Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor
George W. Bush weaseled his way out of going to Vietnam. How can anyone possible respect him when we speaks of fighting for freedom, and so on? My father, who was in the army at the time, actually *did*. And many others, who had no rich Daddies to save them, were conscripted, and also actually *fought*. He is a coward. Can that possibly be disputed?
You suppose correctly, actually- the pyramids predate Israelite captivity by centuries- the pyramids at Giza were built 400-500 years before Abraham, actually.
There's actual evidence for the Israelite captivity by the Egyptions? Outside the Bible that is?
References, please! I wasn't aware that there were any, and I'd be interested to find out. Thanks!
Not that anyone claimed the Jews built the pyramids.
Oh, I see. No, I don't think that even if you believe in the actual, literal, Biblical account of the Jewish enslavement by Egypt, you could *possibly* conclude that they had anything to do with the pyramids.
The ancient Egyption era was actually quite a long period of time. The pyramid-building part was only a very short time, relatively speaking. I don't think Exodus and the construction of the great pyramids coincided at all.
It's not your fault, but it's a common misconception to assume that "everything happened all at once" when looking at history. That Tutankhamun, the pyramids and Exodus all happened together, at once. That dinosaurs, cave men and mammoths all lived together. Even that all types of dinosaurs co-existed (they didn't, there were many different eras - Tyrannosaurs and Stegosaurs never met, for example). And so on.
Ancient Egypt has quite a long and complex history, with many different quite distinct phases. Seeing them as "pyramid building, Jewish enslaving" people is a cartoonish view of history.
Not just to protect the police who might stumble on them (or kids or whomever) but because criminals actually have rights!
You're going to tell me everything you know, sooner or later. If it's later... I won't mind.
No! Stay back... I got *rights*...
You've got rights. Lots of rights. Sometimes I *count* them just to make myself feel crazy.
-- Frank Miller, "The Dark Knight"
People like you couldn't give a good god damn about the victims, as long as your precious criminals don't have their rights violated. Cry me a fucking river.
Sure! I have yet to use it. Now is as good a time as any to try it I guess
Well, create and entry and we'll start slugging it out:)
I'd certainly be interested to see if ordered data can be represented easily in a relational model. My suspicion is that it can't, and since I do a lot of "modelling" and "infrastructure software" (that needs persistifiable state to ensure QOS), ordered whole-part relationships come up a lot. And scoping. And nesting.
I deal most in the custom biz app domain
That's where I think the relational model works best, as ordering and containment don't come up a whole lot and everything's usually got a physical counterpart and a natural unique id.
Maybe math is different
Well, I just threw maths in there as logically, anything not malleable by set theory is just not going to work very well. I think.
But engineering (say, network management, fault tolerant reliable messaging) and scientific (eg. DNA processing) problems also often fall outside of what can be elegantly represented "relationally". In my experience.
Not that I'm saying XML databases can do better, of course. I'm just interested in different approaches.
I never said relational was always the best solution. But, it is often bashed or passed up for the wrong reasons IMO
I completely agree. But it's also used where inappropriate, too.
Or for the worst of both object and relational worlds, look at J2EE entity beans. All the work of relational, and none of the advantages of powerful SQL queries and sensible and normalized table design:(
I'm a coder too, and this isnt going to hurt a bit.
Never have a nations children been dumber.
who cant remember a lick of basic algebra
Dont get me started
It's really, really important to get your spelling correct when calling other people poorly educated.:)
However, in general, I agree, but I don't think it's the school system at this point. Lots of quite well educated people are out of work from what I can gather. It seems to me though, that they thought the profession of "web developer" was going to remain a highly paid one forever, and they expect stock options and high salaries straight out of university. If they even *went* to university.
Every technology, as it ages, becomes easier to use and more widely available, and therefore skills in it are worth less. All of this happened before in the early nineties with billing applications in COBOL. People bitched and moaned that they were losing their jobs. It didn't happen then, and it won't happen now. If you're willing to move on, that is.
Look at it this way - what new ideas in the field of computing have come out of sweat shops in India? Zero. They can't possibly. *That's* where you've got to be, doing things that people being worked to death in an asbestos-lined factory in Calcutta can't even think of...
If you look at the needs of most "complex hierarchical structures", it often turns out that trees are the wrong "structure" to begin with
What about cases where entities can contain instances of *themselves*? Or where the depth and width of the nesting is not necessarily known up front?
You end up creating these artificial "id" fields, and in so doing build a "tree" on top of the relational database, which is a very silly thing to do.
And what about cases where ordering of contained elements is important?
We would probably have to explore a specific case study to settle this.
I don't think it can be "settled". Apples and oranges, and all that. Sure, you can *force* a relational database to represent anything, it's just often like putting a round peg in a square hole, particularly for engineering, scientific, and mathematical problem domains.
If you wish to take this elsewhere as to not bloat up slashdot, I would be happy to
Take it where? I suggest your journal.
The worst case I have had was one in which ordering was important. Relational databases just can't handle that very well, being based on set theory IIRC. Sure, you can add a field containing an ordinal to represent the "order", but that breaks badly if you need to insert or remove items.
Too much of this XML database stuff sounds like a return to the "navigational" databases of the 1960's. Do we really want that? Dr. Codd rescued us from those. Now you want to be un-rescued?
I think the advantage would be its "hierarchical", not "navigational", nature. And this is the problem with relational databases for the kind of problems I encounter. Ever tried to store complex *inherently* hierarchical data in them? It's just the wrong idiom, and shouldn't even be attempted. Of course, some clown always comes along and says "we're going to use Oracle for persistance!". Sigh. And J2EE's "entity bean" actually codifies this madness!
Of course, they (relational databases) are well suited to certain applications, and I wouldn't dream of using anything else for, say, a billing system. But like all 4GLs, they've sacrificed flexibility for power and ease-of-use in their domain. But that's all right, I imagine it was a conscious design choice.
No-one with any kind of basic education in operating systems design could *possibly* be "pro-microsoft". I've never even heard of such a thing amongst clueful people. Only PHBs, bean counters, web developers and other assorted retards who equate "computer" with "MS Word".
if we had MS's version of everything it'd be much easier for him to do his job.
Yes, he's an MCSE, and he can't do anything without "clippy the paper clip" around to help him. Get rid of the moron, before he does some real damage.
yet is so hasty to criticize all that is non-MS
I guess, since all my colleagues have *actual* degrees, it's quite hard for me to imagine anyone really taking this position, unless they were playing devil's advocate.
Wierd. Just make sure, at your next interview, to ask a ton of hard technical questions. Doesn't even have to be about Unix... C++ or Java will do. Or maybe just something from Knuth:) That'll sort the "Where's Visual Studio?" weenies and dot-com "web developers" from the people who actually know what the fuck they're doing!
have an even better chance of picking up the cream of the crop?
I think that would be great! I mean, extrapolating from the software they've managed to produce so far, they must all be certified geniuses
Who knows, perhaps they'll get someone who's done a course in basic OS design? Imagine the improvements that could be made to, say, the *file system* if someone with a clue were to build one for them. I mean, it's already totally amazing. But imagine what it could be if people, say, knew something about what they were doing before they started?
It would certainly be a win all round! I'm still waiting for that course they sent all their employees on regarding security to pay dividends. I'd even say that is overkill! Minds that work faster than the speed of light like that will be able to undo years worth of sloppy code just by making a few press releases and adding a few security options somewhere.
For example, it's well known that DCOM failed to scale due to distributed garbage collection. Even Don Box knows this, now;) Hopefully, MS learned from that blunder. According to the SOAP spec, they have - it explicitly forsakes attempts to do distributed GC. "Pinging" clients to see if they're still awake was very sad, but in a way they were backed into a corner by COM - it relied on GC, so if they wanted to transparently support COM over a network they had to make GC work somehow, which resulted in the whole unscalable "are you still there" messaging mess. A little basic math will tell you that this leads to a quadratic increase in "ping" messages as the number of nodes increases. Hence DCOM has been quietly swept under the rug...
I've actually only look briefly at C#... seems sort of OK, if you think C is a good basis for an OO language, that is. So, what's the *fundamental* problem with.NET? I mean in terms of fundamental flaws that cannot be overcome, not "it's just slow" type stuff.
I just don't think retards and delenquents belong in socioty, let alone in the classroom where they help destroy the education of decent people.
"socioty"? "delenquents"? When you attempt to appear intellectually superior to some group of people, it's important that you get your spelling correct.
What if we eliminated everyone too stupid to be able to use correct English? That would be *you* out, to start with!
As usual for people with these mad fascist schemes, you've just defined "the elite" to include yourself. You would bitch and moan at the slightest suggestion for this kind of scheme if *you* were not one of the select few.
So... you don't mind the gaping security holes in Flash clients then?
I do, therefore I will not allow it. End of story. If I was to go back to being a sadmin, and take the large pay cut that implies, it would be summarily removed from all machines under my control.
You're not all that bright are you? I explained that elsewhere on this very thread. And, of course, any valid criticism is dismissed as "whining". You may be satisfied wallowing in the vapid mediocrity that typifies your life, but I'm unhappy to see it creeping into mine.
Well, given that there are 512 comments on this story so far, which is easily the maximum for today (even a story about shutting down Kazaa didn't do as well), there are plenty of nerds who are interested in hearing about the game, and talking about it with fellow nerds
Good point. However most of those seem to be complaining about the story, or about the use of the word "patriotic", or replying to those posts.
The fact remains that the "story" is absolutely content free. Surely, if you're going to do a/. story on the Superbowl, why not focus on some geek-related aspect. Strategies and "design trade-offs" (for the franchises as a whole, if not just for the particular game), various kinds of statistical analysis on the teams, players and so on and what they all mean (or maybe a story on the way these types of analysis affect the game as a whole - you can't measure something without disturbing it and all that), a story about the successful crossover of football to console games (why that is working *now*), talking about some kind of new technology involved in filming and broadcasting the event, and so on ad infinitum.
As it stands, this just tells me what is on television right now. Absolutely zero effort went into it.
Re:So let me get this straight...
on
Superbowl XXXVII
·
· Score: 1
How ironicalific is that?
*Exactly*:)
Besides, if it catches on, it'll become perfectly cromulent in time.
All I wanted, 'cause I've seen your posts and it'd be a stretch to think you're racist. I'm just fed up with the idead that poor southerners can be offered up as the ass-end of intellect and for some reason it's ok because they're fair game.
I can understand that. I was probably thinking of Cleetus from "The Simpsons" more then anything else, and no, I don't see him as a Southerner particularly (unless the state Springfield is in is also in the "south", of course:).
Yep, but "racist" made the point much more clearly, even if it was overkill.
Just be aware that if you misuse a term, it can become diluted to the point where it doesn't have any impact, or even worse, have the opposite effect if it becomes a badge of dissent from perceived or actual thought-policing.
"Bigotted against southerners" would have had much the same effect, as "some of my best friends are [southerners]";)
I had a think about my intentions when typing this. Actually, I only had credulous, easily amused, anti-intellectual, anti-science people in mind in my, admittedly flamish, post.
I guess those names, in my mind, are associated with poor, uneducated people without the will to do anything about it. Not actually Southerners per se.
So, I hereby amend my post to say, "Naming my 6th child and 10th dog".
And yes, there is a direct correlation between an increase in the number of children and poverty and lack of education. The "owning lots of dogs" thing is just an outright slur on my part, though;)
BTW, "racist" is wrong, unless Southerners became a separate race somehow. "Bigotted" would be more accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
I have read your post and now I use my freedom to assume you're an idiot
Well, looking at your previous posts I *know* you're an idiot. Finish that degree *before* posting again. Thanks.
And peacenik anti-american hippies like yourself spat on your father when he returned
No, I would never do that. You are constructing a straw man.
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
George W. Bush weaseled his way out of going to Vietnam. How can anyone possible respect him when we speaks of fighting for freedom, and so on? My father, who was in the army at the time, actually *did*. And many others, who had no rich Daddies to save them, were conscripted, and also actually *fought*. He is a coward. Can that possibly be disputed?
You suppose correctly, actually- the pyramids predate Israelite captivity by centuries- the pyramids at Giza were built 400-500 years before Abraham, actually.
There's actual evidence for the Israelite captivity by the Egyptions? Outside the Bible that is?
References, please! I wasn't aware that there were any, and I'd be interested to find out. Thanks!
Anything to discredit a Jew or Christian
Huh?
Not that anyone claimed the Jews built the pyramids.
Oh, I see. No, I don't think that even if you believe in the actual, literal, Biblical account of the Jewish enslavement by Egypt, you could *possibly* conclude that they had anything to do with the pyramids.
The ancient Egyption era was actually quite a long period of time. The pyramid-building part was only a very short time, relatively speaking. I don't think Exodus and the construction of the great pyramids coincided at all.
It's not your fault, but it's a common misconception to assume that "everything happened all at once" when looking at history. That Tutankhamun, the pyramids and Exodus all happened together, at once. That dinosaurs, cave men and mammoths all lived together. Even that all types of dinosaurs co-existed (they didn't, there were many different eras - Tyrannosaurs and Stegosaurs never met, for example). And so on.
Ancient Egypt has quite a long and complex history, with many different quite distinct phases. Seeing them as "pyramid building, Jewish enslaving" people is a cartoonish view of history.
How about I was buying coke and half of it was cut with cyanide and a few friends died? Do we laugh them?
Sure, that's just natural selection at work. You did something stupid, and you died. End of story.
Not just to protect the police who might stumble on them (or kids or whomever) but because criminals actually have rights!
... I won't mind.
... I got *rights* ...
You're going to tell me everything you know, sooner or later. If it's later
No! Stay back
You've got rights. Lots of rights. Sometimes I *count* them just to make myself feel crazy.
-- Frank Miller, "The Dark Knight"
People like you couldn't give a good god damn about the victims, as long as your precious criminals don't have their rights violated. Cry me a fucking river.
The simple solution is to not use OOP
Except you can do the same sort of thing in C quite easily.
Sure! I have yet to use it. Now is as good a time as any to try it I guess
:)
:(
Well, create and entry and we'll start slugging it out
I'd certainly be interested to see if ordered data can be represented easily in a relational model. My suspicion is that it can't, and since I do a lot of "modelling" and "infrastructure software" (that needs persistifiable state to ensure QOS), ordered whole-part relationships come up a lot. And scoping. And nesting.
I deal most in the custom biz app domain
That's where I think the relational model works best, as ordering and containment don't come up a whole lot and everything's usually got a physical counterpart and a natural unique id.
Maybe math is different
Well, I just threw maths in there as logically, anything not malleable by set theory is just not going to work very well. I think.
But engineering (say, network management, fault tolerant reliable messaging) and scientific (eg. DNA processing) problems also often fall outside of what can be elegantly represented "relationally". In my experience.
Not that I'm saying XML databases can do better, of course. I'm just interested in different approaches.
I never said relational was always the best solution. But, it is often bashed or passed up for the wrong reasons IMO
I completely agree. But it's also used where inappropriate, too.
Or for the worst of both object and relational worlds, look at J2EE entity beans. All the work of relational, and none of the advantages of powerful SQL queries and sensible and normalized table design
I'm a coder too, and this isnt going to hurt a bit.
:)
...
Never have a nations children been dumber.
who cant remember a lick of basic algebra
Dont get me started
It's really, really important to get your spelling correct when calling other people poorly educated.
However, in general, I agree, but I don't think it's the school system at this point. Lots of quite well educated people are out of work from what I can gather. It seems to me though, that they thought the profession of "web developer" was going to remain a highly paid one forever, and they expect stock options and high salaries straight out of university. If they even *went* to university.
Every technology, as it ages, becomes easier to use and more widely available, and therefore skills in it are worth less. All of this happened before in the early nineties with billing applications in COBOL. People bitched and moaned that they were losing their jobs. It didn't happen then, and it won't happen now. If you're willing to move on, that is.
Look at it this way - what new ideas in the field of computing have come out of sweat shops in India? Zero. They can't possibly. *That's* where you've got to be, doing things that people being worked to death in an asbestos-lined factory in Calcutta can't even think of
If you look at the needs of most "complex hierarchical structures", it often turns out that trees are the wrong "structure" to begin with
What about cases where entities can contain instances of *themselves*? Or where the depth and width of the nesting is not necessarily known up front?
You end up creating these artificial "id" fields, and in so doing build a "tree" on top of the relational database, which is a very silly thing to do.
And what about cases where ordering of contained elements is important?
We would probably have to explore a specific case study to settle this.
I don't think it can be "settled". Apples and oranges, and all that. Sure, you can *force* a relational database to represent anything, it's just often like putting a round peg in a square hole, particularly for engineering, scientific, and mathematical problem domains.
If you wish to take this elsewhere as to not bloat up slashdot, I would be happy to
Take it where? I suggest your journal.
The worst case I have had was one in which ordering was important. Relational databases just can't handle that very well, being based on set theory IIRC. Sure, you can add a field containing an ordinal to represent the "order", but that breaks badly if you need to insert or remove items.
Too much of this XML database stuff sounds like a return to the "navigational" databases of the 1960's. Do we really want that? Dr. Codd rescued us from those. Now you want to be un-rescued?
I think the advantage would be its "hierarchical", not "navigational", nature. And this is the problem with relational databases for the kind of problems I encounter. Ever tried to store complex *inherently* hierarchical data in them? It's just the wrong idiom, and shouldn't even be attempted. Of course, some clown always comes along and says "we're going to use Oracle for persistance!". Sigh. And J2EE's "entity bean" actually codifies this madness!
Of course, they (relational databases) are well suited to certain applications, and I wouldn't dream of using anything else for, say, a billing system. But like all 4GLs, they've sacrificed flexibility for power and ease-of-use in their domain. But that's all right, I imagine it was a conscious design choice.
No-one with any kind of basic education in operating systems design could *possibly* be "pro-microsoft". I've never even heard of such a thing amongst clueful people. Only PHBs, bean counters, web developers and other assorted retards who equate "computer" with "MS Word".
... C++ or Java will do. Or maybe just something from Knuth :) That'll sort the "Where's Visual Studio?" weenies and dot-com "web developers" from the people who actually know what the fuck they're doing!
if we had MS's version of everything it'd be much easier for him to do his job.
Yes, he's an MCSE, and he can't do anything without "clippy the paper clip" around to help him. Get rid of the moron, before he does some real damage.
yet is so hasty to criticize all that is non-MS
I guess, since all my colleagues have *actual* degrees, it's quite hard for me to imagine anyone really taking this position, unless they were playing devil's advocate.
Wierd. Just make sure, at your next interview, to ask a ton of hard technical questions. Doesn't even have to be about Unix
People here should be concerned with their own performance
Then, explain the poor quality of your output. Thanks.
have an even better chance of picking up the cream of the crop?
I think that would be great! I mean, extrapolating from the software they've managed to produce so far, they must all be certified geniuses
Who knows, perhaps they'll get someone who's done a course in basic OS design? Imagine the improvements that could be made to, say, the *file system* if someone with a clue were to build one for them. I mean, it's already totally amazing. But imagine what it could be if people, say, knew something about what they were doing before they started?
It would certainly be a win all round! I'm still waiting for that course they sent all their employees on regarding security to pay dividends. I'd even say that is overkill! Minds that work faster than the speed of light like that will be able to undo years worth of sloppy code just by making a few press releases and adding a few security options somewhere.
Go team MS!!
They love being part of an org that's in the forefront of technology
Well, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day! It would certainly be +1 funny for you, if I had mod points.
What exactly should they have done if not this?
...
Commit ritual suicide?
I know, too much to hope for
Why? You really should give a reason.
;) Hopefully, MS learned from that blunder. According to the SOAP spec, they have - it explicitly forsakes attempts to do distributed GC. "Pinging" clients to see if they're still awake was very sad, but in a way they were backed into a corner by COM - it relied on GC, so if they wanted to transparently support COM over a network they had to make GC work somehow, which resulted in the whole unscalable "are you still there" messaging mess. A little basic math will tell you that this leads to a quadratic increase in "ping" messages as the number of nodes increases. Hence DCOM has been quietly swept under the rug ...
... seems sort of OK, if you think C is a good basis for an OO language, that is. So, what's the *fundamental* problem with .NET? I mean in terms of fundamental flaws that cannot be overcome, not "it's just slow" type stuff.
For example, it's well known that DCOM failed to scale due to distributed garbage collection. Even Don Box knows this, now
I've actually only look briefly at C#
I just don't think retards and delenquents belong in socioty, let alone in the classroom where they help destroy the education of decent people.
"socioty"? "delenquents"? When you attempt to appear intellectually superior to some group of people, it's important that you get your spelling correct.
What if we eliminated everyone too stupid to be able to use correct English? That would be *you* out, to start with!
As usual for people with these mad fascist schemes, you've just defined "the elite" to include yourself. You would bitch and moan at the slightest suggestion for this kind of scheme if *you* were not one of the select few.
So ... you don't mind the gaping security holes in Flash clients then?
I do, therefore I will not allow it. End of story. If I was to go back to being a sadmin, and take the large pay cut that implies, it would be summarily removed from all machines under my control.
You're not all that bright are you? I explained that elsewhere on this very thread. And, of course, any valid criticism is dismissed as "whining". You may be satisfied wallowing in the vapid mediocrity that typifies your life, but I'm unhappy to see it creeping into mine.
Well, given that there are 512 comments on this story so far, which is easily the maximum for today (even a story about shutting down Kazaa didn't do as well), there are plenty of nerds who are interested in hearing about the game, and talking about it with fellow nerds
/. story on the Superbowl, why not focus on some geek-related aspect. Strategies and "design trade-offs" (for the franchises as a whole, if not just for the particular game), various kinds of statistical analysis on the teams, players and so on and what they all mean (or maybe a story on the way these types of analysis affect the game as a whole - you can't measure something without disturbing it and all that), a story about the successful crossover of football to console games (why that is working *now*), talking about some kind of new technology involved in filming and broadcasting the event, and so on ad infinitum.
Good point. However most of those seem to be complaining about the story, or about the use of the word "patriotic", or replying to those posts.
The fact remains that the "story" is absolutely content free. Surely, if you're going to do a
As it stands, this just tells me what is on television right now. Absolutely zero effort went into it.
How ironicalific is that?
:)
*Exactly*
Besides, if it catches on, it'll become perfectly cromulent in time.
All I wanted, 'cause I've seen your posts and it'd be a stretch to think you're racist. I'm just fed up with the idead that poor southerners can be offered up as the ass-end of intellect and for some reason it's ok because they're fair game.
:).
;)
I can understand that. I was probably thinking of Cleetus from "The Simpsons" more then anything else, and no, I don't see him as a Southerner particularly (unless the state Springfield is in is also in the "south", of course
Yep, but "racist" made the point much more clearly, even if it was overkill.
Just be aware that if you misuse a term, it can become diluted to the point where it doesn't have any impact, or even worse, have the opposite effect if it becomes a badge of dissent from perceived or actual thought-policing.
"Bigotted against southerners" would have had much the same effect, as "some of my best friends are [southerners]"
Why is it ok to stereotype southerners?
;)
I had a think about my intentions when typing this. Actually, I only had credulous, easily amused, anti-intellectual, anti-science people in mind in my, admittedly flamish, post.
I guess those names, in my mind, are associated with poor, uneducated people without the will to do anything about it. Not actually Southerners per se.
So, I hereby amend my post to say, "Naming my 6th child and 10th dog".
And yes, there is a direct correlation between an increase in the number of children and poverty and lack of education. The "owning lots of dogs" thing is just an outright slur on my part, though
BTW, "racist" is wrong, unless Southerners became a separate race somehow. "Bigotted" would be more accurate.