In my late 1970s childhood I could recall asking myself, after using an electric typewriter, if our entire technological infrastructure disappeared, how long would it take to build the typewriter? I can also recall asking myself if I would rather fly, be invisible or read minds.
To address your question more seriously, it really depends on how much of the technological infrastructure is eliminated -- if one could make copper wire and small magnets, making a simple magetic core memory wouldn't be too tough.
Really, the way to answer the question is to figure out the actual historical path to chip production and prune the dead-ends, then figuring out how long it would take to follow that path. Unfortunately, I have a very cursory knowledge of this area of the history of technology. I would think that there would be a number of surprising necessary precursors -- for instance, I believe a variety of organic halogen compounds are used in chip production and I have no idea how technologically intensive production of these compounds is.
This would be a good question for that guy who does the "Connections" TV specials and Sci Am columns (James Burke?)
As far the question of what we would do differently: on the OS front, maybe just go straight to BeOS.
One thing that neither the P2P article (which was good -- didn't see the other article, as it was/.'d) nor the posts I've seen here discussed much is the problem that micropayment technologies are attempting to solve: the per transaction processing expense.
I was peripherally involved in a smart-card-based micropayment project in '95-'96, and I seem to recall that a typical "on-line debit card" transaction had processing costs of at least $0.25, while they were trying for a per-transaction cost of a few pennies. This $0.25 cost rendered most transactions for less than $10 or so uneconomical (this is why many grocery stores have a minimum for debit card use in excess of this -- the cost wipes out their profit margin). It seemed like some of the micropayment technologies discussed were just front-ends to online debit transactions -- I am not sure how these schemes overcome the per transaction costs of the underlying system (unless these costs have declined significantly in the past 5 years).
One of the _effects_ of micropayment technology that wasn't discussed as prominently as I would have thought is editorial independence. It is difficult for a publication to maintain editorial independence if it is beholden to advertisers -- for instance, a PC hardware site would probably not be able to harshly criticize the products of a major advertiser. Consumer Reports (which was mentioned by others) maintains its editorial independence by charging subscriptions. Basically, micropayments give publications incentives to serve primarily the interests of their readers (to whom they are selling information), rather than primarily their advertisers (to whom they are selling eyeballs). Thus, I think there is a good freedom-based argument in favor of micropayments.
Even if micropayment technology took off, I do not think that the bulk of the web would adopt it. Many sites have other justifications -- eCommerce, support for other revenue-producing activities, educational --, some few can be supported by ads and others are pure hobbiest activities. Additionally, I doubt that those that do adopt micropayments will use a simplistic "penny a page" approach, but will rather use subscriptions or some other form of aggregation. Also, as the O'Reilly P2P article points out, micropayments might come in handy in the services or "ASP" realm. One can imagine an online-tax preparation service doing simple tax returns for a few dollars.
I didn't intend my prior post as a troll, though given the history of the "Is KDE/Qt 'free'?" controversy, I could see it being interpreted as such.
What I was trying to ask is whether, because of the "linking to GLP'd libraries" issue, applications will need, in order to have first class support on either of the desktop environments -- that is, to be able to use their graphics toolkits, component technologies, etc. --, need to also be GLP'd or otherwise follow the licensing of the DE. Obviously, one _currently_ does not generally need to be running a particular desktop environment to run applications that have been designed for such environment (for instance, I have no problem running GIMP and AbiWord, which I guess you could call GNOME apps, under KDE), though this could change over time, and one could probably license or develop non-GPL'd code to substitute (as is apparently the case with Qt licensing).
Underlying my question is a lack of knowledge as to how the GLP applies to libraries and the extent to which applications will need to use a DE's code to function properly with it -- I am sure I am not the only/.'er who lacks clarity on these points.
Could someone explain (or point me to) a good explanation as to the licensing issues posed by the KDE and GNOME, specifically, (i) to what extent does the need to link to GLP'd libraries require that applications that use each environment be GLP and (ii) what is the nature of the QT dual licenses?
I think the CPU manufacturers and system builders are going to have a hard year ahead of them trying to push more expensive hardware on a recession-fearing populus without a "killer app" to lead people to buy.
I have been trying to buy a new computer for my in-laws, who would use it almost solely for internet purposes and for light wordprocessing. The lowest-end computers that most recent advertising circulars for the mass-market computer chains are featuring have 900 MHz+ CPUs and run $1000 or more (w/o a monitor and before application of the 3-yr internet service contract $400 rebate). The story is similar at the Dell site. While both the stores and Dell may have lower-priced Celeron and Duron machines, these machines are certainly not promoted any longer and the pricing on them seems to less competitive than on the higher-end models. I am seriously thinking of just giving them a 200MHz PI I have, set up with Linux and icons for just Mozilla and AbiWord.
Considering that most computer purchases will be either (i) first computers purchased by complete neophytes or (ii) second or third computers in a multicomputer household (for instance, for school-age children), I do not see a big demand for 1.5 GHz P4s. I am currently running a 3-year old 400 MHz PII and I do not feel much of a desire to upgrade -- and I am sure I do much more processor-intensive activities than most people (for instance, compiling -- my 400 MHz PII, w/ 224 MB of ram will compile the Linux kernel in about 7 minutes).
It seems that the industry generally has been pushing digital video editing as the "killer app" necessary to drive hardware sales -- PC Mag and other industry rags are featuring it and the major stores are pushing it. I am skeptical, however, that the typical user is actually going to do much of this (heck, I find it a hassle to scan in the occasional photo).
Maybe the tide will turn once the average computer user has a high-speed internet connection (I guess heavy processor power will be necessary to handle high-quality real-time video feeds), but until then I think there (i) will be a real slow down in the PC sector (no news here -- witness recent Dell layoffs) and (ii) a real opportunity for "internet appliable"/"thin client" vendors, as well as for open-source and other non-MS OS and software vendors. In the IA/thin realm, nobody has quite hit the magic mix yet, but they seem to be getting closer.
Regarding the main topic -- subscription software --: given the minimal software needs of most home computer users, I do not see this happening. Like others have said, I hope the proprietary world tries this, as it will give Linux and open-source generally quite an opening.
There are too many things wrong with this trollish post to fully address, so I will pick just one:
If this happens, there is no money to pay programmers. As a result, intelligent people such as myself, who could command 6 figure salaries in any profession will take different career paths.
I was under the impression that (i) relatively few programmers are in the business of producing shrink-wrap software, and MS' dominance of the Windows world has probably done more to reduce the numbers of programmers of such software than any other factor; and (ii) one of the main advantages of the MS approach to things, is that it has allowed less skilled persons to work as programmers and administrators -- think of (A) all the VB programmers and (B) the relative skill/pay levels in the Win world vs the *nix world.
I am surprised that I have not heard much about efforts to encourage the gov't to use open source/ open standards in their operations -- does anyone have any good links on this? For example, the gov't could require electronic submissions of documents to it to be made in non-proprietary formats (as it may already do, albeit with simple formats -- I belief that textual materials contained in SEC filings with the EDGAR system have to be made in ASCII). I am also surprised that the the gov't hasn't appeared to use the threat of using non-Windows alternatives in its antitrust litigation against MS.
People are funny about preferring physical goods over electronic or intangible goods. You mention O'Reilly -- they a good example of the strong preference even heavy computer users have for paper. In the past year and a half I have probably spent $100 on software (a Linux distro and BeOS), but several times that much on computer books. In the time I have been dithering over spending $50 on JBuilder 4 Std Ed I have spent several times that amount on O'Reilly Java books (Servlets, XML, Examples).
There was a similar joke lawsuit article in National Lampoon magazine circa 1981. I think it was the issue that had the excellent "Incredible Mindroasting Summer of OC & Stiggs" (which itself anticipated many of the teen movies of the last 20 years (including, perhaps, "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" -- though I am not sure which came out first)).
Jabba was conceived as a human(oid) when E1 was shot, but then evolved (degenerated?) into a wormy-lookin-thing later. No problem, 'cause the scene had been cut from E1.
Does anyone know whether Lucas modeled Jabba on Leto II from God Emperor of Dune? I think GEOD came out in May 1981 (excerpts may have even been published in Playboy before that), while Jedi came out in (I think) 1983.
I have also had problems downloading and installing the Java plugin. One "dummy" way to do this, however, is to (i) download the official Netscape 6.0 version with Java, (ii) copy the plugins directory to a safe place, (iii) delete NS 6.0 (which is not as good as the more recent Moz versions and is filled with advertising-related links, etc.), (iv) download Mozilla (w/o Java) and (v) copy the saved NS 6.0 plugins directory over top the Mozilla plugins directory. This has worked fine for me on a number of post-M18 nightlies. I haven't checked on Moz 0.6 yet, but will undoubtedly do so tonight.
One Java plugin issue: When applets launch, System.out messages are spilled into the applet box, which is probably regarded as a "feature" by many/.'ers (including me, when I am putting together my own applets), but I think most non-Java-programmer users would regard this as a "bug".
Anyway, Mozilla is excellent and I highly recommend that everyone check it out. I am ready to delete NS 4.73 in its entirety.
The first episode was better than I expected. Of course, Dune is a very difficult book to translate into a movie -- much of what made it good was the details, which really take a 700 page book to convey. For a mass media translation, on a finite budget, though, I thought they did a good job.
Paul: Agree with others -- too much Luke Skywalker. We'll have to see how he develops (the trailers looked promising). In the 84 Movie, Kyle MacLachlan was better as the pre-desert Paul -- sharper, more sophisticated, as one would expect of the heir to the Duke (though he did look too much like Speed Racer for my taste). Actually, the actor who played young Obi Wan in Phantom Menace would have done a good job -- I have to believe that the hyped-up martial-arts angle in PH owes something to Dune (as, of course, does much else from Star Wars -- for instance, compare the Sith to the Honored Matres from the later Dune books). The actor who played Duncan Idaho in the miniseries, when younger, also could have been a good Paul.
Leto: I think the actor in the 84 Movie (I think Jurgen Prochnow) did a better job than William Hurt capturing Duke Leto from the book, though I enjoyed Hurt's acting -- its just that Leto was a sharper-edged character than Hurt's dreamy benevolent-king characterization.
Shaddam IV: I liked the guy in the new miniseries better than the guy in the 84 Movie (I forget his name, but I think he was a noted actor). The miniseries Shaddam is more a schemer, kind of like a Godfather character, gone a bit soft from wealth and power, but still ready to get down and dirty, while the 84 Movie guy was too passive. (Speaking of The Godfather, Coppola would have been a great director for this movie -- its scheming houses is very Godfather-like).
Liet Keynes (sp?): I have got to say that I really enjoy the frizzy-haired guy who plays him in the miniseries. He does a great job of conveying an attitude. I don't remember him much from the 84 Movie -- the presence of Keynes in the miniseries says very good things about it, since he was important in the book in a way that is hard to convey in a movie.
Baron Harkkonnen and his Nephews: The Harkkonnens in the 84 Movie were vintage David Lynch -- psychopatically brutal -- but a bit too much to take. (I liked Sting in the movie, unlike many others.) In the miniseries, they are a little to soft, however.
Duncan Idaho, Gurney Halleck, Wellington Yueh, Thufer Hawat: As mentioned above, Duncan in the miniseries was great, but given too small a role (I guess I will have to wait for God Emperor of Dune to hit the small screen). Was Patrick Stewart Idaho or Halleck in the movie?
Guild Navigator: The Guild Navigator scenes were among my favorite from both the 84 Movie and the miniseries. I think the miniseries did a great job of illustrating folding space, and I especially liked the sorrowful look on the Navigator's face.
Effects: I think they are doing an OK job, considering the budget. I guess you have to spend a fortune before you get CGI that looks completely convincing. Liked the worms (I just saw Tremors with Kevin Bacon the other day on Sci-Fi -- they, like Star Wars -- definitely stole their worms from Dune.)
Sets: I was surprised how close the look and feel of the miniseries was to the 84 Movie. Additionally, many of the sets reminded me of some scenes from Myst and Riven. Overall, good.
Direction: Good. Didn't try to upstage the story, as Lynch did somewhat in the 84 Movie. As I mentioned above, Coppola could have done a great job on this. Chris Carter and others from X-Files also could have done a great job -- they really know how to string a story along from episode to episode.
Bottom Line: Liked a great deal -- we fans should be thankful that someone was willing to put this much money and effort into something with a niche following.
I had no problems just now copying my Inbox file from the applicable NS 4.61 (Linux) folder to the applicable folder on the 20001106 Mozilla nightly (Linux) and pulling up my old messages under the Mozilla newsreader. Of course, my Inbox was only about 70 messages, not a Gig.
The recent post-M18 nightlies have been very good, both under Linux and Windows -- more or less useable full time (I am using it now). My only real complaint is that I haven't had much luck getting the Java plugin to run, though others have, so I guess I am missing something. I have found the non-Netscape Mozilla branch to be better than the Netscape branch.
As others have pointed out:
(i) Mozilla is much more than just a browser, but a client-server environment.
(ii) Mozilla is more than just Netscape 6. In a year or two I would not be surprised if non-NS derivatives of Mozilla have more of an impact than Netscape 6.x itself (for instance, embedded in set-top boxes and other similar devices or used in Intranets or other closed loop systems (for instance, for B2B applications with limited registered user bases).
I would really encourage everyone to give Mozilla a try and learn a little about what it has to offer. I do not think it is too far-fetched to say that Mozilla is the best defense against the Internet becoming primarily a medium for MSIE to communicate with various MS.net initiatives.
In looking through old floppies the other day, I came across the attached very-pseudo-code "Solution for Minesweeper", which I put together a number of years ago. I think I got half way into coding it and then abandoned it for some other pointless problem with bad O() attributes.
The basic idea is, given the current displayed numbers and the number of remaining mines, generate all possible patterns of mines in the adjacent undisplayed squares and then figure out the probability that each undisplayed square has a mine. I am not sure I follow what I was doing, but I thought some might find it amusing.
*************
SOLUTION FOR MINESWEEPER
1. Read in minefield and translate into a code where each square is assigned a number between 0 and 10, with 0 through 8 representing the displayed number of adjacent mines, 9 representing an unknown square and 10 representing a displayed mine.
2. Iterate through each square in minefield (indexes: [x][y]). If such square has a value of 0 through 8, save value of square in nNetAdjMines and test adjacent squares for "unknowns" (indexes: [c][r]). If an unknown is detected, (i) increment nAdjUnk, (ii) increment AdjUnkTable[c][r] and (iii) add a [c][r] node to pointer in KnownTable[x][y]. If a mine is detected, decrement nNetAdjMines. If nNetAdjMines>nAdjUnk, an error has occurred. If nNetAdjMines==nAdjUnk, then all unknowns for square [x][y] are mines; in such case, add [x][y] to minelist, and, after processing the entire minefield, reveal all mines on minelist and go to step 1.
3. Count all known, non-mine elements of KnownTable (nAK). Create array of nAK pointer elements (KnownArray). For each known, non-mine element of KnownTable, set a pointer in KnownArray to such element.
4. Count all non-zero elements of AdjUnkTable (nAU). Create array of nAU integers (AdjUnkArray). For each non-zero element of AdjUnkTable, reset the pointers in the linked list of each element of KnownArray to point to the corresponding element of AdjUnkArray.
5. Place each possible binary pattern of mines/non-mines in AdjUnkArray. If more mines are used than available, junk pattern right off the bat.
6. Test each such pattern by checking whether, for each element of KnownArray, the sum of the dereferenced pointers on the linked list equals nNetAdjMine. If it does, then call FinalArray(x,y,nMines), which, for a [x][y] square, increments a counter of an element in an array (CountArray) which indicates, for a given number of mines contained in AdjUnk squares (nMines), the number of patterns in which [x][y] would contain a mine.
7. For each KnownArray element, a "Factor" (equal to the number of different patterns that could be made by placing totMines-nMines mines in the non-adjacent unknowns) is applied to each CountArray element to account for the relative numbers of occurrences of the different nMines. The Factored counts are added for each CountArray element for such KnownArray member and the totals are divided by the total number of all possible patterns.
8. The relative probabilities that each unknown is a mine is displayed and/or the least probably unknown is selected. All unknowns having a 0% chance of being a mine are selected and all unknowns having a 100% chance are flagged as mines.
I was checking out "Grokking The GIMP", "GIMP Essential Reference" and perhaps another GIMP book the other day and GIMP Essential Reference seemed to contain more useful information. The reviewer is right about the abundance of full-color graphics in Grokking The GIMP, which to my mind is not necessarily a positive -- while, of course, some full-color graphics are appropriate given the topic, some of the images seemed more designed to impress than to teach and they undoubtedly contributed to its seemingly high price. He is also right about the excess of non-GIMP specific color-theory math in Grokking The GIMP -- it seemed a shame to waste pages of a relatively small book on non-GIMP information available elsewhere.
None of the books got very much into scripting -- I guess the market for GIMP scripting info is even smaller than the market for GIMP books -- which, unfortunately, was one of the reasons I am interested in The GIMP.
A question re scripting: I do not have much of an appetite for getting up to speed on Scheme, so I had been tinkering with PyGimp (the Python scripting interface). Besides the main PyGimp site itself and included documentation, does anyone know where more information is available re PyGimp? Additionally, does anyone know whether any progress has been made on Java interfaces to GIMP? There seems to have been a project called GimpJava, but I am not sure it ever went anywhere.
I think one of the things that freak beginners out about The GIMP is that, upon launching it, only a tool palette appears. While it is trivial to open an existing or new document, I think it would be less intimidating if a blank document frame opened with the tool palette docked to the side. Unfortunately, silly, newbie-friendly touches like this are important.
I am surprised Bob mentioned Sun as a negative example (regardless of the merits), given that Sun's contributions to the Linux world (Java, StarOffice) must be very helpful to RedHat (putting aside licensing concerns re Java).
Did you mean to imply that Java is now working in Mozilla or Netscape 6.0 under Linux? My last download was of an M18 nightly for Linux a week or so ago and, as of that time, I didn't think that Java was working, even as a plug-in. (Otherwise, the recent M18 nightlies for Linux have been very good -- basically usable on a full-time basis.)
I am also running 2.4.0-test7 and I keep getting this message, but never got it on 2.2.12, 2.2.14, 2.3.99-x and maybe some earlier 2.4.0-testx even though I was using more-or-less the same config file. Any suggestions how to fix it? Thanks in advance.
Very well said. The concept behind free-market capitalism as it has developed in the U.S. and elsewhere has been that competition delivers benefits to consumers, not so ultra-libertarian notion that individuals should be free to do whatever they want, including band together to create multi-billion dollar companies that can thwart competition. Now, of course, MS has argued that its actions have been aimed at bringing better products to consumers and not thwarting competition, but the lower court has found otherwise and, if you read the court's opinion (which I strongly urge everyone interested in the lawsuit -- pro- or anti-MS -- to do; I have to believe that many commentators on the subject either have not done so, or lack the sufficient legal and/or technical knowledge to understand what it is saying), you will see that the evidence is pretty damning. You will also see that the judge "gets it" -- the thrust of the opinion is that MS tried to thwart the development of "platform independent middleware", the two main examples being Netscape and Java -- I have got to believe that Larry Lessig and others have done a great job getting the judge up to speed. I believe that anyone who is familiar with anti-trust law will come to conclusion that, if you accept the facts as set forth in the opinion, the gov't has a pretty strong case.
Slashdot Mirror
To address your question more seriously, it really depends on how much of the technological infrastructure is eliminated -- if one could make copper wire and small magnets, making a simple magetic core memory wouldn't be too tough.
Really, the way to answer the question is to figure out the actual historical path to chip production and prune the dead-ends, then figuring out how long it would take to follow that path. Unfortunately, I have a very cursory knowledge of this area of the history of technology. I would think that there would be a number of surprising necessary precursors -- for instance, I believe a variety of organic halogen compounds are used in chip production and I have no idea how technologically intensive production of these compounds is.
This would be a good question for that guy who does the "Connections" TV specials and Sci Am columns (James Burke?)
As far the question of what we would do differently: on the OS front, maybe just go straight to BeOS.
Of course, PNG or GIF would be better than JPEG, but this seems like a kind of crude way to do it -- there must be better ways.
I was peripherally involved in a smart-card-based micropayment project in '95-'96, and I seem to recall that a typical "on-line debit card" transaction had processing costs of at least $0.25, while they were trying for a per-transaction cost of a few pennies. This $0.25 cost rendered most transactions for less than $10 or so uneconomical (this is why many grocery stores have a minimum for debit card use in excess of this -- the cost wipes out their profit margin). It seemed like some of the micropayment technologies discussed were just front-ends to online debit transactions -- I am not sure how these schemes overcome the per transaction costs of the underlying system (unless these costs have declined significantly in the past 5 years).
One of the _effects_ of micropayment technology that wasn't discussed as prominently as I would have thought is editorial independence. It is difficult for a publication to maintain editorial independence if it is beholden to advertisers -- for instance, a PC hardware site would probably not be able to harshly criticize the products of a major advertiser. Consumer Reports (which was mentioned by others) maintains its editorial independence by charging subscriptions. Basically, micropayments give publications incentives to serve primarily the interests of their readers (to whom they are selling information), rather than primarily their advertisers (to whom they are selling eyeballs). Thus, I think there is a good freedom-based argument in favor of micropayments.
Even if micropayment technology took off, I do not think that the bulk of the web would adopt it. Many sites have other justifications -- eCommerce, support for other revenue-producing activities, educational --, some few can be supported by ads and others are pure hobbiest activities. Additionally, I doubt that those that do adopt micropayments will use a simplistic "penny a page" approach, but will rather use subscriptions or some other form of aggregation. Also, as the O'Reilly P2P article points out, micropayments might come in handy in the services or "ASP" realm. One can imagine an online-tax preparation service doing simple tax returns for a few dollars.
I have had a python in my palm at least once a day for years! (Sorry, had to say this.)
At least I got it right 1 out for 4 times.
What I was trying to ask is whether, because of the "linking to GLP'd libraries" issue, applications will need, in order to have first class support on either of the desktop environments -- that is, to be able to use their graphics toolkits, component technologies, etc. --, need to also be GLP'd or otherwise follow the licensing of the DE. Obviously, one _currently_ does not generally need to be running a particular desktop environment to run applications that have been designed for such environment (for instance, I have no problem running GIMP and AbiWord, which I guess you could call GNOME apps, under KDE), though this could change over time, and one could probably license or develop non-GPL'd code to substitute (as is apparently the case with Qt licensing).
Underlying my question is a lack of knowledge as to how the GLP applies to libraries and the extent to which applications will need to use a DE's code to function properly with it -- I am sure I am not the only /.'er who lacks clarity on these points.
Could someone explain (or point me to) a good explanation as to the licensing issues posed by the KDE and GNOME, specifically, (i) to what extent does the need to link to GLP'd libraries require that applications that use each environment be GLP and (ii) what is the nature of the QT dual licenses?
I have been trying to buy a new computer for my in-laws, who would use it almost solely for internet purposes and for light wordprocessing. The lowest-end computers that most recent advertising circulars for the mass-market computer chains are featuring have 900 MHz+ CPUs and run $1000 or more (w/o a monitor and before application of the 3-yr internet service contract $400 rebate). The story is similar at the Dell site. While both the stores and Dell may have lower-priced Celeron and Duron machines, these machines are certainly not promoted any longer and the pricing on them seems to less competitive than on the higher-end models. I am seriously thinking of just giving them a 200MHz PI I have, set up with Linux and icons for just Mozilla and AbiWord.
Considering that most computer purchases will be either (i) first computers purchased by complete neophytes or (ii) second or third computers in a multicomputer household (for instance, for school-age children), I do not see a big demand for 1.5 GHz P4s. I am currently running a 3-year old 400 MHz PII and I do not feel much of a desire to upgrade -- and I am sure I do much more processor-intensive activities than most people (for instance, compiling -- my 400 MHz PII, w/ 224 MB of ram will compile the Linux kernel in about 7 minutes).
It seems that the industry generally has been pushing digital video editing as the "killer app" necessary to drive hardware sales -- PC Mag and other industry rags are featuring it and the major stores are pushing it. I am skeptical, however, that the typical user is actually going to do much of this (heck, I find it a hassle to scan in the occasional photo).
Maybe the tide will turn once the average computer user has a high-speed internet connection (I guess heavy processor power will be necessary to handle high-quality real-time video feeds), but until then I think there (i) will be a real slow down in the PC sector (no news here -- witness recent Dell layoffs) and (ii) a real opportunity for "internet appliable"/"thin client" vendors, as well as for open-source and other non-MS OS and software vendors. In the IA/thin realm, nobody has quite hit the magic mix yet, but they seem to be getting closer.
Regarding the main topic -- subscription software --: given the minimal software needs of most home computer users, I do not see this happening. Like others have said, I hope the proprietary world tries this, as it will give Linux and open-source generally quite an opening.
If this happens, there is no money to pay programmers. As a result, intelligent people such as myself, who could command 6 figure salaries in any profession will take different career paths.
I was under the impression that (i) relatively few programmers are in the business of producing shrink-wrap software, and MS' dominance of the Windows world has probably done more to reduce the numbers of programmers of such software than any other factor; and (ii) one of the main advantages of the MS approach to things, is that it has allowed less skilled persons to work as programmers and administrators -- think of (A) all the VB programmers and (B) the relative skill/pay levels in the Win world vs the *nix world.
I am surprised that I have not heard much about efforts to encourage the gov't to use open source/ open standards in their operations -- does anyone have any good links on this? For example, the gov't could require electronic submissions of documents to it to be made in non-proprietary formats (as it may already do, albeit with simple formats -- I belief that textual materials contained in SEC filings with the EDGAR system have to be made in ASCII). I am also surprised that the the gov't hasn't appeared to use the threat of using non-Windows alternatives in its antitrust litigation against MS.
People are funny about preferring physical goods over electronic or intangible goods. You mention O'Reilly -- they a good example of the strong preference even heavy computer users have for paper. In the past year and a half I have probably spent $100 on software (a Linux distro and BeOS), but several times that much on computer books. In the time I have been dithering over spending $50 on JBuilder 4 Std Ed I have spent several times that amount on O'Reilly Java books (Servlets, XML, Examples).
Well, a 604e _may_ work on BeOS: http://www.be.com/support/guides/beosreadylist_ppc .html
There was a similar joke lawsuit article in National Lampoon magazine circa 1981. I think it was the issue that had the excellent "Incredible Mindroasting Summer of OC & Stiggs" (which itself anticipated many of the teen movies of the last 20 years (including, perhaps, "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" -- though I am not sure which came out first)).
Jabba was conceived as a human(oid) when E1 was shot, but then evolved (degenerated?) into a wormy-lookin-thing later. No problem, 'cause the scene had been cut from E1.
Does anyone know whether Lucas modeled Jabba on Leto II from God Emperor of Dune? I think GEOD came out in May 1981 (excerpts may have even been published in Playboy before that), while Jedi came out in (I think) 1983.
1. Because he is more fundamental.
2. Because Line Woman prefers him.
3. Because he is the dot in dot-com.
Maybe I should have posted AC-style.
I wouldn't have thought that the very simple IRC client that is included would contribute significantly to Moz's size.
One Java plugin issue: When applets launch, System.out messages are spilled into the applet box, which is probably regarded as a "feature" by many /.'ers (including me, when I am putting together my own applets), but I think most non-Java-programmer users would regard this as a "bug".
Anyway, Mozilla is excellent and I highly recommend that everyone check it out. I am ready to delete NS 4.73 in its entirety.
Paul: Agree with others -- too much Luke Skywalker. We'll have to see how he develops (the trailers looked promising). In the 84 Movie, Kyle MacLachlan was better as the pre-desert Paul -- sharper, more sophisticated, as one would expect of the heir to the Duke (though he did look too much like Speed Racer for my taste). Actually, the actor who played young Obi Wan in Phantom Menace would have done a good job -- I have to believe that the hyped-up martial-arts angle in PH owes something to Dune (as, of course, does much else from Star Wars -- for instance, compare the Sith to the Honored Matres from the later Dune books). The actor who played Duncan Idaho in the miniseries, when younger, also could have been a good Paul.
Leto: I think the actor in the 84 Movie (I think Jurgen Prochnow) did a better job than William Hurt capturing Duke Leto from the book, though I enjoyed Hurt's acting -- its just that Leto was a sharper-edged character than Hurt's dreamy benevolent-king characterization.
Shaddam IV: I liked the guy in the new miniseries better than the guy in the 84 Movie (I forget his name, but I think he was a noted actor). The miniseries Shaddam is more a schemer, kind of like a Godfather character, gone a bit soft from wealth and power, but still ready to get down and dirty, while the 84 Movie guy was too passive. (Speaking of The Godfather, Coppola would have been a great director for this movie -- its scheming houses is very Godfather-like).
Liet Keynes (sp?): I have got to say that I really enjoy the frizzy-haired guy who plays him in the miniseries. He does a great job of conveying an attitude. I don't remember him much from the 84 Movie -- the presence of Keynes in the miniseries says very good things about it, since he was important in the book in a way that is hard to convey in a movie.
Baron Harkkonnen and his Nephews: The Harkkonnens in the 84 Movie were vintage David Lynch -- psychopatically brutal -- but a bit too much to take. (I liked Sting in the movie, unlike many others.) In the miniseries, they are a little to soft, however.
Duncan Idaho, Gurney Halleck, Wellington Yueh, Thufer Hawat: As mentioned above, Duncan in the miniseries was great, but given too small a role (I guess I will have to wait for God Emperor of Dune to hit the small screen). Was Patrick Stewart Idaho or Halleck in the movie?
Guild Navigator: The Guild Navigator scenes were among my favorite from both the 84 Movie and the miniseries. I think the miniseries did a great job of illustrating folding space, and I especially liked the sorrowful look on the Navigator's face.
Effects: I think they are doing an OK job, considering the budget. I guess you have to spend a fortune before you get CGI that looks completely convincing. Liked the worms (I just saw Tremors with Kevin Bacon the other day on Sci-Fi -- they, like Star Wars -- definitely stole their worms from Dune.)
Sets: I was surprised how close the look and feel of the miniseries was to the 84 Movie. Additionally, many of the sets reminded me of some scenes from Myst and Riven. Overall, good.
Direction: Good. Didn't try to upstage the story, as Lynch did somewhat in the 84 Movie. As I mentioned above, Coppola could have done a great job on this. Chris Carter and others from X-Files also could have done a great job -- they really know how to string a story along from episode to episode.
Bottom Line: Liked a great deal -- we fans should be thankful that someone was willing to put this much money and effort into something with a niche following.
The recent post-M18 nightlies have been very good, both under Linux and Windows -- more or less useable full time (I am using it now). My only real complaint is that I haven't had much luck getting the Java plugin to run, though others have, so I guess I am missing something. I have found the non-Netscape Mozilla branch to be better than the Netscape branch.
As others have pointed out:
(i) Mozilla is much more than just a browser, but a client-server environment.
(ii) Mozilla is more than just Netscape 6. In a year or two I would not be surprised if non-NS derivatives of Mozilla have more of an impact than Netscape 6.x itself (for instance, embedded in set-top boxes and other similar devices or used in Intranets or other closed loop systems (for instance, for B2B applications with limited registered user bases).
I would really encourage everyone to give Mozilla a try and learn a little about what it has to offer. I do not think it is too far-fetched to say that Mozilla is the best defense against the Internet becoming primarily a medium for MSIE to communicate with various MS .net initiatives.
The basic idea is, given the current displayed numbers and the number of remaining mines, generate all possible patterns of mines in the adjacent undisplayed squares and then figure out the probability that each undisplayed square has a mine. I am not sure I follow what I was doing, but I thought some might find it amusing.
*************
SOLUTION FOR MINESWEEPER
1. Read in minefield and translate into a code where each square is assigned a number between 0 and 10, with 0 through 8 representing the displayed number of adjacent mines, 9 representing an unknown square and 10 representing a displayed mine.
2. Iterate through each square in minefield (indexes: [x][y]). If such square has a value of 0 through 8, save value of square in nNetAdjMines and test adjacent squares for "unknowns" (indexes: [c][r]). If an unknown is detected, (i) increment nAdjUnk, (ii) increment AdjUnkTable[c][r] and (iii) add a [c][r] node to pointer in KnownTable[x][y]. If a mine is detected, decrement nNetAdjMines. If nNetAdjMines>nAdjUnk, an error has occurred. If nNetAdjMines==nAdjUnk, then all unknowns for square [x][y] are mines; in such case, add [x][y] to minelist, and, after processing the entire minefield, reveal all mines on minelist and go to step 1.
3. Count all known, non-mine elements of KnownTable (nAK). Create array of nAK pointer elements (KnownArray). For each known, non-mine element of KnownTable, set a pointer in KnownArray to such element.
4. Count all non-zero elements of AdjUnkTable (nAU). Create array of nAU integers (AdjUnkArray). For each non-zero element of AdjUnkTable, reset the pointers in the linked list of each element of KnownArray to point to the corresponding element of AdjUnkArray.
5. Place each possible binary pattern of mines/non-mines in AdjUnkArray. If more mines are used than available, junk pattern right off the bat.
6. Test each such pattern by checking whether, for each element of KnownArray, the sum of the dereferenced pointers on the linked list equals nNetAdjMine. If it does, then call FinalArray(x,y,nMines), which, for a [x][y] square, increments a counter of an element in an array (CountArray) which indicates, for a given number of mines contained in AdjUnk squares (nMines), the number of patterns in which [x][y] would contain a mine.
7. For each KnownArray element, a "Factor" (equal to the number of different patterns that could be made by placing totMines-nMines mines in the non-adjacent unknowns) is applied to each CountArray element to account for the relative numbers of occurrences of the different nMines. The Factored counts are added for each CountArray element for such KnownArray member and the totals are divided by the total number of all possible patterns.
8. The relative probabilities that each unknown is a mine is displayed and/or the least probably unknown is selected. All unknowns having a 0% chance of being a mine are selected and all unknowns having a 100% chance are flagged as mines.
None of the books got very much into scripting -- I guess the market for GIMP scripting info is even smaller than the market for GIMP books -- which, unfortunately, was one of the reasons I am interested in The GIMP.
A question re scripting: I do not have much of an appetite for getting up to speed on Scheme, so I had been tinkering with PyGimp (the Python scripting interface). Besides the main PyGimp site itself and included documentation, does anyone know where more information is available re PyGimp? Additionally, does anyone know whether any progress has been made on Java interfaces to GIMP? There seems to have been a project called GimpJava, but I am not sure it ever went anywhere.
I think one of the things that freak beginners out about The GIMP is that, upon launching it, only a tool palette appears. While it is trivial to open an existing or new document, I think it would be less intimidating if a blank document frame opened with the tool palette docked to the side. Unfortunately, silly, newbie-friendly touches like this are important.
I am surprised Bob mentioned Sun as a negative example (regardless of the merits), given that Sun's contributions to the Linux world (Java, StarOffice) must be very helpful to RedHat (putting aside licensing concerns re Java).
Did you mean to imply that Java is now working in Mozilla or Netscape 6.0 under Linux? My last download was of an M18 nightly for Linux a week or so ago and, as of that time, I didn't think that Java was working, even as a plug-in. (Otherwise, the recent M18 nightlies for Linux have been very good -- basically usable on a full-time basis.)
I am also running 2.4.0-test7 and I keep getting this message, but never got it on 2.2.12, 2.2.14, 2.3.99-x and maybe some earlier 2.4.0-testx even though I was using more-or-less the same config file. Any suggestions how to fix it? Thanks in advance.
Very well said. The concept behind free-market capitalism as it has developed in the U.S. and elsewhere has been that competition delivers benefits to consumers, not so ultra-libertarian notion that individuals should be free to do whatever they want, including band together to create multi-billion dollar companies that can thwart competition. Now, of course, MS has argued that its actions have been aimed at bringing better products to consumers and not thwarting competition, but the lower court has found otherwise and, if you read the court's opinion (which I strongly urge everyone interested in the lawsuit -- pro- or anti-MS -- to do; I have to believe that many commentators on the subject either have not done so, or lack the sufficient legal and/or technical knowledge to understand what it is saying), you will see that the evidence is pretty damning. You will also see that the judge "gets it" -- the thrust of the opinion is that MS tried to thwart the development of "platform independent middleware", the two main examples being Netscape and Java -- I have got to believe that Larry Lessig and others have done a great job getting the judge up to speed. I believe that anyone who is familiar with anti-trust law will come to conclusion that, if you accept the facts as set forth in the opinion, the gov't has a pretty strong case.