May 27, 2015 at 11:47 am
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
1. It's hard to prove that Everyone knows anything. Statements like "everyone knows" and "we all agree" are antithetical to the point that the article was attempting to convey.
2. Wrong Forum.
The point is that scientists using scientific methods can arrive at different conclusions. So, it is antithetical. It identifies flaws in the scientific method which is that the interpretation of the results are sometimes subjective.
Also, you are right. It is not only hard to prove that everyone knows anything, it is impossible.
When I wrote "Everyone knows", it was to highlight that the science is clear on climate change. Yet the 2% who disagree prevent the scientific method from producing desirable results. This should not have been taken literally.
Does the lack of deterministic causality invalidate quantum mechanics?
Is it really that hard to extrapolate on my comments and relate it to the context of this discussion?
If so, then yes I agree. This is the wrong forum.
May 27, 2015 at 11:48 am
One of the advantages of a medieval style IT shop, where the rules are not spelled out on paper, is that you as the DBA can simply lord it over the database realm. If you don't want developers to have DBO or SYSADMIN permissions, then just remove it. In an environment like that, executive management doesn't listen to complaints from the small folk; they just want stuff to work.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
May 27, 2015 at 11:52 am
Eric M Russell (5/27/2015)
One of the advantages of a medieval style IT shop, where the rules are not spelled out on paper, is that you as the DBA can simply lord it over the database realm. If you don't want developers to have DBO or SYSADMIN permissions, then just remove it. In an environment like that, executive management doesn't listen to complaints from the small folk; they just want stuff to work.
Guess I'm downright medieval 😀
😎
May 27, 2015 at 11:53 am
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
1. It's hard to prove that Everyone knows anything. Statements like "everyone knows" and "we all agree" are antithetical to the point that the article was attempting to convey.
2. Wrong Forum.
The point is that scientists using scientific methods can arrive at different conclusions. So, it is antithetical. It identifies flaws in the scientific method which is that the interpretation of the results are sometimes subjective.
Also, you are right. It is not only hard to prove that everyone knows anything, it is impossible.
When I wrote "Everyone knows", it was to highlight that the science is clear on climate change. Yet the 2% who disagree prevent the scientific method from producing desirable results. This should not have been taken literally.
Does the lack of deterministic causality invalidate quantum mechanics?
Is it really that hard to extrapolate on my comments and relate it to the context of this discussion?
If so, then yes I agree. This is the wrong forum.
How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.
May 27, 2015 at 11:55 am
Does the lack of deterministic causality invalidate quantum mechanics?
It Depends.
-- Itzik Ben-Gan 2001
May 27, 2015 at 11:57 am
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
1. It's hard to prove that Everyone knows anything. Statements like "everyone knows" and "we all agree" are antithetical to the point that the article was attempting to convey.
2. Wrong Forum.
The point is that scientists using scientific methods can arrive at different conclusions. So, it is antithetical. It identifies flaws in the scientific method which is that the interpretation of the results are sometimes subjective.
Also, you are right. It is not only hard to prove that everyone knows anything, it is impossible.
When I wrote "Everyone knows", it was to highlight that the science is clear on climate change. Yet the 2% who disagree prevent the scientific method from producing desirable results. This should not have been taken literally.
Does the lack of deterministic causality invalidate quantum mechanics?
Is it really that hard to extrapolate on my comments and relate it to the context of this discussion?
If so, then yes I agree. This is the wrong forum.
How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.
+1
-- Itzik Ben-Gan 2001
May 27, 2015 at 12:14 pm
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
1. It's hard to prove that Everyone knows anything. Statements like "everyone knows" and "we all agree" are antithetical to the point that the article was attempting to convey.
2. Wrong Forum.
Theoretically this statement could become true in the future (Darwin style[/url]), mix'em together and those shaking C3H5(NO3)3 will soon be extinct.... leaving the remainders with the knowledge:-D
😎
May 27, 2015 at 12:19 pm
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.
+1
There it is Alan. You have just proved that politics and religion trump science. This explains your repulsiveness to my post -- say no more.
My point is valid...
Thanks
May 27, 2015 at 12:24 pm
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.
+1
There it is Alan. You have just proved that politics and religion trump science. This explains your repulsiveness to my post -- say no more.
My point is valid...
Thanks
And now you throw politics and religion in to this when neither politics or religion had even been mentioned. Your point is not valid.
May 27, 2015 at 12:32 pm
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.
+1
There it is Alan. You have just proved that politics and religion trump science. This explains your repulsiveness to my post -- say no more.
My point is valid...
Thanks
And now you throw politics and religion in to this when neither politics or religion had even been mentioned. Your point is not valid.
Yeah, lost me on the science and religion quip too.
Sounds like somebody is just looking for an argument.
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
May 27, 2015 at 12:36 pm
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.
+1
There it is Alan. You have just proved that politics and religion trump science. This explains your repulsiveness to my post -- say no more.
My point is valid...
Thanks
I am not going to weigh into the specific argument here. That said - what I find interesting is the presumption that once science establishes something as "true" no further discussions are ever allowed on that particular topic. Nothing is further from the truth: cases going through endless challenges, and the community is *expected* to allow for vigorous debate of the set of items we currently believe to be true.
Any use of the scientific method to shout down or crowd out discussions is a viciation of the method. Our findings today are based on everything not currently proven to be false; if someone finds a flaw in something previously thought to be true, then it and everything related is then revisited. There's no such thing as *absolute truth* in scientific method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
May 27, 2015 at 12:36 pm
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.
+1
There it is Alan. You have just proved that politics and religion trump science. This explains your repulsiveness to my post -- say no more.
My point is valid...
Thanks
Oh c'mon, when have politics and religion NOT trumped science? LOLOL
May 27, 2015 at 12:47 pm
SQLRNNR (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.
+1
There it is Alan. You have just proved that politics and religion trump science. This explains your repulsiveness to my post -- say no more.
My point is valid...
Thanks
And now you throw politics and religion in to this when neither politics or religion had even been mentioned. Your point is not valid.
Yeah, lost me on the science and religion quip too.
Sounds like somebody is just looking for an argument.
Yes it does. Religion and politics have nothing to do with it. That was quite a leap in logic.
The point is not valid and neither is the data. Ask 10 scientists about global warming data and you'll get 10 different answers. Ask the same scientists about climate prediction models and you'll get 10 more different answers.
May 27, 2015 at 12:49 pm
Ed Wagner (5/27/2015)
SQLRNNR (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Emph. minemeilenb (5/24/2015)
...Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O ...
How is the science clear on climate change when the scientists can't agree? Plus, the scientists claiming global warming is true can't explain why all their climate models are wrong in their predictions.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a done deal.
+1
There it is Alan. You have just proved that politics and religion trump science. This explains your repulsiveness to my post -- say no more.
My point is valid...
Thanks
And now you throw politics and religion in to this when neither politics or religion had even been mentioned. Your point is not valid.
Yeah, lost me on the science and religion quip too.
Sounds like somebody is just looking for an argument.
Yes it does. Religion and politics have nothing to do with it. That was quite a leap in logic.
The point is not valid and neither is the data. Ask 10 scientists about global warming data and you'll get 10 different answers. Ask the same scientists about climate prediction models and you'll get 10 more different answers.
Sorry Alan, you don't pass the Turing Test.
Pun Intended
May 27, 2015 at 12:53 pm
Gail, getting back to your editorial for a moment...my compliments. Things like million-row test tables, letting the code do the talking and accepting results that differ from what we'd expect are all great ways to improve things in the database world. Basing results on hypothesis and observation of actual results is the only way to be sure of performance. Hence the term "it depends" comes up a lot because it's so very true.
To key in on some things others have said, accepting "best practices" without understanding why, granting developers sysadmin privs in production, etc. are all roads that end in disaster of one form or another. I think (at least hope) we all know that.
Thank you for publishing a good editorial.
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 168 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply