Don't get me wrong, I love having credit as much as the next man, I was just interested. Now property rights seem to be tied up in the legal system, but the right to credit (distinct from the stuff Katz is talking about which would be more about privacy rights), are currently (AFAIK) just a product of the economic system we live in. We can attempt to fix Katz's problems with privacy legislation, but this wouldn't help they guy at the top of this thread. He's moved in from Australia, where the UK bank's have no way to determine his credit rating using their current processes. Economics being what they are, we'd like to believe that if there was a reasonable demand for such services that supply would crop up, this doesn't seem to have happened. So, to end this ramble, should the Aussie have the right to credit in the UK, even if this may not be economically viable for the banks involved?
How do you think Microsoft made Office so rapidly?
I'll bite, they bought bits, stole^W borrowed bits, chucked resources at it and released it before it was ready (and it been around for circa 10 years anyway, at least some of its constitituents)
Shit, I got told I was configuration manager for a project thats been going on for three month today, teach me to know more CVS than anyone else on the project has owned up to. (Damn that auditor, why did we mention configuration management in our proposal when we meant source control)
I wasn't saying it was democracy. I was just pointing out that "real democracy" is very hard (if not impossible - according to Arrow's theorems) to organize.
Unfortunately for you your definition of true democracy just vanishes up a spout of logic. Who get to decide the issues that are voted on? - Ah we vote on it, who gets to decide the candidates for that vote? Err,...
Tomlinson's new program almost instantly became the first killer app. "After we delivered the enhanced version of SNDMSG to other sites, (so that there was someone out there to talk to) virtually all my communication was via e-mail," he remembers. Two years later, a study found that 75 percent of all traffic on ARPANET was e-mail.
How long did it take for pr0n to take over as number one? What is the breakdown on the Internet these days between the different protocols?
Secondly I think that independent re-discovery of the technique should be an affirmative defense against patent infringement, that is, you can't patent a technique, keep it secret, and if then somebody else uses the same technique, suddenly surfaces with the patent and say "oh, here's our secret technique which we have patented, and this means you can't use it." I think independent re-discovery ought to be a defense against patent infringement. Right now, it's not
I thought patents had to be published, how could you prove independent rediscovery, Isn't this trade secrets he's talking about?
What in the world with the government of Poland think of next? Lets just make sure that it is the government of Poland that takes the flak for all this. Anyone watching the news during the Eighties cannot have missed the courage shown by the people of Poland during the fall of communism. Adrian
I'm starting to wonder if the media aren't quite as dumb as we make out, and they do this on purpose to see who can get the biggest rise out of RMS. But then I remember that guy's sig about never blaming on malice when stupidity will do (or whatever)...
I've not read the book, I'm only mildly criticizing the review statement. I agree with the sentiment of what he saying - I'd always use declarative constraints when possible, triggers as my next preference and external logic as a final option. I just think the statement is a bit imprecise:
Essentially, the author's advice boils down to implementing integrity in the database itself rather than via triggers or external logic.
Taken as a whole this phrase says to me that triggers don't implement integrity internal to database. As you say it also implies that triggers are not external logic - so if they are not internal and not external what are they?
Chapter 7 discusses data heirarchies and trees. In a nutshell: there are no trees in SQL. The author is distressed by this.
Given that a foreign key is basically a pointer you can store trees in databases, it might not be pretty and there may not be easy way to read them and it might not be a good thing to do - but if you feel the need then get right in there. Of course I could be totally wrong about this...
Chapter 2 discusses integrity rules. Integrity constraints are rules that your data should obey - enforcing the rules is the problem. For instance, no two employees should have the same employee number. Essentially, the author's advice boils down to implementing integrity in the database itself rather than via triggers or external logic.
Err triggers are in the database. The declarative RI you get in most DB products is just a convinient trigger creation mechanism under the covers... Of course using declarative RI ensures you get a consistent well trigger...
What they didn't mention is how you measure the size of the input - is it the average length of a side, or is it the total number of cells (I think this would make a difference but its been a while since college...)
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly have yet to see the Java system that performs as advertised.
Where are these advertisments, for reference?
Don't get me wrong, I love having credit as much as the next man, I was just interested. Now property rights seem to be tied up in the legal system, but the right to credit (distinct from the stuff Katz is talking about which would be more about privacy rights), are currently (AFAIK) just a product of the economic system we live in. We can attempt to fix Katz's problems with privacy legislation, but this wouldn't help they guy at the top of this thread. He's moved in from Australia, where the UK bank's have no way to determine his credit rating using their current processes. Economics being what they are, we'd like to believe that if there was a reasonable demand for such services that supply would crop up, this doesn't seem to have happened. So, to end this ramble, should the Aussie have the right to credit in the UK, even if this may not be economically viable for the banks involved?
Taco cleaned up his code?
Why do you feel you have a right to credit?
How do you think Microsoft made Office so rapidly?
I'll bite, they bought bits, stole^W borrowed bits, chucked resources at it and released it before it was ready (and it been around for circa 10 years anyway, at least some of its constitituents)
Shit, I got told I was configuration manager for a project thats been going on for three month today, teach me to know more CVS than anyone else on the project has owned up to. (Damn that auditor, why did we mention configuration management in our proposal when we meant source control)
That may be a small part of the solution, but it doesn't help much if you get rooted and then have the changes disabled.
Yet another person who thinks problems on the Internet can be solved by American legislation. Nuff said...
I wasn't saying it was democracy. I was just pointing out that "real democracy" is very hard (if not impossible - according to Arrow's theorems) to organize.
Unfortunately for you your definition of true democracy just vanishes up a spout of logic. Who get to decide the issues that are voted on? - Ah we vote on it, who gets to decide the candidates for that vote? Err,...
That's also a remarkably good summary of identity in OO (and RDBMS and probably other areas too)
Was a modem inventented all at once or did someone have a mod, and someone a dem and a happy coincidence bought them together?
At least you don't need to be a rocket scientist to do that.
So, how did native of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, employed as a rocket scientist, develop the skills that made him the world's best Pitfall player?
Oh darn...
Infocom, ah, didn't they inspire the shell for multics?
Keep the networking, go after TIVO...
Tomlinson's new program almost instantly became the first killer app. "After we delivered the enhanced version of SNDMSG to other sites, (so that there was someone out there to talk to) virtually all my communication was via e-mail," he remembers. Two years later, a study found that 75 percent of all traffic on ARPANET was e-mail.
How long did it take for pr0n to take over as number one? What is the breakdown on the Internet these days between the different protocols?
Secondly I think that independent re-discovery of the technique should be an affirmative defense against patent infringement, that is, you can't patent a technique, keep it secret, and if then somebody else uses the same technique, suddenly surfaces with the patent and say "oh, here's our secret technique which we have patented, and this means you can't use it." I think independent re-discovery ought to be a defense against patent infringement. Right now, it's not
I thought patents had to be published, how could you prove independent rediscovery, Isn't this trade secrets he's talking about?
But the devil did take that work and offer up VBscript as an alternative.
<pedantry>
If you're using a language with no booleans than you may need to do some of that, but if not please just do
if Infornaut.issarcastic {
...
...
} else {
}
</pedantry>
What in the world with the government of Poland think of next? Lets just make sure that it is the government of Poland that takes the flak for all this. Anyone watching the news during the Eighties cannot have missed the courage shown by the people of Poland during the fall of communism. Adrian
Guess who makes up the Polish Government now
I'm starting to wonder if the media aren't quite as dumb as we make out, and they do this on purpose to see who can get the biggest rise out of RMS. But then I remember that guy's sig about never blaming on malice when stupidity will do (or whatever)...
I've not read the book, I'm only mildly criticizing the review statement. I agree with the sentiment of what he saying - I'd always use declarative constraints when possible, triggers as my next preference and external logic as a final option. I just think the statement is a bit imprecise:
Essentially, the author's advice boils down to implementing integrity in the database itself rather than via triggers or external logic.
Taken as a whole this phrase says to me that triggers don't implement integrity internal to database. As you say it also implies that triggers are not external logic - so if they are not internal and not external what are they?
Chapter 7 discusses data heirarchies and trees. In a nutshell: there are no trees in SQL. The author is distressed by this.
Given that a foreign key is basically a pointer you can store trees in databases, it might not be pretty and there may not be easy way to read them and it might not be a good thing to do - but if you feel the need then get right in there. Of course I could be totally wrong about this...
Chapter 2 discusses integrity rules. Integrity constraints are rules that your data should obey - enforcing the rules is the problem. For instance, no two employees should have the same employee number. Essentially, the author's advice boils down to implementing integrity in the database itself rather than via triggers or external logic.
Err triggers are in the database. The declarative RI you get in most DB products is just a convinient trigger creation mechanism under the covers... Of course using declarative RI ensures you get a consistent well trigger...
What they didn't mention is how you measure the size of the input - is it the average length of a side, or is it the total number of cells (I think this would make a difference but its been a while since college...)