Re: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation

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.