Problem is, that is quite the only place where church is used in the universal sense. Mostly everywhere else the sense is local.
Even if you take the universal sense, there is no indication that the universal church is to be one only institution. The church is a body, not an institution.
>
what Luther did, i.e. making up new theology that contradicts the teaching of Christ's Church
That's not what he did.
What he did was to recover Christ's and the Apostles' theology against Rome's relatively new theology.
>
You don't go to a class and tell the professor he's full of shit when you haven't read the required reading for the course
If the professor doesn't grok data, he won't probably require good books on data. If I have already read the good books on data, I can criticise his required reading.
>
you disagree without knowing what you're disagreeing with
But I know. I am not disagreeing with the whole article, just with that stupid bit on XML and metadata.
>
it has a few extra books that the protestents took out
Quite to the contrary, these books were added by Rome at Trento. Until them they were usually copied along the Bible without being considered part of the Canon, just like the Shepherd of Hemas before the Montanist heresy.
It was only when Luther decided to have them printed apart from the Bible that Rome decided to try to accuse him of tooking them out of where they never belonged...
>
Jesus still says to Simon Peter "you are the rock upon which i shall build my church"
You misquote, actually "you art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church", Mt XVI:18 RSV, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the primitive churches is that the rock wasn't Peter, but his confession.
>
whatever you shall hold true on Earth, i shall hold true in Heaven
Again you misquote: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven", Mt XVI:19 RSV. This is spoken of the church which started with Peter and the Apostles, and it goes without saying that an institution having for its head a man instead of Christ ceases to be a legitimate church.
n fact, the analogy of the keys relates to the custom of giving the keys of a city to the person appointed by the king to have authority there. The authority is taken by the king if it is not duly used.
>
Sometimes, a finer-grained taxonomy method is helpful
But when it comes to data it just confuses, because taxonomies imply a hierarchy, and hierarchies are hard to agree upon on the first place, are quite arbitrary, and tend to change quite fast and radically.
The relational model already provides a better alternative to taxinomies: attributes. And then, metadata becomes just data.
>
Henry VIII's adoption of a version of Protestantism
He never adopted Protestantism. He merely separated from Rome. Reform in England was done by the bishops after Henry's death, during the reign of Elisabeth.
>
after that Diet, he was summoned to Rome, to appear in presence of the Pope. He did not
Quite wisely. A Pre-reformer who went, Johann Huss, was granted a promise of his safety. The then-current Pope gave him audience and asked him to explain his views. Behind a curtain the Pope's secretary took notes, and instead of allowing him back to Bohemia he was given to the Inquisition to be burnt, with the secretary's notes as proof of heresy.
>
Henry VIII of England adopting a version of it
He never did. He only separated the Church of England from Rome. It was not until the reign of Elisabeth that the bishops of England reformed their church.
>
The Catholic Church was due for a reformation. Why it was a schism and not just a movement within Catholicism is mainly due to Luther's character and style.
The Roman Church had already killed quite some Pre-reformists. Why it would have been different with Luther I don't see.
Go read Luther's thesis. They were quite respectful to the Pope. It was the Pope who insisted on the status quo, and that Luther's conscience could not accept.
This is incredibly stupid. How come XML helps in dealing with data and metadata? Metadata *is* data.
What we really want is an user-extensible type system, like the one proposed by Date and Darwen in _The Third Manifesto_ for relational database systems. Remember, types are domains plus operators.
>
Was this not one of the reasons the GNU project wanted copyright assigned to it?
Precisely. It would have made SCO charges much more difficult to come up with in the first place, and much easier to dismiss now.
The way I see Linus' initial refusal to request assignments or to allow FSF to do so, and his current partial implementation of the idea, it looks like a marketing get-to-the-market-fast idea: do it quick and dirty, once you're established you can go back and fix it. Only you will only fix when a catastrophe (SCO) comes around.
I don't remember the details, but GM had a similar idea, minus the automatic control, in the 80s. It was a tandem two-seater, which makes a lot of sense as it allows for a couple with two children to postpone buying a SW.
>
Oracle's query optimizer was one of the discarded (open) research ones that IBM passed up for the one that formed the basis for what's DB2
Indeed until v7 Oracle only had (or recommended) a rules-based optimiser vs IBM's cost-based one. This was one more proprietary lock-in for Oracle, since Oracle SQL coding was badly distorted to extract the last grain of performance, making it slow in better optimisers.
Both were processes, IS-54 was promulgate first but they were overlapping. At any time US developers of TDMA could have jumped into GSM and helped create a wider standard.
>
The U.S. government did not create the CDMA standard nor forced any operators to use it. Unlike the Europeans, it did not force a standard on mobile phone operators, and let the market decide.
That's precisely the point, the market is lousy at standards, be it real standards or so-called 'industry standards' as in 'insanely popular proprietary interfaces'. Just see Oracle vs SQL vs relational, MS W32 vs POSIX vs Lisp, x86 vs SPARC...
Ideally standards are set by users and enforced by the government, as POSIX and SQL were before MS and other circumvented regulations... but in things like cell phones, the user base is too dispersed, so government has to take a lead until we get out of the rat race and start organising ourselves.
>
System R, which was first commercially installed at Pratt & Whitney in 1977
I'd love to see this straightened out, but I know for sure that the first deployments of System R weren't General Availability, more like beta testing.
So the argument goes that Oracle was released before SQL/DS reached GA, which is the IBM equivalent of a release.
>
Thank God my IT doesn't check for reused passwords, or I'd have to resort to writing them all dow
That's not so bad... it merely transforms the passwords into tokens, from something you know to something you own. As explained by Bruce Schneier in a not so old Cryptogram issue...
>
from a FOSS perspective you'd probably focus on: [...] Oracle/DB2/SQL Server
No, none of these are free software. In dealing with commercial DBMSs, you'd focus on MaxDB (SAPdb), CA Ingres or PostgreSQL, all being free software too.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is, that is quite the only place where church is used in the universal sense. Mostly everywhere else the sense is local.
Even if you take the universal sense, there is no indication that the universal church is to be one only institution. The church is a body, not an institution.
That's not what he did.
What he did was to recover Christ's and the Apostles' theology against Rome's relatively new theology.
If the professor doesn't grok data, he won't probably require good books on data. If I have already read the good books on data, I can criticise his required reading.
But I know. I am not disagreeing with the whole article, just with that stupid bit on XML and metadata.
Plenty is wrong. A monopoly means the exclusion of all others, and consequently of at least some freedoms.
In fact the only way of keeping a monopoly eternally is creating a police state.
Quite to the contrary, these books were added by Rome at Trento. Until them they were usually copied along the Bible without being considered part of the Canon, just like the Shepherd of Hemas before the Montanist heresy.
It was only when Luther decided to have them printed apart from the Bible that Rome decided to try to accuse him of tooking them out of where they never belonged...
You misquote, actually "you art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church", Mt XVI:18 RSV, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the primitive churches is that the rock wasn't Peter, but his confession.
Again you misquote: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven", Mt XVI:19 RSV. This is spoken of the church which started with Peter and the Apostles, and it goes without saying that an institution having for its head a man instead of Christ ceases to be a legitimate church.
n fact, the analogy of the keys relates to the custom of giving the keys of a city to the person appointed by the king to have authority there. The authority is taken by the king if it is not duly used.
But when it comes to data it just confuses, because taxonomies imply a hierarchy, and hierarchies are hard to agree upon on the first place, are quite arbitrary, and tend to change quite fast and radically.
The relational model already provides a better alternative to taxinomies: attributes. And then, metadata becomes just data.
How come Rome never reconciled with Calvin, nor with Constantinople, nor with Huss, nor with Jean Valdo...
He never adopted Protestantism. He merely separated from Rome. Reform in England was done by the bishops after Henry's death, during the reign of Elisabeth.
Quite wisely. A Pre-reformer who went, Johann Huss, was granted a promise of his safety. The then-current Pope gave him audience and asked him to explain his views. Behind a curtain the Pope's secretary took notes, and instead of allowing him back to Bohemia he was given to the Inquisition to be burnt, with the secretary's notes as proof of heresy.
He never did. He only separated the Church of England from Rome. It was not until the reign of Elisabeth that the bishops of England reformed their church.
The Roman Church had already killed quite some Pre-reformists. Why it would have been different with Luther I don't see.
Go read Luther's thesis. They were quite respectful to the Pope. It was the Pope who insisted on the status quo, and that Luther's conscience could not accept.
No amount of explanation will fix that stupid idea.
This is incredibly stupid. How come XML helps in dealing with data and metadata? Metadata *is* data.
What we really want is an user-extensible type system, like the one proposed by Date and Darwen in _The Third Manifesto_ for relational database systems. Remember, types are domains plus operators.
Precisely. It would have made SCO charges much more difficult to come up with in the first place, and much easier to dismiss now.
The way I see Linus' initial refusal to request assignments or to allow FSF to do so, and his current partial implementation of the idea, it looks like a marketing get-to-the-market-fast idea: do it quick and dirty, once you're established you can go back and fix it. Only you will only fix when a catastrophe (SCO) comes around.
I don't remember the details, but GM had a similar idea, minus the automatic control, in the 80s. It was a tandem two-seater, which makes a lot of sense as it allows for a couple with two children to postpone buying a SW.
The C1 is noisy. Fix that, and I'll consider one whenever I get rich enough for such a toy.
Except that there aren't many left, only the QUEL portion of Ingres and Alphora Dataphor. All the rest are SQL.
Proprietary lock-in and herd behaviour.
Because Ingres still supports a relational language, QUEL.
Can you expand on this? Like URLs documenting it?
Better yet, they could set standards process alternative to ISO and rid of patents and copy rights encumbering.
I know for sure that the current administration in Brazil would be interested.
Indeed until v7 Oracle only had (or recommended) a rules-based optimiser vs IBM's cost-based one. This was one more proprietary lock-in for Oracle, since Oracle SQL coding was badly distorted to extract the last grain of performance, making it slow in better optimisers.
Both were processes, IS-54 was promulgate first but they were overlapping. At any time US developers of TDMA could have jumped into GSM and helped create a wider standard.
It wasn't, there were DBMSs such as CA IDMS and IBM IMS much before SQL came to light.
That's precisely the point, the market is lousy at standards, be it real standards or so-called 'industry standards' as in 'insanely popular proprietary interfaces'. Just see Oracle vs SQL vs relational, MS W32 vs POSIX vs Lisp, x86 vs SPARC...
Ideally standards are set by users and enforced by the government, as POSIX and SQL were before MS and other circumvented regulations... but in things like cell phones, the user base is too dispersed, so government has to take a lead until we get out of the rat race and start organising ourselves.
I'd love to see this straightened out, but I know for sure that the first deployments of System R weren't General Availability, more like beta testing.
So the argument goes that Oracle was released before SQL/DS reached GA, which is the IBM equivalent of a release.
That's not so bad... it merely transforms the passwords into tokens, from something you know to something you own. As explained by Bruce Schneier in a not so old Cryptogram issue...
Let's get that straight. System R was not an invention, but a misdevelopment from Codd's work on the Relational Model. SQL is bad.
No, none of these are free software. In dealing with commercial DBMSs, you'd focus on MaxDB (SAPdb), CA Ingres or PostgreSQL, all being free software too.