Re:Stanislaw Lem and American SF
on
Solaris
·
· Score: 2
That link doesn't appear to be working, but th is one does.
Re:Sustaining an imaginative grasp of posterity!
on
Computer Historian?
·
· Score: 1
The web history project is trying to solve some of these problems. They are planning on maintaining an archive of snapshots of the web. However, they have yet to make any of their archive available.
The Critiques Of Libertarianism site has a section devoted to critiques of Ayn Rand/Objectivism and a section devoted to critiques of Libertarianism by Objectivists.
Although several companies were eventually involved with the development of OpenDoc Apple orginated the technology and only decided to share it when other companies got interested and there was an understanding that the technology could only thrive by becomming a standard. This added several years to its development.
OpenDoc was not part of the original Apple-IBM alliance, although the spirit of that alliance probably lead to cooperation on OpenDoc.
OpenDoc was one of the first technologies for which Apple released the source code (or at least parts thereof). However, this was before the days where Open Source was a buzzword and there were restrictions on the source that made it only good for learning and debugging. If Apple released the sources under the GPL perhaps OpenDoc would still be around today. OpenDoc is the sort of technology that companies find difficult to justify the development expense of, especially when belts are tightened.
Another episode of Apple's attempts at modern operating systems involves A/UX which was released sometime before 1993. This ill-fated OS included an environment that ran Mac applications. It wasn't well supported and Apple dumped it while claiming they were planning on supporting the PowerOpen ABI for PowerPC-based Unices. This effort also eventually died.
One wonders what would have happened if Apple continued to support A/UX instead of buying NeXT.
p.s. Is there a good history of A/UX available on the web?
So, on a basic level, an objectivist is someone who sees clearly. They aren't humble enough to be trying to see things clearly, no, they DO see things clearly. And you don't - then you're not one of them. What a great philosophy, why hasn't anyone else thought of this?
Yes. I've thought of starting a philosophy called "Truthism". Truthists believe in true things. Everyone who is not a Truthist is a falsist and believes in false things.
I'm in the process of reading all of Rand's books, because dispite the above, I believe it's one of the best out there, but I still don't believe it's as great as the name, or it's writings would suggest.
Don't bother. Just read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". After you're finished you should realize that is all there is. She wrote an introduction but never wrote the actual epistemology. That book is full of ad hominem attacks and quotes out of context, but doesn't present a real philosophy.
Then when you get a chance read a work on the history of philosophy, then you'll see that there is more out there. You'll also see that Rand's philosophy has nothing to do with Aristotle.
btw, if you want to read a work that is full of real critical thinking read Gottlob Frege's "Foundations of Arithmetic". This is a work that is, I believe, flawed but presents more critical thinking than you'll ever find in Rand or her followers.
For those of use who say that Objectivism is a 'phase', to be grown out of it really seems like a waist of time to explain why. It would be like trying to explain evolution to a Creationist. Ayn Rand, and her beliefs just seem fundamentally stupid, and that's all there is to it.
Well, I think Sub^H^H^HObjectivism deserves a more thorough criticism than this, however, that's not going to happen in the space of a/. post. I suggest going to the Ayn Rand section of the Critiques Of Libertarianism web site.
Maths is based on assumptions (axioms) which can't be broken down.
Actually mathematics isn't axiomatic. People like Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell have tried to create axioms for mathematics, but the attempt to axiomatize mathematics is an effort that started long after the existence of formal mathmatics. Some people feel that Gödel's theorem proves that it is impossible to axiomatize mathematics.
Software may be more profitable than hardware, but it is difficult to make money by selling an OS. Microsoft is probably the only company that has managed to do this. Except for the Linux vendors and the struggling SCO, I can't think of a company that is making a profit off selling a desktop OS. The companies that do make a profit tend to be niche companies.
Most of the commercial UNIX vendors (Sun, HP, IBM, SGI, etc) make money off hardware.
For a long time I thought Apple should be a software-only company, but now I really doubt that it would be possible for them to survive that way. There is not enough evidence to indicate that licensing the OS would be profitable.
I believe most consoles lose money. The console vendors only make money from the software license fees. (Note that the console software market is twice the size of the PC market, about $4 billion vs. $2 billion.)
Who is going to make the machines? Microsoft has yet to announce any hardware manufactures. Will Microsoft pay companies to build the hardware?
Some of the problems with books/paper besides those mentioned by gfxguy: 1. Paper burns. A major part of the WW II personnel archives was lost due to a fire. 2. Other natural disasters. Floods, storms, etc. all affect books and paper. 3. Since books and papers take up space people are more likely to put them in storage. Often they are stored in sub-optimal conditions which can cause the data to be lost. Material stored in basements can grow mildewey, rot, eaten by bugs or get water damaged. Of course, computers can also get damaged, but once something is in digital format it can be easier to back up, duplicate and distribute.
Katz writes that libertarians have been guiding him to sites around the internet. Libertarianism is a powerful set of ideas that should be examined. One web site that provides criticism is the Critiques Of Libertarianism site. Libertarians and non-libertarians should check it out.
As I mentioned in a earlier post QuickTime has been ported to UNIX (SGI IRIX) in the past, so the port would probably not be a difficult as you expect.
Apple has demoed ports of QuickTime running on UNIX in the past. At one WWDC about 4 years ago they demoed QuickTime on SGI IRIX. Although their port is probably not up to date they have a small head start already.
The real issue is money. It looks like Apple is trying to make revenue off QuickTime so I doubt they'll ever opensource it.
Slashdot Mirror
That link doesn't appear to be working, but th is one does.
The web history project is trying to solve some of these problems. They are planning on maintaining an archive of snapshots of the web. However, they have yet to make any of their archive available.
The Critiques Of Libertarianism site has a section devoted to critiques of Ayn Rand/Objectivism and a section devoted to critiques of Libertarianism by Objectivists.
Although several companies were eventually involved with the development of OpenDoc Apple orginated the technology and only decided to share it when other companies got interested and there was an understanding that the technology could only thrive by becomming a standard. This added several years to its development.
OpenDoc was not part of the original Apple-IBM alliance, although the spirit of that alliance probably lead to cooperation on OpenDoc.
OpenDoc was one of the first technologies for which Apple released the source code (or at least parts thereof). However, this was before the days where Open Source was a buzzword and there were restrictions on the source that made it only good for learning and debugging. If Apple released the sources under the GPL perhaps OpenDoc would still be around today. OpenDoc is the sort of technology that companies find difficult to justify the development expense of, especially when belts are tightened.
Another episode of Apple's attempts at modern operating systems involves A/UX which was released sometime before 1993. This ill-fated OS included an environment that ran Mac applications. It wasn't well supported and Apple dumped it while claiming they were planning on supporting the PowerOpen ABI for PowerPC-based Unices. This effort also eventually died.
One wonders what would have happened if Apple continued to support A/UX instead of buying NeXT.
p.s. Is there a good history of A/UX available on the web?
So, on a basic level, an objectivist is someone who sees clearly. They aren't humble enough to be trying to see things clearly, no, they DO see things clearly. And you don't - then you're not one of them. What a great philosophy, why hasn't anyone else thought of this?
Yes. I've thought of starting a philosophy called "Truthism". Truthists believe in true things. Everyone who is not a Truthist is a falsist and believes in false things.
I'm in the process of reading all of Rand's books, because dispite the above, I believe it's one of the best out there, but I still don't believe it's as great as the name, or it's writings would suggest.
Don't bother. Just read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". After you're finished you should realize that is all there is. She wrote an introduction but never wrote the actual epistemology. That book is full of ad hominem attacks and quotes out of context, but doesn't present a real philosophy.
Then when you get a chance read a work on the history of philosophy, then you'll see that there is more out there. You'll also see that Rand's philosophy has nothing to do with Aristotle.
btw, if you want to read a work that is full of real critical thinking read Gottlob Frege's "Foundations of Arithmetic". This is a work that is, I believe, flawed but presents more critical thinking than you'll ever find in Rand or her followers.
For those of use who say that Objectivism is a 'phase', to be grown out of it really seems like a waist of time to explain why. It would be like trying to explain evolution to a Creationist. Ayn Rand, and her beliefs just seem fundamentally stupid, and that's all there is to it.
/. post. I suggest going to the Ayn Rand section of the Critiques Of Libertarianism web site.
Well, I think Sub^H^H^HObjectivism deserves a more thorough criticism than this, however, that's not going to happen in the space of a
Maths is based on assumptions (axioms) which can't be broken down.
Actually mathematics isn't axiomatic. People like Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell have tried to create axioms for mathematics, but the attempt to axiomatize mathematics is an effort that started long after the existence of formal mathmatics. Some people feel that Gödel's theorem proves that it is impossible to axiomatize mathematics.
Software may be more profitable than hardware, but it is difficult to make money by selling an OS. Microsoft is probably the only company that has managed to do this. Except for the Linux vendors and the struggling SCO, I can't think of a company that is making a profit off selling a desktop OS. The companies that do make a profit tend to be niche companies.
Most of the commercial UNIX vendors (Sun, HP, IBM, SGI, etc) make money off hardware.
For a long time I thought Apple should be a software-only company, but now I really doubt that it would be possible for them to survive that way. There is not enough evidence to indicate that licensing the OS would be profitable.
I believe most consoles lose money. The console vendors only make money from the software license fees. (Note that the console software market is twice the size of the PC market, about $4 billion vs. $2 billion.)
Who is going to make the machines? Microsoft has yet to announce any hardware manufactures. Will Microsoft pay companies to build the hardware?
Some of the problems with books/paper besides those mentioned by gfxguy: 1. Paper burns. A major part of the WW II personnel archives was lost due to a fire. 2. Other natural disasters. Floods, storms, etc. all affect books and paper. 3. Since books and papers take up space people are more likely to put them in storage. Often they are stored in sub-optimal conditions which can cause the data to be lost. Material stored in basements can grow mildewey, rot, eaten by bugs or get water damaged. Of course, computers can also get damaged, but once something is in digital format it can be easier to back up, duplicate and distribute.
Katz writes that libertarians have been guiding him to sites around the internet. Libertarianism is a powerful set of ideas that should be examined. One web site that provides criticism is the Critiques Of Libertarianism site. Libertarians and non-libertarians should check it out.
As I mentioned in a earlier post QuickTime has been ported to UNIX (SGI IRIX) in the past, so the port would probably not be a difficult as you expect.
Apple has demoed ports of QuickTime running on UNIX in the past. At one WWDC about 4 years ago they demoed QuickTime on SGI IRIX. Although their port is probably not up to date they have a small head start already.
The real issue is money. It looks like Apple is trying to make revenue off QuickTime so I doubt they'll ever opensource it.