Are the posted questions getting worse?

  • edit: delete

    - misread something badly.

    Tom

  • Grumpy DBA (2/4/2016)


    Michael L John (2/4/2016)


    GilaMonster (2/4/2016)


    jasona.work (2/4/2016)


    Man, there's a reply to one of my topics (which really already has been answered, although Gail raised an important point) by CELKO, and I can't read it...

    The curiosity is KILLING ME!!!

    He was probably calling you incompetent and pointing out that real database people only use standard features which don't get deprecated.

    Like this? http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1758203-3412-2.aspx

    But everything CELKO no longer exists... I went through some other threads and can only find him if someone else quoted him. It's as if he never existed here, kind of a "It's a wonderful life" situation.

    I think we should let him back in, and start a pool.

    If he posts on one of your threads:

    1. If he mentions magnetic tape, tibbling, ISO, COBOL, Sybase, or Brittney Spears

    Pay $1.00

    2. If he uses the term "When I"

    Pay $10.00

    3. If he calls anyone a name

    Pay $1.00

    4. If he calls YOU a name

    Pay $10.00

    5. If he actually agrees with you

    Collect the pot!

    Michael L John
    If you assassinate a DBA, would you pull a trigger?
    To properly post on a forum:
    http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/

  • Michael L John (2/4/2016)


    Grumpy DBA (2/4/2016)


    Michael L John (2/4/2016)


    GilaMonster (2/4/2016)


    jasona.work (2/4/2016)


    Man, there's a reply to one of my topics (which really already has been answered, although Gail raised an important point) by CELKO, and I can't read it...

    The curiosity is KILLING ME!!!

    He was probably calling you incompetent and pointing out that real database people only use standard features which don't get deprecated.

    Like this? http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1758203-3412-2.aspx

    But everything CELKO no longer exists... I went through some other threads and can only find him if someone else quoted him. It's as if he never existed here, kind of a "It's a wonderful life" situation.

    I think we should let him back in, and start a pool.

    If he posts on one of your threads:

    1. If he mentions magnetic tape, tibbling, ISO, COBOL, Sybase, or Brittney Spears

    Pay $1.00

    2. If he uses the term "When I"

    Pay $10.00

    3. If he calls anyone a name

    Pay $1.00

    4. If he calls YOU a name

    Pay $10.00

    5. If he actually agrees with you

    Collect the pot!

    I'm in!

    The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    Martin Rees

    You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
    Stan Laurel

  • Michael L John (2/4/2016)


    Grumpy DBA (2/4/2016)


    Michael L John (2/4/2016)


    GilaMonster (2/4/2016)


    jasona.work (2/4/2016)


    Man, there's a reply to one of my topics (which really already has been answered, although Gail raised an important point) by CELKO, and I can't read it...

    The curiosity is KILLING ME!!!

    He was probably calling you incompetent and pointing out that real database people only use standard features which don't get deprecated.

    Like this? http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1758203-3412-2.aspx

    But everything CELKO no longer exists... I went through some other threads and can only find him if someone else quoted him. It's as if he never existed here, kind of a "It's a wonderful life" situation.

    I think we should let him back in, and start a pool.

    If he posts on one of your threads:

    1. If he mentions magnetic tape, tibbling, ISO, COBOL, Sybase, or Brittney Spears

    Pay $1.00

    2. If he uses the term "When I"

    Pay $10.00

    3. If he calls anyone a name

    Pay $1.00

    4. If he calls YOU a name

    Pay $10.00

    5. If he actually agrees with you

    Collect the pot!

    No one is ever going to collect the pot. :hehe:

    Luis C.
    General Disclaimer:
    Are you seriously taking the advice and code from someone from the internet without testing it? Do you at least understand it? Or can it easily kill your server?

    How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help: Option 1 / Option 2
  • ^ You have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot.

  • Grumpy DBA (2/4/2016)


    ^ You have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot.

    Actually, the way to collect the pot would be to call someone names, belittle their hard work, tell them to never write code again, and compare their schema to magnetic tape.

    He would readily agree!

    I smell a conspiracy!

    Michael L John
    If you assassinate a DBA, would you pull a trigger?
    To properly post on a forum:
    http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/

  • Brandie Tarvin (2/3/2016)


    SQLRNNR (2/1/2016)


    GilaMonster (1/30/2016)


    Ed Wagner (1/29/2016)


    Is it really that much better than SSMS intellsense? I'm asking because I don't know; not trying to start a riot.

    Oh, hell, yes. SSMS intellisense wastes more time than it saves due to its habits of autocorrecting strange things. SQLPrompt can be configured to activate when you want, not automatically, has some actual intelligence and saves me huge amounts of time.

    That's before we get to the auto-format script, auto-insert ;, auto-qualify columns, find invalid objects in the entire database, find unused parameters/variables in the current script, etc

    +1 for each point raised by Gail

    I kept turning it off because I type way faster than the stupid thing can react. And then it keeps misinterpreting my tabs and enters... Yeah, better to just give up on it and know the table / proc names.

    It does no harm when off, and it certainly does no good (but much harm) when it's on.

    I have tally table whose only column is named I. Every time I type "I" this utterly idotic piece of stupidity called "itellisense" (why don't they call it "stupiditisense"?) turns it into "IDENT_CURRENT", and that's just one example of how it impedes my progress.

    I can't imagine anything worse.

    Tom

  • Michael L John (2/4/2016)


    Grumpy DBA (2/4/2016)


    ^ You have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot.

    Actually, the way to collect the pot would be to call someone names, belittle their hard work, tell them to never write code again, and compare their schema to magnetic tape.

    He would readily agree!

    I smell a conspiracy!

    Need to add in there to ONLY use standard SQL, no engine specific features.

  • Brandie Tarvin (2/4/2016)


    So we were talking about Safe Harbor and data laws the other day, yes?

    And now Slate.com has this article about a new data transfer agreement.

    I think it is safe to guess that "Privacy Shield" in it's current form will never be accepted, because the protection authorities who would take the blame (because politicians are too damn dishonestly good at diverting the blame) for accpting someting so obviously contrary to EU law are not going to state that it's acceptable only to have the courts declare it unacceptable in a few months time.

    In fact I don't think it will be possible to arrive at any acceptable agreement, because the european courts and the european parlieament don't want an agreement that doesn't constrain the Americans to obey the rules they agree to, and the Americans have no intent at all to observe any constraints imposed by the rules and the Europeans know it. Safe Harbor was a perfect example, the whole WTO farce is another, the extraterritoriality of American laws in cases where exterritoriality is illegal by international law, and the ability of American companies to declare in contracts that some applicable laws shall not apply, are yet others, and so are the claims of the USA that American law over-rules Irish and European law in Ireland (which, unless I've missed some news, is still being asserted by the US administration).

    I'm waiting to see whether Boston secedes from Massacussets when Macssachussets refuses to secede from the Union over that one when the American courts reach their inevitable (internationally illegal) decision. Or is Boston a bit less Irish these days? :rolleyes:

    Tom

  • TomThomson (2/4/2016)


    Brandie Tarvin (2/3/2016)


    SQLRNNR (2/1/2016)


    GilaMonster (1/30/2016)


    Ed Wagner (1/29/2016)


    Is it really that much better than SSMS intellsense? I'm asking because I don't know; not trying to start a riot.

    Oh, hell, yes. SSMS intellisense wastes more time than it saves due to its habits of autocorrecting strange things. SQLPrompt can be configured to activate when you want, not automatically, has some actual intelligence and saves me huge amounts of time.

    That's before we get to the auto-format script, auto-insert ;, auto-qualify columns, find invalid objects in the entire database, find unused parameters/variables in the current script, etc

    +1 for each point raised by Gail

    I kept turning it off because I type way faster than the stupid thing can react. And then it keeps misinterpreting my tabs and enters... Yeah, better to just give up on it and know the table / proc names.

    It does no harm when off, and it certainly does no good (but much harm) when it's on.

    I have tally table whose only column is named I. Every time I type "I" this utterly idotic piece of stupidity called "itellisense" (why don't they call it "stupiditisense"?) turns it into "IDENT_CURRENT", and that's just one example of how it impedes my progress.

    I can't imagine anything worse.

    Something to consider about Intellisense. With it turned off, I have capture numerous events hitting the database server from the SSMS where Intellisense was "off". Something not quite right about turning it off and it still constantly sending queries to the server. Just saying.

    Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
    _______________________________________________
    I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
    SQL RNNR
    Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
    Learn Extended Events

  • I <3 SQLPrompt

  • TomThomson (2/4/2016)


    Brandie Tarvin (2/4/2016)


    So we were talking about Safe Harbor and data laws the other day, yes?

    And now Slate.com has this article about a new data transfer agreement.

    I think it is safe to guess that "Privacy Shield" in it's current form will never be accepted, because the protection authorities who would take the blame (because politicians are too damn dishonestly good at diverting the blame) for accpting someting so obviously contrary to EU law are not going to state that it's acceptable only to have the courts declare it unacceptable in a few months time.

    In fact I don't think it will be possible to arrive at any acceptable agreement, because the european courts and the european parlieament don't want an agreement that doesn't constrain the Americans to obey the rules they agree to, and the Americans have no intent at all to observe any constraints imposed by the rules and the Europeans know it. Safe Harbor was a perfect example, the whole WTO farce is another, the extraterritoriality of American laws in cases where exterritoriality is illegal by international law, and the ability of American companies to declare in contracts that some applicable laws shall not apply, are yet others, and so are the claims of the USA that American law over-rules Irish and European law in Ireland (which, unless I've missed some news, is still being asserted by the US administration).

    I'm waiting to see whether Boston secedes from Massacussets when Macssachussets refuses to secede from the Union over that one when the American courts reach their inevitable (internationally illegal) decision. Or is Boston a bit less Irish these days? :rolleyes:

    Believe it or not, there are some who work to comply with applicable laws. However, when something is changed frequently, it becomes much more difficult. When it's also embroiled in controversy among politicians, lawyers and different courts, the latest whim becomes more muddled, especially when it's probably going to get shot down anyway.

    Edit: What in Massachusetts are you referring to?

  • SQLRNNR (2/4/2016)


    TomThomson (2/4/2016)


    Brandie Tarvin (2/3/2016)


    SQLRNNR (2/1/2016)


    GilaMonster (1/30/2016)


    Ed Wagner (1/29/2016)


    Is it really that much better than SSMS intellsense? I'm asking because I don't know; not trying to start a riot.

    Oh, hell, yes. SSMS intellisense wastes more time than it saves due to its habits of autocorrecting strange things. SQLPrompt can be configured to activate when you want, not automatically, has some actual intelligence and saves me huge amounts of time.

    That's before we get to the auto-format script, auto-insert ;, auto-qualify columns, find invalid objects in the entire database, find unused parameters/variables in the current script, etc

    +1 for each point raised by Gail

    I kept turning it off because I type way faster than the stupid thing can react. And then it keeps misinterpreting my tabs and enters... Yeah, better to just give up on it and know the table / proc names.

    It does no harm when off, and it certainly does no good (but much harm) when it's on.

    I have tally table whose only column is named I. Every time I type "I" this utterly idotic piece of stupidity called "itellisense" (why don't they call it "stupiditisense"?) turns it into "IDENT_CURRENT", and that's just one example of how it impedes my progress.

    I can't imagine anything worse.

    Something to consider about Intellisense. With it turned off, I have capture numerous events hitting the database server from the SSMS where Intellisense was "off". Something not quite right about turning it off and it still constantly sending queries to the server. Just saying.

    Now that's curious. I suspect SSMS is still doing the same queries under the hood and calling the intellisense queries, but having it turned off just turns off the display. To be fair, this is just a theory and I've not investigated it.

  • Ed Wagner (2/4/2016)


    SQLRNNR (2/4/2016)


    TomThomson (2/4/2016)


    Brandie Tarvin (2/3/2016)


    SQLRNNR (2/1/2016)


    GilaMonster (1/30/2016)


    Ed Wagner (1/29/2016)


    Is it really that much better than SSMS intellsense? I'm asking because I don't know; not trying to start a riot.

    Oh, hell, yes. SSMS intellisense wastes more time than it saves due to its habits of autocorrecting strange things. SQLPrompt can be configured to activate when you want, not automatically, has some actual intelligence and saves me huge amounts of time.

    That's before we get to the auto-format script, auto-insert ;, auto-qualify columns, find invalid objects in the entire database, find unused parameters/variables in the current script, etc

    +1 for each point raised by Gail

    I kept turning it off because I type way faster than the stupid thing can react. And then it keeps misinterpreting my tabs and enters... Yeah, better to just give up on it and know the table / proc names.

    It does no harm when off, and it certainly does no good (but much harm) when it's on.

    I have tally table whose only column is named I. Every time I type "I" this utterly idotic piece of stupidity called "itellisense" (why don't they call it "stupiditisense"?) turns it into "IDENT_CURRENT", and that's just one example of how it impedes my progress.

    I can't imagine anything worse.

    Something to consider about Intellisense. With it turned off, I have capture numerous events hitting the database server from the SSMS where Intellisense was "off". Something not quite right about turning it off and it still constantly sending queries to the server. Just saying.

    Now that's curious. I suspect SSMS is still doing the same queries under the hood and calling the intellisense queries, but having it turned off just turns off the display. To be fair, this is just a theory and I've not investigated it.

    The XE shows the queries coming from Intellisense.

    I agree with Brandie... call it StupidSense

    Wayne
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
    Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes


    If you can't explain to another person how the code that you're copying from the internet works, then DON'T USE IT on a production system! After all, you will be the one supporting it!
    Links:
    For better assistance in answering your questions
    Performance Problems
    Common date/time routines
    Understanding and Using APPLY Part 1 & Part 2

  • Eirikur Eiriksson (2/4/2016)


    This was Alex demonstrating DLM & CI, did an impressive job, must add that I removed the bad practice comment from the screenshot ( for fun)

    I am very impressed by the coverage of the products but struggling with fitting them into the hybrid legacy/ cloud scenario I'm dealing with. So far it's the best contender I've seen.

    😎

    Do you happen to have a link for this presentation / video? I'd really like to see it.

    Wayne
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
    Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes


    If you can't explain to another person how the code that you're copying from the internet works, then DON'T USE IT on a production system! After all, you will be the one supporting it!
    Links:
    For better assistance in answering your questions
    Performance Problems
    Common date/time routines
    Understanding and Using APPLY Part 1 & Part 2

Viewing 15 posts - 52,561 through 52,575 (of 66,738 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply