Slashdot Mirror

He still drives a Porche with Convex as number plate.

Although many of your songs are great for ending stereo wars, I can't help but wonder why? I mean, it's one thing to sing off-key while all alone but another to inflict it on other people. What would possess you to think that anyone would want to hear this, or was it done for sheer badness' sake?

I do have to say that Nimoy's cover of "Proud Mary" was far worse than any of your covers-- though "Lucy in the Sky" is awfully close.

Golden Throats: the Great Celebrity Sing-Off
More pain and suffering from Google

I posted the following in a recent comment about this: "Actually, Frank Herbert himself was the one that originally complained about Lucas ripping off the story. I've read in various places that he considered a lawsuit. He wrote several pages in a short essay within Eye about this topic where he points out that there are statistically too many similarities for this to be mere coincidence."

It seems that massively parallel computing has gone the way of the Dinosaur what with the advent of more powerful CPUs. But I read that Danny Hillis of MIT and Thinking Machines fame had built a supercomputer called the Connection Machine which housed 65,536 procs each of which lived on the same wafer with dynamic ram and were arranged in a 16-dimensional hypercube array. I don't think the old beastie had nearly as much ram as the new SGI (of course, this machine was 80's vintage). But depending on the physical size of the old box, could this have not been the world's densest computer ever?

It's easy to fall into the Malthusian trap of thinking that overpopulation is the problem. I suggest you read Bookchin's classic essay Which Way for the Ecology Movement?, which lucidly and rationally debunks this idea.

In fact, the most recent estimates that I would consider objective are that post-2050, population numbers will decline significantly.

We need to stop blaming world population growth for climate change, when in fact the more static populations in the west are responsible for far more man-made pollution per capita. The focus needs to be on the real problems of pollution and climate change.

Speaking as a Briton: no we don't, yes we do, yes we do and no we don't, respectively. I've never heard anyone say "configurate" or "street furniture." Maybe it's a German thing?

That's interesting, and I do stand corrected. Maybe I was assuming on the part of 'configurate' ( anytime someone ads the suffix '-ate' to a word, it always sounds more British to me for some reason).

But as to 'street furniture' I read that in an interview with the author J.G. Ballard in this issue of Re/Search where he was talking about the differences in English between here and across the pond. It's been a while since I've read it, but I think he is English, isn't he? Could it be he was talking out of his ass or maybe just putting the interviewer on?

Speaking as a Briton: no we don't, yes we do, yes we do and no we don't, respectively. I've never heard anyone say "configurate" or "street furniture." Maybe it's a German thing?

That's interesting, and I do stand corrected. Maybe I was assuming on the part of 'configurate' ( anytime someone ads the suffix '-ate' to a word, it always sounds more British to me for some reason).

But as to 'street furniture' I read that in an interview with the author J.G. Ballard in this issue of Re/Search where he was talking about the differences in English between here and across the pond. It's been a while since I've read it, but I think he is English, isn't he? Could it be he was talking out of his ass or maybe just putting the interviewer on?

"Solution, low altitude cheap drone cruise missiles..."

You can't get any cheaper than an artillery shell. That's why they are used so widely all over the world. The eqipment is far more rugged and battle tested than any drone to be fielded. Pipe dreams of rapid deployable cruise missile-like weapons are nice, but right now, they're pipe dreams for all but the largest of nations. And even those nations are going to stick with artillery. For the simple fact that it's simple to use and can be rapidly deployed. Maybe someday somebody will come up with the RPG of missile drones (simple to use, advanced AI with decent target recognition on the cheap for use in the rugged third world? Don't hold your breath), but you'll never be able to put more cheap drones into the air faster than I can saturate the area with artillery. Your point about decoys is probably the simplest, best bet, but I'm assuming target discrimination will improve as well. It's the same old game of move, counter-move over an over.

Blackmail. Make the cost of using the lasers too high. An example, they use overt lasers, you use covert biologicals in their civilian sectors. They use space, you contaminate their water in a major city. They use B-2's, you use a dozen or a hundred guys with bic lighters one night. They steal your natural resources when you are a small weak country, you ally with a strong non allied country and promise them 1/2 your resources for help. They do economic sanctions, you make their economic infrastructure non functional, the "backhoe whoops" syndrome, or code red part deux.

Just because you may be able to accomplish your objective by other means doesn't render a specific technology/strategy and/or weapons platform automatically irrelevant as you seem to be implying. In fact, it's the same argument you hear opposing ballistic missile shields. "Well hot damn. They may protect us from ICBMs, but they can still sneak a nuke in across the boarders, therefore a missile shield is completely useless!"

I've always found that particular leap of logic astounding, personally. I can wage war by other means, therefore, that particular defense is useless. No, wrong, BS. Every one of your counter arguments are great, until you add the statement, "but so can your enemy." Fighting the unlimited dirty war you propose against a well armed, well financed opponent will earn you a massive ration of shit in a hurry, no matter who the opponent is. Sure. Nerve gas a city. You just signalled your willing to fight a no holds barred campaign. Your well financed opponent will likely get a lot nastier rather than pliable as you seem to hope. Contaminate Frances major water supplies. It'll hurt them, sure, but mark my words they will get a handle on the situation on come gunning for whatever weak-assed organization that launched the attack. Yes, even France.

On a side note, check out David Drake and his Hammer's Slammers series. He fleshes out anti-artillery and guide artillery systems quite well in his works.

The book you suggested happens to be an oppinion of one man who has man "friends"... this is exactly the problem with trying to take a realistic approach. When you bring in a ton of preconcieved ideas you have your mind made up before hearing anything to contradict you. Tell me how Arab governments "canntot be trusted" and then try checking out this site.

As for reading material, maybe reading more than just the book you were assigned to in your global politics class or where ever you picked this up at, you'd be able to understand more than just one side. Here's something to get you started.

The book you suggested happens to be an oppinion of one man who has man "friends"... this is exactly the problem with trying to take a realistic approach. When you bring in a ton of preconcieved ideas you have your mind made up before hearing anything to contradict you. Tell me how Arab governments "canntot be trusted" and then try checking out this site.

As for reading material, maybe reading more than just the book you were assigned to in your global politics class or where ever you picked this up at, you'd be able to understand more than just one side. Here's something to get you started.

The book you suggested happens to be an oppinion of one man who has man "friends"... this is exactly the problem with trying to take a realistic approach. When you bring in a ton of preconcieved ideas you have your mind made up before hearing anything to contradict you. Tell me how Arab governments "canntot be trusted" and then try checking out this site.

As for reading material, maybe reading more than just the book you were assigned to in your global politics class or where ever you picked this up at, you'd be able to understand more than just one side. Here's something to get you started.

The book you suggested happens to be an oppinion of one man who has man "friends"... this is exactly the problem with trying to take a realistic approach. When you bring in a ton of preconcieved ideas you have your mind made up before hearing anything to contradict you. Tell me how Arab governments "canntot be trusted" and then try checking out this site.

As for reading material, maybe reading more than just the book you were assigned to in your global politics class or where ever you picked this up at, you'd be able to understand more than just one side. Here's something to get you started.

So AOL gives away IM service, makes it impossible to block, but then sells a sniffer. What's next? They'll sell super-encrypted service for a fee to the user base, then a few years down the road, they'll sell an unencryption ad-on to the sniffer, then...

Is it just me, or does that business plan sound familiar?

Here. It's never too late to change.

An alternative to designing software using patterns is to refactor code toward patterns.

This is considered one of the best ways to use patterns by many in the patterns community -- especially to avoid the "little boy with a pattern" syndrome described by many here.

For more on this idea, and on patterns in general check out the Portland Patterns Repository. There is also a conference every year about patterns called PLOP

Finally, the software patterns community owes its origins to the Architectural (think buildings not code) Patterns world. Christopher Alexander is considered the father of patterns. His books A Timeless Way of Building, and A Pattern Language are technical, dry and expensive, but considered fundamental to truly grokking patterns.

An alternative to designing software using patterns is to refactor code toward patterns.

This is considered one of the best ways to use patterns by many in the patterns community -- especially to avoid the "little boy with a pattern" syndrome described by many here.

For more on this idea, and on patterns in general check out the Portland Patterns Repository. There is also a conference every year about patterns called PLOP

Finally, the software patterns community owes its origins to the Architectural (think buildings not code) Patterns world. Christopher Alexander is considered the father of patterns. His books A Timeless Way of Building, and A Pattern Language are technical, dry and expensive, but considered fundamental to truly grokking patterns.

An alternative to designing software using patterns is to refactor code toward patterns.

This is considered one of the best ways to use patterns by many in the patterns community -- especially to avoid the "little boy with a pattern" syndrome described by many here.

For more on this idea, and on patterns in general check out the Portland Patterns Repository. There is also a conference every year about patterns called PLOP

Finally, the software patterns community owes its origins to the Architectural (think buildings not code) Patterns world. Christopher Alexander is considered the father of patterns. His books A Timeless Way of Building, and A Pattern Language are technical, dry and expensive, but considered fundamental to truly grokking patterns.

This is a fantastic book. It is probably the best book out there for coverage of all of the fundamental design patterns. The examples are in Smalltalk and C++, and are readable and easily translatable to other OO langs (Java, C#, ...).

I would recommend that along with this book, you take a look at Pattern-Oriented System Architecture. It applies the design pattern concept to problems in large scale system architectures.

A combination of the techniques in both of these books can really help unwind alot of the spaghetti problems at both a system and component level. Additionally, alot of the fundamental concepts in modern system architectures become alot clearer once you've read both.

I would recommend looking for information on micropropagation (cloning plants). It is a fairly popular hobby and you need cleanroom like conditions, so most micropropagation books have plans for mini cleanrooms. I would recommend talking to people who have done this before (which you are trying to do ;), seems there is at least some discussion on Usenet about the subject.

If the Founders felt the common man or woman was too stupid to pick the President, they wouldn't have permitted a popular vote at all.

You are making a couple of false assumptions. First, women were obviously not a factor in the Founders decision making process, see the 19th amendment, ratified on August 26, 1920. Women haven't been able to vote for even half of U.S. history yet.

Second, you assume that the Founders had absolute control over the creation of the Constitution and could do whatever they wanted to do and that they were of one mind. In fact, they considered "[a] number of proposals, including direct election by the people, by state legislatures, by state governors, and by the national legislature, were considered. The result was the electoral college, a master stroke of compromise, quaint and curious but politically expedient." [see the national archives]. Note: The popular vote did not then nor does it now determine who becomes president of the U.S. Frankly, I'm not sure what the point is of even including the President on ballots, since it has no bearing on who becomes President. Perhaps it is a kind of opinion polling for the electoral college. Or if you are of a more cynical mind-set, it's a component of the framework of Necessary Illusions that help us believe that we live in a democracy and have some voice in it. Those in power need to keep the hoi polloi docile, don't they?

What I find especially difficult to understand is the incapacity to differenciate between a republic and democracy - despite the fact that the Constitution itself explicitly states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Yet, everyone seems to believe the U.S. is a democratic system and that the U.S. is somehow keeping the world safe for democracy. That smell kosher to you?

One other thought, there is a thesis out there that suggests that the Constitutional Convention had bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether the voting system was fair for the President. You could probably make analogous comments about our efforts in helping the world become more "democratic". Maybe it is time to relook at voting and our system a bit more objectively and with a critical eye. Don't you think?

Actually, Frank Herbert himself was the one that originally complained about Lucas ripping off the story. I've read in various places that he considered a lawsuit. He wrote several pages in a short essay within Eye about this topic where he points out that there are statistically too many similarities for this to be mere coincidence.

I actually finished this book last week. Although, you cannot even begin to compare the writing abilities of father and son, I've enjoyed the new books. Each book has gotten a little bit better and I actually enjoyed this book.. it had good pacing and got you involved in the story. SPOILER??... My only complaint is that it seemed to me that several things that were claimed on the book jacket, like the betrayal that made mortal enemies of Harkonnen and Atreides, were not actually in the story! Maybe I missed something?

I've always liked the the red books.

B&N

Two of the three books from that site (complete with the exact same pictures you flinched at) are available at your local Barnes & Noble (and there is no indication that they won't carry the third, it just looks like they don't).

Radiant Identities
The Last Day of Summer

You're claiming it is "obvious" when a thing is pornography or isn't. Ok, then. Should these images be banned, yes or no? Answer plainly. According to you it isn't a complex question.

Brian_Ellenberger continues:
"Briefly pulled up fetbot.com. It is a collection of bondage and fetish gear links. Pictures of people in bondage and stories would probably be pornographic. Simple discussions would not. For example, if you having a discussion on religion and BSDM it would not be porn because it would not be intended to arouse."

Probably, Brian? "Probably"?? You wrote:

"Come on, its not that hard for a normal human being to look at a picture or a site and tell whether the site is intended for sexual arousal or another purpose (ex. medical)."

Apparently it's hard enough for you to get no closer than "probably". Tell me; how do you plan on probably filtering a picture?

Brian_Ellenberger continues:
If the pics weren't intended to arouse then it wasn't porn.

This is wonderful! Tell me, Brian, what part of the picture tells you the photographers intent?

I dismissed the distinction between obscene and political speech as irrelevant to the argument, Brian_Ellenberger replied:

Why, because it refutes most of your argument? You have the freedom to view as much porn as you like it America. The Chinese are not free to read political dissent. Your comparison of US vs. Chinese is flawed because of this.

No, this response knocks down an argument that I never had (strawman attack). I'm not concerned with the distinction because both are encroachments on access to knowledge whose boundaries are determined by someone who feels they know better. Which, as much as I am enjoying your "everyone knows what porn is but I don't know if that was porn" contortions, is the real issue.

"So you expect libraries to carry every book in existence?"

I expect to have access to the ones they purchased with my tax money. I also expect to be able to use the internet tools that my tax money bought. This is getting silly and your sincerity toward this argument is coming into doubt.

Lets be specific and stop dancing around this...

Some libraries have the internet available and paid for with tax money. You are the "moving party." You're requesting a restriction. The onus is upon you to provide a reason to restrict, not for me to provide are reason to not restrict. If you question this, my obvious reply is going to be that everything in the public sector does not start off as being restricted and people have to sue for access (well, maybe ICANN, but that's another rant). So...

1. On what basis do you wish to restrict certain content?
2. Who or what body decides what qualifies as being within the restriction bracket?
3. Will your tool filter ONLY restricted material and if so, how do you plan on accomplishing this?
4. Why should the responsibility be shifted to the library?

As a side note -- and I say this with no intention whatsoever of painting you as a closet porn aficianado (child or otherwise) -- but I have serious concerns about people who think that there is something so offensive that *I* shouldn't be able to see it. Who has the problem here? I can, and have, looked through some Sturges books. The pictures are beautiful. I think that "offensive" has nothing to do with the intent of the creator but everything to do with the response of the viewer.

And yes, even in a library. One problem with your "you can still view it in your home" argument is that you think that everyone in America has a computer and an internet connection. For a very large subset of people you are blocking their only access point.

I will suggest that you're placing a major burden on an already-stressed resource to attach a very imperfect, technical solution to correct a non-problem whose boundaries are set by political whim. Very bad idea.

Two of the three books from that site (complete with the exact same pictures you flinched at) are available at your local Barnes & Noble (and there is no indication that they won't carry the third, it just looks like they don't).

Radiant Identities
The Last Day of Summer

You're claiming it is "obvious" when a thing is pornography or isn't. Ok, then. Should these images be banned, yes or no? Answer plainly. According to you it isn't a complex question.

Brian_Ellenberger continues:
"Briefly pulled up fetbot.com. It is a collection of bondage and fetish gear links. Pictures of people in bondage and stories would probably be pornographic. Simple discussions would not. For example, if you having a discussion on religion and BSDM it would not be porn because it would not be intended to arouse."

Probably, Brian? "Probably"?? You wrote:

"Come on, its not that hard for a normal human being to look at a picture or a site and tell whether the site is intended for sexual arousal or another purpose (ex. medical)."

Apparently it's hard enough for you to get no closer than "probably". Tell me; how do you plan on probably filtering a picture?

Brian_Ellenberger continues:
If the pics weren't intended to arouse then it wasn't porn.

This is wonderful! Tell me, Brian, what part of the picture tells you the photographers intent?

I dismissed the distinction between obscene and political speech as irrelevant to the argument, Brian_Ellenberger replied:

Why, because it refutes most of your argument? You have the freedom to view as much porn as you like it America. The Chinese are not free to read political dissent. Your comparison of US vs. Chinese is flawed because of this.

No, this response knocks down an argument that I never had (strawman attack). I'm not concerned with the distinction because both are encroachments on access to knowledge whose boundaries are determined by someone who feels they know better. Which, as much as I am enjoying your "everyone knows what porn is but I don't know if that was porn" contortions, is the real issue.

"So you expect libraries to carry every book in existence?"

I expect to have access to the ones they purchased with my tax money. I also expect to be able to use the internet tools that my tax money bought. This is getting silly and your sincerity toward this argument is coming into doubt.

Lets be specific and stop dancing around this...

Some libraries have the internet available and paid for with tax money. You are the "moving party." You're requesting a restriction. The onus is upon you to provide a reason to restrict, not for me to provide are reason to not restrict. If you question this, my obvious reply is going to be that everything in the public sector does not start off as being restricted and people have to sue for access (well, maybe ICANN, but that's another rant). So...

1. On what basis do you wish to restrict certain content?
2. Who or what body decides what qualifies as being within the restriction bracket?
3. Will your tool filter ONLY restricted material and if so, how do you plan on accomplishing this?
4. Why should the responsibility be shifted to the library?

As a side note -- and I say this with no intention whatsoever of painting you as a closet porn aficianado (child or otherwise) -- but I have serious concerns about people who think that there is something so offensive that *I* shouldn't be able to see it. Who has the problem here? I can, and have, looked through some Sturges books. The pictures are beautiful. I think that "offensive" has nothing to do with the intent of the creator but everything to do with the response of the viewer.

And yes, even in a library. One problem with your "you can still view it in your home" argument is that you think that everyone in America has a computer and an internet connection. For a very large subset of people you are blocking their only access point.

I will suggest that you're placing a major burden on an already-stressed resource to attach a very imperfect, technical solution to correct a non-problem whose boundaries are set by political whim. Very bad idea.

Two of the three books from that site (complete with the exact same pictures you flinched at) are available at your local Barnes & Noble (and there is no indication that they won't carry the third, it just looks like they don't).

Radiant Identities
The Last Day of Summer

You're claiming it is "obvious" when a thing is pornography or isn't. Ok, then. Should these images be banned, yes or no? Answer plainly. According to you it isn't a complex question.

Brian_Ellenberger continues:
"Briefly pulled up fetbot.com. It is a collection of bondage and fetish gear links. Pictures of people in bondage and stories would probably be pornographic. Simple discussions would not. For example, if you having a discussion on religion and BSDM it would not be porn because it would not be intended to arouse."

Probably, Brian? "Probably"?? You wrote:

"Come on, its not that hard for a normal human being to look at a picture or a site and tell whether the site is intended for sexual arousal or another purpose (ex. medical)."

Apparently it's hard enough for you to get no closer than "probably". Tell me; how do you plan on probably filtering a picture?

Brian_Ellenberger continues:
If the pics weren't intended to arouse then it wasn't porn.

This is wonderful! Tell me, Brian, what part of the picture tells you the photographers intent?

I dismissed the distinction between obscene and political speech as irrelevant to the argument, Brian_Ellenberger replied:

Why, because it refutes most of your argument? You have the freedom to view as much porn as you like it America. The Chinese are not free to read political dissent. Your comparison of US vs. Chinese is flawed because of this.

No, this response knocks down an argument that I never had (strawman attack). I'm not concerned with the distinction because both are encroachments on access to knowledge whose boundaries are determined by someone who feels they know better. Which, as much as I am enjoying your "everyone knows what porn is but I don't know if that was porn" contortions, is the real issue.

"So you expect libraries to carry every book in existence?"

I expect to have access to the ones they purchased with my tax money. I also expect to be able to use the internet tools that my tax money bought. This is getting silly and your sincerity toward this argument is coming into doubt.

Lets be specific and stop dancing around this...

Some libraries have the internet available and paid for with tax money. You are the "moving party." You're requesting a restriction. The onus is upon you to provide a reason to restrict, not for me to provide are reason to not restrict. If you question this, my obvious reply is going to be that everything in the public sector does not start off as being restricted and people have to sue for access (well, maybe ICANN, but that's another rant). So...

1. On what basis do you wish to restrict certain content?
2. Who or what body decides what qualifies as being within the restriction bracket?
3. Will your tool filter ONLY restricted material and if so, how do you plan on accomplishing this?
4. Why should the responsibility be shifted to the library?

As a side note -- and I say this with no intention whatsoever of painting you as a closet porn aficianado (child or otherwise) -- but I have serious concerns about people who think that there is something so offensive that *I* shouldn't be able to see it. Who has the problem here? I can, and have, looked through some Sturges books. The pictures are beautiful. I think that "offensive" has nothing to do with the intent of the creator but everything to do with the response of the viewer.

And yes, even in a library. One problem with your "you can still view it in your home" argument is that you think that everyone in America has a computer and an internet connection. For a very large subset of people you are blocking their only access point.

I will suggest that you're placing a major burden on an already-stressed resource to attach a very imperfect, technical solution to correct a non-problem whose boundaries are set by political whim. Very bad idea.

I believe you're actually referring to "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller. It's a really interesting view of Batman, and as far as I know is the comic book (er, graphic novel) that influenced the modern portrayals of a dark and brooding Batman (as opposed to the Adam West Batman TV series).

Also see this comment for a link to this book at Amazon, or use this link to check it out at Barnes & Noble.

States plan to use the extra revenue to try and buy Slashdot editors a copy of Strunk and White, so they're grammar will be better then it is now.

You left out the eBay Community!

Maybe you should read the book about eBay.

I suggest you increase your "experiences" a bit more and read up on autism here.

Or check this out. It's a list of symptoms from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (commonly referred to as "The DSM IV").

Sure, a lot of us geeks fit the criteria, but one must be very careful to not confuse introversion with autism. :-)

A good place to start would be Max Boot's _The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power_, which is a history of small-scale military engagements which the US has participated in -- from the conflicts with the Barbary Pirates starting in 1800 through the present.

You can find a review of Mr. Boot's book from the History News Network (with some discussion of the subject) here, or order it here.

In short, what you'll find is that out of over 100 military campaigns the US has participated in, from the dawn of our nation through the present, less than a dozen have been declared wars. This suggests that the body of precedent backs up what I have said...

Jeff was a little more than one of the early macintosh engineers. He was the originator of the Macintosh project. The guy who decided to call the Mac a "Mac". Though he originally wanted to call it the McIntosh, there was a high level audio component manufacturer of the same name and Apple's lawyers decided to change the spelling of the name to "Macintosh". Though as Theodore Nelson pointed out in his classic geek opus Computer Lib/Dream Machines, the name "Macintosh" if you actually followed the rules of English syntax would be pronounced "Mah-Sin-Tosh".

I'm on a reading tear at the moment of old computer books where they are talking about the design of the interfaces that we have all come to know and love (books from a time when these were all new ideas). I plan on topping it off with Jeff Raskin's new book.

As far as actually designing interfaces goes, several of my friends who actually design interfaces for a living have claimed that this book has been a tremendous help in providing a direction and design philosophy. Most people who design interfaces for the web, for instance, don't seem to ask themselves questions like "How would I design a telephone if I had never seen, never heard of what this device was or was supposed to do".

Jeff was a little more than one of the early macintosh engineers. He was the originator of the Macintosh project. The guy who decided to call the Mac a "Mac". Though he originally wanted to call it the McIntosh, there was a high level audio component manufacturer of the same name and Apple's lawyers decided to change the spelling of the name to "Macintosh". Though as Theodore Nelson pointed out in his classic geek opus Computer Lib/Dream Machines, the name "Macintosh" if you actually followed the rules of English syntax would be pronounced "Mah-Sin-Tosh".

I'm on a reading tear at the moment of old computer books where they are talking about the design of the interfaces that we have all come to know and love (books from a time when these were all new ideas). I plan on topping it off with Jeff Raskin's new book.

As far as actually designing interfaces goes, several of my friends who actually design interfaces for a living have claimed that this book has been a tremendous help in providing a direction and design philosophy. Most people who design interfaces for the web, for instance, don't seem to ask themselves questions like "How would I design a telephone if I had never seen, never heard of what this device was or was supposed to do".

MINIX is a great educational tool. We used it in my undergrad Operating Systems course. Operating Systems: Design and Implementation is a very good book, and even includes the source code to MINIX as an appendix. Being able to make operating system hacks in a few minutes is really great.

Codenotes for Web-Based Ui

I've only read skimmed through it a bit while at the store, but everything I read it in was quite helpful and interesting.

Anyone have any good recommendations on geek books suitable for 26+ hours of flying

26+ hours? Are you coming from Oz or New Zealand? ;-)

I'd suggest-- as you might guess from my nickname-- two of Vernor Vinge's novels: A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky. The two are technically a novel and its prequel, but they're really only linked thematically. And they're both outstanding works of science fiction with particular appeal to computer geeks. Both are available in paperback, but they're long enough by far to keep you occupied while you're en route.

Eighteen months ago, my official org-charted job title was "Programmer-at-Arms," inspired by Deepness. These are two really cool books.

Anyone have any good recommendations on geek books suitable for 26+ hours of flying

26+ hours? Are you coming from Oz or New Zealand? ;-)

I'd suggest-- as you might guess from my nickname-- two of Vernor Vinge's novels: A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky. The two are technically a novel and its prequel, but they're really only linked thematically. And they're both outstanding works of science fiction with particular appeal to computer geeks. Both are available in paperback, but they're long enough by far to keep you occupied while you're en route.

Eighteen months ago, my official org-charted job title was "Programmer-at-Arms," inspired by Deepness. These are two really cool books.

• Deep Blue was effectively a 10 TeraOp/sec machine. (Since Deep Fritz runs on eight x86 boxes at 4000 mips each at most, DF's hardware is at least 300 times slower than DB's).
• Deep Blue was built with 0.6 micron CMOS and evaluated 200M nodes/sec with 480 parallel chips. A new version built from 0.13 micron CMOS could evaluate 1 billion nodes/sec. A parallel version could evaluate a trillion nodes/sec.
• Deep Fritz's promoters are guilty of false advertising when they claim their program beat Deep Blue in 1995. They could not have beaten Deep Blue in 1995 because Deep Blue did not exist in 1995. The machine they beat was Deep Thought II, a forerunner of Deep Blue with much less chess knowledge, 100 times less raw hardware speed, and 1000 times less effective speed.
• Hsu says he could write a program today that would kick the stuffing out of Deep Fritz, "even in a simul". I presume that he means using Deep Blue-type parallel hardware so it could massively out-search a pure-software implementation like Deep Fritz. With that type of hardware, he's probably right. With pure software, I'd have to ask him to prove it.
• Hsu has a book out about the Deep Blue-Kasparov match, "Behind Deep Blue". It's written for popular audiences and is not very technical, apparently. (I've ordered a copy but hadn't heard of it til seeing the chat transcript).
• The IBM Deep Blue 2 hardware is being donated to the Smithsonian Institution. It's kinda sorta possible that it could be made operational again some day.

Either way, I don't think this match has anything like the quality of the Kasparov-DB2 match.

Close, but not quite.

The Alt.Cyberpunk.Chatsubo Anthology, a bunch of Gibson fanfic from the usenet group of the same name, cost $200 to publish at iUniverse (another subsidy POD publisher like xLibris). It has earned that out in royalties, meaning it has sold more copies than there are authors. It is available through Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and whatever brick&mortar stores chose to stock it (or you can have them order it with the ISBN 0595213332).
Or the "Information Wants To Be Free" crowd can read the entire archives on Google and pick what they want and save $20. (POD books are typically in Trade Paperback size, but are about 50% more expensive than conventional printing--triple that of Mass Market, but cheaper than hardback).
Or you can cherry pick a couple of mine here and here.

This might be funnier if it weren't true.

Never trust the media to correctly use technical terms (just think of the hacker/cracker debate). The best book I ever saw about demographics and generations was Boom, Bust and Echo. It focuses on Canadian demographics (the country which also has the most pronounced baby boom in the world), and it defines Generation X as those born from 1960 to 1966. Here is a chart from that book. It defines 1967 to 1979 as the "Baby Bust".

Generation X is the tail end of the boomers. The idea is, when they got out of high school, the job market was saturated with previous boomers already trying to make their way up the corporate ladders. Many Gen Xers went back to school, came out and still ended up not being able to find work.

I would recommend that book for other reasons - it is easy to read, and really thought provoking, no matter what country you're from.

This phenomenon is well-documented in Clayton Christensen's book The Innovator's Dilemma. It's an interesting read.

Check out Perl to Python Migration by Martin Brown. Sure, it isn't O'Reilly, and it doesn't have "cookbook" in the title, but I've found it a good start for the type of thing you are asking about.

Some web resources of potential interest:

I.S.E.E.
seeing.org
Google search

Some books of potential interest:

Relearning to See
The Bates Method for Better Eyesight Without Glasses
Perfect Sight Without Glasses

With regard to refractive surgery, the cornea generally heals (scars) very slowly, over the course of years or decades, so the long term effects of refractive surgery may not yet be well understood. In my opinion, for persons with eyesight that can easily be corrected to near 20/20, refractive surgery is risky and reckless (especially so if your livelihood depends on your eyesight). See surgicaleyes.org for stories from the dark side of refractive surgery.

Some web resources of potential interest:

I.S.E.E.
seeing.org
Google search

Some books of potential interest:

Relearning to See
The Bates Method for Better Eyesight Without Glasses
Perfect Sight Without Glasses

With regard to refractive surgery, the cornea generally heals (scars) very slowly, over the course of years or decades, so the long term effects of refractive surgery may not yet be well understood. In my opinion, for persons with eyesight that can easily be corrected to near 20/20, refractive surgery is risky and reckless (especially so if your livelihood depends on your eyesight). See surgicaleyes.org for stories from the dark side of refractive surgery.

Er... maybe you should re-read the poem. The last stanza in particular. That's where the quote comes from.

Except the phrase "The Road Less Traveled" is more closely associated with Dr. Peck than with Robert Frost.

Just got round to rechecking the comments on this one, sorry for the late reply. I'm glad you got tomeet those guys on a personal level, I also find that incredibly and highly impressive! You are very lucky for having gotten to witess that highly important patch of history on a personal level.

I can't honestly say that those people were strange/normal based on personal interaction. But the story that is portrayed of daily life there does indeed illustrate very strong characters that were also highly eccentric. The info in that book is all I have to go on, however, and I will certainly not try to refute your personal experiences there.

As far as specific eccentricities, it's a little hard for me to remember particular instances since I read the book about 2-3 years ago.

But one thing that sticks out in my mind from that particular read was the so-caled "dealer sessions". Those were the sessions where they all sat together in a room on bean-bag chairs whilst one of their number stands at a blackboard at the head of the room and "pitches" their (usually revolunary, abstruse and highly technical) idea. If the idea was well received those assembled would respond with high enthusiasm. If it was negative, they would rip it mercilessly to shreds!

If Butler Lampson (portrayed as the most eminent, but also the most elitest and arrogant of a highly elitest and arrogant bunch...again, I wasn't there, this is how it was portrayed)disagreed with your ideas he was particularly fond of hitting you with a basso-profundo "BULLSHIT" with such force it actually hit you in the chest like a bass drum in a marching band (again, as described). This was usually enough to send enough wind out of the sails of the person onstage, they would usually just apologize for wasting everyone's time and slink off the stage. NO one seemed interested in challenging Lampson, one of the most respected and revered of the PARCians.

Until one day (and I wish I could remember who this was) someone decided to stick to his guns and asky "Why? Why is this idea bullshit?" Butler's reply? Was to hurl a glass ashtray at the guys head with such velocity it actually left a divit in the chalkboard behind the speaker. Said divit would no doubt have been in the speaker's head instead of the chalk-board if he hadn't had his adrenaline charged lighting qiuck reflexes to thank!

I'm pretty sure that no one in their right mind would have wanted to challenge the 800lb Gorilla that was Lampson! However, if true, this portays an extremely eccentric and egotistical 800lb gorilla.

Again, I find it extremely impressive that you got to tour the place in '75. But do you honestly feel that that tour gave you enough of a feel for daily life at PARC? For instance, were you lucky enough to sit on on a "dealer" session? Did you get to present any ideas at such a session?

Also, I agree with your statement that they were basically showing what could be done in the future with a mucho-expensivissimo personal computer. But, until PARC happened, this was not an obvious concept in the least due to the economics of information processing equipment of those days. As the author of that book points out, having a "personal" computer was about as absurd an idea as having a "personal" Boeing 747!

I wasn't lucky enough to have been around in those days, but in my book those people not only changed the world, they ultimately created the one in which we now live in so many ways.

Again, let me restate my admiration for your trip to PARC at this important time.

I think Thank You For Smoking is a better (and funnier) book by the same author. Good stuff: "death" lobbyists, advertising, evil plots, dangerous nicotine patches, etc. etc.

David Pressman's book Patent It Yourself has proved a pretty good step-by-step reference for doing this. It's only forty bucks, a heck of a lot less than what you would have to give to some leech^H^H^H^Hawyer.

Let's just pass over the comment that this particular idea hasn't been used to death and introduce you to the movie Millenium in which Humans from the future travel back in time and harvest people who history records as having died in airline crashes into the future... It bares a passing resemblance to Freejack starring Emilo and our ever lovable Sting. No UFOs in the latter movie, however. No, this idea hasn't been trodden, beat, raped and otherwise set aflame now, has it?