Donald Knuth On NPR

StratoFlyer writes "This morning, NPR is running an interview with Donald Knuth titled Donald Knuth, Founding Artist of Computer Science. The persistence of this man is extraordinary, if not heroic. RealPlayer and MediaPlayer feeds will be available at 10am EST, according to the NPR.org site." Indeed they are.

Comments

Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

The persistence of this man is extraordinary, if not heroic

What is that supposed to me? Especially the bit about "heroic"?

Re:Explain

[Jerrry]

Someone who accomplishes something important at great risk to his own life is a hero, not someone who plods along for years at a job no matter how important his contributions.

Re:Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. So how is he a "hero"? That term is used so loosely today it's lost all it's real meaning.

Re:Explain

[kin_korn_karn]

perhaps Mr. Knuth is a sandwich made on a long bun.

Re:Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Relax, he was comparing him to a sandwich.

Re:Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

The original greek word means 'demi-god', and so its use in describing someone who makes an exemplary contribution in a field of endeavour is entirely legitimate. You may wish to use it to only refer to people who have done something risky, but that is not the entire meaning of the word.

Re:Explain

[Leadhyena]

It means he does a good job at dodging the garbage collector.

Re:Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

hero ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hîr)
n. pl. heroes

1) In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.

Nope.

2) A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.

Nope.

3) A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity.

Yep.

4) The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.

Nope

See definition 3. If you're still confused, learn to read the dictionary. Maybe you were sick that day during grade school.

Re:Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone who spends most of their life serving others is also a hero. If you need some kind of hollywood twist, you can view this as willingly sacrificing their life for others. To be a hero, generally an element of altruism is needed, not just doing something important at great risk to your own life.

The difference between taking a man's life, and taking his time, is a matter of degree - Frank Herbet.

Re:Explain

[twoshortplanks]

Someone who accomplishes something important at great risk to his own life is a hero, not someone who plods along for years at a job no matter how important his contributions.

So what you're saying is, someone who is willing to (potentially) give up their life is heroic, but someone who is prepared to dedicate their life to a goal is not? That someone who gambles their life, knowing that they may or may not be successful and return to a 'normal' life is more heroic than someone who instead knowingly commits to spending the rest of their life, year after year, trying to achieve something?

Re:Explain

[Jerrry]

You may wish to use it to only refer to people who have done something risky, but that is not the entire meaning of the word.

It may not be the entire meaning of the word, but it is certainly the meaning that has stood the test of time--except perhaps in the current Age of the Wimp where people such as sports stars, movie stars, and rappers are considered heroes.

Real heros are people such as Alan Shepard, Charles Lindbergh, and the men who participated in the Normany landings in 1944. To call people such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Shaquille O'Neil "heroes" is an insult to all of the true heroes out there.

Re:Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

"But enough about what my wife tells me."

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about, and no respect for relations of traumatic experiences.

You're one of the few people who, when I see the red dot by your name, I remember exactly why I foe'd you. Typically, I un-foe people I can't remember. But you're just stuck there, aren't you?

Bastard.

Look through your comment history and freak list if you care who I am. I'll gladly talk via email.

Re:Explain

[Thud457]

1. WTF are you babbling about, Sunshine? I'm reading at -1, and your post looks like a non sequiter from the parent
2. Knuth should explain how to properly go about computerized voting while he's got some media attention.

Re:Explain

[kin_korn_karn]

...and you are?

Re:Explain

[Kosgrove]

Charles Lindbergh was a vehement anti-Semite and a Nazi symphathizer, so you might want to be even more careful about who you put the mantle of "hero" on.

Oh, he also had an affair with a woman not his wife for 24 years, and hid from his children the identity of their father.

Not to mention that his flight across the Atlantic wasn't just for altrusitic purposes - it was for a monetary prize as well.

Re:Explain

[gshub77]

Although you are absolutely correct, I would suggest a slight amendment. He is a hero of Computer Science but not a hero in general, according to how you read the definition I think I am correct in that statement. That is to say that we are drawing a distinction between a square being a rectangle and a rectangle not always a square. Jim Leyritz may have been a baseball hero for a night but by no means is he a hero.

Re:Explain

[mirko]

Nice Godwin.
Besides this, CL has done something really heroic by making it possible to cross the Atlantic.
Now, this doesn't compensate the other unrelated issues you mention and this doesn't make you, neither the GP heroes for taking the risk of arguing on Slashdot ;)

Re:Explain

[araemo]

Besides this, CL has done something really heroic by making it possible to cross the Atlantic.

While I have not studied that particular first, how does being the first one to cross the atlantic mean you made it possible. It's been possible for a long time, and I'd say the person who invented the plane had more to do with it.. or the person who invented the type of engine Mr. Lindeburgh used, or the person who designed his plane. It's not like he was the first PERSON to fly across the atlantic non-stop.. he was just the first to do it solo, which honestly isn't very usefull, since any commercial enterprise would have two people for safety.

On a more serious note, why should a word like that be relegated only to people who do something foolhardy(If they properly plan it, lots of people say "Thats no real hero, he was a pussy and took precautions!".. but kids want to BE heroes.. why shoudl we be telling kids that it is good to take unnecessary risks?)

Re:Explain

[Mr Z]

Precisely. There's a big difference between Burt Rutan and his various pilots... (Dick Rutan and Jeanna Yeager from Voyager, Mark Melvill and Brian Binnie for SpaceShip One).

Did Mark Melvill make private spaceflight possible? Did Jeanna Yeager or Dick Rutan make around-the-world-on-a-tank-of-gas flight possible? (Or even Steve Fossett w/ GlobalFlyer, which Burt contributed to?) More likely, Burt Rutan made those possible, with the help of all the people who fund, support and participate in his ventures.

In contrast, though, we remember Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin more than we remember all the folks at Mission Control or all the engineers at NASA, Grumman, Bell, Lockheed, Delco, etc. that made Apollo 11 possible.

The hero tag's in the eye of the beholder.

--Joe

Re:Explain

[Jerrry]

No. Someone who dedicates their life to helping others may be praiseworthy, but they're not a hero.

Re:Explain

[bjtuna]

perhaps Mr. Knuth is a sandwich made on a long bun.


Hey, where I come from, that's called a "wedge".

Re:Explain

[Jerrry]

In contrast, though, we remember Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin more than we remember all the folks at Mission Control or all the engineers at NASA, Grumman, Bell, Lockheed, Delco, etc. that made Apollo 11 possible.

Yeah, but Armstrong and Aldrin (and Collins) were the guys with their asses on the line during the mission. If anything went wrong, they were the ones who might have paid with their lives.

Re:Explain

[Jerrry]

Charles Lindbergh was a vehement anti-Semite and a Nazi symphathizer, so you might want to be even more careful about who you put the mantle of "hero" on.

The U.S. government officially put the mantle of "hero" on Lindbergh by awarding him the Congressional Medal of Honor for his trans-Atlantic flight.

Here's the citation:

For displaying heroic courage and skill as a navigator, at the risk of his life, by his nonstop flight in his airplane, the Spirit of St. Louis, from New York City to Paris, France, 20-21 May 1927, by which Capt. Lindbergh not only achieved the greatest individual triumph of any American citizen but demonstrated that travel across the ocean by aircraft was possible.

Re:Explain

[Bush Pig]

Well ... he qualifies for 1 as well. After all, he _is_ a living god.

Re:Explain

[pilkul]

someone who instead knowingly commits to spending the rest of their life, year after year, trying to achieve something?

Doesn't that make secretaries and manufacturing workers heroes too? They are working to the best of their capacity to support their families. No, heroism involves sacrifice, and working all your life at something you love like Knuth is no sacrifice. If anything manufacturing workers are more heroic than Knuth because many of them hate their jobs but suffer on anyway.

Your definition seems like a Special-Olympics one that makes us all heroes. Look, Knuth is a great guy but he's not a hero.

Re:Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

There are multiple senses of the word heroic. One is related to personal danger and sacrifice for the community. Another one is related to the size of a task one is tackling, but not necessarily its value. So, in short, the word does apply, but if you want to make a statement about the value of the work to anyone, you have to be a bit more explicit and specific. Just saying that "Knuth's work was heroic" doesn't mean it was worthwhile; it might have been a heroic waste of time.

Re:Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. government officially put the mantle of "hero" on Lindbergh

And no one here would ever question the judgement of the US government.

Re:Explain

[lgw]

You seem attached to your own special definition of hero, in the face of common usage. In the common usage, we have sports heros. Here's my own special definition, to quote Peart:

Hero ... is the voice of reason
against the howling mob
Hero is the pride of purpose
In the unrewarding job
Hero ... not the champion player
Who plays the perfect game
Hero ... not the glamour boy
Who loves to sell his name

From "Nobody's Hero". Wow, was it that many years ago? Secretaries and manufacturing workers can be heros too. It's about effort, not sacrifice, at least to judge by the stories preserved in mythology from which the concept of a hero comes.

Re:Explain

[Principal Skinner]

Mmmmm.... open-faced club: sand wedge.... Ghraaaalhhgh.

Re:Explain

[ErroneousBee]

2 Also applies, nobility of purpose. He could have sold out to industry but chose to write some really big books instead.

Re:Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

How odd. I was listening to the Rhythm Method while reading that. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Re:Explain

[kin_korn_karn]

if you open-face your sand wedge you'll end up with a bad slice.

Donald Knuth on NPR?

[n0dalus]

Is NPR some kind of drug? If so where can I get some? I wan't to be on NPR too.

Re:Donald Knuth on NPR?

[worst_name_ever]

Is NPR some kind of drug?

Judging by the strung-out feeling this news junkie gets during the accursed pledge drive week, I'd say yes it is.

Re:Donald Knuth on NPR?

[Anonymous Coward]

National Public Radio.

Re:Donald Knuth on NPR?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job on getting joke.

Re:Donald Knuth on NPR?

[MojoSF]

Luckily here in L.A. when KPCC (89.3) goes on pledge drive, you can switch over to KCRW (89.9), and vice versa.

I still send in a pledge, but it spares me from listening to the begging. :)

Re:Donald Knuth on NPR?

[Guppy06]

My solution.

Not only does it bypass local pledge drives, but the two flavors of NPR they carry that I listen to are all talk; classical music is reserved for the classical music streams.

Re:Donald Knuth on NPR?

[wcrowe]

Yes, NPR is a mild sedative. Do not drive or operate machinery while listening to NPR.

Re:Donald Knuth on NPR?

[Mr Z]

I find it makes rush hour much more palatable. The boost meter on my car (supercharged) seems to stay at 0 boost and my gas mileage improves, too. When I switch the music back on (industrial, usually), I get too many speeding tickets...

Re:Donald Knuth on NPR?

[wcrowe]

Truth is, I listen to NPR in the morning too. In fact, I heard this morning's broadcast on Knuth. But I couldn't resist the barb. Fact is, some days it is dreadfully, dreadfully dull.

Re:Donald Knuth on NPR?

[fLameDogg]

Hmm. I listened to it every morning, myself, for three years, while driving to work.

Based on the "must defy death" standard some /.ers are applying, does that make me a hero?

I'll tell you what's heroic

[Weaselmancer]

Posting Realplayer feeds on Slashdot's main page. If they're available for more than 5 minutes, then that's heroic.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[Taladar]

Being in Real Player format they were unavailable to most of us even before they got posted on /. so there is no harm done.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[MyLongNickName]

A Microsoft product, and a comparable non-Microsoft product are referenced in the article. The non-Microsoft product gets slammed first. I can't think of a better demonstration of the crappy corporate practices of Real.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[theCoder]

If you have mplayer configured correctly, you can download it (no streaming required) under Linux:

mplayer -ao pcm -aofile npr4532247.wav 'rtsp://real.npr.na-central.speedera.net:80/real.n pr.na-central/me/20050314_me_06.rm'

oggenc -b 64 npr4532247.wav -o npr4532247.ogg

rm npr4532247.wav

Ignore any spaces in the rtsp link (slashcode inserts them to prevent page widening). The link itself comes from the smil file you get when you try to listen to the show on the NPR site.

I have a script that uses a similar method to grab the latest episode of Car Talk every week.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[grazzy]

Woah.. that was easy.. I can see the Linux desktop revolution nearing!

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[kwoff]

• How many GUIs give you the option of not streaming? You at least have a chance to do it.
• How hard would it be to script that and wrap it in a GUI?

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[Alien Being]

"Woah.. that was easy"

Yep, cut+paste. Try explaining how to save/convert that file in Windows using only a mouse.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't store it as Vorbis, try Speex instead, it's better for speech. First converted the .wav to 16000Hz sample rate, then speexed at default settings, and it was a nice 1.9meg file... and the quality was still pretty amazing.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you please post a torrent?

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[Just Some Guy]

I know you're joking, but for me that's the truth. My wife wanted to record a Realaudio stream from a site to burn to CD via her Mac. I'm not aware of any other gratis means of doing this, let alone libre methods. I'd much rather whip up a little wxPython GUI to mplayer that I can share with others than spend time and money finding similar functionality elsewhere.

By the way, if such a thing already exists: this first came up late last night and I'd forgotten about it until I read the grandparent post, so it's not like I've spent much effort in the search. :-)

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[pilkul]

To be fair, they appear to have changed heart recently. Their CEO has publicly stated that they are trying to improve on their past players (see this slashdot interview), and Realplayer 10 is notably less nasty than the previous versions. The free player link on their website is much easier to find now too.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[runderwo]

Or you could take the "lame" way out and do mplayer -dumpstream rtsp://.... - it'll leave you with a Real format file, but save you from the sarcastic bitching about how hard command line utilities are to use.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[adric]

I have a script that uses a similar method to grab the latest episode of Car Talk every week.

Any chance you'd be willing to share this one?

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[strider44]

That was the cut-and-paste method. The alternative method (assuming you have the mplayer plugin installed and you've told it to keep streamed videos like most people) is to just visit the site.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[cthulhu11]

So evil spirits will prevent my fingers from typing that on something that isn't a Linux?

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[a24061]

I have a script that uses a similar method to grab the latest episode of Car Talk every week.

I've got some scripts but I think they could be improved. Could you post yours for comparison?

Thanks.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[grazzy]

Libre as in free cuban cigars?

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[Gulthek]

Dude, WireTap is all you need.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[Just Some Guy]

That looks like it'd do exactly what I want, but it's hardly gratis or libre by any definition. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but that's not what I'm looking for. Thanks for the pointer, though.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[Gulthek]

Wiretap allows free use (read the top of the page) that will record any audio playing straight to an .aiff file. Which is exactly what the original, free, version did. You can then convert that to whatever format you like. Wiretap Pro just automates that stuff for you and allows nifty things like scheduled recordings.

Re:download

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit, I'm on the way to work. :/ Can't see it.

Pretty good piece

[Concern]

Knuth came across as charming, and funny, and classically geeky, re-computing the size of a piece of paper necessary for making a five-pointed star with one cut and rattling off the equation behind it, or describing his mental process behind brushing his teeth, but also clearly grounded in continuing scholarly work.

The narrator also mentions he's "abandoned email." Interesting detail, especially as I contemplate the 995 messages in my inbox this morning (80% spam, 19% mailing lists), I am starting to wonder why I don't get around to it myself.

Re:Pretty good piece

[Anonymous Coward]

The narrator also mentions he's "abandoned email." Interesting detail, especially as I contemplate the 995 messages in my inbox this morning (80% spam, 19% mailing lists), I am starting to wonder why I don't get around to it myself.

He sure has: Knuth versus Email

Re:Pretty good piece

[bunratty]

You can still send him an email. His secretary prints it out on a laser printer, and Knuth stops by and picks it up and reads it. If it's worthy of a response, he writes on the paper with what looks to be a mechanical pencil and snail mails it back.

Looking at his response to my email I sent him in 1999, I'm suddenly stuck with a mystery. How did he get my address? I don't see it anywhere on the email I sent him!

Re:Pretty good piece

[Pfhreakaz0id]

have you not heard of bayesian filtering? I don't get spam. Check out spambayes

Re:Pretty good piece

[Anonymous Coward]

I note that the two email addresses contained in that linked page are in plain, non-munged text. His poor secretary must have to wade to tons of spam due to his failure take simple precautions.

Re:Pretty good piece

[hey]

Yeah, that's a great idea. I'll just get my secretary to process my mail also. Er.

Re:Pretty good piece

[qray]

So when did he give up his phone? I find the phone a far worse interrupter than e-mail err email.

Honestly it's interesting that people seem to be unable to ignore such devices. I feel for his secretary, much easier to view and hit delete than opening all those envelopes and tossing them out. Electrons are much easier to get and get rid of than wood pulp.

Hopefully no one in this interview asked him some silly question like "How should I get my software published?" That was asked of Knuth at one event I attended. I guess the person asking the question had no idea who the speaker was.

--
hutro mocked wedtrop

Re:Pretty good piece

[bunratty]

I think I figured it out. His secretary emailed me that Knuth gave his response and she was supposed to mail it to me, and she asked for my address. I was beginning to think Knuth has some mysterious locating powers!

Anyway, you can see that Knuth really hasn't given up email entirely -- he just does it by proxy so he's not constantly interrupted.

Re:Pretty good piece

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to know how Donald Knuth found a piece of information? Maybe it's time to re-read Volume 3?

I'm sure that he found it by walking the paths from Stanford to your address using Dijkstra's alogrithm to find the shortest route. And he did it without ever crossing the Koningsburg bridge!

Re:Pretty good piece

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you replied that

"you have given up on physical mail, and if he wants to contact you she needs to use a carrier pigeon"

though, in fairness, I suppose you should let him mail your secretary and she can load the bird..

Re:Pretty good piece

[Ohreally_factor]

The ideal is that the only people you give your number to are people that you want to talk to. No doubt Dr. Knuth is careful about whom he gives his number. On top of that, he has a secretary to screen calls.

Slightly different, but similar thinking with the email. Email might make communications with Dr. Knuth more convenient for both the Dr. and the correspondent, but Knuth sacrifices this ease as a means of filtering. Someone of Knuth's stature might get hundreds, if not thousands of "legitimate" pieces of e-mail a day, after filtering for spam.

I'm not telling you anything you're not already aware of. And certainly, our presence here on slashdot indicates that we're not currently worried about interruptions. Still, one can't help but be impressed with such as Dr. Knuth if for no other reason that he's completely set up his life to do what he wants exactly as he sees fit. He wants to be let alone to think and to write.

Re:Pretty good piece

[qray]

Slightly different, but similar thinking with the email. Email might make communications with Dr. Knuth more convenient for both the Dr. and the correspondent, but Knuth sacrifices this ease as a means of filtering.

Good point, I can see the value in it as a filtering tool. If someone isn't going to put forth the effort to print a letter, stuff it in an envelope and mail it, the correspondance is probably not that valuable to him.

I guess my anonymity affords me the filtering I need today. Maybe someday I'll have to resort to Knuth's filtering method ;-)

--
ictrop ractro prador vagre

TeX

[elgatozorbas]

Donald Knuth is legendary in the computer science world for writing a series of must-have reference books called The Art of Computer Programming. Part cookbook, part textbook, part encyclopedia, these books are also considered by many to be technical and personal works of art.

Of much more practical importance to most: he is also the creator of TeX (from which LaTeX etc emerged). When he was dissatisfied with the way magazines printed his articles, he did what every other geek would have done, i.e. invented his own typesetting language. Et voilla.

Re:TeX

[Otik2]

Not only that, but he chose a great numbering scheme for TeX. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX :

TeX has an idiosyncratic version numbering system. Since version 3, updates have been indicated by adding an extra digit at the end of the decimal, so that the version number asymptotically approaches . The current version is 3.141592. This is a reflection of the fact that TeX is now very stable, and only minor updates are anticipated. Knuth has stated that the "absolutely final change (to be made after my death)" will be to change the version number to , at which point all remaining bugs will become features.

So it's both useful and cool.

Re:TeX

[Anonymous Coward]

When he was dissatisfied with the way magazines printed his articles, he did what every other geek would have done, i.e. invented his own typesetting language.

You mean he didn't piss and moan about it on Slashdot?

Re:TeX

[commonchaos]

Not only that, he did a very good job at it. Lately, I've been using LaTeX to typeset everything I write. From my letters to my documentation at work. I'm always amazed at the power that LaTeX has.

Re:TeX

[14erCleaner]

he is also the creator of TeX

My personal Knuth story: in 1979, when I was just starting graduate school at the University of Illinois, Knuth came on campus to give three lectures as that year's Gillies Lecture.

At the time, the second edition of Volume I had just come out, and everybody was eagerly awaiting volumes 4 through 7. The lectures were all packed, and the great man, inventor of LR parsing and author of the definitive tome on computer science, spoke on...

typesetting and fonts.

Don't get me wrong, the lectures were interesting, but it didn't seem all that fundamental to computer science, if you get my meaning. 25 years later, we're still waiting for volume 4 to be completed, but at least the new editions of 1-3 had nice fonts.

The following year, Douglas Hofstadter came to campus to speak. This was fairly soon after Godel, Escher, Bach came out, so we were all excited to see what cool and interesting CS things he would lecture on. His lecture turned to be on...

typesetting and fonts.

I guess it was just the thing to do at that time; little did I suspect that much of the productivity of US offices in the 90's would be spent selecting fonts for documents. I guess great thinkers are just ahead of their time.

Re:TeX

[sigmoid_balance]

Of much more practical use to most: he is the co-author of Knuth-Morris-Pratt, linear-time, string matching algorithm. Great thing, I recommend everyone who is interested in computer science to spend some time trying to understand it.

About his books, well ... they fall in that category of books everyone says he read, but none actually did. They are much to complicated, and thus useless for all things except library space consumer (they are too expensive to keep as a door jam). This is probably why they have on the back that Bill Gates quote.

Re:TeX

[Anonymous Coward]

Lately, I've been using LaTeX to typeset everything I write. From my letters to my documentation at work. I'm always amazed at the power that LaTeX has.

So am I.

For at least five minutes, every time I try to use it. Then I need to include a character that isn't in Knuth's proprietary character set, and I curse and sweat for about two hours before giving up and going back to OpenOffice.org, which may be less powerful, but does at least support Unicode.

(No, Lambda is not a solution. At least, it didn't support any of the more useful LaTeX packages last time I checked.)

Re:TeX

[Anonymous Coward]

so that the version number asymptotically approaches .

to change the version number to , at which point

But there's a hyphen between , and . in the ASCII table.

Your Pi character is missing from the post. Previewing commments rocks.

Re:TeX

[WillAdams]

Take a look at

The Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List, 2,590 symbols tabulated and indexed.

http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/info/symbols/com pr ehensive/symbols-letter.pdf

If you need to do Unicode, the successor to Lambda is called Mem (see recent discussion on the Aleph mailing list), or if you've got access to a Mac OS X box use XeTeX available from http://scripts.sil.org/xetex which allows access to any font available to Mac OS X to TeX.

William

Re:TeX

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard the NPR segment this morning on the way to work and this was mentioned toward the end. The narrator/reporter briefly described the invention but without using the word "TeX."

Re:TeX

[Anonymous Coward]

Previewing commments rocks.

Nuff said.

Re:TeX

[Khalid]

Boyer and moore is much much more elegant and effective for the same purpose and is considered as one of the most elegant algorithms ever invented.

Anyway, Knuth has achieved lots and lots of things and may be considered as one of the biggest computer scientists ever.

Re:TeX

[Anonymous Coward]

Hofstadter's new intro to the 20th (25th maybe?) anniversary edition of GEB goes into the difficulties he had printing the first edition. Read that and then you'll see that he had a really good reason to be thinking about that stuff.

Re:TeX

[Eminence]

You mean he didn't piss and moan about it on Slashdot?

So you actually suggest that Slashdot stifles innovation by providing ample space to whine and moan instead of doing something about it (whatever it is)?

Re:TeX

[alerante]

I find it interesting that the interview was broadcast on Pi Day (3/14).

Re:TeX

[gstoddart]

You mean he didn't piss and moan about it on Slashdot?

All the Slashdots were coal fired and took about 12-hours to crank up to speed and would only run for a few minutes.

They also required really annoying uunet bang-path addressing. You practically had to write your own intraweb from scratch in those days. :-P

Re:TeX

[Principal Skinner]

My guess is, Knuth sharply corrected him in his pronunciation before the interview, and the interviewer decided that the mere pronunciation of the word on the air would cause listeners to turn their dials.

But no, I didn't HTFI, so I may be making my guess on a wildly wrong idea of what was actually broadcast.

Re:TeX

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're affiliated with the site in your sig, you should really tell the marketing droids to tone down their propaganda. E.g., "If you develop software, you need XMS." and "XMS - an Unbeatable Value Proposition". It's this kind of vacuous bullshit that devalues and encourages ever greater bullshit in the fight for PHB 'mindshare'.

Favorite part

[daves]

He used graph theory to lay out his kitchen. The most connected resource? The trash can. It goes in the middle.

Re:Favorite part

[lawpoop]

This is a great idea. Sometimes I imagine my ideal house, and the kitchen table would have a garbage receptacle right in the middle.

Re:Favorite part

[Otter]

A dog would probably be more aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sound, and has the further advantage that it will gladly walk to wherever the food is being discarded.

A goat will address a wider range of garbage, but has head-butting-related disadvantages.

Re:Favorite part

[jdgeorge]

This is a great idea. Sometimes I imagine my ideal house, and the kitchen table would have a garbage receptacle right in the middle.

In my house, the garbage receptacles are seated around the perimeter of the kitchen table.

Re:Favorite part

[Lars T.]

A dog right in the middle of the kitchen table? I'm not so sure about that.

Re:Favorite part

[Bertie]

Well, there's a perfect example of having all the brains in the world and no common sense. I wonder how often he kicks it over?

Re:Favorite part

[Thud457]

The standard location for dog placement is under the center of the table. That way, there's easy access to the dog from any seat. Most dogs are automatically self-positioning.

Less efficient models will move from station to station as needed, but these are more intrusive.

Re:Favorite part

[kurosawdust]

A goat will address a wider range of garbage, but has head-butting-related disadvantages.

Ah, but my dear friend, you have failed to take into account the extra counter-advantage of milk! Dogs cannot provide this reliably, and even if they could one would probably be aesthetically averse to dunking their oreos in a nice cold glass of Dog Milk.

Re:Favorite part

[innerweb]

The only problem with common sense is it is normally wrong.

The best way to understand common sense is to to realize what it is as opposed to what it is defined as.

Common sense is defined as Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment. Think of the contradiction in that definition alone. Sound judgement based on a lack of knowledge. The term worked hundreds of years ago because there was very little if any specialized knowledge. Most *knowledge* were really beliefs (still have a lot of that today). Now, we do have many specialists. As we go forward, specialization will become more and more the only way to qualify for work or to understand what is understood about something as the amoun of knowledge we aquire grows. It will be the only way people will be acepted for what they know. Common sense is on the way out as people realize that common sense really is the same as common ignorance.

How many of you would hire someone to render advice on orthodontics that fits this definition (common sense) with regards to teeth? True, our hero in the story is not a dentist. He is a thinker he has a hunger to understand and aquire information about many things seemingly unrelated to what he does (write books on computer technology). How is that different from the billions of *normal* people who can spew all kinds of totally useless stats about sports and entertainment figure from around the world? It is a mind set. That is why you need to hire people for how they think as much as if not more so than what they currently know. So, this gentleman focuses on knowing things, on thinking about how things are done. As opposed to other people who focus on sports scores and, pop entertainment and what else?

A common person has very little knowledge about much of anything (hence the term commoner is not a good thing Unrefined or coarse in manner; vulgar: behavior that branded him as common ). Some things in the realm of common sense are quite obvious (gravity), but still, it took until Sir Isaac Newton to *discover* gravity. Common sense was, the world had edges (four corners), the Earth was the center of the universe, leeching will cure disease, disease is spread via foul odor (vapor), and many more. Common sense is merely what people in general tend to agree upon. Later they will shown to be idiots. The trully smart people just tend to show them as idiots before they are ready to be shown as idiots.

If brushing our teeth correclty is something not to be thought about, and something that we do right the way we do it, then why do we need dentists and regular checkups? Because the way we brush our teeth is nowhere near *good enough*.

Most of us are idiots about most things and we cling to our idiot thoughts and beliefs as a comfortable chair on a sinking cruise liner. It is far more comforting to believe the ship you are on is not sinking then to be looking frantically for a patch for the large hole we call common sense. Of course, once the water is at your feet, it is too late (stock market crashes, WWI and WWII, VietNam, Oil, Environment, SETI, Education, Debt, Health, Profiteering, Corporations, ...)

InnerWeb

Re:Favorite part

[Ithika]

If I don't get in there someone will:

"Dog's milk last longer than any other milk."

"Why's that?"

"No bugger'll drink it."

---Red Dwarf

Re:Favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming it is just sitting in the middle of the kitchen. My bet is that it is part of the kitchen island.

Re:Favorite part

[2short]

Whereas your post is a perfect example of "common sense".
Just because you are incapable of imagining a way to prevent your trash can from being kicked over doesn't mean Knuth is.

Re:Favorite part

[SA Stevens]

Dairy Dogs would not be economically feasible, as dogs are rather high carnivores. You would have to feed them expensive meat, so the conversion to milk would be uneconomical. Goats, on the other hand, will eat and digest about anything. We've been thinking about a goat or two in the field behind our house. I don't know if they would be dairy goats, though.

Knuth's PicoJava / 8255 Comment

[Anonymous Coward]

The interview was good except for Knuth's odd comment regarding PicoJava and the 8255 chip. Can someone elighten me to what it meant?

I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

I listened to it as well and I think he came off as having some sever social disorders. For instance, who thinks about the 8 parts of your mouth when brushing you teeth. He seems to be a perfectionist to the point of having it interfere with his daily life.

If he was not him then he would be diagnosed with something I'm sure. Maybe OCD, maybe something else but the fact remains, as far as normalcy is concerned, the guy comes up lacking.

As an aside, yes it was a great interview.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fact of our society: If you are really good at math it's ok to be a fricken psycho.

If you are a linguistics genius or a master of philosphy and you have some phobias or social anxiety well it's off to the funny farm with ya...but if you can bang out the differential equations then it's all good!

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Rakshasa Taisab]

The fact of our society is that if you sent them to the funnny farm, you'd have very few people left who were good at math.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, who thinks about the 8 parts of your mouth when brushing you teeth.

My dentist tells me that I should. Even my electric toothbrush automatically marks off times for 4 quadrants of the mouth. Get with the game, dogg!

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[squiggleslash]

The other way of looking at this is that being good at mathematics is a mental illness. I'm having difficulty understanding why you and the grandparent are considering Knuth's perfectionalism a bad thing. Is he anti-social as a result? Does his perfectionism prevent him from leading a safe, furfilling, life?

I see no evidence that it's doing any such thing. He's a brilliant mathematician and computer scientist, and that's all. The world is full of different people. It's also full of arrogant, scared, jerks who do not like differences.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also full of arrogant, scared, jerks who do not like differences.

Many of them geeks themselves!

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

No, my point is if you are "different" and good at math then groupies like yourself will come out to defend him.

But what if he was just some schmoe working at a deli? You'd be like "hey asshole stop obsessing on the pickles and make my sub!". Where's the empathy then, huh?

What about all the masses of "different" people who aren't good at math? Who defends them for being the way they are? No one.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[hey!]

Well, let's hope you never apply for a job doing triage at a psychiatric hospital.

There's a world of difference between amusing yourself with puzzles and being obsessive. When you are obsessive, you can't stop yourself from thinking something even when it distresses or harms you.

Being enormously smarter and more creative than the average person is a form of weirdness, but not a form of sickness.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was not him then he would be diagnosed with something I'm sure. Maybe OCD, maybe something else but the fact remains, as far as normalcy is concerned, the guy comes up lacking.


That attitude is exactly why you sir, will never write one of the great technical novels of our time.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[squiggleslash]

If he's some schmoe working at a deli, and he's obsessing about the pickles to the point that he's not able to make sandwiches, then he's in the wrong job. There's nothing to defend.

It only becomes an issue if you consider the perfectionism to be a mental illness. Which you do, and I don't. Someone not being the right person for the job is not a mental illness.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[IWK]

> he came off as having some sever social disorders
> .... as normalcy is concerned, the guy comes up
> lacking

Ah, judicious terms like "disorder" and "normalcy".... Woe to those who don't confirm to the
canonical ways of behaviour. Let's be interchangable with anyone else.

Who cares that there is a direct link between extraordinary talent and "weird" behaviour. Who cares that these strange individuals might actually be, well, actually just *nice* people.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this flamebait. Did you listing to the fucking interview. The guy comes off as how do you say "odd". I love it, I say he comes off like he has OCD (ie different) and I get modded down because I am thinkign a bit different.

What a bunch of retartds you mods are.

If you need help, this post is flamebait. the parent is interesting.

assholes.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you listen to the interview?

He plainly says he can not shut it off. Yes, to be runnign through complex math equations in your head and not be able to shut them off is a menatl illness, it is beyond weird. Weird is thinking you have any knowledge abotu an interview you didn't listen to.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[bfields]

The fact of our society is that if you sent them to the funnny farm, you'd have very few people left who were good at math.

OK, I know this is just a joke, but I can't let it be. I got both my undergraduate and graduate degrees in mathematics, so I've been around tons of people who are extremely good at math. There were some who had trouble getting along with other people, and some who did very well. Overall I don't know that the mix was all that different from any other group of people. As for "the funny farm"? In my 10 years of studying I think I may have run across 1 or 2 that it wouldn't surprise me to learn actually had serious mental problems. None so incapacitated that they couldn't function at some level--that's why they were in school and not institutionalized....

--b.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[teidou]

they were in school and not institutionalized....

Guess they weren't MIT students then?

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Thud457]

Anyone holds up my sammich, there's gonna be repercussions!

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Reality Master 101]

Being enormously smarter and more creative than the average person is a form of weirdness, but not a form of sickness.

Weirdness and sickness is often only a question of degree. History is full of examples of geniuses that were barely balanced between the two, and in fact, their genius often derived from the sickness. Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're normal and not sick. Sickness also doesn't mean that they have to be cured.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[hey!]

History is full of examples of geniuses that were barely balanced between the two,

Yeah, Isaac Newton for one. See Will Dunham's book "Journey through Genius" in which he describes a disgusting little experiment Sir Isaac performed with a pointed stick and his eyeball.

Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're normal and not sick.

I'd say if a person is productive in society, and happy, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's sick. Even Sir Isaac. This sense that somebody who is a genius is necessarily a bit sick is an attractive myth -- it consoles the great body of us that aren't blessed with genius.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Reality Master 101]

I'd say if a person is productive in society, and happy, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's sick.

If I'm missing an arm, but I'm still productive and happy, it doesn't mean I'm still not handicapped.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[orasio]

If I'm missing an arm, but I'm still productive and happy, it doesn't mean I'm still not handicapped.

If you were _as_ productive and _as_ happy as if you weren't missing an arm, you would have a hard time convincing _me_ that you are handicapped. Handicaps involve disadvantages. Thos disdvantages are measured relatively. If you can be as productive as anyone else, you have no disadvantages. Different individuals have different physical abilities, when your set of physical abilities constitutes a disadvantage, you are handicapped, when it doesn't, you are not.

(of course, I don't believe you can be as productive with one hand as you can be with two, but I just extrapolated your comment)

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[basingwerk]

Have you seen his elegant heapsort algorithm? No normal person could invent that!

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

From m-w.com

The definition. "2 a : a physical disability"

If theft is only theft when something physical is taken that I'll be fucked with a monkey if you are goign to get awya with creativly redefining other words to suite your needs.

A person with one arm is handicaped, always!

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Surt]

Probably more importantly, if a person is fully functional, productive, and happy, it's going to be hard to convince the APA that the person is sick.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[orasio]

disability, number 2 m-w definition, that's what I was talking about

disability, number 1 m-w definition, refers to disabled, and then : incapacitated, physically impaired. The same.

You should follow you web research to its end, dear troll.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[McDutchie]

Maybe OCD, maybe something else but the fact remains, as far as normalcy is concerned, the guy comes up lacking.

Thank goodness!

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were _as_ productive and _as_ happy as if you weren't missing an arm, you would have a hard time convincing _me_ that you are handicapped

BZZZT -5 wrong.

The number one definition refered to things liek golf hanicaps dumbass.

Gawd you really are stupid enough to have a slashdot accoutn aren't you. It looks like you also pay for it.

I pity you.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're ... not sick.

Actually, it pretty much does mean that. If you read the DSM-IV, it specifically requires that some condition causes marked functional difficulty as a necessary criteria for many diagnoses.

I mean really, if someone is fully functional, on what basis would you call them sick?

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[NoData]

Maybe OCD maybe not, but probably a little Aspergerish. Many (maybe most?) of the geniuses in CS and mathematics are.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say if a person is productive in society, and happy, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's sick.

If I'm missing an arm, but I'm still productive and happy, it doesn't mean I'm still not handicapped.

I suspect you're trolling, although the GP was helping by being too generic.

• Mental illness is 'slightly' more complicated to define than physical one.
  
• Following your argument, short people are handicapped because they can't play volleyball on par with tall people.
  
• Handicapped does not mean sick, although sickness can be a handicap.
  

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[2short]

"Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're normal and not sick"

If someone is fully functional, where do you get off calling them "sick"? Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're mundane and not unusual, certainly.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Mr Z]

Shoot, I was contemplating polyphase filters in the shower this morning. It happened to be on my mind. Just because you keep your mind busy during mundane tasks doesn't mean you're a mental case.

In case you're wondering, some of the initial fascicles released for Vol 4. cover combinations and permutations. So, I can imagine Knuth being amused that he could apply that to something as simple as brushing his teeth, and sharing that amusement as an anecdote in an interview. I doubt he's up there deriving the calculus of the toothbrush every time he takes it to his pearly whites.

More than anything, he struck me as someone who's not afraid of "being a geek," and is ready to point out patterns that cross disciplines as they happen to cross his mind. That is, he doesn't have the usual stigma against being knowledgeable and insightful, and pointing out random technical observations in polite company. If that's a social disorder, oh well.

--Joe

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a fully funstion heroin addict for about 8 years.

was I not sick?

I worked in education teaching K-8 classes technology but shooting up in the restrooms.

Was I not sick.

I was fully functional.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Bush Pig]

I think the fact that he has his own personal pipe organ may be a bit of a tip-off here ...

I also have Asperger's. (Although I'm certainly not a genius, nor do I have a pipe organ. But I'd like one.)

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a deep breath, man. Are you that worried about being institutionalized? I'm a math major and I can take a joke.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[jpop32]

For instance, who thinks about the 8 parts of your mouth when brushing you teeth.

What do you think about? Nothing? You just stand there and practice a vacant look?

The way I look at it: you're there, for five minutes, brushing. The brain is also there, and if it's not doing anything worthwile, why shouldn't you employ it to think about what you're doing, how you're doing it, to what end and with which results?

Well, even after 25+ years of brushing, I'm still improving upon my technique. Not to mention the fact that they change the toobrush design every so often, so you have to adapt to a new one. Sometimes weeks pass before I feel I've mastered it.

Man, I'm telling you, brushing teeth, it's a wild ride! :-)

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you quit? Your supplier graduated?

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

"furfilling"? You think he's one of those guys who like to fuck teddy bears? I think that's a mental illness alright ;)

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[elronxenu]

Actually I thought it was a bad interview.

There are times where typing can be heard in the background, plus paper shuffling, and who knows what else. Knuth comes across as a little incoherent. The interviewer sounds like they've been pasted over the top of background noise of Knuth's life, and when he says something we don't know whether it's "inline" with Knuth (i.e. a question for him to answer) or offline commentary.

He seems to be a perfectionist to the point of having it interfere with his daily life.

You missed the point here. Knuth is telling us that he thinks deeply about every aspect of his life, but it is not an obsession - it is amusing for him to think about that. There's no reason for a person to not consider an efficient way of brushing their teeth, and as another poster commented, you're awake when you brush your teeth so you might as well use your brain for something useful while you are doing it.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[dillon_rinker]

For instance, who thinks about the 8 parts of your mouth when brushing you teeth

Two kinds of people come immediately to mind:

(1) People with more spare CPU cycles than you have. When faced with a mindless task, their mind tends to wander. You would appear to be one of those herd members who can, at will, think about nothing.

(2) People with better hygiene than you have. Brushing your teeth the way that dentists recommend, the way that minimizes the chance of tooth decay, requires attention to detail. Do you brush the surface of your molars? The gumline? The incisors and canines?

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[noisymime]

They're mathematicians, no one undertsnads what they're saying here, no one would understand them in the nut house. Wait a minute, isn't that why people are in the nut house?

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[lgw]

I suspect many math-related geniuses have some form of high-functioning autism - the "absent minded professor" is more than a cliche. However, Asperger's is only one of many forms of high-functioning autism - well known because it has specific associated behaviors. As the site says: "Sometimes people assume everyone who has autism and is high-functioning has Asperger's syndrome. However, it appears that there are several forms of high-functioning autism, and Asperger's syndrome is one form." I'm sure there are may ways the brain can be differently wired that don't produce social disfunction, and so aren't studied, and many unusual but useful mental abilities that show up as a result.

Adam Smith (the economist) once fell into an open manhole while walking with friends - so lost in thought he failed to avoid an obvious and immediate threat to his safety. Brilliant, but beyond absent minded.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Ohreally_factor]

It depends on what you're calling in sick for. Skiing? Fishing? Release of a new, long anticipated game? Those all sound fully functional. However, if you called the office because you had been vomiting all night and you were to weak to get out of bed, I'd say that were a pretty sick individual.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

A. I don't beleive you.
B. Why did you stop if you were "Fully functional"? You seem to assume you were sick. Why?

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[jadavis]

... fell into an open manhole while walking ...

Can't someone do something dumb without people mulling over it many years after they're dead? Not only that, friends don't walk friends into open manholes.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[DeepHurtn!]

Don't you mean that there would be very few people left who would *want* to study math?

I keed, I keed!

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[timboc007]

Does his perfectionism prevent him from leading a safe, furfilling, life?

Last time I checked he was a computer scientist, not a taxidermist.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[pugugly]

I've also watched aspergers used to denigrate someone's talents by those that have to work harder to maintain competence.

A friend of mine is a brilliant music therapist that went on to get her Masters. Her fellow therapists, a bunch of young women have concluded that it's not because she's smart, talented, or put more work into it - it's because she has Asbergers.

Yeah - that has to be it. Having different priorities than looking sharp must be some kind of mental illness, right!

Glad we got that worked out.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[the_womble]

Isaac Newton was also a nasty piece of work and his rivalries with Hooke and Leibniz were vindictive (on his part) to say the least.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[testadicazzo]

Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're normal and not sick.

Boy am i disturbed by the choice of words in this sesntence. Am i the only person here that thinks normal==sick?

I like what G.B. Shaw said (paraphrasing) "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world around him. The unreasonable man seeks to change the world to suit him. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man".

Anyway, read Knuth's "things a computer scientist rarely talks about". Brilliant guy, and as far as I'm concerned pretty well adjusted. A positive influence on society beyond just his remarkable mathematical and scientific contributions.

The scariest people I know aspire to being "normal", or describe themselves as "normal". They fill me with dread and I avoid their company.

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam Smith (the economist) once fell into an open manhole ...

I'm not a native English speaker... Please tell me that "open manhole" doesn't mean what I think it means. (*cough*goatse*cough*)

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's hope you never apply for a job doing triage at a psychiatric hospital.

Triage?!! What kind of a bizzare place do you live in, where even the psychiatrists get pressed into triage duties! I can just picture it now!

"Well, all these men over here will die, attended or not: those over there are fine for now, but these guys here need immediate psychiatric attention, or they'll sob themselves to death! Quickly, nurse! Get me a 37 padded couches and 94 boxes of tissues, stat!"

--
AC

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[SA Stevens]

Who cares that there is a direct link between extraordinary talent and "weird" behaviour. Who cares that these strange individuals might actually be, well, actually just *nice* people.

From remote observation, i.e. reading the things Knuth writes on his home page, i.e. the way he vacations, etc., he sounds like a remarkably nice person, and somebody very well grounded and happy in his world.

I guess I'd expect the kind of comments and banter about Knuth that I'm seeing here on Slashdot. Glad I'm not here that much these days.

Molasses race

[smittyoneeach]

The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 4
vs.
Paul Graham's Arc
Stay conscious, audience: great minds think at a 'medium' pace. :)

Re:Molasses race

[kmak]

Is it just me, or the Medium Pace refers to a certain Adam Sandler song as well? =)

Re:Molasses race

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul Graham hardly deserves to be compared to Knuth. There's a vast difference between jerking off while writing a pet language to play with in your free time as opposed to writing seminal works on Discrete Math and Computer Science.

Re:Molasses race

[Chris Z. Wintrowski]

"Great minds" is more than an over-statement.

Knuth and Graham are both reasonably good at writing books, but awful at writing software - Knuth because TeX is one of the most poorly designed, difficult to use, impractical pieces of software I've ever had the displeasure of using; and Graham because he hasn't written any software since Viaweb, he now just writes about writing software.

Still, as you point out, I wouldn't hold my breath over ACPv4 or ARC - at this rate, Knuth will be dead, and Lisp will be mainstream before either product is released!

Re:Molasses race

[chinton]

No... Medium Pace is the hot-but-not-too-hot jar of salsa.

Re:Molasses race

[Anonymous Coward]

and its from san antonio texas, not like adam sandler's song which was made in.... NEW YORK CITY?!?!

Re:Molasses race

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the Duke Nukem programmers are waiting to see what's in volume 4.

Re:Molasses race

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a rope!

Re:Molasses race

[1729]

Knuth and Graham are both reasonably good at writing books, but awful at writing software - Knuth because TeX is one of the most poorly designed, difficult to use, impractical pieces of software I've ever had the displeasure of using

Ahh, so because you're too stupid to use TeX, Knuth's success in creating a useful, reliable, and elegant system for math typesetting qualifies him as awful at writing software. Huh.

Re:Molasses race

[Chris Z. Wintrowski]

Ahh, so because you're too stupid to use TeX, Knuth's success in creating a useful, reliable, and elegant system for math typesetting qualifies him as awful at writing software. Huh.

Too stupid to use TeX? As a scientist, I have no choice but to use TeX because there is nothing better for typesetting papers. Does that mean I have to actually like TeX? Hell no!

I think it's clear that you have not had to typeset a substantial number of scientific documents in TeX/LaTeX. When I first started out, I thought TeX was great too, but then I actually had to use it to produce a lot of reports, papers, and conference posters. Believe me, when you find yourself struggling time after time to find the right arcane command and/or trick to make TeX render your document correctly, you'll be ready to put your fist through the screen too.

Maybe Knuth is good at writing software - the fact that TeX actually works with a low probability of finding a bug is testament to that - but he's absolutely rubbish at designing software. This flaw in Knuth's intellect is also clearly present in TAOCP with the obtuse instruction set architecture he designed for the programming examples and exercises, bizarre numeric representations, strange encodings, odd limitations, etc..

Be realistic, mate. There is more to writing software than just getting the right output. If people are going to adopt your software, you have to make it easy for them to use. Knuth sees the world through a microscope, and revels in the fine, intricate details. That's how he designed TeX, and that's how he put together the material for TAOCP. The unwashed masses, however, are not quite so abstracted.

Re:Molasses race

[1729]

I think it's clear that you have not had to typeset a substantial number of scientific documents in TeX/LaTeX.

No, I like TeX precisely because I do have to do a lot of mathematical type-setting. Yes, TeX could be dumbed down, but at the cost of losing a lot of control. TeX was well-designed for its target audience. The same goes for TAOCP. Why should everything be dumbed for you & "the unwashed masses"?

Re:Molasses race

[Chris Z. Wintrowski]

Why should everything be dumbed for you & "the unwashed masses"?

Look, numbnuts, it's not about "dumbing things down", it's about the principles of good design. It's not the 60's anymore. Why do I have to typeset documents in a markup language that looks absolutely disgusting, and has all the grace and verbosity of XML? I just want to get things done, I don't want to wrestle a 5 ton monster every time I have to meet a submission deadline.

Good design is about more than sheer power. It's also about usability. If I am a scientist or engineer, does that mean I want to do every single thing like I'm designing a jet engine? Bullshit! Yes, I'd like to be able to go down to that level should I need to, but 99.99% of the time I'll want to ignore most of the intricacies and just write my document. But TeX doesn't let you do that; TeX forces you down to the level of nuts and bolts and transistors and opcodes every time.

There are many bad things I can say about Paul Graham, but I can say one good thing: he seems to understand good design (or at least he used to, if the previews of ARC are anything to go by). Go read his essays about starting Viaweb. One of the cool things about Viaweb was the HTML macro language Graham wrote in Lisp for Viaweb customers to design their online stores. It was called RTML. Graham expected that it would be the main interface that customers would use, however, people mostly ended up using Viaweb's pre-defined templates:

"[..] Rtml didn't end up being the main interface to the program. It ended up playing two roles. First of all, it was an escape valve for the really sophisticated users, who wanted something our built-in templates couldn't provide. [..] Only one out of every couple hundred users actually wrote their own templates. And this led to the second advantage of Rtml.

By looking at the way these users modified our built-in templates, we knew what we needed to add to them. Eventually we made it our goal that no one should ever have to use Rtml. Our built-in templates should do everything people wanted. In this new approach, Rtml served us as a warning sign that something was missing in our software." [1]

Why do you suppose people used the pre-defined templates? Because they were dumb? Because they were too stupid to figure out RTML? No, it was simply because they wanted to get stuff done, and the templating system made that possible. If someone wanted something specific, they always had recourse to the underlying RTML.

What was stopping Knuth from designing TeX in a similar manner? Why couldn't he have provided an easy to use set of document templates, and a syntactially simple markup language for those of us with other things to do, but yet still giving the poweruser access to the underlying TeX commands? If that's "dumbing down" TeX, then how come most TeX users call upon LaTeX? LaTeX makes TeX (barely) usable, but the very fact that it exists proves that TeX was not "well-designed for its target audience".

References:
[1] http://lib.store.yahoo.com/lib/paulgraham/bbnexcer pts.txt

Re:Molasses race

[1729]

Look, numbnuts, it's not about "dumbing things down", it's about the principles of good design. It's not the 60's anymore. Why do I have to typeset documents in a markup language that looks absolutely disgusting, and has all the grace and verbosity of XML? I just want to get things done, I don't want to wrestle a 5 ton monster every time I have to meet a submission deadline.

That has nothing to do with good design. Knuth wrote an amazingly versatile program for type-setting math. He provided the means for creating almost any document one can imagine. Quit whining that he didn't also create some GUI point & drool front-end for you. The program does exactly what it was intended to do. There are collections of templates and macros, as well as handful of WYSIWYG TeX processors, and for some people, these are enough. But what Knuth did was write a versatile program that can handle almost anything you throw at it. Yeah, he didn't spend another year writing a simpler front-end for people like you. That's not poor design.

But hey, let's see your brilliantly designed, bug-free (or close to it), still-going-strong-after-more-than-15-years project. The one with an interface that even you can handle, but with every option an advanced user could want. That magical piece of software that suits everybody's needs perfectly. Put up or shut up, champ.

Re:Molasses race

[Chris Z. Wintrowski]

That has nothing to do with good design.

Don't be so naive. It has everything to do with good design! Would you want to buy a car if you knew they always come in kit form, with some parts that you had to manufacture yourself? I doubt it. You'd probably be saying how much car companies suck, and lamenting the fact that you have to put in so much work for each new car you buy. Similarly, why should any sane person be happy about having to put together documents in the typographical equivalent of assembly language?

The program does exactly what it was intended to do.

So what? If Microsoft Windows "does exactly what it was intended to do", then why do people complain so much about it? If good software design is only about fulfilling the intentions of the commissioning party, then we might as well just ditch Linux/Unix/OS X and stick with Windows - delete TeX and install Word - because, by your reasoning, one is no better or worse than the other.

But hey, let's see your brilliantly designed, bug-free (or close to it), still-going-strong-after-more-than-15-years project. The one with an interface that even you can handle, but with every option an advanced user could want. That magical piece of software that suits everybody's needs perfectly. Put up or shut up, champ.

That's right: you're not allowed to complain or criticise or point out the flaws in any piece of software or scientific theory or in any product whatsoever unless you can present a better version, of your own design, which satisfies all the flaws of the original.

Grow up, mate. It's time to lose that teenage elitist asshole attitude.

Re:Molasses race

[1729]

Similarly, why should any sane person be happy about having to put together documents in the typographical equivalent of assembly language?

Honestly, how would you design a complete, powerful typesetting system that lets users do anything, but is ridiculously easy to use? TeX is a typesetting language, not a word processor. TeX works fine with WYSIWYG front-ends (Scientific Workplace, lyx, TeXmacs, etc).

Re:Molasses race

[Mark of THE CITY]

There was a Mac app (OS 7 or so) that tied TeX to a GUI. I tried it and it was ok.

Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format...

[A.K.A_Magnet]

anyone ?

The page seems to set a cookie about your prefered video codec and you can't get direct link to the file, and it can either be a ".wax" or a ?"smil" file I cannot play.

Anyone gentle enough to provide a good ol' torrent or something ? and in a Linux-playable format.

Thanks

Book Revision

[MikeBiesanz]

Heard the interview on the way to work. I love that he gives something like $2.56 or something to everyone who finds a flaw in the book. He has cut checks for around 20K so far and that the first Book had 90% of it's pages altered in some way because of that. We have the same kind of thing where I work. Free 6pack to anyone finding a non-sensical phrase embedded in our documentation. Everyone actually peer reviews documentation now.

Re:Book Revision

[uhoreg]

And even though he may have cut checks for 20K, he's paid much less. Many people who have received checks from Knuth have them framed, and won't cash them in.

Re:Book Revision

[mrcubehead]

Did anyone else notice that, in this interview, they said $2.56 was binary 10,000,000, eg. a one followed by seven zeros?? I won't fall for it, I want my extra zero...

Re:Book Revision

[wcrowe]

I love that he gives something like $2.56 or something to everyone who finds a flaw in the book.

It's a little jest. He awards $100,000,000 (in binary) to anyone who finds an error. In decimal that's $2.56.

Re:Book Revision

[d_p]

$2.56 == 1 hexidecimal dollar

Re:Book Revision

[Anonymous Coward]

He awards $100,000,000 (in binary) to anyone who finds an error. In decimal that's $2.56.

No, it's not. $100,000,000(binary) converted to decimal would be $256, not $2.56.

Re:Book Revision

[wcrowe]

Doh! Yes, that's $1,000,000.00.

Re:Book Revision

[Anonymous Coward]

One byte can't contain 9 bits.

Dyslexic editor gets it all wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually Donald Knuth on RPN. And he says it?s the greatest cause of brain damage in computing.

Re:Dyslexic editor gets it all wrong

[zulux]

it?s the greatest cause of brain damage in computing.


No.. doing you spell checking in MS Word, then cutting and pasting into a text field and the text filed doesn't understand MS Word's 'Smart Quotes' is the greatest cause of brain damage.

Re:Dyslexic editor gets it all wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

doing you spell checking

Pot, kettle: black.

Re:Dyslexic editor gets it all wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't criticizing the poster's poor grammar. He was criticizing the use of an inappropriate tool for spell-checking.

Side note: for occasional spell checking, www.spellcheck.net is handy. For checking a single word I find Mozilla's (actually Firefox's) quick search feature convenient. I have the keyword 'd' set up to search dictionary.com. The best solution under Firefox might be the spellcheck extension, though. I think it's called SpellBound. I haven't tried it yet, but it sounds nice.

Open Source editing

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Interesting note (IMHO) If you look at his website, he is currently writing volume IV of the art of programming. He has posted drafts of chapters up and actively elicits feedback from readers. He goes as far as offering money for bugs found. Another one he adds is in his citations he wants full names...he will pay readers $2.56 per full name discovered on his list of incomplete names. This is a guy who understands the value of community development even when referring to the work of someone head and shoulders above the community.

Re:Open Source editing

[k98sven]

They also mention it in the TFA.

But I hate how you refer to this as 'open source'. Can you change Knuth's books any way you want and redistribute them? Nope. So really, it is nothing like open source or free software, except for inviting collaboration.

And collaboration did exist long before OSS. Academic peer-review has been around for a hundred years. And collaboration has always been popular in the academic world. It was uses within academic collaboration which turned ARPANET into the internet. It was the collaborative ideals of the academic world which inspired RMS to create free software.

So, IMHO, calling this 'open source editing' or talking about 'open source science' is really putting the cart in front of the horse.
(Not that academia hasn't been influenced by OSS/Free software, but since OSS/Free Software also originated there, that's what you call feedback, not a new and direct influence.)

Re:Open Source editing

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

But I hate how you refer to this as 'open source'.

You are right. I thought of that midway through my post, if you look at my last sentence I refer to it as "community development". What I was praising was the involvement of peers and others in review not the actual use of contributing authors. So yes, you make a good point and I stand corrected (actually slouched, but hey).

MIX?

[Anonymous Coward]

This brilliant computer scientist couldn't decide whether the future of computing would be binary or decimal machines. He was great at analyzing algorithms, but I'm not sure what he has to say on general CS topics.

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[Anonymous Coward]

copy the link, use real standalone to play the URL.

Re:TeX more practical?

[xtermin8]

TeX is already long in the tooth, and will become obsolete soon. His books, on the other hand, are meant to stand the test of time, and he's retired from being a professor to takle Vol 4 full-time. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/retd.htm l Obviously I'm respoding to a die-hard code hacker, but its a bit insulting to dismiss Knuth's books as of "much less practical importance."

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[Anonymous Coward]

real is played in linux
i wish people would get over the open-sourced-ness of apps on linux. you should have learne by now that the only shit open source is good is for ripping off people, and when somebody rips someone off they usually inherit the bug list from the original.

I sure as hell dont want to see a million players for real player and whatnot, i just want one who works.

(talk about -5, offtopic)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Proof of Existenc e of God?

[Anonymous Coward]

Knuth says he'd be interested in the proof of the existence of God: he'd learn it then forget about it. I don't think anyone would forget about it if they learned that particular proof, even a professor emiritus at Stanford.

I'm wondering if that proof will be in Vol. IV

Re:Proof of Existenc e of God?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It will be in the problems, classified as level 50 (Hard).

What I found interesting.

[LWATCDR]

"Do you believe that is a God?"
Knuth, "Yes I do."
Mr. Knuth goes on to talk about how it is good that there is no proof for God because makes him think about God. If there was a proof for God he would just solve it and to on.

This must make many people on Slashdot very happy. I have seen many posts claiming that only an idiot would believe in God. Think of how many people now have proof that they are smarter than Donald Knuth.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because Don Knuth has certain beliefs about God doesn't mean it's the truth.

Now if Ken Thompson had said so, that would be different.

Re:What I found interesting.

[smooth wombat]

Believing in something, without facts to support that belief, does not make it true. I believe I'm the King of San Francisco. Does that make it true?

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a book (which is mostly a transcript of some lectures he gave at MIT complete with audience questions), called "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About", in which he describes a little bit about his views on religion/mysticism and aesthetics. I recommend it, he says some interesting things, although his computer science is, imho, much better.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because he is Donald Knuth does not make every thing he says right :)

Re:What I found interesting.

[bunratty]

Well, that's why Knuth says God is a mystery -- there isn't any proof. If there were a proof, he'd understand it and then not think about it any more.

Re:What I found interesting.

[ScouseMouse]

I have also seen a very good reason why anyone who has an absolute disbelief in God is also not very smart. Its based on the premise that in Science, you cant disprove something with No evidence.

Its why I always laugh at people who call themselves die hard atheists. They are just as blinkered as the religious fundementalists.

Personally my choice is being Agnostic. I veer on the side of not believeing there is a god, but accept the possibility there is, so try to hedge my bets and not break too many commandments/Muslem religeous laws :-)

Re:What I found interesting.

[kk49]

In general theists aren't stupid, they are just crazy. Creationist and/or fundementalist on the otherhand, are stupid.

Re:What I found interesting.

[kk49]

According to some beliefs, if you don't accept Jesus H. Christ as your lord and saviour you won't get into heaven no matter how good you are.

Re:What I found interesting.

[djp928]

The thing is, agnosticism is actually the most unsupportable "belief" of the bunch. If there is evidence for something, then belief in its existence is justified. If there is no evidence for something, belief in its existence is unjustified. It doesn't mean that it absolutely does not exist, any more than real atheism means "God does not exist". It means that since belief in God is unjustified because of a lack of evidence, I do not believe in God. Real atheists do not say "God does not exist". Real atheists say "I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for His existence." There's a huge difference.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is saying "There is no evidence for God, but I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve." How crazy is that? Do you also choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in invisible pink elephants? There's no evidence for them either, but if someone told you they existed, would you keep an open mind about that? A person of faith believes despite lack of evidence, or even in the face of evidence to the contrary. An agnostic, however, sees the lack of evidence and yet continues to hedge his bets. Why?

-- Dave

Re:What I found interesting.

[kk49]

I don't go to Professor Knuth for medical or particle physics advice, why would I go to him for religious advice?

Re:What I found interesting.

[Lars T.]

Wouldn't that be Queen of San Francisco?

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look for all the parallel posts saying X is dumb, Y is dumb. Here's a question for you adolescents: when did it become cool to bash people who believe different than you? Aren't you really just playing the bully?

Re:What I found interesting.

[zimage]

Donald Knuth is actually a Christian and has written a book where he analyses chapter 3 verse 16 of every book in the Protestant Christian bible. Each verse is illuminated with beautiful caligraphy.

He also gave some lectures about religion called Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Politburo]

Why?

Social stigma, imo. Although at times it doesn't seem like it, we do live in a very religous society. I can't remember the exact numbers, but something like 90% of Americans believe in a higher power. Also note that there are very few athiests/agnostics elected to high public office, our current president's constant references to his faith, and the emphasis placed on faith during last year's elections.

In our current society, to say flatly that one is an athiest is similar to being publicly gay. There are people who will outright tell you to your face that you are going to "burn in hell" for both beliefs.

Re:What I found interesting.

[taybin]

I attended a couple of those lectures, and even bought the poster of the illuminated quotes. It confuses all my friends since I'm stoutly non-religious.

Re:What I found interesting.

[That's Unpossible!]

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is saying "There is no evidence for God, but I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve." How crazy is that?

Not crazy at all, it is the foundation of science and critical thinking.

Do you also choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in invisible pink elephants? There's no evidence for them either, but if someone told you they existed, would you keep an open mind about that?

Yes.

An agnostic, however, sees the lack of evidence and yet continues to hedge his bets. Why?

It is not "hedging your bets." And there is no way of seeing a lack of evidence. That's the point -- get it? A scientific mind can only consider the evidence and form hypotheses, not the lack of evidence.

Here's a thought-experiment for you. It's 1940. The atom is the smallest element known to man. Does this mean there is nothing smaller?

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe I'm the King of San Francisco. Does that make it true?

Surprisingly, there is an existance proof that Yes, You would.

It's an interesting part of San Francisco history. Some crazy guy in the mid 1800s named Joshua Norton started claiming he was Emperor here; and enough people humored him and his fantasy to the point that people accepted the "currency" the he drew, and were motivated by his decrees. here's his wikipedia article

Re:What I found interesting.

[smittyoneeach]

Conversely, the requirements for bootstrapping to the level of the Almighty are laid out in Job 40:7-14
This is a good tidbit for those moments when we, regrettably, take ourselves too seriously.
See also Ecclesiates.
HTH,
Chris

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC commissioned a survey about this a year ago - you can look at a summary of the results the results, and the full figures (PDF file) on their website.

In summary, 91% of Americans believe in God, and 54% regularly attend religious services, compared to 67% and 21% respectively in the UK. Scarily, 71% of Americans said that they would die for their religion/beliefs.

Re:What I found interesting.

[LtOcelot]

That's one definition of agnosticism, and probably the most popular. The original, superior definition has it holding that the ultimate nature of the universe cannot be known with certainty. For instance, you could die and meet someone claiming to be the God Of All Creation, but there'd be no way for you to know whether he were telling the truth -- and what's more, there'd be no way for him to know that there wasn't something above and beyond himself.

This sense of agnosticism is opposite of what you're saying; unlike theism or atheism, this agnosticism is provably true.

Re:What I found interesting.

[DavidNWelton]

Why?

'Cause I've got better things to do in life, like go drink some beer. That's why.

Re:What I found interesting.

[LurkerXXX]

I have no problems if someone is willing to die for their religious beliefs. I have a real problem if they try to kill someone else because of it.

Re:What I found interesting.

[djp928]

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is saying "There is no evidence for God, but I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve." How crazy is that?

Not crazy at all, it is the foundation of science and critical thinking.

No, actually, it's not. Having an open mind is one thing, having a mind so open your brain falls out is quite another. Being able to distinguish between BS and honest hypothesis is part of critical thinking. If someone told you there were invisible pink elephants in his back yard, you would keep an open mind about that and not think that maybe your buddy had flipped his lid? Even after going out and pointing out to your buddy that these elephants left no tracks, dung, or anything else behind to show their presence, or that you could walk over every inch of his back yard and not run into one, you would still choose not to disbelieve him if he insisted they existed and were there? Seriously? That's not science or critical thinking, that's just being foolish.

-- Dave

Re:What I found interesting.

[GigsVT]

How can you say there is no evidence of God? Surely the existance of highly organized life could lead a rational person to a theory that something created it.

I'm basically an agnostic too, but it's not a question of believing or not believing for me, I believe the question is unanswerable, in our current situation. I think a creator is plausible. I think there is evidence that could indicate creation. Evolution obviously does also happen, even in the short term, and I don't think any of my beliefs contradict evolutionary processes.

Re:What I found interesting.

[geomon]

I have also seen a very good reason why anyone who has an absolute disbelief in God is also not very smart. Its based on the premise that in Science, you cant disprove something with No evidence.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but let me see if I can tease out your point.

Are you saying that you have read *somewhere* that people who believe 'absolutely' that God does not exist are not very smart?

What would be the rational basis for believing that to be true? Do you really believe that people who do not believe in supernatural beings are stupid?

Its why I always laugh at people who call themselves die hard atheists. They are just as blinkered as the religious fundementalists.

In what way are we 'blinkered'? That statement is a rather dismissive comment about people who are hardly uniform in their reasons for their lack of faith.

Re:What I found interesting.

[djp928]

It's a question of testability. Sure, you can have the belief that some being created life. But you can't test it. There are no predictions your hypothesis makes than can be tested. So it's no better than saying that everything sprung from nothing to as-is five minutes ago. You can say it, you can think it, but there's no way to put it to the test, which is the foundation of science. There is no evidence that points towards a creator. You can choose to believe in one, as many do, or you can choose not to believe in one, as I and many others do. But what's the point of saying you choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in something like that?

-- Dave

Re:What I found interesting.

[Lurking Zealot]

I have seen many posts claiming that only an idiot would believe in God. Think of how many people now have proof that they are smarter than Donald Knuth.

I'm impressed that Knuth actively contemplates the existence of a god, and that he is willing to acknowledge his belief in public. That does not convince me that Christians (or Bhudists, or Muslims or Shintoists, ...) are smarter than athiests or agnostics.

For me, Knuth's belief in a god does not have the same authority as his ability to prove the efficiency or convergence rate of an algorithm. Mathematics and other branches of science are a rational and testable form of knowledge. Belief in a diety must ultimately come down to a personal choice -- a leap of faith -- beyond the realm of rational.

I have contemplated this leap and find a deeper mystery and deeper satisfaction and deeper challenge in not believing in the existence of god. That does not make me smarter than Knuth. It just means that we have reached different conclusions about a very personal matter.

Re:What I found interesting.

[tattoi.nobori]

Believing in something, without facts to support that belief, does not make it true. I believe I'm the King of San Francisco. Does that make it true?

The problem is that -every- belief is probabilistic. "Facts" about the world are just highly probable beliefs. Outside the realm of mathematics, proof is a fiction.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas Aquinas wrote a proof of the existence of God in 1270. If you read it, you will find the logic circular and unpersuasive. Aquinas was a bright guy. I doubt if anyone before or since has done a better job.

Bertrand Russell, also a bright guy, attempted the opposite and failed. He later said that he could not decide whether he was an agnostic or an atheist, since he was unable to demonstrate the non-existence of God..

Re:What I found interesting.

[deejer]

People look to actors for political advice.

I think Knuth's shown that he thinks things through. So, I would take his ideas more seriously than an actor.

The sad truth is that people take other's thoughts and ideas as their own without thinking it through themselves.

Re:What I found interesting.

[kk49]

I hate old english so much.

For those playing along at home, here http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=job%204 0&version=31; is a translation into modern english.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Politburo]

Assuming all of those percentages cover the same set of respondents, more people would be willing to die for their beliefs than go to church once a week. Quite odd.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do what I do and just moderate them Offtopic.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Drakonian]

Douglas Adams on agnostics:

People will then often say "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?" This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Re:What I found interesting.

[Mr.Progressive]

Well said, my friend.

Re:What I found interesting.

[LWATCDR]

"I'm impressed that Knuth actively contemplates the existence of a god, and that he is willing to acknowledge his belief in public. That does not convince me that Christians (or Bhudists, or Muslims or Shintoists, ...) are smarter than atheists or agnostics."

I agree. The point is that converse is also false. And more than a few posts have proven that with out a doubt.

Re:What I found interesting.

[smittyoneeach]

Yeah, but the KJV has more bass in the mix, so there! :)

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a thought-experiment for you. It's 1940. The atom is the smallest element known to man. Does this mean there is nothing smaller?

Actually you're off by a more than a couple of decades. It was known that atoms were composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons quite earlier. Bohr proposed his model of the atom in 1915. It was incorrect because it didn't explain why electrons wouldn't lose their energy through radiation and spin into the nucleus. That explanation came through quantum mechanics, developed in the 20's and 30's, starting with Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect.

But your philosophy is bang on (I'm an agnostic too) so better stick to that :-)

Re:What I found interesting.

[That's Unpossible!]

No, actually, it's not. Having an open mind is one thing, having a mind so open your brain falls out is quite another.

I have heard this quip before, but you are mis-using it when applying it to scientific and critical thinking. The original quote is making reference to people who will BELIEVE anything. Scientists must consider all possibilities until proven wrong.

This means invisible elephants MIGHT exist. However, as there is no proof that they do, and no theory for why they might, a scientist will not ponder the question long.

This also means wormholes might exist, and even though there is no evidence of them, scientists are open to the possibility because they'd fit in with other theories that are out there, and so they do consider these.

If someone told you there were invisible pink elephants in his back yard, you would keep an open mind about that and not think that maybe your buddy had flipped his lid? Even after going out and pointing out to your buddy that these elephants left no tracks, dung, or anything else behind to show their presence, or that you could walk over every inch of his back yard and not run into one, you would still choose not to disbelieve him if he insisted they existed and were there? Seriously? That's not science or critical thinking, that's just being foolish.

Would I disbelieve him? Of course. Would I go further and, without proof, tell him there is no way on Earth? For pink elephants -- probably so. For something much more mysterious, why bother?

I know you keep wanting to bring up these pink elephants, however the reality is that agnostics do not worry themselves over the question of God. There is neither proof or disproof, and so it is an interesting but pointless thought experiment.

For someone to see a lack of evidence and firmly come down against something is just as bad as firmly coming down in favor of it. This is why people often call Atheism a religion.

In addition, I would wager that many people that refer to themselves as atheists actually mean they are agnostic, but are perhaps not familiar with that terminology. Many of my so-called atheist friends would admit they are agnostic if you questioned them about what they really think.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Golias]

I believe I'm the King of San Francisco. Does that make it true?

No, but we can narrow the truth down to a few possibilities:

1. You believe you are the King of San Francisco when you are not. This would make you a complete nut.

2. You don't really believe you are the King of San Francisco, but said so anyway. This would make you a liar, or at the very least, you were only kidding.

3. You actually are the King of San Francisco.

Jesus claimed to be God. If he's not God, then he was completely insane for saying so, unless he was deliberately lying about something as important as messianic prophesy to an oppressed people, making him one of the scummiest liars in history.

So, which is it? Lord, Lunatic, or Liar?

(Disclaimer: While C.S. Lewis made a lot of hay in his time with this argument, there is one area of wiggle-room for the agnostic which he left out, which is the idea that Jesus never made such a claim, and the written record which says so, the Bible, is incorrect for one reason or another. Like Knuth, I believe in God, but I've long since abandoned the idea that my belief could ever be justified by pure logic to the satisfaction of an objective non-believer.)

Re:What I found interesting.

[kk49]

Then you should be reading the bible in the original Klingon version. http://klv.mrklingon.org/ (Bad Nerds! BAD NERDS!!)

Re:What I found interesting.

[That's Unpossible!]

Doh! I guess it should have been obvious, what with the atom-splitting going on in the 30's and 40's, eh?? ;)

Re:What I found interesting.

[Kehvarl]

I think the point of agnosticism is: there's no way to test for god. without a way to test it I can't use the scientific method on it to either prove or disprove.

Then the agnostic goes on and says: For the moment, I chose to [believe/disbelieve] the existance of god pending the development of some method for reliably testing for the actual existance thereof.

As to my friend with invisible pink elephants, if he somehow came up with a way to prove they were their, and we tested it and found enough evidence to justify the posibility of them actually being there, then maybe he really does know something we didn't know before. If there is no test or no test comes back positive, then I would have to believe in the nonexistance of the invisible pink elephants, again pending the development of a new test that could actually prove/disprove their existance.

Referencing your pink elephant example again, you described a test for their actual presence, assuming they were merely invisible, you should have walked into one. When you didn't, unless we feel like changing the assumptions about the elephants (now they're also incoporeal and floating with incorporeal, invisible, non-odorous feces) we could assume they didn't exist.

Actually, in "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan he describes this very scenario(using a dragon instead of an elephant) and comes to the conclusion that There may be no difference between a floating, incorporeal, invisible dragon with heatless flame and no dragon at all, but if some one of the devisable current or future tests actually show something, then you might actually have something to consider a bit further than giving it an "unproveable, unknown" diagnosis.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Tyler Durden]

Keep in mind, being an Atheist does not mean that someone has "an absoulte disbelief in God" in the sense that they would continue to not believe in God if offered proper evidence that He did. The position of an Atheist is simply "I do not believe that God exists." The Agnostic believes that, ultimately, the existence or non-existence of God cannot be determined.

How can an Atheist form a belief that God does not exist if there is not proof that God does not exist? By Occam's Razor stating that, when it comes to explanation, "entities should not be multiplied whithout necessity." If I try to explain a natural phenomenon and the explanation adds complexity without adequately explaining what I am trying to establish in the first place, then it is meaningless to consider. Many people feel that this is the case with God.

Any rational Atheist will tell you that if adequate evidence is offered for the existence of God, then they will no longer be an Atheist.

Re:What I found interesting.

[FreeUser]

In addition, I would wager that many people that refer to themselves as atheists actually mean they are agnostic, but are perhaps not familiar with that terminology.

There appears to be some overlap in the terminology. Saying "I do not believe there is a god because I see no evidence to indicate there is" is not imcompatible with the notion that "there is no way to know for sure," nor with the notion "I don't believe it, but I must logically concede the possibility that I, as a fallable human being without the sum of the universes knowledge in my skull might be wrong, current evidence notwithstanding." The former defines an athiest, the latter two an agnostic. I fit all three definitions, so frankly, it seems to me that my choice of labelling myself agnostic or athiest is a matter of preference, at least until someone nails down a better definition for differentiating between the two than has been discussed here (or in many other common fora, such as talk.origins, etc.)

I agree with you WRT the elephant question, with the following caveat: "invisible pink elephants" cannot exist logically. An object that is invisible by definition has no color to it, pink or otherwise. However, invisible evidence could concievably exist. I don't believe in them, because the evidence that they exist is equal to the evidence that a God exists (ie. absolutely none), but I must logically concede the possibility that I'm wrong, as the premise is not disprovable.

Re:What I found interesting.

[WillAdams]

A classic experience relating to my perception of fundamentalism was w/ a friend's child who was finally taken to see her grandfather's workshop (he was a classic old-school cabinetmaker w/ the only power tool in his shop a band saw 'cause he couldn't find apprentices to do that sort of tedious thing who was said to ``make things by hand'').

The daughter on seeing the shop and the walls lined w/ neatly arranged saws, chisels, draw knives, planes, spokeshaves, clamps &c. shrieked, ``Mommy! You lied! Grandpa doesn't make things by hand! He uses tools!''

IME fundamental creationists exhibit a similar na{\"\i}vet\'e as to how God works.

William

Re:What I found interesting.

[revery]

No, actually, it's not. Having an open mind is one thing, having a mind so open your brain falls out is quite another. Being able to distinguish between BS and honest hypothesis is part of critical thinking. If someone told you there were invisible pink elephants in his back yard, you would keep an open mind about that and not think that maybe your buddy had flipped his lid? Even after going out and pointing out to your buddy that these elephants left no tracks, dung, or anything else behind to show their presence, or that you could walk over every inch of his back yard and not run into one, you would still choose not to disbelieve him if he insisted they existed and were there? Seriously? That's not science or critical thinking, that's just being foolish.

Actually, if you are willing to have your buddy committed because of this, it means that you believe that the capabilities of your senses form the baseline by which reaility is defined. What if your friend can see things that no one else can see? If anything, you're potentially locking away the next jump in the evolution of mankind. Humanity's only hope is that the sanitorium allows conjugal visits and that your friend is straight (or willing to work for the common good)

Re:What I found interesting.

[Tyler Durden]

In addition, I would wager that many people that refer to themselves as atheists actually mean they are agnostic, but are perhaps not familiar with that terminology.

I'm sorry, but I think you are unfamiliar with the terminology as well. Agnosticism does not mean that God may or may not exist and Atheism does not necessarily mean that God must not exist. Agnosticism means that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable and an Atheist simply looks at the current evidence for the existence of God and arrives at the belief that He does not exist.

You can see definitions for Agnosticism here and here. One of the links comes from a religious source and the other a non-religious one.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall, there was some eccentric who claimed just about that (It may not have been San Francisco, but I believe it was some large Californian city) and, more or less, made it true in that many would treat him as such.

But no, mere belief does not make something true.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange. I'd have expected chapter 3 verse 14.159....

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I

Re:What I found interesting.

[djp928]

I have heard this quip before, but you are mis-using it when applying it to scientific and critical thinking. The original quote is making reference to people who will BELIEVE anything. Scientists must consider all possibilities until proven wrong.

No. See, you're the one misunderstanding now. That is not at all what a scientist does. A scientist does not accept all possibilities until the day when one is "proven" to be correct. A scientist accepts only those possibilities that are falsifiable and subject to the scientific method. If a hypothesis is not testable, it's no better than random guesswork, and therefore not worthy of consideration.

Just about any "why" or "how" question I pose to you could be answered with the phrase "aliens did it." "Why is the sky blue?" "Aliens did it." "How does the hummingbird fly?" "Aliens did it." "Why does life exist?" "Aliens did it." Many of those statements could be tested by, for instance, showing that nitrogen in the atmosphere actually makes the sky blue and not aliens. However, many statements like that could NOT be tested. That does not make "Aliens did it" a valid hypothesis for that phenomenon, though. You can choose to believe it anyway, or you can do what a scientist would do, and demand further proof before you would believe it. That does not mean you would withhold judgement on that hypothesis--it means you would reject it until such time as some sort of evidence makes the statement more likely than any of the millions of other random statements that could be made about the phenomenon, or until such time as some means of testing the statement presents itself.

For someone to see a lack of evidence and firmly come down against something is just as bad as firmly coming down in favor of it. This is why people often call Atheism a religion.

Again, you're not talking about real atheism. So-called "strong" atehism is what you're talking about--a flat out denial of god, a statement such as "God does not exist because there is no evidence for God." This is not what any thoughtful atheist says, however. A thoughtful atheist merely says "There is no justification for a belief in God, therefore, I do not believe in God." Belief without evidence is faith. Belief in the face of counter-evidence is blind faith. DIS-belief without evidence is being rational, however. If my pencil disappears from my desk while I'm in the bathroom, I can come up with several hypotheses to explain that. I can hypothesize that I misplaced the pencil and only think it is missing. I can hypothesize that one of my coworkers took it. I can also hypothesize that "Aliens did it". Two of these are rational, testable hypotheses. One of them is irrational and basically untestable (even if I leave out another pencil as bait and use a video camera to try to catch the aliens in the act, I can still claim "Well, aliens took the FIRST one!" if I in fact catch a coworker stealing the 'bait' pencil from my desk.) Choosing to believe that all three are equally likely is foolish.

-- Dave

Re:What I found interesting.

[Darby]

How can you say there is no evidence of God? Surely the existance of highly organized life could lead a rational person to a theory that something created it.

The problem I have with that is simply that it is an utterly empty statement that adds nothing at all to the conversation.

I'm not referring to your comment, but to the idea that since everything is here something must have created it.

All it does is create the new essentially identical question, "Well who made the creator". It's an endless progression with nothing gained. By taking that step, it can seem like you have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin, but in reality you're right back where you started with an extra lair of useless cruft.

The only truly honest answer to the question of where the universe came from is, "I don't know". It is entirely possible that this will remain the only possible honest answer to this question forever.
Postulating some god merely pushes "I don't know" back as the answer to the question of where god came from.

An extra lair that adds nothing in terms of actual knowledge..

Now, some people seem to get a warm fuzzy feeling by choosing to believe that they have the answer which they are certainly more than welcome to do. The problem is when they try to make laws based on their belief or force others into it.

That can never be allowed in any form whatsoever in any society that cares in the least about freedom.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Darby]

How can an Atheist form a belief that God does not exist if there is not proof that God does not exist?

It's not even this complicated for me.

I have never formed a "belief" that god does not exist.
I didn't have to.
I never formed the belief that he did in the first place.

There is a fairly large difference. Your comment pre assumes that there is some sort of legitimacy to the whole god thing in the first place (otherwise, there is no need to form any sort of belief about it in the first place) which is not something I have ever seen any reason to accept.

Re:What I found interesting.

[StressedEd]

Personally my choice is being Agnostic.

Tsk, that's so "last year". Why don't you stop beating around the bush and become a fundamentalist agnostic. ;-)

Re:What I found interesting.

[2short]

I used to debate being atheist or agnostic, etc. Finnally, I have stopped beating around the bush: I'm a fundamentalist apatheist. Does God exist?
I don't care, and neither should you!

Re:What I found interesting.

[AnxiousMoFo]

Sure. If you want to point out that there is no way that I can absolutely prove that God does not exist, then I'll concede your point. But so what?

There's an assumption underlying your logic that a belief in God is just as valid as a denial of the existence of God. But that's only because a belief in a single creator God who interacts with the world and has an interest in our behavior in this lifetime is a very commonly held view in our culture. Suppose I were to say to you, "Those who absolutely deny the existence of Thor are just as blinkered as the pagans" or "Those who absolutely deny that, immediately after death, colored lights attempt to draw you into various planes of existence are just as blinkered as the Tibetan Buddhists." You'd look at me like I was insane. But the same logic applies - can you really prove to me that Thor doesn't exist?

There's a huge difference between making a statement which cannot possibly be proved and denying the truth of that statement. No, I can't prove absolutely that God doesn't exist. But the burden of proof is on the one who makes claims of existence for something which cannot be seen, touched, felt, or proved by experiments.

Re:What I found interesting.

[That's Unpossible!]

A scientist accepts only those possibilities that are falsifiable and subject to the scientific method. If a hypothesis is not testable, it's no better than random guesswork, and therefore not worthy of consideration.

There is a huge difference between "worthy of consideration" and "I'm going to try and do an experiment to prove or disprove something."

The latter is the only one a scientist needs to worry about something being falsifiable. You are trying to put words in my mouth. I never stated a scientist would do an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of pink elephants. Rather, a scientist would simply RESERVE JUDGEMENT due to LACK OF EVIDENCE.

This is analogous to agnosticism.

Again, you're not talking about real atheism. So-called "strong" atehism is what you're talking about

Gee, I have some more hairs here we could split if you want to?

A thoughtful atheist merely says "There is no justification for a belief in God, therefore, I do not believe in God." Belief without evidence is faith. Belief in the face of counter-evidence is blind faith.

So, (1) atheists believe something because there is no evidence to support the corollary, and (2) belief in something without evidence is faith. Therefore atheists have faith that there is no God. Doesn't really sound scientific to me?

Contrast that with agnostics, who will reserve judgement on the issue because there is no evidence either way. Sounds pretty scientific.

Re:What I found interesting.

[2short]

"For someone to see a lack of evidence and firmly come down against something is just as bad as firmly coming down in favor of it. This is why people often call Atheism a religion."

Hogwash. If someone tells you there are magic elephants in their back yard that can not be detected by any means, you have no evidence that they are right and no evidence that they are wrong. If choose to beleive that there are elephants, or choose to beleive that there are not, well, I say one of these positions is more reasonable.

An agnostic would say, it is impossible to determine for sure whether the undetectable elephants exist. This is true, so perhaps that makes me an agnostic.

An atheist would say, "I do not beleive there are elephants". Thus, I am an atheist. Perhaps Atheists and Agnostics are not entirely disjoint sets.

You seem to think an atheist has to say "There cannot possibly be elephants.", but this is not so. Atheist do not (all) say God is impossible. They say they do not beleive God exists.

I do not beleive God exists. I do not beleive undetectable elephants exist. I do not beleive either of those beleifs can reasonably be called a religion.

I submit that it is you who do not understand the terminology. You are not alone. Many people seem to like to redefine Atheism to mean only super-extra-strong-to-the-point-of-obvious-falacy Atheism. This is dumb, because I know of no one at all who subscribes to that beleif set, and so Atheist becomes a useless term. It seems much more useful to ditinguish between people who do not beleive God exists, people who do, and people who are undecided.

Re:What I found interesting.

[dosun88888]

I'm sorry, but I think you are unfamiliar with the terminology as well. Agnosticism does not mean that God may or may not exist and Atheism does not necessarily mean that God must not exist. Agnosticism means that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable and an Atheist simply looks at the current evidence for the existence of God and arrives at the belief that He does not exist.

I chopped out the links that were provided, one from a religious site and one from a non-religious site. Why was there no actual dictionary definition given?

From Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate:

agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

To clarify - belief that something IS unknowable is belief, and violates the entire spirit of the word agnostic. This is why Webster throws in the "probably."

Though I agree - it's more fun to remove it and be able to happily classify people as believers who by definition avoid believing much of anything at all. It's comforting to be able to look at a grey bowl and call it the same black as whatever pot or kettle you decide to inhabit.

It's muddlers of language such as yourself and the references you choose to accept that make it impossible to describe anything concisely. When it's unsafe to use any word for fear of an obscure or blatantly false definition to be associated with it, then communication is hindered.

I salute you, Mr. Communication Hinderer Man.

Hope you feel better about yourself, though. I know a lot of people find solace in educating the populous with whatever brand of pseudo-knowledge that they subscribe to.

~D

Re:What I found interesting.

[djp928]

Gee, I have some more hairs here we could split if you want to?

You're just deliberately being a dick now, which is where pretty much every debate on /. ends up eventually, so let's just do this.

Read this and let's agree to disagree. As it turns out, we're both using somewhat skewed definitions. However, it supports my central argument that agnosticism is not an alternative between theism and atheism. By that page, I'm an agnostic atheist--I lack a belief in a god or gods because of a lack of evidence. What are you? Again atheism is NOT a belief. It's a *lack* of belief. "There is no justification for a belief in God, therefore, I do not believe in God." It doesn't pre-suppose that an atheist would never convert to theism if evidence were offered for the belief. It simply means that because there is no evidence for the belief, the atheist does not hold that belief. You are in fact an atheist if you do not actively believe in a god or gods.

-- Dave

Re:What I found interesting.

[0111 1110]

The distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is academic. It is not a very useful distinction. To most religious people they are the same. Just like I don't know the difference between a protestant and a catholic (no please don't tell me).

The difference is supposed to be that agnostics realize that the existence of said magical/supernatural creature is not just unknown but unknowable. A good point and one that most atheists would not disagree with.

For whatever reason agnostics are unwilling to take it one step further and actually say that they don't believe in something unknowable. This unwillingness to actually come out and say it (Hemlock anyone?) is probably the most fundamental distinction. Whether this is due to fear of being unpopular among religious people or feeling some responsibility to defend one's views all the time I don't know. Either way I have no doubt that agnostics are really atheists. The "I can't really know one way or another" is just a red herring, an excuse for not having to stand up for an unpopular lack of belief. There is a lot of truth to the idea that "agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions".

I am an atheist, and I agree with your points about magical, undetectable creatures of any kind (including most God myths) being unknowable. I agree that even if such creatures did exist it would be pointless for us to even discuss such things since we could not (by definition) ever know of them.

You seem to believe that atheists are making some kind of positive claim to something. We are not. We simply examine any specific God legend for logical consistency (is it self-contradictory or otherwise clearly in violation of various laws of existence?) and examine whatever evidence is presented to us for said belief. The fact is that most God-creatures are magical, supernatural and quite impossible to exist. I think it is our realization of this fact (i.e. the famous square circle analogy) that most distinguishes an atheist from an agnostic.

The first question I want to ask when someone tells me they believe in a god legend is whether "it" is animal, vegetable of mineral. Just what is it exactly that they are claiming exists? That's where things get real fuzzy. It makes me wonder about the difference between not believing in something and actually believing specifically in nothing per se.

Re:What I found interesting.

[ABaumann]

Well, if you read "Things A Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About" or listened to the lecture, you'd know why.

Knuth explains that in the future, there won't be people who solely specialize in one area. You're going to have people who specialize in two areas, so that you have a network of information. Being a computer scientist, when I want to learn about something I know nothing about,say auto repair, I want to talk to someone who's an expert in auto repair AND computer science. Then they can hopefully give me some background on auto repair from a computer science perspective.

This is why listening to Knuth about religion is a great idea. His passion is Computer Science. He also has dedicated a lot of time in studying religion, so he can give you an explaination that you'd understand, using a computer scientist's mindset, as to what he believes.

It's basically taking language a step further. If you only speak English, even though you're an expert in said field, you're not going to seek out information from someone who only speaks Chinese. Taking that thought just a little further, being a mathematically minded computer scientist, you prolly wouldn't want to have to get an artistic explaination of what somebody believed.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Tyler Durden]

No offense, but your post made very little sense.

In no way was I trying to belittle agnosticism, atheism or theism. If you would have read one of the posts I included, you would have seen the following...

The term 'agnostic' was created by T. H. Huxley (1825-1895), who took his cue from David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Huxley says that he invented the term to describe what he thought made him unique among his fellow thinkers:

They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

Sorry I left out the "probably", but since agnosticism (like theism or atheism) is just one of many beliefs, I felt the "probably" was kind of implied.

I'm still honestly confused as to what I said to piss you off or why.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Surt]

A scientist concludes that because invisible pink elephants are non-falsifiable, they should be assumed not to exist. It is meaningless to consider their existence, because they have no effect on the world around us.

Re:What I found interesting.

[sixide]

KJV is modern english. This is old english.

Re:What I found interesting.

[idlake]

This must make many people on Slashdot very happy. I have seen many posts claiming that only an idiot would believe in God. Think of how many people now have proof that they are smarter than Donald Knuth.

You are falsely conceptualizing intelligence as something one-dimensional. Knuth is the best in the world at writting little gem-like computer science papers about random topics algorithms and discrete structures. That doesn't mean that he is an authority on anything else. Newton was a nut and a crank, but his physics was good.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I take your point about the diety. But I think you'll find that Knuth
believes in a deity.

Re:What I found interesting.

[0111 1110]

Bertrand Russell, also a bright guy, attempted the opposite and failed. He later said that he could not decide whether he was an agnostic or an atheist, since he was unable to demonstrate the non-existence of God.

Actually it's not so hard. The trick is to first know what you are actually talking about. Theists tend to keep their God definitions pretty muddy, but once you pin them down to an actual, specific definition of the creature they are claiming to exist it is (usually) a piece of cake to disprove it. Why? Because most such beliefs are in some way logically inconsistent. They make it too easy! Not that the theists will care anyway. Most don't believe in their personal deity for logical reasons but for emotional ones.

Of course, even a "god" that is actually somewhat plausible logically which to most of us would be more akin to a powerful alien race of creatures (see relevant ST:TNG episode) requires evidence. But people who believe in the idea of Aliens so advanced that they are indistinguishable from truly magical beings are not usually thought of as being thiests. Why? Because we are still talking about organisms subject to the same laws of nature even if their technology and/or evolutionary advances make them appear godlike in their power. The word g-o-d is usually used to denote a creature which is able to violate/create laws of nature and is not subject to them.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very clever 2short. A new kind of 'theism. Mind if I use that? Theism, atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, and now apatheism. Next time the subject of the gods comes up I will refer to myself as an apatheist. Do I believe in a God of some kind? "Well it's not so much that I don't believe but that I don't care." I wonder if this version would have saved us from burning at the stake for being an unbeliever/blasphemer back in the day.

Re:What I found interesting.

[eraserewind]

Indeed, and many rational people believed that for a long time, until a better theory came along that explains it all infinitely better. Then all the rational people stopped believing it.

Re:What I found interesting.

[lgw]

This is why science uses the word "true" loosely: to mean "usefully predictive". One can, therefore, prove a theory about the world (even, amusingly enough, a false one). The theory that I am the King is unlikely to make useful predictions.

However, most people who believe that there is a god believe that his existance is *necessary*, not merely true. One should expect a mathematical proof in that case. A subtle but impotant distinction.

Re:What I found interesting.

[lgw]

There's one more option that you missed, and it's important philospically.

4) You meant something different from what I understood when you made this claim.

It's a bit silly in this example, but profoundly important in the Jesus example.

Re:What I found interesting.

[GigsVT]

All it does is create the new essentially identical question, "Well who made the creator".

Which is exactly the same with the Big Bang theory. It offers no explanation of what caused or created the singularity. You have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin, but in reality you're right back where you started. I don't see the Big Bang as incompatible with a creator, for this reason.

You see, when I talk of a creator, I'm not pointing to the Bible or anything of that sort. My creator is falsifiable, experimental data that shows contradiction can be taken into account, and the theory modified accordingly.

they try to make laws based on their belief or force others into it.

Don't let them shape your philosophy. Keep an open mind, even if a big group of the people that believe in a theory are obnoxious facists, that doesn't mean the theory should be dismissed out of hand.

It's like research on genetic correlation with IQ. No rational discussion can happen on that subject because its so polarized, mostly because a large group of people subscribing to such theories are bigoted assholes. That doesn't mean the theories should be dismissed out of hand, but they often are, without any critical examination.

Things like this get in the way of real science.

Re:What I found interesting.

[GigsVT]

But what's the point of saying you choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in something like that?


It's important you understand this point, which you imply you don't by saying "something like that".

I believe the answer is unknowable in our current state of affairs. That's different from being unsure, I strongly believe the answer is unknowable by present day humans. Ask me again tomorrow. And tomorrow+N. The answer might change based on available data. That's why it's a theory and not dogma.

There are no predictions your hypothesis makes than can be tested

There's no other hypothesis of origin with testable predictions.

There is no evidence that points towards a creator

Physics is based on conservation theories. That energy or matter cannot spring into being from nothing. A theory that proposes the opposite goes against all evidence. Surely a theory that energy and matter did not spring from nothing is stronger than a theory that does claim such.

Re:What I found interesting.

[GigsVT]

What theory is that?

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I reject the thesis that belief in the supernatural is merely a "personal matter". The dire consequences of religious belief are all around us. It took a totally irrational belief in after-death reward to drive men to kill themselves in the name of their cause, whether they were Japanese pilots or suicide bombers on the streets of Israel.

The most worrying things about mainstream religions are...

1. False moral authority. Teaching people to accept ethical decisions from a dead text (a bible or similar book) or from religious leaders allows them to abdicate responsibility. How much easier it is to fire the first shot when your priest has assured you that God is on your side...

2. Mental health problems. There are plenty of things that can go wrong with a mind, and a lot of them are curable. But they can't be cured if they aren't treated, and they won't be treated if religions pretend that illness is a blessing, a sign from God, or a normal part of life. After 20 years of being taught that you can have a "personal relationship with God", what's a person to think when they realise that a voice inside their head is talking to them?

Re:What I found interesting.

[runderwo]

In terms of the scientific method, the difference between atheists and agnostics is their view of the theory "God exists". Atheists consider this a testable theory, and the lack of convincing evidence supporting that theory (or any supernatural theory, for that matter) means to them that there is room to doubt that theory. Atheism does not imply a blind rejection of God, nor does it have anything to do with the rejection of organized religion. However, atheism is frequently associated with scientists, who frequently also reject organized religion, so atheism has gained that connotation by accident. Also, some very loud people who call themselves atheists blindly reject God without consideration - these are just zealots of a different nature.

Agnosticism is very similar to atheism with one key difference: agnostics believe that the theory "God exists" is not testable, and is thus disinteresting from the point of view of science.

Some view this as the "easy way out" of the deist question, but it's actually just another way of looking at the question from a scientific perspective. A theory must be testable in order for it to be verified or rejected through experiments. Theories which are not testable are nothing more than nice ideas or speculation from the perspective of science.

Most atheists and agnostics are not openly hostile to organized religion, but some are, and the rest of us get a bad name because of these loud few. Please do not associate atheism or agnosticism with anything more than differing opinions on how the scientific method should be applied to the question of God. Both atheism and agnosticism are closely related and in a different class from all other beliefs regarding God, in that they both reject faith as a way to find truth of God's existence or lack of existence.

Re:What I found interesting.

[monkeyGrease]

Do you also choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in invisible pink elephants? There's no evidence for them either...

Actually, there is no such thing as invisible pink elephants by definition, unless of course the elephant is standing in front of a pink background and your invisible elephant is invisible by virtue of some chameleon-like ability.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Skyshadow]

You're both wrong.

That would be Emperor of San Francisco. Well, technically "His Imperial Majesty, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico", but I'm trying not to be too picky.

Re:What I found interesting.

[eraserewind]

That would be the theory of evolution by natural selection. You may have heard mention of it. It explains "the existance of highly organized life" without the need for a creator.

Re:What I found interesting.

[GigsVT]

If you had read my entire message, you would see that I said I don't think creation conflicts with evolution. Evolution says nothing about the origins of things, only the development of them.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Golias]

Your option 4 is pretty much the same missed option which I cited, that Jesus did not make the claim he is recorded to have made.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Golias]

Some people's beliefs do not include a requirement to go to Church every week.

In the United States, many "Evangelicals" (not a name for a denomination, but rather a collection of protestant believers with a set of beliefs similar to Southern Baptists) attend Bible study groups on a semi-regular basis, but seldom bother with Sunday morning services. They take their faith seriously, but they see their religious as a deeply personal thing, rather than a collection of weekly rites or an organizing force of their social lives.

The current President is an example of such folk.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution explains how simple life forms become "highly organized".

Re:What I found interesting.

[2short]

Do I mind if you use "Apatheist"? I didn't make it up in the first place, but I'm pretty confident the guy who did (as far as I know), would go with the obvious answer: Whatever. He's not only an apatheist, but a laid back one to boot.
My innovation, as far as I can tell, is that I'm agressively apatheist. I don't care if God exists, and I think one of the main problems in the world today is that so many other people do care. It should not matter to you whether God exists. I ought to note that I know many nice people who beleive in God, and even go to church regularly; but when it comes right down to it, I'm pretty sure they don't particularly care if any of it is true. I have no problem with these people; there fine folks, and they don't yammer on about God.

You can spot the ones who really care whether God exists. God will come up in their conversation regularly, whether particularly on-topic or not. Best to keep an eye on these. They are irrational and frequently dangerous.

Re:What I found interesting.

[lgw]

I was a bit unclear, but I guess there are a 4 and 5.

4) He never actually said that at all.

5) He did actually say "I am the son of God", believed it, the statement was true as intended, but the intended meaning was not the obvious one (for example: "don't you see, we are all the son of God", though there have been quite a few suggestions over the centuries).

It's easy to forget "poetic meaning" in linguistic analysis, where the intended message is not, or is not only, the direct message of the words. In the sort of "poetic" writing often used by mystics, there are sometimes more that 2 meanings, where a phrase has a jargon meaning which is different than the common meaning of the words, and one or both have an additional deeper meaning. My favorite are ambiguous statements where the intended meaning is not either interpretation, but rather the suggestion that both things are true, if properly understood. You can do a lot of cool things with English, if you spend long enough trying.

Of course, since most mysticism is based on the presumption that if you sound profound enough, people will give you money and sex, there's plenty of incentive to hack the language.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe some of the atheists would sooner die than renounce their beliefs?

Re:What I found interesting.

[timboc007]

Belief in a diety must ultimately come down to a personal choice -- a leap of faith -- beyond the realm of rational.

Is a diety like a god of weight loss?

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing wrong with being a bully - that high-and-mighty-meekness shit is all from society's religious background... Imagine! Those in power (Priests, Holy Roman Emperor, Pharoah, whatever else) wanting their subjects to be meek?!

Re:What I found interesting.

[eraserewind]

Evolution, and Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection are two very different things. You mentioned the first, I mentioned the second. One is a phenomenon, the other is a theory that explains the mechanism and extent of the first, and how it can lead to "highly organized life" from very humble beginnings.

You didn't talk about the origin of things. You talked about highly organized life. The "origin of things" is by definition (at least if we are talking evolution) not "highly organized life".

If by "creator" all you mean is "the start of the universe". Then I think that discussions about it are little more than arguments about semantics. Your first post didn't indicate that was what you meant though ("highly organized life", etc...)

Re:What I found interesting.

[ScouseMouse]

I would have problems accepting any daety that cant accept me with all my flaws.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Golias]

You can do a lot of cool things with English, if you spend long enough trying.

This may come as somewhat of a shock to you, but I'm almost positive that Jesus was not speaking English.

Re:What I found interesting.

[austus]

Actually an atheist may be thinking in a philosophical manner regarding his atheism. For example, an atheist may believe that belief itself must be accompanied with some action that provides evidence for that belief. Anyone can say they believe, but if they don't behave as if that belief is true, then they do not believe.

So the atheist of this sort, with this definition of belief, believes himself an atheist because in his life he has accepted no concept of a god or implemented any of the strange behavior that would result from that god-belief. There is no ambiguity about it. One is either an atheist, or a theist to some degree.

Frankly I question the usefulness of the word agnostic as it is used today. It seems to be a word that is really meant as an easy solution to avoid thinking about the issue at hand. It's really an attempt to avoid really thinking about this whole mind wrenching topic of atheism/theism. I believe it stems from the desire not to waste precious brain power on the topic. This is especially for the atheists whose gut feeling about religion is that it is an unnecessary layer of crud added to provide insulation from reality.

I'm not trying to condemn agnostics. Oh contrare. It really does seem like a waste of time. I simply think agnostics should redefine agnostic more tightly. They should redefine agnostic to mean anyone who finds the entire theism/atheism debate too stupid and meaningless to waste the brain power on it. After that redefinition, I would feel compelled to label myself a born again agnostic.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agnosticism is not a belief. Believing or not believing in God requires a leap of faith, a step beyond reason. Agnosticism requires no such thing. It simply states "I don't know" based on the current evidence as seen through scientific methods. It might seem dull and rigorous, but so is science.

People should be more at ease with just saying "I don't know" once in a while. It might do them some good.

Re:What I found interesting.

[StressedEd]

I'm a fundamentalist apatheist.

Apathy rules!

Well, it would if it could be bothered.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Tyler Durden]

Other than mathematical proofs and the fact of one's own existence, everything we take to be as "true" are simply beliefs. It's just that some beliefs take bigger leaps of faith than others.

There are an infinite number of entities one can posit exists simply by saying they are beyond the reach of all of our senses. In philosophy, these are known as "metaphysical claims". Why should God get more consideration than any other of these possible claims?

The original agnostics took the position that all metaphysical claims were bunk, and refused to answer on the existence of God one way or the other. In my opinion, this is a much stronger position than what agonsticism came to mean.

If someone has the position that they're not sure whether or not they believe in something, the logical thing to ask is "What evidence would it take to convince you?", and if the requirements are outrageous enough then the next question is "So what do you gain in entertaining the idea in the first place?"

The original agnostics answered, "I refuse to answer on the existence of God as it is a metaphysical claim and all metaphysical calims are meaningless. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." The definition of agnosticism as it is twisted to mean today is simply a position of laziness.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Darby]

Which is exactly the same with the Big Bang theory. It offers no explanation of what caused or created the singularity. You have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin, but in reality you're right back where you started.

It is very similar, but it isn't exactly the same.
I don't know how the universe came into being in terms of what caused the big bang (assuming there actually was such a thing). So there is no loss of ignorance implied or otherwise. All of the evidence available indicates that everything was at the same place some time ago, so it's reasonable to assume that to be the case until contradictory evidence comes to light.
So there is some loss of ignorance in terms of the mechanisms and what happened since then.

I don't see the Big Bang as incompatible with a creator, for this reason.

Absolutely. Those who do are about 8 beers short of a 6 pack.
Physics itself says (AFAIK) that there is no way currently (maybe even ever) possible to know what happened prior to the big bang. Anybody who believes in a being so powerful as to be able to create everything, but won't allow that he might have chosen his own way to do that is calling their own god pretty lame.

You see, when I talk of a creator, I'm not pointing to the Bible or anything of that sort. My creator is falsifiable, experimental data that shows contradiction can be taken into account, and the theory modified accordingly.

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

What sort of falsifiable theory of a creator exists?

Don't let them shape your philosophy. Keep an open mind, even if a big group of the people that believe in a theory are obnoxious facists, that doesn't mean the theory should be dismissed out of hand.

I guess this ties in with the above. I'm not aware of any actual theory of creation. I have never heard of such an animal and am eagerly awaiting the arrival of my first issue of the newsletter ;-)

Re:What I found interesting.

[cat_jesus]

The invisible pinkness only seems like a contradiction because you lack faith.

Re:What I found interesting.

[GigsVT]

Well, I have to warn you my ideas are not yet fully baked, but there are several ideas that hint at a creator theory, things I am intrigued with right now.

Fictional
Semi-scientific

Think of it as applying transhumanism to creationism. If the universe comes to an end, and none of these things happen, then it is an absolute proof that the theory is false. If "we" manage to create a new universe, then the chance that it has happened before is very good.

Yes, this does just push it back yet another level, "What started this loop of us creating universes?"... but it does address creation of the current universe, going further back than the Big Bang.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Darby]

Fair enough.

If we managed to create our own universe, then that would certainly indicate it is possible ;-)

Re:What I found interesting.

[lgw]

Thank you captain pendantic! Does "you can do a lot of cool things with natural language" make you feel better? Not that the language Jesus spoke had *any* relevance to the point I was making, but whatever.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Golias]

Ouch, looks like I struck a nerve there. Buck up, camper. I was only making a funny.

Re:What I found interesting.

[lgw]

Yeah, I should get more sleep. :) I should have said "No way! Next you'll tell me he was a Jew!"

Re:What I found interesting.

[Golias]

That would have been a good one, yeah.

Don't you love how you can use long-dead slashdot threads as your own personal chat-room? :)

Re:What I found interesting.

[SA Stevens]

Why are 'simple life forms' considered inferior to 'highly organized' lifeforms. It sounds like a trip from order to chaos to me.

Actually, it sounds very anthropomorphic. 'Man: the highest evolved' and all that. Very hierarchical reasoning, very similar to a lot of religious theories.

Re:What I found interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach your children that god is make believe.

Re:NPR

[aventius]

Speaking of political media... did anyone watch the ABC show, Boston Legal? It was about how a principal banned the Fox News station from airing within his school. A student was sueing the school because he wanted access to the "most fair and balanced" news media (crock o' shit). The main argument the school had was that the liberal media does not promote intolerance. They also cited excerpts from the documentary Outfoxed where first hand accounts of former employees stated how they were instructed to not report the news, but put the Republican agenda. Now I'm not taking sides on this issue (don't need a slashdot flamewar), I bring it up because I'm impressed how bold the show's producers were to do a show about this.

Leftist crap

[fizban]

Look at those leftist NPR hacks, going and interviewing an actual computer scientist, rather than the business leaders, CEOs and MBAs who really make things happen. God, they just make me so mad, those commie Public Radio personalities with their "insightful" and "interesting" guests who think they're "oh, so smart" with their "science" and "knowledge" and "thoughtfulness" crap. Someone should shut them down! I want to hear a good old "Proud to be American" conservative commentator screaming at me and telling me how to think! God Bless Red America! Thank you and good night!

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[squiggleslash]

He actually abandoned email in 1990. The complaint was that email is for people who want to get on top of things, and he's the type of person who wants to get to the bottom of things.

In other words, he was getting legitimate email, and it was a distraction for that reason.

I'm pretty sure that if the problem was spam, Knuth is one of the few people who'd actually create a system that can, actually, filter spam and spam only.

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

He has something even an average computer geek abandoned, long ago. A life.

he didn't abandon email because of spam

[tuffy]

From his website: "Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don't have time for such study."

Re:he didn't abandon email because of spam

[rmadhuram]

Darn! Wish I could say that to my manager!!

Re:NPR

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I agree (Law and Order has had some good moments like this, e.g. Chris Noth saying "I knew the Patriot Act by its former name: 1984."), it's sad that this counts as "bold".

It's also sad that some people are taking my metatroll seriously. Hah - you'd think that they'd pick up either on my calling Knuth a "programmer" (he is FAR more), or my hick-like swagger.

Re: Getting Rid of E-mail

[jacoby19]

The narrator also mentions he's "abandoned email."

What seems strange to me about this is that getting thousands of letters a year is the same as getting e-mails, just in a different form. I agree that there is an expectation with e-mail that it will get answered quickly, but that is assumption can be changed by anyone who takes time to respond with a thoughtful response.

As to filtering out the useful from the junk, I feel like e-mail tools (web or desktop) are getting better every day (or at least every version) at allowing filtering and spam-blocking. I may have a different take on e-mail when I'm in my mid 60's but I just don't understand the reluctance to use a new technology when it allows the exact same type of communication as the old one, as long as you use it the way you want to.

In a twist of fate, Microsoft announces Visual MIX

[tjstork]

Most of us struggle with basic assembly language. But Knuth goes and invents his own VM (MIX) and programs all of his examples to it. You just have to admire that.

Metafont's numbering scheme

[Noksagt]

Knuth also made metafont, a programming language to produce rasterized fonts. The version number is converging to e.

Re:Metafont's numbering scheme

[jd]

Metafont is a wonderful font description system, particularly as it is another text-based markup system. BECAUSE it is a text-based markup system, it should be relatively easy to add support for it to browsers. This would allow you to include character descriptions when you want to use multiple fonts, which avoids the usual problem of needing the fonts pre-installed AND the right mapping.

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[m50d]

Real player is the only one out of real, windows media and quicktime which is available for Linux. So you're not likely to get anything better.

Not Slashdoted

[a3217055]

Finally a good piece of news to share with the other guys that did not get slashdoted. This was definately a good article and a morning edition is always a good show to listen to.

"Hunt, drink, and love"...

[mangu]

...is an anagram for "Donald Ervin Knuth". So, his parents already knew he would be a great hero and named him accordingly.

Interesting typo

[ggvaidya]

"Do you believe that is a God?"

Knuth, "Yes I do."

What I wouldn't give to know what the two of them were looking at ... particularly apt, since I always thought that Knuth was supposed to be God ...

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

He abandoned email because he found it was a distraction. No mention of spam.

Chat transcript anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[waffleman]

You know, perhaps spam's not the problem. Remember this is a very inventive man. If spam were the problem, he would either employ a solution or likely tackle it because it is a large hard problem.

Re:TeX more practical?

[Anonymous Coward]

TeX is already long in the tooth, and will become obsolete soon.

I'm curious as to what you think it will be obsoleted by?

smil plays in Realplayer

[xtermin8]

RealPlayer files are played in linux http://www.real.com/linux/?rppr=rnwk&src=040%20104 freeplayer just fine. I think torrent would be overkill. I'd expect mpeg files to start floating around soon, Hell, even Knuth's lectures on his Christianity are online http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_program.html?progra m_id=50

Knuth was there first

[Animats]

Knuth was there first. When "Fundamental Algorithms" came out, there were almost no computer science books. There were vendor machine manuals, and books on programming languages. "A Fortran Primer", by Elliot Organick was about as good as it got. MIT students had a tech note series called HAKMEM, but few others saw those. There was a huge vacuum waiting to be filled. That's why "Fundamental Algorithms" got so much attention.

Re:Knuth was there first

[mshaslam]

Maybe he said it first, but the real kicker is that no one has been able to say it better since then.

MSH

Re:TeX more practical?

[IWK]

> TeX is already long in the tooth, and will
> become obsolete soon

and join all those other technolgies which are "dead"? BSD, Lisp, Smalltalk, ???

When Word ate my latest report for the umptheenth time I decided to stop using it at the office (where its use is mandatory, but rank does allow some privileges ...). Instead of going to OpenOffice, which behaves in manners not unlike Word when confronted with big docs, I looked at plain text based markup languages. In the end I just went back to Tex (Latex). it's more readable than XML based markup languages (Docbook, anyone?), and has the best (superb) toolset while still having a large and vibrant user community (in academia).

So now my documents look superb and they are never eaten by my word processor. Tex has some life in it yet,,,,,

Re: Getting Rid of E-mail

[MyLongNickName]

If someone sends me a snail mail letter, the quality tends to be much higher than e-mail. Electronic media tends to make things so easy that folks don't put much forethought into their writings? Want proof? Look at my comment history :)

Re:TeX more practical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, here's a nice proof that TeX is of more practical importance:

Practically everyone who understands and enjoys TAoCP uses TeX for document preparation.

Quite a few people who don't understand and/or don't give a shit about TAoCP, be they academicians or "industrians", also use TeX with or without a frontend.

Re:In a twist of fate, Microsoft announces Visual

[bunratty]

Not only that. He redid the assembly language as MMIX, with revolutionary 64-bit instructions not found in any existing processor. Then he went on to write the assembler and simulator so we could write and execute MMIX code. As if that weren't enough, he went on to write a configurable pipelined meta-simulator to experiment with how instructions could be executed simulanteously in a hardware implementation.

Shhhh!

[Anonymous Coward]

He must have been just kidding. Only ignorant boobs who live in the "Red States" believe in the Sky Bully. There all idiots who can't even spell!

Re:Shhhh!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they can't even spell they're

Re:Shhhh!

[wcrowe]

Better re-read your last sentence.

Idiot.

Re:Shhhh!

[geomon]

There all idiots who can't even spell!

The art of the elegant troll.

Re:Shhhh!

[Thud457]

"The art of the elegant troll."

Allright, who leaked the title for volume 0xA?!!!
What do you think he's been doing all this time, working on volume IV?!!!

Re:Shhhh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one of the ancestor posts is the troll?
I can't even parse the layers of irony here.
Mod aboriginal post up for whedonism.
Sky Bully:Praying::Troll:Feeding.
Atheist posts AC to remain karmically neutral.
If I die with neutral karma do I get reincarnated as myself?

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[Software]

Abandoning email may be stupid for you, but you are not Donald Knuth. Read his page on why he abandoned it. He dropped it in 1990, when SPAM was a lunchmeat.

On an unrelated note, I love this note on his page about The Art Of Computer Programming:

... And if you do report an error [in TAOCP] via email, please do not include attachments of any kind; your message should be readable on brand-X operating systems for all values of X.

Re:NPR

[ch-chuck]

That's pretty bizarre - so they're promoting intolerance toward a particular news feed and censorship in the name of tolerance. The irony is killing me.

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Post your email address when you say that, pilgrim.

I can get an OGG/MP3 if there's a place to put it

[sgarrity]

I'm not big on hosting it for the Slashdot crowd, but I can get an OGG/MP3 version of this if someone has somewhere to put it.

OT: It would be great...

[dohboy]

...if /. would generate and post a bittorrent link for all the media files BEFORE the article is posted.

/. DDoS of content providers is so uncool.

(I realize that NPR was posting the file later today, but do you think you could have waited before posting the article? And then provide the bittorrent link?)

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with spam. You know nothing abuot what you're talking about.

The Part Where He Doesn't Take Off His Bike Helmet

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . when he's inside the building, because it will take too long to take off . . . that kinda weirds me out. I've seen plenty of documentation on scheduling nuts who don't tie their shoes until their behind the wheel of a car and won't properly cook spaghetti because it takes too long. I mean, is it really worth looking kind of goofy, potentially causing an accident, or suffering from indigestion (or general bad-meal unhappiness) to save a few minutes here and there? Seems like geniuses would realize this.

Knuth is rather profoundly "red state"-ish.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

I want to hear a good old "Proud to be American" conservative commentator screaming at me and telling me how to think!

Sorry to burst your bubble:

Yes, this is how God
____loved the world:
_He Gave his
____Only Child;
____So that all
____People with faith in him
can Escape destruction and
____Live a full life;
now and forever.

Welcome to the asylum...

[Thud457]

Maybe the sign's on the wrong side of the fence.

Re:NPR

[aventius]

i think their reason was that the intolerance created an abusive setting in the school... they kept stating how one show host was saying that if you don't support the current policies you are automatically an enemy.... or something like that.... and it was causing discrimination, harassment, and general disarray within the school... btw... yes the irony is great... what you said was the prosecutions argument

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not Speex?

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[Scott Laird]

Okay, how about a different approach: I'd love to have this in a format that I can stick on an iPod or burn onto a CD so I can listen to it in my car. I don't really care about open source players, but open *formats* are really important.

Re:TeX more practical?

[bfields]

TeX is already long in the tooth, and will become obsolete soon.

Says who? Last I checked, Microsoft word, for example, still did a pretty ugly job of typesetting even very simple equations. TeX isn't that hard to use (though of course you can get as complicated as you want), and produces great output.

TeX still has pretty much a monopoly on academic mathematics, as far as I know. Go to a good technical bookstore and look at the TeX section--there's still a lot of work being done around it.

--Bruce Fields

I'd like to hear this...

[mr_Spook]

Well, since the article went up 40 minutes after the interview started, I'm wondering if anyone's captured the audio streams and put up a torrent?

I know, wishful thinking...

Re:In a twist of fate, Microsoft announces Visual

[Xiaran]

You do. It perfectly embodies the "not invent here" attitude that dominates our industry. (Joke BTW).

Now for a nice little factoid on where the name MIX comes from.

"MIX's model number is 1009, which was chosen by combining the model numbers and names of other machines the author was familiar with. (Conveniently, the roman number "MIX" equals 1009.)"

He also had a lot to do with Literate Programming movement.

Re: Getting Rid of E-mail

[Guppy06]

" If someone sends me a snail mail letter, the quality tends to be much higher than e-mail. "

Are we talking about all mail, or just the first class mail you get that's paid for by stamps? PRST STD, especially when paid for by permit imprint, is only a moderate improvement over spam.

Re:He is a Christian

[stuntpope]

Then I hope you are likewise wary (you mean skeptical?) of a large amount of work from many of the best minds in science.

Re:NPR

[Anonymous Coward]

In the time when freedom of speech was being developed and explored, there were certain community standards which do not exist any more. For instance, it is an objective fact that a court of law has held that Fox News does not have the obligation of presenting facts and can, legally, present opinions and even lies when labelled as opinions.

Giving the benefit of doubt and thinking that this may not be automatically a bad thing, in such a state of affairs, I can see the logic in banning such "news" content; after all, it isn't really either.

What's funny is that the Right has done a much better job for themselves abusing this mindless "tolerate everything" concept than the Left has. Frankly, I hate it in either case.

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[TeknoHog]

$ mplayer -playlist http://wm.npr.na-central.speedera.net/wm.npr.na-ce ntral/me/20050314_me_06.wma

Re: Getting Rid of E-mail

[MyLongNickName]

I was refering to personal letters, with a traditional stamp. However, even my junk mail is a vast improvement over spam. Because it costs money, the ads are at least SOMEWHAT targeted at my interests and demographics. This is the unforunae ide effect of making something free. It quickly becomes devalued as well (and no... those are not necissarily synonymous).

Re:He is a Christian

[webwalker]

And you are...who?

Why should you opinion matter?

Almost all of the very greatest minds in science have been people who believe in something that they can't prove. Even without a spiritual dimension, that thing can be called a 'theory'. How you view the world, even through the lense of less than 100% certainty, changes you. Hooray for God and other less empirical ideas.

Between knowing them and their work, and you shooting that hole in your face off, I'll side with them. Maybe I shouldn't be feeding you, trollboy, but the sheer towering cockiness I hear leaking out of your skull leads me to hope I never have to put my life on the line for one of your scientific theories.

RMW

spoken word

[delirium of disorder]

Knuth's lectures are quite interesting. You can find some more of them here:

http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_catalog.html?item_i d=421

or by searching the eDonkey/eMule network for "donald knuth" or "god and computers"

Re:spoken word

[syousef]

Lectures on "God and Computers"?

I'd be more inclined to read them if they were titled "Goddamn computers".

Re:TeX more practical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to a good technical bookstore and look at the TeX section--there's still a lot of work being done around it.

Or better yet, go to a technical bookstore and look at books typeset with TeX.

It's OK stop after shelf or two.

Re:TeX more practical?

[gtall]

Don't write much mathematics do you? Maybe you should get out more.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

CmdrTaco has publically stated that he doesn't care. I have some IRC transcripts from the last Slashdot IRC conference where he smugly says this.

If CmdrTaco slashdotted a website and causes that website to receive a $3000 bandwidth bill, he just wouldn't give a damn. He is that arrogant.

Slashdot is here to make him and OSDN money, not to actually do any legitimate work for the community.

Agnostic or Athiest?

[FreeUser]

Real atheists do not say "God does not exist". Real atheists say "I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for His existence." There's a huge difference.

I agree. I suppose I'm an athiest, as I subscribe to the latter. That having been said ...

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is saying "There is no evidence for God, but I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve." How crazy is that?

I'm not so sure. I don't believe in a creator, but I do maintain an open mind of three possibilities: 1) I'm wrong (possible but IMHO not likely) and there is a creator, probably bearing absolutely no resemblence whatsover to any of the Gods described by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, or any other -ism, 2) that I'm right and there is no creator but a spiritual dimension to the universe has evolved in a manner analogous to our intelligences evolving from lower lifeforms, ultimately from single celled lifeforms that formed out of the primordial soup, or 3) that I'm right, there is no creator, nor is there any spiritual dimension to the universe beyond the emotive sensibilities of self-deluded humans.

I am equally comfortable with any of the three outcomes above. Does this make me an agnostic? Or an athiest, as I do not believe in God because there exists no reasonable evidence that he exists (I do not include the Mormon tautology that the mere existence of the world proves God exists, for obvious reasons, including but not limited to the fact that circular reasoning produces nonsensical results, and that evidence exists that the world probably formed naturally, without supervision or intervention).

Science cannot disprove or prove the existence of a God, but it can (and has) disproven most predictions made by most of the aforementioned -isms as to the nature of this, the physical universe. Examples include the earth not being created in 7 days, not being at the center of the universe, humanity not having descended from a single couple, native Americans having absolutely no genetic relationship to the Isrealites, the earth being older than seven thousand years, and so on. For this reason, there is a mountain of evidence that the God as described by the Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Jews, etc. does not exist, i.e. that their description of God is flat-out wrong. That is not the same as proving there is no God, so as an (athiest? agnostic?) I must concede the possibility that she or he or it does exist, in some form, even though I, based on the evidence of hand, don't believe so. I do not find this stance to be either crazy, or intellectually dishonest.

So I guess the question is, am I an agostic or an athiest? I've often described myself as an agnostic with athiestic tendencies, but perhaps a better description would be an athiest with agnostic tendencies.

Re:Agnostic or Athiest?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I'm wrong (possible but IMHO not likely) and there is a creator, probably bearing absolutely no resemblence whatsover to any of the Gods described by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, or any other -ism,
...

I am equally comfortable with any of the three outcomes above. Does this make me an agnostic?

Yep. That's pretty well the definition of an agnostic, even if you don't feel there are equal probabilities for each outcome.

I've often described myself as an agnostic with athiestic tendencies, but perhaps a better description would be an athiest with agnostic tendencies.
I think you had it right the first time, alhough you might want to say 'strong' atheist tendencies

We need to find and interview his counterpart

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to find out who the original code-and-fix developer is and find out how that person's projects are going. I'm sure it will be a fine colloquium of the art of pasting other peoples' code in places it looks like it belongs, not commenting code, no error checking, incoherent variable naming, unnecessarily large memory allocations with no explicit deallocations, and putting everything in one source file, and possibly one function.

Bah

[xiox]

I don't believe in pink fairies on the far side of Mars. Just because the possibility exists, I can't go round all day uumming and ahhing over the existence of such things.

If there's no evidence for something, there's no point saying "I may or may not believe in this", it's better to be skeptical and say "I won't believe it unless there's evidence to back it up". Using Occam's Razor, it's better to believe in the simpler option which is "There's no god", unless there's evidence for it.

Some people may find god a good working hypothesis, but I haven't seen any justification for that, except making themselves feel better.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe in pink fairies on the far side of Mars.

You're not going to like NASA's affirmative action policy.

There's an old CS line

[admiralh]

The mark of a smart nerd: Receiving a $2.56 check from Donald Knuth.

The mark of a stupid nerd: Cashing a $2.56 check from Donald Knuth.

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[neumayr]

That smil file is human readable, in it are links and one of them is playable with mplayer when you have the correct codec installed.

Installing mplayer is a good idea anyways, before it gets taken down by european software patents..

What's wrong with bullies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, we used to smash eachother to pieces for different believes, we need _some_ substitute in the digital world.

That said, I find religious people pathetically naive: "I don't want to cease to exist and I would like to be the centrepiece of the universe."
People believe what they want to believe, generally, and they don't try to think. And if they think, they are hatching arguments for their position, instead of following the path of logic.

And the irony is that I think rationally but behave irrationally. All my wisdom for naught; I'm a fool.

Re:TeX more practical?

[blakestah]

TeX is already long in the tooth, and will become obsolete soon.

You may misunderstand. TeX was made for writing manuscripts and books, especially for mathematics. It has completely dominated and monopolized that field, to the complete exclusion of any other non-TeX software. Long in the tooth? Doubt it. TeX will outlive Knuth and all of us.

Court case reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can give me a link to the court decision you referenced, I might believe you.

Re:Court case reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what good this will possibly do, but here goes:

Case no. 2d01-529 in the District Court of Appeal of FL, 2nd District is what I'm referring to.

If you're too lazy to look this up, I'm sure you won't bother actually reading it, but here's an address anyway:

http://www.2dca.org/february2504.htm

Follow the link "2d01-529 / New World Comms. of Tampa, Inc. v Akre".

Re:TeX more practical?

[biglig2]

Can I just step in as someone who has actually had to use TeX in the past for what it is designed for - i.e. typsetting mathematics.

If this is what you need to do, then you need to use TeX. Don't waste time arguing, use TeX.

If you are a girlie-man and cannot manage to learn TeX, it is acceptable to use something that puts a user-friendly layer on top of TeX, but that's as far as it goes.

How many other applications can you think of that do what they are meant to so well that there is no point thinking of using any other product?

Question: 7 books?

[Anonymous Coward]

He mentioned that he has 7 books to write. He's on number 4 now at the ripe young age of 65. How fast are we going to see the other 3, if at all? What's the content of the other three coming up? How can the world help him get them written? Maybe a publisher can afford to give him a staff (or virtual online staff) to compile thoughts/tests for the next three books?

Re:Book Revision: Picasso did this too

[Anonymous Coward]

And people didn't cash those checks either.

(Note: Picasso was a famous artist.) ;)

argumentum ad verecundiam

[LPetrazickis]

Appeal to Authority

Definition:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

Examples:

(i) Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
(ii) Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight money policy s the best cure for a recession. (Although Galbraith is an expert, not all economists agree on this point.)
(iii) We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a microphone test.)
(iv) My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada will declare war on Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay; in fact, the reporter said that Canada would not declare war.)
(v) The Ottawa Citizen reported that sales were up 5.9 percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not n a position to check the Citizen's sources.)

Disproof:

Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the experts in the field on this point.

Re:argumentum ad verecundiam

[LWATCDR]

But that does not apply.
If I had said that because Knuth believes in God it would be dumb for you not toe believe that would be an Appeal to Authority. I was implying that the statement that a person that does not believe in God is more intelligent than one that does believe in God is false.
Since Donald Knuth does believe in God a such a person would have to believe that they are more intelligent than Donald Knuth.
Putting it in logical terms.

Statement. You must be stupid to believe in a God.

Donald Knuth believes in God.
Donald Knuth is not stupid.
So the statement is false.

My goal was to disprove the statement everyone that believes in God must be stupid.
To disprove that statement you only need one example. I feel that I have provided that one example. Several of the people that replied to my original post have provided many more.

At no time did I ever make a statement that proof that a person's intelligence. To do so would be illogical since there are way to many examples to the contrary.

I agree that an "Appeal to Authority" is less that useful. A good example is this page http://www.celebatheists.com/

Stupid question....

[chrisatslashdot]

Or maybe the reporter was just fishing. Knuth has writen books on God, scripture and spirituality.

• 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated
• Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About

Re:TeX more practical?

[WillAdams]

xtermin8 said:
>TeX is already long in the tooth, and will become obsolete soon.

Really?

Take a look at http://opensource.adobe.com (check out the ``Personal Foreword'') and explain the appearance and nature of all of the equations then.[1]

At the least I guess this removes any doubt about the fate of FrameMaker :/

William

[1] For those who're curious the equations are typeset in Computer Modern ``img class="formulaInl" alt="$ f(x) \rightarrow x' $" src="form_0.png"''

Re:TeX more practical?

[djmurdoch]

e-TeX is specifically designed to be a successor to TeX. It is currently the default engine in MikTeX, a commonly used TeX package on Windows.

Is it TeX? No, it's a successor: "The aims of the project are to perpetuate and develop the spirit and philosophy of TeX, whilst respecting Knuth's wish that TeX should remain frozen."

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[torokun]

That's not the problem, as you suspected. The problem is that answering lots of email makes you think about what other people are thinking about. It makes you reactive to some extent rather than proactive about your own agenda.

If Knuth or anyone else knows what they want to do, what they want to create, and simply need time to do it, then email can often be a hindrance rather than a help.

beer hypothesis (was Re:What I found interesting.)

[WillAdams]

``Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to prosper.''
--- Benjamin Franklin.

William

So did he like NPR

[Anonymous Coward]

or not?

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[MasterOfMagic]

Use the above mplayer command to write an mencoder command to transcode on the fly from Real Player to OGG/MP3/FLAC/whatever. If I weren't at work and were at home, I'd pull up the documentation or the manual page to show you the command.

The responses to this post are fascinating

[swillden]

It amazes me how many of the responses to this post managed to so thoroughly misunderstand it, and how defensive the reactions were.

Some posters responded by saying, essentially, "Just because he's a smart computer scientist doesn't mean I have to believe what he says about religion." This is obviously true, and a very interesting response because no one suggested that you should believe what he says about religion. What the OP was saying, for those who need it to be spelled out, is that people who try to tell others they shouldn't believe in God "because only stupid people believe in God", need to rethink their position. Not that they need to start believing themselves, but that they should admit that belief in God is not evidence of stupidity.

The OP wasn't ridiculing unbelievers, he was ridiculing the intolerance and arrogant condescension of some unbelievers.

The responses I found really funny, though, were the ones who jumped right in and essentially repeated the claim that people who believe in God are stupid, in a knee-jerk reaction triggered by the word "God", apparently completely oblivious to the fact that they had just been lampooned.

The absolute best of the bunch, though, has to be the one who claimed that the fact that Knuth is Christian places his computer science research in question! That has to be the epitome of closed-minded stupidity -- to base a rejection of well-founded research on grounds of a gently-stated opinion on a non-scientific matter... mind-boggling.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[LWATCDR]

"The responses I found really funny, though, were the ones who jumped right in and essentially repeated the claim that people who believe in God are stupid, in a knee-jerk reaction triggered by the word "God", apparently completely oblivious to the fact that they had just been lampooned."

You take all the fun out of life. I was actually enjoying it.

The scary thing is that that the same person that stated that Knuth's work should be called into question because he is a Christian is no better than someone that said that they did not trust Physics because it was a "Jewish" science. BTW that was a man called Hitler. Or that they would not trust the scientific work of a Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim. The correct term is for such a person is a bigot. It is sad but maybe that person will now question their bigotry and get past it. We can only hope.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[pilkul]

The absolute best of the bunch, though, has to be the one who claimed that the fact that Knuth is Christian places his computer science research in question!

Yeah, I guess we should then also ditch the science of Newton and Gauss, both of whom were devoutly religious.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[idlake]

The OP wasn't ridiculing unbelievers, he was ridiculing the intolerance and arrogant condescension of some unbelievers.

You are trying to portray religious faith and atheism as being two equivalent positions, but that is ludicrious.

A serious, mainstream Christian believes that some unseen, all-powerful intelligence acts in the physical world. For a scientist, that kind of belief system is at best irrational superstition. The only reason why we don't lock people up that are afflicted by this sort of thing is because, as a biological problem, predisposition to these kinds of irrational behaviors is so pervasive that it can't be called "abnormal" (even if it is dysfunctional).

The situation is made worse by the fact that the many people who hold such superstitions, i.e., many Christians, historically and currently don't just stop at "arrogance and condescension", but actively engage to this day in discrimination, political manipulation, restraint of speech, murder, and genocide, not just "in the name of Christianity" (which could simply be an unfortunate misuse of the religion), but supported by Christian religious and political institutions. And this is not a one-time occurrence but something that has happened consistently for two millennia.

The absolute best of the bunch, though, has to be the one who claimed that the fact that Knuth is Christian places his computer science research in question!

It does not place Knuth's computer science research in question because Knuth's work in computer science isn't scientific, it is mathematical and theoretical. If he were actually engaging in observational science, one might (however briefly) have to consider whether his religious beliefs affected his work; for example, the science of a fundamentalist Christian archaeologer or palaeontologist is indeed, a priori in doubt.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

You are trying to portray religious faith and atheism as being two equivalent positions, but that is ludicrious.

In a sense, they are equivalent: try to experimentally determine either the existence of the Christian god, or the nonexistence of same. It can't be done. Agnosticism is in fact the only rational position :-)

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

In a sense, they are equivalent: try to experimentally determine either the existence of the Christian god, or the nonexistence of same. It can't be done

If it couldn't be done, it wouldn't be a scientific question. But, in fact, it can be done and it has been done: all scientific experiments conducted to date designed to observe the actions of a supernatural being, including a Christian god, have had negative outcomes. Scientific observations and experiments have time and again contradicted the statements that Christianity has made about the physical world.

Agnosticism is in fact the only rational position :-)

No, agnosticism is pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. If the existing physical evidence against the veracity of Christian statements about the physical world and against the existence of a Christian god in the physical world doesn't convince you, then you are, in fact, superstitious and irrational.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

all scientific experiments conducted to date designed to observe the actions of a supernatural being, including a Christian god, have had negative outcomes.

A basic fallacy. Negative experiment is not proof of falsehood.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but we should also not give special weight to Newton's (or Knuth's) other ideas just because he was a brilliant scientist. In the same way that a beautiful woman is not necessarily good at finance, a brilliant physicist may hold totally incoherent beliefs about biology, or an uncorruptable union activist may be a terrible racist. Every great man has flaws, like any other person. Admire and respect their greatness, but don't let it blind you to the flaws.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[runderwo]

Religious beliefs by one who claims to be a scientist _should_ cause people to be more vigilant in examining his work. Refuting his work outright based on those beliefs would be an ad hominem fallacy, and a fallacy committed very often in this politically correct world because it's attractive to the uneducated. But we should always consider the source of a claim, and when there is potential bias or conflict of interest, examine those claims with more scrutiny than we would for someone who had no observable contradictions. That doesn't call the person's character into question at all, it just means that we are ensuring that no soggy claims are being passed off as truth - which would only end up setting us back down the road if we accept a false claim and then build upon it.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[swillden]

Religious beliefs by one who claims to be a scientist _should_ cause people to be more vigilant in examining his work.

So the scientific work of atheists need be reviewed less rigorously? That is the logical implication of your statement.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[swillden]

A serious, mainstream Christian believes that some unseen, all-powerful intelligence acts in the physical world. For a scientist, that kind of belief system is at best irrational superstition.

Unless the scientist has experimental evidence which he or she finds convincing, even if it's not the sort that can be repeated reliably by all others (but has been repeated by many).

Further, I should point out that such "pure" scientists also hold a rather irrational and unsupportable belief: That all knowledge worth having is obtainable through the scientific method. I certainly don't denigrate science, it's very powerful within the domain of processes that are measurable and repeatable, but I think you'll find very few people with significant life experience -- even among scientists -- who would claim that it's the path to all useful knowledge.

even if it is dysfunctional

There is solid statistical evidence that religion is correlated with happiness, stability and longer lifespan. Is that "dysfunctional"? Not to mention the functional value of religion if, in fact, God exists.

It does not place Knuth's computer science research in question because Knuth's work in computer science isn't scientific, it is mathematical and theoretical.

I knew someone would raise this quibble. In the present context it's a distinction without a difference.

for example, the science of a fundamentalist Christian archaeologer or palaeontologist is indeed, a priori in doubt.

Why did you add the word "fundamentalist"? No one else had previously applied that qualification?

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

All attempts to prove the nonexistence of a deity have failed thus far as well.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, all attempts to disprove the nonexistence of the deity have failed, so I guess we're in the same boat.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, has anybody proven that the failure of all attempts to disprove the nonexistence of the deity proves anything, or might it just be a true but unprovable theorem within that system?

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[runderwo]

So the scientific work of atheists need be reviewed less rigorously? That is the logical implication of your statement.

Time is too limited to examine all claims with absolute scrutiny. On the one hand, we have people who absolutely trust science as the best way we have to find truth. On the other, there are people who trust science in one matter and not another, openly admitting that they are willing to accept certain claims without evidence.

As a scientist who is attempting to find previous work to build a lifelong pursuit upon, and where you do not have time to examine the entire existing body of work, whose claims will be evaluated first? Those of one who shares your faith in science and rejects claims which are either not testable, have contradictory evidence, or in which repeated experiments have turned up no supporting evidence; or those of one who admits to accepting some forms of nonsense, as long as the nonsense is appealing enough?

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[swillden]

On the one hand, we have people who absolutely trust science as the best way we have to find truth. On the other, there are people who trust science in one matter and not another, openly admitting that they are willing to accept certain claims without evidence.

*Everyone* accepts many claims without evidence.

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[runderwo]

*Everyone* accepts many claims without evidence.

It's rather presumptuous to claim that you know what claims other people do and do not accept. I would say that *most* people readily accept claims without evidence when the claims are appealing enough to them. I consider this more of a flawed tenet of human nature than something to be comfortable with. There is also the observation that some people require less evidence than others when scrutinizing claims. The worst of these sort are referred to as "gullible", or "suckers".

For my part, I neither accept nor reject claims when there is no evidence, but retain the possibility that the claim is true if the source is credible. (Bear in mind, however, that sources I consider credible rarely present claims without evidence.) If the source is not credible, I tend towards forgetting those claims - a signal to noise issue. If evidence is presented for two contradictory claims on the same issue, the presentation from the more credible source will be examined first - again, a signal to noise issue.

Is there a better way to at the same time be open-minded, but also prevent a disproportionate amount of my time being consumed by people who have the least useful things to say?

Re:The responses to this post are fascinating

[swillden]

It's rather presumptuous to claim that you know what claims other people do and do not accept.

No presumption, just realism. There is simply not enough time in life to evaluate every claim we come across, so we must accept a large number claims without proof. You can argue that you simply hold acceptance or rejection in abeyance, but that also is often not possible, because decisions must sometimes be made.

For my part, I neither accept nor reject claims when there is no evidence, but retain the possibility that the claim is true if the source is credible.

This is the crux of the argument. Your claim is that someone who professes a belief in God is less credible than someone who does not. Now, obviously this is not generally true... someone with a Ph.D. in physics from Caltech is infinitely more credible in a discussion of cosmology than an person who has never even heard of the Big Bang, even if the former is a devout Christian and the latter is atheist. So, at best, your argument is that given a believer and a non-believer with otherwise equal levels of credibility in the topic at hand, you'll grant the non-believer greater credibility. I think that's a fallacious decision, but in practice it's a distinction without a difference, since the likelihood of all else being precisely equal is negligibly small.

As for why I think it's fallacious, I posit that the inquisitive believer who feels he or she has personally convincing evidence of God's existence has greater intellectual honesty than the agnostic who brushes the issue aside and avoids exploring it. And what *really* provides scientific credibility is the combination of informed, intelligent thought, careful research, and supreme intellectual integrity.

Further, I argue that your view that believers are inherently less credible demonstrates a chink in your own intellectual integrity, because your logic is predicated upon their belief being mistaken. If it is not, then your dismissal of their credibility is an error, but one whose possibility you will not seriously consider.

Is there a better way to at the same time be open-minded, but also prevent a disproportionate amount of my time being consumed by people who have the least useful things to say?

Certainly. In any area where you have sufficient expertise to judge the arguments, do so. If you don't know enough to judge the arguments, but do know enough to judge the credentials of those making the arguments, do that. If you don't know enough to do either, then look for consensus among those who do know enough. If there is no consensus, withhold judgement. If you can't withhold judgement, because a decision is needed, take your best guess. In your case, that guess may include a preference to side with those who don't believe in God. There's nothing wrong with that, actually; when rational decisionmaking processes fail, we fall back upon whatever we have.

Re:The Part Where He Doesn't Take Off His Bike Hel

[Life2Short]

But this bike helmet thing just doesn't make much sense (I could be wrong). I park my bike outside at a rack and then walk into the building. As I walk between the rack and the building, I can take my helmet off. It's nice to feel cool air on my head. When I walk out, I can put my helmet back on. What does he do, ride his bike directly into his office or something?

Function over form.

[cabazorro]

10 years ago my profressor of CS (3rd year) made us us LaTeX to turn our papers in.

We all could have us MS Word but there was a point to be made.

They looked ugly and of poor quality. But higly efficient!! Aggh!!

10 years have passed and while driving in the Garden State Parkway I heard the interview of this uber pragmatic man and the creator of LaTeX.
Donald Knuth.
A ha!

I got to work, looked at the NPR site and then went to Professor Kunth homepage.

I knew what I was looking for and got it in all it's glory.
His homepage.
What an eyesore!
A not very complementary self-picture (he should use the one on the NPR site) and the BIG BOLD heading-1 letters for all the link under some colorless background.

It sure took my back to my first html site 1995.

Function over form, the trademark of scientific academia.
A brilliant man, nevertheless.

He should pay 5.12 to some student to do a extreme-make-over to his home-site. Some drop-down
menus..cool graphics..make it pretty!

Re:Function over form.

[egoriot]

Knuth created TeX, not LaTeX. Leslie Lamport created LaTeX, basically a set of macros to automate the most common usages of TeX.

Re:Function over form.

[loudici]

I think you need to have a look at the TeX book to understand how untrue your statement is. Knuth is probably of all mathematicians the one who pays the most attention to form.

Re:Function over form.

[LWATCDR]

"They looked ugly and of poor quality. But highly efficient!! Aggh!!"

That is the users fault. TeX and LaTex can produce anything you want. The document is also fully portable to any system that supports TeX.

"I knew what I was looking for and got it in all it's glory.
His homepage.
What an eyesore!
A not very complementary self-picture (he should use the one on the NPR site) and the BIG BOLD heading-1 letters for all the link under some colorless background.

It sure took my back to my first html site 1995.

Function over form, the trademark of scientific academia."

Umm... function over form is a bad thing?? Knuth is not an expert on User Interfaces. He never claimed to be. Now if you got him to work with the late Jef Raskin, and Dennis Ritchie on an OS. Talk about your dream team :)

Re:Function over form.

[Anonymous Coward]

then what is with the hideous website?
i dont expect animated menus, but that doesnt even have function the way it is presented now.

Re:Function over form.

[Anonymous Coward]

10 years ago my profressor of CS (3rd year) made us us LaTeX ... looked ugly and of poor quality

I can explain. TeX is all about empowering the user. If you like being powerless, and prefer to sit and whine about your "profressor" there's nothing TeX can do for you. But, as the interview pointed out, it has the best line-breaking algorithm of all. You *can* use it to build books that are beautiful and easy to update. But you don't have to. For that matter, you can use the exact same tools as Picasso and turn out shit. And Picasso can use shit tools and turn out art. But I'm pretty sure people like Picasso or Knuth won't use any tools of yours if they can avoid them.

Re: Getting Rid of E-mail

[Moofie]

How is that the fault of the medium?

I express myself in complete sentences, with punctuation and capitalization, in any written communication. Isn't that what we should be encouraging, rather than retro-grouchery about how email is corrupting our communications skills?

Re:NPR

[aventius]

I just automatically thought of the episode when I read your post. I agree that its sad that this counts as bold. I wish more media was politically charged. America is just so full of people who are either apathetic, know only the talking points of parties (meaning they don't want to think for themselves), or extremists. Nobody talks about politics or others up opinions. Our mainstream entertainment industry barely touches political topics and I find that a shame. I wish more entertainment would attempt to provoke discussion. Provoking discussion allows people to make up their own minds easier and not rely solely on one party's talking points because rarely is anybody perfectly represented by one party. The media loved discussing the red & blue distinctions during this past election but I think thats misleading. I think most people are in the middle but the problem is there isn't a mainstream party that represents a moderate. A moderate party would get eaten alive by both sides in our political system because they aren't "EXTREME."

256 Mistake

[egoriot]

How ironic that in discussing Knuth's errors in his books, the reporter makes a mistake. 256 = 2^8, which is one followed by eight zeros, not seven, and hence looks like one hundred million, not ten million. I also find it amusing how he describes the "binary language" of computers. So different from that "decimal language" we humans use.

Why are kids watching tv while at school?

[aristus]

Jesus. That's the fucking problem, not *what station* they are allowed to watch.

A: So they can grow up and read /. while at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice Television

na{\"\i}vet\'e

[Anonymous Coward]

na{\"\i}vet\'e

how appropriate :)

Re:The Part Where He Doesn't Take Off His Bike Hel

[Z4rd0Z]

He never said it would take too long to remove the helmet. He only said he would be coming back outside again soon anyway. What's the big deal? I've seen people wearing bike helmets inside buildings lots of times. I'm also seeing a lot of people here nitpicking little things about Knuth because they don't have any valid criticisms of him.

Mods on crack

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the parent "flamebait", just because the guy asked a question?

prevent him from leading a safe, furfilling, life?

[certsoft]

Hmmmm, fur.

Mongo like fur.

CS and math lie outside.

[Eunuch]

True, CS/math lie outside the religion debate as best as they can. Top biology professors are overwhelmingly atheist. The other disciplines--not as much.

Re:CS and math lie outside.

[swillden]

Top biology professors are overwhelmingly atheist.

That may be, but be careful not to conflate causation and correlation by presuming that they are atheist because of the knowledge gained in the study of life. While that's one possibility, another one is that atheists/agnostics are more attracted to the life sciences than theists. It's certainly easy to see why theists might be uncomfortable with poking too closely into what they might consider as "God's domain" (not that that will necessarily stop them, but it may have an effect) and it's also easy to see why atheists might actually gravitate toward life science, specifically to poke at what theists consider to be "God's domain".

In addition, keep in mind that the process of obtaining a doctorate and elevated academic positions is a social process, like every other human process. Not to say that a Christian would be denied a Ph.D. in microbiology because of his beliefs, but his beliefs make him out of place among his atheistic students, peers and advisors. It's easy to see how that situation would generate enough discomfort that he might choose to slide over into a different field, like some physics specialty, where there is more diversity of religious thought. Academic disciplines also have their "groupthink".

It's particularly clear that biology is a discipline likely to develop an atheistic groupthink, because the field will inevitably attract some number of theists whose real goal is to discover proofs of God, rather than to really understand biological processes. The shoddy quality of their work will naturally incline the real researchers to disdain them, and by illogical but very human extension, anyone who believes in God.

Anyway, my point is that there are some obvious mechanisms to produce a correlation between top academic biology credentials and atheism other than the notion that first-rate biology minds tend to deduce that God does not exist.

I'm not saying you were making that particular leap, either, but it's a common one, so I thougth it worthwhile to debunk, on general principle.

Re:CS and math lie outside.

[LWATCDR]

I really find biology interesting. I never really got into it school because what they teach in High School biology seems more plumbing than anything else. Maybe it is just me but I have a problem taking anything apart that I can not put back together and have it work.
I have never had any problem with my faith and biology or any other science.

But now for the real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

...does Donald Knuth run Linux??

Or did he write his own operating system in assembly?

They're only human as well.

[Eunuch]

Be wary of all our discoveries. When we get beyond human, we'll see what is truly valid.

OCD, Music, and "Mad Scientists"

[zonx lebaam]

He's a brilliant mathematician and computer scientist, and that's all.

He's also an accomplished performer on the organ (see his webpage). But does this not also add to the "mad scientist" image/stereotype that I think is being (inappropriately) referred to here as OCD?

Good idea

[metamatic]

Call someone at Microsoft, see if they can direct you to the right person.

Artist?

[Stormy Dragon]

Was anyone else with a comp science background mildly offended by being referred to as an artist?

Re:Artist?

[TKMikul]

Not particularly.

Science and art, when properly done, both seek the same end goal: finding an elegant solution to a problem. If the problem is "how do I represent the beauty of the human form" the problem is deemed art. If the problem is "how do I find the similarities between two bit streams" the problem is deemed computer science. I'm thinking of an essay by Paul Graham:
"Taste for Makers"

This may be why Prof. Knuth's series is called "The Art of Computer Programming"

Re:Artist?

[MoneyCityManiac]

No. There's certainly an art to programming, whether it be formatting your code so it's readable and maintainable, or choosing the correct algorithm to use.

Great computer scientists are the ones who come up with elegant solutions to a problem, not just hack together something that works. That's art, not science.

Besides which, if math (the godfather of CS) is good enough to be considered an art, then I'm happy to hear others consider computer science an art as well.

Re:Artist?

[Stormy Dragon]

or choosing the correct algorithm to use.

This is more why I get offended being called an artist. Choosing the correct algorithm is NOT an artistic choice--the algorithm best suited to solving a particular problem is (or should be, anyways) based on objective criteria, not the computer scientists's individual esthetic sense. It's been my observation that developers who call themselves artists are invariably using the term to rationalize either a lack of familiarity with the theorethical basis to the discipline or a failure to follow a proper design process. Admittedly, I came from a school (The Pennsylvania State University) where Computer Science is in the College of Engineering, so I may have a different perspective than someone coming from a school where Computer Science is in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences.

Re:Artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you mildly offended at being referred to as a flaming, faggot ass-pirate?

Re:I can get an OGG/MP3 if there's a place to put

[Anonymous Coward]

torrent, please?

You should probably do MP3, though I'd prefer speex.

A dog right in the middle of the kitchen table?

[Eminence]

You watch too much Flinstones! :-)

A Knuth Story

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no denying that Knuth is a great computer scientist, but his attitude toward those he works with can be appalling to say the least.

I was a grad student at Stanford in the early 90's. The practice then (and still probably now) was to shut down the CS department for a week or so during the December holidays, for the obvious reasons (vacations, spending time with the family, etc) An e-mail announcement was sent to that effect every year, so it surprised no one. However, Knuth spammed the entire department with a response to the announcement, questioning why we would close the department. I responded back with a reply, saying that our dedicated department staff deserved the time off.

Needless to say, I was the hero of the department for a few days.

Re:A Knuth Story

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they still close the department. I'm with Knuth. I think it is silly. Many researchers including professors and graduate and undergraduate students are there over the break working on deadlines such as SIGGRAPH and there is no heat or janitorial service. I also know many EE students are there studing for quals. Foreign students with no where to go are in the building as well.

It is lovely to stop by over break and see the toilets backed up, no toilet paper, overflowing trash cans. I guess it is the Bill Gates building...

It has nothing to do with the dedicated department staff. I'm fine if they take off the holiday. It is just about saving money on heat, even when people are trying to work, and on janitorial service. And that means the janitors that problably need the money most aren't getting paid at xmas time.

I do find it funny that a Christian like Knuth would suggest that it is odd to close the department over Christmas.

Alternate world exercise

[Eminence]

Now, let's just wonder for a moment how the world could look like if he had been less a scientist and artist but more a businessman and decided early on to charge for TeX... Or patent his works.

Re:Alternate world exercise

[idlake]

Now, let's just wonder for a moment how the world could look like if he had been less a scientist and artist but more a businessman and decided early on to charge for TeX...

Actually, we'd probably have a better open source type setting language by now. TeX sort of works, but it really is a god-awful mess.

Or patent his works.

First of all, he couldn't have because software patents weren't around. Second, if he could have, many of the patents would have expired by now and the inventions would be in the public domain. Third, most of his work is academic curiosities, not practically relevant (although, given his volume of publications, there are quite a few important publications, of course).

Re:TeX more practical? Yes.

[jd]

TeX is no worse than any other markup language, from the perspective of effort involved. The syntax is often much cleaner, less obscure and more logical. Not always, but often.

My biggest irritation is with LaTeX. LaTeX 3 development is at snail's pace, isn't properly Open Sourced, there have been many years since the last component snapshot, they are still arguing over the specifications of it, and it is doubtful it will ever be finished by the LaTeX group.

If you like LaTeX, but want an update in your lifetime, then you'll likely need to assemble a group of like-minded enthusiasts and do it yourself. The official project is comatose.

TeX, itself, is brilliant. the design is wonderful and simple, which is how it should be. It doesn't do vector fonts (only bitmaps) and doesn't do bitmap images (only vectors) which seems strange. Vectors are vectors, bitmaps are bitmaps. If it supports both, then all the mechanisms should be there. That suggests there is a rather fundamental flaw in TeX. The flaw is microscopic, though, and affects so few people that it really doesn't make that much difference.

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[Zapman]

There are only two downsides:
1) It'd take 10 years for him to finish it.
2) It'd take 10 years away from the AoCP work...

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[Anonymous Coward]

You neglected an "officially" or a "legally." WMV & QT can be viewed just fine.

Re:Molasses race vs. DNF

[WelcomeToTheFallout]

The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 4
vs.
Paul Graham's Arc
vs.
Duke Nukem Forever

And the race heats up!

Re:NPR

[carpltunl]

Political media my eye! Doesn't ABC compete Fox? All this righteous rigamorole when, in fact, all any of them are doing is slamming the competition.

There are deaf admirers of Donald Knuth

[TDDPirate]

and they would like to have a written transcript of the interview with him.

Re:There are deaf admirers of Donald Knuth

[dstone]

If Deaf admirers of Knuth don't already know about it, they may want to pick up his book: Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About. It contains transcripts of a great set of MIT lectures (including Q&A) by Knuth. These are edited and commented by Knuth.

This won't contain the recent NPR interview, obviously, but it's worth a read if you're a Knuth fan. (And open to an intelligent person's opinions on computers and religion.)

Re:There are deaf admirers of Donald Knuth

[Anonymous Coward]

Here goes:


STEVE INSKEEP, host:

This is MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep.

When Donald Knuth needs the power of a super computer, he has a resource that many others don't. Knuth can call up the folks at Google. They often let him tap into the same machines that search the entire Internet. Knuth is legendary in the computer science world for writing a series of reference books called "The Art Of Computer Programming." They're part cookbook, part textbook, part encyclopedia, and it's hard to escape the feeling that they are also works of art. For this week's look at the connections between science and art, NPR's David Kestenbaum visited Knuth at his house. He's in Palo Alto, California, working on Volume 4.

DAVID KESTENBAUM reporting:

"The Art Of Computer Programming" books are all about the most efficient way for a computer to get something done. The general notion is captured in Knuth's kitchen, though. He and his wife designed it using a branch of mathematics called graph theory to plan what should go next to what, the toaster, the fridge, the stove.

Mr. DONALD KNUTH ("The Art Of Computer Programming"): The most important thing in the kitchen was the wastebasket. Everything wanted to be next to the wastebasket. So now our kitchen has a centrally located wastebasket which you can easily toss things into from any direction.

(Soundbite of footsteps)

KESTENBAUM: Go up to the second floor, and on a shelf, you'll find multiple copies of "The Art Of Computer Programming" books, ones that translate into Russia, one in Japanese, Chinese, Hungarian, Spanish, German, Polish and Romanian. Inside the books are ideas that transcend language, the essential grammar for constructing fast, elegant computer programs. What's the quickest way to sort a list of names? You'll find hundreds of pages on that in Volume 3. Best way to divide two numbers? That's Volume 2.

(Soundbite of pages turning)

Mr. KNUTH: Page 235 to 240, and so here we have discussion of things that I learned in fourth grade, I think.

KESTENBAUM: Is that the most efficient way to do it?

Mr. KNUTH: Nope. No, but this would be the best way to do long division until you have numbers that are maybe a million digits, and then you start to use much more clever ways. You change the problem.

KESTENBAUM: Knuth's admirers describe him as a founding father of computer science. He pushed the idea that computer programs could be mathematically analyzed, refined and made perfect like poems, that there was a best way, an optimal algorithm, for every task. Volume one of "The Art Of Computer Programming" appeared back in 1968. Those were the days when computers were larger than cars. Knuth felt the embryonic field needed a central repository of knowledge and he sketched out grand plans for seven books, but now over three decades later, Knuth is just completing Volume 4. He's 67 years old and works on the project constantly. The field of computer science is expanding almost faster than he can write and compile.

(Soundbite of computer keyboard)

KESTENBAUM: Knuth is tall, thin, dressed in jeans and a black T-shirt. This morning's task is sorting things that will go into upcoming chapters. Knuth steers a book cart loaded with technical papers down the hall and into a kind of a home library which contains shelf after shelf of neatly organized folders. Knuth has managed to relate some unlikely topics to computer science. You can see that from the words scrawled on the folders.

Mr. KNUTH: Algebra, animation, Arabic language, asymptotics, axioms, bar coding. I've got about 15,000 items in these folders, and I'm going to have to boil this down into the final books.

KESTENBAUM: I'm reminded of Samuel Johnson in the 1700s compiling his dictionary of the English language. Knuth's books are personal, idiosyncratic and beautifully laid out. You will rarely find a word hyphenated at the end of a line. That's because he's spent 10 years developing w

Good troll!

[Moses Lawn]

Damn, son, that was well done. You are to be commended!

+3, Funny at least.

No he's just genetically altered

[manifoldronin]

Undoubtedly one of the most brilliant minds of our time + OCD symptoms = Doctored up by the Starways Congress.

Re:No he's just genetically altered

[dillon_rinker]

Imagine the tension he felt, after he muddied his child's hand and said "You can never wash again."

Re:The Part Where He Doesn't Take Off His Bike Hel

[Thud457]

Or maybe his intern working on the time-machine project gave him a letter warning that he was going to get hit over the head by Libyan terrorists. And he doesn't want to admit that he read the letter because he pretended that he didn't want to know the future.

Speaking of mail...

[drxyzzy]

Knuth's http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/rice.htm lopen letter to Condi Rice.

Re: Getting Rid of E-mail

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I'm going to use this idea to start an alternative to slashdot that will be higher quality, by using snail mail instead of a webpage.

It'll be called "PO Box 6942", as in "send comments to PO Box 6942, PO Box 4532, Boston, MA, ..." (get it?).

Re:TeX more practical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two sentences that have never before appeared together.

Re:In a twist of fate, Microsoft announces Visual

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worse than that. Most people struggle with reading Knuth. But Knuth goes and writes 3 volumes of it! You just have to admire that.

Re:TeX more practical? Yes.

[WillAdams]

Well, it's not like there isn't a sufficiency of LaTeX alternatives:

- Lollipop
- ConTeXt
- activetex
- eplain

as well as advanced documentclasses such as komascript or memoir. The LaTeX3 team has also been quite open about wanting more help --- the problem is few people are willing to invest in doing the research necessary to be able to help out.

FWIW, there was a paper done a while back on a technique to get METAFONTs into a PostScript file as vector graphics using the Type 3 font mechnism, and Knuth published papers on how to use MF to extend TeX to do halftoning for bitmps, so I don't get your complaint on these fronts.

If there's something you want supported, just stuff it into the .dvi and get it out the other end, either by using one of the extent post processors or writing your own ;)

I was able to use this to good effect to get Zapfino to function in TeX, look at http://members.aol.com/willadams/portfolio.html or http://www.tug.org/texshowcase and check out the ``Peace on Earth'' card (if you're a member of TUG you got a copy w/ your last CD/DVD mailing).

William

A direct link to file in a Linux-playable format!

[neilmoore67]

Here is the interview in MP3:

http://www.cfconline.co.uk/knuth.mp3

Geez! I'm the troll now?

[xtermin8]

LaTex is based on, but isn't exactly Knuth's Tex. I am trying to say that The Art of Computer Programming is really, really great. Godamn, Slashdot sucks.

I'm a troll?

[xtermin8]

I'm asking people to compare "The Art of Computer Programming" and TeX. Not Tex with any other software. I thought LaTeX has has "replaced" Knuth's Tex, and I considered LatTex as based on Tex not Tex itself. And I really think Knuth thinks that way, too

Re:I'm a troll?

[blakestah]

I thought LaTeX has has "replaced" Knuth's Tex, and I considered LatTex as based on Tex not Tex itself. And I really think Knuth thinks that way, too

In the sense that more and more people typeset with LaTeX than TeX, yes.

But LaTeX is a fairly small set of macros for TeX. In a conceptual sense, not really something different at all, just a group of subroutines that make tech easier for simpletons that can't be bothered to learn TeX like a true mathematician would.

Why do you like Knuth?

[idlake]

I'm not trying to troll, but I really don't understand the fascination with Knuth and his work. Knuth clearly is an important computer scientist and some of his work has had a big impact, but he wouldn't be my choice for computer science hero.

I don't find "The Art" to be a particularly well written book--the verbal presentation is great, but I consider the selection unfocused and approach questionable. I have rarely come across anything actually useful in one of Knuth's papers. And have a look at his recent publications; is there really anything interesting in there? The one piece of software that I use of which I know that it is related to Knuth, I have a love-hate relationship with: TeX does something very useful and it does it technically well, but as a piece of modern software development or language design, I think it deserves a failing grade.

So, the question is: why are you so fascinated by Knuth? Which of his papers or results are you really fond of? And which of his results are you actually using? What examples of practical impact of Knuth's results can you actually give.

Re:Why do you like Knuth?

[egoriot]

I'm not overwhelmed by Knuth's contributions either. Two things come to mind that are probably important, though:

1. Knuth created the pushdown automata algorithm for LR Parsing. I'm not sure exactly what most modern compilers and parser generators are using, but I remember hearing that Yacc parses LALR(1) grammars, most likely using an algorithm based on his.
2. "Concrete Mathematics", a book Knuth coauthored with Patashnik and Graham, is a great book for reference and instruction in combinatorics. Things like generating functions, binomial coefficients, Stirling numbers, and finite calculus are probably not of intense interest to most computer scientists. As a graduate student in theory, though, I regularly deal with problems involving recurrences and series, and the techniques I learned from that book are invaluable.

Re:Why do you like Knuth?

[nate nice]

Wow, didn't know he was the man behind LR(1) (which in case others don't know is probably used millions of times every day) (and I've read the dragon book!). You are correct, Yacc/Bison use the LR(1) parsing algorithm. I just recently studied that algorithm in depth and have never seen a more beautiful algorithm. The way it augments the grammar and keeps shifting tokens with some reduction only to reduce everything that is left at the end is stunning. It's definitely an algorithm I can say I would have never thought of. Not to mention the use of basic data structure primitives it makes use of...beautiful.

But, many modern Parsers use LL parsing, such as Java. The main problem with them is they are not as intuitive and they don't accept left recursive grammars. However, they seem to be really popular now days because they use less memory on the fly. I'm not too familiar with them honestly...usually use LR(1) grammars as they are very flexible and do the trick just fine. Not to mention most "real" languages don't use Bison/Yacc for their parsers and I do so I am forced to use them. But I love them just the same (and folks who know more of compilers could probably have a nicely heated debate on what's better)

Thanx for the info!

Re:Why do you like Knuth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I should have mentioned the things I can think of: Knuth-Bendix, Knuth-Morris-Pratt, and LR(k). Those are important contributions and neat algorithms, to be sure, but not particularly fundamental to computer science. Compare that with contributions by people like Chomsky, Turing, or Chaitin.

Re:Why do you like Knuth?

[nate nice]

It's great talking to people who don't care a lick for computer science (or computers for that matter, which is fine of course) that Chomsky is rather important to the development of the science and see the stunned look on their face. It's too bad most people think computer science is just putting cryptic codes into a computer with no real beauty to it. It's even sadder many CS students think this is all it is. It's most sad there are CS graduates that think this is all it is. Oh well, not my problem!

But yeah, you can't those guys to anyone else. I wouldn't put Dijkstra in a group with them even. Turing? I mean the highest CS award is named for him, ya know.

Cool shoutout to the KMP algorithm though. That's a rare one to come across from people!

Re:Why do you like Knuth?

[marhar]

Yacc/Bison use the LR(1) parsing algorithm.

Just for the record, Yacc is actually an LALR(1) parser generator.

Funny, but I'm a roll?

[xtermin8]

How does TeX (not LaTeX!) compare to "The Art of Computer Programming?" Did anyone follow the link? I defend the man's life work, and I'm a troll for

This is why...

[Tony]

This is why Douglas Adams is my God.

Art of Computer Programming is shit then?

[xtermin8]

I'm comparing the multivolume book AofCP to the old piece of software which has a range of perfectly good compatible successors. I should have know ./ers can't fucking read a book though.

obligatory turtles all the way down reference

[0111 1110]

All it does is create the new essentially identical question, "Well who made the creator". It's an endless progression with nothing gained. By taking that step, it can seem like you have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin,

Such beliefs are certainly
popular though.

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Doesn't matter to /.

[xtermin8]

I didn't think this point needed explaining, but I overestimated /.ers. I try to champion the AofCP, and people think I'm comparing Tex to MS Word? Thanks for the link... maybe you can keep /. useful to some people. I give up.

Re:TeX more practical?

[xtermin8]

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=142 427&threshold=1&commentsort=3&tid=156&tid=8&mode=t hread&pid=11933058#11934434

Re:A direct link to file in a Linux-playable forma

[A.K.A_Magnet]

Thank you very much, the previous direct linked worked but the server was too slow from here to stream the audio file, and I don't think I had the required tools to convert it to mp3.

Thanks again, I can finally listen. (btw, my first post wasn't intended to be a flamebait)

Knuth's wish that TeX should remain frozen

[xtermin8]

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=142 427&threshold=1&commentsort=3&tid=156&tid=8&mode=t hread&pid=11933058#11934434

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[lgw]

I now have a gmail account where I look at my mail every 3 months or so when I remember. Seems it would serve Knuth's purpose well. The days of limited space on the mail server demanding rapid response are passed, I think.

Lurking Zealot? Hardly!

[weston]

Such a balanced view full of respect for others who've come to a different conclusion? You're a disgrace to zealots everywhere!

Wrong again

[onemorechip]

Binary $1,000,000.00 would be decimal $64.00. I think what you are looking for is binary 100000000 cents = $2.56.

I'm the opposite

[syousef]

I don't believe in God but I do believe in email.

Does that make me an idiot??!?!?!? I'm worried :-)

Re:I'm the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it doesn't make you an idiot - you're not the one believing in a god.

OT: Political Trolls list

[Anonymous Coward]

Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!

I am very tired of them. Could you please add everyone who participated in this completely offtopic thread about USA vs. Nazi tortures in the story on developers.slashdot.org? There are Score:5 posts in that thread so it makes it completely impossible for anyone to avoid unless all of those people are blacklisted, and all of those trolls should be on your list. Thanks. (I write to you directly because the blacklist account has no active journals or comments to respond. How should I send new trolls to the list in the future?)

Apple PI, and Comedy Gold.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The fact of our society is that if you sent them to the funnny farm, you'd have very few people left who were good at math."

But in about a season you'd have a bumper crop of comedians who could multiply.

Did he say "make perfect like poems"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to find a connection between determining if an algorithm is perfect and the much more subjective task of determining if a poem is perfect.

If God existed

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a die-hard atheist - only because I think that if God existed, He should be hung by His balls.

Re: Getting Rid of E-mail

[Pike]

"What seems strange to me about this is that getting thousands of letters a year is the same as getting e-mails, just in a different form."

Emails are distracting because they arrive through your main work implement: your computer. Mailboxes are easily ignored except for once-a-day checking & sorting.

People who are serious about getting things done keep their email clients closed, turn off auto-notification, and check their email at set times.

Re: Getting Rid of E-mail

[jacoby19]

People who are serious about getting things done keep their email clients closed, turn off auto-notification, and check their email at set times.

I know what you mean, but with good e-mail filtering it's possible to get things done and still keep in touch. I have Outlook at work set up to only use the auto-notification (semi-transparent pop-up in the lower-right corner) for e-mails from people I actually want to deal with now. Other mail gets filtered into subfolders to deal with later.

It's like tuning out people walking by your cube/office, once you're able to focus on what you're doing it becomes a lot easier to get things done. E-mails, IM, phone calls, and people stopping by are all potential distractions, but just as we can learn to ignore people walking by and not answer the phone (after checking the caller ID), we can also briefly scan an e-mail and then get back to work without getting fully distracted.

Re:Abandoning Email is Stupid

[arose]

Do you think that Knuth ever had problems getting a big enough email account!?

Re:Art of Computer Programming is -snip- then?

[WillAdams]

What do you mean be ``perfectly good compatible successors''?

Omega? Aleph? XeTeX? activetex? passivetex?

As the last three names imply, they're still TeX, and Omega and Aleph can pass the trip tex test as well.

I didn't claim that TeX was the only option, merely that it still remains useful and viable, esp. for the sort of work I do.

FrameMaker is only available for Windows and Unix these days (but not native to Mac OS X), Quark XPress 5 and 6 were too little, too late, InDesign needs almost as many plug-ins to be useful for long document publishing as Quark XPress does (and once tricked out like that loses anything resembling decent manuscript exchange unless one is using Windows and MathType), RagTime, while I've always been fond of it has yet to get a decent H&J algorithm, or sophisticated page breaking and Scribus, while I'd really like to like it, is only just becoming usable for short ads &c.

Using TeX I can accept author submissions done in LaTeX (or LyX or Scientific Word for the graphically minded), work on them directly, and then by commenting out a single line (or providing a null .sty file) return the author's source files ready for working on the next edition, including all equations, links to graphics (which can be updated externally) and it ``just works''. Even accepting Word .doc submissions isn't that bad thanks to latex2rtf and word2tex. They're pretty rare for what I do at my day job (submissions are more in line w/ what one sees at http://arxiv.org).

What is there which I've not considered? Arbortext's 3B2? We roll our own XML typesetting systems. XyVision? Miles 33? Penta?

I need a tool which can handle short documents w/ sophisticated font handling (like http://members.aol.com/willadams/portfolio/typogra phy/peace_on_earth.pdf and http://www.tug.org/tug2003/donate/texharvest.pdf) as well as longer documents (http://members.aol.com/willadams/portfolio/typogr aphy/thebookoftea.pdf --- not that long, but feel free to dig out the URL for my day job's on-line samples), and TeX is the most flexible I've found thus far --- it's only limits are human ingenuity and computer processing power --- interactive tools w/ people in the loop all-too-often limit one to available manpower and one's willingness to pay overtime to get things done on schedule. With batch tools, once the first chapter is one, so's the last chapter.

FWIW, DEK has stated in the past that he feels that the literate programming concept which he created to create and maintain and document TeX and METAFONT is the most important thing he's done.

William

What do you think about while you brush?

[JavaRob]

Most people don't think about much while they're brushing their teeth. Well, if we all had a little more power idling under the hood, we'd probably be coming up with equations and suchlike while we brushed, too.

Think of it this way -- Knuth is in the habit of breaking down problems into easily understandable parts, describing them with equations where possible, and optimizing the process of the solution. Are you saying he should turn off his brain while he brushes his teeth, just so he doesn't seem "odd" to the rest of us?

Why did they pick today to interview Knuth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pi day 3.14

unless you are in europe...

Re: Getting Rid of E-mail

[pugugly]

Odd thought - Avida found that evolving programs, given limitless resources to reproduce, would evolve the capabilities wanted aproximately 50% of the time.

Given insufficient resources of course, they never evolved the necessary capabilties, however bewtween these two extremes they found that, with limited resources, they achieved a 100% success rate - that limiting the resources was more efficient than practically infinite resources.

QED - Spam is an ineffective advertising medium because it has efefctively infinite resources, and no pressure to evolve actual efficiency. In order to make spam more effective (And less annoying to *us* - receiving an ad we might be interested in being less annoying than receiving an ad for generic viagra), required making the resources for reproducing spam less efficient, creating competition for survival.

Email is too easy - thus does spam evolve. Email must be made difficult.

Just an odd thought.

It has to be said...

[DataCannibal]

....imagine a Beowulf cluster of Don Knuths.....

Not to be overly critical...

[nx2059]

But I just wish he would do all his math in some kind of machine checked formal logic, it would make things easier to follow in his books. I know that people say that there are too many steps when you try do do a proof in formal logic, but we've come a long way, and most LCF based interactive provers, can do a lot of the grungy work for you, so you will still have the outline of the proof available. For example...

- val thm1 = PROVE [] ``~~A:bool = A``;
Meson search level: ....
> val thm1 = |- ~~A = A : thm

- val trm1 = ``x:bool``;
> val trm1 = ``x`` : term

- val trmTemplate = ``x /\ T = F``;
> val trmTemplate = ``x /\ T = F`` : term

- val thm = ASSUME ``~~A /\ T = F``;
> val thm = [.] |- ~~A /\ T = F : thm

- val result = SUBST [ trm1 |-> thm1 ] trmTemplate thm;
> val result = [.] |- A /\ T = F : thm

- show_assums := true;
> val it = () : unit

- result;
> val it = [~~A /\ T = F] |- A /\ T = F : thm

This might not be the best example (it's all I had at the moment) but as you can see in the first step, HOL proved ~~A = A, an obvious theorem that I couldn't find quickly in the library. HOL did this almost instantaneously, and routinely makes me look like a fool, proving stuff that will take me a half an hour in the blink of an eye. The user interfaces are a bit dated, but they have great potential for improvement.

Misuse of the words agnostic/atheist and disbelief

[cat_jesus]

Actually you are misusing the word agnostic. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist, in fact most agnostics are atheists. Agnosticism means that you believe that knowledge of god is inherently unattainable. It says nothing about whether you believe in a god. Saying you can't be an agnostic and an atheist is like saying you can't be blonde and tall.

Further, people go on a lot about the word disbelieve. Disbelief does not mean believing the opposite. It can mean simply not having the belief in question. Not believing in a god does not necessarily mean you believe there is not a god. There is a subtle difference here but any intelligent person can understand the nuance.

For further reading see Austin Cline's excellent articles on atheism and agnosticism

All people are either theists or atheists. Simply put, an atheist is not a theist. If you aren't a theist, then by definition you are an atheist.

Bravo

[ChaosMt]

As a Christian and a geek, my beliefs and lifestyle have been under constant attack. In all of my experience on BBSes, usenet, qlink (remember that!), email, irc, and slashdot - THIS is the first atheist post that is polite, reasonable, truthful and sensible. The VAST majority spew vitriol and miss the hypocritical irony of accusing Christians (somehow the other great world religions are ignored) of being unreasonable and "religious" whilst they speak old clichés in raised and frantic voices.

You sir I complement. I think you're wrong, but at least I can respect you. And for the Christians that are just as fanatical, let me point out - he's mostly right. It is beyond the realm of the logical. I do believe it is reasonable. Semantics aside, he reminding us of the great Flannery O'Connor quote: "It's harder to believe than not to."

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[m50d]

People prefer to set up one streaming system for both audio and video - less work, less things to go wrong. The only open format which supports video is Ogg with Theora and it's not really ready for production yet, plus I think they've ignored a lot of patents.

Re:Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format.

[m50d]

True, and I find wmv playing in xine actually works better than real video in realplayer. But official availability is what sites are going to go by.

TeX

[Mark of THE CITY]

Given TACP's code examples are in assembly language (MIXAL), it's not too surprising that TeX's command language can be regarded as the assembly language of a virtual machine. Hence, macros, such as LaTeX.

Back in 1996-7 I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation in LaTeX. There was some weird page limit bug (briefly, one page too many kicked out an error), and I was really worked up about what to do until finding out the output (*.ps, IIRC) was _itself_ a macro language, in which case cut-and-paste on the page numbers, which stood out (at least to me), saved the day. Should have not happened; still, try salvaging that in almost any other system.

Re:TeX - string searching

[skidrash]

the Sunday algorithm is now the fastest, AFAIR

Better example

[einhverfr]

How about Richard Cavendish, naturalist whos work was incredibly important, yet was so shy that nobody could talk to him face to face.

His housekeeper had to communicate with him by letter.

If you wanted to talk to him at a convention, you would stand next to him at a convention and talk to the wall.

Yet otherwise (aside from interacting with people) he was quite functional and an important scientist.

GODWIN

[Anonymous Coward]

You lose it!

Re:In a twist of fate, Microsoft announces Visual

[tjstork]

Not invented here. If we all fell in for that line of reasoning to not code something, we would all be using only IBM systems. Competition rules.

doesnt allow free use..

[Anonymous Coward]

it dubbs some audio "soundmark" is overyour recordings....... gee thanks