Remember that statement? That pretty much says it all.
You have to remember (or realize) the dirty fact that the music business has almost nothing to do with music. It has to do with promotion. It makes about as much sense to complain about the music business ripping off the "musical artist" as it does to complain about the shock-absorber business ripping off the "drill-press artist" or the "rubber bushing #214A artist".
The music biz can pick, choose, or manufacture "artists" upon its whim, promote them with the guile that can only come from decades of dilligent mass manipulation - and truckloads of obedient kids will duly line up with money in hand, go shrieking to the concerts, and obliviously suck up every cross-promotional product without so much as a moment's reflection.
Please, once more for clarity: THE CONSUMER - AND ESPECIALLY THE TEENAGE / YOUNG ADULT CONSUMER - IS A FUCKING COW TO BE MILKED.
So don't be so upset that the music companies are taking all the money. They did the heavy lifting. They put out the ads. They put together the deals with Pepsi and Budweiser and AOL and Spin and Rolling Stone and MTV and the radio conglomerates to mind-fuck that band into your consciousness, and into the collective youth consciousness that virtually every teenager lives in terror of being excluded from.
So give credit where credit is due.
If you want real music, from un-exploited "artists", simply stop buying from the evil corporations. Leave the talentless, classless, unimaginative, over-produced, formulaic dreck on the shelves. Scour the net for independent work. Discover music your friends have never heard before. Find intriguing, mysterious music made by small outfits without massive distribution channels and focus-group-driven images. It takes some time to find them out there, but when you do, they are precious.
Then whip our your credit card and support them by purchasing their work. You'll get a a CD with a home-made liner inside a plain brown wrapper with your address hand-written on it. And you know what? The artist will probably get every cent you send.
The band may not even exist in a couple years, but you will always have that CD, and the music on it - a memento of your discovery.
Oh well, never mind - I think I hear them ringing the bell up at the barn. They're putting out the hay. Time for you to eat what you're given, and have the suction milkers attached to your teats.
When I was in the Marine Corps, MRE stood for Meal Ready to Eat. These were the most horrible of things I was subjected to
No kidding. I gave my dog an MRE sausage once. He approached it excitedly, then stopped, froze, put his tail between his legs and backed slowly away. No kidding.
And, back then at least, the MRE's were packaged in Cadillac MI, where, I believe, there are a lot of pet food processing plants...
What will the kids run? What educational software is there for Linux? I mean REALLY? Sure, there is some, but it's not even close to what is available for Windows.
Well, if you're learning about computers, EVERY program on a Linux box is educational!
I'm sure I'm not the only one who sniggered when I read this. I'm also probably not the only one who doubts it'll happen.
I'm sure Red Hat knows it'll never happen, but the publicity is priceless. It reminds me of Taco Bell putting out that 40-foot-square target in the middle of the ocean and offering something to somebody if the space station plummeting to earth hit it: never happen, but it sure got them on a lot of news broadcasts.
Not compared to Team Arena. That was a cheap hack that they sold just to rake in a bit more. Wolf3d is the same engine and very little else. And it actually has a single-player element, one that doesn't involve out-railing bots. (God, their AI is crap.)
Q3:TA was a few new runes, some new models, and some new maps. Nothing amazing either. A day or so picking over planetquake for 3rd-party levels will get you the same quality. Ca-ching.
I referred to it as a kludge because to get the benefit of a hierarchial database in a relational one, everything must be done in joiner tables. i.e. you have a table of names. Then a table of names and telephone numbers. Now a table of names and addresses. Don't forget the table of names and spouses. Or the table of names and contact categories. And so on and so on and so on. There's no longer any structure, just a bazillion tables all linking each other. Normalization bliss, perhaps, but a pain in the ass to work with.
I'm not sure I see it as such a burden to keep entities in separate, non-redundant tables and to represent their associations in a table for that purpose. Certainly less hassle than reorganizing your hierarchy when your needs change.
WRT your example - since there appears to be a one-one relationship of most of those items to "name", separate tables are unnecessary (unless you have to maintain histories). If you just need current address and current spouse, you include those in the employee table.
And, of course, you wouldn't use "name" as the primary key:-)
It seems to me that a lot of data is hierarchical in nature. It's represented that way in programs and sometimes, you just want it to be persistent.
That's inflexible. As you said, the data is REPRESENTED that way in programs, but it's only a representation. You might want it in a different hierarchy later (and there is almost always a "later", whether you're the one who encounters it or not).
Relational databases are here to stay and will be with us for at least the next fifty years. It is better to think of ways of translating relational data than supplanting it.
Yeppers - taking the LDAP example, the best of both worlds would be to keep the actual data in a relational DB, and use a tool to "publish" it as an LDAP directory, or just use an LDAP interface to that data, along with an indexing scheme that optimizes for LDAP-like queries.
In a relational database you must either leave room for the most you think you will run into,
No self-respecting DB designer would do this unless there was a very good special-case reason to do so.
use a "joiner" table (the real term escapes me at this moment) or similarly kludge together a solution. Hierarchial databases are a pain in the ass for many things, but storing multivalued data is not one of an RDBMS' strong points.
The "joiner" table you refer to is hardly a "kludge". It is an accurate representation of the association between items.
Here's an example of your hierarchy breaking down:
Let's say one of the telephoneNumber items is actually the front desk number in an office shared by a few dozen employees. Now let's say the number changes - you have to change that number in several dozen places.
In a properly modeled database, you change the number in one place, and the "joiner" tables just point to it, so they get the change automatically.
Personally I think directory information would be much better represented in a relational DB, but I understand the trade-off in the interest of speed.
Hierarchies are often used to represent a view of data that is appropriate for a given purpose, but different scenarios will often need different views of the same data, so it's not a good idea to lock the data into one hierarchy or another.
Today you might want to store your history of employee-department assignments by nesting employees under departments, but at some point you may also want to nest work histories under employees.
this fink maintainer (Christoph Pfisterer) really does need to get off the project, and onto some valium. reading the threads he posted after his rant one gets the impression that he is on a permanent caffeine-stress-hairtrigger high. jeez.
Agreed. Chris needs to take a break for awhile, then maybe come back with a lighter schedule.
relax and watch as the media starts a lenghty discussion about it, mentioning your company's name 1000's of times.
The "any publicity is good publicity" theory doesn't really hold water when the whole planet already knows who you are. Why would Microsoft want a long discussion in which their company is mentioned thousands of times in the context: "Microsoft is terrified of Linux". I mean, who's getting the publicity there?
I think what Bill is saying is that he feels the Open Source movement is riding on the coat-tails of Microsoft's success.
That is exactly what he's saying. What astoundingly large cajones on that filthy bastard. He must have his Armani trousers specially fitted.
If OSS rides on the coat-tails of anything, it's the global collaboration that the Internet makes possible - and we all know how large a role Microsoft played in that.
I think Gates & Co. is exploring the tactic of making open source work taxable. True, no money changes hands - but you owe taxes on barter transactions. If you look at it just right (i.e. from the perspective of a politician who's just had a big wad of cash stuffed up his ass), you could see open source work as a large amorphous blob of untaxed barter transactions.
I don't think this holds any water whatsoever but it might serve as the thread of a pretext to unravel the warm snug cozy wool poncho we all call open source. There are several dozen ways you spin this to make it look like those damnable hackers and terrorists aren't paying their taxes like everyone else has to.
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - Some dude whose quote I haven't given much thought to until recently
Say a company has spent 5 years integrating NT systems into their department. That usually means it will take another 5 years to get rid of it.
Yes oh yes oh yes. Lock-in is a real condition faced by businesses, and it takes time to extricate yourself from the giant squid's sucker-bedecked tentacles.
Linux has only really been seen by business as a "respectable" operating system for a couple of years. That's hardly enough time to think about, accept, plan and implement a migration.
Consider also that businesses in transition will often have to keep the NT boxes running along-side the Linux ones, but that the relative responsibility levels of those boxes is changing. Sure, we still have that NT box, but I'm happy to report that just yesterday I changed the startup mode of all the Exchange-related services on one of our NT servers from "Automatic" to "Disabled" - our mail is now handled by Linux:-)
Then everybody starts sharing edited (as in no commercials) versions of the shows and then the shows make no money because nobody is watching the commercials, then the shows die, and then the TV networks die.
Slashdot Mirror
...and I'm sure the Chinese wanna give a big shout-out to Hughes and Loral corps for their help.
China wants space-based military capabilities to compete with the US, including killer satellites to knock out US spy and GPS satellites.
You have to remember (or realize) the dirty fact that the music business has almost nothing to do with music. It has to do with promotion. It makes about as much sense to complain about the music business ripping off the "musical artist" as it does to complain about the shock-absorber business ripping off the "drill-press artist" or the "rubber bushing #214A artist".
The music biz can pick, choose, or manufacture "artists" upon its whim, promote them with the guile that can only come from decades of dilligent mass manipulation - and truckloads of obedient kids will duly line up with money in hand, go shrieking to the concerts, and obliviously suck up every cross-promotional product without so much as a moment's reflection.
Please, once more for clarity: THE CONSUMER - AND ESPECIALLY THE TEENAGE / YOUNG ADULT CONSUMER - IS A FUCKING COW TO BE MILKED.
So don't be so upset that the music companies are taking all the money. They did the heavy lifting. They put out the ads. They put together the deals with Pepsi and Budweiser and AOL and Spin and Rolling Stone and MTV and the radio conglomerates to mind-fuck that band into your consciousness, and into the collective youth consciousness that virtually every teenager lives in terror of being excluded from.
So give credit where credit is due.
If you want real music, from un-exploited "artists", simply stop buying from the evil corporations. Leave the talentless, classless, unimaginative, over-produced, formulaic dreck on the shelves. Scour the net for independent work. Discover music your friends have never heard before. Find intriguing, mysterious music made by small outfits without massive distribution channels and focus-group-driven images. It takes some time to find them out there, but when you do, they are precious.
Then whip our your credit card and support them by purchasing their work. You'll get a a CD with a home-made liner inside a plain brown wrapper with your address hand-written on it. And you know what? The artist will probably get every cent you send.
The band may not even exist in a couple years, but you will always have that CD, and the music on it - a memento of your discovery.
Oh well, never mind - I think I hear them ringing the bell up at the barn. They're putting out the hay. Time for you to eat what you're given, and have the suction milkers attached to your teats.
No kidding. I gave my dog an MRE sausage once. He approached it excitedly, then stopped, froze, put his tail between his legs and backed slowly away. No kidding.
And, back then at least, the MRE's were packaged in Cadillac MI, where, I believe, there are a lot of pet food processing plants...
Well, if you're learning about computers, EVERY program on a Linux box is educational!
I'm sure Red Hat knows it'll never happen, but the publicity is priceless. It reminds me of Taco Bell putting out that 40-foot-square target in the middle of the ocean and offering something to somebody if the space station plummeting to earth hit it: never happen, but it sure got them on a lot of news broadcasts.
Q3:TA was a few new runes, some new models, and some new maps. Nothing amazing either. A day or so picking over planetquake for 3rd-party levels will get you the same quality. Ca-ching.
Christ, Romero, still bitter?
Sounds like a play on swords, not words!
Please stop now before this gets out of hand! Aaaaghh!
I'm not sure I see it as such a burden to keep entities in separate, non-redundant tables and to represent their associations in a table for that purpose. Certainly less hassle than reorganizing your hierarchy when your needs change.
WRT your example - since there appears to be a one-one relationship of most of those items to "name", separate tables are unnecessary (unless you have to maintain histories). If you just need current address and current spouse, you include those in the employee table.
And, of course, you wouldn't use "name" as the primary key :-)
That's inflexible. As you said, the data is REPRESENTED that way in programs, but it's only a representation. You might want it in a different hierarchy later (and there is almost always a "later", whether you're the one who encounters it or not).
I think you're wrong. How about: "Not all data is a tree" instead?
Yeppers - taking the LDAP example, the best of both worlds would be to keep the actual data in a relational DB, and use a tool to "publish" it as an LDAP directory, or just use an LDAP interface to that data, along with an indexing scheme that optimizes for LDAP-like queries.
No self-respecting DB designer would do this unless there was a very good special-case reason to do so.
use a "joiner" table (the real term escapes me at this moment) or similarly kludge together a solution. Hierarchial databases are a pain in the ass for many things, but storing multivalued data is not one of an RDBMS' strong points.
The "joiner" table you refer to is hardly a "kludge". It is an accurate representation of the association between items.
Here's an example of your hierarchy breaking down:
Let's say one of the telephoneNumber items is actually the front desk number in an office shared by a few dozen employees. Now let's say the number changes - you have to change that number in several dozen places.
In a properly modeled database, you change the number in one place, and the "joiner" tables just point to it, so they get the change automatically.
Personally I think directory information would be much better represented in a relational DB, but I understand the trade-off in the interest of speed.
Today you might want to store your history of employee-department assignments by nesting employees under departments, but at some point you may also want to nest work histories under employees.
hee hee hee... if i only had a gun....
Agreed. Chris needs to take a break for awhile, then maybe come back with a lighter schedule.
You just know that Honda's gonna get together with these guys.
The "any publicity is good publicity" theory doesn't really hold water when the whole planet already knows who you are. Why would Microsoft want a long discussion in which their company is mentioned thousands of times in the context: "Microsoft is terrified of Linux". I mean, who's getting the publicity there?
Just further evidence that how high you get in the corp is largely determined by how big of an obnoxious asshole you can be.
They're probably just doing internal testing of the next Microsoft license, which you will be required to tattoo on your fucken ass.
*laugh!* - I was going to say it looked like an undertaker's convention...
That is exactly what he's saying. What astoundingly large cajones on that filthy bastard. He must have his Armani trousers specially fitted.
If OSS rides on the coat-tails of anything, it's the global collaboration that the Internet makes possible - and we all know how large a role Microsoft played in that.
I don't think this holds any water whatsoever but it might serve as the thread of a pretext to unravel the warm snug cozy wool poncho we all call open source. There are several dozen ways you spin this to make it look like those damnable hackers and terrorists aren't paying their taxes like everyone else has to.
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - Some dude whose quote I haven't given much thought to until recently
Yes oh yes oh yes. Lock-in is a real condition faced by businesses, and it takes time to extricate yourself from the giant squid's sucker-bedecked tentacles.
Linux has only really been seen by business as a "respectable" operating system for a couple of years. That's hardly enough time to think about, accept, plan and implement a migration.
Consider also that businesses in transition will often have to keep the NT boxes running along-side the Linux ones, but that the relative responsibility levels of those boxes is changing. Sure, we still have that NT box, but I'm happy to report that just yesterday I changed the startup mode of all the Exchange-related services on one of our NT servers from "Automatic" to "Disabled" - our mail is now handled by Linux :-)
Good riddance.
great idea!
Sounds pretty fucken good to me!