The funny thing is, while that is not true, you are actually commenting on your own comment.
I did not use an ad-homenem attack. I was stating how anyone who can make the remarks you made, obviously has never used the systems mentioned. For, if you had, you would clearly realize the difference. I hold this truth to be self-evident, at least to anyone who has actually used the different systems.
Now, by claiming that that was indeed an ad-hominem attack, you have actually done it yourself! Touche!:)
then appeal to authority (your own)
Replace "authority" with "experience" and it would be an accurate statement.
then offer your opinion as a factual assertion.
I offered my first statement as inferring the factual inference, that anyone who has used the systems would know. Afterwards, the reply is subjective in nature, and never did i try to pass them as facts.
Further, your post reveals an astonishing arrogance combined with a complete lack of comprehension. I'm just not certain whether it was a complete lack of comprehension of my earlier post or a complete lack of comprehension of what a database actually is. My guess is that it's the former.
Again, empty words. You are talking more about your own comment than mine.
A database is no more (and no less) than a container for the storage of data.
No. We usually call that a file. A database uses files (or their equivalent) to produce a more complex function.
MySQL is no less of a ``real'' database than latest and greatest from Oracle and IBM.
The variation lies only in the features needed for a given application.
If the end justify the means, that statement would be accurate. If not, it doesn't.
To an application programmer, the database is just the means for their more important end, and MySQL often supplies it, so its being a database or not is largley irrelevant. To a DBA or DB programmer, however, the Database is more important than the ends, and thus just getting the job done is not enough.
You're basically arguing that supporting certain types of enterprise class features makes databases from the big vendors more of a database than other databases.
Do you consider my example, which was the erstwhile deficiency of transactions, to be an enterprise feature?
The dolphin had been known to exist for the last 20 million years."
Ehem?
I assume you mean that the dolphin had been assumed to exist for that long. How could it be "known"?
Regardless, this is not good. The losing of any species replaces diversity with monotony, and perhaps gives off the impression to some malevolent humans that less is better.
Diversity is a good thing, if only that it makes us appreciate ourselves for what we are, and not what other people are not, even if it is "just" in a dolphin.
And the 4GL, oh, the wonderful 4GL. It really doesn't get the credits it deserves.
credits in being evil.:P
I had to deal with it on one job, and disliked it greatly. It was the text based version. I guess no complaints on the DB itself, more on the textual UI coding.
The only difference between Oracle, SQL Server, DB/2 and MySQL is one of extent, not of kind.
You obviously have never really worked with them then.
I was mid-level DBA of Oracle for nearly a couple years, programmer for both SQL Server (Microsoft and Sybase), and currently use DB2 (LUW) (DB2, not DB2, unless you are referring to OS2's DB2, which was called DB2/2), and they are worlds apart. The only way to consistently understand the difference between them is to understand the mindset, otherwise they are just "differences", and the user will most likely not know whow to take advantage of those differences.
Every time i use MySQL i have to hold my nose. Yes, it does the job, and it does it fast and easily, but for someone who cares about DBs, good design, and all that, MySQL falls very far from the tree.
As a Database Programmer (and erstwhile DBA) i am saddened by the haphazard mySQL being called a database. For a while it didn't even support transactions. It's actually more of a storage system with a quai-SQL front end.
By dropping that facade from Debian people might be more inclined to use a real database such as PostgreSQL, which has been in the background for much too long.
For the quality that Debian stands for, from my PoV, this is a very good thing.
I would talk of progress here, but Progress is by far the absolute worst database system i have worked with.:)
They tend to be always rated tops in their respective countries when the public is polled which news source they consider most reliable. Unless of course you're a raving right-winger,
IOW, all centrists like it, because, if someone doesn't like it, they are not a centrist.
The BBC, for example, is quite legendary
hahahahahahahahahahahahahah....intereshahahahahaha hahahahahhaa...i mean to say thathahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
and even though I am not British
....some of my best friends are....
Sometimes you don't want your news being selected for you simply based on what "sells" (or what they think sells). A well-rounded world-view forms only when you are exposed to occasionally "boring" issues that are not of immediate concern to you personally.
Yet, you reject A for B, and claim that B (whose viewpoint is nearly opposite A's) is well rounded.
Same thing buddy.
An open public broadcaster with employers forming a statistically representative sample of politics at large (meaning that at least you're not selected against if you're not right-wing)
Amazing. Most media is left-wing, and yet you both infer that it is right wiong, and that the BBC--which is well known for being wacko left wing--is centrist.
Everyuone believes they are a centrist. I can't fault you for that. But please don't try to state your personal views are objective.
The car is different because it has physical controls in a limited area, most of the reactions are immediate response, and using one does not include the other.
In a computer UI, there is little immediate feedback, and, it is often not realized where to do what. Also, there are a multitude of options, and navigating them is an adventure in itself.
Ultimately, everyone wants simplicity. But where things are understood, people remain calm and learn it quickly; what looks complex to the untrained eye is actually very simple. If it takes a steep learning curve to understand it, it will forever remain complex, and people simply will learn to ignore that which is not used.
"Unlike pressed CDs/DVDs, 'burnt' CDs/DVDs can eventually 'fade,' due to five things that affect the quality of CD media: sealing method, reflective layer, organic dye makeup, where it was manufactured, and your storage practices (please keep all media out of direct sunlight, in a nice cool dry dark place, in acid-free plastic containers; this will triple the lifetime of any media)."
How apropos.
'slashdotters' can eventually fade due to five things that affect the quality of slashdot comments:
sealing method - The Sealing, in reality is the ceiling, and refers to the need to ceil() slashdot user's age to hit the double digits.
reflective layer - The Reflective layer is the use of low UIDs to represent importance of comments, rather than something actually informative.
organic dye makeup - Most comment's make up are so bad, they're DOA, and one can hear the organ playing.
where it was manufactured - There are no new comments on slashdot, everything is either culled from its dupe, or copied from the Microsoft Hater's handbook.
and your storage practices - Some comments are posted before they are fini
When I refer to archaic hebrew I mean the older one:
archaic: old-fashioned or no longer used;
It is neither old-fashioned, nor no longer used. Books are constantly published in Ivri, and people write it every day.
Then we are dicing about what the "bible: is. Your refering to a seperate set of books and not the christian, Jewish, or Moslem holy book and actually misusing bible as the common definition is the "Christian" cannon including OT and NT. You are using a alternate and minority defintion as a "holy book".
The original comment refered to the Bible because of the Creation story, which means the Five Books. JackBird's comment meant to say that the entire Bible is a compilation of texts while inferring (indeed, inferring his main point) that the Five Books are just a compilation. At which point i commented on that part alone, and on the rest of the comment.
The old testement is a subsection of the christian bible.
It depends on context. At times Bible referes to the OT/NT, at others it refers only to the Five Books of Moses.
IF you refer onyl to the Torah/Koran then your entire post is meaningless
I'm sorry you feel that way.
and wrong as both are collections too.
If you mean that the Five Books are a collection, you are welcome to your beliefs, i mean not ot comment on that area. But the fact that they are called "five books", has no bearing on them not being one book.
And he did ask if you read archaic hebrew, although I should also insist you be able to read greek, understand aramaic
"archaic hebrew"??
There is Hebrew (Ivri) and Modern Hebrew (Ivrit), there is no "archaic Hebrew" I understand both Ivri and Aramaic (IIUC, Syrian-Greek dialect), but not Greek which means i can study the OT, parts of the Aprocrypha, but not the NT, in their original texts.
and have some depth of history beyond The study of religious texts.
I hate to fan the flames, and I don't prescribe to the biblical version of history, but only some animals were brought onboard in pairs - in some cases, several sets of each type was supposed to be brought aboard. If I remember (and I could be wrong) it was two of each unclean animal, and 7 of each clean animal... I think "clean" animals were defined as "cud-chewing animals with split hooves".
Yep.
It can also mean fourteen (seven and seven), and it was the animals that could be eaten.
How does the idea that parts of the OT were written by four different authors and over different time periods somehow validate that the bible was dictated by 'god'?
It doesn't. If a person is a non-believer, it points to different authors and different time periods.
then, once in a while, you put reality aside, go to the church/shul/mosque and surrender your brain to the myth.
While that sounds nice, it would be talking about a sufferer of neurosis who has split his concious and unconcious into nearly a second personality. Fortunately, that does not really happen because the unconcious forces itself on the conciousness when repressed too much.
Other than that, a split personality would require strict one-sidedness on "normal" life as well, and its immaturities would be shown there as well. Dawkins or Rand, it doesn't matter, the idea is patently absurd.
The only person who would believe such idiocies, is someone who himself is having issues and needs to hear new age Rationalism to supress it.
For example, if Adam & Eve were the only parents why are people so different?
This is mostly a proof of some evolution, however.....
The Bible refers to the Nefillim, which many consider to be fallen angels, so they are added to the pool. Genesis 4:15 records (KJV) "And the LORD set a mark upon Cain". That "mark" can be very well be a genetic change. The Midrash records that Ham's children (at least Cannan's) were born black, that and the people of the Tower of Babel were turned into monkeys. So, changes were added into the Creation afterwards giving us diversity.
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
How did it float? The deluge itself was a miracle, and so was the Ark.
If there were just 2 of the animals (dogs for instance) why are they so different now?
Who said the original ones were purebred? And who said only two dogs? Maybe one of each species was brought on.
What about humans on the Ark, were they forced to inbreed for a second time to populate?
There were four men and their wives (Gen 7:13) and they were told to have children afterwards (Gen 9:1).
So when you have small changes over a small period of time, is believing that over a large period of time you could have large changes really that unreasonable?
Cute, *very* cute. The Creationists believe the world is under 6000 years old. Therefore, there is no "large period" of time.
Slashdot Mirror
You start with an ad hominem attack
:)
h ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaha!
The funny thing is, while that is not true, you are actually commenting on your own comment.
I did not use an ad-homenem attack. I was stating how anyone who can make the remarks you made, obviously has never used the systems mentioned. For, if you had, you would clearly realize the difference. I hold this truth to be self-evident, at least to anyone who has actually used the different systems.
Now, by claiming that that was indeed an ad-hominem attack, you have actually done it yourself! Touche!
then appeal to authority (your own)
Replace "authority" with "experience" and it would be an accurate statement.
then offer your opinion as a factual assertion.
I offered my first statement as inferring the factual inference, that anyone who has used the systems would know. Afterwards, the reply is subjective in nature, and never did i try to pass them as facts.
Further, your post reveals an astonishing arrogance combined with a complete lack of comprehension. I'm just not certain whether it was a complete lack of comprehension of my earlier post or a complete lack of comprehension of what a database actually is. My guess is that it's the former.
Again, empty words. You are talking more about your own comment than mine.
A database is no more (and no less) than a container for the storage of data.
No. We usually call that a file. A database uses files (or their equivalent) to produce a more complex function.
MySQL is no less of a ``real'' database than latest and greatest from Oracle and IBM.
<ad homimnem attack>
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I feel better now.
</ad homimnem attack>
The variation lies only in the features needed for a given application.
If the end justify the means, that statement would be accurate. If not, it doesn't.
To an application programmer, the database is just the means for their more important end, and MySQL often supplies it, so its being a database or not is largley irrelevant. To a DBA or DB programmer, however, the Database is more important than the ends, and thus just getting the job done is not enough.
You're basically arguing that supporting certain types of enterprise class features makes databases from the big vendors more of a database than other databases.
Do you consider my example, which was the erstwhile deficiency of transactions, to be an enterprise feature?
The dolphin had been known to exist for the last 20 million years."
Ehem?
I assume you mean that the dolphin had been assumed to exist for that long. How could it be "known"?
Regardless, this is not good. The losing of any species replaces diversity with monotony, and perhaps gives off the impression to some malevolent humans that less is better.
Diversity is a good thing, if only that it makes us appreciate ourselves for what we are, and not what other people are not, even if it is "just" in a dolphin.
you recompiled your kernel?
Yeah, but the darn thing still won't pop.
And the 4GL, oh, the wonderful 4GL. It really doesn't get the credits it deserves.
:P
credits in being evil.
I had to deal with it on one job, and disliked it greatly. It was the text based version. I guess no complaints on the DB itself, more on the textual UI coding.
Mod parent up!
:)
It may not be your type of funny, but it is hardly off topic.
Fiber TVs?
Great! Now my TV dinners have fiber too.
Well, luckily i got three answers before some idiot modded me as Troll.
Sheesh, i must have ticked someone off.
The only difference between Oracle, SQL Server, DB/2 and MySQL is one of extent, not of kind.
You obviously have never really worked with them then.
I was mid-level DBA of Oracle for nearly a couple years, programmer for both SQL Server (Microsoft and Sybase), and currently use DB2 (LUW) (DB2, not DB2, unless you are referring to OS2's DB2, which was called DB2/2), and they are worlds apart. The only way to consistently understand the difference between them is to understand the mindset, otherwise they are just "differences", and the user will most likely not know whow to take advantage of those differences.
Every time i use MySQL i have to hold my nose. Yes, it does the job, and it does it fast and easily, but for someone who cares about DBs, good design, and all that, MySQL falls very far from the tree.
Wow, i am very happy about this!
:)
As a Database Programmer (and erstwhile DBA) i am saddened by the haphazard mySQL being called a database. For a while it didn't even support transactions. It's actually more of a storage system with a quai-SQL front end.
By dropping that facade from Debian people might be more inclined to use a real database such as PostgreSQL, which has been in the background for much too long.
For the quality that Debian stands for, from my PoV, this is a very good thing.
I would talk of progress here, but Progress is by far the absolute worst database system i have worked with.
How do i watch this without installing Flash?
Heh.
:P
Don't know how ya did it, but thanx.
They tend to be always rated tops in their respective countries when the public is polled which news source they consider most reliable. Unless of course you're a raving right-winger,
a hahahahahhaa...i mean to say thathahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
IOW, all centrists like it, because, if someone doesn't like it, they are not a centrist.
The BBC, for example, is quite legendary
hahahahahahahahahahahahahah....intereshahahahahah
and even though I am not British
....some of my best friends are....
Sometimes you don't want your news being selected for you simply based on what "sells" (or what they think sells). A well-rounded world-view forms only when you are exposed to occasionally "boring" issues that are not of immediate concern to you personally.
Yet, you reject A for B, and claim that B (whose viewpoint is nearly opposite A's) is well rounded.
Same thing buddy.
An open public broadcaster with employers forming a statistically representative sample of politics at large (meaning that at least you're not selected against if you're not right-wing)
Amazing. Most media is left-wing, and yet you both infer that it is right wiong, and that the BBC--which is well known for being wacko left wing--is centrist.
Everyuone believes they are a centrist. I can't fault you for that. But please don't try to state your personal views are objective.
Three comments.
1) Now they can send all the analog televisions to the aliens, so they can actually decipher those radio signals.
2) All those people on the free internet connection via television signals are going to be sad (maybe aliens can have internet connections now)?
3) I'm not sure if this is a good move or a bad one. Did Microsoft have anything to do with it?
Roblimo goes to Microsoft and there's no itsatrap tag? This is very unsettling.
Actually, just give pople what they want.
The car is different because it has physical controls in a limited area, most of the reactions are immediate response, and using one does not include the other.
In a computer UI, there is little immediate feedback, and, it is often not realized where to do what. Also, there are a multitude of options, and navigating them is an adventure in itself.
Ultimately, everyone wants simplicity. But where things are understood, people remain calm and learn it quickly; what looks complex to the untrained eye is actually very simple. If it takes a steep learning curve to understand it, it will forever remain complex, and people simply will learn to ignore that which is not used.
I both agree and disagree with this article, and although it looks good, it smells bad.
I think i'll ask my cat what it's all about.
Yes.. but.... how did the kangaroos get to Australia... and only Australia?
... and didn't put any ANYWHERE else?
Jumped off early?
How did Noah get them to a land that he didn't even know existed, thousands of miles away....
He was in the shipping business after all...
Kangaroos are hip-hop and fell under the RIAA. After seeing them in Australia, he was barred from putting them elsewhere.
Here's how: Because the Noah flood story is complete fiction.
Well, i've heard a deluge of complaints about it.
It is a story told by Moses
written not told...
to his flock of illiterate followers
illiterate? Why? Because there was nothing good to read back then anyway?
who needed simplistic explanations to the phenomena around them
Yep, making up a story of a deluge that hapen 1500 years prior was a simplistic answer to questions they didn't have.
because their minds were too child-like
Innocence!
to comprehend anything more complex.
Who needs complexity when life is so simple?
How apropos.
'slashdotters' can eventually fade due to five things that affect the quality of slashdot comments:
When I refer to archaic hebrew I mean the older one:
archaic:
old-fashioned or no longer used;
It is neither old-fashioned, nor no longer used. Books are constantly published in Ivri, and people write it every day.
Then we are dicing about what the "bible: is. Your refering to a seperate set of books and not the christian, Jewish, or Moslem holy book and actually misusing bible as the common definition is the "Christian" cannon including OT and NT. You are using a alternate and minority defintion as a "holy book".
The original comment refered to the Bible because of the Creation story, which means the Five Books. JackBird's comment meant to say that the entire Bible is a compilation of texts while inferring (indeed, inferring his main point) that the Five Books are just a compilation. At which point i commented on that part alone, and on the rest of the comment.
Your first statement cotnradicts you point.
:)".
My fist statement was "I did/do.
The old testement is a subsection of the christian bible.
It depends on context. At times Bible referes to the OT/NT, at others it refers only to the Five Books of Moses.
IF you refer onyl to the Torah/Koran then your entire post is meaningless
I'm sorry you feel that way.
and wrong as both are collections too.
If you mean that the Five Books are a collection, you are welcome to your beliefs, i mean not ot comment on that area. But the fact that they are called "five books", has no bearing on them not being one book.
And he did ask if you read archaic hebrew, although I should also insist you be able to read greek, understand aramaic
"archaic hebrew"??
There is Hebrew (Ivri) and Modern Hebrew (Ivrit), there is no "archaic Hebrew" I understand both Ivri and Aramaic (IIUC, Syrian-Greek dialect), but not Greek which means i can study the OT, parts of the Aprocrypha, but not the NT, in their original texts.
and have some depth of history beyond The study of religious texts.
That is irrelevant to the comment at hand.
I hate to fan the flames, and I don't prescribe to the biblical version of history, but only some animals were brought onboard in pairs - in some cases, several sets of each type was supposed to be brought aboard. If I remember (and I could be wrong) it was two of each unclean animal, and 7 of each clean animal... I think "clean" animals were defined as "cud-chewing animals with split hooves".
Yep.
It can also mean fourteen (seven and seven), and it was the animals that could be eaten.
Oh great, now slashdot is posting stories of mice and men?
How does the idea that parts of the OT were written by four different authors and over different time periods somehow validate that the bible was dictated by 'god'?
It doesn't. If a person is a non-believer, it points to different authors and different time periods.
then, once in a while, you put reality aside, go to the church/shul/mosque and surrender your brain to the myth.
While that sounds nice, it would be talking about a sufferer of neurosis who has split his concious and unconcious into nearly a second personality. Fortunately, that does not really happen because the unconcious forces itself on the conciousness when repressed too much.
Other than that, a split personality would require strict one-sidedness on "normal" life as well, and its immaturities would be shown there as well. Dawkins or Rand, it doesn't matter, the idea is patently absurd.
The only person who would believe such idiocies, is someone who himself is having issues and needs to hear new age Rationalism to supress it.
For example, if Adam & Eve were the only parents why are people so different?
This is mostly a proof of some evolution, however.....
The Bible refers to the Nefillim, which many consider to be fallen angels, so they are added to the pool. Genesis 4:15 records (KJV) "And the LORD set a mark upon Cain". That "mark" can be very well be a genetic change. The Midrash records that Ham's children (at least Cannan's) were born black, that and the people of the Tower of Babel were turned into monkeys. So, changes were added into the Creation afterwards giving us diversity.
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
How did it float? The deluge itself was a miracle, and so was the Ark.
If there were just 2 of the animals (dogs for instance) why are they so different now?
Who said the original ones were purebred? And who said only two dogs? Maybe one of each species was brought on.
What about humans on the Ark, were they forced to inbreed for a second time to populate?
There were four men and their wives (Gen 7:13) and they were told to have children afterwards (Gen 9:1).
So when you have small changes over a small period of time, is believing that over a large period of time you could have large changes really that unreasonable?
Cute, *very* cute. The Creationists believe the world is under 6000 years old. Therefore, there is no "large period" of time.