|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Any thoughts on the thought?
You're missing a primary key.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
and a possible foreign key constraint, or two, but who's counting? 
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC, then it is the primary key that uniquely identifies a tupel.
If you want to uniquely identify a person in the aggragate, you'll have to explain what a unique person is in your schema.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, we're talking tuples? I thought we were talking nonsense. 
Silly me. 
|
|
|
|
|
Tuple, record, person, nonsense; you identify and archive it in the same way.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: you identify and archive it in the same way.
Exactly.
And how would you archive it if it had any children...or child thoughts? you would need a foreign key, yes? That is all I was saying.
If a thought, spawned another thought, and thus created a chain of thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, I like it
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
What you saying is that we are unique only because of our ... uniqueness?
In hebrew there is no plural form to the word person (אדם)...
So obviously every deed we do is unique in it's context, and because deeds has meaning only in context, all our deeds are unique...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Except -
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: So obviously every deed we do is unique in it's context, and because deeds has meaning only in context, all our deeds are unique...
which is just what I said. Context is the aggregate.
How big that needs to be - let you're inner poet free for a moment.
Obviously, a matter of semantics!
Plural for person:
אֲנָשִׁים people, men, folk
עַם people, nation, folk, community, populace, crowd
אוּמָה nation, people, commonwealth
לְאוֹם nation, people, folk
אֹם nation, race, people, nut, screw nut
בְּרִיוֹת people, mankind
מְתִים people, men
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
In Hebrew none of these the plural form of אדם...None...These are translations of plural forms of person in English (in different forms)...
What I'm saying is that the context is there already, it is you, and it is big as the whole universe - you need not create it, but use it wisely...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
The reasoning is sounds far too much like a rabbinical reasoning.
Like counting plagues in the Passover Haggadah (which changed in my mind from impressive debate to conceptually children playing mine-is-better than yours)
You finger - it has a unique fingerprint - but it is not you. It's just a finger which, without an personal attachment, is like so many others. Similarly with feet, and gall bladder, &etc. Only in the whole do they make a person . . . almost. It's still a corpse - like about 7 billion other living version and many not so alive.
They eat - so that doesn't really make them an individual. They age. So do all the others. From behind our eyes - where we seem to dwell - we are the center of our own universe. But, if the others are real, so are they.
The gathering of all they do, that path through life, is their only claim to individuality that even begins to be unique. And most of us, beyond our family, aren't particularly memorable. After a few generations - so very few - no one leaves a stone on our graves.
The oblivion is because our individual deeds are the same as so those of others. BUT - add these deeds and you may describe a scholar, a sage, a monster: then you have individuals. A single charitable act doesn't make one a philanthropist.
Cherry picked 'exceptions' tend to emphasize the rarity of them.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not know what a rabbi would say about the uniqueness of one (I'm not that educated)...
I think that you have not to walk down on any path to became unique... You are unique from the very moment you became a human being...and actually categorizing you - let say as a philanthropist - actually hides that uniqueness...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's run with the philanthropist, a single aspect of a person that they may or may not have (or, to be fair, have in varying degrees).
Many people may do a charitable act on occasion. Some, only in times of great need. Others limit this giving to 'their own kind'*, and then there are some who give to all in need as a way of life. Of these, we can label the last a philanthropist. One who gets joy from the sharing of their fortune (however large or small it may be) with others. It is a start in making them unique from others. The fortune they donate from may be material, their aptitudes, or their time. It's a small piece of an aggregate that makes an individual an individual.
Being something. Or not being something.
We almost agree - but - at least as I understand it - you give uniqueness to an act because it was done by an individual**. I, on the other hand, don't grant the act unique based upon its source. Rather, I call the source unique based upon its acts.
* Let's leave this vague for the Lounge's sake!
** I never denied the existence of individuality - just what defines it.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
What I'm saying that uniqueness is in you, and does not matter what do you do with it, that act will be unique...Those labels (acts) never will make you unique, just the opposite these are barriers to express your uniqueness...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
They idea is not unique, the implementation is, for the most part.
As I said earlier, I think this subject is relative on how high or low you are analyzing this.
|
|
|
|
|
We can go deep (low?)...
I always believed, that if you do not attribute anyone with uniqueness, just because one is human being, you do a big mistake...At that very point you will compare your kids one with the other and do damage them...At that very point you will throw the old out of the society into a safe-house as burden...and so on...
The idea (deed) becomes unique just because you do it - because you are unique...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
No, just because you, as a person, are unique, doesn't make your idea unique, necessarily.
Example: I am a unique person. I want to build a tire. Obviously, the idea/thought is not unique. However, the implementation, could be. Example: I would like to build a tire out of moldy swiss cheese.
If you look at humans from a high-level, we are not unique from each other, thus, everything is relative.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you mix the idea (making a tire), the deed (actually doing it) and the product (the tire)...
In this chain both the idea and the product are external and not excepted to be unique, but the deed is unique in any case (not matter how it done), just because you did it and you are unique...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, if you say so. 
|
|
|
|
|
I only think so - and even that not sure...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
George, don't do that!*
* This would be much more effective as a sound file but I couldn't find one at short notice
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Platitude in the mouth of doggerel.
«In art as in science there is no delight without the detail ... Let me repeat that unless these are thoroughly understood and remembered, all “general ideas” (so easily acquired, so profitably resold) must necessarily remain but worn passports allowing their bearers short cuts from one area of ignorance to another.» Vladimir Nabokov, commentary on translation of “Eugene Onegin.”
|
|
|
|
|
You are totally and utterly unique.
Just like everyone else. 
Cheers,
Mike Fidler
"I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright
"I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright
"I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.
|
|
|
|
|
Given enough time, anything is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 8-Feb-16 12:44pm.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
