True, but that doesn't mean that every person derided by academics is right. Moreover some very respected scientist have become popular without being labeled a hack. Stephen Hawkings comes to mind.
p.s.
As someone once said: "The politics in academia are so nasty only because the stakes are so small."
Wolfram did not invent cellular automata, but he was the first one to study them in a scientific way.
You can't be serious...
From the moment Conway popularized them almost every cs/math person I know had a look at them, and quite a few proved theorems on them.
Wolfram seems to prey on uninformed people who wholesale buy his inflated claims. For one, when "a revolution in Mathematics"-Matematica came out, it did very little that wasn't already available in Macsyma and/or Maple. Yet missinformed mathematicians which had not kept up with the state of symbolic algebra thought he had invented the whole thing.
The insights are fascinating, especially the ability to build computational systems with simple repeating rules....(i.e. multiplication tables...etc.) from graphical representations.
I take it you are not a computer scientist (at least not one with a theoretical bent) as those "insights" were first discovered and widely published by others over 40 years ago.
One can often glance the trust of the ideas from a quick peek or alternatively conclude that further reading is called for, and then plow through the details before rendering a veredict. Scientists do this day after day (its called peer reviewing). It's something the community is used to.
Moreover nothing Wolfram writes in NKS would prove CS conventional wisdom wrong (the same might or might not be true for physics) yet CS types have consistently given it negative reviews.
Moreover, serious physicists spend time on CA while Wolfram was at IAS, and even worked on it with him for a while. Eventually they all moved on from the grandiose claims. One thing did remain, algorithms are considered (and have been for the last ten years or so) valid solutions to a physics question.
Of course Wolfram fails to credit this, because it would take shine away from his grandiose claims.
Look, if I'm auditing the books of a company, and a few random checks show that almost all additions so tested are incorrect I can dismiss the entire thing as an Enron job, without having to read the entire thing.
The same is true of NKS. Open it to almost any page, and three things stand out (1) plenty of pretentious claims (2) large number of unatributed ideas, (3) dearth of truly new insight.
God knows we scientists have put up with plenty of arrogant scientists because at the end of the day the could deliver the goods (Millikan comes to mind).
Wolfram's book fails the open at random page test. The book is pseudoscience and I don't have the time, inclination or more importantly the *need* to read the remaining 1400 pages of drivel to prove it.
The entire economic system of the country is based on the assumption that more money brings better goods, be them programmers, recording artists or football players. I wonder why question it when it comes to teachers only.
Can Wikipedia do an IMDB on us? Lots of people put plenty of time on the IMDB, with the understanding that it was an open, shared resource. One day we awoke to the news that the editors in the UK had sold out to Amazon and volunteers be damned...
Since he doesn't seem to listen to anyone but himself and shouts all the time on his radio show, I'd take that as a recommendation against the Clarion:-)
This whole episode transpired before the web was popularized, so there is not much available out there (Nexis should give you quite a few hits, as this was openly reported in the trade press). Nonetheless, there is some backing evidence out there.
Indeed, some say Pixar's fate rests almost entirely in the hands of Disney--its partner but also a potential competitor. The Hollywood powerhouse holds script approval on Pixar films and is doing some of the heavy lifting on the creative end. All the casting, music production, and some of the screenwriting for A Bug's Life was handled by Disney.
http://www.businessweek.com/1998/47/b3605001.htm
You can also look at the writing credits. The whole thing started with the graphic geeks writing the script as well as doing the rendering and directing the thing, as it is often done in the halls of academia. Then the professionals came in and fixed it, chiefly Cohen and Sokolow IIRC.
Pixar knew they could do it, but they didn't have the marketing muscle.
This is BS. The Toy story porject was floundering after three years in production and not getting any closer to a decent product. The problem was that pixar focused on the animation and ignored the script.
Disney sent a bunch of professionals who threw away well over half of the rendered images and rewrote the script.
So every fatal car accident caused by untimely mechanical failure is "murder by manufacturer"?
Of course not. But when the people in the automotive engineers tell you "the car is going to explode if rear ended, recall it at once" and management doesn't then it is murder by management, and they are liable for the snafu (google for "Ford Pinto").
The Yugo does not belong in that list. It was a dirt cheap car and when you bought it you were under no illusions that you were getting a quality car. Some people like Mercedes S class cars others prefer Yugos. This is consumer's choice, not bad workmanship.
The Ford Pinto, on the other hand, gave no indication that it was liable to turn into a Fourth of July celebration without previous warning. You bought that car thinking that it shouldn't be particularly better or worse than others manufactured by Ford, and guess what? it was *much* worse. That is the basic definition of a lemon.
From what I hear, the Ford Windstar/Freestar should be there as well.
Almost every one of Microsoft's "victories" has involved similar illegal behavior.
You were doing quite well until you reached this line. Most of the first decade of M$ successes had nothing to do with illegalities or monopolies. It was just straight out business deftness. That was the time of BOGU (read up on that one), when M$ could hardly dictate its terms to anyone.
Using more bits for addressing does not do anything to the cache's data memory: that memory works in CPU words and on a 64 bit system those are already 64 bit.
Sure. The comparison is between 32 bit and 64 bit words, including but not necessarily limited to addressing.
paging has nothing to do with caching.
Have you ever heard the term "paging to disk"? Do you know what it means?
Our app was heavily optimized to minimize I/O transfers, so that was not much of a concern once the code was loaded (initial load time was substantially slower, though). Cache effects were significant.
The biggest problem of using larger pointers is not so much the extre memory used (memory is cheap). The real problem is that you consume cache space much faster so you page at a much higher rate. This can slow down your program by a factor of up to 5x.
There are good reasons to move to IPv6, including... multicasting
Like there are tons of people multicasting out there. There are hundreds of papers every year on it, but not many actual users. To paraphrase, the most common implementation platform for multicast is powerpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but that doesn't mean that every person derided by academics is right. Moreover some very respected scientist have become popular without being labeled a hack. Stephen Hawkings comes to mind.
p.s.
As someone once said: "The politics in academia are so nasty only because the stakes are so small."
That was Henry Kissinger.
Wolfram did not invent cellular automata, but he was the first one to study them in a scientific way.
You can't be serious...
From the moment Conway popularized them almost every cs/math person I know had a look at them, and quite a few proved theorems on them.
Wolfram seems to prey on uninformed people who wholesale buy his inflated claims. For one, when "a revolution in Mathematics"-Matematica came out, it did very little that wasn't already available in Macsyma and/or Maple. Yet missinformed mathematicians which had not kept up with the state of symbolic algebra thought he had invented the whole thing.
The insights are fascinating, especially the ability to build computational systems with simple repeating rules....(i.e. multiplication tables...etc.) from graphical representations.
I take it you are not a computer scientist (at least not one with a theoretical bent) as those "insights" were first discovered and widely published by others over 40 years ago.
One can often glance the trust of the ideas from a quick peek or alternatively conclude that further reading is called for, and then plow through the details before rendering a veredict. Scientists do this day after day (its called peer reviewing). It's something the community is used to.
Moreover nothing Wolfram writes in NKS would prove CS conventional wisdom wrong (the same might or might not be true for physics) yet CS types have consistently given it negative reviews.
Moreover, serious physicists spend time on CA while Wolfram was at IAS, and even worked on it with him for a while. Eventually they all moved on from the grandiose claims. One thing did remain, algorithms are considered (and have been for the last ten years or so) valid solutions to a physics question.
Of course Wolfram fails to credit this, because it would take shine away from his grandiose claims.
Look, if I'm auditing the books of a company, and a few random checks show that almost all additions so tested are incorrect I can dismiss the entire thing as an Enron job, without having to read the entire thing.
The same is true of NKS. Open it to almost any page, and three things stand out (1) plenty of pretentious claims (2) large number of unatributed ideas, (3) dearth of truly new insight.
God knows we scientists have put up with plenty of arrogant scientists because at the end of the day the could deliver the goods (Millikan comes to mind).
Wolfram's book fails the open at random page test. The book is pseudoscience and I don't have the time, inclination or more importantly the *need* to read the remaining 1400 pages of drivel to prove it.
But I wonder if there is any actual evidence
The entire economic system of the country is based on the assumption that more money brings better goods, be them programmers, recording artists or football players. I wonder why question it when it comes to teachers only.
Can Wikipedia do an IMDB on us? Lots of people put plenty of time on the IMDB, with the understanding that it was an open, shared resource. One day we awoke to the news that the editors in the UK had sold out to Amazon and volunteers be damned...
Since he doesn't seem to listen to anyone but himself and shouts all the time on his radio show, I'd take that as a recommendation against the Clarion :-)
This is exactly what I had in mind when I was refering to the proverbial idiot. (I wonder if he even knows what Nexis is...)
http://www.businessweek.com/1998/47/b3605001.ht
You can also look at the writing credits. The whole thing started with the graphic geeks writing the script as well as doing the rendering and directing the thing, as it is often done in the halls of academia. Then the professionals came in and fixed it, chiefly Cohen and Sokolow IIRC.
Link please?
I think you made this up.
Alomex Law of Debate: The dumber your opponent is, the likelier it is that he will assume you are making things up.
This is a corollary of:
Sun-Tzu's Dictum of Refrain: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
Pixar knew they could do it, but they didn't have the marketing muscle.
This is BS. The Toy story porject was floundering after three years in production and not getting any closer to a decent product. The problem was that pixar focused on the animation and ignored the script.
Disney sent a bunch of professionals who threw away well over half of the rendered images and rewrote the script.
So every fatal car accident caused by untimely mechanical failure is "murder by manufacturer"?
Of course not. But when the people in the automotive engineers tell you "the car is going to explode if rear ended, recall it at once" and management doesn't then it is murder by management, and they are liable for the snafu (google for "Ford Pinto").
The Yugo does not belong in that list. It was a dirt cheap car and when you bought it you were under no illusions that you were getting a quality car. Some people like Mercedes S class cars others prefer Yugos. This is consumer's choice, not bad workmanship.
The Ford Pinto, on the other hand, gave no indication that it was liable to turn into a Fourth of July celebration without previous warning. You bought that car thinking that it shouldn't be particularly better or worse than others manufactured by Ford, and guess what? it was *much* worse. That is the basic definition of a lemon.
From what I hear, the Ford Windstar/Freestar should be there as well.
Almost every one of Microsoft's "victories" has involved similar illegal behavior.
You were doing quite well until you reached this line. Most of the first decade of M$ successes had nothing to do with illegalities or monopolies. It was just straight out business deftness. That was the time of BOGU (read up on that one), when M$ could hardly dictate its terms to anyone.
there were ~1500 females with pictures out of ~9000 total users.
WOW! I want in. That is like four times better than all the places I ever worked in or went to school to...
Stop buying commercial CDs. Most of it is crap anyways (Britney Spears anyone?).
Using more bits for addressing does not do anything to the cache's data memory: that memory works in CPU words and on a 64 bit system those are already 64 bit.
Sure. The comparison is between 32 bit and 64 bit words, including but not necessarily limited to addressing.
paging has nothing to do with caching.
Have you ever heard the term "paging to disk"? Do you know what it means?
Our app was heavily optimized to minimize I/O transfers, so that was not much of a concern once the code was loaded (initial load time was substantially slower, though). Cache effects were significant.
Forget about I/O I'm talking about moving code from RAM to Level 1 cache.
The biggest problem of using larger pointers is not so much the extre memory used (memory is cheap). The real problem is that you consume cache space much faster so you page at a much higher rate. This can slow down your program by a factor of up to 5x.
Could be, or it also could be that on-demand multimedia is much more convenient than multicast.
They didn't tell you that the floor tiles can come off?
There are good reasons to move to IPv6, including ... multicasting
Like there are tons of people multicasting out there. There are hundreds of papers every year on it, but not many actual users. To paraphrase, the most common implementation platform for multicast is powerpoint.
and better routing to name a few.
Haven't heard of this one. Care to explain?
The color quality of my 1987 IBM XGA is still unmatched.