Raw Materials - Minds on Fire

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » Article Discussions » Article Discussions by Author » Discuss content posted by gonickl » Raw Materials - Minds on Fire

13 posts, Page 1 of 2

1 2 »»

Raw Materials - Minds on Fire

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

gonickl

Posted Friday, December 18, 2009 3:43 PM

SSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:03 AM
Points: 49, Visits: 253

Comments posted to this topic are about the item Raw Materials - Minds on Fire

Post #836691

mtp9498

Posted Saturday, January 02, 2010 8:09 AM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:29 AM
Points: 2, Visits: 57

I haven't belly-laughed at a comic strip for a long time. Thanks for this one!
BigGrin

Post #841151

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Saturday, January 02, 2010 8:54 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 12:01 PM
Points: 31,436, Visits: 13,750

This one is pretty good, especially now.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #841154

DavidKBennett

Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:11 AM

SSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:57 AM
Points: 84, Visits: 256

I like the strip, but I thought the final frame, though funny, could have been less cliche. As we've all seen, in movies when a computer gets stuck in an infinite loopback (or similar) condition, it tends to blow up, melt down, or fail catastrophically in some other fashion.

As those of us in the real world know, runaway or loopback conditions aren't nearly so dramatic, though they can be as devastating.

As I read the final frame, an alternate ending occured to me. Instead of the robot burning up, he could freeze, head cocked to the side and start saying continuously, "Stack Overflow, Reboot required."

And the girl (whose name I can't remember) could say, "Yeah, the economy's like that too."

Just a thought.
Love the strip,
Dave

Post #842767

gonickl

Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:23 AM

SSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:03 AM
Points: 49, Visits: 253

"Burnout" is the governing word here. You have to remember that Derek is a robot as well as a computer. The flames were kindled when small gears in and around his neck swivelled back and forth at such high speed that their lubricated bearings vaporized from the friction.

Post #842855

Charles Kincaid

Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:42 AM

Right there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:18 AM
Points: 772, Visits: 1,825

Given the set A which is a set of all sets that do not contain themselves as proper subsets, is set A in set A?

The infinite loop usually does not cause a burn out. It just causes unresponsiveness. Like when you call a government office.

ATB

Charles Kincaid

Post #842881

SQLRNNR

Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:26 AM

SSCoach

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:25 AM
Points: 18,754, Visits: 12,337

Nice one

while i < 2
Begin
Print 'People Stop Buying things because people stopped buying things'
i=1
End

Jason AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server 2008

SQL RNNR

Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden
VLFs and the Tran Log - Kimberly Tripp

Post #843006

gonickl

Posted Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:38 AM

SSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:03 AM
Points: 49, Visits: 253

[quote]Charles Kincaid (1/6/2010)

Given the set A which is a set of all sets that do not contain themselves as proper subsets, is set A in set A?

Believe it or not, there's a workaround to this problem!! Bertrand Russell, who dreamed up the paradox, tried to fix it by arranging sets in a heirarchy of "types". Later (by the time I studied math), this was simplified to a two-type heirarchy as follows:

A class is a collection of things. A set is a class that's a member of some class. This resolves the Russell paradox because the collection of all sets which are not members of themselves is a class but not a set.

Post #843012