|
OriginalGriff wrote: and a bag of chocolate money as a little Christmas present!
Probably left overs from Chanukah[^] . . . chocolate coins for children is a tradition (in US, at least).
More importantly: dark chocolate or milk chocolate? That's how you determine if you ever reorder.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "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 if you're diabetic, or a struggling chocolaholic?
Not so nice now, are they... 
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Not so nice now, are they...
I just ate one, and the verdict is "Yes. Yes they are nice."
They may be milk chocolate (and I prefer Lindt 85% Dark) but it's pretty good Belgian chocolate, and reasonably thick as well.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Mmmmmm. Bitecoin!
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bit funny to see the managing bosses randomly use terminologies as per their wish.
Like Authenticate/Authorize, Data/Meta-Data, and so many of them. Completely mixed up. But still everyone nods their head and keeps going lol 
Full Reset
|
|
|
|
|
If you find a not-migrated-from-the-developer-ranks manager who even understands what meta-data is, you're a lucky guy.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no unique, unambiguous, generally agreed upon, definition of what metadata is.
The concept was not invented by computer guys. Librarians have been talking about it for ages. Wherever three librarians are gathered, there are four opinions about what is metadata. If you ever meet a few librarians at a party, ask them about the author and title of a book: When included in an index or catalog, that is obviously metadata, but when exactly the same information is printed on the title page, is that metadata, too? Is the same info both data and metadata? Or are both occurences metadata, so that the author and title is nowhere present as raw data? ... the discussion may last the rest of the night.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: There is no unique, unambiguous, generally agreed upon, definition of what metadata is.
Let me give you one;
Meta-data is data that describes how data is formed and what it represents 
Member 7989122 wrote: The concept was not invented by computer guys. Librarians have been talking about it for ages. Wherever three librarians are gathered, there are four opinions about what is metadata. If you ever meet a few librarians at a party, ask them about the author and title of a book: When included in an index or catalog, that is obviously metadata, but when exactly the same information is printed on the title page, is that metadata, too?
No, when it the title is printed in the catalog or index, the title is still data. It does not become "meta-data" - the catalog and the index in itself are, but the title in itself is not. The title in the index is data, because it does not describe other data. The entire index is the thing that describes that. IOW, metadata consists of data.
Member 7989122 wrote: when exactly the same information is printed on the title page, is that metadata, too?
You should be able to answer that one yourself, and why it is so.
Member 7989122 wrote: he discussion may last the rest of the night.
Not even a minute.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: when it the title is printed in the catalog or index, the title is still data. It does not become "meta-data" - the catalog and the index in itself are
Well, they say that great minds think alike, so it only follows that daft ones do, too.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Well, they say that great minds think alike, so it only follows that daft ones do, too.
I think a great mind is very alike a crazy one
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a thin line between genius and insanity, and everyone knows which side of the line I'm on.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The fun side
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I tried it - I am speaking from empirical evidence.
Even if computer guys (or rather: one computer guy) is very firm in his claim that there is not, nor has ever been, any other interpretation of a term than his, there still may be other interpretations out in the wild.
It is sort of like the first commandment - if there really was only one god, it would be redundant. Look around: There are lots of them. Similar with definitions of "metadata". "Thou shalt not have any other definitions than mine", yet there are lots of them.
|
|
|
|
|
No, that's nonsense; meta-data has a clear definition.
There are a lot of people using the word without knowing it, but that does not change the definition. How the word is used outside of IT is not relevant.
--edit
Metadata - Wikipedia[^]
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
More than that - it has many clear definitions. Unfortunately, they are not in agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, just one definition; and if you can't unambiguously explain what it is, you should not be allowed near data.
The idea that there are "multiple" definitions is utter nonsense; just like there is only ONE definition for a primary key (albeit it may be worded in different forms). We can communicate about stuff only if we mean the same things with the words we use - that is why we have so many dictionaries.
You can try and make up something new, but if it is not in the dictionary, no-one will be able to decipher it (and you become a manager!)
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Moses tried the same. I wouldn't say he succeeded. Whether you refer to that thick black book or to Wikipedia: People don't live by it (and for the Pentateuch, I'd say: Fortunately).
Consider what I write as an observation. If there was only a single understanding of it, it wouldn't be an eternal topic for arguments.
Re. "arguments":
A colleague of mine went on a week long meeting in an international standards comittee, for working out a new software standard. He came back rather frustrated: From Monday morning until Wednesday night,they had been fiercly fighting over one choice of word: Should it be termed arguments or parameters? Thursday morning they decided not to agree, leave the final decision for later, but use "arguments" for now, as a temporary solution, to get on with the work. But after lunch on Thursday, one guy brought up some arguments for "parameters" being a better temporary solution, and they spent the rest of Thursday and all Friday arguing which is te better temporary solution so they could get on with the work.
Those were people who had just as firm thoughts: By defintion, they are arguments! Noooo, the defintion clearly says that they are parameters!
As long as there is only one (monotheistic) religion, there is only one god. As long as there is only one definition, there is no argument. Neither assumption holds water.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: As long as there is only one (monotheistic) religion, there is only one god.
Religious people will never use scientific definitions and will always make up what they want the word to be.
In IT, we have a clear definition. You can make up other crap, but again, doesn't change a thing.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: Those were people who had just as firm thoughts: By defintion, they are arguments! Noooo, the defintion clearly says that they are parameters!
The thing in the signature is a parameter. If you assign a value to the parameter, that is the argument. You provide arguments to the parameter when invoking.
Instead of arguing, buy a dictionary.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that comparing synonyms (or synonymous usage in this case) to the nature of definitions really has much meaning.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: the author and title of a book: When included in an index or catalog, that is obviously metadata
I wouldn't have said so.
IMO, the author and title are attributes of the book, and therefore data.
The description used by the indexing process, describing what a book title is, now that is meta-data.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Some say this, some say that... When discussing with librarians, I usually argue that metadata is "data about data": The catalog entry tells about a given book, it isn't the book. While the title page is (part of) the book. "Metadata" is a function, the way we use information: When you use the title and author in the catalog to learn something about the existence of a book, you use it as metadata. When you read the same words on the title page, they are plain data.
Few librarians have really thought through the exact definition; they haven't had the need for it, as long as metadata in the form of indexes and catalogs is available. When they start thinking, they usually split into two groups (or more!) with different opinions, and I can quietly pull back while they continue the fighting.
I am certainly not absolute about what I suggest to the librarians. Anyone is free to scream out to me: "YOU are wrong!" I hear that from people with so strongly differing ideas about the right answer that I remain calm and relaxed.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, a quick rule of thumb: If you can assign a value to it (like a book title), it ain't meta-data.
Meta-data just tells you what it is -- wild e.g. "The title is the name used to identify the book".
You can't assign values to it, because it is what it is*.
* I always wanted to use that phrase in a way that made real sense.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Used to work somewhere the boss said "ASP dot C sharp". Learning to stifle my laughter was just easier than trying to correct him.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
