I didn't say any of those, except for #3, which is true. There is nothing about primary keys that is "managed" by the RDBMS except for making sure the value is unique. This is called a constraint, and it is a function that the database performs on specified columns regardless of whether they are primary keys are not.
The chapter I wrote on my own was on ajax, yes, because none of the other co-authors had ajax experience. I don't really care what your opinion of wrox is; they made the best offer so we selected them. If you're talking about the resume that is posted on my website, that is out of date by about 4 years because, as I say on that very page, I am not considering any offers of employment from people who just happen upon that page. If there is an opportunity that I am interested in, I send them my resume. I suppose I probably should just remove that page on my site, but other than morons on slashdot who can't answer simple database questions and would rather take cheap shots, I didn't really see a need to.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll see you eventually. Whoever decided to employ someone of your maturity will likely need to call my company in at some point to clean up your mess. Until then, keep on with the cheap shots...
It's impressive that even in your childish personal attacks you can find room for significant inaccuracies.
> AJAX boy
ajax is a hobby I messed with on the side. I stopped right around the time people started calling it 'ajax' in 2005
> 3 years experience
10 years in June
> none of which was fulltime database development
Bzzt
> does not make make you a DBA.
I never claimed to be a DBA, nor do I ever want to be a DBA. If I want to know what I should set my Oracle heap size, I will ask a DBA. The fact that you think DBAs model data explains a lot.
> You are a waste of my time, junior.
I think if you were worried about wasting time, you would have answered my simple question about 7 replies ago, instead of consistently evading the question by employing personal attacks. (I guess that assumes you have the ability to answer it, though.)
I have asked you only one and you haven't answered it: what relevance does the speed of an index lookup have on a data set so small that the database optimizer will not choose to use the index?
> Keys are always indexed. Look it up.
You're talking out of your arse. First of all, I don't even know how this has any relevance, because I was not talking about whether or not the column was indexed.
I was talking about -- assuming it IS indexed -- whether the database will USE the index or decide to perform a full table scan. With small unjoined data sets, it is LESS EFFICIENT to use the index. I'm sure that is difficult for you to grasp, because someone told you a "rule of thumb" that indexes make searches faster, but that's why we pay smart people to build our database optimizers for us, and you can just let it do its magic without understanding it in the least (which is good, because you clearly do not).
Your knowledge of databases reads like a bulleted list in a beginner book intro. Perhaps some day you will discover that these rules of thumb are just that: rules of thumb. And when you begin to look into how databases actually operate, you begin to realize that there are a lot of exceptions to your rules of thumb.
Thanks for all the replies so far, the reason I ask what will look best on a resume is with the economy the way it is, I've begun to wonder what combination of education and experience will give me the most opportunities down the road.
So, I was wondering when I read your question WHY you wanted to stay there for grad school, if you have no idea what you want to study. My guess was fear related to the economy, and I think you confirm that here.
This is a MISTAKE. If you are as good as you say you are, then you are in prime position to get a great job coming out of undergrad, regardless of the economy. There are plenty of companies, like mine, whose entire business model relies on a constant stream of people being hired out of undergrad. They cannot stop hiring, even in an economy like this, because it would do long-term damage to their business (they will even lay off senior people in order to be able to hire new entry level people).
If you go to grad school, especially for something like an MBA, you are going to guarantee only one thing: you're going to be head over heels in debt. That is not a big deal if you have a specific plan and a big reason to seek that MBA. But if you are just afraid to go job seeking right now, that's a horrible reason to go into massive debt. Even if you didn't get a job for 2 years and lived off your credit cards, you'd be BETTER OFF after those 2 years with probably only $40k in debt vs $80k for business school (obviously, it is different kind of debt and you have something to show for it in the latter case, but the point is the magnitude of the debt you must endure to go to a good MBA school).
And then let's fast forward 2 years. Will the economy be worse or better? I hope it will be better, but neither you nor I know that. All this bailout business is a huge gamble and we could be in deep shit 2 years down the road. Or we could be a booming economy again. I don't know, and neither do you. All you know is that you CAN get a job now, if you are as good as you say you are. The future is not nearly as certain. So do it!
> I am an excellent programmer, but working 9-5 in a cubicle writing code > scares me and does not seem like a good way to spend the next 30+ years > of my life.
So do it for 7 years, build up capital, and buy a franchise. You do not need an MBA to run a franchise business.
> That being said, I have done some freelance web design and web database > application development and really enjoyed it.
I would shy away from trying to make it freelance in an economy like this. Look, I can empathize. 3 years ago I was just like you. I freelanced in HS and college and wondered if I could do that for a living. I also considered a life in academia to avoid the rat race. Then I stopped whining and decided to delay the gratification of being my own boss or owning part or all of a business and get a good job now. I'm now in a much stronger financial position to open a business, which makes it much more likely that I will succeed and will NOT be in a cubicle for 30 years (I'm going on 3 now).
> I have also worked in various environments doing IT work and found it > alright.
It doesn't have to be your dream job. It just needs to get you a step closer to your dream job. Don't make today a little easier at the expense of the rest of your career.
> I often hear that IT degrees are for people who couldn't make it in > Computer Science.
There is some truth to this, but it doesn't matter. Some companies will not hire CS people because they don't think they understand enough about business. I got lucky; my company was piloting a program where they were considering CS majors for the first time, and I got in (it worked out, and they now consider them regularly). There are pros and cons to each major, and it really just depends on what kind of work you want to do.
All this back and forth and still no response to the main point, which was your entire argument is moot because the database optimizer will likely not use the index with such a small data set anyway. Therefore, removing usability for the sake of a faster index lookup is STUPID since there IS no index lookup. Your "rule of thumb" mentality that you still haven't given any real reason for (except "go google it!!!1") just shows you don't have any real understanding of how databases work, as well as how to think about the application as a whole rather than "how can I squeeze an extra 0.01ms out of this query and save 12KB on disk", which is decidedly oversimplistic.
Instead you offer a bunch of childish jabs and "look at me, I'm the expert" positioning without anything to back it up. Thanks for being a typical slashdot idiot who is more interested in stroking his own ego by putting strangers down than responding to the issue in question.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go buy those books you mentioned so I can be as "enlightened" as you are.
> It's not entirely independent because the opportunity cost of developing > something else is the profit you would potentially take from Android Market.
Did you not include my parenthetical in your quote so that you could restate it?
"except that you may not have the resources (time) to develop for both, and should therefore pick the most profitable"
> If the world exists, then it could not have ended.
Please prove that the world has never ended before.
> Therefore the world can only end once because afterwards it will no > longer exist to end a second time.
Please prove that the end of the world is the end of the lifecycle of everything.
> I believe the only observation that his/her logic rests on is the > observation that the world has not ended yet, and therefore the day > it does end has not occurred yet.
The only thing the author is saying is that we're currently not in a state of non-existence. Thanks. Everything else, including that there will ever be a state of non-existence, is based on conjecture, not evidence. It's akin to saying "I am not currently being eaten by a lion", supported by the fact that I am currently not being eaten by a lion. The suggestion that there is any explanatory or future predictive value is just flat-out wrong.
So, his comment was fine until he threw 'AKA, it's not a matter of "if."' in there.
If I am, it's only the point you want to make, not the one I'm making.
> that integers make better keys than strings. You are NOW talking about an > entirely different topic of surrogate keys vs. natural keys wherein a > surrogate is usually always the better choice because the database > maintains the control over the key and key relationships whereas natural > keys are prone to human error, repetition, duplication, etc as they are > based on an external system.
Um, what? The database does not "keep control over the key". Your application does. In both cases. No matter what data type your key is. The only thing the database does is guarantee uniqueness in the column, and that does not change whether you use a string, an integer, or a date, or any combination of these.
You're making a whole lot out of nothing, here. And you still didn't address the real point, which was that in your example the index would likely not even be used, because the data set is so small.
> For example, given your previous example wherein you used a webpage name > as the key, can't two web pages have the same name?
They can't in normal file systems! What requirement do you have for needing two different pages to have exactly the same name? You are grasping at straws, my friend.
> As such, you're natural key fails (as most do).
Sir, you just do not know what you're talking about. The natural key is the natural key no matter what. If the column(s) is not unique, then it is not the natural key. If you're saying the column is not unique, then of course you cannot use that as a unique key! But to say "the natural key is failing" makes no sense. If it is not unique, it was never a natural key. If it is a natural key, it will never have duplicates.
You are doing what all "DBAs" do and throw numeric surrogate keys everywhere because it's easier than having to be an actual data modeler. But the data is the data is the data. You say "well, if I use a surrogate key, then I can have two pages with the same name." I say that is a data modeling error. Adding a surrogate key does not change the meaning of the rest of the data.
> The surrogate makes your system self contained and controlled.
It doesn't make anything any different. It is a decision of DATA TYPE. It is a column like any other column, and your application has full control over it whether it is an integer or a varchar or a date. You are making a lot out of nothing. Are you sure you understand what a primary key is? It is not an autonumber field in Access that magically populates the next available number. It's just a column that holds a piece of data, whatever that data might be and whatever data type it might be.
> My suggestion to you is to take a class on database administration. It > really helps to round out your experience and I think you will find it > helpful in the long run to avoid anymore errors like the ones you are > running in to.
Guess I should have done that before I wrote that book... thanks for the suggestion.
Well I disagree with the premise of the question. You develop for Apple if it is profitable. If these terms make it unprofitable (with risk factored in), then you don't do it. Whether or not you should develop for Android is a separate and independent discussion, except that you may not have the resources (time) to develop for both, and should therefore pick the most profitable).
The problem with your point of view is that the burden of proof is on the scientists saying there IS global warming. We do this for a very specific reason. It would be nearly impossible to PROVE that variations in temperature are due to randomness or are no different than in the past. Our statistical tools require significant evidence for us to conclude otherwise, but the other way around doesn't work so well.
The reason, and the point behind the article here (although I'm sure you commented without reading it), is not whether it is or isn't a problem. It'd be great if we lived in a binary world like that, but we don't. We have limited resources and must apply them to the most important things before we start going after less important things.
THEREFORE, the relative importance of global warming is of the utmost relevance. If we were to find out that global warming will cause an increase of 1C over the next 1000 years, then I think we could be putting that money to curing AIDS, cancer, or any of the million other things that are significantly larger threats to human life.
> There is a strong sentiment among slashdotters that Global Warming is bunk. > Which shows just how ignorant the population at slashdot really is (never > mind the general public).
Funny how you point out that name-calling is not a scientific argument, and yet you seem to favor it anyway.
Pretty sure you missed the point. Parent's point is that "the world is going to end" is intended to spark emotion (ie, fear), which is NOT science. If we can make a scientific argument, let's do that. If we can't, then we have no business substituting science for fear and still calling it science.
As with every other absolute, it's always wrong. If you are choosing whether to add a new key field that is a varchar or a number, of course you use the number. But if you already have a varchar field that you must store and which is the business key, should you add a new field that is an integer? Maybe, maybe not.
And you didn't address my point that the database probably won't even USE an index given the small set of data, which of course was the biggest point.
> You assume that there's some inherit difference between the lobster > feeling a "pain" signal and it's instinctual reaction, and a human > feeling a "pain" signal and reacting.
Of course I do, because I subscribe to the scientific method and we have discovered no REASON to believe otherwise.
> It's merely one of degrees of development, in the human it's a much > more complicated reaction, but essentially it's identical to the > lobster.
Sir, that's like saying that the connection between two lobsters mating is the same as two married humans, just a more complicated emotion.
> It's funny watching people try to come to grips with the fact that > people are animals just like any other animal, merely one with a > more advanced neural capacity.
This is just wrong. Are there animals that have many similar capacities as humans? Yes. But they are rare, and the still don't have the ability to simulate. The famous example is: would you like to win the lottery? You'd say yes, although you have never won the lottery before. You are able to simulate what it would be like. There is no evidence that animals can do this. None. Zero. They must experience the stimulus in order to learn from it.
The only thing that groups something in the 'animal' category is the characteristics of its cell wall.
> In the end, it all boils down to stimulus and reactions
No, it doesn't. See above.
> people are no different than lobsters in that respect.
People can experience stimuli and react to it, as lobsters can. Humans can do much more than lobsters cannot.
But you missed the point. The point is that we assume that the stimuli of boiling water is the same experience to a lobster and a human, and there is just no evidence supporting that. There is a ton of neuroanatomical evidence that suggests just the opposite.
(My focus in university was neuroscience, by the way.)
> but that doesn't mean I want the animal that steak came from to > suffer unnecessarily.
That is not the question. The question is whether you can assume that your simulated experience in boiling water or having your head chopped off is a) even accurate for a human (let's assume it is), and b) the same as a lobster experiences it. To assume that a lobster has the same emotions as a human without any evidence whatsoever is not very scientific (that's a nice way of saying "preposterous").
Sir, I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't know what you're talking about.
> Don't use strings as keys in databases. They are far slower to index.
What does that mean? A given row is slower to add to an index, or a search on an existing index is slower? Further, a search on 50 pages that you have on your website, probably will not even USE an index, even if it exists. If it does, the 0.001ms difference on a string vs integer lookup is going to make no difference... certainly not enough difference to forgo usability.
> In general you should never use a string as a key.
This is hogwash.
> They all use strings and/or XML which are far slower and can't > maintain the page relationships.
XML is just a format. I could just as easily do what you are describing in XML by taking the table format described in parent and create an XML format. Further, you don't even know if the DB is storing the data in XML in the background.
I think you are excited over a whole lot of nothing (except loss of usability).
> I think the point is more that it's traditional to kill most crustaceans > in a decidedly nasty manner
Decided based on what?
This is the problem with these animal rights nutjobs. They are empathizing with the animals. There is no evidence that supports that what WE would experience if we were being boiled alive is what the animal is experiencing, EVEN if the animal is experiencing the neural network excitement that we call "pain". We project our experience (or our simulated experience, which again is something only humans can do) onto the lobster.
Is that right? I guess it could be. I find it unlikely, but that's not even the point. The point is that we are making policy decisions without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
When we say the lobster is "trying to escape the boiling water", we are personifying it. It's not trying to do anything. It has an instinctual reaction to try to survive, and that reaction is likely triggered by signals running across the wires that carry messages that we call "pain". This could be human-like emotion, or it could be robot-like machinery. (And do you really feel the former is more likely???)
It is nowhere near as simple as "does this animal have the circuitry to carry pain messages". That does NOT equal: "this animal feels pain as we would feel pain"!
> What if you get to have a nice estate in the country with clean > air and healthy exercise, because you skim extra profits by > polluting other people's air?
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish you subscribe to your newsletter.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say any of those, except for #3, which is true. There is nothing about primary keys that is "managed" by the RDBMS except for making sure the value is unique. This is called a constraint, and it is a function that the database performs on specified columns regardless of whether they are primary keys are not.
The chapter I wrote on my own was on ajax, yes, because none of the other co-authors had ajax experience. I don't really care what your opinion of wrox is; they made the best offer so we selected them. If you're talking about the resume that is posted on my website, that is out of date by about 4 years because, as I say on that very page, I am not considering any offers of employment from people who just happen upon that page. If there is an opportunity that I am interested in, I send them my resume. I suppose I probably should just remove that page on my site, but other than morons on slashdot who can't answer simple database questions and would rather take cheap shots, I didn't really see a need to.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll see you eventually. Whoever decided to employ someone of your maturity will likely need to call my company in at some point to clean up your mess. Until then, keep on with the cheap shots...
It's impressive that even in your childish personal attacks you can find room for significant inaccuracies.
> AJAX boy
ajax is a hobby I messed with on the side. I stopped right around the time people started calling it 'ajax' in 2005
> 3 years experience
10 years in June
> none of which was fulltime database development
Bzzt
> does not make make you a DBA.
I never claimed to be a DBA, nor do I ever want to be a DBA. If I want to know what I should set my Oracle heap size, I will ask a DBA. The fact that you think DBAs model data explains a lot.
> You are a waste of my time, junior.
I think if you were worried about wasting time, you would have answered my simple question about 7 replies ago, instead of consistently evading the question by employing personal attacks. (I guess that assumes you have the ability to answer it, though.)
Wow, this just keeps getting better and better.
> Sadly, I have answered all your questions;
I have asked you only one and you haven't answered it: what relevance does the speed of an index lookup have on a data set so small that the database optimizer will not choose to use the index?
> Keys are always indexed. Look it up.
You're talking out of your arse. First of all, I don't even know how this has any relevance, because I was not talking about whether or not the column was indexed.
I was talking about -- assuming it IS indexed -- whether the database will USE the index or decide to perform a full table scan. With small unjoined data sets, it is LESS EFFICIENT to use the index. I'm sure that is difficult for you to grasp, because someone told you a "rule of thumb" that indexes make searches faster, but that's why we pay smart people to build our database optimizers for us, and you can just let it do its magic without understanding it in the least (which is good, because you clearly do not).
Your knowledge of databases reads like a bulleted list in a beginner book intro. Perhaps some day you will discover that these rules of thumb are just that: rules of thumb. And when you begin to look into how databases actually operate, you begin to realize that there are a lot of exceptions to your rules of thumb.
So, I was wondering when I read your question WHY you wanted to stay there for grad school, if you have no idea what you want to study. My guess was fear related to the economy, and I think you confirm that here.
This is a MISTAKE. If you are as good as you say you are, then you are in prime position to get a great job coming out of undergrad, regardless of the economy. There are plenty of companies, like mine, whose entire business model relies on a constant stream of people being hired out of undergrad. They cannot stop hiring, even in an economy like this, because it would do long-term damage to their business (they will even lay off senior people in order to be able to hire new entry level people).
If you go to grad school, especially for something like an MBA, you are going to guarantee only one thing: you're going to be head over heels in debt. That is not a big deal if you have a specific plan and a big reason to seek that MBA. But if you are just afraid to go job seeking right now, that's a horrible reason to go into massive debt. Even if you didn't get a job for 2 years and lived off your credit cards, you'd be BETTER OFF after those 2 years with probably only $40k in debt vs $80k for business school (obviously, it is different kind of debt and you have something to show for it in the latter case, but the point is the magnitude of the debt you must endure to go to a good MBA school).
And then let's fast forward 2 years. Will the economy be worse or better? I hope it will be better, but neither you nor I know that. All this bailout business is a huge gamble and we could be in deep shit 2 years down the road. Or we could be a booming economy again. I don't know, and neither do you. All you know is that you CAN get a job now, if you are as good as you say you are. The future is not nearly as certain. So do it!
> I am an excellent programmer, but working 9-5 in a cubicle writing code
> scares me and does not seem like a good way to spend the next 30+ years
> of my life.
So do it for 7 years, build up capital, and buy a franchise. You do not need an MBA to run a franchise business.
> That being said, I have done some freelance web design and web database
> application development and really enjoyed it.
I would shy away from trying to make it freelance in an economy like this. Look, I can empathize. 3 years ago I was just like you. I freelanced in HS and college and wondered if I could do that for a living. I also considered a life in academia to avoid the rat race. Then I stopped whining and decided to delay the gratification of being my own boss or owning part or all of a business and get a good job now. I'm now in a much stronger financial position to open a business, which makes it much more likely that I will succeed and will NOT be in a cubicle for 30 years (I'm going on 3 now).
> I have also worked in various environments doing IT work and found it
> alright.
It doesn't have to be your dream job. It just needs to get you a step closer to your dream job. Don't make today a little easier at the expense of the rest of your career.
> I often hear that IT degrees are for people who couldn't make it in
> Computer Science.
There is some truth to this, but it doesn't matter. Some companies will not hire CS people because they don't think they understand enough about business. I got lucky; my company was piloting a program where they were considering CS majors for the first time, and I got in (it worked out, and they now consider them regularly). There are pros and cons to each major, and it really just depends on what kind of work you want to do.
> It obviously wasn't about database development
Feel free to look it up.
> Good luck with your next childrens book.
All this back and forth and still no response to the main point, which was your entire argument is moot because the database optimizer will likely not use the index with such a small data set anyway. Therefore, removing usability for the sake of a faster index lookup is STUPID since there IS no index lookup. Your "rule of thumb" mentality that you still haven't given any real reason for (except "go google it!!!1") just shows you don't have any real understanding of how databases work, as well as how to think about the application as a whole rather than "how can I squeeze an extra 0.01ms out of this query and save 12KB on disk", which is decidedly oversimplistic.
Instead you offer a bunch of childish jabs and "look at me, I'm the expert" positioning without anything to back it up. Thanks for being a typical slashdot idiot who is more interested in stroking his own ego by putting strangers down than responding to the issue in question.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go buy those books you mentioned so I can be as "enlightened" as you are.
> It's not entirely independent because the opportunity cost of developing
> something else is the profit you would potentially take from Android Market.
Did you not include my parenthetical in your quote so that you could restate it?
"except that you may not have the resources (time) to develop for both, and should therefore pick the most profitable"
> If the world exists, then it could not have ended.
Please prove that the world has never ended before.
> Therefore the world can only end once because afterwards it will no
> longer exist to end a second time.
Please prove that the end of the world is the end of the lifecycle of everything.
> I believe the only observation that his/her logic rests on is the
> observation that the world has not ended yet, and therefore the day
> it does end has not occurred yet.
The only thing the author is saying is that we're currently not in a state of non-existence. Thanks. Everything else, including that there will ever be a state of non-existence, is based on conjecture, not evidence. It's akin to saying "I am not currently being eaten by a lion", supported by the fact that I am currently not being eaten by a lion. The suggestion that there is any explanatory or future predictive value is just flat-out wrong.
So, his comment was fine until he threw 'AKA, it's not a matter of "if."' in there.
> You are confusing the point...
If I am, it's only the point you want to make, not the one I'm making.
> that integers make better keys than strings. You are NOW talking about an
> entirely different topic of surrogate keys vs. natural keys wherein a
> surrogate is usually always the better choice because the database
> maintains the control over the key and key relationships whereas natural
> keys are prone to human error, repetition, duplication, etc as they are
> based on an external system.
Um, what? The database does not "keep control over the key". Your application does. In both cases. No matter what data type your key is. The only thing the database does is guarantee uniqueness in the column, and that does not change whether you use a string, an integer, or a date, or any combination of these.
You're making a whole lot out of nothing, here. And you still didn't address the real point, which was that in your example the index would likely not even be used, because the data set is so small.
> For example, given your previous example wherein you used a webpage name
> as the key, can't two web pages have the same name?
They can't in normal file systems! What requirement do you have for needing two different pages to have exactly the same name? You are grasping at straws, my friend.
> As such, you're natural key fails (as most do).
Sir, you just do not know what you're talking about. The natural key is the natural key no matter what. If the column(s) is not unique, then it is not the natural key. If you're saying the column is not unique, then of course you cannot use that as a unique key! But to say "the natural key is failing" makes no sense. If it is not unique, it was never a natural key. If it is a natural key, it will never have duplicates.
You are doing what all "DBAs" do and throw numeric surrogate keys everywhere because it's easier than having to be an actual data modeler. But the data is the data is the data. You say "well, if I use a surrogate key, then I can have two pages with the same name." I say that is a data modeling error. Adding a surrogate key does not change the meaning of the rest of the data.
> The surrogate makes your system self contained and controlled.
It doesn't make anything any different. It is a decision of DATA TYPE. It is a column like any other column, and your application has full control over it whether it is an integer or a varchar or a date. You are making a lot out of nothing. Are you sure you understand what a primary key is? It is not an autonumber field in Access that magically populates the next available number. It's just a column that holds a piece of data, whatever that data might be and whatever data type it might be.
> My suggestion to you is to take a class on database administration. It
> really helps to round out your experience and I think you will find it
> helpful in the long run to avoid anymore errors like the ones you are
> running in to.
Guess I should have done that before I wrote that book... thanks for the suggestion.
Well I disagree with the premise of the question. You develop for Apple if it is profitable. If these terms make it unprofitable (with risk factored in), then you don't do it. Whether or not you should develop for Android is a separate and independent discussion, except that you may not have the resources (time) to develop for both, and should therefore pick the most profitable).
The problem with your point of view is that the burden of proof is on the scientists saying there IS global warming. We do this for a very specific reason. It would be nearly impossible to PROVE that variations in temperature are due to randomness or are no different than in the past. Our statistical tools require significant evidence for us to conclude otherwise, but the other way around doesn't work so well.
The reason, and the point behind the article here (although I'm sure you commented without reading it), is not whether it is or isn't a problem. It'd be great if we lived in a binary world like that, but we don't. We have limited resources and must apply them to the most important things before we start going after less important things.
THEREFORE, the relative importance of global warming is of the utmost relevance. If we were to find out that global warming will cause an increase of 1C over the next 1000 years, then I think we could be putting that money to curing AIDS, cancer, or any of the million other things that are significantly larger threats to human life.
Mmmmmmmmmk?
> Slashdot editors ... please at least *read* the article before spreading
> bullshit on your own forum.
Are you serious? In this economy, I wouldn't risk my job like that.
> There is a strong sentiment among slashdotters that Global Warming is bunk.
> Which shows just how ignorant the population at slashdot really is (never
> mind the general public).
Funny how you point out that name-calling is not a scientific argument, and yet you seem to favor it anyway.
Pretty sure you missed the point. Parent's point is that "the world is going to end" is intended to spark emotion (ie, fear), which is NOT science. If we can make a scientific argument, let's do that. If we can't, then we have no business substituting science for fear and still calling it science.
And what observable evidence are you basing that on?
Let's not confuse science with religious belief and assumption.
By not putting your product on Apple appstore.
As with every other absolute, it's always wrong. If you are choosing whether to add a new key field that is a varchar or a number, of course you use the number. But if you already have a varchar field that you must store and which is the business key, should you add a new field that is an integer? Maybe, maybe not.
And you didn't address my point that the database probably won't even USE an index given the small set of data, which of course was the biggest point.
> Well I don't know how to be any clearer
Indeed.
> You assume that there's some inherit difference between the lobster
> feeling a "pain" signal and it's instinctual reaction, and a human
> feeling a "pain" signal and reacting.
Of course I do, because I subscribe to the scientific method and we have discovered no REASON to believe otherwise.
> It's merely one of degrees of development, in the human it's a much
> more complicated reaction, but essentially it's identical to the
> lobster.
Sir, that's like saying that the connection between two lobsters mating is the same as two married humans, just a more complicated emotion.
> It's funny watching people try to come to grips with the fact that
> people are animals just like any other animal, merely one with a
> more advanced neural capacity.
This is just wrong. Are there animals that have many similar capacities as humans? Yes. But they are rare, and the still don't have the ability to simulate. The famous example is: would you like to win the lottery? You'd say yes, although you have never won the lottery before. You are able to simulate what it would be like. There is no evidence that animals can do this. None. Zero. They must experience the stimulus in order to learn from it.
The only thing that groups something in the 'animal' category is the characteristics of its cell wall.
> In the end, it all boils down to stimulus and reactions
No, it doesn't. See above.
> people are no different than lobsters in that respect.
People can experience stimuli and react to it, as lobsters can. Humans can do much more than lobsters cannot.
But you missed the point. The point is that we assume that the stimuli of boiling water is the same experience to a lobster and a human, and there is just no evidence supporting that. There is a ton of neuroanatomical evidence that suggests just the opposite.
(My focus in university was neuroscience, by the way.)
> but that doesn't mean I want the animal that steak came from to
> suffer unnecessarily.
That is not the question. The question is whether you can assume that your simulated experience in boiling water or having your head chopped off is a) even accurate for a human (let's assume it is), and b) the same as a lobster experiences it. To assume that a lobster has the same emotions as a human without any evidence whatsoever is not very scientific (that's a nice way of saying "preposterous").
Sir, I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't know what you're talking about.
> Don't use strings as keys in databases. They are far slower to index.
What does that mean? A given row is slower to add to an index, or a search on an existing index is slower? Further, a search on 50 pages that you have on your website, probably will not even USE an index, even if it exists. If it does, the 0.001ms difference on a string vs integer lookup is going to make no difference... certainly not enough difference to forgo usability.
> In general you should never use a string as a key.
This is hogwash.
> They all use strings and/or XML which are far slower and can't
> maintain the page relationships.
XML is just a format. I could just as easily do what you are describing in XML by taking the table format described in parent and create an XML format. Further, you don't even know if the DB is storing the data in XML in the background.
I think you are excited over a whole lot of nothing (except loss of usability).
You mean that ?area=51 crap? How is http://mysite.com/?area=51 usable?
(Unless the page is about government conspiracies, I guess.)
The SEO issue is secondary. The ?p=1 URL is not nearly as usable as the URL that indicates the page's content.
I think this is one of the most witty comments I've ever read on slashdot. Kudos. If I had mod points, I'd use them.
> I think the point is more that it's traditional to kill most crustaceans
> in a decidedly nasty manner
Decided based on what?
This is the problem with these animal rights nutjobs. They are empathizing with the animals. There is no evidence that supports that what WE would experience if we were being boiled alive is what the animal is experiencing, EVEN if the animal is experiencing the neural network excitement that we call "pain". We project our experience (or our simulated experience, which again is something only humans can do) onto the lobster.
Is that right? I guess it could be. I find it unlikely, but that's not even the point. The point is that we are making policy decisions without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
When we say the lobster is "trying to escape the boiling water", we are personifying it. It's not trying to do anything. It has an instinctual reaction to try to survive, and that reaction is likely triggered by signals running across the wires that carry messages that we call "pain". This could be human-like emotion, or it could be robot-like machinery. (And do you really feel the former is more likely???)
It is nowhere near as simple as "does this animal have the circuitry to carry pain messages". That does NOT equal: "this animal feels pain as we would feel pain"!
> What if you get to have a nice estate in the country with clean
> air and healthy exercise, because you skim extra profits by
> polluting other people's air?
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish you subscribe to your newsletter.