May 27, 2015 at 12:55 pm
To get this back on target: the whole point of bringing in the scientific really boils down to some form of humility. This really boils down to us exposing our mindset and the framework by which we made decisions. The whole point of the proof is to set up a language whereby we express "this is what I think and this is why I think so". It actually allows for a civilized discussion when the landscape or assumptions change. So instead of mandates being fired down from above (whether above happens to represent management, the DBA's talking to Dev or vice versa), there is a way to show the other side of the conversation the *why* behind the *how*.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2:52 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
This is the last I'll say about this and move on.
Though I don't think that SSC is a good forum for the point that you attempted to make, I agreed with what Lynn said and felt a "+1" was in order; nothing religious or political about it. I have some very well researched and informed opinions about the topic you attempted to inject but this is a technical forum about SQL Server. Gail's article about Scientific Method was in that context; this is why she used the join on string example.
SQLServerCentral is, IMHO, hands down the best resource for learning about MS SQL in the universe. It is my "home"; it has changed my career. Regardless of if you are right or wrong, the problem with making bold scientific/political statements as you did is that it turns this forum into something that it's not. It turns it into something less that what it was before your comment.
You have 15 points. That means that you have made 15 contributions to these forums. I just reviewed your last 15 comments and you have insulted a few people, attempted to insult me (I think) but have not contributed anything that helps people become better Developers, DBAs, BI practitioners, etc. I believe you are missing an opportunity to learn or teach somebody something useful. If you have a way to make my queries faster I'd love to hear it. If you have some SQL related questions you will get answers. If you don't have either then I suggest that you find something else to do with your time.
-- Itzik Ben-Gan 2001
May 27, 2015 at 3:30 pm
Alan.B (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
This is the last I'll say about this and move on.
Though I don't think that SSC is a good forum for the point that you attempted to make, I agreed with what Lynn said and felt a "+1" was in order; nothing religious or political about it. I have some very well researched and informed opinions about the topic you attempted to inject but this is a technical forum about SQL Server. Gail's article about Scientific Method was in that context; this is why she used the join on string example.
SQLServerCentral is, IMHO, hands down the best resource for learning about MS SQL in the universe. It is my "home"; it has changed my career. Regardless of if you are right or wrong, the problem with making bold scientific/political statements as you did is that it turns this forum into something that it's not. It turns it into something less that what it was before your comment.
You have 15 points. That means that you have made 15 contributions to these forums. I just reviewed your last 15 comments and you have insulted a few people, attempted to insult me (I think) but have not contributed anything that helps people become better Developers, DBAs, BI practitioners, etc. I believe you are missing an opportunity to learn or teach somebody something useful. If you have a way to make my queries faster I'd love to hear it. If you have some SQL related questions you will get answers. If you don't have either then I suggest that you find something else to do with your time.
My point is perfectly valid.
Science is only useful to people who know how to use it. Your statement that my point is not valid was an insult. You have contributed nothing in this thread except to suggest that 10 climate scientists will have 10 different opinions on climate science. My suggestion to you on this ridiculous comment is "Cite it". If you can't then "prove it", if you can't then I suggest you find something better to do with your time than throwing out wild assertions with no basis in fact.
And yes, I only have 15 points. I must be at the bottom of this cliquish forum.
If you don't like what I have to say, then ignore it. How hard is that? If you throw out an insult, you should expect the same in return.
May 27, 2015 at 3:51 pm
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (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
This is the last I'll say about this and move on.
Though I don't think that SSC is a good forum for the point that you attempted to make, I agreed with what Lynn said and felt a "+1" was in order; nothing religious or political about it. I have some very well researched and informed opinions about the topic you attempted to inject but this is a technical forum about SQL Server. Gail's article about Scientific Method was in that context; this is why she used the join on string example.
SQLServerCentral is, IMHO, hands down the best resource for learning about MS SQL in the universe. It is my "home"; it has changed my career. Regardless of if you are right or wrong, the problem with making bold scientific/political statements as you did is that it turns this forum into something that it's not. It turns it into something less that what it was before your comment.
You have 15 points. That means that you have made 15 contributions to these forums. I just reviewed your last 15 comments and you have insulted a few people, attempted to insult me (I think) but have not contributed anything that helps people become better Developers, DBAs, BI practitioners, etc. I believe you are missing an opportunity to learn or teach somebody something useful. If you have a way to make my queries faster I'd love to hear it. If you have some SQL related questions you will get answers. If you don't have either then I suggest that you find something else to do with your time.
My point is perfectly valid.
Science is only useful to people who know how to use it. Your statement that my point is not valid was an insult. You have contributed nothing in this thread except to suggest that 10 climate scientists will have 10 different opinions on climate science. My suggestion to you on this ridiculous comment is "Cite it". If you can't then "prove it", if you can't then I suggest you find something better to do with your time than throwing out wild assertions with no basis in fact.
And yes, I only have 15 points. I must be at the bottom of this cliquish forum.
If you don't like what I have to say, then ignore it. How hard is that? If you throw out an insult, you should expect the same in return.
And obviously you can't read either. Alan didn't say your point wasn't valid, I did.
You tell Alan to cite his sources, I guess you should site yours as well. I have done enough research on climate change to know that unlike the politicians that claim the climate change is settled science, it isn't. And no, I don't plan on going back and finding all the sites and papers I read on the subject. If your curious about it, Google or Bing are your friend, do the research.
May 27, 2015 at 4:05 pm
Jeff Moden (5/26/2015)
paul.s.lach (5/26/2015)
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the obvious next requirement which is an accessible and searchable repository where people can research and find previously performed proofs to allow people to build on the work of others rather than continually inventing the wheel.Will SQLServerCentral step up?
The "Stairway" series is a part of that. As for articles on different subjects, who would judge what is best? Lot's of people have their favorites and use the "Brief Case" function to "memorize" those.
At work, we have a Wiki and we have a "function repository" (most new ones are iTVFs, for sure).
Yikes, I think the Stairways are intended to jump start someone in an area, but not necessarily provide best practices or even a great way to use a technology. They're intended to teach.
In terms of proofs, we could do something, though I'm not sure how well we would do on some peer review or rating of pieces outside of what we have for articles now.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
May 27, 2015 at 4:09 pm
I have done enough research on climate change to know that unlike the politicians that claim the climate change is settled science, it isn't.
don't mean to rain on your parade, but is there such a thing as settled science? other than perhaps to some level of probability? that's part and parcel of the method, that in the end it is all conjecture and just because your theory allows you to predict outcomes doesn't mean that it is actually what is going on, it's still just a model. like Einstein said, we will never be able to look inside the watch and see what's really going on. though, perhaps, in a more abstract science such as computer science, where what is being studied is more or less a model itself, that doesn't quite apply in the same way. it surely does to something like climate science though.
May 27, 2015 at 4:13 pm
jurgen.lottermoser (5/27/2015)
I have done enough research on climate change to know that unlike the politicians that claim the climate change is settled science, it isn't.
don't mean to rain on your parade, but is there such a thing as settled science? other than perhaps to some level of probability? that's part and parcel of the method, that in the end it is all conjecture and just because your theory allows you to predict outcomes doesn't mean that it is actually what is going on, it's still just a model. like Einstein said, we will never be able to look inside the watch and see what's really going on. though, perhaps, in a more abstract science such as computer science, where what is being studied is more or less a model itself, that doesn't quite apply in the same way. it surely does to something like climate science though.
Well, if you listen to the politicians, yes there such a thing as settled science. I guess it is a political term for "stop arguing with us."
May 27, 2015 at 4:14 pm
jurgen.lottermoser (5/27/2015)
don't mean to rain on your parade, but is there such a thing as settled science? other than perhaps to some level of probability?
I don't think so. I'd say that most things we take as "fact" in science are highly probable. Even if we can 100% predict outcomes, we often don't completely understand how things work. Some of that is the crudeness of our instruments. Each day we advance our understanding and sometimes what we thought we knew becomes a bit more nuanced.
I don't think we'll disprove many of the simple things, but fluid dynamics, frictional effects, not to mention all sorts of biology, weather, etc., are still too complex for us to completely explain. There are all sorts of exceptions.
Not enough to affect us in our general lives, but certainly not certain enough for us not to continue to study, hypothesize, experiment, and learn.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
May 27, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (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
This is the last I'll say about this and move on.
Though I don't think that SSC is a good forum for the point that you attempted to make, I agreed with what Lynn said and felt a "+1" was in order; nothing religious or political about it. I have some very well researched and informed opinions about the topic you attempted to inject but this is a technical forum about SQL Server. Gail's article about Scientific Method was in that context; this is why she used the join on string example.
SQLServerCentral is, IMHO, hands down the best resource for learning about MS SQL in the universe. It is my "home"; it has changed my career. Regardless of if you are right or wrong, the problem with making bold scientific/political statements as you did is that it turns this forum into something that it's not. It turns it into something less that what it was before your comment.
You have 15 points. That means that you have made 15 contributions to these forums. I just reviewed your last 15 comments and you have insulted a few people, attempted to insult me (I think) but have not contributed anything that helps people become better Developers, DBAs, BI practitioners, etc. I believe you are missing an opportunity to learn or teach somebody something useful. If you have a way to make my queries faster I'd love to hear it. If you have some SQL related questions you will get answers. If you don't have either then I suggest that you find something else to do with your time.
My point is perfectly valid.
Science is only useful to people who know how to use it. Your statement that my point is not valid was an insult. You have contributed nothing in this thread except to suggest that 10 climate scientists will have 10 different opinions on climate science. My suggestion to you on this ridiculous comment is "Cite it". If you can't then "prove it", if you can't then I suggest you find something better to do with your time than throwing out wild assertions with no basis in fact.
And yes, I only have 15 points. I must be at the bottom of this cliquish forum.
If you don't like what I have to say, then ignore it. How hard is that? If you throw out an insult, you should expect the same in return.
And obviously you can't read either. Alan didn't say your point wasn't valid, I did.
You tell Alan to cite his sources, I guess you should site yours as well. I have done enough research on climate change to know that unlike the politicians that claim the climate change is settled science, it isn't. And no, I don't plan on going back and finding all the sites and papers I read on the subject. If your curious about it, Google or Bing are your friend, do the research.
Googling for me tends toward a majority consensus recommending cutting emissions, but even a few minutes of casual analysis for me points that way.
The huge difficulty with the climate topic is the scope of the repercussions either way. If it were easy to cut co2 levels, it would be a no brainer, we would cut them right? The logically safe bet is to not inject greenhouse gasses into the finite atmosphere, there isn't even an experiment needed to determine that not changing atmospheric composition is better than changing, right? I mean, was there some research or experimental evidence discovered somewhere that somebody says "HEY! WE NEED SOME MORE CO2 UP IN THE HOUSE???????"
Seriously, if we could inject co2 to 500 ppm or whatever, run a "test" planet like that for 5000 years and find out its all good then yeah, lets go! Thats the problem though, that particular scientific method is useless here, the best we have are models but even then we're not sure so the safe bet is to not venture into the unknown and NOT CHANGE OUR ATMOSPHERE.
The difficulty is that its tremendously hard to cut greenhouse gas emissions simply by the scale of the problem and the sheer momentum of human civilization and industrialization, it would be more honest of us to admit to these difficulties rather than "question the scientific findings," but politics does enter the issue and counter with the goodness of infinite economic growth on a finite planet and "whats the matter with a little smog, storms, famine and drought, look at all the shiny things you have!!!!"
ON THE OTHER HAND, I personally believe we're going to miss the various co2 targets just by the inertia we have going right now, so its my expectation that we're going to "run this test in production" so to speak...
But that doesn't mean we have to sit here and sling insults right? I mean, some of my bestest friends are <$POLITICAL_PARTY>.
May 27, 2015 at 5:31 pm
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (5/27/2015)
Lynn Pettis (5/27/2015)
meilenb (5/27/2015)
Alan.B (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
This is the last I'll say about this and move on.
Though I don't think that SSC is a good forum for the point that you attempted to make, I agreed with what Lynn said and felt a "+1" was in order; nothing religious or political about it. I have some very well researched and informed opinions about the topic you attempted to inject but this is a technical forum about SQL Server. Gail's article about Scientific Method was in that context; this is why she used the join on string example.
SQLServerCentral is, IMHO, hands down the best resource for learning about MS SQL in the universe. It is my "home"; it has changed my career. Regardless of if you are right or wrong, the problem with making bold scientific/political statements as you did is that it turns this forum into something that it's not. It turns it into something less that what it was before your comment.
You have 15 points. That means that you have made 15 contributions to these forums. I just reviewed your last 15 comments and you have insulted a few people, attempted to insult me (I think) but have not contributed anything that helps people become better Developers, DBAs, BI practitioners, etc. I believe you are missing an opportunity to learn or teach somebody something useful. If you have a way to make my queries faster I'd love to hear it. If you have some SQL related questions you will get answers. If you don't have either then I suggest that you find something else to do with your time.
My point is perfectly valid.
Science is only useful to people who know how to use it. Your statement that my point is not valid was an insult. You have contributed nothing in this thread except to suggest that 10 climate scientists will have 10 different opinions on climate science. My suggestion to you on this ridiculous comment is "Cite it". If you can't then "prove it", if you can't then I suggest you find something better to do with your time than throwing out wild assertions with no basis in fact.
And yes, I only have 15 points. I must be at the bottom of this cliquish forum.
If you don't like what I have to say, then ignore it. How hard is that? If you throw out an insult, you should expect the same in return.
And obviously you can't read either. Alan didn't say your point wasn't valid, I did.
You tell Alan to cite his sources, I guess you should site yours as well. I have done enough research on climate change to know that unlike the politicians that claim the climate change is settled science, it isn't. And no, I don't plan on going back and finding all the sites and papers I read on the subject. If your curious about it, Google or Bing are your friend, do the research.
Googling for me tends toward a majority consensus recommending cutting emissions, but even a few minutes of casual analysis for me points that way.
The huge difficulty with the climate topic is the scope of the repercussions either way. If it were easy to cut co2 levels, it would be a no brainer, we would cut them right? The logically safe bet is to not inject greenhouse gasses into the finite atmosphere, there isn't even an experiment needed to determine that not changing atmospheric composition is better than changing, right? I mean, was there some research or experimental evidence discovered somewhere that somebody says "HEY! WE NEED SOME MORE CO2 UP IN THE HOUSE???????"
Seriously, if we could inject co2 to 500 ppm or whatever, run a "test" planet like that for 5000 years and find out its all good then yeah, lets go! Thats the problem though, that particular scientific method is useless here, the best we have are models but even then we're not sure so the safe bet is to not venture into the unknown and NOT CHANGE OUR ATMOSPHERE.
The difficulty is that its tremendously hard to cut greenhouse gas emissions simply by the scale of the problem and the sheer momentum of human civilization and industrialization, it would be more honest of us to admit to these difficulties rather than "question the scientific findings," but politics does enter the issue and counter with the goodness of infinite economic growth on a finite planet and "whats the matter with a little smog, storms, famine and drought, look at all the shiny things you have!!!!"
ON THE OTHER HAND, I personally believe we're going to miss the various co2 targets just by the inertia we have going right now, so its my expectation that we're going to "run this test in production" so to speak...
But that doesn't mean we have to sit here and sling insults right? I mean, some of my bestest friends are <$POLITICAL_PARTY>.
Lynn, there is a difference between reading and being able to follow the lines up through replies. So I guess that makes 2 insults from you right?
When the Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee for the United States Senate uses Genesis 8:18 and Romans 1:25 to refute climate change, we've got a problem. Apparently he thinks that climate change is something that you "believe in". It seems that climate scientists are worshiping God's creation (the earth) instead of God.
And finally, yes, we are going to run this test in production, which seems to contradict the intent of the original post.
Oh and we don't need to sit here and sling insults. You've got 2 under your belt.
May 28, 2015 at 12:39 am
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Does the lack of deterministic causality invalidate quantum mechanics?
It Depends.
Genius :satisfied:
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
May 28, 2015 at 12:53 am
Wow. This thread has reduced to playground antics.
At the risk of continuing it, here are my opinions:
BTW My opinion are that we ARE polluting the world for ourselves and we MAY be altering the climate and probably are. I also think that the existence or not of a deity is not affecting the climate.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
May 28, 2015 at 1:17 am
Grant Fritchey (5/27/2015)
Since I've seen many a DBA screw up a production environment, I don't see what makes developers special in either regard. However, exposure is an extremely well documented concept and you must minimize exposure. That's before we get to legal requirements around data. You minimize the exposure. It doesn't eliminate the risk, but it does reduce it. There really are reasons why a business, not the DBA team, wants to not have developers in production. It's actually a silly argument.
I agree with that. But from following the different arguments here, it become obvious that certain aspect of DBA/Dev escape the realm of the scientific methods. The security aspect is one of them. And even if a firm/a research body would have measured the level of risk giving a certain access to a certain person (based on his/her level of experience, his/her job title, etc), I doubt that any DBA would necessarily trust the research if it doesn't agree with his/her own experience.
In other words, the call to scientific method is good but is useless in certain aspects. It's good when everyone can reproduce the research (such as whether a CTE is better than a derived table) but uninteresting when it's based on non-reproducible research ("in my company only DBAs have sysadmin rights because we had developers that screw up stuff in the past").
A bit like in science in general. You have highly reproducible research (such as measuring the weight of an electron or the correlation between to quantum state) ,research that is not (climate science, anthropology, etc) and the stuff that is in between (psychology, sociology, economy).
May 28, 2015 at 2:00 am
Jeff Moden (5/24/2015)
It's funny how people think that. If you get the product out the door and it's broken, you're going to need a whole lot more money to fix it than if you did it right the first time.
Meh! It's how I stay employed 😛 😉
LOL
Far away is close at hand in the images of elsewhere.
Anon.
May 28, 2015 at 4:20 am
Kyrilluk (5/28/2015)
Grant Fritchey (5/27/2015)
Since I've seen many a DBA screw up a production environment, I don't see what makes developers special in either regard. However, exposure is an extremely well documented concept and you must minimize exposure. That's before we get to legal requirements around data. You minimize the exposure. It doesn't eliminate the risk, but it does reduce it. There really are reasons why a business, not the DBA team, wants to not have developers in production. It's actually a silly argument.
I agree with that. But from following the different arguments here, it become obvious that certain aspect of DBA/Dev escape the realm of the scientific methods. The security aspect is one of them. And even if a firm/a research body would have measured the level of risk giving a certain access to a certain person (based on his/her level of experience, his/her job title, etc), I doubt that any DBA would necessarily trust the research if it doesn't agree with his/her own experience.
In other words, the call to scientific method is good but is useless in certain aspects. It's good when everyone can reproduce the research (such as whether a CTE is better than a derived table) but uninteresting when it's based on non-reproducible research ("in my company only DBAs have sysadmin rights because we had developers that screw up stuff in the past").
A bit like in science in general. You have highly reproducible research (such as measuring the weight of an electron or the correlation between to quantum state) ,research that is not (climate science, anthropology, etc) and the stuff that is in between (psychology, sociology, economy).
We're in agreement here. I wouldn't give or remove security based simply on a title (although, at least from a pure business classification stand point, the titles are there to help us simplify and classify, group and manage, at the very least, it's a starting point for setting things up), but rather on business needs. And, any one, DBA or not, who dismisses clear demonstrative evidence based on "that's the way we've always done it" deserves whatever beating they get.
Gail's point, and it really is a good one, is that we need to test things. I've got multiple blog posts about "best practices" that have been documented based on bad assumptions, a single bad experience, bad information, etc. (one example[/url]). It comes from a cargo cult approach to IT and development. Instead, Gail is advocating for testing and validating these assumptions rather than looking on them as magic. And you're right, if a DBA refuses to do this, they're no good.
By the way, isn't a CTE just a derived table?
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 168 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply