Personally, it annoys the hell out of me that Firefox, IE, Opera, etc., have to even try to run this code before exitting.
Why can't someone write a simple browser that can solve the halting problem, so we can be done with this?
The fundamental difference (between Date's no-null approach and SQL's null approach) is this: Say you have an entity described by a key value and a single attribute. In some cases, it's possible that instances of the entity can be entered into the database, but for some reason, the attribute cannot be specified.
The SQL approach: Use a single relation (table). Store all entitities in this table, but plop a NULL into the attribute field for any entities with an un-specified value. Leave no way for the end-user to know *why* the attribute is unspecified.
Date's approach: Use 2 or more relations (tables). The first relation will contain the key value and attributes for all entitities where the attribute was specified. The second relation will simply contain key values where no attribute was specified, perhaps because the attribute was unknown. The third relation will contain key values where no attribute was specified, perhaps because the key value was known to simply not *have* this attribute. (Alternatively, use just one relation in addition to the first, with a key value and a column entitle "Reason_attribute_is_missing" or some such)
The key point made by the Dates camp is that the latter approach is more descriptive and, more importantly, it is actually fully relational in the sense that it does not clutter the database with meaningless NULL's. Supposedly, the former approach is used in SQL because SQL does not have the language features needed to implement the pure relational approach in an elegant fashion - if at all (for instance, in SQL, how would one use the second approach, but still have the key value - which si spil over multiple tables - be a foreign key to some other relation?)
Tutorial D/Rel attempts to address these (and other) concerns by going back to the drawing board, and designing a language capable of implementing a pure relational database.
I can't recall the last time I read a post from a Libertarian perspective where there was no emphasis placed on "FORCED", or mention of "MEN WITH GUNS", when it comes to taxation. However, the vast majority of those in the Libertarian party (e.g., those who fall shy of the "anarchist" label) do espouse *some* form of taxation. For example, a libertarian society would, presumably, implement a public penal system for the confinement of certain classes of societal undersireables, such as murderes and child molesters.
My question is, if I lived in such a society, but did not have or even know any children, I might express a sentiment that I do not want *MY* hard earned wages going towards the funding of a penal system that locks up child molesters - they pose no threat to me whatsoever. Furthermore, I might decide to save the thousands of dollars that might be used towards a police force/judicial system, by simply buying a $150 hand gun, carried at my hip at all times.
Bringing me to my question: how would the Libertarian society react to my decision to not contribute funding towards these public projects?
My guess: FORCING me to pay the taxes, by sending MEN WITH GUNS to my house.
Same thing goes with private contracts - supposedly, if I agree to pay someone $2000 to re-roof my house, but then refuse to pay for the work after the fact... something tells me that even in the most elegant of Libertarian societies, I can expect to be parted from my hard earned cash, by FORCE, when... wait for it... that's right... when MEN WITH GUNS come to my front door.
POINT BEING: It's one thing to disagree with things a society feels all members must contribute towards... it's quite another to use FUD-like bulls**t tactics (oh! horrors! i was FORCED to pay my taxes, by FORCE!) - when you do not, in fact, have any plans to change that particular aspect of tax collection whatsoever.
I think you miss the point. With Opera, I can be browsing 20 different sites, and have an "Oh Crap, I'm going to miss the bus!" moment. Whether I just close Opera, log off, close all porgrams, or even power cycle; the next time I come back to the computer, Opera will let me pick up where I left off.
No extra steps, no saving, no extensions to download and install, no bookmarks or bookmark folders to fiddle with, nothing like that. Just turn Opera off, and turn it back on, and *bam*, there's where you left off...
I think that's the functionality the poster is referring to - does Mozilla have anything similar?
An even better implementation: I click on an article. I get a near-blank javascript page with three questions: male/female (radio buttons), country or state (dropdown), and age group (radio button); plus a "remember me (y/n)" option.
As soon as I populate these (should take 2.5 seconds), the article loads.
The cost of viewing one article is approximately 2.5 seconds of my time. The cost of viewing multiple articles is either 2.5 seconds per article (if I refuse cookies), or, allow media outlet to track my usage (if I accept cookies).
But no... for some !@#$ing reason, this just isn't quite enough for many online new-sites. They want an email address. They want me to remember account info (login and password). WHY? What do they get out of this that they wouldn't get from the above?
Physical source of true randomness: 1) For N seconds, observe a radioactive isotope with a half-life of N seconds. 3) Write 1 if it decays, otherwise, write 0. 4) Repeat steps 1 and 2 M times, for a M-bit random value.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, it annoys the hell out of me that Firefox, IE, Opera, etc., have to even try to run this code before exitting. Why can't someone write a simple browser that can solve the halting problem, so we can be done with this?
And we computer scientists laugh at you IT grunts - what's your point?
We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me. -- Jack Handey
The SQL approach: Use a single relation (table). Store all entitities in this table, but plop a NULL into the attribute field for any entities with an un-specified value. Leave no way for the end-user to know *why* the attribute is unspecified.
Date's approach: Use 2 or more relations (tables). The first relation will contain the key value and attributes for all entitities where the attribute was specified. The second relation will simply contain key values where no attribute was specified, perhaps because the attribute was unknown. The third relation will contain key values where no attribute was specified, perhaps because the key value was known to simply not *have* this attribute. (Alternatively, use just one relation in addition to the first, with a key value and a column entitle "Reason_attribute_is_missing" or some such)
The key point made by the Dates camp is that the latter approach is more descriptive and, more importantly, it is actually fully relational in the sense that it does not clutter the database with meaningless NULL's. Supposedly, the former approach is used in SQL because SQL does not have the language features needed to implement the pure relational approach in an elegant fashion - if at all (for instance, in SQL, how would one use the second approach, but still have the key value - which si spil over multiple tables - be a foreign key to some other relation?)
Tutorial D/Rel attempts to address these (and other) concerns by going back to the drawing board, and designing a language capable of implementing a pure relational database.
My question is, if I lived in such a society, but did not have or even know any children, I might express a sentiment that I do not want *MY* hard earned wages going towards the funding of a penal system that locks up child molesters - they pose no threat to me whatsoever. Furthermore, I might decide to save the thousands of dollars that might be used towards a police force/judicial system, by simply buying a $150 hand gun, carried at my hip at all times.
Bringing me to my question: how would the Libertarian society react to my decision to not contribute funding towards these public projects?
My guess: FORCING me to pay the taxes, by sending MEN WITH GUNS to my house.
Same thing goes with private contracts - supposedly, if I agree to pay someone $2000 to re-roof my house, but then refuse to pay for the work after the fact... something tells me that even in the most elegant of Libertarian societies, I can expect to be parted from my hard earned cash, by FORCE, when... wait for it... that's right... when MEN WITH GUNS come to my front door.
POINT BEING: It's one thing to disagree with things a society feels all members must contribute towards... it's quite another to use FUD-like bulls**t tactics (oh! horrors! i was FORCED to pay my taxes, by FORCE!) - when you do not, in fact, have any plans to change that particular aspect of tax collection whatsoever.
I think you miss the point. With Opera, I can be browsing 20 different sites, and have an "Oh Crap, I'm going to miss the bus!" moment. Whether I just close Opera, log off, close all porgrams, or even power cycle; the next time I come back to the computer, Opera will let me pick up where I left off. No extra steps, no saving, no extensions to download and install, no bookmarks or bookmark folders to fiddle with, nothing like that. Just turn Opera off, and turn it back on, and *bam*, there's where you left off... I think that's the functionality the poster is referring to - does Mozilla have anything similar?
An even better implementation: I click on an article. I get a near-blank javascript page with three questions: male/female (radio buttons), country or state (dropdown), and age group (radio button); plus a "remember me (y/n)" option. As soon as I populate these (should take 2.5 seconds), the article loads. The cost of viewing one article is approximately 2.5 seconds of my time. The cost of viewing multiple articles is either 2.5 seconds per article (if I refuse cookies), or, allow media outlet to track my usage (if I accept cookies). But no... for some !@#$ing reason, this just isn't quite enough for many online new-sites. They want an email address. They want me to remember account info (login and password). WHY? What do they get out of this that they wouldn't get from the above?
Physical source of true randomness:
1) For N seconds, observe a radioactive isotope with a half-life of N seconds.
3) Write 1 if it decays, otherwise, write 0.
4) Repeat steps 1 and 2 M times, for a M-bit random value.