Re: NoSQL Movement?
ccc31807 carte...@gmail.com writes: On Mar 3, 4:55 pm, toby t...@telegraphics.com.au wrote: where you have to store data and relational data Data is neither relational nor unrelational. Data is data. Relationships are an artifact, something we impose on the data. Relations are for human convenience, not something inherent in the data itself. perform a large number of queries. Why does the number matter? Have you ever had to make a large number of queries to an XML database? In some ways, an XML database is the counterpart to a relational database in that the data descriptions constitute the relations. However, since the search is to the XML elements, and you can't construct indicies for XML databases in the same way you can with relational databases, a large search can take much longer that you might expect. Most XML databases are just a re-vamp of hierarchical databases, which are one of the two common formats that came before relational databases. Hierarchical, network and relational databases all have their uses. Some 'xml' databases, like existsdb have some pretty powerful indexing technologies. while they are different to relational db indexing because they are based around hierarchies rather than relations, they do provide the ability to do fast queries in the same way that indexes in relational databases allow fast queries over relations. Both solutions can do fast queries, they are just optimised for different types of queries. Likewise, other database technologies that tend to fall into this category, such as couch and mungo are aimed at applications and problems that aren't suitable for the relational db model and are better suited to the types of applications they have been designed for. As usual, Xah's rantings are of little substance here. Yes, he is right that 'nosql' is essentially just another buzzword like 'web 2.0', but so what? This is an industry that loves its buzzwords.Often its just marketing hype or some convenience holder for a vague 'concept' some journalist, consultant or blogger wants to wank on about. You cannot hate or love 'nosql' without defining exactly what you mean by the term. Xah starts by acknowledging the term is ill defined and then goes on to say how he doesn't like it because it lacks the mathematical precision of the relational algebra that underpins the relational model. It seems somewhat ironic to put forward an argument focusing on the importance of precision when you fail to be precise regarding the thing your arguing against. His point is further weakened by the failure to realise that SQL and the relational model and relational algebra are different things. Not having SQL doesn't automatically mean you cannot have a relational model or operations that are based on relational algebra. SQL is just the convenient query language and while it has succeeded where other languages have not, its just one way of interacting with a relational database. As a language SQL isn't even 'pure' in that it has operations that don't fit with the relational algebra that he claims is so important and includes facillities that are really business convenience operations that actually corrupt the mathematical model and purity that is the basis of his poorly formed argument. He also overlooks the fact that none of the successful relational databases have remained true to either the relational model or the underlying theory. All of the major RDMS have corrupted things for marketing, performance or maintenance reasons. Only a very few vendors have stayed true to the relational model and none of them have achieved much in the way of market share, I wonder why? All Xah is doing is being the nets equivalent of radios 'shock jock'. He searches for some topical issue, identifies a stance that he feels will elicit the greatest number of emotional responses and lobs it into the crowd. He rarely hangs around to debate his claims. When he does, he tends to just yell and shout and more often than not, uses personal attack to defend his statements rather than arguing the topic. His analysis is usually shallow and based on popularism If someone disagrees, they are a moron or a fool and if they agree, they are a genius just like him. Just like true radio shock jocks, some willl love him and some will hate him. The only things we can be certain about are that reaction is a much hier motivator for his posts than conviction, there is probably an inverse relationship between IQ and support for his arguments and that his opinion probably has the same longevity as the term nosql. Now if we can just get back to debating important topics like why medical reform is the start of communism, how single mothers are leeching of tax payers, the positive aspects of slavery, why blacks are all criminals, how governments are evil, the holocaust conspiricy, why all muslims are terrorists, the benefits of global warming, the bad science corrupting our children's innocence and
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
George Neuner gneuner2/@comcast.net writes: On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:36:40 + (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bent C Dalager) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bent C Dalager) writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Frank Goenninger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I didn't start the discussion. So you should ask the OP about the why. I jumped in when I came across the so often mentioned hey, it's all well defined statement was brought in. I simply said that if that well-definedness is against common understanding then I don't give a damn about that clever definitions. Because I have to know that there are such definitions - always also knowing that free is not really free. Liberated is a valid meaning of the word free. No. It is a valid meaning of the word freed. Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanings, Free (...) Liberated, by arriving at a certain age, from the control of parents, guardian, or master. The point presumably being that having been liberated, you are now free. I don't think knowing the meaning of a word is being pedantic. Freed is derived from free but has a different, though associated, meaning. Words have meaning despite the many attempts by Generation X to assert otherwise. Symbolism over substance has become the mantra of the young. The English language has degenerated significantly in the last 30 years. People (marketers in particular) routinely coin ridiculous new words and hope they will catch on. I remember seeing a documentary (circa 1990?) about changes in the English language. One part of the program was about the BBC news and one of its editors, whom the staff called the protector of language, who checked the pronunciation of words by the news anchors. The thing that struck me about this story was the number of BBC newspeople who publicly admitted that they could hardly wait for this man to retire so they could write and speak the way they wanted rather than having to be correct. Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language - any word or meaning of a word not found in the dictionary was considered a colloquial (slang) use. Since the 1980's, an entry in the dictionary has become little more than evidence of popularity as the major dictionaries (OED, Webster, Cambridge, etc.) will now consider any word they can find used in print. Language is not a static 'set in stone' thing. It changes and while some may find the changes unwelcome, it will change anyway. Although I have no evidence to support it, I suspect that 'free' wold have been more commonly associated with meanings other than 'free of cost' pre-capitalism. Checking a few dictionaries seems to indicate that its meaning along the lines of free from restriction, control, freedom, liberated etc is more in keeping with its origins than an interpretation of free of cost and that even in that context, it meant free from the restriction of having to be paid for. The bottom line is that free has different meanings and if a group decides to use that term and at the same time specify which context it means it to apply, then I think that is reasonable. Ask your wife what she thinks is meant by a free variable and she may say that it is a variable that has no cost (as in free beer), This doesn't mean that its use is wrong or incorrect. I once asked RMS why he chose free, given the ambiguity it would cause, over alternatives, such as freedom, liberated or even unrestricted. His response was that at the time, free as in freedom was the concious association they had and other associations and resulting ambiguity did not occur to them until it was too late. This seems reasonable enough. If your focus was to ensure that software was free from what you perceived to be restrictions that would ultimately reduce your individual freedom, then free fits. The fact this has led to confusion amongst consumers in a capitalist based economy probably says as much about modern values and the changing balance between consumerism compared to freedom than anything else. Tim The Americans are identical to the British in all respects except, of course, language. Oscar Wilde Giving English to an American is like giving sex to a child. He knows it's important but he doesn't know what to do with it. Adam Cooper (19th century) We (the British and Americans) are two countries separated by a common language. G.B. Shaw The Englishman commented to the American about the curious way in which he pronounced so many words, such as schedule (pronounced shedule). The American thought about it for a few moments, then replied, Perhaps it's because we went to different shools! Englishman: Its maths not math because it is short for mathematics American: Then you would say Maths are fun? --- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au --
Re: Reddit broke - should have remained on Lisp?
Luis M. González [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alok wrote: While posting a comment on http://www.reddit.com I got an error page with the following curious statement on it. reddit broke (sorry) looks like we shouldn't have stopped using lisp... See screenshot at http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1773/1980/1600/reddit-broke.jpg Whether they truly repent not using lisp or otherwise, their site appears to be 3 times slower ... Alok I don't know if this is true or not, but blaming a language for a poor development is a little bit ridiculous... Although I'd like to agree with you and the principal is sound, unfortunately it does not always hold in the real world. In the years I've been programming, there have certainly been situations in which a poorly implemented or poorly designed language has made developing reliable software near impossible. Admittedly this is not as common as it was in the 80s when you had lots of companies developing their own better languages for certain domains and there were a lot of 4GLs promising the world, it is still possible to have a situation in which a development fails because of a poorly chosen language. Actually, I've just remember the introduction to PCL where Peter talks about his fathers experience with lisp in the 80s. In this example, choosing lisp saved a development project which was looking very much like it was going to be a complete failure. If do something like selecting a different language saves a development project, isn't it also reasonable to suggest that the converse could be true and that selecting the wrong language could have a negative impact on development? Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: HOST - dreamhost.com / Liberality (Hosting, Basic Requirement)
Joachim Durchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ilias Lazaridis schrieb: crossposted to 5 groups, which are affected by this case. followup not applicable. Actually, in this case, yes. It _seems_ that Mr. Xah Les's account was terminated by dreamhost.com because of a) the inability of several people to detect the interconnections within writings which lead to perfectly valid cross-posts within the usenet. Actually, his posts are mostly off-topic. b) the non-liberal and essentially non-professional way of how dreamhost.com deals with abuse complaints. Unless you give some concrete facts, this is simply slander. URLs don't count. To dreamhost.com: You should install an autoresponder to your abuse email, which reminds people that it is * nearly inpossible to rate the content posted to usenet * neally inpossible to detect validity of cross-posts especially within complex analytical/philosophical writings * other important facts Why are you wasting our mental bandwidth with that? Besides, it's utter nonsense. There's an infinity of invalid reasons, so you can't rule them out with an autoresponder. People can then decide if they still wish to send the abuse complain (e.g. can follow a link within the autoresponder). Nope. Finding out the provider is enough of a barrier. Additional barriers are not really necessary. Xah Lee has been irritating people for months. I do share your concerns. Complaint handling often is unprofessional. However, in Xah Lee's case, he's indeed been irritating too many people for a too long time that *some* sanction is in fact appropriate. I routinely kill his threads, but I'm reading a specific newsgroup for a purpose, and Xah Lee requires me to kill his. He's essentially doing semantic spam - analytical and philosophical writings may be well and fine, but they aren't appropriate on the newsgroups that I frequent (or only in very specific ways that Xah Lee doesn't address). To anyone: Any form of censorship and suppression of freedom of expression should be kept out of from open-source projects and from usenet. It is the within the responsibility of every entity (including commercial companies) to act against it. http://dev.lazaridis.com/base/wiki/LiberalProjectDefinition There are many important goals. Free speech is indeed very high on the list. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that Xah Lee will find another provider. I think the other point here is that everyone *assumes* Xah's account was cancelled simply because of a campaign to report him for spamming multiple newsgroups. I suspect there were other factors involved. for all anyone knows, the provider might have been getting complaints from people about Xah's account, website, e-mail and newsgorup posting for ages and just decided it was more trouble than it was worth to keep him as a customer. Personally, I didn't report Xah to his provider, but I do believe he was a troll (which he himself admits) and which is confirmed by the fact he never hangs around to defend or debate his posts which seem more often than not deliberately designed to start a flamewar. Bottom line is everyone seems to have just accepted Xah's claims and now we have lots of outraged netters screaming about free speech. Given Xah's desire to provoke emotion etc, its even possible Xah created this whole thing just for entertainment! On usernet, I think the secret is believe nothing, question everything and remember, on the net, nobody knows your a dog! -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Apologies for cross post [was Re: HOST - dreamhost.com / Liberality (Hosting, Basic Requirement)]
My apologies for not trimming the long list of crossposted groups. I hit 'y' when thinking 'n'! Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: John Bokma harassment
Mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Bokma wrote: Mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Bokma wrote: [...] You're mistaken. All you need to do is report it. After some time Xah will either walk in line with the rest of the world, or has found somewhere else to yell. As long as it's not my back garden and not around 4AM, I am ok with it. Walk in line with the rest of the world? Pah. This is no-ones back garden. Funny how people who always think they can change Usenet have no clue about what Usenet is and how it works in the first place. Who said anything about changing it? I like it just the way it is. Usenet is just that, each server participating can be thought of as being the back yard of the news master. Sure, each server has terms and conditions that apply, doesn't mean you should be able to ban people from speaking just because you don't like what they say. My point is that this isn't *your* back garden, it isn't *my* back garden. It isn't something I own, and it *IS* something I can filter and/or ignore. Someone shouting in your back garden is a whole different ball game where your desires prevail. Not here. You know what you are getting into when you sign in, and it is your responsibility to deal with those you don't agree with personally. I understand you consider his writings spam, and so can see why you have reported him. All I'm saying is that as long as the articles are remotely on topic, I believe he has a right to post his opinions here. If you have no clue about how Usenet works, first read up a bit. What a Usenet server is, a feed, and how Usenet is distributed. And then come back if you finally have something to say that you can back up. Thankfully I'm aware enough of all the above that I don't feel the need. As these are all opinions, I don't see any need to back up any of it. Personally, I think this is getting a bit out of hand. Originally, John and others suggested reporting Xah to his ISP for spamming multiple groups. There was never any suggestion I have seen (except from Xah himself) that the objective was to gag his contraversial thoughts/comments/ideas. I have no problem with him posting comments which are relevant to the group he posts to. However, I do object to anyone who has the arrogance to believe their opinions are so important they should be posted to any remotely related group they can think of. I don't agree with nearly 99% of what Xah says - he often raises a well known issue (i've not seen anything original yet), outlines it reasonably well, but then proposes solutions which strike me as being very poorly considered or narrow of thought. He also tends to look at something for a couple of days and then rubbish it with a tone of authority and experience he obviously hasn't yet obtained. However, he has just as much right to do so as anyone else and therefore, its not because of his content he should be reported - its because of his irresponsability in how he distributes it. I also seem to remember a page on his website from a couple of years back in which he admits enjoying trolling and starting flame wars - but I can't find it now, so maybe I'm mistaken. However, I suspect this is the main motivation for his posts rather than a genuine desire to solve problems he perceives. At any rate, its not like he hasn't been told his constant behavior of mass cross posting was considered bad form - he has been told many many times and just ignores it. If someone wrote up there essays and got them printed on millions of leaflets which they then dumped all over the place, would you be outraged when they were fined for littering and claim their right to free speech was being gagged? Of course not. This is the same. I think most would have no problem with Xah posting if he did it in a responsible manner. Note that normally I try to remove all the cross posted groups in replies to Xah's thread, but this time, I'm leaving them as I feel the nature of this thread warrants it. If you disagree, please don't hesitate to report me to my ISP as I'm more than willing to defend my decision. If I lose, there not an ISP I'd want to stay with anyway! Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
