Re: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation

Folks, this type of behavour is being taken care of in a private manner.
It is being addressed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Don, you are one fucking son of a bitch to bring up things I've said
> on photo.net here on this forum. Sure I've said some pretty dumb things
> in the past, who hasn't. But for you to bring this thing up from years
> ago into a completely different forum... Well you're petulent child.
> Don't bother commenting on anything I write, or communicating with me
> again, because I won't read it.
> 
> Don Baccus wrote:
> > 
> > At 02:25 PM 2/15/00 +1100, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> > 
> > >I've heard no-one say that offset is meaningful or in any sense
> > >useful in the absense of order. If it means something please
> > >enlighten us. If not, try reading before posting.
> > 
> > Actually the "limit 1 offset 1" example for uniqueness DID actually
> > give a meaningful hack on the usefulness of lack of order.
> > 
> > The basic problem, Chris, is that you want to rape the optimizer
> > in order to stroke ...
> > 
> > well...I'll be nice for one more post.
> > 
> > But...I'm losing patience.
> > 
> > Hell...push me and I'll just start deleting your questions and answers
> > on photo.net.  After all, you don't understand that weight isn't the only
> > parameter that contributes to the stability of tripod support..."I'm
> > leery of Gitzo carbon fiber tripods because I seek WEIGHT!".  If you
> > seek weight, eat butter.  If you seek stable tripods, seek carbon
> > fiber and give up this bullshit weight fanatacism.
> > 
> > You're pretty much a putz.  I could go on and on, based only on photo.net
> > postings.  Display ignorance in one forum, and why should one be
> > surprised to see ignorance in another?  Sign me...glad to be a moderator
> > of photo.net.  Wish I were here, too.  Why do you go to so much bother
> > to demonstrate the fact that you don't know what the hell you're talking
> > about?
> > 
> > Here's a photo.net example:
> > 
> > "Do I have the right to photograph in non-public places?"
> > 
> > The very subject line displays your ignorance.  OF COURSE YOU DON'T.
> > Not by default.  By definition, a private owner of an enclosed space
> > like the museum in question owns that space.  Your lack of respect for
> > that authority displays selfishness.  You're similarly selfish in regard
> > to PG.
> > 
> > As long as rules on photography, etc, are uniformly stated and enforced, in
> > English-derived legal systems you don't have a limp d... to stand on.
> > 
> > "The other day I went to a special museum exhibit of ancient artifacts. I paid
> > about $AUD 20 to get in.
> > 
> > I pulled out my camera and started taking a few photos of stuff, whereupon
> > one of the attendants chastised me and said photography wasn't allowed. I
> > was not using flash"
> > 
> > Hmmm...not using flash.  So what?  The issue is whether or not you can
> > photograph.
> > 
> > "because I know sometimes items can be damaged by excess light."
> > 
> > Which, in the case of flash has been totally debunked, though some museums
> > still use it as an excuse to avoid arguing over whether or not a private
> > venue is subject to public property access laws.  So not only are you
> > sadly misinformed about law, but you appear to be sadly misinformed about
> > the effect of electronic flash on art.
> > 
> > "On the way out, I enquired about why I couldn't photograph. They said it
> > was a condition of the owner of the artifacts and was probably because they
> > hold "copyright" on the items."
> > 
> > Oh my gosh, so the person buying these things who wants to let the public
> > view them therefore abrogates all right to any image taken by a visitor?
> > 
> > Just because Chris is a self-centered, selfish man?  Theft is your RIGHT?
> > 
> > Gag me.
> > 
> > OK, an apology to the forum.  Chris is a pain in the butt in the photo
> > forum I moderate, shows little common sense nor most particularly a sense
> > of community, is selfish and resents law when it suggests he can't do each
> > and every thing he might want to do in life.
> > 
> > I shouldn't bring this up but I'm pretty much tired of this discussion, and
> > he's tired me in the past in the photo forum I help moderate.  I was nice
> > there, didn't spank him in public, and now feel like I'm suffering over
> > here for my lack of diligence.
> > 
> > (paraphrases follow)
> > 
> > "I should get to photograph these artifacts even if they're
> > owned by someone else and even if they're being shown in a private forum".
> > 
> > "You guys should make sure that the optimizer doesn't cause my BROKEN code
> > to not "work", even though it doesn't really work today"
> > 
> > "Let's change how inheritance etc. works in a way that fits my personal
> > prejudice, regardless of how the rest of the world might view the issue"
> > 
> > And, yes, I'm being petty and vindicative but since you're so insistent
> > on being a total *bleeping* idiot, why not?  Give it up!  NO ONE
> > agrees with you.
> > 
> > (I'm still being polite, want to push me?)
> > 
> > If you don't want SQL to be SQL, write your own query language and
> > build it on PG.  Convince the world that you're right, and you'll
> > be a very rich man.
> > 
> > No one is stopping you.  Distribute it as a rival copy.  You can
> > even incorporate each and every enhancement and bug fix that comes
> > along.
> > 
> > Since you own the one and only better-mouse-trap-ideal, you'll kick
> > our ass and we'll fade into oblivion.
> > 
> > It's a given, right?
> > 
> > Oh, and while you're at it, finance your own museum and let me in
> > to shoot and sell images resulting from my visit to my heart's desire,
> > all for free...I'm holding my breath, man.
> > 
> > (for those of you who don't know it, I actually make part of my living
> > as a freelance photographer, with a wide range of national [US] credits.
> > Despite this, I would NEVER consider questioning a private museum's right
> > to control photograher access to its exhibits.  Nor my home, for that
> > matter).
> > 
> > Chris, you're an exceedingly selfish man.
> > 
> > - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
> >   Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
> >   Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
> >   http://donb.photo.net.
> 
> ************
> 


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026