Re: What does this NULL mean?
Date: 15 Dec 2005 19:41:51 -0800
Message-ID: <1134704511.203946.223690_at_g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
paul c wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > Frank Hamersley wrote:
> >
> >>...
> >
> >
> >> In fact, would it be possible given he
> >>"knows" what makes a 5 star product, for him to be associated with
> >>anything less?
> >
> >
> > He would be wise to continue to keep to his current seat where he can
> > critique others. He is not, afterall, a film maker.
> >
> > ...
I probably should state that Ebert is my favorite film critic. I like reading Date in spite of differences of opinion.
> I don't know the guy but from his writings I'd guess he is plenty wise
> enough to know that and he is certainly not afraid to publicly change
> his mind.
Agreed. He even changes definitions of otherwise commonly agreed-upon terms (a minor irritant for me).
> A darned good critic and more besides because he looks at how
> results are obtained and is competent to assess that was done. And he
> has produced and designed at the internals level. I gather he started
> at a legendary company "Leo computers" which somebody told me was
> started by a supermarket owner who couldn't get what he wanted from ICL!
> >
> Suspect Date would never compare himself to Bertrand Russell but in this
> limited sphere, I can. What did Russell ever do except write a massive
> tome for the public that the public didn't read as well as criticize
> pretty much everything in human affairs? Well, what he did was make sense.
> >
> IMHO, the hominem stuff about Date is a poor show in this group.
I intended my comments to be favorable. I disagree with Date on a number of points, but I read him.
> We
> should pay more attention to what is being said.
I do pay attention and even buy his books.
>
> As for valid alternative theories, that's fine, but they need to be more
> than theoretically valid.
Do they need to be more than practically useful?
> They have to be amenable to common computers
> and scaleable as well. Nobody worth reading, including Date, ever said
> the RM is the be-all and end-all. Date is saying that it hasn't been
> done properly, YET. He gives lots of evidence to back that up, SO FAR.
Yes. I agree with him that this theory has not been 100% implemented. I think they are working on doing that with Dataphor IIRC.
> Ebert is entertaining but not nearly as thorough as Date and his
> subject is very subjective, much more so than "databases.theory".
I agree with the first part of your sentence, but not the second. Theory, if defined in terms of work done with a mathematical model, is not (very) subjective, but selecting a database theory is not an exact science. Cheers! --dawn Received on Fri Dec 16 2005 - 04:41:51 CET