• catch (unregistered)

    Did he interview at friendfeed? http://bret.appspot.com/entry/how-friendfeed-uses-mysql

  • Cloud (unregistered) in reply to operagost
    operagost:
    opergost:
    I have a great idea. Comments within comments!
    opergost:
    I have a great idea. Comments within comments!
    I put your comment in my comment so I can comment on your comment.
  • anonymousse (unregistered) in reply to Hasteur
    Hasteur:
    Wait a minute... Lisa appeared to be the proponent of database in a database methodology. I could understand that her evaluation probably bombed the candidate, but how did the DiaD idea become the CTO's?

    He was obviously banging her.

  • boog (unregistered)

    Where's my damn article?

  • Anon Coward (unregistered)

    I happen to know about a certain government division that is responsible for all official statistics, that are basing all of their next-gen tech on database in a database. Scary.

  • (cs) in reply to operagost
    operagost:
    opergost:
    I have a great idea. Comments within comments!
    opergost:
    I have a great idea. Comments within comments!

    ouch, you can't even spell your own username.

  • (cs) in reply to Anon Coward
    Anon Coward:
    I happen to know about a certain government division that is responsible for all official statistics, that are basing all of their next-gen tech on database in a database. Scary.

    I actually proposed such an abomination once. This was before I knew about normal forms.

  • drusi (unregistered) in reply to Whatever
    Whatever:
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    The use of "The use of "into vapor" is redundant." is redundant.

    Redundancy within redundancy!
  • nobody (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    Altimeter:
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    Actually you can sublimate in the other direction, from vapor into a solid, so it's not redundant.

    Nope, sorry, but thanks for playing. Pick up a copy of a dictionary the next time your picking up you're prescription drugs.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sublimate

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    Vapor is the presence of a gaseous substance in equilibrium with the liquid phase. Gas is a substance in its gaseous phase when no liquid phase of this substance is present. Sublimation is when a solid substance goes into the gaseous phase without going through the liquid phase (dry ice for example does not exist as a liquid under normal conditions and, therefore, passes from solid to gaseous in a single step). Hence, sublimation is a phenomenon and vapor is a liquid phase in equilibrium with a gaseous phase. So, the one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Sublimation into vapor is, thus, not possible as vapor "needs" a liquid whereas sublimation assumes that no liquid is present.

    QED

    Captcha: dolor, yes it hurts when physical chemistry noobs start using words they don't understand

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    The Enterpriser:
    I am compiling a list of comments on today's WTF. Please send me your comments and I will post them in my next comment.

    This is revolutionary

    OK, I'm in on the revolution! I would like to add that "TRWTF is VB". Thank you for your time, kindest regards.

    Could you put this in a database? We need this so often and it would be nice to pick it from a drop down box.

  • (cs) in reply to ClaudeSuck.de
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    Vapor is the presence of a gaseous substance in equilibrium with the liquid phase. Gas is a substance in its gaseous phase when no liquid phase of this substance is present. Sublimation is when a solid substance goes into the gaseous phase without going through the liquid phase (dry ice for example does not exist as a liquid under normal conditions and, therefore, passes from solid to gaseous in a single step). Hence, sublimation is a phenomenon and vapor is a liquid phase in equilibrium with a gaseous phase. So, the one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Sublimation into vapor is, thus, not possible as vapor "needs" a liquid whereas sublimation assumes that no liquid is present.

    QED

    Captcha: dolor, yes it hurts when physical chemistry noobs start using words they don't understand

    Wrong, but nice try:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure#solids.

  • ndanger (unregistered)

    thanks for utterly wasting 5 minutes of my time with this pointless drivel

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    Vapor is the presence of a gaseous substance in equilibrium with the liquid phase. Gas is a substance in its gaseous phase when no liquid phase of this substance is present. Sublimation is when a solid substance goes into the gaseous phase without going through the liquid phase (dry ice for example does not exist as a liquid under normal conditions and, therefore, passes from solid to gaseous in a single step). Hence, sublimation is a phenomenon and vapor is a liquid phase in equilibrium with a gaseous phase. So, the one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Sublimation into vapor is, thus, not possible as vapor "needs" a liquid whereas sublimation assumes that no liquid is present.

    QED

    Captcha: dolor, yes it hurts when physical chemistry noobs start using words they don't understand

    Wrong, but nice try:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure#solids.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor

  • (cs) in reply to ClaudeSuck.de
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    frits:
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    Vapor is the presence of a gaseous substance in equilibrium with the liquid phase. Gas is a substance in its gaseous phase when no liquid phase of this substance is present. Sublimation is when a solid substance goes into the gaseous phase without going through the liquid phase (dry ice for example does not exist as a liquid under normal conditions and, therefore, passes from solid to gaseous in a single step). Hence, sublimation is a phenomenon and vapor is a liquid phase in equilibrium with a gaseous phase. So, the one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Sublimation into vapor is, thus, not possible as vapor "needs" a liquid whereas sublimation assumes that no liquid is present.

    QED

    Captcha: dolor, yes it hurts when physical chemistry noobs start using words they don't understand

    Wrong, but nice try:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure#solids.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor

    The very first sentence of that Wikipedia article states: "A vapor (American spelling) or vapour (see spelling differences) is a substance in the gas phase...", which already contradicts what you're saying. So, what's your point?

  • ClaudeSuck.de (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    frits:
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    Vapor is the presence of a gaseous substance in equilibrium with the liquid phase. Gas is a substance in its gaseous phase when no liquid phase of this substance is present. Sublimation is when a solid substance goes into the gaseous phase without going through the liquid phase (dry ice for example does not exist as a liquid under normal conditions and, therefore, passes from solid to gaseous in a single step). Hence, sublimation is a phenomenon and vapor is a liquid phase in equilibrium with a gaseous phase. So, the one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Sublimation into vapor is, thus, not possible as vapor "needs" a liquid whereas sublimation assumes that no liquid is present.

    QED

    Captcha: dolor, yes it hurts when physical chemistry noobs start using words they don't understand

    Wrong, but nice try:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure#solids.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor

    The very first sentence of that Wikipedia article states: "A vapor (American spelling) or vapour (see spelling differences) is a substance in the gas phase...", which already contradicts what you're saying. So, what's your point?

    The point is that gas != gaseous phase. Vapor is the co-existence of a gaseous phase and a liquid phase which is the case below the critical point (the point where there is no difference between gaseous and liquid phase, or the vapor is compressed so much that it behaves like a liquid) in a closed system (given the omnipresence of water we can consider the Earth as a closed system and hence there is practically no water gas on Earth)

  • Alpha Dog (unregistered) in reply to Whatever

    I tend to agree, But these comments are stored in bits in orbit in ordered bits as order bits in a page in a page in a page from a sector on a disk in a sector on a sphere in an orbit (not an or’ed bit) in an orbit in an orbit in an orbit in an orbit in an orbit. And even that is subject to great speculation, but nature seems to be as recursive as stupidity.

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to Xzibit
    Xzibit:
    Yo dawg, I herd u liek databases. So, we put a database in your database, so you can query while u query.

    Just epic.

    And someone mentioned drupal about using this approach - that's so wrong... Yes, there are Blobs, it allows storage of arrays in it's databse - but it's nothing like database in a database.

  • Nils (unregistered)

    Well, we are running an application (on oracle), that stores everything in three tables with only very few columns.

    object table:

    • object ID
    • object descritption and a few for the rights management

    attribute labels table:

    • attribute ID
    • class ID
    • attribute label

    Attribute values table:

    • object ID
    • atribute ID
    • attibute name
    • attribute value

    The whole data is logically divided into classes, e.g. class 'ADDRESS', every address row wold be an object and surname, name, street etc would be attributes.

    Isn't that a database in a database?

    Nils

  • godisnowhere (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    TheCPUWizard:
    Two comments...
    1. Every major relational database IS a "database in a database", all of the tales, columns, etc are infact stored in tables...
    Oh, CPU Wizard, you're not the fastest zergling in the control group, are you?
  • Joe (unregistered) in reply to Xzibit

    lulz! (this is not spam)

  • C.C. (unregistered) in reply to Lisa

    Hey Lisa, I was going to suggest ClearCase also, but you beat me to it!

  • Ctc (unregistered) in reply to drusi

    Actually, it's hardly original; many two-bit developers use or propose use of such an approach. With bit more misdirected effort, one gets to "smart table" approach.

    I do wish it was not a common anti-pattern, but I recall having heard this being proposed on multiple occasions. :-)

  • Spudd86 (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi

    English is a highly redundant language.

  • Alfredo (unregistered)

    Yo dog, I heard you like databases, so we put a database in your database so you can SELECT while you SELECT.

    (My god that took forever to come up with)

  • Semantic Nazi (unregistered) in reply to Nazi nazi
    Nazi nazi:
    The word you are looking for is "Grammar". "Grammar Nazi".

    Much like Grammer Gorilla, I expect Grammer Nazi knows his or her name. The fact that name looks like a word closely related to the activities the two Grammers were known to engage does not present significant bearing on the situation.

    However, even if it did, a grammar nazi should not be required to know how to spell - that's an almost entirely separate (but related) field. (There are some overlaps: for example, effect versus affect.)

  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    The Grenger:
    Stark:
    Didn't we do the database in a database thing already?

    Like XML databases being stored in a database?

    What wrong with XML databases being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?

    FTFY. I've not done it, but I've encountered it. Sadly, it was one of the least broken aspects about that particular broken product. That doesn't mean it wasn't still broken.

    The sad thing was, it was apparently originally part of somebody's attempt to make an LDAP database using a relational database, but after having achieved that (with, of course, performance penalties) they decided to tack on additional functionality. Functionality that could've fit perfectly reasonably within a single LDAP record - but, no, they couldn't settle for that. So each XML blob could potentially contain any strictly positive integer number of records, so long as the XML fit inside something like 16M.

  • eric bloedow (unregistered)

    reminds me...ever heard of "virtual computers", for running a different computer language? some crazy company forced their employees to run virtual Windows-in the SAME version of Windows!

Leave a comment on “Technically an Interview”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article