Reputation: 1964 Grandmaster
- Expert w/DIC++
- Active Posts:
- 3,510 (1.35 per day)
- 13-January 08
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Feb 10 2015 07:36 AM
- OS Preference:
- Favorite Browser:
- Favorite Processor:
- Favorite Gaming Platform:
- Your Car:
- Dream Kudos:
- Expert In:
Posts I've Made
Posted 2 Feb 2015N/P.
As an aside, you may want to look at the grouping that that code produces for your where statement.
That is, your where statement could end up looking like this:
WHERE 1 = 1 AND( [spannedtext] like #word#% ) OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% ) OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% ) OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% )
Make sure that's the where statement you want (an AND statement followed by an ungrouped OR series like that).
Posted 31 Jan 2015Welcome to DIC rausten!
So, you're about 95% of the way there. You've already figured that you can insert CF code into the SQL statement in order to build dynamic SQL. You're just lacking the last part: changing the SQL operator from an AND to an OR after the first search.
SELECT [id] ,[spannedtext] ,[PMID_DOI] ,title ,class FROM [dbo].[Knowtator] WHERE 1 = 1 <cfloop list="AT2G37630 ATSUC2" delimiters=" " index="word" > OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% ) </cfloop>
So, in your code you're on the money with the CFLOOP. All you need is some conditional code inside the loop to determine what iteration you're on within the loop. First iteration is an AND statement, everything is an OR, right?
SELECT [id] ,[spannedtext] ,[PMID_DOI] ,title ,class FROM [dbo].[Knowtator] WHERE 1 = 1 <cfset counter = 0> <cfloop list="AT2G37630 ATSUC2" delimiters=" " index="word" > <cfset counter = counter + 1> <cfif counter EQ 1> AND( [spannedtext] like #word#% ) <cfelse> OR( [spannedtext] like #word#% ) </cfif> </cfloop>
That's a very mechanical way of doing a conditional where statement per the loop iteration but this is easiest to see and understand if you're not accustomed. Try giving that a spin and see what you get.
Posted 28 Jan 2015If, as you claim, we lack natural, inalienable rights...what is it then that you smugly claim can be taken from us by "people"? If we don't have them in the first place, how can they be taken? You cannot lose something you don't have, after all.
This is more or less entirely vacuous. As you point out, there is no such thing as an "inalienable right". You have the right to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second squared until you meet some obstacle, provided you're within earth's atmosphere or thereabouts. Beyond that, it's all up for grabs. Asserting that these rights are "inalienable" was a nice piece of rhetoric, and very useful, but obviously if they were inalienable, nobody would have mentioned them. Particularly since the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were what the writers of that document felt the King was taking away (alienating, you see). So it is precisely to secure those rights that we set up governments - and it's precisely to keep them that we keep an eye on our governments.
It seems to me that you believe there's some sort of bi-polar opposition, that one must either believe in and support anything that their government does, wholeheartedly and without reservation, or else one must be an anarchist. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you? Doesn't it seem that maybe there's some sort of middle ground in there? Say, the middle ground that all of the founding fathers occupied?
QuoteThere's a point in a conversation where your best bet is to rub some dirt on it and walk it off. For you, this would be that point.
There's something a little bit unseemly about this habit of spiking the ball and doing a little victory dance every time you put forth an argument. Could you not just put some of that effort into making your arguments a little more coherent? Now, I grant you f2k seems to have blown a gasket here, but you're not actually doing much to make the case for whatever it is you're trying to argue for.
You can call Jefferson's chosen phrasing vacuous if it suits you. I'll readily admit that I won't. Alienable, inalienable...it's window dressing. Government is merely a collection of people telling other people what to do. If we agree that rights are not originating in the individual by their very existence as a human being (the very genesis of the fairly universally revered concept of "human rights", BTW) what then makes a collection of human beings any more acceptable as a source to grant a person rights and freedoms via their participation in a government? That is, at what division level do human rights no longer originate from humans?
Of course, all of that is rhetoric. Government doesn't exist to create and then grant rights and freedoms. Indeed, in the absence of a government, you can do any damn thing you want. Governments exist solely to restrict rights and freedoms of individuals in the interest of the collective. I didn't really expect this was a debatable point any more than I'd have expected having to establish the wetness of water.
Your suggestion that we set up a government to secure those rights is somewhat in error because the government they were creating wasn't doing so in a vacuum. They were setting it up in opposition to an existing, more restrictive government..."to form a more perfect Union". Even the new government never condoned theft, murder, and other felonious activity. It specifically affirmed the right to speech, the right to self defense, the right to assemble. It didn't grant those rights, it said it had no authority to abridge them. A good example is the wording of the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The entirety of the passage describes the restrictions placed on the government. It does not say "citizens have these rights". Rather it says "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...abridging". The language is unambiguous. It's not describing a government creating and bestowing something. It's explicitly forbidding it from encroaching on something that's already there. Ditto with the 2nd Amendment (the "shall not be infringed" part) and 3rd ("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house") and 4th ("the right of the people to be secure...shall not be violated"). Especially with the 4th it never references the right of the people to be secure as something the government establishes but rather proscribes the actions the government may take in opposition to that pre-existing right.
All through the enumeration of the rights there is negative language and in cases where there is a lack of negative language, there is oftentimes a confirmation to a right that was never specifically established ("the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"). But they're all just a build up to the 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The document that, by incorrect argument establishing rights, is referencing "others retained by the people".
The establishment of the government as being constructed to not abridge or curtail preexistent rights and freedoms is unassailable. The Founders describe their existence as "inalienable" and granted by the Creator (these were God fearing folk for the most part) and their government will be limited in what it can curtail of those rights and freedoms.
Posted 28 Jan 2015I am your intellectual superior, Craig.
That was the most entertaining thing you've ever written. I, literally, cannot be offended by that statement simply because it gifts me with much mirth. I sincerely wish to thank you for my own special "pigeon chess" moment.
Bless your heart.
Posted 28 Jan 2015Craig, if these guys were such thoroughgoing anarchists, why did they bother to set up a government at all?
No, no...they were not anarchists. Just because they didn't embrace heavy handed foreign rule doesn't automatically push them to the extreme opposite side of the spectrum.
The people that ended up driving the revolution actually, mostly in secret, held a fair amount of admiration of the English constitution especially where it establishes a bicameral legislative section. However, they were also enamored with the concept of an executive veto, independent judiciary and a federalist model (states running their own affairs capped by a small and severely restricted federal "cap" government). In short, they found lots of qualities to like in the English form of government but they were also seeing how the product of that system wasn't adhering to its own tenets and where the flaws were manifesting themselves.
Front and center though was this concept of civic humanism. As a described idea, it predated the revolution by at least 300 years and was a product of the Renaissance. In the easiest to recollect terms I can put together, it's basically the idea that a moral, independent citizenry is the fundamental basis for superior politics resulting in a government formed by people via disinterested service. That's a rather airy-fairy, utopian definition but it mostly fits and is alluded to throughout the writings of the Founders. What made it more effective was a notion of independence in the colonies fostered by the physical separation from the origin of government as well as the kind of suggested notion that the colonies were a kind of "fresh start". This is evidenced by the designations "Old World" and "New World".
Because the colonies were a frontier society that had evolved, many colonists saw traditional English style rule as ill-fitting and incompatible with the values that being a colonist on a frontier demanded. There's an entire academic school of thought that goes along with this whose name escapes me at the moment but I recall there is a need to adopt a historians habit of trying to place oneself into their contemporary condition when trying to understand it. In this case, the colonies were populated by people who, for whatever reason, determined that a 3 month journey across an enormous ocean, leaving everything and all ties behind, to set up life in a dangerous and frontier world was preferable to staying in England. People didn't end up in the colonies by accident. It seems a small point but consider that we really have no parallel today. Back then they were literally choosing uncertainty with a side order of possible extinction over an established, predictable and certain world. It should come as no surprise then that those who made that choice and then excelled would feel justified in wanting a form of government that respected and didn't encroach on the liberty and freedom such a gamble paid off with.
You mix all that together with the English using the colonies as their virtual ATM whilst providing almost nothing for them that they valued in return (native aggression was countered most times with colonial militia and not the British army) and you begin to see why they would become restive and dissatisfied with their existing relationship with their government.
They thought they could do better.
- Member Title:
- I make this look good
- Age Unknown
- October 19
- Woodstock, GA
- Full Name:
- Years Programming:
- Programming Languages:
- Website URL: