|
I concur (in a unique way).
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Every breath is unique. As is every grain of sand.
But, really, what of that uniqueness?
To that bit of air; grain of sand - it is everything.
In the grandest scheme of things - they are no more distinct than a point in empty space.
There is a natural tendency to confer our acts with each its own ego.
Perhaps you'd understand it recast as follows:
"Been there - done that" but where did you come from to get there, and on your way to where? Without this wrapper - this aggregate - the act is just an echo.
Every act is so.
| "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 |
modified 8-Feb-16 10:50am.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: "Been there - done that"
...but in many cases, no-one else has so that still makes me unique and therefore important in the scheme of things - especially as only things I think of as important are important to my scheme of things, which is the only scheme of things I count as important - if you get my drift.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: only things I think of as important are important to my scheme of things, which is the only scheme of things I count as important - if you get my drift.
I would if it were important to me.
| "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 would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Now if I can only get myself to think that studying is important, I can maybe go to university.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >></div>
|
|
|
|
|
Or you could be too low-level with your analysis.
It is all relative, really. 
Also, the variable count for the magnitude of this study would be infinity....and beyond. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
"We're all individuals!"
(voice in the crowd) "I'm not!"
Name that movie.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
people called Romane, they go the house?
|
|
|
|
|
Life of Brian? (that's the brain-ping I had... don't have time right now to watch the movie)
Mark
Just another cog in the wheel
|
|
|
|
|
You get a gold star.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
how now do we define unique - the moment of creation or creation of the moment?
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
