Slashdot Mirror

• High Literacy Rate
• Functioning Beureaucracy
• Functioning Economy

• High Literacy Rate
• Functioning Beureaucracy
• Functioning Economy

May I humbly suggest the good Dr Andrew S. Tanembaum ?

As well as being the creator of Minix (which in some senses can be considered the natural predecessor of Linux) he has written some of the best introductory computer science books around.

If you haven't read his pithy tomes on Computer Networks or Modern Operating Systems then you really ought to check them out.

Anyone who might feel inclined to disregard him because of that old spat with Linus should take a look at this entry in his FAQ:

What do you think of Linux?
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Linus for producing it. Before there was Linux there was MINIX, which had a 40,000-person newsgroup, most of whom were sending me email every day. I was going crazy with the endless stream of new features people were sending me. I kept refusing them all because I wanted to keep MINIX small enough for my students to understand in one semester. My consistent refusal to add all these new features is what inspired Linus to write Linux. Both of us are now happy with the results. The only person who is perhaps not so happy is Bill Gates. I think this is a good thing.

May I humbly suggest the good Dr Andrew S. Tanembaum ?

As well as being the creator of Minix (which in some senses can be considered the natural predecessor of Linux) he has written some of the best introductory computer science books around.

If you haven't read his pithy tomes on Computer Networks or Modern Operating Systems then you really ought to check them out.

Anyone who might feel inclined to disregard him because of that old spat with Linus should take a look at this entry in his FAQ:

What do you think of Linux?
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Linus for producing it. Before there was Linux there was MINIX, which had a 40,000-person newsgroup, most of whom were sending me email every day. I was going crazy with the endless stream of new features people were sending me. I kept refusing them all because I wanted to keep MINIX small enough for my students to understand in one semester. My consistent refusal to add all these new features is what inspired Linus to write Linux. Both of us are now happy with the results. The only person who is perhaps not so happy is Bill Gates. I think this is a good thing.

Bored of the Rings?

=)

Slashdotted already. How about this one

Bored of the Rings

I've always found the whole "buddy programming" concept (part of XP), where one person watches the other code and points out errors, to be incredibly annoying.... you're wasting a good programmer having them sit there and call things out

Inheritance breaks encapsulation.

C++ provides:

• a string class that's far more resistant to buffer overflows than char*s;
• powerful data structure mechanisms (built in variable sized arrays and linked lists you no longer have to code yourself, plus sets and associative arrays likely better than you'd throw together),
• lots of help with memory management,
• and good ways of abstracting data (and operations) so the design is fairly well communicated by the code itself.

If I want to pass around function points, I'll pass around function pointers

You think inheritance is a fatal disease for software? Fine; don't use it. Don't define a single member as virtual or protected, and it'll be pretty tough for anyone to usefully inherit from your classes.

[From another posting you made:] I have yet to see anything which can be done with templates which can't be done with either preprocessor code or more function pointers.

Can it all be done in C? Sure. Can it be done in assembler? Of course. Can it be done in C++, with less effort, and in a way that better communicates the programmer's intention? In my experience, absolutely.

People and projects sometimes stumble when moving from C to C++ ... or when adopting any new technology. There are strategies that often work, and others that always fail. Want to talk about them?

I've read what you've said (here and elsewhere) about C++. You don't see how it can give programmers an advantage. Okay; but then you attack it as if no one should use it, rather than as if you tried to use it and failed. (Honest, there's a tone of aggressive defensiveness in your postings that makes your position come across as more emotional than rational. That tone seriously undermines your arguments.)

No one's going to force you to program in C++; but no one's going to force managers to hire you for projects using C++. You won't succeed in getting others to be restricted by your limitations. Your choice, your consequences.

So...Lockheed-Martin is going to collapse, resulting in Wagner becoming popular. I'm dubious.

What literature are you basing this on, anyway?

It was a tongue in cheek response. The military-industrial complex is not so important because of the straight industries which rose to support it, but for the fact we operate in a command economy where demand is artificially created. Read my previous post to see how the educational establishment was created first in a militaristic style modelled on the Prussian system of indoctrination. It was this system which then allowed for the mass direction of the people towards a military goal. Schools as we know them, were engineered to foster obedience. Today, if you combine the number of people employed by the military, the government bureauocracy supporting the military, and military supporting industries, and the educational system it is nearly half of all jobs in the country. Read this book to see a pretty good history of how exactly the modern school is essentially militaristic in origin.

The system is going to collapse because the average young American is not a part of that system and his future is bleek. Rather repeat myself, I believe the situation today is much as it was in France in 1800. Large numbers of well educated literate people have no real place in their society and hav no problems rebelling against it.

Music, well thats my personal opinion. I happen to hate "pop" music and blame the trivial nature of our society for allowing its popularity to rise. The sort of feelings which come with wholescale war, dread, the thrill of victory... they make people like more emotional music. It is my belief that even music like modern rap music is militaristic in the sense it is stark, and has a regular harsh beat perfect for marching. This is a subject I have wanted to study further, its just my personal musings.

As an avid fan of Nietzsche, he would say that Wagner's popularity was due to militaristic nature of German society at the time. The relationship between Nietzsche and Wagner is quite fascinating. This book contains many of the works by Nietzsche placing Wagner in the historical context of the first Reich. As for our current economic situation... Look at Japan or any other self professed command economy. Stagnation is the rule, and so shall it be for us.

As far as drugs, the classic 60's drugs have nothing to offer a revolution. Marijuana and LSD will be completely marginalized. But the US military today stockpiles massive quantities of morphine and methamphetamine. I admit, I said heroin because in tough times, its so easy to mix vinager with your morphine to get heroin and double the amount of useful drug you have it will happen. The reality is amphetamine and narcotics are quite useful in war time. Amphetamine keeps you awake and makes you aggressive. Narcotics make the pain of war, both physical and psychological, more tolerable. Even in vietnam there were far more heroin addicts than regular marijuana users. For good info on how the militarism is the source of most modern drugs of abuse check out this site. There are tons of references there.

Germany gave us most of them. They first isolated morphine from crude opium, cocaine from coca paste. Bayer created heroin. All amphetamine analogs were created in Germany, mostly by Merck. Methamphetamine was created specifically for military uses. When opium was no longer accessible to Germany during WWII, they manufactured methadone the first synthetic opioid.

Anyway, check it out.

So...Lockheed-Martin is going to collapse, resulting in Wagner becoming popular. I'm dubious.

What literature are you basing this on, anyway?

It was a tongue in cheek response. The military-industrial complex is not so important because of the straight industries which rose to support it, but for the fact we operate in a command economy where demand is artificially created. Read my previous post to see how the educational establishment was created first in a militaristic style modelled on the Prussian system of indoctrination. It was this system which then allowed for the mass direction of the people towards a military goal. Schools as we know them, were engineered to foster obedience. Today, if you combine the number of people employed by the military, the government bureauocracy supporting the military, and military supporting industries, and the educational system it is nearly half of all jobs in the country. Read this book to see a pretty good history of how exactly the modern school is essentially militaristic in origin.

The system is going to collapse because the average young American is not a part of that system and his future is bleek. Rather repeat myself, I believe the situation today is much as it was in France in 1800. Large numbers of well educated literate people have no real place in their society and hav no problems rebelling against it.

Music, well thats my personal opinion. I happen to hate "pop" music and blame the trivial nature of our society for allowing its popularity to rise. The sort of feelings which come with wholescale war, dread, the thrill of victory... they make people like more emotional music. It is my belief that even music like modern rap music is militaristic in the sense it is stark, and has a regular harsh beat perfect for marching. This is a subject I have wanted to study further, its just my personal musings.

As an avid fan of Nietzsche, he would say that Wagner's popularity was due to militaristic nature of German society at the time. The relationship between Nietzsche and Wagner is quite fascinating. This book contains many of the works by Nietzsche placing Wagner in the historical context of the first Reich. As for our current economic situation... Look at Japan or any other self professed command economy. Stagnation is the rule, and so shall it be for us.

As far as drugs, the classic 60's drugs have nothing to offer a revolution. Marijuana and LSD will be completely marginalized. But the US military today stockpiles massive quantities of morphine and methamphetamine. I admit, I said heroin because in tough times, its so easy to mix vinager with your morphine to get heroin and double the amount of useful drug you have it will happen. The reality is amphetamine and narcotics are quite useful in war time. Amphetamine keeps you awake and makes you aggressive. Narcotics make the pain of war, both physical and psychological, more tolerable. Even in vietnam there were far more heroin addicts than regular marijuana users. For good info on how the militarism is the source of most modern drugs of abuse check out this site. There are tons of references there.

Germany gave us most of them. They first isolated morphine from crude opium, cocaine from coca paste. Bayer created heroin. All amphetamine analogs were created in Germany, mostly by Merck. Methamphetamine was created specifically for military uses. When opium was no longer accessible to Germany during WWII, they manufactured methadone the first synthetic opioid.

Anyway, check it out.

In your "Reasons not to vote for Bush", you forgot this one

This reminds me of Peter Hamilton's novel Fallen Dragon , where in the future all food is lab-grown, and only back-to-nature fanatics eat plants and animals. In one scene, the main character gets physically ill when he discovers the roast beef sandwich he's eating came from an actual cow.

Hamilton's pretty good at extrapolating from the present to create the future world in his books. I don't think this scenario is unrealistic, a century or so from now.

How 'bout:
B&N Free MS Reader eBooks

University of Virginia's eBook Library for the MS Reader

Actually, what I would like to see is a review of the Ted Husted book Struts in Action , ISBN 1930110502. It was listed as not published yet yesterday at amazon.com, but is now listed as "usually ships in 13 to 14 days." It is available sooner at bn.com or direct from the publisher. Husted is one of the more well-known Struts gurus, and I think his book has been much more anticipated than the one reviewed.

One thing I like is that the publisher, Manning Publications, lets you buy a PDF version of the book for half price. They will also deduct the cost of the PDF version if you decide to buy the tree version later. There are a couple of sample chapters online, one about integration with Tiles and another about validation. The sample chapters I have read seem very complete and well-written.

I know this post sounds like an advert for the book, but I'm not associated with the book in any way. I'm just a Struts developer who's been waiting for a good Struts book to come along, and the Husted book looks like it might be the one.

SUVs are safer in (multiple-vehicle) collisions, but not in braking or handling... and their single-vehicle accidents are deadlier than automobiles, IIRC.

This is a common misconception...

I heard the author of High and Mighty, Keith Bradsher, interviewed by Michael Medved. I had originally thought he simply set out to demonize SUVs by any method possible, so I started listening skeptically - but I was convinced of his argument by the end of his interview (though Medved wasn't). He didn't come across as a boo-hoo uses-too-much-gas-so-it's-hurting-mudder-erf kind of guy - he made his points rather well, without the appeals to emotion I [almost] expected.

His main point was that he wanted people to be fully aware of the risks involved with SUVs... not to eliminate SUVs altogether. He gave explicit license to people that need them for off-roading, or carrying large loads.

He was more of an advocate for defensive-driving safety - he owned a "maneuverable" Audi with excellent braking and handling, and that was his general approach to car safety.

Overall... he raised some points that I don't usually hear considered when people want to buy an SUV.

Why the heck is the paper copy cheaper than the e-copy?

.

According to John Kenneth Galbraith, who worked on an independent civilian commission appointed by President Roosevelt to study what really happened in the aftermath of WWII, Japan was ready to surrender before the A-Bomb was dropped.:

Didn't the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shorten the Pacific war?

The bomb did not end the Japanese war. This was something that was carefully studied by our bombing survey. Paul Nitze headed it in Japan, so there was hardly and bias in this matter. It's ironic that he has since become fascinated with the whole culture of destruction. The conclusion of the monograph called Japan's Struggle to End the War was that it was a difference, at most of two or three weeks. The decision had already been taken to get out of the war, to seek a peace negotiation.

The Japanese government, at that time, was heavily bureaucratic. The decision took some time to translate into action. There was also a fear that some of the army units might go in for a kind of Kamikaze resistance. The decision was not known in Washington. While the bomb did not bring an end to the war, one cannot say Washington ordered the attacks in the knowledge that the war was coming to an end.

Would not millions have been lost, American and Japanese, in the projected attack on the mainland, had it not been for the bomb?

That is not true. There would have been negotiations for surrender within days or a few weeks under any circumstances. Before the A-bombs were dropped, Japan was a defeated nation. This was realized.

I think the "we had to drop the A-bomb becauase the invasion would have been worse" story is a remarkably well done piece of propaganda which has endured to the point of becoming accepted fact. As Mr. Galbraith points out, the US did not know that Japan was ready to surrender at the time. However, it is wrong to keep using that story now, given that it is probably false. I would rather the US say, OK, we didn't know that Japan was going to surrender, but we wished we did because we wish we didn't drop the bomb on them.

As far as villagers training with pikes, that's probably on the same level as the bomb drills in US schools where everyone hid under their desk -- something to give ordinary citizens some feeling of security, nothing more.

for those of you who (like me) dislikes amazons use of patents, show it by buying your books elsewhere. two good examples of elsewhere are:

from europe: www.bol.com

from the us: www.barnesandnoble.com

time to put your money where your mouth is, of something to that effect...

Thanks

Bruce

Thanks

Bruce

29.4.3. Achieve and demonstrate the sort of Vulcan mind-meld which
logic dictates should be possible when two artificial Minds pool
their shared memories or knowledge-bases and co-experience events
such as dreams, hallucinations or the remote sensing of scenery.
Establish protocols for deciding questions such as which entity
shall lead the stream of consciousness in the virtual or shared
reality of the mind-meld, and who shall remember and who shall
forget all that transpires during the merging of consciousness.

• 2002-12-04 15:16:13 France to introduce own DMCA (articles,news) (rejected)

Today's Libé previews a new bill introduced by the French government to, in one stroke and all too familiar terms, not only legalize anticopy media , but also prohibit everyone from diffusing, advertising and even making known any means of circumvention. (Google translation.) Meanwhile, no plans to end a 56 tax on blank CDs, which brought the industry 95.3 million in 2001. Sad news from a country which, in more enlightened times, pioneered copyright reduction (to 50 years) and thus enabled such wonderful reissue programs as Chronological Classics.

Read the book The Age of Access by Jeremy Rifkin. His contention is that, unless we do something about this in a legal sense, the answer is "Yes". It's a good polemic and has some good ideas about what to do about this.

Okay, I'm getting a little sick of you repeating yourself.

There are several ways to proov it. And problems with your arguments.

1) Go back to the moon.

This won't happen because of the huge expense. We don't have the infrastructure any more and it would be expensive to rebuild it. Then the costs of building the rockets and everything again. It would be nearly as expensive as the first time. There is no way the tax payers would flip that bill.

2) Do what you suggest and have another nation go.

Nearly impossible. If the U.S. won't flip this kind of bill, no other nation on earth will either.

3) Send probes to photograph the evidence.

Japan is doing this next year as a matter of fact. They will be launching a satellite called Selene into low lunar orbit that will photograph the surface with never before seen detail.

4) Bounce lasers off the reflectors the astronauts left there.

The problem here is that it is concievable that the reflectors were left there by probes. I'm sure this won't convince you. Never mind the fact that even the Soviets have tested this.

5) Analize the rocks that were brought back.

Oh, wait, this has been done and it has been conclusivly (and independantly) confirmed that the rocks spent *billions* of years in a low oxygen high radiation environment. Look it up if you don't believe me. NASA will be more than happy to provide you with a list of organazitions that got moon rocks from them for analysis.

6) Close analysis of the equipment designs. The equipment was built and used for SOMETHING. And three complete sets of equipment that never went up are on display. It's a simple matter to calculate if the equipment is capable of what NASA asserted it did.

Only one nation has stealh technology. Does it not exist either? It is a fraud? I've seen F-117s, B-1s, and an SR-71 (not really stealth, though it did have low observability characteristics). The F-117 and the B-1 I actually saw fly too.

Did I try to hit them with radar to see if I could get anything? No. I guess the diffrence between me and you is I'm able to take someone's explination for *how* something works, and parse it to see if it's logical, or if it's just voodoo jiberish. I've seen the Saturn V at Kenedy Space Center. And the LM. I've read volumes on how the systems were designed and built, and how NASA had basicly a blank check to get to the moon. (I Can't recoment "Angle of Attack" enough).

I mean come on! There's being skeptical, and then there's being stupid. Have you ever *personally* taken measurments on the planets and the stars and the sun and done the calculations to see if the Earth goes around the Sun, or if the Sun goes around the Earth? Because if you haven't, you're a hyprocrit. Never mind the evidence. Never mind that it's all out in the open for anyone to check (althoug admitidly, it's expensive to check).

What more do you want? You're just saying you want another nation to visit, because you think it's unlikley to happen (although the Chineese have anounced their intentions of doing so, that's years off. They have yet to launch a man into orbit yet).

The U.S. is the only country to do this for a very good reason. It's the same reason we're the only nation with a fleet of modern supercarries. We're the biggest power in the world. Nobody else could afford the luxury of paying for what amounted to an expensive PR program with scientific benefits. The Soviets were roughly equal in many ways when we went, but they lost the race, and elected not to wast the money continuing their costly lunar program. Now, nobody but us could go back. And even we would take the better part of a decade to go again.

Besides, why would you believe another nation? What makes you think they wouldn't lie too? Perhaps it's a big conspiracy! International! The UN wants you to believe! Trust no one!

Egad, this woman does like this book. No fewer than 13 reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (repeated here and here), 14?.

My first thought was the Denise M. Clark was a shill, but if she is, she's incompetant. By using the same name over and over, it becomes easy to track her down. My next thought was that she was a UFO nut trying to spread the word. Possible, but she has reviewed many other books.

My new theory is that she's desperately trying for fame through the unlikely technique of publishing reviews on as many sites as possible. (Check out her web page, "The on-line home of author/reviewer Denise M. Clark". Either that, or she's a space alien here to prepare us for use as slaves and food for her hideous grey masters. If it's the former, she's wasting our time. If it's the latter, I suppose that would could as news for nerds.

There is a book I read called T2:Infiltrator that seems similar to this plot, though not exactly the same. The link has a better summary than I can give.

This book sounds a little like Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash", which is set in a dark future where corporations have mostly taken over governing. The main character finds himself in the middle of a corporate conspiracy involving a 'net virus called Snow Crash. My synopsis is so poor for such a great book.

This book sounds a little like Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash", which is set in a dark future where corporations have mostly taken over governing. The main character finds himself in the middle of a corporate conspiracy involving a 'net virus called Snow Crash. My synopsis is so poor for such a great book.

Calling the scientific worldview "soul-less," he joined ... Henry James and many European-trained philosophers in spurning the modern emphasis on pragmatic experimentation, production, universal literacy,

Silly Brin, Henry's brother William defined pragmatism. They were both on the same page; both very much believed in the soul. Whether or not you do, it's not incompatible with pragmatism.

The sine qua non of geekery is el cheapo AI textbook AI4U: Mind-1.1 Programmer's Manual.

This brand-new November-2002 open-source artificial intelligence resource book needs to be reviewed here on SlashDot.

The Robot AI Mind is freeware, not shareware, and is listed in the Free Software Donation Directory as an open source AI project not crying for gimme-gimme money-money but rather as quasi-shareware where you get something in return: potentially the rare Gutenberg Bible of public domain AI leading to the Technological Singularity.

Accordingly, the extra request is made here that AI geeks obtain two copies of AI4U : one for themselves, and one that they register with BookCrossing.com and then leave surreptitiously in locations where other AI-prone geeks and wannabe's will find the AI-secrets AI4U textbook. Merry Xmas.

Software Architecture: Organizational Principles and Patterns

To abuse your analogies:

=>Different TVs, but they all can view the same
=>channels and use the same antenna connectors.
PAL vs. NTSC?

=>Different VCRs but they all use the same tapes
=>and work with any TV.
Beta vs. VHS, region coding?

=>Different cars, but they all use the same gas
=>and standardised oil grades.
Regular, unleaded, diesel?

=>Differnt refridgerators, but they all use the
=>same electricity.
115V, 60 Hz vs. 220V, 50 Hz?


We're really delving into economics and economic network externalities (which have nothing to do with packets).
I recommend this as a non-technical, yet excellent analysis of WTF is going on.
The do-it-yourself spirit that has me pondering ordering 4 Lindows boxen off of www.wallmart.com and IABCOT in my basement to support some research for school simply Does Not Translate into a general prophecy that Linux will rule.
The sheep remain sheep, and will not forget that BeelzeBill is their shepherd, and they shall not want (too frequently).
Linux standards development will continue along its present, Darwinian lines. For example, we gripe about Gnome/KDE, but I haven't heard much about alternatives to X. You can say all you like about Bluecurve, but that's the general direction that things, over time, are likely to go.

While you might not agree with Larry politically, he makes good points. It is a very interesting read.

While you might not agree with Larry politically, he makes good points. It is a very interesting read.

For a little more detail, my attempted submission from a few weeks ago is below. I just bought his book and the latest Hacking Exposed, now I'm just waiting for a friendly visit from the fed.

The first chapter of Kevin Mitnick's new book, The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security, was removed by the publisher, but his girlfriend has now published it online. She gives credit to the Yahoo discussion group Kevin's Story for first posting the chapter. In the related Wired article, Mitnick claims that his girlfriend's blog is the first site he'll check out when his eight year federally mandated moratorium expires in January. The chapter covers Mitnicks initial forays into social engineering as well as alleging that John Markoff, stung by a failed book deal, used his position at the NYT to become rich by painting Mitnick as public enemy number one.

For a little more detail, my attempted submission from a few weeks ago is below. I just bought his book and the latest Hacking Exposed, now I'm just waiting for a friendly visit from the fed.

The first chapter of Kevin Mitnick's new book, The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security, was removed by the publisher, but his girlfriend has now published it online. She gives credit to the Yahoo discussion group Kevin's Story for first posting the chapter. In the related Wired article, Mitnick claims that his girlfriend's blog is the first site he'll check out when his eight year federally mandated moratorium expires in January. The chapter covers Mitnicks initial forays into social engineering as well as alleging that John Markoff, stung by a failed book deal, used his position at the NYT to become rich by painting Mitnick as public enemy number one.

Maybe this guy should spin this off into a book,

Too late. Charles Petzold has already done it. See CODE . It should be on every geek's bookshelf.

I second that. Very good book, second only to Forrest M. Mimms's coverage in a Radio Shack book from the early 80's which I've forgotten the name of after my ex-girlfriend stole it (she really knew how to hurt me) and I couldn't find another copy anywhere. I really miss that book keeping warm at night.

Maybe this guy should spin this off into a book,
Too late. Charles Petzold has already done it. See CODE. It should be on every geek's bookshelf.

However, I would like to visit the sites of some engineering failures.

If you're interested in famous engineering failures of Eastern Canada, check out the Quebec Bridge story.

Also read To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (if you haven't already).

On the other hand there's little knowledge of who Einstein really was and the human being behind the genius

You mean, aside from all the biographys written about him, the published letters to his children, the secret FBI file kept about him, etc etc.

BN returns rather a lot on the man, and a number of these items are not lunchboxes.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/result s.asp?WRD=Einstein

Section 1, In addition to the strict listing, however, are hundreds of examples of how to use the classes; some basic, some obvious, and some you probably haven't seen.

All the examples.

Section 2 provides a listing of every class in the covered packages in alphabetical order, along with all the signature of every public method in those classes.

Part 3 goes through every major JDK release, starting at 1.0, and tells you everything you could possibly want to know about that release.

I guess you would have to figure this part out yourself, but what real value is it anyway?

I know, I know, it's nice to have this in book form, but the sooner you learn how to parse through what javadoc provides, the better. Especially if you are serious about learning/using java, you need to become familar with javadoc. Plus the APIs are still changing, and the Sun website will always have the most up-to-date information. It takes a while to get used to looking at documentation online, but once you are familar with it, you will be proficent in finding what you want in no time.

The real value of the books seems to be the examples, but they are all on-line too.

Seriously, don't buy this book. If you want something that will truely make you a better Java programmer, get Effective Java. That book is worth its weight in gold.

Malcom Wells wrote seriously about this in the 70's. Check out The Earth-Sheltered House, a real classic.

Down and Out in London and Paris:
On Amazon and on Barnes & Noble

Burmese Days:

On Amazon and on Barnes & Noble

It took me longer to type that, than it did to find these. I can't think of any books that are easier to find in ebook form than dead tree. Except for books that were published as ebooks originally.

IF you can find a book in ebook format, sure, it's faster to download than to drive to Barnes and Noble, or have it shipped to you. But the titles you cited are NOT in any way hard to find. Now, take some obscure authors, and you might have a point. But if an author is that obscure, chances are there aren't any ebooks floating around either.

Down and Out in London and Paris:
On Amazon and on Barnes & Noble

Burmese Days:

On Amazon and on Barnes & Noble

It took me longer to type that, than it did to find these. I can't think of any books that are easier to find in ebook form than dead tree. Except for books that were published as ebooks originally.

IF you can find a book in ebook format, sure, it's faster to download than to drive to Barnes and Noble, or have it shipped to you. But the titles you cited are NOT in any way hard to find. Now, take some obscure authors, and you might have a point. But if an author is that obscure, chances are there aren't any ebooks floating around either.

It goes to a Barnes and Noble page for ISBN 0316357243.

Here's the B&N link.

And the Amazon link.

Both without any click-through crap.

The Two Towers Visual Companion, a movie tie-in, features a nice four-page foldout illustrating the battle's progress. (N.B. The book's foreword, by Viggo Mortensen (who played Aragorn), is worth a read. Maybe I'm a bigot, but I hadn't expected an actor's commentary to be so perceptive and nuanced.)

Not too hard to fake.

Step 1) Buy this.

Step 2) Put lunar lander sticker on lens.

Maybe not.
According to a Mr. Heinlein, they could start a revolution and
loft huge moon-rocks into our gravitational pull.

If all you are going on is Engines of Creation (or rather, your vague recolection that it wasn't very good) I'd suggest you look into some of Drexler's other work, such as Nanosystems. It's always a bad idea to judge someone by a popularization of their work, even if they wrote it.

-- MarkusQ

True I never read it, but apparently a young soldier named Adolph didn't want anything to do with the truce and stayed in his camp and sulked.