You shouldn't be sure of yourself, because you're wrong.
I believe I am correct. And since, even if I am wrong, I believe I am correct, I can easily be content in feeling sure about myself.
Putting 4 commas in a sentence that should contain 1 at most doesn't clarify the sentence, it just makes you sound like an idiot.
Not to most people. I would say, that the vast majority of people do not know how to speak English correctly. And even from those, most don't care to.
Many times, I write in a way that resembles my speaking habits. So, if I would pause in a given spot, such as here, here, or here, or even here, I put in a comma. The "official" use of a comma is not so, but I don't care.
(It's "others just repeat," not "other's just repeat.")
You are correct. I didn't proofread it very well.
For someone so bothered when others mispronounce things (even when you're wrong about it like "database,") you don't have a very good grasp of the language yourself.
I have an excellent grasp of the language. Probably better than you. I think it comes with maturity.
Also, my being bothered by something, has no relation to my speaking habits. I have certain likes and dislikes.
Yeah, I'm pedantic about English, but I also know how to use it.
No, you're pedantic period. You are only using English because it was convenient.
By the way, it's much easier to "get the point across" when you use the language correctly.
That is amazingly incorrect. Only a fool would think that.
Considering that most people don't understand the difference between an adverb and an adjective, and may even try to correct you when you speak correctly, it is a wild claim to say that speaking correctly is better.
The purpose of language is to communicate a feeling verbally. It has also become the choice for the written expression, though not as dominant. Communicating correctly, is not always the same as communicating efficiently.
I don't see how you couldn't understand that.
Don't worry, in a few years you may actually mature, and it will all become clear.
By the way, you use far too many commas to be correcting others' language.
I believe you mean "comments". I was not correcting their language. As opposed to this comment, in which I am correcting your language.
You should learn what commas are for and where they're appropriate,
I know what they are for. Regarless of that, I use them when I think a pause is needed to understand the statement.
because you don't come off as intelligent as you appear to think you are.
I never intended to come off as intelligent. Maybe its just a by-product.:-)
I do mean to come off sounding sure of myself, because I am.
But I think the most telling mistake you make is misspelling "exempli gratia."
Good catch! When I re-read the comment before posting it, I didn't see that. The only mistake I made was a typo.
There's nothing funnier than some misspelling the latin they use to appear intelligent.
Well, I used it because I used to get mixed up in the way EG and IE were used. When I learnt what they meant, I found it "fun" to spell them out.
I must say, that your comment is rather arrogant. "Mister...." You ought to calm down before posting comments.
Also, people do not have to pronounce words in any canonized form. They pronounce words merely to get the point across. I correct (some) others when they use an adjective instead of an adverb. Some people like it, other's just repeat the incorrect word. They are trying to make a point that people speak to get the point across, not to speak correctly. Though it still bothers me to hear the incorrect usage.
for example, an IRC chat channel has many bans. Bans cannot be moved between channels, and there are many more channels than there are bans per channel, so it is inefficient to do "SELECT * FROM bans WHERE channel_id=(whatever)".
No it isn't. With an index on channel_id, it would be the quickest method.
With Oracle, an EXPLAIN PLAN, will easily show the optimizer chosing the index for a FAST FULL SCAN. You can't get too much quicker than that.
Do you call DOS Dee-oh-es? Do you call CMOS, or cee-em-oh-es? How about arr-ay-eye-dee?
There are many others. All are fine, however. Acronyms, in the techical world, are used so the user does not have to say a bunch of words. Wouldn't it then be silly to have to spell each letter out?
If the use of an acronym is for ease of use, its pronunciation should follow suit.
Some acronyms are easier spelled than pronounces. Exampli gratia, PC-MCIA*. Also, there those that are easier pronounced than spelled. For example, RAID. There are even those that are better as a mixture. Such as MS-DOS.
But some, stand on both sides of the line. They are both easy to spell, and to pronounce. Both are easy, and people are free to use whichever one they are more comfortable with. I think the most common one of those is SQL.
PostgreSQL, is spelled, post-gress-que-ell, because post-gress-sequel, is harder to pronounce, and doubles the "s".
What really ticks me off, is people who say dah-tuh(-base), as opposed to day-tuh(-base). IMNSHO, "Dah" is incorrect, and is a clear sign of a loser.
Obj1 (type A) "owns" Obj2 (type B) and Obj3 (type C)
Obj2 (type B) "owns" Obj4 (type C)
There is no particularly good way to model this relationship in SQL; you need at least four tables (one to establish ownership relations and act as object identifiers, and three to define the traits for types A, B and C) where you would ideally want only three.
Please explain this example. I didn't really catch it. I don't understand what you mean by "owning".
Another weakness is when implementing "business logic" -- rules that define whether or not particular changes are allowed, or what else must change to keep things consistent.
This has nothing to do with SQL. A database, is a base for data, not logic. The structure of the database defines objects, and SQL is used to logically retrieve data.
Business logic is separate from the database. It is more of a manipulation of the data before or after it is INSERTed. Which is why it is amazingly correct to use a trigger for it. Triggers should not be used to make the database work, per se, rather it should modify data, as defined by various rules.
As for not having a SQL standard on triggers, that's fine. Triggers are a deviation from the database. While it is certainly nice to have, it will broaden the application of SQL, into areas where it should not be. Triggers should be able to *use* SQL, but not *be* SQL.
One common solution to this problem is to have a layer of code in front of the database that performs all of the transactions and reports business logic violations to its clients -- the classic three-layer database system, but not as efficient or clean as if the business logic could be handled by the database system itself.
But, as I mentioned before, it is the "better" solution. We do not want the database to handle business logic. The database should be completely for data, and structured relationships. As soon as business rules are implemented, the database itself loses integrity.
The rest of your comment applies to databases, not SQL. Unless you want everything implemented in SQL, which I hope never happens.
Going with the MBTI, and Keirsey's viewpoint, I had an ESTP boss, who hired and ESTJ manager, for our group of programmers.
The programmers consisted of one INFP, one ISTP, one (probably two) INTP, one INTJ, and one other guy that I haven't typed yet. Probably and N though.
The SP boss loved the SJ manager. As any Artisan loves having a Guardian clean up after him, and Guardians, especially Ts, love disseminating orders from above.
To us, however, he was not as well liked.
The INFP, thought him to be an idiot, but got along with him.
The INTPs worked with him, though one did it so he could shift the blame on him.
The ISTP liked him, for making order.
The INTJ got into fights with him in what he saw as idiocy, quick decisions, and uneeded control.
Overall, he added control to the project, but at a great cost. Productivity slowed because people either fought him, or did *only* what he requested, and nothing more. He was eventually let go with the first round of layoffs that also got rid of IT, and left only the INFP and ISTP.
The moral of the story, well I don't know. But if this happens again, I will probably give up. If the manager has *any* control, as opposed to just reporting, he *must* be technical, or the project, and possibly the people, are doomed.
Even if they do this, places like Anonymizer will provide Secure Tunneling. Anonymizer also has other services, and they seem to be trusted for their part.
This can handle most web activity. Email can be encrypted, remailed, or signed up for and used through Secure Tunneling, or a similar method.
As an example, when I browsed the web at work, I used Secure Tunneling. For my email, I used Hushmail. Hushmail encrypted all the data that I saw, so it could not be tracked until it left Hushmail's servers.
NNTP is a problem. There are anonymous NNTP sites. Altopia, a site run by a staunch Libertarian, seems to be pretty reliable. You can even pay rather anonymously. More recently, Teranews has offered privacy, though I don't know of many reports on their trustworthyness.
The problem with NNTP service is you cannot encrypt the actual data stream to the NNTP server itself. Hopefully someone will provide such a service. (At another glance, it looks like the Secure Tunneling package includes "Anonymous Newsgroups". But I am not sure what that means.)
1) Find out what the program is supposed to do. 2) Find out the exteremities for values. 3) Test the extremeties. 4) Test outside the extremities.
For example. If a program asks someone to enter their age, you need to check for:
1) something 2) that is a number, 3) that qualifies as an age. 4) The lower boundary for an age is 0, 5) the upper boundary should be unlimited.
Test for the following.
1) Entering nothing at all. 2) Entering various non-number entries. 3) Entering non-whole numbers. 4) Enter 0, and negative numbers. 5) Enter insanely large numbers.
One failure of coders, is that they assume that entering data is only done through cannonized ways of the program. For example, they expect a user to use the keyboard, but don't take the clipboard into consideration. So, in case 3 above, the program may rely on a control to not accept keypressed decimals. And thus the program is "safe". However, if you can get it there from the clipboard, the program may break.
So, when testing, you need try your hardest to enter bad data in order to test how the program deals with it.
Another example. If the program is actually a web page, it may rely on a combo box to have only specific values. However, I can rewrite the page myself, and add any value I want. And, it gets even easier if the next page allows GETs.
On another point, the test routines should be written *before* coding is done. If afterwards, you may only test what you already thought of fixing. If you force yourself to think of tests before the program was written, you have a good change of testing more.
"TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1 The Protocols". A fantastic book on the protocols.
Another nice book, probably only for beginners, would be Jeff Duntman's "Assembly Language: Step-By-Step". Except for the part on binary, the book is clear and straightforward. Even for one who does not plan to code in assembly, knowledge of why assembly is the way it is helps to understand other languages.
True, some of my code is definately messy (see managerial time constaints below), but it generally works as designed
But how many scripts have you designed yourself, and written from scratch?
it makes me look bad
Yeah, but with the beard, you're headed in the correct direction.:-)
Most of the time, there are managerial pushes to get it done quickly
And, as I mentioned before, this would be due to have a P as a manager. Especially when its in ESTP, who used to won his own company, and couldn't code decently if his life depended on it.
I think the issue is simple. It's a personality thing. On the MBTI, the final letter is the J/P preference. Js, the judgmental, schedule-minded people do only one thing at a time, and then until they are done. Ps, the perceiving, anything-goes people like to do many things at once, but don't really like to finish things.
Js are *much* better at programming, and thinking designs completely through. (Especially NTJs) Their code works, and works well. Ps are horrendous programmers, the code is usally buggy, and worst-of-all, they just don't care.
However, Js don't necessarily end up coding. They becomee the DBAs, or project designers. They are recognized as being better, and put in authoratative positions. However, they are then ignored!
Ps like to code. Either because its an exciting new area (SP), or because of the new challenge (NP). They recognize Js as being better at design (usually) but are reluctant to listen to them. They see the Js as being authoratative, closed-minded, and taking all the fun out of it.
In the real world, Ps dominate as coders. They believe anything can be done quickly, and are willing to do a bad job just to get it done (SP, expecially).
Bill Gates did a fantastic job when he started. Being an ENTJ, his judgemental attitude defined a decent system (MS-DOS). (I wonder what Linux Torvalds is.)
And that is only the J/P preference. The other big one is N/S. Ns are better at programming, simply because they understand it more. But many SPs see a great market, and use their not-as-good skills there, flooded the market with low quality software. The SJs (Keirsey's Guardians) have been seen in programmming circles, but they usually can't grasp the ideas.
Many people mention money as an issue about buggy code. And true, many SP managers just want to take whatever works and shove it out the door. I think, however, that the personality of the programmers themselves is much more important.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 1
But they (should) be there in cases where someone's personal liberty is going to obstruct someone else's personal liberty.
I believe I said that. I said: In other words, the Liberatarian approach, do what you want, as long as it doesn't inhibit my doing what I want.
By the way, are you against all taxation or just Federal taxation? If so, why the difference?
Firstly, all taxation is "federal". But, I understand the question. Bascially, I personally am against all taxation unless required (such as to raise an army) though other methods should be sought out first (sell resources to foreigners).
When it is inevitable, taxes should be laid either, per capita, or as a sales tax. But not based on income. If I had the chance, I would repeal the sixteenth amendment.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2
This remark is probably an example of why liberals complain there is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative."
Left wingers think there is no such think as compassionate conservatism, because they believe that they are compassionate, and thus any other approach isn't. In truth, compassionate conservatism, if there is such a thing, would be to soften the harsh blow that conservatism beings, without giving up on the ideals.
I'm not sure about you, but when I'm old, I don't really want to be worrying about these things as I'll likely be stuck on a fixed income
This is liberal thinking. Rely on the government. The conservatives rely on themselves, so it is a moot point.
Besides that, advances in technology make it possible to improve conditions in the world.
No problem with that. Just don't force it.
Do you have a logical reason to deny people of the improvements technology can provide?
Yes. That denial is passive. In order not to deny to them, I must *actively* deny it to myself. It is not my duty to serve others.
So does this mean Republicans are anarchists or preachers?
No. And who is talking only about Republicans? I am talking about the right wing, which include some Republicans, and some Liberatarians, and that is only in the US.
Of course people should be told what to do, to a degree.
No. People should never, ever, ever, ever, ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever, be told what to do. You do not have the right to tell me, or anyone else what to do! Who made you my master?
This is why the government made things like laws, so that instead of saying, "You shouldn't rob that man. It's impolite," the government instead says, "You shouldn't rob that man. The reward isn't worth the punishment you'll face in the future."
That is a left-wing approach, and a very modern one at that. It is generally used in child-rearing for 5-6 year olds, but is proving to not work. The latest issue of Parents (US version) magazine has an article on it.
Instead, you should realize what governments actually are.
Government makes two types of laws. One is Social, the other is Criminal. The Social laws promote society, such as Socialism or Capitalism. The Criminal laws protect people.
(IANAL, but I'll pretend I am anyway. Feel free to point out the law.) If a Criminal law has no specific victim, it cannot be prosecuted. Governments can only use these laws to protect a citizen. In other words, the Liberatarian approach, do what you want, as long as it doesn't inhibit my doing what I want.
In Social laws, the government can promote society. In the United States, the Constitution restricts such laws severely. Freedoms can never be taken away, unless specifically mentioned. Such as copyrights.
The United States government cannot tell people what to do. The United States government can't even tell the states what to do. They have no authority. So, they came up with a form of extortion. Using the 16th amendment they raised enormous taxes and said that the states can have the money only if they followed some program.
The United States government can also not pass any Criminal laws that affect people, unless they can find a way to claim jurisdiction. They usually use the Commerce Clause to do that, and say that if you use an interstate highway, or communication device, or some other interstate device used for commerce, they have jurisdiction.
If a criminal act is committed in a state, the United States government cannot get involved. The local state has jurisdiction.
Now, the act of passing an environmental law, is not criminal. Simply because nooone can prove any one specific victim. And even if they could, what damage was given to that victim? Taking away scenery is not damage. Warming up the Earth is not damage. Punching someone in the nose, is damage.So, it must be social in nature, but again the United States government cannot make such laws to tell you what to do, unless they can somehow claim jurisdiction. Instead, what would happen is, they would say that cars or trucks that use the Interstate highway system have to follow the commerce laws.
So, to make it work in the states, the United States government would have to withold taxes to the states to use as an incentive for the states to adopt a uniform set of laws.
Now, left-wingers see this as progress. right-wingers see this as coersion. Firstly, taxes are an invasion of personal property, and then to use it for extortion is a real slap-in-the-face.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2
What I don't understand is why most right-wingers in the USA like to classify issues such as global warming as a left-wing political issue.
Simple. To left-wingers, the issue is Global Warming. To right-wingers, the issue is the left wanting control.
Let me explain some right-wing views. Only after you understand these views, can you understand the answer to your question.
Also, please note, I am not bringing these up for debate (we can do *that* in a journal) I am merely mentioning what is believed, for better or for worse.
1) Resources are made to be used. If they'll run out, then so be it.
2) There is no logical reason that future generations "deserve" a "better" Earth.
3) (Very important) Noone should be told what to do. You can advocate, but you shouldn't legislate.
Now, Global Warming has never been proven. It is merely a theory. It sounds good, but so does the Theory of Evolution. So the right-wing sees the left-wings jumping on the global warming bandwagon as premature.
Now to match the three points above.
1) Even is it was true, resources are made to be used. We'll deal with the consequences later, we always have. As they say, "Necessity is the mother of invention." In fact, if we don't cause Global Warming, we're probably holding off such amazing invention!
2) Even if Global Warming was happening, and then, even if this was a "Bad Thing", who cares? We can a one sort of world, and future generations get a different one. They don't "deserve" anything.
3) (And the most important). Right-wingers don't have an issue with the left-wingers living out their fantasies. It's just when they force those fantasies on others, and tell them what they *can't* do, it gets frustrating.
For example, instead of legislating clean emmisions, some left-wingers should figure out a way to make it more attractive than the current fuels. Then people will *want* to switch! Instead, they force legilation, and that just makes everyone angry.
Is it not possible to be right wing and concerned about the environment?
It is possible, that they are, but they are more worried about living life freely. Instead of prediciting doomsdays and heralding death, why not actively make the world better by *promoting* a better place.
In short, don't be so pushy, and maybe people will listen.
If you'd like a really well spelled out refutation of Global Warming, and a clear deliniation of many right-wing values, check out Rush Limbaugh's, "The Way Things Ought to Be". I believe it is in that book. Some shudder at the thought of reading his books, but until one reads them, you can't complain. I believe that I read most of the first book, and found him to be clear and concise.
Re:standardized locations, etc.
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
Oh, and another thing. The Windows registry is a *massive* shared database.
I think knowledgebase would be a better name. A database has structure, the registry has little structure.
Take a look at.dll registration. On Windows, the only way the OS knows about a.systemwide dll is when you've added an entry to the registry for it.
That is incorrect.
Unless the library is not on the path, Windows can find it. Self-Registering a DLL only helps in "finding" it when there is another DLL on the system with the same name, in a directory with an earlier entry in the path, and the application that is loading it searches the registry for it.
I'd venture to say that most of Microsoft's DLLs are not self-registered. The self-registration is generally only needed for OLE Objects, and even then you can usually do without it.
The registry is basically a hack, because Windows *used* to have what MS considered a worse scheme (.ini files). It isn't a very well thought out system.
Incorrect on both.
The registry was not a hack. It was a system designed for Windows when they thought that it would go nowhere. It helped register OLE objects, and a few other items, and did a fine job of it too.
INI files were also fine. However, too many systems started putting them in their private directories, instead of in the Windows directory where Microsoft said they should be.
The hack was, that when Windows 95 came out they decided that all INI files should be removed, and the registry should be used instead. NT 4 even usurps INI writes to Microsoft INI files (WritePrivateProfileString?) and throws them into the registry (ODBC is a good example of this) whether you like it or not. In that, it was a bad idea. But this still had nothing to do with DLLs. OLE DLLs have always been in the registry!
Re:standardized locations, etc.
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
For example, I hate having to have 2-10 different versions of libraries due to programs requesting their own version, even though the newer libraries could do the job of the old ones.
I hate to say it, but maybe we need a standardized "registry" idea like in MS Windows?
Windows also has more than one version of the same library at times. And that has nothing to do with the registry!
Generally, in Windows, either a library is backwards compatible, or it gets a new name (a different directory would not help). Linux already does this somewhat. Version numbers are kept in libraries, and they link a versionless name of the library to the latest one.
The registry is rarely used for libraries. Rather, you may be thiking of OLE objects (OCXs, and OLE DLLs that need other DLLs) that "self-register" themselves to let other applications know where they exist. But it usually doesn't matter when it s installed in System(32).
I hate to say it, but they do have a good idea with that.
Actually, I believe even Microsoft admits that the registry was a "Bad Idea". They just had no idea that Windows would go anywhere when they had the idea, so it seemed to work well for a small system.
I believe he was an old black guy and couldn't get a loan, and his daughter was about to lose her building. So he took up a game against someone who always wanted to beat him. This other guy was a real pro, so Sam needed real help. Between Ziggy producing the lighted angles, and him being told how much force to use he was able to win.
Well, I accepted a counter offer. Basically, I was offered a job I had applied for before I worked at the current job. Things moved around there, and they got back to me. With such a significant pay raise, I mentioned it to my boss, and told him why I was about to accept the offer. But I was telling him out of loyalty.
He countered, and beat, the offer. I then worked for about a year and a half until I got cut in the first round of layoffs (most of the IT department was). I'd say I'm happy I accepted the offer. It was for a small company, where we knew each other, and where I wanted to work. As long as the people you work with and for understand the situation, I'd doubt that there'd be any bad side.
If the company is in the control of people that you don't "know", you may be taking a risk by accepting the counter-offer.
Slashdot Mirror
So, how did you get that antenna up there?
.... umm... a weeeth..er balloon, yeah, a weather baloon.
It's a
(Hey, it worked once before.)
You shouldn't be sure of yourself, because you're wrong.
I believe I am correct. And since, even if I am wrong, I believe I am correct, I can easily be content in feeling sure about myself.
Putting 4 commas in a sentence that should contain 1 at most doesn't clarify the sentence, it just makes you sound like an idiot.
Not to most people. I would say, that the vast majority of people do not know how to speak English correctly. And even from those, most don't care to.
Many times, I write in a way that resembles my speaking habits. So, if I would pause in a given spot, such as here, here, or here, or even here, I put in a comma. The "official" use of a comma is not so, but I don't care.
(It's "others just repeat," not "other's just repeat.")
You are correct. I didn't proofread it very well.
For someone so bothered when others mispronounce things (even when you're wrong about it like "database,") you don't have a very good grasp of the language yourself.
I have an excellent grasp of the language. Probably better than you. I think it comes with maturity.
Also, my being bothered by something, has no relation to my speaking habits. I have certain likes and dislikes.
Yeah, I'm pedantic about English, but I also know how to use it.
No, you're pedantic period. You are only using English because it was convenient.
By the way, it's much easier to "get the point across" when you use the language correctly.
That is amazingly incorrect. Only a fool would think that.
Considering that most people don't understand the difference between an adverb and an adjective, and may even try to correct you when you speak correctly, it is a wild claim to say that speaking correctly is better.
The purpose of language is to communicate a feeling verbally. It has also become the choice for the written expression, though not as dominant. Communicating correctly, is not always the same as communicating efficiently.
I don't see how you couldn't understand that.
Don't worry, in a few years you may actually mature, and it will all become clear.
Anyway, thanx, I needed a good laugh.
By the way, you use far too many commas to be correcting others' language.
:-)
I believe you mean "comments". I was not correcting their language. As opposed to this comment, in which I am correcting your language.
You should learn what commas are for and where they're appropriate,
I know what they are for. Regarless of that, I use them when I think a pause is needed to understand the statement.
because you don't come off as intelligent as you appear to think you are.
I never intended to come off as intelligent. Maybe its just a by-product.
I do mean to come off sounding sure of myself, because I am.
But I think the most telling mistake you make is misspelling "exempli gratia."
Good catch! When I re-read the comment before posting it, I didn't see that. The only mistake I made was a typo.
There's nothing funnier than some misspelling the latin they use to appear intelligent.
Well, I used it because I used to get mixed up in the way EG and IE were used. When I learnt what they meant, I found it "fun" to spell them out.
I must say, that your comment is rather arrogant. "Mister...." You ought to calm down before posting comments.
Also, people do not have to pronounce words in any canonized form. They pronounce words merely to get the point across. I correct (some) others when they use an adjective instead of an adverb. Some people like it, other's just repeat the incorrect word. They are trying to make a point that people speak to get the point across, not to speak correctly. Though it still bothers me to hear the incorrect usage.
for example, an IRC chat channel has many bans. Bans cannot be moved between channels, and there are many more channels than there are bans per channel, so it is inefficient to do "SELECT * FROM bans WHERE channel_id=(whatever)".
No it isn't. With an index on channel_id, it would be the quickest method.
With Oracle, an EXPLAIN PLAN, will easily show the optimizer chosing the index for a FAST FULL SCAN. You can't get too much quicker than that.
Good point. I didn't think of that. Let me try again.
Do you call it scuzzy or es-cee-es-eye?
Do you say idd, or eye-dee?
The former has no vowels in the first syllable, yet it is still pronounced as a word.
The latter starts with a vowel, though it is spelled out. Granted it is not a real acronym, but I think it makes the point.
It is not a mispronunciation.
Do you call DOS Dee-oh-es?
Do you call CMOS, or cee-em-oh-es?
How about arr-ay-eye-dee?
There are many others. All are fine, however. Acronyms, in the techical world, are used so the user does not have to say a bunch of words. Wouldn't it then be silly to have to spell each letter out?
If the use of an acronym is for ease of use, its pronunciation should follow suit.
Some acronyms are easier spelled than pronounces. Exampli gratia, PC-MCIA*. Also, there those that are easier pronounced than spelled. For example, RAID. There are even those that are better as a mixture. Such as MS-DOS.
But some, stand on both sides of the line. They are both easy to spell, and to pronounce. Both are easy, and people are free to use whichever one they are more comfortable with. I think the most common one of those is SQL.
PostgreSQL, is spelled, post-gress-que-ell, because post-gress-sequel, is harder to pronounce, and doubles the "s".
What really ticks me off, is people who say dah-tuh(-base), as opposed to day-tuh(-base). IMNSHO, "Dah" is incorrect, and is a clear sign of a loser.
* People Can't Memorize Complex Industry Acronyms
Obj1 (type A) "owns" Obj2 (type B) and Obj3 (type C)
Obj2 (type B) "owns" Obj4 (type C)
There is no particularly good way to model this relationship in SQL; you need at least four tables (one to establish ownership relations and act as object identifiers, and three to define the traits for types A, B and C) where you would ideally want only three.
Please explain this example. I didn't really catch it. I don't understand what you mean by "owning".
Another weakness is when implementing "business logic" -- rules that define whether or not particular changes are allowed, or what else must change to keep things consistent.
This has nothing to do with SQL. A database, is a base for data, not logic. The structure of the database defines objects, and SQL is used to logically retrieve data.
Business logic is separate from the database. It is more of a manipulation of the data before or after it is INSERTed. Which is why it is amazingly correct to use a trigger for it. Triggers should not be used to make the database work, per se, rather it should modify data, as defined by various rules.
As for not having a SQL standard on triggers, that's fine. Triggers are a deviation from the database. While it is certainly nice to have, it will broaden the application of SQL, into areas where it should not be. Triggers should be able to *use* SQL, but not *be* SQL.
One common solution to this problem is to have a layer of code in front of the database that performs all of the transactions and reports business logic violations to its clients -- the classic three-layer database system, but not as efficient or clean as if the business logic could be handled by the database system itself.
But, as I mentioned before, it is the "better" solution. We do not want the database to handle business logic. The database should be completely for data, and structured relationships. As soon as business rules are implemented, the database itself loses integrity.
The rest of your comment applies to databases, not SQL. Unless you want everything implemented in SQL, which I hope never happens.
Going with the MBTI, and Keirsey's viewpoint, I had an ESTP boss, who hired and ESTJ manager, for our group of programmers.
The programmers consisted of one INFP, one ISTP, one (probably two) INTP, one INTJ, and one other guy that I haven't typed yet. Probably and N though.
The SP boss loved the SJ manager. As any Artisan loves having a Guardian clean up after him, and Guardians, especially Ts, love disseminating orders from above.
To us, however, he was not as well liked.
The INFP, thought him to be an idiot, but got along with him.
The INTPs worked with him, though one did it so he could shift the blame on him.
The ISTP liked him, for making order.
The INTJ got into fights with him in what he saw as idiocy, quick decisions, and uneeded control.
Overall, he added control to the project, but at a great cost. Productivity slowed because people either fought him, or did *only* what he requested, and nothing more. He was eventually let go with the first round of layoffs that also got rid of IT, and left only the INFP and ISTP.
The moral of the story, well I don't know. But if this happens again, I will probably give up. If the manager has *any* control, as opposed to just reporting, he *must* be technical, or the project, and possibly the people, are doomed.
get a nice real-time view of your ear
Well, in the good old days, when you wanted someone to see your ear, you cut if off and sent it to them!
Even if they do this, places like Anonymizer will provide Secure Tunneling. Anonymizer also has other services, and they seem to be trusted for their part.
This can handle most web activity. Email can be encrypted, remailed, or signed up for and used through Secure Tunneling, or a similar method.
As an example, when I browsed the web at work, I used Secure Tunneling. For my email, I used Hushmail. Hushmail encrypted all the data that I saw, so it could not be tracked until it left Hushmail's servers.
NNTP is a problem. There are anonymous NNTP sites. Altopia, a site run by a staunch Libertarian, seems to be pretty reliable. You can even pay rather anonymously. More recently, Teranews has offered privacy, though I don't know of many reports on their trustworthyness.
The problem with NNTP service is you cannot encrypt the actual data stream to the NNTP server itself. Hopefully someone will provide such a service. (At another glance, it looks like the Secure Tunneling package includes "Anonymous Newsgroups". But I am not sure what that means.)
I think bounds checking is the main part.
1) Find out what the program is supposed to do.
2) Find out the exteremities for values.
3) Test the extremeties.
4) Test outside the extremities.
For example. If a program asks someone to enter their age, you need to check for:
1) something
2) that is a number,
3) that qualifies as an age.
4) The lower boundary for an age is 0,
5) the upper boundary should be unlimited.
Test for the following.
1) Entering nothing at all.
2) Entering various non-number entries.
3) Entering non-whole numbers.
4) Enter 0, and negative numbers.
5) Enter insanely large numbers.
One failure of coders, is that they assume that entering data is only done through cannonized ways of the program. For example, they expect a user to use the keyboard, but don't take the clipboard into consideration. So, in case 3 above, the program may rely on a control to not accept keypressed decimals. And thus the program is "safe". However, if you can get it there from the clipboard, the program may break.
So, when testing, you need try your hardest to enter bad data in order to test how the program deals with it.
Another example. If the program is actually a web page, it may rely on a combo box to have only specific values. However, I can rewrite the page myself, and add any value I want. And, it gets even easier if the next page allows GETs.
On another point, the test routines should be written *before* coding is done. If afterwards, you may only test what you already thought of fixing. If you force yourself to think of tests before the program was written, you have a good change of testing more.
"TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1 The Protocols". A fantastic book on the protocols.
Another nice book, probably only for beginners, would be Jeff Duntman's "Assembly Language: Step-By-Step". Except for the part on binary, the book is clear and straightforward. Even for one who does not plan to code in assembly, knowledge of why assembly is the way it is helps to understand other languages.
True, some of my code is definately messy (see managerial time constaints below), but it generally works as designed
:-)
But how many scripts have you designed yourself, and written from scratch?
it makes me look bad
Yeah, but with the beard, you're headed in the correct direction.
Most of the time, there are managerial pushes to get it done quickly
And, as I mentioned before, this would be due to have a P as a manager. Especially when its in ESTP, who used to won his own company, and couldn't code decently if his life depended on it.
I think the issue is simple. It's a personality thing. On the MBTI, the final letter is the J/P preference. Js, the judgmental, schedule-minded people do only one thing at a time, and then until they are done. Ps, the perceiving, anything-goes people like to do many things at once, but don't really like to finish things.
Js are *much* better at programming, and thinking designs completely through. (Especially NTJs) Their code works, and works well. Ps are horrendous programmers, the code is usally buggy, and worst-of-all, they just don't care.
However, Js don't necessarily end up coding. They becomee the DBAs, or project designers. They are recognized as being better, and put in authoratative positions. However, they are then ignored!
Ps like to code. Either because its an exciting new area (SP), or because of the new challenge (NP). They recognize Js as being better at design (usually) but are reluctant to listen to them. They see the Js as being authoratative, closed-minded, and taking all the fun out of it.
In the real world, Ps dominate as coders. They believe anything can be done quickly, and are willing to do a bad job just to get it done (SP, expecially).
Bill Gates did a fantastic job when he started. Being an ENTJ, his judgemental attitude defined a decent system (MS-DOS). (I wonder what Linux Torvalds is.)
And that is only the J/P preference. The other big one is N/S. Ns are better at programming, simply because they understand it more. But many SPs see a great market, and use their not-as-good skills there, flooded the market with low quality software. The SJs (Keirsey's Guardians) have been seen in programmming circles, but they usually can't grasp the ideas.
Many people mention money as an issue about buggy code. And true, many SP managers just want to take whatever works and shove it out the door. I think, however, that the personality of the programmers themselves is much more important.
But they (should) be there in cases where someone's personal liberty is going to obstruct someone else's personal liberty.
I believe I said that. I said: In other words, the Liberatarian approach, do what you want, as long as it doesn't inhibit my doing what I want.
By the way, are you against all taxation or just Federal taxation? If so, why the difference?
Firstly, all taxation is "federal". But, I understand the question. Bascially, I personally am against all taxation unless required (such as to raise an army) though other methods should be sought out first (sell resources to foreigners).
When it is inevitable, taxes should be laid either, per capita, or as a sales tax. But not based on income. If I had the chance, I would repeal the sixteenth amendment.
This remark is probably an example of why liberals complain there is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative."
.So, it must be social in nature, but again the United States government cannot make such laws to tell you what to do, unless they can somehow claim jurisdiction. Instead, what would happen is, they would say that cars or trucks that use the Interstate highway system have to follow the commerce laws.
Left wingers think there is no such think as compassionate conservatism, because they believe that they are compassionate, and thus any other approach isn't. In truth, compassionate conservatism, if there is such a thing, would be to soften the harsh blow that conservatism beings, without giving up on the ideals.
I'm not sure about you, but when I'm old, I don't really want to be worrying about these things as I'll likely be stuck on a fixed income
This is liberal thinking. Rely on the government. The conservatives rely on themselves, so it is a moot point.
Besides that, advances in technology make it possible to improve conditions in the world.
No problem with that. Just don't force it.
Do you have a logical reason to deny people of the improvements technology can provide?
Yes. That denial is passive. In order not to deny to them, I must *actively* deny it to myself. It is not my duty to serve others.
So does this mean Republicans are anarchists or preachers?
No. And who is talking only about Republicans? I am talking about the right wing, which include some Republicans, and some Liberatarians, and that is only in the US.
Of course people should be told what to do, to a degree.
No. People should never, ever, ever, ever, ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever, be told what to do. You do not have the right to tell me, or anyone else what to do! Who made you my master?
This is why the government made things like laws, so that instead of saying, "You shouldn't rob that man. It's impolite," the government instead says, "You shouldn't rob that man. The reward isn't worth the punishment you'll face in the future."
That is a left-wing approach, and a very modern one at that. It is generally used in child-rearing for 5-6 year olds, but is proving to not work. The latest issue of Parents (US version) magazine has an article on it.
Instead, you should realize what governments actually are.
Government makes two types of laws. One is Social, the other is Criminal. The Social laws promote society, such as Socialism or Capitalism. The Criminal laws protect people.
(IANAL, but I'll pretend I am anyway. Feel free to point out the law.) If a Criminal law has no specific victim, it cannot be prosecuted. Governments can only use these laws to protect a citizen. In other words, the Liberatarian approach, do what you want, as long as it doesn't inhibit my doing what I want.
In Social laws, the government can promote society. In the United States, the Constitution restricts such laws severely. Freedoms can never be taken away, unless specifically mentioned. Such as copyrights.
The United States government cannot tell people what to do. The United States government can't even tell the states what to do. They have no authority. So, they came up with a form of extortion. Using the 16th amendment they raised enormous taxes and said that the states can have the money only if they followed some program.
The United States government can also not pass any Criminal laws that affect people, unless they can find a way to claim jurisdiction. They usually use the Commerce Clause to do that, and say that if you use an interstate highway, or communication device, or some other interstate device used for commerce, they have jurisdiction.
If a criminal act is committed in a state, the United States government cannot get involved. The local state has jurisdiction.
Now, the act of passing an environmental law, is not criminal. Simply because nooone can prove any one specific victim. And even if they could, what damage was given to that victim? Taking away scenery is not damage. Warming up the Earth is not damage. Punching someone in the nose, is damage
So, to make it work in the states, the United States government would have to withold taxes to the states to use as an incentive for the states to adopt a uniform set of laws.
Now, left-wingers see this as progress. right-wingers see this as coersion. Firstly, taxes are an invasion of personal property, and then to use it for extortion is a real slap-in-the-face.
What I don't understand is why most right-wingers in the USA like to classify issues such as global warming as a left-wing political issue.
Simple. To left-wingers, the issue is Global Warming. To right-wingers, the issue is the left wanting control.
Let me explain some right-wing views. Only after you understand these views, can you understand the answer to your question.
Also, please note, I am not bringing these up for debate (we can do *that* in a journal) I am merely mentioning what is believed, for better or for worse.
1) Resources are made to be used. If they'll run out, then so be it.
2) There is no logical reason that future generations "deserve" a "better" Earth.
3) (Very important) Noone should be told what to do. You can advocate, but you shouldn't legislate.
Now, Global Warming has never been proven. It is merely a theory. It sounds good, but so does the Theory of Evolution. So the right-wing sees the left-wings jumping on the global warming bandwagon as premature.
Now to match the three points above.
1) Even is it was true, resources are made to be used. We'll deal with the consequences later, we always have. As they say, "Necessity is the mother of invention." In fact, if we don't cause Global Warming, we're probably holding off such amazing invention!
2) Even if Global Warming was happening, and then, even if this was a "Bad Thing", who cares? We can a one sort of world, and future generations get a different one. They don't "deserve" anything.
3) (And the most important). Right-wingers don't have an issue with the left-wingers living out their fantasies. It's just when they force those fantasies on others, and tell them what they *can't* do, it gets frustrating.
For example, instead of legislating clean emmisions, some left-wingers should figure out a way to make it more attractive than the current fuels. Then people will *want* to switch! Instead, they force legilation, and that just makes everyone angry.
Is it not possible to be right wing and concerned about the environment?
It is possible, that they are, but they are more worried about living life freely. Instead of prediciting doomsdays and heralding death, why not actively make the world better by *promoting* a better place.
In short, don't be so pushy, and maybe people will listen.
If you'd like a really well spelled out refutation of Global Warming, and a clear deliniation of many right-wing values, check out Rush Limbaugh's, "The Way Things Ought to Be". I believe it is in that book. Some shudder at the thought of reading his books, but until one reads them, you can't complain. I believe that I read most of the first book, and found him to be clear and concise.
Oh, and another thing. The Windows registry is a *massive* shared database.
.dll registration. On Windows, the only way the OS knows about a .systemwide dll is when you've added an entry to the registry for it.
I think knowledgebase would be a better name. A database has structure, the registry has little structure.
Take a look at
That is incorrect.
Unless the library is not on the path, Windows can find it. Self-Registering a DLL only helps in "finding" it when there is another DLL on the system with the same name, in a directory with an earlier entry in the path, and the application that is loading it searches the registry for it.
I'd venture to say that most of Microsoft's DLLs are not self-registered. The self-registration is generally only needed for OLE Objects, and even then you can usually do without it.
The registry is basically a hack, because Windows *used* to have what MS considered a worse scheme (.ini files). It isn't a very well thought out system.
Incorrect on both.
The registry was not a hack. It was a system designed for Windows when they thought that it would go nowhere. It helped register OLE objects, and a few other items, and did a fine job of it too.
INI files were also fine. However, too many systems started putting them in their private directories, instead of in the Windows directory where Microsoft said they should be.
The hack was, that when Windows 95 came out they decided that all INI files should be removed, and the registry should be used instead. NT 4 even usurps INI writes to Microsoft INI files (WritePrivateProfileString?) and throws them into the registry (ODBC is a good example of this) whether you like it or not. In that, it was a bad idea. But this still had nothing to do with DLLs. OLE DLLs have always been in the registry!
For example, I hate having to have 2-10 different versions of libraries due to programs requesting their own version, even though the newer libraries could do the job of the old ones.
I hate to say it, but maybe we need a standardized "registry" idea like in MS Windows?
Windows also has more than one version of the same library at times. And that has nothing to do with the registry!
Generally, in Windows, either a library is backwards compatible, or it gets a new name (a different directory would not help). Linux already does this somewhat. Version numbers are kept in libraries, and they link a versionless name of the library to the latest one.
The registry is rarely used for libraries. Rather, you may be thiking of OLE objects (OCXs, and OLE DLLs that need other DLLs) that "self-register" themselves to let other applications know where they exist. But it usually doesn't matter when it
s installed in System(32).
I hate to say it, but they do have a good idea with that.
Actually, I believe even Microsoft admits that the registry was a "Bad Idea". They just had no idea that Windows would go anywhere when they had the idea, so it seemed to work well for a small system.
I believe he was an old black guy and couldn't get a loan, and his daughter was about to lose her building. So he took up a game against someone who always wanted to beat him. This other guy was a real pro, so Sam needed real help. Between Ziggy producing the lighted angles, and him being told how much force to use he was able to win.
I forget what they're called, but I've seen some tools at the store that advertise their ability to remove scratches by sanding down the CD.
Well, I accepted a counter offer. Basically, I was offered a job I had applied for before I worked at the current job. Things moved around there, and they got back to me. With such a significant pay raise, I mentioned it to my boss, and told him why I was about to accept the offer. But I was telling him out of loyalty.
He countered, and beat, the offer. I then worked for about a year and a half until I got cut in the first round of layoffs (most of the IT department was). I'd say I'm happy I accepted the offer. It was for a small company, where we knew each other, and where I wanted to work. As long as the people you work with and for understand the situation, I'd doubt that there'd be any bad side.
If the company is in the control of people that you don't "know", you may be taking a risk by accepting the counter-offer.
OK Kitt, make me a good route.
Michael, are you sure we should create false cellular information just so you can show someone your belt buckle?
Sorry, I guess that's what happens when one has to learn English on the job.
Well the rest of the message is fine. I would not have otherwise known.
But, why didn't cliff change it when he posted it.?
I'll go kill myself now.
Have fun.
Just each a bunch of pringles, and leave a receiver at dock.