On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Laura Conrad writes:
>
>>> "Bill" == Bill Bogstad writes:
>>
>> Bill> Any advice on cord cutting or good HDTV antennas?
>>
>> Don't literally cut the cord. My neighbor just plugs the coax from the
>> previous cable subscription int
Bill Bogstad writes:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> Unfortunately this will cease to work once Comcast encrypts Limited
>> Basic.
>
> Which I can confirm happened right on schedule yesterday in Cambridge.
>The only channel which has been left unencrypted is the on
I'm modifying some existing SQL templates for use in a internal script
where we are adding a second schema (or user in Oracle) so the new
schemas are schema1 and schema2. I'm just not sure how to change this
query to it can refer to both schemas.
The original line is below is from when we had a si
On 09/25/2013 10:11 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> Laura Conrad writes:
>>
"Bill" == Bill Bogstad writes:
>>> Bill> Any advice on cord cutting or good HDTV antennas?
>>>
>>> Don't literally cut the cord. My neighbor just plugs the
Jerry Feldman wrote:
I think there are a few motivations for this:
It's because their physical infrastructure is completely insecure.
Anyone can tap the lines without Comcast knowing it. By encrypting the
signals and controlling the decryption side they can lock out the moochers.
At least,
On 09/25/2013 01:51 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
When Comcast did this in Newton they provided 2 DTAs free of charge.
I think there are a few motivations for this:
1. increase revenues
2. provide additional services to compete with FIOS, and the satellite
TV networks.
3. (probably a bit less) to com
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
>>
>>...
> When Comcast did this in Newton they provided 2 DTAs free of charge.
They did that when they switched to all digital some time ago.
Otherwise people who were still using analog only sets would have been
out of luck. That deal has
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Jerry Feldman wrote:
>>
>> I think there are a few motivations for this:
>
>
> It's because their physical infrastructure is completely insecure. Anyone
> can tap the lines without Comcast knowing it. By encrypting the signals and
> controlli
I assume you now want to get back two rows with one statement, one for
each, right? If so,
select 'schema1' uname, count(*) from dba_users where username like
'%schema1%'
union
select 'schema2' uname, count(*) from dba_users where username like
'%schema2%';
If you just want back a count includin
On 09/25/2013 02:22 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Richard Pieri
> wrote:
>> > Jerry Feldman wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think there are a few motivations for this:
>> >
>> >
>> > It's because their physical infrastructure is completely insecure. Anyone
>> > can tap the lin
Thanks the or syntax will work fine. It is just several years since I
wrote the templates. I actually sat on the ANSI database committee when
they first approved the SQL standard :-)
On 09/25/2013 02:38 PM, Tim Callaghan wrote:
> I assume you now want to get back two rows with one statement, one f
Richard Pieri wrote:
> Anyone can tap the lines without Comcast knowing it. By encrypting the
> signals and controlling the decryption side they can lock out the moochers.
Bingo. A few years ago I went to my exercise room in the basement to find the
TV signal blacked-out. Investigating, I went
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:58:14PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Anyone can tap the lines without Comcast knowing it. By encrypting the
> signals and controlling the decryption side they can lock out the moochers.
>
> At least, that's the idea, anyway.
That's part of the reason. The other part i
Richard Pieri wrote:
> It's because their physical infrastructure is completely insecure.
> Anyone can tap the lines without Comcast knowing it.
This is true, but that's Comcast's problem, not their customers', yet
they push the burden of implementing a more secure system - both in
terms of cost (
I'll hijack the thread, a little, with a more generic SQL question:
I want to merge two tables, and get all the unique results, i.e., I want
to take two tables with "key" values that look like
1 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 4 - 5 - 6
1 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 7 - 7
and get a result of
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -
15 matches
Mail list logo
