The last thing I searched for was "Adaptive Server connection failed" because I kept getting that without ever telling it that I was trying to make an "Adaptive Server" connection.
James K. Lowden explains this in http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/freetds/2008q2/023506.html: When FreeTDS is unable to find whatever you entered as the "$Servername" parameter to mssql_connect in the freetds.conf file (which I found in /usr/local/freetds/etc - as in "--with-mssql=/usr/local/freetds" from my PHP configuration string), it falls back to it's default settings, which happen to include TDS Version 5.0. Apparently, that TDS version isn't supported by SQL Server 2005 (unless it was something else that caused my connection to consistently report "unable to connect").
Since I had already added a [TDS] section to my freetds.conf file, my Servername is now "TDS". Here's the code that gives me a workable connection:
$con = mssql_connect('TDS','user','password')
or die('Could not connect to the server!');
echo "con: "; print_r($con);
// Select a database:
mssql_select_db('Database')
or die('Could not select a database.');
// Example query: (TOP 10 equal LIMIT 0,10 in MySQL)
$SQL = ...
I hope this helps someone out there. It took me about 4 hours to figure it out.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Monday, September 13, 2010
Paypal and the Government
Paypal recently sent me an update to their privacy policy. It states:
Federal and state laws allow you to restrict the sharing of your personal information in certain instances. However, these laws also state that you cannot restrict other types of sharing.
I have the right to restrict the sharing of any and all of my personal information because that is a basic human right. If you disagree, then I can write you off as a slavish fool, so you might was well quit reading now. How I restrict it and what that costs me is a different matter.
What I think Paypal means is that the laws require Paypal to provide tools that its members can use to prevent Paypal from sharing certain information. They don't want to say it that way because it makes the implication too obvious: Paypal will share whatever it can without your permission as long as it isn't legally required to get your permission or provide you with a way to revoke that permission, which they may as well assume (since they aren't barred from so assuming by the federal and state laws).
Or perhaps the people (shall we call them people? Yes, we shall) who wrote this have simply fallen prey to the idiot trap that is set up by oppressive authorities from bad parents to pimps to drug suppliers (both legal and illegal) to foolish police and horrible politicians. That trap creates a sense of foreboding for all behaviors which have not been expressly permitted by whoever rules you. The trap gives you the feeling that you can't do something new and unique unless you check with the authorities first. The trap slowly but surely kills off those cultures that are aggressive enough to violate the wishes of authorities, leaving only cultures that encourage childlike dependence on authorities. Slaves, in other words.
The sad thing is that there is a tremendous amount of beauty in such cultures, and we lose it because oppressive authorities continue to set this trap wherever they can. We can do something about this. When someone tells me "It isn't done that way," I laugh at them. If they are puzzled enough at my reaction, I will explain that using the fact that "it isn't done that way" as a reason not to do it that way is a recipe for stagnation. It's the kind of basic instinct (like herding, a specific example of this kind of reasoning) that the human brain developed to overcome. We have big brains because they enable us to overcome basic instincts when there is a (recognized) possibility of a better outcome.
We can also encourage and champion experimentation, marvel at the bravery and innovation of anyone who expresses freedom by simply being different. I have done my best to teach my children that "weird" is a compliment. When people ask "Why change it if it works?" the simple answer is the same answer we have for bothering to get up in the morning. It's fun. Sometimes, it's a change for the better, and if you never change it, you'll never know. Thomas Edison, Lewis Carrol, Einstein, Nietzsche, and even Beverly Cleary and Dr. Seuss understood this.
I don't think Paypal really will do everything against their customers' privacy that they are legally allowed to. I think they have some writers who have fallen into and continue promulgating a horrible and subtle trap that has been destroying beauty for millenia. I'm doing my part to expose it.
What I think Paypal means is that the laws require Paypal to provide tools that its members can use to prevent Paypal from sharing certain information. They don't want to say it that way because it makes the implication too obvious: Paypal will share whatever it can without your permission as long as it isn't legally required to get your permission or provide you with a way to revoke that permission, which they may as well assume (since they aren't barred from so assuming by the federal and state laws).
Or perhaps the people (shall we call them people? Yes, we shall) who wrote this have simply fallen prey to the idiot trap that is set up by oppressive authorities from bad parents to pimps to drug suppliers (both legal and illegal) to foolish police and horrible politicians. That trap creates a sense of foreboding for all behaviors which have not been expressly permitted by whoever rules you. The trap gives you the feeling that you can't do something new and unique unless you check with the authorities first. The trap slowly but surely kills off those cultures that are aggressive enough to violate the wishes of authorities, leaving only cultures that encourage childlike dependence on authorities. Slaves, in other words.
The sad thing is that there is a tremendous amount of beauty in such cultures, and we lose it because oppressive authorities continue to set this trap wherever they can. We can do something about this. When someone tells me "It isn't done that way," I laugh at them. If they are puzzled enough at my reaction, I will explain that using the fact that "it isn't done that way" as a reason not to do it that way is a recipe for stagnation. It's the kind of basic instinct (like herding, a specific example of this kind of reasoning) that the human brain developed to overcome. We have big brains because they enable us to overcome basic instincts when there is a (recognized) possibility of a better outcome.
We can also encourage and champion experimentation, marvel at the bravery and innovation of anyone who expresses freedom by simply being different. I have done my best to teach my children that "weird" is a compliment. When people ask "Why change it if it works?" the simple answer is the same answer we have for bothering to get up in the morning. It's fun. Sometimes, it's a change for the better, and if you never change it, you'll never know. Thomas Edison, Lewis Carrol, Einstein, Nietzsche, and even Beverly Cleary and Dr. Seuss understood this.
I don't think Paypal really will do everything against their customers' privacy that they are legally allowed to. I think they have some writers who have fallen into and continue promulgating a horrible and subtle trap that has been destroying beauty for millenia. I'm doing my part to expose it.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Reinvestment plan sparks FOMC debate
As investors, we encourage what we anticipate, even government stupidity. As humans, we discourage stupidity. As quasi-government agents, they ought to be more intelligent about seeing how every action they take blossoms into a new problem. As members of the ruling class, they probably do, and new problems mean a bigger role for them - at least until the masses catch on. But with enough TV and terrorism out there, they can prolong such a day of reckoning. Hopefully not indefinitely.
I think our best bet is to get in tight with our state legislature and start working on nullification of most federal regulation, especially the tax code, legal tender, and the central bank charter. One of the states will get this right first, and that will be a watershed moment.
I think our best bet is to get in tight with our state legislature and start working on nullification of most federal regulation, especially the tax code, legal tender, and the central bank charter. One of the states will get this right first, and that will be a watershed moment.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Compare and Contrast Critiques
There are a few very useful tools that make certain people stop and think. I don't want to call them "bad" people, but that's how I think of them. Usually, they aren't really bad, it's just that they put more effort into avoiding the truth when they're wrong about it than into actually figuring out that they're wrong. Yeah, that's a lot of people. It is unfortunate that most of them have good hearts, and so I like to try to help them. This essay is one of my attempts. Let's call them Flamingos, since they tend to bury their heads in the sand.
There are some people that understand the truth, but they work to hide it. Think Big Tobacco, or Timothy Geithner, or Ben Bernanke (sorry guys, but I've seen you sweat and I've heard you grasp authoritatively at straws. They are both convincing acts.) I won't bother coming up with a word to describe them, and these useful tools I referred to usually won't make them stop and think because they already know their best bet is to alter the subject enough to distract you from the truth that these tools uncover.
The tool I'd like to describe here is a comparison of critiques. The general strategy allows you to distinguish between a critique that is propaganda and one that is honest without considering the actual facts presented in the critique. It is the style of the critique that matters.
When critique is propaganda, it tends to subtly (the smart authors are subtle, at least) describe its subject in a poor light, and works on generalities. It tends to address the weakest pieces, or those most difficult to understand, or sometimes the least well-known. It generally ignores any elements that are agreeable to the author, or agrees with them in a sentence using the word "but". It tends to use opinions that are popular and often based on differences in belief systems (for example, some believe that legislation is the best way to increase good behavior, while others believe freedom works better) to conclude that the elements that are addressed are incorrect or bad. Having brought together several elements and conclusions, the critique finished up by providing a feeling that the thing being critiqued is just no good.
In comparison, an honest critique will generally identify both the agreeable and the contentious elements (in the author's opinion). When it does rely on popular opinion to judge an element, it often explains what the popular opinion is and how a person who does not share the author's belief would not have a problem with that element. It openly identifies problems that stem from beliefs. Of course, some honest critiques don't do this because their author isn't bright enough to recognize that there is a belief system difference. An honest critique attacks the elements of its subject, rather than the subject itself.
Here's the nutshell version: An honest critique will not leave you with the feeling that there's no use looking into the subject discussed. Only a fool (or a propagandist) would spend time critiquing something they believed had no value. When you read something that leaves you with a feeling that its subject isn't worth studying further, be sure to check for the subtle digs and denigrations, and the failure to honor the good intentions of those who support that subject. For example, try an Internet search on Krugman and Austrian.
There are some people that understand the truth, but they work to hide it. Think Big Tobacco, or Timothy Geithner, or Ben Bernanke (sorry guys, but I've seen you sweat and I've heard you grasp authoritatively at straws. They are both convincing acts.) I won't bother coming up with a word to describe them, and these useful tools I referred to usually won't make them stop and think because they already know their best bet is to alter the subject enough to distract you from the truth that these tools uncover.
The tool I'd like to describe here is a comparison of critiques. The general strategy allows you to distinguish between a critique that is propaganda and one that is honest without considering the actual facts presented in the critique. It is the style of the critique that matters.
When critique is propaganda, it tends to subtly (the smart authors are subtle, at least) describe its subject in a poor light, and works on generalities. It tends to address the weakest pieces, or those most difficult to understand, or sometimes the least well-known. It generally ignores any elements that are agreeable to the author, or agrees with them in a sentence using the word "but". It tends to use opinions that are popular and often based on differences in belief systems (for example, some believe that legislation is the best way to increase good behavior, while others believe freedom works better) to conclude that the elements that are addressed are incorrect or bad. Having brought together several elements and conclusions, the critique finished up by providing a feeling that the thing being critiqued is just no good.
In comparison, an honest critique will generally identify both the agreeable and the contentious elements (in the author's opinion). When it does rely on popular opinion to judge an element, it often explains what the popular opinion is and how a person who does not share the author's belief would not have a problem with that element. It openly identifies problems that stem from beliefs. Of course, some honest critiques don't do this because their author isn't bright enough to recognize that there is a belief system difference. An honest critique attacks the elements of its subject, rather than the subject itself.
Here's the nutshell version: An honest critique will not leave you with the feeling that there's no use looking into the subject discussed. Only a fool (or a propagandist) would spend time critiquing something they believed had no value. When you read something that leaves you with a feeling that its subject isn't worth studying further, be sure to check for the subtle digs and denigrations, and the failure to honor the good intentions of those who support that subject. For example, try an Internet search on Krugman and Austrian.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Helpers Who Fear Arrest
"Frustrated by red tape, some officials have been warned they'll be arrested if they take matters into their own hands."
- Patrik Jonsson, July 1, 2010, in The Christian Science Monitor, regarding Deepwater Horizon cleanup.
In my opinion, the best strategy to handle this is PR, but it must contain names. The same article has Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen (incident commander) saying "There is nothing standing in the governor's way from utilizing more National Guard troops," and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal relaying an instruction from the White House saying "Coast Guard and BP had to authorize individual tasks." Is Thad Allen unaware of instructions issued by President Barack Obama? We have the names of these two, and since Allen was directly quoted, but Obama was not even named, and there wasn't any explicit threat, this isn't a very good example of warning officials of arrest if they act responsibly. Who warned officials of arrest if they take matters into their own hands? Were any officials brave enough to try anyway? Were any of them smart enough to do it in a way that helped? Were they arrested? If so, what are the names of the agents responsible for arresting them?
Every species swarms, and when they do so, it is generally in the best interest of the species. The behavior is an evolved response which, evolution has proven, is beneficial. Humans do it too, though to a lesser degree because they fear each other in addition to Mother Nature. When that fear of each other is private, it protects the cautious from the crazies who go out and kill each other. But when that fear is institutionalized with laws and the threat of arrest, it ceases to protect, and merely hinders.
Contrary to the foundation of most of the legislation that attempts to control us, humans are not idiots who blunder around all the time and mess everything up. Such behavior requires centralized control and limited liability: governments and corporations. Individuals acting in their own self-interest nearly always trump centralized control when it comes to effective solutions. For one thing, they provide myriad competing solutions, the best of which are recognized and copied, rather than monolithic solutions that fail catastrophically when they fail. For another, individuals have a sense of reputation to be maintained. They have names to protect. Adam Smith called these effects the "Invisible Hand" because they seem to bring about balance without any centralized control.
So I appeal to Mr. Jonsson and other journalists, officials, and anyone who would like to help in any situation where problems are big: Please name those who show more respect and honor for laws than they do for life. I must admit a bias against centralized control, and if that rubs you the wrong way, please go be a mindless slave on some other planet. This one needs real human beings.
- Patrik Jonsson, July 1, 2010, in The Christian Science Monitor, regarding Deepwater Horizon cleanup.
In my opinion, the best strategy to handle this is PR, but it must contain names. The same article has Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen (incident commander) saying "There is nothing standing in the governor's way from utilizing more National Guard troops," and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal relaying an instruction from the White House saying "Coast Guard and BP had to authorize individual tasks." Is Thad Allen unaware of instructions issued by President Barack Obama? We have the names of these two, and since Allen was directly quoted, but Obama was not even named, and there wasn't any explicit threat, this isn't a very good example of warning officials of arrest if they act responsibly. Who warned officials of arrest if they take matters into their own hands? Were any officials brave enough to try anyway? Were any of them smart enough to do it in a way that helped? Were they arrested? If so, what are the names of the agents responsible for arresting them?
Every species swarms, and when they do so, it is generally in the best interest of the species. The behavior is an evolved response which, evolution has proven, is beneficial. Humans do it too, though to a lesser degree because they fear each other in addition to Mother Nature. When that fear of each other is private, it protects the cautious from the crazies who go out and kill each other. But when that fear is institutionalized with laws and the threat of arrest, it ceases to protect, and merely hinders.
Contrary to the foundation of most of the legislation that attempts to control us, humans are not idiots who blunder around all the time and mess everything up. Such behavior requires centralized control and limited liability: governments and corporations. Individuals acting in their own self-interest nearly always trump centralized control when it comes to effective solutions. For one thing, they provide myriad competing solutions, the best of which are recognized and copied, rather than monolithic solutions that fail catastrophically when they fail. For another, individuals have a sense of reputation to be maintained. They have names to protect. Adam Smith called these effects the "Invisible Hand" because they seem to bring about balance without any centralized control.
So I appeal to Mr. Jonsson and other journalists, officials, and anyone who would like to help in any situation where problems are big: Please name those who show more respect and honor for laws than they do for life. I must admit a bias against centralized control, and if that rubs you the wrong way, please go be a mindless slave on some other planet. This one needs real human beings.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Purvis-Ness club
Next time someone rings your bell or knocks on your door, be prepared. There's a new club that has decided to "promote the general welfare" of the neighborhood, and this is the story of how the club got started. You'll want your wallet.
They first decided among the five of them to pay $5/month dues so that they'd have some money to spend on the supplies they needed for their programs. The first was to interview the neighbors about any recent thefts or vandalism, and for that, they needed some microcassettes.
In time, their membership grew and the money they collected at the beginning of each month was a sizeable sum. As their income grew, so did their ambitions, and they were soon working on weather-hardened webcams in strategic locations around the neighborhood feeding video into their private surveillance system. But there was a problem. Some of the members had not paid dues for a few months, but they still showed up and still insisted on being heard when they had input to the future plans. One of the issues on which they disagreed with everyone else was the formation of a dues squad. This was a team of 5 members who would stay on the case of any member who failed to pay his dues on time.
One of their best ideas was the outreach group. This was an extension of the original idea to interview residents of the neighborhood about recent crime. The outreach team would knock on neighborhood doors to spread the word about what the club was doing and find out if the neighbors would like to help. Many of the neighbors, after getting to see some of the positive results of the club's work, were happy to pitch in a few dollars or even sign up to provide a monthly donation and become honorary members.
The trouble started when the outreach group and the dues squad started cooperating. In time, everyone in the neighborhood was badgered into providing some money every month.
Whether the knock on your door from someone who will eventually force you to provide their club with some of your money against your will comes from the IRS or a wiseguy, you hopefully now have an idea how it all got started, and perhaps you have an idea of how it might have gone wrong, and what we ought to be teaching our children.
They first decided among the five of them to pay $5/month dues so that they'd have some money to spend on the supplies they needed for their programs. The first was to interview the neighbors about any recent thefts or vandalism, and for that, they needed some microcassettes.
In time, their membership grew and the money they collected at the beginning of each month was a sizeable sum. As their income grew, so did their ambitions, and they were soon working on weather-hardened webcams in strategic locations around the neighborhood feeding video into their private surveillance system. But there was a problem. Some of the members had not paid dues for a few months, but they still showed up and still insisted on being heard when they had input to the future plans. One of the issues on which they disagreed with everyone else was the formation of a dues squad. This was a team of 5 members who would stay on the case of any member who failed to pay his dues on time.
One of their best ideas was the outreach group. This was an extension of the original idea to interview residents of the neighborhood about recent crime. The outreach team would knock on neighborhood doors to spread the word about what the club was doing and find out if the neighbors would like to help. Many of the neighbors, after getting to see some of the positive results of the club's work, were happy to pitch in a few dollars or even sign up to provide a monthly donation and become honorary members.
The trouble started when the outreach group and the dues squad started cooperating. In time, everyone in the neighborhood was badgered into providing some money every month.
Whether the knock on your door from someone who will eventually force you to provide their club with some of your money against your will comes from the IRS or a wiseguy, you hopefully now have an idea how it all got started, and perhaps you have an idea of how it might have gone wrong, and what we ought to be teaching our children.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Deep-Soul Knowing
"Deep-soul Knowing"
This is a term Alice Sebold attributes to her dead heroine's father in reference to the identity of her killer, George Harvey. I believe this kind of knowing is the root cause of many horrible things, such as the Crusades, gay-bashing, the KKK, cults, and terrorism. I think about half of what is known by humans in the "deep-soul" knowing kind of way is simply not true, and her support of the concept disturbs me.
However, it only disturbs me as much as her portrayal of the dead among us, which most will agree is something that cannot be known. I am more open to that possibility than I am to the possibility that a person who feels "deep-soul knowledge" has a better grasp on reality than one who merely suspects an assertion's truth or is "quite certain" of it.
In fact, I think peace and goodwill are generally furthered by the idea that the dead may be among us, while "deep-soul knowing" generally diminishes them. Will you join me in encouraging the kind of skepticism that would have made Mr. Salmon's efforts with Len Fenerman blossom into justice, instead of requiring the use of just an icicle to give us closure on the case?
This is a term Alice Sebold attributes to her dead heroine's father in reference to the identity of her killer, George Harvey. I believe this kind of knowing is the root cause of many horrible things, such as the Crusades, gay-bashing, the KKK, cults, and terrorism. I think about half of what is known by humans in the "deep-soul" knowing kind of way is simply not true, and her support of the concept disturbs me.
However, it only disturbs me as much as her portrayal of the dead among us, which most will agree is something that cannot be known. I am more open to that possibility than I am to the possibility that a person who feels "deep-soul knowledge" has a better grasp on reality than one who merely suspects an assertion's truth or is "quite certain" of it.
In fact, I think peace and goodwill are generally furthered by the idea that the dead may be among us, while "deep-soul knowing" generally diminishes them. Will you join me in encouraging the kind of skepticism that would have made Mr. Salmon's efforts with Len Fenerman blossom into justice, instead of requiring the use of just an icicle to give us closure on the case?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)