The Entity Relationship Diagram Information Technology Essay
Despite the similarities between Communism and Fascism (and all the .. For example, Mussolini's fascist doctrine doesn't mention anything . TIP: As you can see in the left-right chart below, despite left-wing and .. Ownership Structure, The means of production are commonly owned, meaning no entity. Has communism always defined the end point, the horizon for you? how would you characterize your relationship to Occupy Wall Street, .. argue that we must chart a communist road that does without these terms as anchor-points? Are we talking about taking over existing entities and running them. What's the difference between Communism and Fascism? Comparison chart The means of production are commonly-owned, meaning no entity or individual . where there are no differences between the wealthy and the working classes, .
In ERD, the term "entity" is often used instead of "table", but they are the same. When determining entities, think of them as nouns. In ER models, an entity is shown as a rounded rectangle, with its name on top and its attributes listed in the body of the entity shape. Entity Attributes Also known as column, an attribute is a property or characteristic of the entity that holds it.
An attribute has a name that describes the property and a type that describes the kind of attribute it is, such as varchar for a string, and int for integer. The ER diagram example below shows an entity with some attributes in it.
Primary Key Also known as PK, a primary key is a special kind of entity attribute that uniquely defines a record in a database table. In other words, there must not be two or more records that share the same value for the primary key attribute.
The ERD example below shows an entity 'Product' with a primary key attribute 'ID', and a preview of table records in database. Foreign Key Also known as FK, a foreign key is a reference to a primary key in table. It is used to identify the relationships between entities. Note that foreign keys need not to be unique. Multiple records can share the same values. The ER Diagram example below shows an entity with some columns, among which a foreign key is used in referencing another entity.
Relationship A relationship between two entities signifies that the two entities are associated with each other somehow. For example, student might enroll into a course. The entity Student is therefore related with Course, and the relationships is presented as a connector connecting between them.
What is Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD)?
Cardinality Cardinality defines the possible number of occurrence in one entity which are associated to the number of occurrences in another. When present in an ERD, the entities Team and Player are inter-connected with a one-to-many relationship. In an ER diagram, cardinality is represented as a crow's foot at the connector's ends.
The three common cardinal relationships are one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many. One-to-One cardinality example A one-to-one relationship is mostly used to split an entity in two to provide information concisely and make it more understandable. The figure below shows an example of one-to-one relationship.
One-to-Many cardinality example A one-to-many relationship refers to the relationship between two entities X and Y in which an instance of X may be linked to many instances of Y, but an instance of Y is linked to only one instance of X.
Reciprocity vs. Baseline Communism
The figure below shows an example of one-to-many relationship. Many-to-Many cardinality example A many-to-many relationship refers to the relationship between two entities X and Y in which X may be linked to many instances of Y and vice versa. The figure below shows an example of many-to-many relationship. Note that a many-to-many relationship is split into a pair of one-to-many relationships in a physical ERD.
You will know what a physical ERD is in the next section. Conceptual, Logical and Physical data models An ER model is typically drawn at up to three levels of abstraction: You could define it in terms of shared ownership and the structure of relationships between the sharers that results from this.
In that case, whatever distributional principle they agree on would be communistic, since they are mutually consenting to their joint management of whatever it is they are sharing.
Thus, a camping trip in which all the gear is commonly owned and, more to the point, the camping group is constituted by common agreement, can operate on many different principles and still be communist from a structural standpoint. Or you could define communism as a particular distributive principle independent of how it is arrived at and implemented.
My inclination would be to treat decision structures and distributional criteria separately. I do that in fact in my micro textbook. Chapter 3 sketches five allocative arrangements—structural—and the appendix to Chapter 18 sketches various models of just distribution, including multiple varieties of reciprocity.
Something similar is true of the distributive logic of communism: What is making it very hard to get clear in my head is that I — like Graeber — want to describe society. Basically, this is supposed to be a descriptive question. But the aspect of society we want to describe is norms. So we are saying: Furtheremore, two senses of norm are getting crossed: Normal in the sense of should. It sounds like an exchange: I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
So it appeals to our sense of reciprocity. You seem to find this obvious.
I find it a bit less obvious. And yes, division of labor is the culprit, obviously. It requires a hierarchy.
Division of labor has to go. A 3-d printer for everybody. It only seems to be there with helping the severely disabled, where help is given with no serious expectation that they will give back in return even in a nebulous sense. Things are done for the enjoyment of doing them, and because most people like doing something. That other people do not contribute is not annoying, nor a subject for sanction.
Most often the reaction is a form of pity. Where do we find this? There is maybe no pure form, but I suggest a lot of music, art, informal teaching, craft, hobby groups and so on run along these lines. I was part of two housing coops in London in the 80s.
There was some admin, some liaison and a fair amount of physical renovation work involved. I think maybe 5 or 6 people did almost all the work, but 50 or so people in each were housed.
Entity–relationship model - Wikipedia
The 5 or 6 did the work because it was interesting, different from the daily round and thought useful to know. If I had fun stripping flats due for demolition, what was I supposed to do with 4 carpets, 3 stoves and 2 water heaters but give them to those who needed them? Whether I was helping my father or my friend or my brother, or they me, and though there was a general expectation that we would help each other, a major appeal of the effort was trying to figure out what worked.
My point, if I have one, is that often our endeavors are exigent, ad hoc, and ill-described by power relationships. Affection is at work on some level, being the hero is another motivation, but the point is solving the problem, so everyone cooperates. What did I miss? Nevertheless, I think people are often motivated to act to achieve agreeable goals like getting a car working without respect to moral concerns. Demarcation disputes as a quasi-property right.
It is, after all, supposed to be what succeeds reciprocity, after communism is arrived at: This is the contrastingly proportion-less arrangement. You pay in and you get out according to two deliberately incommensurable schemas, and both sides of the non-ledger are deliberately absolute.
How much of your abilities should you contribute? How much of what you need do you get? This seems to me to be a formula intended to invoke the opposite of measurement — to point to a trans-finite plenty where even the indirect or loose reciprocity of the Golden Rule is exceeded away. We put in the same amount of money. We get the same amount of beer. Now suppose a liquid volume Y of beer costs X.
We are just turning the dollar amounts into variables.
Now imagine that, instead of letting x and y range over dollars and liquid volumes we let them range of capacities to pay and degrees of thirst ability and need. I quite agree that it is not necessary — perhaps not even correct — to regard the communist slogan as a reciprocal exchange.
But, like any slogan, it is designed to appeal; and one way it appeals is to our sense of reciprocal fairness. So if there is a way to frame it so that everyone puts in the same, and gets out the same, it appeals more to our sense of reciprocal equality and fairness.
The formula hits on the precise units of account ability and need that will allow this framing. I submit this is no rhetorical accident. I agree it gets kind of unhelpful.
I am genuinely puzzled by the question: Numerators and denominators no longer match. There is a sense in which the numerators and denominators match, and a sense in which not. Depends what is being numbered and nominated. But there is certainly a sense in which communism goes beyond the idea that fairness is purely based on reciprocity.
My point is that the slogan tries to have it both ways: The first time I read Graeber I thought it made pretty good sense, actually. This time through I got puzzled. Maybe tomorrow it will all make sense again. Almost anything can be represented in both reciprocal and altruistic terms.
That is, any piece of seemingly altruistic behaviour can be represented as a utility-maximising exchange, and vice versa, depending on where you draw a boundary around the consequences and systematic linkages you are willing to consider on this particular occasion. Assume you need to consider the practical viability of the whole of the Marxian idyll as a system, and of course the books need to balance there too; needs must be less than or equal to capacities.
I think it would be more useful to have some kind of agreed scale of measurement or customary language to indicate how tightly and immediately as opposed to loosely and ultimately a piece of behaviour is being asked to balance out reciprocally. A rheostat with communism at one end and exchange at the other… 28 Brett Bellmore Despite all the glittering descriptions that might imply otherwise. But is it really true that your family home was run along the same lines as the Gulag Archipelago.
If so, I extend my condolences. If not, then what is your point? But let me take a step back. As on previous occasions, Brett, you have me at something of a disadvantage. Not all voluntary arrangements. Here again, your failure to make a friend — if that has indeed been your fate — may be cramping your imagination. As an exercise, you might try this. These 2 indices of communism you site seem really useful to me: If you try to force them in the strict reciprocity view, you lose their essence.
Examples of the former principle are precisely where reciprocity is impossible, for example, a severely disabled person who cannot make a truly reciprocal contribution, or even someone who simply lacks the talent or skill to contribute to the same degree as others. There is give and take one must labor according to abilitybut not equivalent give and take: Desert is ability and ability is ultimately luck.
Even if not a total rejection, the point is to make reciprocity no longer the central feature in our view of justice. However — as with insurance plans — when an occasion arises when you need to take out more than you put in, none of us will complain. The time factor, it seems to me, is crucial to the broad meaning of reciprocity which John is trying to extract from the slogan. Bully for us, and boo to the libertarians.
Entertainingly, Wikipedia claims that social parasitism is a concept based on an analogy with biologic parasitism, rather than vice versa; sometimes I wish I had more time to correct such things. Sorry if that was unclear. Because as I read Marx, the possibility of communism is the ever advancing productive power of technology, which will increasingly exceed human need. If you say communism means X, they will respond with an off topic comment about some atrocity committed by the Soviet Union or Maoist China.
Would a guaranteed surplus make moral perfectibility moot? Probably not, but it might make the impact of such greed and rapacity as continued to exist a lot more bearable. Worse come to worst, it might even get the libertarians off our backs. I mean, you could analogize some positive aspects of the family, or fraternal organizations, to fascism, too.
There seems to be something weird going on with your referents, plus, some version of the no true Scotsman argument.