From: "x" Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: TRM - Morbidity has set in, or not? Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:27:06 +0300 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 101 Message-ID: References: <1147455408.524459.7190@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <1147490980.634417.4870@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: s9btCjTiVvvsgWfav5q8uQ.user.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Priority: 3 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.cw.net!cw.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.de!newsreader.cw.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed0.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!81.174.50.156.MISMATCH!redpower.x-privat.org!news.cdlan.net!eleonora.aioe.org!emma.aioe.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:39548 "Marshall Spight" wrote in message news:1147490980.634417.4870@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > paul c wrote: > > Marshall Spight wrote: > > > > > I believe he is bound by some non-disclosure agreement and since the > > business involved has gone awry, he is stuck. So you can hardly blame > > him except perhaps for not having the foresight to sign a NDA that had > > no expiry date. > I don't "blame" him, but I do note that he does not back up > any of the claims he makes relative to "transrelational". So his claims > are unevaluable. They might be true, or they might be false; we have > no way of knowing. > My policy towards unevaluable statements is to ignore them > until they become evaluable. Full disclosure: set theory and predicate logic. :-) Please evaluate. :-) > > > Michael Stonebreaker has a small company that is selling a column > > > store; it looks quite interesting. > > After a promising start many years ago, Stonebraker has long been a tech > > salesman for various fads. > Do you speak from personal experience here? > Stonebraker started studying relational in 1973. DBMSs that he's lead > the develompent of include Ingres, Illustra, Postgres, Cohera, and > StreamBase. He is the recipient of the IEEE Von Neuman medal, > which has also gone to such people as Gordon Bell, Fred Brooks, > Don Knuth, and Alfred Aho. So ? > > From what I've read, most of his "opponents" haven't got the foggiest > > of what he is talking about. > So he keeps telling us. (Although I do not disagree with the sentiment > that there is a lot of ignorance to go around.) Do you know about what he is talking ? He is talking about the fact that you should not trust him or Date or Codd or ... :-) Question the axioms. :-) > > > I wonder: has he ever > > > accomplished anything that would back up his claims? Has he ever > > > published a proof? Published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal? > > > Made use of any formal methods? Written any software? To my > > > knowledge, he has published two books, one of them "Practical > > > Issues is Database Management". Which was a fine book, although > > > the last person I leant it to noted "you could hear the axe grinding > > > on every page." > > > > Yes, he has performed a public service, mostly without gain to himself > > whereas many of the "opponents" puff fools-gold because it is in their > > own interest to make systems bigger and more grandiose than they need to > > be. IT being a modern-day goldrush is full of carpet-baggers always > > promising more than they can deliver. > In other words, he's a consultant and public speaker. I've done > both of those things myself. > But what I asked was, has he ever accomplished anything? > Can you find a mathematical proof anywhere on dbdebunk? Mathematical proofs are foolproof. :-) > > Peer review means less and > > less now and is often a joke - more like a cover to protect "jobs for > > the boys". CS credentials are usually a tawdry peerage - most of those > > "peers" should demand refunds of their tuition fees but only a few have > > the brains to see this and even fewer have the guts. > In other words, everyone is stupid, so the fact that FP doesn't > publish in peer reviewed journals is irrelevant. > Publishing in peer reviewed journals remains the gold standard > for academic achievement. In other words, it is how we judge > "evidence and logic." The system is imperfect: like democracy, > it is the worst thing possible, except for every alternative. > It is certainly preferable to, say, putting up a website where > you make fun of your debating opponents names, control > every aspect of the presentation of the debate yourself, and > refuse to publish any corrections or updates that they send > you. I bring to your attention another "gold" standard: "Now while I sit in my oldest daughter and her husband's comfortable, happy, recently-built home, I'm online to look up Phi Beta Kappa so I understand the honor my youngest is receiving upon her graduation this weekend." -- a mom