Friday, September 30, 2005

Time for a new view indeed

Updated October 10th, 2005

Curt Monash sent me this link. There he writes that the editing of the comments was not performed by him, but rather by Computer World itself.

Original Entry

I've been sitting on the sidelines watching a "discussion" take place. It was started by this opinion article.

I thought it was relevant as it seemed to fit into my prior blog on the most incredible thing I've heard - almost a parallel universe. I found it interesting how censorship came into play big time - the author of that article decided to remove comments - heck, he even *edited* comments! He actually edited what other people wrote. (That is outrageous if you ask me)

Some of the people following up were Fabian Pascal and Alf Pedersen. Alf pointed out this morning a followup by Chris Date (an innocent bystander that was basically brought in by the author and ridiculed for some unknown reason). It all got rather messy.

Reading through the thread was much like a parallel universe for me - it certainly did remind me of some 'discussions' I've had. To me -- the parallels were astounding.

You should click on the Alf Pedersen link and read the linked to articles in order after reading the opnion article.

POST A COMMENT

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said....

People still read CW?

It's sad that the author of the CW article chose such an adversarial approach in presenting his ideas, resulting in a followup discussion that degenerated almost instantly. Thanks to his approach, the discussion is now about censorship and personal credentials instead of technical architecture and solutions.

You can be relevant because you solve a problem or because you are picking a fight. Keep solving problems.

Fri Sep 30, 02:13:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Doug Burns said....

Tom said ....

"Reading through the thread was much like a parallel universe for me - it certainly did remind me of some 'discussions' I've had. The parallels to me were astounding."

At least you're in good company ;-)

Fri Sep 30, 02:16:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Thomas Kyte said....

Doug --

i just realized I missed a comma or two in there that changed the meaning of my sentence - thanks for pointing out that fragment!

Fri Sep 30, 02:40:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Doug Burns said....

Tom,

That wasn't what I was getting at, but glad to be of accidental assistance! In fact, I could have just snipped this bit ...

"it certainly did remind me of some 'discussions' I've had."

... and made the same point. At least you're not the only victim/target of minor lunacy.

Cheers,

Doug

Fri Sep 30, 03:00:00 PM EDT  

Anonymous Eddie Awad said....

the author of that article decided to remove comments

Nowadays, it sounds like the best way to preserve a copy of your comments on other blogs/sites is to hit the "File > Save Page As" on your browser's menu bar.

Fri Sep 30, 03:27:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Robert said....


Eddie Awad said...
Nowadays, it sounds like the best way to preserve a copy of your comments on other blogs/sites is to hit the "File > Save Page As"


or better yet archive it online

Fri Sep 30, 04:28:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Thomas Kyte said....

or better yet archive it online

Robert - that looks *very* promising, thanks for that link. Will have to check it out.

Fri Sep 30, 05:17:00 PM EDT  

Anonymous Anonymous said....

"If you can dazlle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullsh*t" seems to be the current trend - almost everywhere.

:-)

Fri Sep 30, 05:51:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Joel Garry said....

Date's Incoherence Principle states: It is impossible to respond coherently to that which is incoherent.

I think Jonathan Lewis has disproved this by example.

word verification: jgaada

I agree.. my first reaction to this was "AAAUGH! Another slomo car wreck!"

Fri Sep 30, 05:55:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Alberto Dell'Era said....

I think that "the market is ready" for an online "magazine" that follows the same method of the IEEE and ACM transactions - where anyone can submit an article for publication, the editors have it reviewed by three or four experts in the field (not related to the author), rate its relevance and accuracy, improve it if necessary, and then publish it and leave it open for (unedited!) comments by readers.

That would be a rare beast in the current depressing land of "online magazines", a land that I visit no longer (and I used to follow 10-15 sites when I was "young") since I've taken them off the list one by one after having been hurt by a junk article or another.

Fri Sep 30, 06:29:00 PM EDT  

Anonymous Eddie Awad said....

that looks *very* promising, thanks for that link. Will have to check it out.

You may find Yahoo's My Web 2.0 very promising as well.

Fri Sep 30, 07:01:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Robert Vollman said....

Whatever happened to "ignore crazy people"?

Fri Sep 30, 07:19:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Robert said....

>> Yahoo's My Web 2.0

hmm, shame on Yapoo...
does not seem to work as advertised.

I tried with 2 OTN forums --- it sure did not save what I was looking at but appears to be Yapoo's OWN cached copy read by its bot a week ago.

Fri Sep 30, 10:11:00 PM EDT  

Blogger Noons said....

Unreal. I guess it's in-line with the new theories for database design I've seen used in the last three months or so:

"Denormalize all joins into flat tables. Duplicate all data. Joins are *slow* and this will make your database fly."

I'm serious! I know of at least two places where this kind of thought process is being used to design new systems: one with an Oracle project in Australia, another with MySQL in the USA.

Has anyone alerted this kind of ignorant that "denormalized" data entry might be a bit of a nightmare with write volumes suddenly becoming a few orders of magnitude larger?

Or is the data supposed to materialize itself with zero overhead over all its redundancy?

Ah yes: it's all under the control of an XML "schema"...

This kind of people *should* be locked up: they *are* dangerous!

Sat Oct 01, 10:52:00 AM EDT  

Blogger Rudy said....

I've browsed Alf's post, and followed the CW links.
Are these two exclusive DBMS2 screenshots? (thanks to my Mac)
this one and this one, too.

Sun Oct 02, 08:10:00 AM EDT  

Anonymous Mariano said....

IT world is full of people like the author of that article. When I get tired of discussing with someone who just discover the new .NET-save-me-some-work (they're everywhere and they're willing to ignore) I just ask them to take a bet: let's just test his approach against mine and see what happens. All the time, they run away. Sure that taking your time to apply the best from database world and PHP/Java/.Net world (each has its skill, I cannot address every problem with Oracle, neither can I do it with the others) cost you more, but my clients know that I'm working to give them the best solution for their problem. That's what I'm paying for: not to use over and over black boxes where I never know what's going on undercover.

Now I have a question for you guys: as years pass by we see technologies tend to become more specialized and complex with lot a new features to address a lot of different problems: you start to have the choice of selecting what is best for your reality. So... why is there a lot of people then who beg to have just one solution (knowing that anything in this world has just one answer) even risking the success of their project? Does it only happen in IT world? I think so, in other forums of different things I like (literature, philosophy, history) I do not see this happening.

Sun Oct 02, 11:53:00 AM EDT  

Anonymous Anonymous said....

On Curt Monash's website there is a quote from Larry Ellison:

"Curt Monash's publications provide unmatched insight into
technology and marketplace trends. I have read them avidly for over a decade."

--Larry Ellison, Chairman
and CEO, Oracle

http://www.monash.com/curtbio.html

Mon Oct 03, 01:46:00 PM EDT  

Anonymous Anonymous said....

Hi, Tom,

(Glad I found this)

First: Your column is great: I have a link to it from somewhere on my site www.databasedesign-resource.com :-) : You do a great job. And thank you very much for pointing attention to what I think is very important.

Now, back to cencoring and opinions: Both I and Fabian Pascal got a real mouthful from that guy (I am reluctant to even typing the name :-)

However, when Mr. Date was called a fraud, the "cup was full", for me, so to speak. Thankfully, Mr. Date took the time to respond, as you so kindly point out.

Isn't it all (our business) about common sense (predicate logic) and clever uniformity (set theory)?

And that you should be critical to accepting all kinds of "new" ideas as they pop up as hypes?

XML=Hierarcy;
Object=network;
RM= structuring information as trustworthy (true propositions)?

Of course the cencorship dimension is weird, but: It shows that we are not being presented with the whole truth, or perhaps better phrased: We cannot rely on what we read... Thankfully, Fabian had more mind control than I: He kept a copy of it before it was deleted. :-)

Remember, though, the cencoring part is not about Monash: It is about publishing policies at CW...

Alf Pedersen

Wed Oct 12, 07:16:00 PM EDT  

POST A COMMENT

<< Home