The My DB Has More Strawmen Than Your DB Thread, with a side order of How California’s New Immigration Law Affects Screening Policies
-
But how can you resist the call of the Mystery Box™?
-
But how can you resist the call of the Mystery Box™?
I don't pick up the phone when there is no caller ID ...
-
I don't pick up the phone when there is no caller ID ...
i do, but then that's because the next thing i'm going to hear is google voice telling me who the call is from and i can choose to accept it or decline it at that point.
call screening FTW. i've yet to meet an autodialer telemarketer that can get through that baby!
-
Okay by me as long as performance cars are still around.
You can have my performance car when you pry my cold dead fingers off the steering wheel.
-
That is what my voicemail box is for ...
-
"Legal" and "illegal" isn't an absolute. Breaking one law does not mean that you are breaking others or are not contributing to society, or that you lose the protection of the law.
Never mind buggy statute...
So again I ask, how can something be illegal but not a crime?
It's a violation of civil statute. Apparently people forget these exist...Do I need to provide an example?!
-
It's a violation of civil statute. Apparently people forget these exist...
Do I need to provide an example?!
Read the rest of that conversation, please. As I pointed out - multiple times - the definition provided by @Caption indicated that illegal breaking the law and committing a crime. Unlawful was violating the law while not committing a crime. That was his definition. Does that help put my question into perspective?
-
Read the rest of that conversation, please. As I pointed out - multiple times - the definition provided by @Caption indicated that illegal breaking the law and committing a crime. Unlawful was violating the law while not committing a crime. That was his definition. Does that help put my question into perspective?
Yeah -- I personally find that sort of wording a bit subtle for my tastes, but as long as the distinction is being made, I'm cool :)
-
I'm given to understand that a cat in a box is dead until someone looks in it.
Zombie cat?
-
You can have my performance car when you pry my cold dead fingers off the steering wheel.
Amen, brother. Hopefully, CAFE won't take them off the roads anytime soon.
-
But then again, there was that whole MMR = autism thing a while back (debunked of course), so I can sorta see where they're coming from.
Since the measles thing, the media have been repeating this (debunked study) over and over and over and over again. Even on the sports channels news clips.
If you don't think organizations like the CDC can't be questioned, you might want to read this link: http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/
Short version: Dr. Thompson worked for the CDC. Here is the relevant excerpt:
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
Of course, sites like this one jump on this and say Wakefield should be apologized to, etc. No, it's going to take a lot more than this alone to convince the community. But it does point out that even data that suggests that the vaccine may have adverse effects that warrant looking into, the action of the trusted CDC is to instead sweep it under the rug. Which calls into question: why are they there, really? Or is this simply bad judgement on the part of one supervisor in charge?
To me, that's a sign of neglectful parents, because they're basically saying 'I refuse to protect my child against serious infectious diseases'.
That's one hell of a sweeping statement. Again, I don't blame anyone here for feeling this way, as most of us were brought up with our parents even telling us that vaccines are safe, they are part of growing up these days, etc. No one likes having data that they use as a foundation for thinking with getting shaken up. All I ask is that you understand that some of us have reason to question the process - and keep in mind, once a vaccine is given, it cannot be "un-given." But the bottom line is, if you had what you consider compelling reason to question a process's safety for your child, wouldn't it be neglectful NOT to hold off while investigating for yourself?
Filed under: time to duck for a week to give the counter-flaming a chance to die down.
-
But it does point out that even data that suggests that the vaccine may have adverse effects that warrant looking into, the action of the trusted CDC is to instead sweep it under the rug.
I feel like we addressed all this before. But I think you linked something with a bit more meat, and IIRC, the "increased risk" was pretty meaningless from an epidemiology standpoint. Just like all those studies that say coffee or red wine is a miracle thingamajig one week and not the next.
All I ask is that you understand that some of us have reason to question the process
Because you have a shaky understanding of what the numbers mean.
-
coffee or red wine is a miracle thingamajig
Both coffee and red wine are miracle thingamajigs in that they make me feel better. Especially with a nice slice of cake (the coffee) or a good steak (the wine). I don't care whether they're good for my health.
-
I don't care whether they're good for my health.
+Ĺ
But to keep on topic-ish, the State of California probably knows that they cause cancer.
-
the State of California probably knows that they cause cancer.
Everything causes cancer (in rats) in California.
-
Relevant link:
Among the foods containing natural pesticides that cause cancer in rats or mice, he says, are: anise, apples, bananas, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, grapefruit juice, honeydew melon, horseradish, kale, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnips, peaches, pineapples, radishes, tarragon, and turnips.
-
wouldn't it be neglectful NOT to hold off while investigating for yourself?
No. If you wanted to do your research, do it before the baby's born.
Your phrasing is weird.
-
No. If you wanted to do your research, do it before the baby's born.
Your phrasing is weird.
You're assuming I had reason to do the research before having kids. It was after having kids that we found reason to question the process. A little late. First born already had a few of him immunization shots by then. :P
-
First born already had a few of him immunization shots by then
At least he's not quite as at risk as the others then.
Been to Disneyland recently?
-
At least he's not quite as at risk as the others then.
Been to Disneyland recently?
Don't bother. @redwizard still buys into that whole immunizations-autism fraud.
-
I know. I was on the sidelines of the last
debateflamewar. Just feel like a bit of light trolling since the alternative is delving back into some of the worst SQL I've ever seen
-
I feel like we addressed all this before. But I think you linked something with a bit more meat, and IIRC, the "increased risk" was pretty meaningless from an epidemiology standpoint. Just like all those studies that say coffee or red wine is a miracle thingamajig one week and not the next.
We did. You looked at the actual CDC numbers. What's different here is a doctor who works at the CDC is making the point that the CDC was trying to keep those numbers from becoming disclosed in the first place, which is actually a bigger deal than the numbers themselves.
Because you have a shaky understanding of what the numbers mean.
I have many more reasons dating much earlier than the release of this report for my position. Unlike this report, documentation is not readily available on the internet. You are welcome to troll me as an obstinate moron on the issue until/unless they become available, if you wish. :P
Don't bother. @redwizard still buys into that whole immunizations-autism fraud.
Oh look, @abarker INB4'd you. ;-)
-
alternative is delving back into some of the worst SQL I've ever seen
Or you could share a nice Code SOD ...
-
We did. You looked at the actual CDC numbers. What's different here is a doctor who works at the CDC is making the point that the CDC was trying to keep those numbers from becoming disclosed in the first place, which is actually a bigger deal than the numbers themselves.
I guess, but not because the numbers themselves are interesting or important.
I have many more reasons dating much earlier than the release of this report for my position. Unlike this report, documentation is not readily available on the internet.
Kooks gonna kook, I guess.
-
select count(table_name) from all_tables where owner = 'AN_OWNER_IM_NOT_GIVING_OUT' 1292
-
select count(*) from sys.tables
1334
I win
-
To be fair, I only queried one owner. If I really wanted to to all_tables... 4343
-
I only have one schema
select SCHEMA_ID, count(*) from sys.tables group by schema_id
1|1334
-
SELECT (*) FROM BOBBY.TABLES
<x
-
Pretty sure little bobby tables has plenty of tables in his db. His mother taught him how to make sure his queries were safe before school started.
-
edited my stuff. I'm not actually sure if owner is ~= to schema for oracle. Probably isn't. I should only use correct terms.
-
select count(*) from sys.tables
3984
Across 29 active DBs in a single server. I'm not tracking down the other servers, and I know there are at least two more which are independent.
-
1334
I win
My biggest schema is about the same:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user_tables;
1474
The best news? The vendor went bust a few years ago and this system is central to our business. The software was old when we bought it over a decade ago. The database can't be upgraded, we're not allowed to modify the schema because if we break it we're dead in the water, the data model is fucking awful (what's a primary key?). While the business users have a decent idea of how to operate the front-end the lack of data integrity makes it very easy to make mistakes and there's a limited amount of understanding on the technical side despite the need to integrate with all our other central business systems. The app is closed source so there's no transparency and it's Windows only, no web interface, no API. We publish over Citrix so that's a whole other level of WTF.
Good times.
-
select count(*) from sys.tables
3984
<small> Across 29 active DBs in a single server. I'm not tracking down the other servers, and I know there are at least two more which are independent.
Did I mention those are all using the same schema?
-
I've seen oracle DBs go way over that but I don't think we've got any leftover production instances, or that I've ever done a count. But definitely over 10k.
-
select count(*) from sys.tables
3984
Across 29 active DBs in a single server. I'm not tracking down the other servers, and I know there are at least two more which are independent.
Wrapped in a
sp_msforeachdb
, I assume?
-
@flabdablet said:
So if boomzilla weighs the same as a duck
That'd be one scary duck.
https://scontent-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/601378_10150863799448176_1128833300_n.jpg?oh=f7d11be49add09dee7eaddfff744d620&oe=554BD5A3Duuuckzillaaaa!
-