Saturday, July 19, 2014

Hypocrisy and the Oldest Acceptable Hatred


Whenever I see Western Leaders Who Demand Restraint and "proportionate" response by Israel to Arab genocidal terrorism, I think of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Algeria, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In face of demands that Israel return the so-called "occupied Palestinian land", I say that Israel will do it if and when US return their land to its natives. Nobody can hold a candle to Israel on morality (Moral clarity in Gaza) and morality is not a suicide pact!

Israel won the West Bank and Gaza fair and square from two Arab countries, Jordan and Egypt, defending itself in a genocidal attack defying the UN. Moreover, Israel turned around and offered the land back to them in return for peace and they refused. If there were a Palestinian nation, why didn't they create  it when they had the land, or when Israel offered it back? Here's why:
In a piece in Haaretz ... Shlomo Avineri, an icon of the Israeli Left ... tells readers, "We were incredibly stupid... We thought they wanted a state, and a two-state solution, but it turns out that they want to destroy Israel, because they cannot/will not accept any form of Jewish national self-determination."--Elder of Ziyon
The Arab-Israeli conflict is a national conflict only on its Israeli side (The Popular Palestinians, The Middle East Media Research Institute). That it is also on the Arab side is not the delusion of just the Israeli left; it is also a Western wishful self-projection on the Arabs ("they are just like us"), in denial of the latter's constant proving how delusional that is. They exploit this to the hilt, while holding the West in utter contempt.

By preventing Israel from winning and by saving and funding Arab terrorists every time they're about to be vanquished, the PostWest (As the West declines, Russia fills the vacuum) is prolonging the conflict and, consequently, all its consequences that it deplores, including the waste of its resources (While Gazans Suffer in Poverty, Leaders of Hamas Live in Luxury). The colonial powers learned nothing from the mess they made of the ME based on a similar delusion and the consequences of which--Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen--are exploding in the West's face these very days.

BTW, Why do we only hear about it when Muslims die in Israel? Assad massacred 160,000, yet all Western leaders get instinctively worked up when 500 so-called Palestinians are collateral damage because they are used as shields by their own leaders. Since Israel is the only nation (1) subjected to such restraint (2) required to return land won in a defensive war (to a nation invented by Arabs post-1967 as a genocidal means)--which is absurd--this is anti-semitism pure and simple (How the West is complicit in Islamic Jew-hatred, A War Against All Jews). This is par for Europe, the locus of the Holocaust, where the oldest acceptable hatred is rejuvenated by Islamic immigration (Cops wounded, dozens arrested at Paris anti-Israel rally). But the US is not exempt:
Prior to the Obama election I blogged that what he will do is gradually put Israel and increasingly difficult situations until it will yield to the Arabs. This is eactly what he has done:
THE PURPOSE OF THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY
It is impossible to understand the ME in general and the roots and nature of the conflict in particular from the largely ignorant, hypocritical, shallow, Islamist-appeasing, spineless Western media and elites (Pew's Cowardly Dhimmi Poll Is An Absolute Disgrace). For a reality check I recommend Martin Kramer, Uzi Rabi, Efraim Karsh and Daniel Pipes. Here's a paper by a Nobel laureate in Economics that explains better than anything the dynamics of the conflict absurdly sustained by the PostWest:
The Blackmailer Paradox



Sunday, July 13, 2014

Data Model: Neither Conceptual, Nor Logical, Nor Physical


Chris Date once titled an article Models, Models Everywhere, Nor Any Time to Think and I wrote about A Model to Call One's Own. We referred to the continuous proliferation of new "models" at the expense of mastering the fundamental and sound ones we have and the vagueness, confusion, misuse and abuse of the term 'model' (see, for example, Canonical data model implicitly managed through Enterprise Data Modeling). That is why, more than four decades after the concept of data model was introduced by Codd, we still have questions like:
Q: I understand that the database design process occurs in the following sequence:
Conceptual Data Model -> Logical Data Model -> Physical Data Model
Can someone please clarify how the relational model applies to this process?
Can you?

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Weekly Update


1. Quote of the Week
Don't confuse Data(base) Modeling with Business Modeling. All DBA are correct when they are talking about Database Modeling. If you want to ensure unique record on Business level, just add a unique composite index. (not as Key). But far to often, a unique record on business level is not ALWAYS unique (only most of the time) --LinkedIn.com

2. To Laugh or Cry?
Create database vs schema

3. Online Debunkings

4. Interesting Elsewhere

5. And now for something completely different
 And if you like what they're doing to San Francisco, you'll love what they'll do to other cities:
Google Exec Rises Ire in Portland
 Symptoms of societal malaise.



Sunday, June 29, 2014

Denormalization: Database Bias, Integrity Tradeoff and Complexity


The common and entrenched misconception about normalization was recently visible yet again in a LinkedIn exchange.
R: Unless the need is for ACID compliant transactions, denormalization is generally not considered logically, physically or whatever-ally-–so essentially a thoroughly normalized mode is relevant for a write-infrequently consumption of data and data integrity can be guaranteed by design.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Weekly Update


I have corrected a mistake in For Codd's Sake: a mathematical relation is not the Cartesian product (CP) of the domains over which it is defined. Two readers correctly pointed out what I actually wrote myself in my business modeling paper:
Mathematically, a relation on domains—which are sets of values of a type—is a subset of the Cartesian product of the domains.
Note that the whole CP is also a subset, so it is also a relation, which happens to have useful applicability to business modeling and database design. In the database context, it can be pictured as the pool of all possible rows--past, present and future--for a R-tablevar defined by the domains' types. A database R-table is the set of actual rows at any point in time that is consistent with the set of all integrity constraints to which the R-table is subject (see Business Modeling for Database Design).


1. Quote of the Week
NoSQL usant correct m'y indeed totof n'y most of the dev ans devops who clearly thing nosql Means they will ne a le to do whatever they wants ans still have answers to their twisted query in a correct time. Those people see nosql as the mean to get ris of DBAs. And il not kiddin since it's happening right now un many companies i know of. --LinkedIn.com

2. To Laugh or Cry?
Architecting IMS for Big Data - a symbiotic relationship.

3. Online 

4. Interesting Elsewhere
IEEE Computer Issue on CAP Theorem
H/t Erwin Smout.


5. And now for something completely different

The PostWest.



Sunday, June 15, 2014

Conceptual Muddling and Database Kludges


The Problem with "Conditional" Unique Constraints... raised on LinkedIn and the response to it merit the attention of practitioners.
EP: I'm seeing more implementations where developers/database design professionals are implementing the following type of conditional unique constraints, typically related to the use of 'soft deletes'): 
Table X {COL_SURROGATE_PK,COL_A,COL_B,COL_C,COL_ACTIVE_FLAG}
Uniqueness is defined for {COL_A,COL_B} iff COL_ACTIVE_FLAG='YES'. Any row with a COL_ACTIVE_FLAG = 'NO' is excluded from the unique requirement. Note that I do not mean that COL_ACTIVE_FLAG is part of the key; instead it is being used to conditionally enforce the key.
Most SQL DB implementations I know of do not allow this type of constraint to be enforced declaratively. Instead it relies on tricks within the index specification for enforcement.

This conditional application of unique constraints troubles me. The prevalent use of a surrogate primary key avoids duplicates in the table as a whole. But this approach seems to declare a business rule that can be turned off and on based on the value of a non-key column. However, I cannot definitively find a specific rule/guideline within relational theory that it violates. Any thoughts on that matter? I know there are design alternatives. I'm looking at a way of critiquing (or ultimately accepting) this type of approach for a theoretical standpoint.
(The fact that there is no true always-on business key other than the surrogate key IS an issue, but the fact that technically the surrogate PK prevents duplicates is almost always presented as a counter argument).

It definitely feels there is more than one kind of business entity here - but they do share the same attributes. I also see a similar design pattern when OO classes are mapped to a table during implementation (when the implementation approach is to combine classes into a single table and an attempt is made to enforce two types of 'uniqueness').