalisation to include the author of the stupidity into its range.
I imagine you wil have collected a lot of comments agreeing with you - hence one can deduce the validity of my generalisation.
As a matter of principles and of course this being in general an oxymoron, I find, in general, the application of generalization, appalling.
On a different and slightly more serious note, there is no gain in answering silly questions with even a sillier answers.
😎
Edit: Typo
February 14, 2015 at 1:17 pm
Lynn Pettis (2/14/2015)
TomThomson (2/14/2015)
Eirikur Eiriksson (2/7/2015)
TomThomson (2/7/2015)
Grant Fritchey (2/5/2015)
Really? Yankees fans? Are they even human?Usually not - they're mostly American.
Tom, must say that I find this comment totally inappropriate
😎
How can it be appropriate to question whether Yankee fans are human but no to question whether Americans are human? You should recognise a pretty ordinary means of calling into question a piece of stupidity, generalisation to include the author of the stupidity into its range.
I imagine you wil have collected a lot of comments agreeing with you - hence one can deduce the validity of my generalisation.
Grant -- Are they even human?
Tom -- usually not - they're mostly American
Hence, I was offended by your answer to Grant's question.
But not by Grant's comment? Was that simply because you are not a Yanklee fan? Can I say what I like about Yankee fans without offending you? That would be pretty disgraceful, Lynn.
Clearly even when an American makes what looks like a civilsed reply they are still dispaying their barbarity. I thought from your original comment that you inderstood my point about Grant's remark. I see now that I was wrong. I guess I have to make my point bloody obvious: Lets try this:
...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness unless of course they are Yankee fans because then they are not human.
That's effectively what Grant was saying (although I'm sure he didn't mean it) , that's what I responded to. You Americans make a habit of excluding human rights from everyone but yourselves (think Guantanamo), and that's why you are saying it's acceptable as long as we say "Yankee fans" but no longer acceptable once we change "Yankee fans" to "Americans", because excluding a small (and to some of you, alien) group of Americans makes it OK.
Well, it doesnt make it OK to me, and now and again when one of you manifests that attitude, I will point out to you that your attitude is disgraceful. If you don't like it, start behaving as if you believed your country's declaration (for example remember that even Yankee fans are human).
Tom
February 14, 2015 at 1:28 pm
Jeff Moden (2/14/2015)
Heh... then you won't mind us generalizing about Europeans based on the behavior of soccer fans, correct? 😉It was a wee bit over the top, Tom.
Depends how the generlisaton is used - I think the way I said it was harmless, but I suppose I ought to recognise that most Americans have much thinner skins that us Gaels. I suspect that most Gaill (especially Sasannnach/English) might have been upset if I'd said "English" instead if "American" though, so you may have a point.
Tom
February 14, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Just finished a week, or somehere near, of sheer hell - too ill, too much in pain, too cold (even in our climate here I've had to wrap myself up in bed most of the time).
Last Sunday I was in a local bar at about midnight, when my wife called me - she was ill, needed me home. I went home. I found great difficulty walking home (discovered I was ill too). Got home, we were both too ill to think. Two days in bed, me climbing out to make some food (only fruit juice or water) now and again, and try to play with computer (not very effective) - throats killing us, couldn't talk, couldn't eat solids or thick liquids. Third day could move - slowly, weak as new-born kittens. Managed to get to local bar - take some soup. Two more days like that. Now moving again - managed today to eat a decent lentil soup with some slices of chorizo in it (than heaven for bars/restaurants run by friends), and Ann ate three prawns. Much better now after that but still very weak and wishy-washy.
Someone told us today there's serious flu epidemic in UK, suggests we've picked that up from uk turists/visitors. Seems crazy to me - no visitors; plus recovering after kless than a week - so not flu, I think. But Ann's in bed asleep, I'm still very weak although awake, so although we're recovered compared to what we were we're not really fit, not at all.
Tom
February 14, 2015 at 2:10 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/10/2015)
Sunny and 45F in Denver 😀
We got down to 45F at 11 am once this week. I think that was a 5 year record low for that time of day.
Tom
February 14, 2015 at 9:19 pm
... Mark one off, 13 days on the calendar to go. 13 days on the calendar to go, 13 days to go, ...
February 15, 2015 at 5:51 am
TomThomson (2/14/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (2/10/2015)
Brandie Tarvin (2/10/2015)
So in a fit of inspiration this morning, I decided to see if I could pull a global temp table across different instances.And what do you know... Even using linked servers, I got bubkiss. @=(
"Database name 'tempdb' ignored, referencing object in tempdb."
Apparently it only wants to use the local temp db. I'm heartbroken. Really truly heartbroken. (Well, okay, not so much. I have other ways around this. But I so wanted to be able to cheat...)
Interestingly enough, though, I can "instance hop" by opening an Import Wizard to Instance 1, using a Query with a linked server to Instance 2, and pull the data into Instance 3.
The things I learn by experimenting. Next, when it's not so urgent, I'm going to build a linked server from Instance 3 to Instance 1 and see if I can do the same thing (using the linked server to Instance 2 to pull the data to Instance 3).
Oh, Brandie, why weren't you in sight 10 years ago when I was looking for someone to take over my job so I could retire? Experiment, experiment. experiment, measure, and get it working - the only sensible procedure, it was the only way to keep the customers happy and the company alive, as well as the only way to understand what the hell I was doing.
10 years ago was exactly when I was starting my career. Well, 11 years ago, but the first year of screwing things up doesn't count. @=)
February 15, 2015 at 5:53 am
TomThomson (2/14/2015)
Just finished a week, or somehere near, of sheer hell - too ill, too much in pain, too cold (even in our climate here I've had to wrap myself up in bed most of the time).Last Sunday I was in a local bar at about midnight, when my wife called me - she was ill, needed me home. I went home. I found great difficulty walking home (discovered I was ill too). Got home, we were both too ill to think. Two days in bed, me climbing out to make some food (only fruit juice or water) now and again, and try to play with computer (not very effective) - throats killing us, couldn't talk, couldn't eat solids or thick liquids. Third day could move - slowly, weak as new-born kittens. Managed to get to local bar - take some soup. Two more days like that. Now moving again - managed today to eat a decent lentil soup with some slices of chorizo in it (than heaven for bars/restaurants run by friends), and Ann ate three prawns. Much better now after that but still very weak and wishy-washy.
Someone told us today there's serious flu epidemic in UK, suggests we've picked that up from uk turists/visitors. Seems crazy to me - no visitors; plus recovering after kless than a week - so not flu, I think. But Ann's in bed asleep, I'm still very weak although awake, so although we're recovered compared to what we were we're not really fit, not at all.
You don't need visitors to catch the flu. As I understand it, the virus can live on surfaces for some time without a host. Which means (I think) that all you had to do was touch something that someone else who had the flu had recently touched, then rub your nose or eyes or eat something without washing your hands first.
February 15, 2015 at 12:20 pm
TomThomson (2/14/2015)
Lynn Pettis (2/14/2015)
TomThomson (2/14/2015)
Eirikur Eiriksson (2/7/2015)
TomThomson (2/7/2015)
Grant Fritchey (2/5/2015)
Really? Yankees fans? Are they even human?Usually not - they're mostly American.
Tom, must say that I find this comment totally inappropriate
😎
How can it be appropriate to question whether Yankee fans are human but no to question whether Americans are human? You should recognise a pretty ordinary means of calling into question a piece of stupidity, generalisation to include the author of the stupidity into its range.
I imagine you wil have collected a lot of comments agreeing with you - hence one can deduce the validity of my generalisation.
Grant -- Are they even human?
Tom -- usually not - they're mostly American
Hence, I was offended by your answer to Grant's question.
But not by Grant's comment? Was that simply because you are not a Yanklee fan? Can I say what I like about Yankee fans without offending you? That would be pretty disgraceful, Lynn.
Clearly even when an American makes what looks like a civilsed reply they are still dispaying their barbarity. I thought from your original comment that you inderstood my point about Grant's remark. I see now that I was wrong. I guess I have to make my point bloody obvious: Lets try this:
...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness unless of course they are Yankee fans because then they are not human.
That's effectively what Grant was saying (although I'm sure he didn't mean it) , that's what I responded to. You Americans make a habit of excluding human rights from everyone but yourselves (think Guantanamo), and that's why you are saying it's acceptable as long as we say "Yankee fans" but no longer acceptable once we change "Yankee fans" to "Americans", because excluding a small (and to some of you, alien) group of Americans makes it OK.
Well, it doesnt make it OK to me, and now and again when one of you manifests that attitude, I will point out to you that your attitude is disgraceful. If you don't like it, start behaving as if you believed your country's declaration (for example remember that even Yankee fans are human).
Are you acquainted with the concept of friendly banter?
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 15, 2015 at 1:14 pm
BWFC (2/11/2015)
It's funny. When it snows in my area (usually get 1 snow/ice storm per year, of no more than 4 to 6 inches), we get all of the people from the "north" (canada/new england) complaining about how everything closes down and no one knows how to drive. Nevermind the fact that at 1 snow storm per year that lasts, on average, 3 to 5 days before melting away the area can't justify more than minimums on road clearing/salting due to cost.
It's the same when it snows in the UK and there's inevitably chaos. Everybody complains that they can cope in Canada and Scandinavia etc but an inch over here brings everything to a standstill. They don't realise that elsewhere people can almost say to the day when the snow will come so it's worth the investment. They forget that over here it's so changeable I won't like to reliably predict that it will get dark at night. They would also be the first ones to complain about councils spending thousands on snow-ploughs that got used twice in ten years.
Twice in ten years? Well, there's enough snow just West of London that Heathrow is closed for a day or two by it just about every year. Gatwick of course bought some second hand equipment, and so it usually does much better in the snow than Heathrow does, while the management of Heathrow is still telling us that "snow like this only happens once or twice a century so it wouldn't be economical to have equipment" when the recent (10 or 20 years) record is a lot closer to once or twice per year than to once or twice per century. And our idiot government appears to want to give those incompetents an extra runway - when we already have an enormous problem that we waste a lot of aviation fuel and generate a lot oif extra pollution by flying from regional airports to Heathrow or Gatwick simply because the government has concentrated airport development in the SouthEast and BA has pretty well scrapped international flights other than from the London airports.
It really is nice being somewhere other than England in the winter!
Tom
February 15, 2015 at 1:34 pm
TomThomson (2/14/2015)
Lynn Pettis (2/14/2015)
TomThomson (2/14/2015)
Eirikur Eiriksson (2/7/2015)
TomThomson (2/7/2015)
Grant Fritchey (2/5/2015)
Really? Yankees fans? Are they even human?Usually not - they're mostly American.
Tom, must say that I find this comment totally inappropriate
😎
How can it be appropriate to question whether Yankee fans are human but no to question whether Americans are human? You should recognise a pretty ordinary means of calling into question a piece of stupidity, generalisation to include the author of the stupidity into its range.
I imagine you wil have collected a lot of comments agreeing with you - hence one can deduce the validity of my generalisation.
Grant -- Are they even human?
Tom -- usually not - they're mostly American
Hence, I was offended by your answer to Grant's question.
But not by Grant's comment? Was that simply because you are not a Yanklee fan? Can I say what I like about Yankee fans without offending you? That would be pretty disgraceful, Lynn.
Clearly even when an American makes what looks like a civilsed reply they are still dispaying their barbarity. I thought from your original comment that you inderstood my point about Grant's remark. I see now that I was wrong. I guess I have to make my point bloody obvious: Lets try this:
...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness unless of course they are Yankee fans because then they are not human.
That's effectively what Grant was saying (although I'm sure he didn't mean it) , that's what I responded to. You Americans make a habit of excluding human rights from everyone but yourselves (think Guantanamo), and that's why you are saying it's acceptable as long as we say "Yankee fans" but no longer acceptable once we change "Yankee fans" to "Americans", because excluding a small (and to some of you, alien) group of Americans makes it OK.
Well, it doesnt make it OK to me, and now and again when one of you manifests that attitude, I will point out to you that your attitude is disgraceful. If you don't like it, start behaving as if you believed your country's declaration (for example remember that even Yankee fans are human).
Sorry, but Grant's question was never really meant to be answered as it is just sports banter. Unfortunately, I took offense at your basically calling Yankee fans who are mostly American less than human. I'm not a Yankees fan but I didn't appreciate your response.
Do what you think you need to do, just realize we reserve the same. Personally, I try to be professional on this site, and I have been called on that a few times when I crossed the line. I actually appreciated being called out on those occasions.
Also, no one is perfect, and if you expect even one of us to be so all the time, you are going to be sorely disappointed.
One more thing, I'd appreciate it if you didn't preach about how we should behave.
February 15, 2015 at 2:54 pm
Ed Wagner (2/12/2015)
Sioban Krzywicki (2/12/2015)
Eirikur Eiriksson (2/12/2015)
My 2Cents, a DBA that cannot see the data is as useless as a blind driver, alternative measures have to be in place such as1) pay them well enough
2) keep them happy
3) audit everything
4) bullet proof NDAs
...etc....
Obviously it goes without saying that the sensitive data must be encrypted/protected as necessary. Insider threats (such as DBAs) cannot be mitigated with a technology only approach.
😎
Last time I went to a security lecture, the recommendation was that the DBA should not be able to see any data except in an emergency. During said emergency a separate computer would be used by a minimum of 2 DBAs at a time, each of whom was entrusted with half the password. The password is randomly created at each use.
The dedicated machine is keystroke audited (along with other auditing).
That seems like an awful lot of pain and is riddled with holes, such as who would set the password to begin with.
Wouldn't it be easier to find a DBA that's trustworthy and implement Erikur's list above.
But how much of the data does an individual DBA need to see? Maybe all the DBAs between them can see all the data, but each individual DBA can see only his part (because he doesn't have access to the encryption, which of course rules out nice simple-minded in-database encryption schemes unless those schemes are capable of recognising (and enforcing) for example that SA doesn't have TS Ultra clearance. Or maybe there's some data that none of the DBAs can see - why for example should a DBA be able to see an in-clear version of someone's identification details?
Anyway, the first flaw in Erikur's approach is that it identifies the DBA as an "insider". The DBA shouldn't be considered an insider just because he's the DBA. Does he actually need access to all the data in cleartext form? I can't imagine why he should. For some databases I can't imagine how anyone below director level in his national foreign intelligence service could properly be given such access to some of the databases he has to look after. The second flaw is that he's treating security as something based on trust, without looking at what the grounds for trust need to be: just paying someone well and trying to keep them happy won't make them trustworthy. If we asume - as Erikur apparently does - that the DBA has to have access to all the data then auditing everything gives you no protection against the DBA reading and leaking data even if you audit reads as well as modifications, inerts, and deletions - because if he needs to be able to see it it then his looking at it doesn't indicate a problem. Bullet-proof NDAs are just snake oil - if someone gets paid enough for getting the data he can go somewhere else and acquire a new identity (Antigua, maybe) before you can sue him.
I rather like the sound of the lecture Sioban went to; decades back I was struggling with those pretty rainbow books, and there was some interesting stuff on database security there, but it's all been superceeded by NIAP's CCEVS, and NIAP appears to have decided that database security is too hard - see Position Statement regarding the CC evaluation of
DBMS - although they do say that they are reviewing this position. The thing is that even back in the dark days the idea of self-escalating classification was alive and well (in the mandatory access control, but not in the discretionary access control if I recall correctly) and that is way way way beyond anything that databases available today do, and it would require either substantial changes to SQL (definitely unwanted!) or behind-the-scenes cooperation between the platform's Mandatory Access Control model managing the escalation and the RDBMS. But even Discretionary Access Control way back in 1987 (and in fact for years before - the rainbow books weren't describing any news requirement, just some clear evaluation rules) specifically required a mechanism by which a data owner can deny access to someone who is a member of a group to which access to that data has been granted without doing anything untoward to other members of that group - see section 9.3 of The (now defunct) Orange Book, and a database which can't even do that is obviously not secure to B3 level, so not properly usable for any really sensitive information.
Tom
Viewing 15 posts - 47,461 through 47,475 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply