July 25, 2012 at 9:08 am
Lynn Pettis (7/25/2012)
Jeff Moden (7/25/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
I didn't because I didn't want to pile on and distract from the OP's question. Enough that a few people are doing it. Unless the consensus is that I should when I see it.I agree that we shouldn't take away from an OPs thread by dog piling on this guy but dog piling on reporting it to SSC may finally drive the point home with SSC.
So, what does everyone think of this post?
You mean other than the grammatical errors and typos?
It is rude, but not as bad as the last one.
He's also continuing to state personal preference without the reasons behind it, like
Also, we use the ANSI Stanard CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and not the old Sybase getdate())
Other than it being ANSI standard, why? And what's so important about ANSI standard if getdate() is supported in SQL Server with no notification of depreciation?
Also, Fridays can totally be purple. 🙂
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
July 25, 2012 at 9:26 am
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
Lynn Pettis (7/25/2012)
Jeff Moden (7/25/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
I didn't because I didn't want to pile on and distract from the OP's question. Enough that a few people are doing it. Unless the consensus is that I should when I see it.I agree that we shouldn't take away from an OPs thread by dog piling on this guy but dog piling on reporting it to SSC may finally drive the point home with SSC.
So, what does everyone think of this post?
You mean other than the grammatical errors and typos?
It is rude, but not as bad as the last one.
He's also continuing to state personal preference without the reasons behind it, like
Also, we use the ANSI Stanard CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and not the old Sybase getdate())
Other than it being ANSI standard, why? And what's so important about ANSI standard if getdate() is supported in SQL Server with no notification of depreciation?
Also, Fridays can totally be purple. 🙂
Not to mention that the original post is from June of 2009 and the OP has not logged in since then. I doubt the OP will login to respond now. 😀
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
July 25, 2012 at 9:43 am
Where did he get the idea that DELETED is a reserved word in T-SQL? It's not flashing up as a reserved keyword color in SSMS for me.
July 25, 2012 at 9:45 am
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Taking a tangent...I've blogged about this subject before, but didn't get much of a response other than a few laughs from people who thought I was wrong. Now, someone got dinged and I thought I'd spread the word.
In my limited and obscure blogging, I've only used pics I've taken so far. But there's a weird area here. If you take a picture of an album cover or book cover, etc... it is usable even though it is someone else's work, if you are talking about the thing you've taken a picture of under the "fair use" doctrine.
Also, if you're using something with a Creative Commons license, please be sure to cite the owner, not the site from which you got the pic. Major publications get this wrong all the time.
And most people get "fair use" wrong, too. Fair Use doctrine refers to an educational institution's ability to cite and copy other people's work. It has nothing to do with anything else.
July 25, 2012 at 9:51 am
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Taking a tangent...I've blogged about this subject before, but didn't get much of a response other than a few laughs from people who thought I was wrong. Now, someone got dinged and I thought I'd spread the word.
In my limited and obscure blogging, I've only used pics I've taken so far. But there's a weird area here. If you take a picture of an album cover or book cover, etc... it is usable even though it is someone else's work, if you are talking about the thing you've taken a picture of under the "fair use" doctrine.
Also, if you're using something with a Creative Commons license, please be sure to cite the owner, not the site from which you got the pic. Major publications get this wrong all the time.
And most people get "fair use" wrong, too. Fair Use doctrine refers to an educational institution's ability to cite and copy other people's work. It has nothing to do with anything else.
It doesn't just refer to educational institutions though. Anyone doing a review or discussing a work can use "reasonable" amounts of that work in discussing it. It likely extends further than that as making copies of albums onto tape or CD for private use is also considered "fair use". That's why the recording industry wasn't able to get blank cassettes made illegal back in the 70s.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
July 25, 2012 at 9:59 am
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Taking a tangent...I've blogged about this subject before, but didn't get much of a response other than a few laughs from people who thought I was wrong. Now, someone got dinged and I thought I'd spread the word.
In my limited and obscure blogging, I've only used pics I've taken so far. But there's a weird area here. If you take a picture of an album cover or book cover, etc... it is usable even though it is someone else's work, if you are talking about the thing you've taken a picture of under the "fair use" doctrine.
Also, if you're using something with a Creative Commons license, please be sure to cite the owner, not the site from which you got the pic. Major publications get this wrong all the time.
And most people get "fair use" wrong, too. Fair Use doctrine refers to an educational institution's ability to cite and copy other people's work. It has nothing to do with anything else.
It doesn't just refer to educational institutions though. Anyone doing a review or discussing a work can use "reasonable" amounts of that work in discussing it. It likely extends further than that as making copies of albums onto tape or CD for private use is also considered "fair use". That's why the recording industry wasn't able to get blank cassettes made illegal back in the 70s.
How do you make blank tapes illegal any way? They have a valid use besides making copies of music. People used tape recorders for a variety of uses requiring blank tapes.
July 25, 2012 at 10:00 am
Lynn Pettis (7/25/2012)
Jeff Moden (7/25/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
I didn't because I didn't want to pile on and distract from the OP's question. Enough that a few people are doing it. Unless the consensus is that I should when I see it.I agree that we shouldn't take away from an OPs thread by dog piling on this guy but dog piling on reporting it to SSC may finally drive the point home with SSC.
So, what does everyone think of this post?
I think the same that I usually do - I read his stuff when I'm in the mood to laugh about someone who is so divorced from reality that the posts are comical. The guy may be amazingly brilliant, but I won't send any money his way, no matter how brilliant he is. I refuse to support someone who has such low regard for other people that he is constantly insulting them.
I always feel sorry for the people he attacks, and I'm glad that this time it's an old post and not someone who just wandered into a friendly-looking bar in the wild west and got shot at.
-Ki
July 25, 2012 at 10:03 am
Lynn Pettis (7/25/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Taking a tangent...I've blogged about this subject before, but didn't get much of a response other than a few laughs from people who thought I was wrong. Now, someone got dinged and I thought I'd spread the word.
In my limited and obscure blogging, I've only used pics I've taken so far. But there's a weird area here. If you take a picture of an album cover or book cover, etc... it is usable even though it is someone else's work, if you are talking about the thing you've taken a picture of under the "fair use" doctrine.
Also, if you're using something with a Creative Commons license, please be sure to cite the owner, not the site from which you got the pic. Major publications get this wrong all the time.
And most people get "fair use" wrong, too. Fair Use doctrine refers to an educational institution's ability to cite and copy other people's work. It has nothing to do with anything else.
It doesn't just refer to educational institutions though. Anyone doing a review or discussing a work can use "reasonable" amounts of that work in discussing it. It likely extends further than that as making copies of albums onto tape or CD for private use is also considered "fair use". That's why the recording industry wasn't able to get blank cassettes made illegal back in the 70s.
How do you make blank tapes illegal any way? They have a valid use besides making copies of music. People used tape recorders for a variety of uses requiring blank tapes.
Yup, including recording your own music, but that didn't stop the music indistry from trying. I believe they also suggested limiting the length of cassettes.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
July 25, 2012 at 10:20 am
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Where did he get the idea that DELETED is a reserved word in T-SQL?
Probably from the deleted and inserted tables in triggers (which he says no one should ever write more than 5 of in their career. I clearly need to retire then)
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
July 25, 2012 at 10:21 am
Can someone with more patience than I have please help here: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1334377-391-1.aspx?
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
July 25, 2012 at 10:24 am
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Where did he get the idea that DELETED is a reserved word in T-SQL? It's not flashing up as a reserved keyword color in SSMS for me.
Maybe it was reserved in an old version of SQL Server (6.5 or 7?) - it isn't reserved in SQL2000 or any later version.
I think it was pretty bad to come in 3 years after the event and post that diatribe. Particularly as it contains wuite a bit of utter nonsense. I don't understand how he imagines that kind of rant does any good. I can see how it could do a lot of harm, although coming three years late it probably did no harm (except perhaps to Lyn's blood-pressure) this time.
Tom
July 25, 2012 at 10:30 am
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/25/2012)
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
Taking a tangent...I've blogged about this subject before, but didn't get much of a response other than a few laughs from people who thought I was wrong. Now, someone got dinged and I thought I'd spread the word.
In my limited and obscure blogging, I've only used pics I've taken so far. But there's a weird area here. If you take a picture of an album cover or book cover, etc... it is usable even though it is someone else's work, if you are talking about the thing you've taken a picture of under the "fair use" doctrine.
Also, if you're using something with a Creative Commons license, please be sure to cite the owner, not the site from which you got the pic. Major publications get this wrong all the time.
And most people get "fair use" wrong, too. Fair Use doctrine refers to an educational institution's ability to cite and copy other people's work. It has nothing to do with anything else.
The rules must have changed recently, then - it used to include the use of short quotations in the course of a book review, for example, and it certainly didn't provide educational institutions with carte blanche to copy other peoples' work (it provided only for limited copying in the form of brief quotations). I'm not convinced such changes have actually happened - they would have been reprted as big news in TheRegister and probably a few other places.
Tom
July 25, 2012 at 11:03 am
Brandie Tarvin (7/25/2012)
And most people get "fair use" wrong, too. Fair Use doctrine refers to an educational institution's ability to cite and copy other people's work. It has nothing to do with anything else.
I don't think it's just educational institutions. Anyone that comments or reports something should be able to use things if they've built on the item. Add their comment, use it to teach something, etc.
July 25, 2012 at 11:08 am
Since Mr. Moden posted his note, I added this issue to our weekly meeting this week. We have warned Mr Celko a few times in the last few months. Quite a few of the posts reported have been short or rude, but they've been on topic. However the post from Jeff's note today, and a few others, have been off topic and unprofessional.
We've decided to issue a formal, strongly worded warning. After that, I will ban future posts from Mr. Celko.
Guess I have some code to get ready now 🙁
I hate doing this type of thing.
July 25, 2012 at 12:43 pm
To be clear, I don't mind the reporting posts, even if the reports are false positives. The issue is with Mr. Celko's behavior.
Viewing 15 posts - 37,021 through 37,035 (of 66,710 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply