|
Is this the same guy who thinks that non-recyclable batteries that charge from coal power plants is more green than fossil fuels? (Maybe he is just HOPING it's a simulation because he realizes he is his own worst enemy?) LOL
|
|
|
|
|
You're mouthing fossil fuel industry propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
I think Elon Musk hasn't been rebooted in a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
That's just an opinion of Musk (Who is he? Should I know him?), but, in a certain sense also a very old one. Plato concluded several thousand years ago, that the entire individual human existence is tied up with observations by the senses, and, what the mind makes of it. Pascal came to the fundamental point, In essence, his argument was "I must Exist, because I can question my own Existence"! (I Observe Mijself Thinking, So I Must Exist)(I Think, so I am) Emanuel Kant subsequently argued that the existence of anything outside the human observation through the human senses, can never be proved or disproved. So, the existence of any Supernatural God, can be neither Proved or Dis Proved. What Musk states here is a believe, or a religion. He believes it, and good luck for him. Others believe in Jesus Christ, Allah, Zeus, or the Easter bunny. All these believes are irrational, and hark back to the dark ages, when humans started to populate the world, and, having been given a rational brain which tries to see order, classification and reason, finding themselves in a nature which favors Chaos.
Well, Musk may be right or wrong! There is just absolutely no way of knowing, so there is no point of getting excited about it.
We Do already know that we live in a strange universum, where Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory stretch common sense and observation to the limit. I am a materialist, and, am much derided for that opinion by many philosopher old friends. I believe that the human brain is essentially a computer, the complexity of which we are only beginning to understand. Not a Binary Computer, each synapse in our brain can issue outwards, and react inwards to, at least 5 types of signal. Imagine this combined with the fact of several billion of synapses. The computing power, if properly organized, becomes Immense.
Now, I hear someone say, because of this complexity, some higher intelligence, i.e God, must have built this. The argument of the watch on the beach.
My Argument is here that we, as humanity now exist. All sort of unlikely things just happened to fall into place,an humanity emerged, just all by unlikely chance. However, we are trying to explain our own existence! Had the confluence of events worked differently, and created a world without human existence, no humans would have existed to ask the question.
Regards,
Bram
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
It's taken him this long to stumble upon the Simulation Argument?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. - Liber AL vel Legis 1:40, Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
This is a very interesting proposition and I would like to know if Musk has thought about the theological implications of his claim. I mean, his idea (which is apparently just a stronger conviction about one of three possibilities proposed by an Oxford professor) presupposes the existence of a being or group of beings (let's call it 'realm') 'running' this simulation so, unless he adheres to some form of infinite regress (every realm up the ladder from ours is itself a simulation, ad infinitum), there must be a realm that is not itself a simulation, or 'base reality' as he calls it.
Here is a competing claim: "Then God said: 'Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness.'" Is this the kind of simulation he has in mind? 
Juanfer
|
|
|
|
|
Huh! Imagine that, a rich man dehumanizing us all... If we aren't human, nobody should need his products, and if they do procure any, shouldn't have to pay for them.
|
|
|
|
|
And his mathematical or empirical proof is ... ?
|
|
|
|
|
It still is not Friday, but I kinda was expecting someone to recognize this wonderful bit - and to express that).
Vintage Jethro Tull, A Passion Play.
This is the story of the hare who lost his spectacles
Owl loved to rest quietly whilst no one was watching
Sitting on a fence one day
He was surprised when suddenly a kangaroo ran close
by
The Story Of The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles - YouTube[^]
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Will check this post tomorrow 
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
According to my time-travelling friend, it won't have improved any!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
To be fair, it wasn't entirely clear what you wanted us to do. I knew where it was from. I just didn't know that you needed me to say so!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
I was intentionally vague to leave room for interpretation. But I did use the word "quiz" to encourage some sort of reaction.
: )
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Me too!
I knew the band, but I couldn't see a question! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I am on one of those do something projects just keep the brain from rotting. I decided to look in to using a Database for stock control (trilling I know!) for the reason I have never really used a Database in programming before. I would an opinion of the best way to do it, either create the Database in C# and go from there, or import a fleshed out Access database...I have read conflicting opions for both. I am guessing that the database I need to edit and update has already been created and this is really a 'better' way of dealing with it. I looked down the list of available articles and none of them really helps. Ideas any one?
Glenn
|
|
|
|
|
Have a look here for database templates[^]
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
As someone who is a trained DBA I always prefer to design within the database management tools themselves and just use .Net to read,write,insert and update.
That said...
The nice thing about Entity Framework is that it allows you to do this via .Net/Visual Studio.
If I was in your position and knew nothing about the database tools that come bundled with the database engine I was going to use I would go for something like Entity Framework as there is no need to know everything needed to be a DBA.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: I always prefer to design within the database management tools themselves and just use .Net to read,write,insert and update.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen horrible messes from not using proper tools, however there does seem to be a trend to not using a proper database.
|
|
|
|
|
I have once created a C++/MFC database application (the first and only one) using an empty db file as template created with Access. Because it was my first one it was a good idea to use Access to create the database. You will have it ready quickly, Access provides necessary integrity checks, and you can use it with Access to play around with some data. I suggest to do this even when deciding to create the database programmatically because it can be used as reference file and you will become more familiar with Access database files.
The above mentioned application has become many updates meanwhile which includes database changings. So I had to write all those functions which are used to create, change, delete, and move tables, fields and queries to update existing database files. The current development version is now able to create the file itself and I'm going to use this with the next release.
The first parts that I have removed from the template were the stored queries because they changed most frequently (not only by db design changings but also by optimising them).
Because you have never used databases programmatically before, I suggest to do it in a smiliar way. If you have the time and interest you can still switch over to a programmatically created file.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I'd avoid Access - for a "real world" stock control system you want a multiuser DB from day 1, and Access is very poor at that.
I'd suggest that you grab a free copy of SQL Server Express from MS, and use that instead. It also gives you Sql Server Management Studio (SSMS) which lets you do a lot more with the DB than VS does (and in a more "natural" way as well).
Doing the DB design is complicated, but well worth while - it teaches you a lot more about databases that trying to pick up a ready-made DB and trying to work out why it is the way it is, and if that really works for your exact situation.
If you look in your C# book (I'm sure you had one at some point, or am I imagining that?) it's almost certainly got a couple of chapters on DB's which will be worth reading before you get into any actual code or design.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Access has a bad reputation among developers, but it actually works perfectly fine for some situations where you don't want to have to install sql server, or where portability is desired. The only time I would warn against using Access is if your application will be handling more than a few concurrent users. If it's a single user app, it will work just fine.
Other options:
0: sql compact (portable, but doesn't allow views)
1: sql server as a cloud service (such as Azure) (portability becomes a non-issue, but requires an internet connection)
2: sqllite (never used it, but also a single-file format)
...or, you could write the application to support multiple database types using oledb objects. This is what we do here...customers can use either Access or SQL Server depending on their needs. I'd still stick with Access for the design and query building. (my preference when working with Access is actually using Access 2003 as I hate the interface for the newer versions. Good luck!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I'm going to bitch at you for using the wrong forum, the DB forums is perfect for this type of discussion!
It should depend on your goals, if you want to get into database and LOB development then use SQL Server and SSMS, it is the tool used by many departmental and SME shops.
Enterprise tend to use Oracle or what I call the pig iron databases, monsters that need a DBA to set up and run. Read years of experience needed to use properly.
Access is the other end of the scale and should be avoided like the plague.
I despise EF, too much of a black box and leaves junior developers with limited knowledge of data structures and TSQL. Having said that I have 2 tools DBops, a minimalist DAL and ClassBuilder a code generator for all the grunt work that EF does. The difference is I wrote the bloody things, I know how and why they work and can instruct juniors in its use in 15 minutes. I also encourage others in the team to contribute and smack them if they over engineer  .
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me - but I'm not going to answer the question you asked - because code first vs. database first is (IMHO) immaterial.
You'll find your own preference, or your circumstances (such as a pre-existing database you have to work with), will dictate what you do. (Also, personally, I'm old school - I create my C# classes, and my Data Definition Language scripts - CREATE TABLE ... - at the same time. I like having precise control of my schema, foreign key constraints, indexes, primary keys, etc. AND I like being the author of my POCOs).
If you're new to using databases, there's a chance you're new to data modelling in the relational world. Understanding what makes a good (i.e. easy to understand, reliable and efficient in time and size) schema is far more important than how you translate between database objects and programming language objects.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
