please provide link to bacteria that can survive 50% alcohol (it dissolves the lipids in membrane) solution or even 10% trichlorsan
First, triclosan concentrations in antibacterial soap are nowhere near 10%--the range is 0.1% - 1%. Second, well, I'll just copy and paste from wikipedia to support my original point that "there is still the possibility that bacteria will develop resistance to these poisons, and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other":
An article coauthored by Stuart Levy in the August 6, 1998 issue of Nature[32] warned that triclosan's overuse could cause resistant strains of bacteria to develop, in much the same way that antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains are emerging. In 2003, the Scottish Sunday Herald newspaper reported that some UK supermarkets and other retailers were considering phasing out products containing triclosan.[33] It has since been shown that while the laboratory method used by Levy was not effective in predicting bacterial resistance for biocides like triclosan, triclosan does reduce species diversity, kills off efficient TCS degrader species (see citation's Table 4), and that it should be considered that "degradation of an ecosystem may rearrange the competitive hierarchy".[34] At least seven peer-reviewed and published studies have been conducted demonstrating that triclosan is not significantly associated with bacterial resistance over the short term, including one study coauthored by Levy.[35] However, the major concern over resistant strains is not that they will alter resistance profiles over the short term. The concern is that superbugs will evolve against which no bactericide can be used. For example, as noted above, triclosan is effective against MRSA. However, overuse of triclosan could lead to MRSA that is also triclosan-resistant.[citation needed] Some level of triclosan resistance can occur in some microorganisms, but the larger concern is with the potential for cross-resistance or co-resistance to other antimicrobials. Studies investigating this possibility have been limited.[36] The European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) concludes that to date, there is no evidence that using triclosan leads to an increase in antibiotic resistance. However it is too early to say that triclosan exposure never leads to microbial resistance, as there is not yet enough information to make a full risk analysis.[37]
Correct, but the GGP that did not read the article was ranting about hand sanitizers.
Well, I suppose that's why it got modded into oblivion so that I never saw it, while your post was modded up and appeared by itself without sufficient context...
the "anti-bacterial" ingredients are chlorinated organics, they just poison bacteria. they are not in any way related to antibiotics and thus do not in any way conribute to resistance to antibiotics any more than your chlorinated kitchen cleanser does.
True. However there is still the possibility that bacteria will develop resistance to these poisons, and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
So, I guess you haven't figured out yet that declarative and imperative are not disjoint, but rather there's a subset relationship. Imperative includes declarative functionality; declarative excludes flow control. Quit being a dumbass and accept the very lucid and completely correct explanation in the wikipedia link I provided oh so long ago!
Wow, then as CTO, that's an epic fail. Time was you needed 3rd party software to use TCP/IP on Windows, and Microsoft was very late to the game in supporting it.
I know, I know. It was completely ridiculous.
I'm sure that company has made some really awesome decisions with this clown at the helm. I'm betting small shop with limited technical breadth?
You mean like: throw out the system developed in house on a somewhat obscure platform that worked perfectly and had low license costs, and spend years trying to replace it with something re-built in Oracle, just so he could have "managed migration of enterprise system to Oracle" on his resume? Yep...
Some of these people literally believe that the Internet is a corporate creation that was spearheaded by Bill Gates... so you can see how solidly they understand the history of networking.
A buddy of mine was once consulting for a firm whose new "CTO" argued with him, vehemently insisting that Bill Gates invented TCP/IP...
There are ideas from the 1960 and 1970, like thorium reactors, breeder reactors or the pepple-bed concept.
I need new glasses. I first read that as "the people-bed concept", which of course leads right to an image of North Korea working a reactor where political prisoners are used to moderate the reaction;-)
Perhaps you failed to notice, but 2002 is only just shy of 12 years ago. The word "decades" (note the fact that this is the plural not the singular) implies at least 20 years. So, the poster you replied to was exactly correct, they did not have this "decades ago".
Yes, and I, the poster he replied to, have been doing this kind of work for 3 decades, so I know good and damned well that the capabilities being discussed were not around 20 years ago;-)
But this being/., home to "highly oppositional" personalities, I'm sure that next we'll hear that 1.2 decades is most certainly more than 1 decade, therefore plural. Then we can devolve into arguing about whether the linear scale is correct, or whether we should use a logarithmic one;-)
It's only fairly recent in MySQL, MariaDB or whatever web people use these days. Real databases already had this decades ago.
No, they did not. They had triggers. They had neither active notifications, nor any way to write a trigger that accessed the file system or network "decades ago". (I'm talking specifically about the "Big Two" of times past, Oracle and Sybase.)
Actually, its not. DDL is declarative. DML, while usuallly vendor-dependent, its not necessarily declarative, and most often than not, is imperative. But anyway.
Wrong. DML is declarative as well.
Actually, its not. Machine language is declarative - you DESCRIBE values and operations (scroll up for people talking about VHDL and Verilog similarities) .
Wrong again.
HTML allows you to specify control flow for some given browsers - does that make HTML a programming language?
Meh. I wouldn't go that far. The thing is, HTML doesn't really have the other elements of a programming language, in particular you can only branch on that very limited set of conditions, and you don't have any way to store a computed value, much less any way to branch on it.
Grow out of your shell. The world is not black and white.
The world, no? Some technical definitions, yes. If the language has no explicit flow control it's declarative. If it has explicit flow control, it's imperative.
The point is that *every* imperative or functional language has a declarative part. Even SQL.
SQL is a declarative language, not an imperative one.
And in the end, every language that is compiled into dynamic programmable logic (as in actual microprocessor instructions)...
Yes, machine language is imperative. That has nothing whatsoever to do with which higher-level languages are imperative vs declarative.
...so I'd guess you'll have a hard time figuring out if they are declarative (as in defining rules and limits) or imperative (performing operations).
Actually, no, I would have not any difficulty at all figuring that out--it's really quite easy for me to spot whether or not a programming language requires/allows me to specify control flow. Really, please read the wikipedia article before responding, because what you're saying strongly suggests that you don't know what declarative programming is at all.
Ok, I've read the article diagonally (hey its slashdot!), and apparently someone will have a big surprise when arriving to the letter T (triggers) in their SQL manual. And if it is an actual PostgreSQL manual, imagine their surprise when they find out they can actually code said "triggers" using several high-level languages.
Complex applications are already built from a series of simple declarative statements. In fact, we call the most simple declarative statements language available "assembly".
No we don't. We call assembly, and most every language in common use, "imperative", not "declarative", because, you know, that's what they actually are. Off the top of my head, I can think of exactly 1 declarative language that is in common use: SQL. (Well, OK, I know, it's not terribly precise to call SQL just 1 language...)
A trigger on INSERT or UPDATE of a watched entity should kick off an INSERT into a message queue, and a trigger on INSERT in the message queue should run a script to send the message where it needs to go. Now you have a self-managing, self-logging, asynchronous system that only uses system resources when needed.
Yes, exactly. OK, sometimes it can actually be a little tricky to figure out who needs notification and what data they need, but that's application/business logic that just needs to be worked out. (Example: client was not interested in a particular "master" record, and therefore has not received it, but the addition of a particular "detail" record means that client is now interested, so sending the changed record is not enough, the update needs to include the master and all related details. And so on and so forth, for a really rich app with rich workflow, there winds up being a surprising amount of logic required to get the right updates but no more than needed out to each client.)
This was solved decades ago. Next question, please.
Well... No, not really, at least not that I know of. The ability for "trigger on INSERT in the message queue should run a script to send the message where it needs to go" has actually *not* been around for decades. For way too long, this had to be a process *polling* the message queue. Triggers were limited to whatever "procedural SQL" flavor your db had, and had no access to file or network resources. Now you can write triggers in many languages, sometimes with full access to the system. Now you can from a SQL trigger send a notice, which a client can listen for via select/kqueue/libevent etc. But that's all much more recent.
You seem to be wanting to make some huge distinction between originality and creativity. There isn't one. If it's original, it's creative, as in the word creation, meaning to create something new, as in something original.
I don't happen to have ready access to the ruling. But I assure you, many of the filings from both Oracle and Google specifically mention "creativity" many times. Just google "oracle google creativity" and you'll get plenty of examples.
Blanket statements with no evidence are great right? I've personally have never heard of someone being unable to obtain copyright for a large piece of software because nine lines of code weren't creative. Or are you arguing that Java as a whole wasn't creative? So, I'll bite, please enlighten me.
The question is not whether the work as a whole has copyright protection, the question is whether those 9 lines of purely functional code, have copyright protection. And no, just because a work has copyright protection does not mean that every element of it has protection.
Why should I present evidence when the cases are so famous? As in, phone companies tried very hard to assert copyright over phone books, and failed--just for one instance of many. Also, there is of course the ruling in the case under discussion! It might or might not be overruled on the basis that the 9 lines do contain an element of creativity, but why exactly do you think the ruling in the case hinged on analyzing whether or not those 9 lines (3 really) embodied any creative expression? What is more likely, that a federal judge with long years of experience in the field pulled that requirement out of his ass, or that you are wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
please provide link to bacteria that can survive 50% alcohol (it dissolves the lipids in membrane) solution or even 10% trichlorsan
First, triclosan concentrations in antibacterial soap are nowhere near 10%--the range is 0.1% - 1%. Second, well, I'll just copy and paste from wikipedia to support my original point that "there is still the possibility that bacteria will develop resistance to these poisons, and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other":
An article coauthored by Stuart Levy in the August 6, 1998 issue of Nature[32] warned that triclosan's overuse could cause resistant strains of bacteria to develop, in much the same way that antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains are emerging. In 2003, the Scottish Sunday Herald newspaper reported that some UK supermarkets and other retailers were considering phasing out products containing triclosan.[33]
It has since been shown that while the laboratory method used by Levy was not effective in predicting bacterial resistance for biocides like triclosan, triclosan does reduce species diversity, kills off efficient TCS degrader species (see citation's Table 4), and that it should be considered that "degradation of an ecosystem may rearrange the competitive hierarchy".[34] At least seven peer-reviewed and published studies have been conducted demonstrating that triclosan is not significantly associated with bacterial resistance over the short term, including one study coauthored by Levy.[35] However, the major concern over resistant strains is not that they will alter resistance profiles over the short term. The concern is that superbugs will evolve against which no bactericide can be used. For example, as noted above, triclosan is effective against MRSA. However, overuse of triclosan could lead to MRSA that is also triclosan-resistant.[citation needed]
Some level of triclosan resistance can occur in some microorganisms, but the larger concern is with the potential for cross-resistance or co-resistance to other antimicrobials. Studies investigating this possibility have been limited.[36] The European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) concludes that to date, there is no evidence that using triclosan leads to an increase in antibiotic resistance. However it is too early to say that triclosan exposure never leads to microbial resistance, as there is not yet enough information to make a full risk analysis.[37]
There are chemicals for which no bacteria can have resistance, they are uniformly destroyed.
Yes.
These poison chemicals are what are used in the soaps (alcohol, chlorinated organics), they kill all bacteria, no exceptions.
Simply not true.
Correct, but the GGP that did not read the article was ranting about hand sanitizers.
Well, I suppose that's why it got modded into oblivion so that I never saw it, while your post was modded up and appeared by itself without sufficient context...
the "anti-bacterial" ingredients are chlorinated organics, they just poison bacteria. they are not in any way related to antibiotics and thus do not in any way conribute to resistance to antibiotics any more than your chlorinated kitchen cleanser does.
True. However there is still the possibility that bacteria will develop resistance to these poisons, and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
The antibacterial in most hand sanitizers [wikipedia.org] is simply alcohol.
Yes, but hand sanitizers are not the subject of the article. "Antibacterial soaps" are, which is an entirely different subject.
Seriously, like 2 weeks ago they had still signed up no users at all. So 44 up from 0 is like 1,000% improvement or something ;-)
Oh, and by the way, IIRC they paid over $300 million to Oracle alone; total cost of the project was actually over $600 million!
Is there any other alternative to let say outlook exchange servers ? Can an email server hold more than 1000 accounts?
Are you fucking kidding? Seriously?
So, I guess you haven't figured out yet that declarative and imperative are not disjoint, but rather there's a subset relationship. Imperative includes declarative functionality; declarative excludes flow control. Quit being a dumbass and accept the very lucid and completely correct explanation in the wikipedia link I provided oh so long ago!
Wow, then as CTO, that's an epic fail. Time was you needed 3rd party software to use TCP/IP on Windows, and Microsoft was very late to the game in supporting it.
I know, I know. It was completely ridiculous.
I'm sure that company has made some really awesome decisions with this clown at the helm. I'm betting small shop with limited technical breadth?
You mean like: throw out the system developed in house on a somewhat obscure platform that worked perfectly and had low license costs, and spend years trying to replace it with something re-built in Oracle, just so he could have "managed migration of enterprise system to Oracle" on his resume? Yep...
Some of these people literally believe that the Internet is a corporate creation that was spearheaded by Bill Gates... so you can see how solidly they understand the history of networking.
A buddy of mine was once consulting for a firm whose new "CTO" argued with him, vehemently insisting that Bill Gates invented TCP/IP...
There are ideas from the 1960 and 1970, like thorium reactors, breeder reactors or the pepple-bed concept.
I need new glasses. I first read that as "the people-bed concept", which of course leads right to an image of North Korea working a reactor where political prisoners are used to moderate the reaction ;-)
At this point, a lot of nuclear waste sits in fuel pools because there is no long-term solution.
Actually, leaving it in those pools until the hottest stuff burns itself out and what's left is the lower-level stuff, is not such a bad idea...
Perhaps you failed to notice, but 2002 is only just shy of 12 years ago. The word "decades" (note the fact that this is the plural not the singular) implies at least 20 years. So, the poster you replied to was exactly correct, they did not have this "decades ago".
Yes, and I, the poster he replied to, have been doing this kind of work for 3 decades, so I know good and damned well that the capabilities being discussed were not around 20 years ago ;-)
But this being /., home to "highly oppositional" personalities, I'm sure that next we'll hear that 1.2 decades is most certainly more than 1 decade, therefore plural. Then we can devolve into arguing about whether the linear scale is correct, or whether we should use a logarithmic one ;-)
It's only fairly recent in MySQL, MariaDB or whatever web people use these days. Real databases already had this decades ago.
No, they did not. They had triggers. They had neither active notifications, nor any way to write a trigger that accessed the file system or network "decades ago". (I'm talking specifically about the "Big Two" of times past, Oracle and Sybase.)
Actually, its not. DDL is declarative. DML, while usuallly vendor-dependent, its not necessarily declarative, and most often than not, is imperative. But anyway.
Wrong. DML is declarative as well.
Actually, its not. Machine language is declarative - you DESCRIBE values and operations (scroll up for people talking about VHDL and Verilog similarities) .
Wrong again.
HTML allows you to specify control flow for some given browsers - does that make HTML a programming language?
Meh. I wouldn't go that far. The thing is, HTML doesn't really have the other elements of a programming language, in particular you can only branch on that very limited set of conditions, and you don't have any way to store a computed value, much less any way to branch on it.
Grow out of your shell. The world is not black and white.
The world, no? Some technical definitions, yes. If the language has no explicit flow control it's declarative. If it has explicit flow control, it's imperative.
Or I do and I still call it bullshit. Which one will make you think twice about stuff?
Wait, call bullshit on what? The original article? Be my guest! Me? No, I actually know the difference pretty damned well.
The point is that *every* imperative or functional language has a declarative part. Even SQL.
SQL is a declarative language, not an imperative one.
And in the end, every language that is compiled into dynamic programmable logic (as in actual microprocessor instructions)...
Yes, machine language is imperative. That has nothing whatsoever to do with which higher-level languages are imperative vs declarative.
...so I'd guess you'll have a hard time figuring out if they are declarative (as in defining rules and limits) or imperative (performing operations).
Actually, no, I would have not any difficulty at all figuring that out--it's really quite easy for me to spot whether or not a programming language requires/allows me to specify control flow. Really, please read the wikipedia article before responding, because what you're saying strongly suggests that you don't know what declarative programming is at all.
Yes I did :D And that will actually come handy in a current project, tnx for the refresh!
Well then, don't forget kqueue (or libevent)--select is so nasty ;-) Also don't forget pq_consume_input...
So, what you're saying is that "Memory position X has value Y" is different from "Move Y to memory position X" in programmable logic?
Honestly, of the top hits in google for "declarative vs imperative programming", wikipedia explains it best.
Ok, I've read the article diagonally (hey its slashdot!), and apparently someone will have a big surprise when arriving to the letter T (triggers) in their SQL manual. And if it is an actual PostgreSQL manual, imagine their surprise when they find out they can actually code said "triggers" using several high-level languages.
You forgot "N" for "notify" ;-)
Complex applications are already built from a series of simple declarative statements. In fact, we call the most simple declarative statements language available "assembly".
No we don't. We call assembly, and most every language in common use, "imperative", not "declarative", because, you know, that's what they actually are. Off the top of my head, I can think of exactly 1 declarative language that is in common use: SQL. (Well, OK, I know, it's not terribly precise to call SQL just 1 language...)
A trigger on INSERT or UPDATE of a watched entity should kick off an INSERT into a message queue, and a trigger on INSERT in the message queue should run a script to send the message where it needs to go. Now you have a self-managing, self-logging, asynchronous system that only uses system resources when needed.
Yes, exactly. OK, sometimes it can actually be a little tricky to figure out who needs notification and what data they need, but that's application/business logic that just needs to be worked out. (Example: client was not interested in a particular "master" record, and therefore has not received it, but the addition of a particular "detail" record means that client is now interested, so sending the changed record is not enough, the update needs to include the master and all related details. And so on and so forth, for a really rich app with rich workflow, there winds up being a surprising amount of logic required to get the right updates but no more than needed out to each client.)
This was solved decades ago. Next question, please.
Well... No, not really, at least not that I know of. The ability for "trigger on INSERT in the message queue should run a script to send the message where it needs to go" has actually *not* been around for decades. For way too long, this had to be a process *polling* the message queue. Triggers were limited to whatever "procedural SQL" flavor your db had, and had no access to file or network resources. Now you can write triggers in many languages, sometimes with full access to the system. Now you can from a SQL trigger send a notice, which a client can listen for via select/kqueue/libevent etc. But that's all much more recent.
Original has a specific legal context which is why, once again, that word is used to define work that can be copyrighted in the article you linked.
AS IS CREATIVITY. SAME ARTICLE. BOTH WORDS USED. AND DISCUSSED HOW THE ORIGINALITY REQUIREMENT RELATES TO CREATIVITY.
2 seconds with google, first hit:
Originality and Creativity in Copyright Law
You seem to be wanting to make some huge distinction between originality and creativity. There isn't one. If it's original, it's creative, as in the word creation, meaning to create something new, as in something original.
I don't happen to have ready access to the ruling. But I assure you, many of the filings from both Oracle and Google specifically mention "creativity" many times. Just google "oracle google creativity" and you'll get plenty of examples.
Blanket statements with no evidence are great right? I've personally have never heard of someone being unable to obtain copyright for a large piece of software because nine lines of code weren't creative. Or are you arguing that Java as a whole wasn't creative? So, I'll bite, please enlighten me.
The question is not whether the work as a whole has copyright protection, the question is whether those 9 lines of purely functional code, have copyright protection. And no, just because a work has copyright protection does not mean that every element of it has protection.
Why should I present evidence when the cases are so famous? As in, phone companies tried very hard to assert copyright over phone books, and failed--just for one instance of many. Also, there is of course the ruling in the case under discussion! It might or might not be overruled on the basis that the 9 lines do contain an element of creativity, but why exactly do you think the ruling in the case hinged on analyzing whether or not those 9 lines (3 really) embodied any creative expression? What is more likely, that a federal judge with long years of experience in the field pulled that requirement out of his ass, or that you are wrong?