Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > No, thank $DEITY. I had a couple of jobs involving Oracle, but I tend to > avoid anything were I have to deal with too much proprietary software.
I am using oracle at work and compiled tora with ora support. At this point I wanted to install the export tool and that's how I found out what's going on - _crazy_. > >>... so programmers can be kept buzzy :-) otherways we could have an AI >>engine about 10 years ago. > > Weak AI has existed for more than 10 years. if a state machine with a bit of variations is kind of AI ... well the steam engine was also kind of invention and progress for about a century.... > > Strong AI is still a pipe dream. It's not "just" a issue of time, we > don't > really have an idea what goes into a system like that. We don't know how > to imbue consciousness (or if that's just an illusion of complex > interactions) or even how to write a general learning system that can both > expand it's own scope with "meta"-assertions and operate both in > non-deterministic way and with incomplete information with > "fuzzy"-assertions. > > We've got some really interesting research projects happening now and in > the > past. Some have seen commercial applications. Japan has very interesting > specialty robots, but none driven by what anyone would consider a "strong" > AI. > > I'm not even sure we want strong AI. yes and no, what I mean that people get focused on stuff that shouldn't matter and could be solved in the way w3c does it. We and commercials too should focus on what's really important - education (from ai-it perspective). this will bring us closer to real AI. It's just a matter of time. do we want it sooner or later is our choice - or may be not. > >>functions are a big pain because PL/SQL is proprietary ... then there was >>the pgSQL coming close to PL/SQL but not exactly ... and so on, so I'm >>wondering where the world and we are going. especially open source >>community could be more standard oriented. > > That would be nice. I'd like to see more Free Software be certified, but > that usually costs $$$$, and doesn't always mesh well with the > Bazaar-style development that some projects use. > >>Perhaps we have to ask w3c to provide a markup for database and leave all >>this "pretty close" sql sh*t. > > Right, because every piece of HTML you see is strictly-conforming. W3C > hasn't done any better than any other standards organization. so DTD for SQL :-) > >>However I learned years ago something useful about databases. You have to >>plan the size, speed, scalability, functionality etc. _before_ you start >>using whatever database. >>You have to check export/import _before_ you start using whatever >> database. You better simulate database corruption _before_ you start >> using whatever database and so on. > > You should really be doing that with any piece of software. If you can't > evaluate it, definitely don't spend any money on it. If you haven't > tested it, don't put it into production. I mean databases turn to be critical at some point of time and it's usually too late to think about migration. That's how $$ software get's sold. The keyword is scalability. regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org