I doubt a discussion about the uses of SMS will lead to anything worthwhile, so I'll just ignore that, if you don't mind. Also, I'm a little tired of this thread by now.
Also not everyone uses vt terms anymore. so the ctrl h's that you so cleverly hid things with do not render properly. And makes you look like the technological lagard. That sort of thing was 'clever' in the 1970's...
This, however, strikes me as very interesting. How, exactly, do they render? And how do you think I intended them to render? I'm honestly curious.
Do you really believe that there are engineers in the US going "Geesh, we just can't figure out this GSM...darn those super smart Europeans!"
No I don't. Take your example of Zaire: sure, they are technologically inferior with regard to telephone infrastructure. Yet I'm certain their engineers do not behave that way. That doesn't matter. The coutry is still technologically inferior.
With your logic few, if any, developing nations are technologically inferior at all as there are most likely engineers who understand GSM technology enough to implement it given enough time and money.
there is little economic will (incentive) to pursue it.
But that's precisely the issue. Zaire doesn't have the economic incentive, and neither do the US. That does not mean they are technologically superior, rather it is the reason for their technological inferiority. What about this is so difficult to grasp?
To use another analogy that you will thoroughly fail to grasp: If Zaire started selling $120 loafs of bread by integrating cell phone technology in each loaf, would they then be a technologically superior country? I mean, does your country have cell phone equipped loafs of bread?
You're absolutely right, I fail to grasp your analogy. Partly because it's ridiculous, much like your first, and partly because it doesn't apply.
There are points to, for example, being able to send SMS:es with your phone. I can see no points with having cell phones in bread. Technology that has uses must be distinguished from technology that doesn't. The former is important when considering the technological prowess of a country, whereas the latter is not. You repeatedly fail to make this distinction.
I find your prior statement ("Yeah, yeah, your dick^H^H^H^Htech is really big^H^H^Himpressive." - thanks, btw) especially humorous because many Europeans measure their relevance, apparently, by how small their cell phone is.
That is a ridiculous generalization. I'm sorry, I won't sink to your level. You hate Europeans, I don't hate Americans. I try to take part in a civil discussion, you troll away whenever you even smell an incentive.
This is discussion has deteriorated to being about the definition of the vague concept of "technologically prowess." It seems we will not reach an agreement about what this is, so let's just leave it.
If Japan took MRI technology (the technology that we have here in North America) and put it in latrines so that for a mere $275,000 you could look at your bone structure while using the facilities, would that make them "more technologically advanced"?
Determining what it means to be "technologically advanced" isn't as easy as you try to make it, but I'm certain that most people would agree that a country which has implemented a new technology, all other things being equal, is more technologically advanced than one who hasn't.
Your example is too silly to comment on, I'm afraid.
I GUARANTEE you that the large US wireless carriers have technologies that would make GSM look like a pathetic form of morse code
Yeah, yeah, your dick^H^H^H^Htech is really big^H^H^Himpressive.
the difference between implementing the technology and having the technology is vastly different
I thought we had agreed that the US does in fact not have this technology (you write in your original post that "If they want, they can have", emphasis mine). Or do you mean "have" in some vague philosophical sense? As in "could have if they wanted to"? In that case we're back where we started. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you by "have" mean something like "understand and could in theory implement if necessary," in which case I have no problem with your statement. In fact, I agree completely: there really is a vast difference between having an implementation of a technology and merely, erhm, "having" one. And the difference is crucial, which is what I've been arguing all along.
Implementation is not trivial. In fact, due to political and economical reasons, it is not always even possible, let alone desirable. How is the view from the ivory tower anyway?
and it's fools (such as yourself) that fail to scale that chasm.
And it's technophiles like you that fail to realize simple facts about politics and economics.
The US is, overall, the richest reasonably large country in the world (note: I am not even an American! I'm a Canadian, and our purchasing power isn't nearly as strong as the mighty American $), so clearly one cannot simply say "Uh, they're behind in technology!"
And why not, if I may ask? Purchasing power does not equal technological advancement. Technological advancement usually implies having purchasing power. The converse, however, is simply untrue. Also, I have no idea whatsoever what "reasonably sized" is supposed to mean.
If they want, they can have the best of every technology worldwide: The best, most cutting edge wireless technologies, with handsets that'll clean your teeth while you talk, and compute the next million prime numbers while they slumber.
Your argument is basically this: if the US would buy technology it does not have it would have it, and thus be equally advanced as other countries with regard to this technology.
This is true, and fairly obvious, but then you go on and conclude that this must mean they are equally advanced now, which is absurd.
I don't want a colour screen on my phone, I just want something that I can talk to people on.
This may come as a surprise for you, but regardless of your reasons for not having a certain technology (in this case, not being interested) you still don't have it. Do you think it is fair to say that a country is technologically inferior if they don't have any computers, regardless if this is intentional on their part? I'm sure you do. To see how this applies to your fifth grade reasoning is left as an exercise to the reader.
You learned about Turing from a Gibson novel? Is this a troll? I am suddenly overcome by a strange and unusual desire to yell something that usually confronts newbies in #linux on undernet when they want help installing Mandrake.
But I will resist it. I don't know what you mean by "the subject," so I'll try different angles.
For a biography, try Hodges' Alan Turing: The Enigma. I've not read it myself, but it has been very well received.
For an intro to some of his most influential ideas, try Introduction to the Theory of Computation by Sipser (the easiest book on the subject I've come across, but might be too hard anyway if you have no background in math or CS).
For his ideas on AI, see his original paper from 1950, which is now since long available online.
Also, you could just do a Google search (and should! Resorting to this kind of off topic questions is usually only defensible when finding information is hard).
It's disappointing to see that a computer security paper written 30 years ago is still relevant today.
Indeed it is. However, if I recall correctly (the link is slashdotted, so I cannot check) the whole point of the paper is that this is a security "hole" (actually, it's not really a hole in itself, but more of a way to ascertain that a hole is not discovered) that cannot be closed. It describes a way of inserting a trojan into a program without it being visible in the source; the bottom line being that you can never trust code you didn't write directly for the machine, from scratch, yourself. And if this sort of bug was implemeted at hardware microcode level, you could not even trust writing directly for the machine.
That summary does not make the paper justice. Read it yourself when someone has posted a mirror. It's fascinating, simple, and absolutely brilliant.
I have an idea what they have been influenced by
on
Virtual 1930s Harlem
·
· Score: 2
I wonder if they've chosen to simulate an American town in the 1930th because of this movie or whether it's just a coincidence.
Thanks. I guess I either just wasn't paying attention or perhaps, god forbid, just don't read slashdot religiously enough.
Now for an off-topic question that I can't help asking: did you bang your head against the wall, and in that case for how long, when you realized that you'd have gotten #111111 had you been just a little bit quicker?
Not everybody deem it necessary to be rude and sarcastic as soon as someone tries to be helpful.
Not everybody have small penises.
But then again, there are those who fit into all of those cathegories, and I'll try to take you into account the next time I post. I apologize for any inconvenience my arrogance and narrowmindedness may have caused.
I read Slashdot fairly religiously but didn't hear about this until now. Now surely many people will fail to hear about it at all until it's all over. You know, some people actually don't read slashdot on friday nights (it is friday night in Sweden). I do, but I never claimed to have a life in the first place.
Please Note that the absence of your favourite language (be it SNOBOL4, INTERCAL, or RedCode) does not mean that you cannot use it for this contest. The preferred form for submitting a program is as a precompiled executable, which you can produce by any means you want.
If you can't supply a precompiled executable, and want to use a language which is not on the list above, let us know where to find an implementation of the language, preferably in the form of an RPM, and we will consider installing it.
Actually, he's not only into science fiction, and his other books are of very high quality, The Book of Daniel being one of my favorites, and Ragtime one of the critics. I never knew he was even computer literate in the first place and I think he should be applauded for his bold, very uncharacteristic, use of terms such as "CSV" and "cryptographic handshake."
The glass armonica was one of the most celebrated instruments of the 18th century. Franklin began to take his beloved armonica with him when he traveled and played popular Scottish tunes or original compositions for his audiences. Later, composers such as Beethoven, Mozart, and Donizetti would write music for the armonica. Because of its almost immediate popularity, the glass armonica seemed destined for permanence. But by the 1820s, it was nearly a forgotten instrument.
I pride myself in being rather well versed in classical music, but have never once heard of this instrument. If gods like Mozart or Beethoven composed for this instrument, where are these compisitions now? Have they, blasphemously, been transcribed for other instruments, or are the compositions today as forgotten as the glass armonicas themselves?
Weird story, and it gets worse:
Over the years, some disturbing events began to be associated with the glass armonica. Some armonica players became ill and had to stop playing the instrument. They complained of muscle spasms, nervousness, cramps, and dizziness. A few listeners were also subject to ill effects; after an incident in Germany where a child died during a performance, the armonica was actually banned in a few towns.
Could it that I've never heard one of these instruments played because performers insist on falling ill or dying while trying to record them? Maybe this was also why Ben would not patent his instrument - anyone who played it without knowing the secret method of avoiding the wrath of the evil spirits of the glass got into trouble soon enough anyway? (The secret method of course being available after a small submission fee.)
His logical fallacy is , of course, thinking that the US has a monopoly on this kind of thing.
First of all, this is is not a "logical fallacy," but, if anything, a faulty premise. That term has been subject to enough abuse already.
Second, while it is true that the US may not be the only country in which politicians follow agendas that may be in contrast with the will of the public, it is nonetheless the case that politicians in the US are extravagantly prone to imposing unwarranted restrictions on technologies of this kind. I would say, more so than the EU, or so the record suggest. I cannot disprove your indirect claim that the EU would treat an Internet of its own the way the US has been treating what's in place now, but I also can not see why you would make this assumption.
A poster in this thread mentioned the asciipr0n link, and since i after checking it out found that all ascii pics were generated and not drawn, I figured so would also be the case with the goatsex pic. I did not follow the link myself since I have viewed that pic once before and was rather disgusted. Therefore I did not know that it rather than a generated pic was the one that has been shown by trolls on/. since the dawn of time.
But in spite of all this, I won't apologize, because you really shouldn't take a discussion about a goatsex pic that seriously. In such discussions, lowering of standards are expected and required. Crawl back under your rock and do not resurface until you have something to complain about that actually justifies giving a shit (hint: this doesn't).
You don't say if you're new to programming or not, but should the former be the case I suggest The Little LISPer.
I have not read this book myself, mostly because I already knew a fair amount of LISP when I first heard of it. However, I know a number of people who read it as their intro to programming and simply LOVED it. Few people can say that about their first programming book.
Of course, slightly more pretentious people would recommend the Wizard book and since you ask for "books for the smart" it deserves a note. It is interesting, no doubt, but a little overrated.
Really, people, before you mod all these pretentious karma whores up, remember the following: they never read Knuths magnum opus. Noone ever did, TAoCP is to CS what Atlas Shrugged is to world litterature. People just say they read it and consider it their awakening because
a) they are supposed to b) it makes them sound cool
I'm so sick and tired of all people who shamelessly promote his books as essential and good introductions to CS. Knuth has become god around here, but I'll say what noone else dares: his books are milestones, full of amazing insights, and delve right into the core of what CS is about. But they are nonetheless amazingly boring, extremely difficult, and simply not worth their time. For mortals, that is.
I happen to know several people who have 'supernatural' abilities but who [...] have been so sufficiently tormented and stunted for being different while growing up by ignorant and/or cruel people around them [...]
And let me guess, they're all right now in the process of swearing an oath to protect a world that fear and hate them? And I thought that was just a comic. Silly silly me.
There is nothing wrong with technology, there is no reason to be skeptical about technology.
are statements of opinion, not fact. Lines of research might be pursued for political reasons just as well as for any other kinds. While it may be true in theory that technology itself has no preferences, trying to apply such statements to the real world is splitting hairs at best, disingenious at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
The 18th word from the end should read "technological."
I doubt a discussion about the uses of SMS will lead to anything worthwhile, so I'll just ignore that, if you don't mind. Also, I'm a little tired of this thread by now.
Also not everyone uses vt terms anymore. so the ctrl h's that you so cleverly hid things with do not render properly. And makes you look like the technological lagard. That sort of thing was 'clever' in the 1970's...
This, however, strikes me as very interesting. How, exactly, do they render? And how do you think I intended them to render? I'm honestly curious.
Do you really believe that there are engineers in the US going "Geesh, we just can't figure out this GSM...darn those super smart Europeans!"
No I don't. Take your example of Zaire: sure, they are technologically inferior with regard to telephone infrastructure. Yet I'm certain their engineers do not behave that way. That doesn't matter. The coutry is still technologically inferior.
With your logic few, if any, developing nations are technologically inferior at all as there are most likely engineers who understand GSM technology enough to implement it given enough time and money.
there is little economic will (incentive) to pursue it.
But that's precisely the issue. Zaire doesn't have the economic incentive, and neither do the US. That does not mean they are technologically superior, rather it is the reason for their technological inferiority. What about this is so difficult to grasp?
To use another analogy that you will thoroughly fail to grasp: If Zaire started selling $120 loafs of bread by integrating cell phone technology in each loaf, would they then be a technologically superior country? I mean, does your country have cell phone equipped loafs of bread?
You're absolutely right, I fail to grasp your analogy. Partly because it's ridiculous, much like your first, and partly because it doesn't apply.
There are points to, for example, being able to send SMS:es with your phone. I can see no points with having cell phones in bread. Technology that has uses must be distinguished from technology that doesn't. The former is important when considering the technological prowess of a country, whereas the latter is not. You repeatedly fail to make this distinction.
I find your prior statement ("Yeah, yeah, your dick^H^H^H^Htech is really big^H^H^Himpressive." - thanks, btw) especially humorous because many Europeans measure their relevance, apparently, by how small their cell phone is.
That is a ridiculous generalization. I'm sorry, I won't sink to your level. You hate Europeans, I don't hate Americans. I try to take part in a civil discussion, you troll away whenever you even smell an incentive.
This is discussion has deteriorated to being about the definition of the vague concept of "technologically prowess." It seems we will not reach an agreement about what this is, so let's just leave it.
Perhaps I should dumb it down a bit for you.
Please do.
If Japan took MRI technology (the technology that we have here in North America) and put it in latrines so that for a mere $275,000 you could look at your bone structure while using the facilities, would that make them "more technologically advanced"?
Determining what it means to be "technologically advanced" isn't as easy as you try to make it, but I'm certain that most people would agree that a country which has implemented a new technology, all other things being equal, is more technologically advanced than one who hasn't.
Your example is too silly to comment on, I'm afraid.
I GUARANTEE you that the large US wireless carriers have technologies that would make GSM look like a pathetic form of morse code
Yeah, yeah, your dick^H^H^H^Htech is really big^H^H^Himpressive.
the difference between implementing the technology and having the technology is vastly different
I thought we had agreed that the US does in fact not have this technology (you write in your original post that "If they want, they can have", emphasis mine). Or do you mean "have" in some vague philosophical sense? As in "could have if they wanted to"? In that case we're back where we started. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you by "have" mean something like "understand and could in theory implement if necessary," in which case I have no problem with your statement. In fact, I agree completely: there really is a vast difference between having an implementation of a technology and merely, erhm, "having" one. And the difference is crucial, which is what I've been arguing all along.
Implementation is not trivial. In fact, due to political and economical reasons, it is not always even possible, let alone desirable. How is the view from the ivory tower anyway?
and it's fools (such as yourself) that fail to scale that chasm.
And it's technophiles like you that fail to realize simple facts about politics and economics.
The US is, overall, the richest reasonably large country in the world (note: I am not even an American! I'm a Canadian, and our purchasing power isn't nearly as strong as the mighty American $), so clearly one cannot simply say "Uh, they're behind in technology!"
And why not, if I may ask? Purchasing power does not equal technological advancement. Technological advancement usually implies having purchasing power. The converse, however, is simply untrue. Also, I have no idea whatsoever what "reasonably sized" is supposed to mean.
If they want, they can have the best of every technology worldwide: The best, most cutting edge wireless technologies, with handsets that'll clean your teeth while you talk, and compute the next million prime numbers while they slumber.
Your argument is basically this: if the US would buy technology it does not have it would have it, and thus be equally advanced as other countries with regard to this technology.
This is true, and fairly obvious, but then you go on and conclude that this must mean they are equally advanced now, which is absurd.
I don't want a colour screen on my phone, I just want something that I can talk to people on.
This may come as a surprise for you, but regardless of your reasons for not having a certain technology (in this case, not being interested) you still don't have it. Do you think it is fair to say that a country is technologically inferior if they don't have any computers, regardless if this is intentional on their part? I'm sure you do. To see how this applies to your fifth grade reasoning is left as an exercise to the reader.
Who modded this nonsense up? His head on a plate!
You learned about Turing from a Gibson novel? Is this a troll? I am suddenly overcome by a strange and unusual desire to yell something that usually confronts newbies in #linux on undernet when they want help installing Mandrake.
But I will resist it. I don't know what you mean by "the subject," so I'll try different angles.
For a biography, try Hodges' Alan Turing: The Enigma. I've not read it myself, but it has been very well received.
For an intro to some of his most influential ideas, try Introduction to the Theory of Computation by Sipser (the easiest book on the subject I've come across, but might be too hard anyway if you have no background in math or CS).
For his ideas on AI, see his original paper from 1950, which is now since long available online.
Also, you could just do a Google search (and should! Resorting to this kind of off topic questions is usually only defensible when finding information is hard).
It's disappointing to see that a computer security paper written 30 years ago is still relevant today.
Indeed it is. However, if I recall correctly (the link is slashdotted, so I cannot check) the whole point of the paper is that this is a security "hole" (actually, it's not really a hole in itself, but more of a way to ascertain that a hole is not discovered) that cannot be closed. It describes a way of inserting a trojan into a program without it being visible in the source; the bottom line being that you can never trust code you didn't write directly for the machine, from scratch, yourself. And if this sort of bug was implemeted at hardware microcode level, you could not even trust writing directly for the machine.
That summary does not make the paper justice. Read it yourself when someone has posted a mirror. It's fascinating, simple, and absolutely brilliant.
I wonder if they've chosen to simulate an American town in the 1930th because of this movie or whether it's just a coincidence.
I was confused by that post myself. I didn't want it to happen to others.
What's wrong with you people?
Thanks. I guess I either just wasn't paying attention or perhaps, god forbid, just don't read slashdot religiously enough.
Now for an off-topic question that I can't help asking: did you bang your head against the wall, and in that case for how long, when you realized that you'd have gotten #111111 had you been just a little bit quicker?
Not everybody follow every link.
Not everybody deem it necessary to be rude and sarcastic as soon as someone tries to be helpful.
Not everybody have small penises.
But then again, there are those who fit into all of those cathegories, and I'll try to take you into account the next time I post. I apologize for any inconvenience my arrogance and narrowmindedness may have caused.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
I read Slashdot fairly religiously but didn't hear about this until now. Now surely many people will fail to hear about it at all until it's all over. You know, some people actually don't read slashdot on friday nights (it is friday night in Sweden). I do, but I never claimed to have a life in the first place.
Again, why weren't we notified?
Actually, he's not only into science fiction, and his other books are of very high quality, The Book of Daniel being one of my favorites, and Ragtime one of the critics. I never knew he was even computer literate in the first place and I think he should be applauded for his bold, very uncharacteristic, use of terms such as "CSV" and "cryptographic handshake."
Wait, we're talking about the Doctorow, right?
Right?
The glass armonica was one of the most celebrated instruments of the 18th century. Franklin began to take his beloved armonica with him when he traveled and played popular Scottish tunes or original compositions for his audiences. Later, composers such as Beethoven, Mozart, and Donizetti would write music for the armonica. Because of its almost immediate popularity, the glass armonica seemed destined for permanence. But by the 1820s, it was nearly a forgotten instrument.
I pride myself in being rather well versed in classical music, but have never once heard of this instrument. If gods like Mozart or Beethoven composed for this instrument, where are these compisitions now? Have they, blasphemously, been transcribed for other instruments, or are the compositions today as forgotten as the glass armonicas themselves?
Weird story, and it gets worse:
Over the years, some disturbing events began to be associated with the glass armonica. Some armonica players became ill and had to stop playing the instrument. They complained of muscle spasms, nervousness, cramps, and dizziness. A few listeners were also subject to ill effects; after an incident in Germany where a child died during a performance, the armonica was actually banned in a few towns.
Could it that I've never heard one of these instruments played because performers insist on falling ill or dying while trying to record them? Maybe this was also why Ben would not patent his instrument - anyone who played it without knowing the secret method of avoiding the wrath of the evil spirits of the glass got into trouble soon enough anyway? (The secret method of course being available after a small submission fee.)
Ah, theories.
The correct term is actually "factual fallacy," although it means the same to say that one or several premises are factually incorrect.
Nitpicking should be done with style. My apologies.
His logical fallacy is , of course, thinking that the US has a monopoly on this kind of thing.
First of all, this is is not a "logical fallacy," but, if anything, a faulty premise. That term has been subject to enough abuse already.
Second, while it is true that the US may not be the only country in which politicians follow agendas that may be in contrast with the will of the public, it is nonetheless the case that politicians in the US are extravagantly prone to imposing unwarranted restrictions on technologies of this kind. I would say, more so than the EU, or so the record suggest. I cannot disprove your indirect claim that the EU would treat an Internet of its own the way the US has been treating what's in place now, but I also can not see why you would make this assumption.
A poster in this thread mentioned the asciipr0n link, and since i after checking it out found that all ascii pics were generated and not drawn, I figured so would also be the case with the goatsex pic. I did not follow the link myself since I have viewed that pic once before and was rather disgusted. Therefore I did not know that it rather than a generated pic was the one that has been shown by trolls on /. since the dawn of time.
But in spite of all this, I won't apologize, because you really shouldn't take a discussion about a goatsex pic that seriously. In such discussions, lowering of standards are expected and required. Crawl back under your rock and do not resurface until you have something to complain about that actually justifies giving a shit (hint: this doesn't).
uuhhmm...
You don't say if you're new to programming or not, but should the former be the case I suggest The Little LISPer.
I have not read this book myself, mostly because I already knew a fair amount of LISP when I first heard of it. However, I know a number of people who read it as their intro to programming and simply LOVED it. Few people can say that about their first programming book.
Of course, slightly more pretentious people would recommend the Wizard book and since you ask for "books for the smart" it deserves a note. It is interesting, no doubt, but a little overrated.
Really, people, before you mod all these pretentious karma whores up, remember the following: they never read Knuths magnum opus. Noone ever did, TAoCP is to CS what Atlas Shrugged is to world litterature. People just say they read it and consider it their awakening because
a) they are supposed to
b) it makes them sound cool
I'm so sick and tired of all people who shamelessly promote his books as essential and good introductions to CS. Knuth has become god around here, but I'll say what noone else dares: his books are milestones, full of amazing insights, and delve right into the core of what CS is about. But they are nonetheless amazingly boring, extremely difficult, and simply not worth their time. For mortals, that is.
I happen to know several people who have 'supernatural' abilities but who [...] have been so sufficiently tormented and stunted for being different while growing up by ignorant and/or cruel people around them [...]
And let me guess, they're all right now in the process of swearing an oath to protect a world that fear and hate them? And I thought that was just a comic. Silly silly me.
IBM and the holocaust
Also, please notice that statements like
There is nothing wrong with technology, there is no reason to be skeptical about technology.
are statements of opinion, not fact. Lines of research might be pursued for political reasons just as well as for any other kinds. While it may be true in theory that technology itself has no preferences, trying to apply such statements to the real world is splitting hairs at best, disingenious at worst.
Yeah, like we haven't been told about herbal viagra already...