well, ducks make quacking sounds, and that's fun, too, but only up to a
point.
why not be free, sitting, something else? something that observes
its environment, understands the consequences of its actions, and takes
pleasure from freedom shared, rather than freedom restricted?
that is certainly within the scope of free, sitting, animals. even
humans can do this, "alpha-male" false-metaphors aside.
when you control things but don't want to lose control, you find it quite
easy to tolerate as much dissent as is available, which turns out to be for
the most part only in words, and rarely in actions. when there is dissent in
actions, you let that happen, too, but remember it well for the dish best
served cold.
and when that time comes, it won't be flashy or even unjust. there will
be a popularly-upheld denunciation of the dissenter over some flanking issue.
with many laws to choose from, this is not difficult to arrange.
thus, everything can be predicted and predisposed, if you have studied
history and human nature enough (having lots of money doesn't hurt either).
every group of people, tired of leading the ethical life, cedes this role
to such a controller at some point, without exception. the only differences
are the names of the group and the names of the controller. the only hope is
that the controller is ethical, which is to say there is almost no hope.
those never tiring of the ethical life are beyond requiring hope; these
people are few and are easy to marginalize by the controller, anyway.
author tries to slam both vi and emacs at the same time. +1 gutsy.
however, to do so he resorts to placing words in the mouth of grizzled vi
and emacs users. -1 unnecessary.
so overall, it's a wash wrt grizzled programmers.
thus, the question from this critical reader is: what is left?
unfortunately, the bulk of the paper gushes on about the easiest workaround in
computer science -- syntactic indirection -- and neglects to delve into the
more interesting "plugin" idea (which incidentally, emacs has covered since
the beginning and newer versions of vi are starting to grok as well).
so, "obfuscation is understanding" is the message? i don't think so. i
think the message is that trailing-edge programmers should taste the power
they envision leading-edge programmers have, by buying into the siren songs of
middle of the pack programmers (who happen to play "vendor" and other
intermediary roles) and their mediocre mish mash of soothing "technologies".
frankly, that reeks.
it reeks mostly because he says "what deserves to succeed shouldn't".
this is essentially a conflicted statement, probably a defenseive measure the
author uses to befuddle himself enough to spew on so, w/o internal damage.
that alone is not a problem, but the dude is a doctor and poor slobs like me
expect doctors to use more sophisticated self-deceit.
but any deceit is akin to syntactic indirection, and thus like the waves
tossing about the surface of the ocean. the orcas and monster octopi deep
below, slinging parentheses w/ aplomb, don't mind the frivolity so maybe i
won't, either.
one mark of maturity is when you do/recognize/appreciate people and things
for the worth you find inherent in the action/observation, rather than for the
worth others may find/pubblicize/evangelize in the same deed.
if you feel being organized to be helpful, then be organized! you also
have the ability to re-evaluate this feeling later, and change your mind.
it's ok to be immature and muddy the waters w/ imprecise thinking, too --
that's the choice you make. when you see it as a choice rather than an
imposition, you will know what i'm talking about.
you want to give the unenlightened new ideas -- that is the only
hope that they have for attaining enlightenment. arguing for
restriction of ideas is a good way to demonstrate non-enlightenment,
however. thus, thanks for the opportunity to make this point.
it means you have come to the understanding of "belief"
being not so important. perhaps you see that what is believed
is always personal, and that some people have ability to change what
they believe, and yet remain comfortable with themselves. perhaps
you are like this, yourself.
communicating your understanding (whatever it may be) to others is always
an interesting challenge.
to call what must be proved an axiom is a super efficient
shortcut, i.e., a demonstration of being intellectually lazy.
(but whatever, the shiny word has its place in another conversation...)
i think it is not outside the scope of science
to find compassion and equilibrium in human relationships. the scientific
method is a means to reach beyond one's personal biases and prejudices
(compassion is not too far out of reach if you can do this). and the results
of scientific inquiry often must harmonize w/ past results to be accepted
(equilibrium in human relationships is not too far out of reach if you can do
this, as well).
you characterize scientists as sorely lacking the desire to address these
goals, but maybe if you got to know more scientists you would understand
their mindset and behaviors as not so lacking, after all.
w/ wisdom, it is easier to see what "winning" really means,
for everyone involved, even the yet unborn.
the nice hack, then, is to turn the abundant will available towards the
pursuit of wisdom. not an easy task, but the sooner that is started the
better. the really nice hack is to perfect this on a personal level and
influence others likewise, w/o coercion.
"but some people do not listen to reason", you say. that's fine, too.
for those folks you dance, throw images entranced, rage hard but askance, and
leave them to chance. if they should turn, grow desire to learn, then
together you'll yearn, w/ ignorance spurned. but if they ignore you, throw
daggers to gore you, then keep w/ what's more true, the dance will not bore
you.
the answer is simple: ask the question anyway, disregarding the fear.
if you fear the response to the question, you must grow larger than the
fear. it will still be there, but at least the question is asked, answered,
and you have more information to thwart Ignorance (that probably plays a large
part forming the fear in the first place).
"popularizing science" is vulgar precisely because to
do so the truth must be distorted. popularity is a quantification
of attention. to pay attention to undistorted truth is tiresome
for most people: it requires self-discipline, respect for small and
numerous details, deep understanding of the roles of the observer and the
observed, and so on. that's a lot of work! it is easier to pay attention to
when self-discipline is not so much needed, when details can be glossed over,
when the methodology of observation is taken for granted, and so on.
thus, the road to popularity crosses the road to scientific rigor
only very rarely. those who attempt to walk both cannot help but be vulgar,
with their legs stretched so far apart...
the real reason math is important for computer science is that
fundamentally, science is a branch of human endeavor involved with forming
mental models of some system and then exposing that model to Reality to see
what jives and what doesn't. with computers, Reality is a bit difficult to
find sometimes, but certainly if you go the way of the programmer, the
programs you write are codification of your model and the input they handle
can be considered the Reality in question.
anyway, everyone who constructs models learns an affinity for the
"trueness" of the model (if the model is very true, it jives decently w/
Reality w/o need of hand-waving or too many kludges). math is important for
judging trueness of the model, and for extrapolating not only simple truth
from the perceived world, but the Ability to Perceive Truth.
many people read orwell's "2 plus 2 makes 5". it's not necessary to
study math to appreciate the many levels of this falsehood, but studying math
(and henceforth going into computer science) makes it easier to realize even
more levels. fiction is a model. of what? society is a model. of what?
control / cruelty / repressed-love / tipping-point torture / lies and truths;
all are models. of what? all the above, varying over time, are models as
well.
in the end, the scientist seeks to understand and change the mental
models to be more true. but each scientist is part of the Reality, in
Reality. math is essential to bootstrapping the nimble mind.
deceit and trickery is the nature of most management.
the managers you want to work for use their skills of deceit
and trickery against time and over-expectation. the rest
use their skills of deceit and trickery against both those
above and below them in the organization. should you become
a manager, try hardest never to deceive yourself into believing
otherwise.
your web page would not be "DRMed", but your hosting provider's router may
drop packets that don't come from a suitably restricted (in hardware) machine.
your hosting provider's big accounts have such machines so it's no big loss if
they lose the small accounts (like you).
you are free to look for another hosting provider, but probably each
first-level's upstream provider is in the same boat. at the root is some
vaguely named Law of the Land (backed up by 5AM raids and the like) mandating
information infrastructure "cleanliness", "security", "safety" and so forth.
so, the first question to ask is: can it be done? if the answer is yes,
the second question -- will it be done? -- has an automatic answer: yes. if
you cannot figure out why, that does not reflect upon the questions, only on
your ability to figure out why. that will come w/ age and experience (unless
you cling to blissful ignorance, as is your right).
in the end, the flow of information is a question of rate. a slow enough
rate is almost like no information. a large enough rate differential between
sanctioned and unsanctioned is enough for purposes of control. that is the
point of the game that those in power play.
glad you asked. upholding the law is one part of the picture. where did
the law come from? that's another part of the picture. who is really doing
the upholding (who is "on the ground" knocking on doors and carting equipment
away)? that is yet another part. and of course the picture has a background
of observers as well as a foreground of participants.
to the above questions, i would say the laws come from those in power, and
it is the next generation for the most part whose duty it becomes to do the
work. this screws the impressionable in two ways: they learn to be tools of
unjust laws instead of learning how to undo the injustice, and the subjects of
their efforts (typically also impressionable) will direct their ire against
the messenger instead of the message. the last part is human nature, granted.
and like a screw, things go round and round, getting deeper and deeper, until
only outlaws are truly free, and only if they keep their mouth shut. "i
pensieri stretti e il viso sciolto", like they say...
you already screwed over your parents (medicare), screwed over your
neighbors and their children (foreign relations, various financial scandals),
now you want to screw over your own children (clamp downs like this). you
have lost the respect of those before and behind, and for what? wonderful, we
are still in the long shadows of dawn of the information age and yet already
the boomers have transformed beauty into marketing into sales into lies into
hypocrisy into fear.
the article introduces a distinction between "information worker"
and "transaction worker", and says the latter is more likely to
find a linux box on their desk since it can be locked down more easily.
i find this distinction artificial. in any environment where
maintenance of the box is done by dedicated staff (bofh or ilk),
what is more easily locked down will be more easily deployed, whether
the end user is "information", "transaction", "creative", or whatever
oriented. (training costs for unimaginative curmudgeons ceases to be an
issue as those people die, retire, or get sacked.)
sure, there will be many hold-outs (and subsequent banter and frivolity
on sites like slashdot), but that's fine too. w/o dinosaurs there would
be no comfortably large rib cages for the smaller creatures to eviscerate
and inhabit. nature is a mother, like they say...
i skipped to the end of your post since that is where (chronologically)
you would have something to say about recent events. however, i didn't find
anything there. perhaps you will have more to not say about that later.
that is a foolish "shoot the messenger" approach. be scientific. if you
are monitoring a volcano using some criteria, and your monitor starts to give
more warnings, it is not only bad science but bad planning to fit the data to
your "comfort level" because after it blows, you will have no comfort either
intellectually or physically.
but "be scientific" rubs you the wrong way? that's not the volcano's
problem now, is it?
what you say sounds nice, but to understand it often helps to do, as well.
reflection w/o action is empty. but likewise probably we could agree that to
do, only, is not enough. action w/o reflection is also empty.
Slashdot Mirror
lynx, w3m, etc.
avoid. mouse. usage.
cue drool-and-twitch replies...
well, ducks make quacking sounds, and that's fun, too, but only up to a point.
why not be free, sitting, something else? something that observes its environment, understands the consequences of its actions, and takes pleasure from freedom shared, rather than freedom restricted?
that is certainly within the scope of free, sitting, animals. even humans can do this, "alpha-male" false-metaphors aside.
"not tolerated" is an oversimplification.
when you control things but don't want to lose control, you find it quite easy to tolerate as much dissent as is available, which turns out to be for the most part only in words, and rarely in actions. when there is dissent in actions, you let that happen, too, but remember it well for the dish best served cold.
and when that time comes, it won't be flashy or even unjust. there will be a popularly-upheld denunciation of the dissenter over some flanking issue. with many laws to choose from, this is not difficult to arrange.
thus, everything can be predicted and predisposed, if you have studied history and human nature enough (having lots of money doesn't hurt either).
every group of people, tired of leading the ethical life, cedes this role to such a controller at some point, without exception. the only differences are the names of the group and the names of the controller. the only hope is that the controller is ethical, which is to say there is almost no hope.
those never tiring of the ethical life are beyond requiring hope; these people are few and are easy to marginalize by the controller, anyway.
author tries to slam both vi and emacs at the same time. +1 gutsy. however, to do so he resorts to placing words in the mouth of grizzled vi and emacs users. -1 unnecessary. so overall, it's a wash wrt grizzled programmers.
thus, the question from this critical reader is: what is left? unfortunately, the bulk of the paper gushes on about the easiest workaround in computer science -- syntactic indirection -- and neglects to delve into the more interesting "plugin" idea (which incidentally, emacs has covered since the beginning and newer versions of vi are starting to grok as well).
so, "obfuscation is understanding" is the message? i don't think so. i think the message is that trailing-edge programmers should taste the power they envision leading-edge programmers have, by buying into the siren songs of middle of the pack programmers (who happen to play "vendor" and other intermediary roles) and their mediocre mish mash of soothing "technologies". frankly, that reeks.
it reeks mostly because he says "what deserves to succeed shouldn't". this is essentially a conflicted statement, probably a defenseive measure the author uses to befuddle himself enough to spew on so, w/o internal damage. that alone is not a problem, but the dude is a doctor and poor slobs like me expect doctors to use more sophisticated self-deceit.
but any deceit is akin to syntactic indirection, and thus like the waves tossing about the surface of the ocean. the orcas and monster octopi deep below, slinging parentheses w/ aplomb, don't mind the frivolity so maybe i won't, either.
one mark of maturity is when you do/recognize/appreciate people and things for the worth you find inherent in the action/observation, rather than for the worth others may find/pubblicize/evangelize in the same deed.
if you feel being organized to be helpful, then be organized! you also have the ability to re-evaluate this feeling later, and change your mind.
it's ok to be immature and muddy the waters w/ imprecise thinking, too -- that's the choice you make. when you see it as a choice rather than an imposition, you will know what i'm talking about.
you want to give the unenlightened new ideas -- that is the only hope that they have for attaining enlightenment. arguing for restriction of ideas is a good way to demonstrate non-enlightenment, however. thus, thanks for the opportunity to make this point.
it means you have come to the understanding of "belief" being not so important. perhaps you see that what is believed is always personal, and that some people have ability to change what they believe, and yet remain comfortable with themselves. perhaps you are like this, yourself.
communicating your understanding (whatever it may be) to others is always an interesting challenge.
to call what must be proved an axiom is a super efficient shortcut, i.e., a demonstration of being intellectually lazy. (but whatever, the shiny word has its place in another conversation...)
i think it is not outside the scope of science to find compassion and equilibrium in human relationships. the scientific method is a means to reach beyond one's personal biases and prejudices (compassion is not too far out of reach if you can do this). and the results of scientific inquiry often must harmonize w/ past results to be accepted (equilibrium in human relationships is not too far out of reach if you can do this, as well).
you characterize scientists as sorely lacking the desire to address these goals, but maybe if you got to know more scientists you would understand their mindset and behaviors as not so lacking, after all.
"never an Emacs Chip"
no worries, we're working on it...
it is not lack of will, it is lack of wisdom.
w/ wisdom, it is easier to see what "winning" really means, for everyone involved, even the yet unborn.
the nice hack, then, is to turn the abundant will available towards the pursuit of wisdom. not an easy task, but the sooner that is started the better. the really nice hack is to perfect this on a personal level and influence others likewise, w/o coercion.
"but some people do not listen to reason", you say. that's fine, too. for those folks you dance, throw images entranced, rage hard but askance, and leave them to chance. if they should turn, grow desire to learn, then together you'll yearn, w/ ignorance spurned. but if they ignore you, throw daggers to gore you, then keep w/ what's more true, the dance will not bore you.
"you're full of it", you say. ok.
the answer is simple: ask the question anyway, disregarding the fear.
if you fear the response to the question, you must grow larger than the fear. it will still be there, but at least the question is asked, answered, and you have more information to thwart Ignorance (that probably plays a large part forming the fear in the first place).
"popularizing science" is vulgar precisely because to do so the truth must be distorted. popularity is a quantification of attention. to pay attention to undistorted truth is tiresome for most people: it requires self-discipline, respect for small and numerous details, deep understanding of the roles of the observer and the observed, and so on. that's a lot of work! it is easier to pay attention to when self-discipline is not so much needed, when details can be glossed over, when the methodology of observation is taken for granted, and so on.
thus, the road to popularity crosses the road to scientific rigor only very rarely. those who attempt to walk both cannot help but be vulgar, with their legs stretched so far apart...
the real reason math is important for computer science is that fundamentally, science is a branch of human endeavor involved with forming mental models of some system and then exposing that model to Reality to see what jives and what doesn't. with computers, Reality is a bit difficult to find sometimes, but certainly if you go the way of the programmer, the programs you write are codification of your model and the input they handle can be considered the Reality in question.
anyway, everyone who constructs models learns an affinity for the "trueness" of the model (if the model is very true, it jives decently w/ Reality w/o need of hand-waving or too many kludges). math is important for judging trueness of the model, and for extrapolating not only simple truth from the perceived world, but the Ability to Perceive Truth.
many people read orwell's "2 plus 2 makes 5". it's not necessary to study math to appreciate the many levels of this falsehood, but studying math (and henceforth going into computer science) makes it easier to realize even more levels. fiction is a model. of what? society is a model. of what? control / cruelty / repressed-love / tipping-point torture / lies and truths; all are models. of what? all the above, varying over time, are models as well.
in the end, the scientist seeks to understand and change the mental models to be more true. but each scientist is part of the Reality, in Reality. math is essential to bootstrapping the nimble mind.
deceit and trickery is the nature of most management. the managers you want to work for use their skills of deceit and trickery against time and over-expectation. the rest use their skills of deceit and trickery against both those above and below them in the organization. should you become a manager, try hardest never to deceive yourself into believing otherwise.
your web page would not be "DRMed", but your hosting provider's router may drop packets that don't come from a suitably restricted (in hardware) machine. your hosting provider's big accounts have such machines so it's no big loss if they lose the small accounts (like you).
you are free to look for another hosting provider, but probably each first-level's upstream provider is in the same boat. at the root is some vaguely named Law of the Land (backed up by 5AM raids and the like) mandating information infrastructure "cleanliness", "security", "safety" and so forth.
so, the first question to ask is: can it be done? if the answer is yes, the second question -- will it be done? -- has an automatic answer: yes. if you cannot figure out why, that does not reflect upon the questions, only on your ability to figure out why. that will come w/ age and experience (unless you cling to blissful ignorance, as is your right).
in the end, the flow of information is a question of rate. a slow enough rate is almost like no information. a large enough rate differential between sanctioned and unsanctioned is enough for purposes of control. that is the point of the game that those in power play.
is it better to feel fear or to be fooled by fearlessness?
hundreds (lets say 200) multiplied by 10 USD per gives you 2000 USD. that's a nice trip to the bahamas. too bad RIAA execs get to do it and not you.
glad you asked. upholding the law is one part of the picture. where did the law come from? that's another part of the picture. who is really doing the upholding (who is "on the ground" knocking on doors and carting equipment away)? that is yet another part. and of course the picture has a background of observers as well as a foreground of participants.
to the above questions, i would say the laws come from those in power, and it is the next generation for the most part whose duty it becomes to do the work. this screws the impressionable in two ways: they learn to be tools of unjust laws instead of learning how to undo the injustice, and the subjects of their efforts (typically also impressionable) will direct their ire against the messenger instead of the message. the last part is human nature, granted. and like a screw, things go round and round, getting deeper and deeper, until only outlaws are truly free, and only if they keep their mouth shut. "i pensieri stretti e il viso sciolto", like they say...
you already screwed over your parents (medicare), screwed over your neighbors and their children (foreign relations, various financial scandals), now you want to screw over your own children (clamp downs like this). you have lost the respect of those before and behind, and for what? wonderful, we are still in the long shadows of dawn of the information age and yet already the boomers have transformed beauty into marketing into sales into lies into hypocrisy into fear.
shame on you and your lack of honor.
the article introduces a distinction between "information worker" and "transaction worker", and says the latter is more likely to find a linux box on their desk since it can be locked down more easily.
i find this distinction artificial. in any environment where maintenance of the box is done by dedicated staff (bofh or ilk), what is more easily locked down will be more easily deployed, whether the end user is "information", "transaction", "creative", or whatever oriented. (training costs for unimaginative curmudgeons ceases to be an issue as those people die, retire, or get sacked.)
sure, there will be many hold-outs (and subsequent banter and frivolity on sites like slashdot), but that's fine too. w/o dinosaurs there would be no comfortably large rib cages for the smaller creatures to eviscerate and inhabit. nature is a mother, like they say...
i skipped to the end of your post since that is where (chronologically) you would have something to say about recent events. however, i didn't find anything there. perhaps you will have more to not say about that later.
freedom to oppress others is a wasted freedom, no matter how much sugar/caffeine is included in the mix.
that is a foolish "shoot the messenger" approach. be scientific. if you are monitoring a volcano using some criteria, and your monitor starts to give more warnings, it is not only bad science but bad planning to fit the data to your "comfort level" because after it blows, you will have no comfort either intellectually or physically.
but "be scientific" rubs you the wrong way? that's not the volcano's problem now, is it?
what you say sounds nice, but to understand it often helps to do, as well. reflection w/o action is empty. but likewise probably we could agree that to do, only, is not enough. action w/o reflection is also empty.