Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 5 Jun 2006 05:51:25 -0700
Message-ID: <1149511885.366107.71650@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

Bob Badour wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
>
> > Bob Badour wrote:,
> >
> >
> > //> Cimode wrote:
> >
> >>>I will be more succint in future comments as wordyness seems to be
> >>>asource of confusion.
> >>>
> >>>Bob Badour wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Cimode wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>To Bob Badour
> >>>>>
> >>>>>As a proof of good faith that I am not trying to ellide your questions.
> >>>>>I will change the quoting. Hope this will clarify...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Bob Badour wrote:
> >>>>><<What are the two dimensions? Can you name them?>>
> >>>>>For bidimensional RAM's, the 2 dimensions are RowAddress and
> >>>>>ColumnAddress
> >>>>>For tridimensional RAM's (64bit architectures) the 3 dimensions are
> >>>>>Block Adress, RowAddress, ColumnAddress
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Does that make sense? It was written above.
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't make sense yet. First, you will have to define: "RowAddress",
> >>>>"ColumnAddress" and "BlockAddress" as part of some coherent
> >>>>computational model.
> >>>
> >>>It does not makes *yet*?. Mister, what is nonsense does not make sense
> >>>*ever*.
> >>
> >>I don't recall saying that the above is nonsense. I recall saying it
> >>cannot make sense until you define the terms "RowAddress",
> >>"ColumnAddress" and "BlockAddress". Until that time, it is merely
> >>meaningless.//
> >
> > Well in substance, you are saying it is nonsense until it would be
> > defined. This is totally incoherent.
> > RowAddress, ColumnAddress and BlockAddress are explicitely defined
> > through terminology and do not need a definition.
>
> The hell they are! At this time in this discussion they are nothing more
> than meaningless symbols. You have yet to provide any definition or any
> reference to a definition.

Meaningless to you only.

> If all you want to do is engage in mental masturbation, I suggest you do
> it in private.

Have you noticed that mental masturbation is very mechanical/repetitive action? The repetitiveness and the predicatibility of your argumentation (nosense, crank, idiot, twit filter) make you certainly more predisposed to carry such activity. Oh no! At least masturbation produces something. In your case nothing is produced but a big bag of crappola making feel better and more secure about dumb certainties.

> >>>Besides when was the last time you checked memory architectures?
> >>
> > //I suggest you consider the name of this newsgroup. It is not
> > comp.intel.architecture.64bit and it is not comp.intel.mmu.64bt//
> > You have totally ellided that question.
>
> I did not answer the question because neither the question nor the
> answer are relevant. If you expect people here to understand terms that
> are never used in this newsgroup, you will need to define them or point
> to some definition. Duh!
>
>
> > The name of this newsgroup is comp.databases.theory and it is a ground
> > for discussing all theory related to databases including implementation
> > theory.
>

 When was the last time you read a paper discussing a theory of computing
 that didn't bother to define a computational model? Never? I told you a hundred times there was no usefulness into defining a new computational model for understanding such simple issues. Do you sincerely believe that anybody who wants to exchange on in-memory progammatic issues needs to deploy an entire model?

>
>
> >>If you want to discuss a specific computational model, you will have to
> >>provide some sensible definition of that model. Even with segmented
> >>memory, the address space is linear. Even with virtual memory, the
> >>address space is linear. Even with paged memory, the address space is
> >>linear.
> >
> > You keep bringing computational model again.
>
> Of course, I do. We cannot even begin to discuss this topic sensibly
> until we know what fucking computational model we are using. Idiot.
There we go, here is an additional insult. *idiot* added to the arsenal. You are pathetically predictable. As I told you I will totally ignore posts including insults and won't bother responding.

> While I told you that segmented memory has nothing to do
> > with physical addressing scheme for relative position of data.
>
> But you have claimed repeatedly that linear addressing is bidimensional
> and you have stated that this bidimensionality applies to logical
> entities with N dimensions.
>
>
> >>Are you suggesting that current memory architectures are non-segmented,
> >>non-virtual, non-paged, non-linear architectures? Are you suggesting
> >>that this would somehow become relevant to the theoretical computational
> >>model?
> >
> > I suggested that this high level not low level.
>

You are nothing but an ignorant crank. Go waste somebody else's time.  Idiot. Plonk.
*crank* added to your limited lexic. I will not respond to this kind of garbage. But I will define you as a person. through a limited bag of words your are using repetitively on this thread but on all threads where you brought your *help* an *knowledge*

(*nonsense*, *nonsensical*, *idiot*, *crank*, *plonk*, *twit-filter*, *fuck yourself*).

PASCAL was right after anybody pretending to be helpful online is indeed a crank. Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 07:51:25 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US