I don't know if they should be held guilty for inflating version numbers anymore. I am extremely surprised that they didn't follow Mandrake's jump to 7.0 (what justification was there for that?). Kudos to Redhat, I guess.
There is a referral link in that link, and I doubt it's Slashdot's (of course I could be wrong, but why would they still have links to Amazon?). I consider it extremely lame to try to get your affiliat link slashdotted. Really lame. And if it isn't supposed to be there, I forgive emmett:) He's new
Is there anyone else out there who just doesn't like old science fiction? I think the problem I have is when they use gimicks. For instance, it is quite obvious that Snow Crash and even Neuromancer are gimicky. The technological changes they predict, while interesting, are unlikely to come true in the form written. But at least for now, we're not quite sure, and it seems reasonable, even highly entertaining.
But then look back at Martian Chronicles, and what do you see? Sure, it may be a deeply allegorical bookk, but that doesn't mean it's not free of its own gimicks. Pointy rocket ships and nuclear generators as the most amazing thing in the world? These things hamper my willing suspension of disbelief. I just can't believe the story when I hear about men in big bubbly space suits riding in giant pointy space-ships. I'm sure the same thing will happen if I try to read Snow Crash 20 years from now.
The only old science fiction I can stand is the kind that doesn't rely on gimicks. More specifically, the kind that doesn't read like it was written in the 1950s. The Stars My Destination. A Canticle for Leibowitz. And to a lesser extent (because their age is more obvious) Foundation and Dune. My biggest obstacle in Foundation was getting over the fact that everyone had names like they were from 50s sci-fi B movies. Other than that it's pretty age-clean (other than the fact that chaos theory shoots giant flaming holes in its underlying premise).
Don't get me wrong, I love gimicks, and I think they are great supplements to the plots of modern novels, but they are fleeting. Look at Hyperion for instance. I bet half of it will seem incredibly stupid in 20 year, and the other half will still seem as engaging and brilliant as ever. Ender's Game on the other hand, strikes me as though it sacrifices gimicks to concentrate solely on human beings. I think this is a good sacrifice to make.
Any other recommendations for sci-fi that's old but doesn't seem like it?
Didn't he repeat over and over that he was not the one who did the reverse engineering (those people rightly stayed silent) but just was the first to publically distribute it? Or am I thinking of someone else?
I recommend Maestro by Woodward (who is, admiteddly, no Republican-lover), a sort-of biography of Greenspan over the past two decades. Reducing the budget deficit was initially Greenspan's push (at the time he considered it the only way to expand the economy any more, since things were already starting to do well). Clinton spent his political capital on it, though, which is certainly worth something. In fact, the only republican who supported his budget packet was Greenspan. Reducing the deficit probably had a much bigger impact than you give credit for.
All it would take is an arrangement between MSWin and MSApps (say, access to the OS source or other exclusive goodies) to make it worthwhile to MSApps.
Well, if they do split it up into separate divisions, there will definitely be some sort of mandate that the separate divisions cannot collude. That's standard operating procedure.
I was going to ask this as an interview question, but I suppose that anyone who's looked at slash would know, so I'll just ask here. What's the slash UI? Do they ssh in and just edit text files, use a secure web browswer, etc?
Anybody see Bill Gates on Larry King tonight? I have to say I think the man is delusional, not evil. Anyway... he started talking at one point about how 80% of their revenues come from people who already have a product buying some sort of upgrade, and that they do not force people to upgrade in any way! All the people upgrade because Microsoft has created such a substantially better product that people feel the need to upgrade for the new features. I think I laughed outloud at that one. I wish I could say that was the most blatantly false and sad thing he said in the interview, but unfortunately, it's not.
But there are more ways to cheat than that. What if I adjusted the Quake client to have all bad guys appear as bright red, no matter what the lighting. You certainly can't handle that server-side, and it's definitely cheating.
I ordered most of my stuff online. Actually, most of my gift-giving was dictated by who gave the best coupons--hey, if they're going to be bleeding money, they might as well bleed it on me. I did order from Amazon (yes, they're evil, but they didn't make money off me, that's for sure). It came in time. BuyJewelry, yep. Bolt, no. Fortunately (?), the thing I ordered from Bolt.com was an inflatible chair for my brother. It did not come:( But what did my brother get me? An inflatible chair! How gift-of-the-magi-esque!
My favorite purchase was with valueamerica.com. They are (mostly) a front for other stores. They also have "ValueDollars" that you can use to get 50% off your purchase. So for my mom I found a $20 box of chocolate that they had free shipping on. So I got it for $10. As of the 20th, it had still not come. Then on the 22nd, a package shows up. Turns out it came from "BuyCandies.com" or something like that. But they didn't have the thing I ordered, so they sent something equivalent (like I could tell the difference) as well as another box of stuff to make up for it. And they sent it next-day FedEx, which must have cost at least the $10 I paid. I was happy with that purchase.
Actually, judging from what I remember about previous MOTY awards, they generally choose what has been the most incredible event of the previous year and then choose a person to match that.
For instance, they say the Republican control of Congress as most newsworthy and chose Newt Gingrich. This does not really mean he was most influential. Just that the cause that he represented was most newsworthy. More telling was when the researcher for the AIDS drug-cocktail won. I'm sure he's smart, but that kind of research is rarely the result of one person's efforts (at least nowadays). He was chosen more because that was an incredible accomplishment and by definition they can only choose one person.
So e-commerce is the big thing this year. They probably decided that first. Then they had to pick a person. Bezos is undeniable the person. It doesn't really mean that he's the most influential person, just that he most represents what they consider the most important event of the year. Let's just be glad they didn't pick Bill Gates. . .
Of course, how do you know the planet is truly empty? I suspect that this would be a non-trivial task, but a daunting one.
That's the issue Kim Stanley Robinson talks about it Red Mars (thought it was boring and didn't read the others:) It was interesting, though). The bioligists are mad that people want to introduce microbiotic life becuase it might either a) crowd out existing life that they haven't found b) mutate sufficiently and look like native life and trick them
it appeals to a different kind of head, with a different style of thinking.
That's probably the biggest truth in this whole thread. Perl and Python just appeal to different people. Sure, you can write structured code in Perl, but if that's what you want to do, you'll probably use Python because it was designed with that in mind. Likewise, you can make efforts towards writing code that follows your own thought process in Python, but it's not going to be nearly as easy.
And a really good programmer with a style somewhere in between could write code that was just as good in both languages (it might run faster in Perl as a result of the more mature interpreter). They just appeal to different mindsets.
I suspect one of the greatest problems Python advocates have (and I have to count myself in that group) is that since Perl came out first and became very popular, a lot of people to whom Perl's way of doing things doesn't particularly appeal and still programming in it anyway because they learned it first. Slightly more valid is the argument that Perl is better because CPAN exists---yeah, that's good, but it's not really talking about the language and is partly a benefit of age. As a result, Python advocates exagerrate the flaws of Perl and the pros of Python. It's a lot like Free Unices vs. the rest of the world. You know there are people out there who would be better off on your side---certainly not all---but they're stuck over there and unless you scream your head off they won't look at you (not that I advocate this procedure).
One final comment is that I think that the spirit behind the creation of the language is also something to be considered. Both are certainly general purpose, but Perl has had a lot of influence from the need to process text, hence a lot of choices that are unpopular with people who don't want to do this. Its syntax reflects this. Python has a lot of influence from the desire to make it easy for nonprogrammers to learn, hence a lot of things (whitespace) that others don't like. But Guido is doing all he can to make sure Python 2.0 (whenever it comes out!) will be newbie-friendly, and I'm sure Perl will never lose its roots either.
The mathematics of the book are not a problem...that's what algorithms are generally all about when you come down to it. But the authors would often say something to this effect:
You perform algorithm X as follows: [30 lines of pseudocode] Lines 1-3 do this. Lines 4-10 do this. Lines...
This is not a good way to introduce something. At least I don't think so. They would then usually go back and explain things more simply or with pictures, when they should have started with that.
I must disagree with the person who suggested C, though. The book would be 5000 pages long and have even more errata than it already does if they had to produce working code.
Well, I'm sure it's a completely different ISA (no idea what, though) more tuned to the things a PythonVM can do than an actual machine. Like I doubt there is a load word per se, since Python doesn't really have pointers or anything. The point, I think, isn't to reimplement, say x86 instructions and assemble them into python bytecode, but to take the lower-level ideas from Python, turn those into instructions, and assemble those.
Python is also compiled into "bytecode" in the same way that Perl is. And it's run by something called a "virtual machine". Of course, this VM is much more abstracted from the actual computer than the JavaVM, so you don't get as good performance. And if that's not enough, someone has recently written a python assembler!
It may be a cheap way to get karma, but it's not that bad. I think everyone needs to ignore the whole karma thing. The post is informative. The guy may not deserve 4+ karma for posting it, but the moderators are correct in that many of us would like to see it. It was nicer when karma was hidden, I think. Let's hope Rob never implements a "Top 10 By Karma" list or anything.
I do have a problem with people posting copyrighted material and getting moderated up for that, since it only gets/. in trouble, but this seems ok.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if they should be held guilty for inflating version numbers anymore. I am extremely surprised that they didn't follow Mandrake's jump to 7.0 (what justification was there for that?). Kudos to Redhat, I guess.
There is a referral link in that link, and I doubt it's Slashdot's (of course I could be wrong, but why would they still have links to Amazon?). I consider it extremely lame to try to get your affiliat link slashdotted. Really lame. And if it isn't supposed to be there, I forgive emmett :) He's new
Is there anyone else out there who just doesn't like old science fiction? I think the problem I have is when they use gimicks. For instance, it is quite obvious that Snow Crash and even Neuromancer are gimicky. The technological changes they predict, while interesting, are unlikely to come true in the form written. But at least for now, we're not quite sure, and it seems reasonable, even highly entertaining.
But then look back at Martian Chronicles, and what do you see? Sure, it may be a deeply allegorical bookk, but that doesn't mean it's not free of its own gimicks. Pointy rocket ships and nuclear generators as the most amazing thing in the world? These things hamper my willing suspension of disbelief. I just can't believe the story when I hear about men in big bubbly space suits riding in giant pointy space-ships. I'm sure the same thing will happen if I try to read Snow Crash 20 years from now.
The only old science fiction I can stand is the kind that doesn't rely on gimicks. More specifically, the kind that doesn't read like it was written in the 1950s. The Stars My Destination. A Canticle for Leibowitz. And to a lesser extent (because their age is more obvious) Foundation and Dune. My biggest obstacle in Foundation was getting over the fact that everyone had names like they were from 50s sci-fi B movies. Other than that it's pretty age-clean (other than the fact that chaos theory shoots giant flaming holes in its underlying premise).
Don't get me wrong, I love gimicks, and I think they are great supplements to the plots of modern novels, but they are fleeting. Look at Hyperion for instance. I bet half of it will seem incredibly stupid in 20 year, and the other half will still seem as engaging and brilliant as ever. Ender's Game on the other hand, strikes me as though it sacrifices gimicks to concentrate solely on human beings. I think this is a good sacrifice to make.
Any other recommendations for sci-fi that's old but doesn't seem like it?
YES! So many people think that all the simple, cool games came out in the 80s. How mistaken they are!
Didn't he repeat over and over that he was not the one who did the reverse engineering (those people rightly stayed silent) but just was the first to publically distribute it? Or am I thinking of someone else?
For the more enlightened :) another link
I recommend Maestro by Woodward (who is, admiteddly, no Republican-lover), a sort-of biography of Greenspan over the past two decades. Reducing the budget deficit was initially Greenspan's push (at the time he considered it the only way to expand the economy any more, since things were already starting to do well). Clinton spent his political capital on it, though, which is certainly worth something. In fact, the only republican who supported his budget packet was Greenspan. Reducing the deficit probably had a much bigger impact than you give credit for.
You're right. The real reason behind Linux is to beat Minix. We should get back to our roots: Minix sucks!!!!!
I thought corporations were "persons", not "individuals". Is it really the other way around?
Well, if they do split it up into separate divisions, there will definitely be some sort of mandate that the separate divisions cannot collude. That's standard operating procedure.
I also got The Dark Crystal on DVD, and it made me unhappy. I've been spelling Fizzgig wrong the whole time!!!. Argh.
I was going to ask this as an interview question, but I suppose that anyone who's looked at slash would know, so I'll just ask here. What's the slash UI? Do they ssh in and just edit text files, use a secure web browswer, etc?
Anybody see Bill Gates on Larry King tonight? I have to say I think the man is delusional, not evil. Anyway... he started talking at one point about how 80% of their revenues come from people who already have a product buying some sort of upgrade, and that they do not force people to upgrade in any way! All the people upgrade because Microsoft has created such a substantially better product that people feel the need to upgrade for the new features. I think I laughed outloud at that one. I wish I could say that was the most blatantly false and sad thing he said in the interview, but unfortunately, it's not.
Hey, those of us in Jackson have to have some city to look down on, right?
MCI/Worldcom and AOL have their headquarters here
:)
Are you sure about MCI/Worldcom? As far as I know it is based in Clinton, Mississippi, which we all know is the real next Silicon Valley
But there are more ways to cheat than that. What if I adjusted the Quake client to have all bad guys appear as bright red, no matter what the lighting. You certainly can't handle that server-side, and it's definitely cheating.
I ordered most of my stuff online. Actually, most of my gift-giving was dictated by who gave the best coupons--hey, if they're going to be bleeding money, they might as well bleed it on me. I did order from Amazon (yes, they're evil, but they didn't make money off me, that's for sure). It came in time. BuyJewelry, yep. Bolt, no. Fortunately (?), the thing I ordered from Bolt.com was an inflatible chair for my brother. It did not come :( But what did my brother get me? An inflatible chair! How gift-of-the-magi-esque!
My favorite purchase was with valueamerica.com. They are (mostly) a front for other stores. They also have "ValueDollars" that you can use to get 50% off your purchase. So for my mom I found a $20 box of chocolate that they had free shipping on. So I got it for $10. As of the 20th, it had still not come. Then on the 22nd, a package shows up. Turns out it came from "BuyCandies.com" or something like that. But they didn't have the thing I ordered, so they sent something equivalent (like I could tell the difference) as well as another box of stuff to make up for it. And they sent it next-day FedEx, which must have cost at least the $10 I paid. I was happy with that purchase.
Stil waiting on that chair . . .
Actually, judging from what I remember about previous MOTY awards, they generally choose what has been the most incredible event of the previous year and then choose a person to match that.
For instance, they say the Republican control of Congress as most newsworthy and chose Newt Gingrich. This does not really mean he was most influential. Just that the cause that he represented was most newsworthy. More telling was when the researcher for the AIDS drug-cocktail won. I'm sure he's smart, but that kind of research is rarely the result of one person's efforts (at least nowadays). He was chosen more because that was an incredible accomplishment and by definition they can only choose one person.
So e-commerce is the big thing this year. They probably decided that first. Then they had to pick a person. Bezos is undeniable the person. It doesn't really mean that he's the most influential person, just that he most represents what they consider the most important event of the year. Let's just be glad they didn't pick Bill Gates. . .
Of course, how do you know the planet is truly empty? I suspect that this would be a non-trivial task, but a daunting one.
:) It was interesting, though). The bioligists are mad that people want to introduce microbiotic life becuase it might either
That's the issue Kim Stanley Robinson talks about it Red Mars (thought it was boring and didn't read the others
a) crowd out existing life that they haven't found
b) mutate sufficiently and look like native life and trick them
it appeals to a different kind of head, with a different style of thinking.
That's probably the biggest truth in this whole thread. Perl and Python just appeal to different people. Sure, you can write structured code in Perl, but if that's what you want to do, you'll probably use Python because it was designed with that in mind. Likewise, you can make efforts towards writing code that follows your own thought process in Python, but it's not going to be nearly as easy.
And a really good programmer with a style somewhere in between could write code that was just as good in both languages (it might run faster in Perl as a result of the more mature interpreter). They just appeal to different mindsets.
I suspect one of the greatest problems Python advocates have (and I have to count myself in that group) is that since Perl came out first and became very popular, a lot of people to whom Perl's way of doing things doesn't particularly appeal and still programming in it anyway because they learned it first. Slightly more valid is the argument that Perl is better because CPAN exists---yeah, that's good, but it's not really talking about the language and is partly a benefit of age. As a result, Python advocates exagerrate the flaws of Perl and the pros of Python. It's a lot like Free Unices vs. the rest of the world. You know there are people out there who would be better off on your side---certainly not all---but they're stuck over there and unless you scream your head off they won't look at you (not that I advocate this procedure).
One final comment is that I think that the spirit behind the creation of the language is also something to be considered. Both are certainly general purpose, but Perl has had a lot of influence from the need to process text, hence a lot of choices that are unpopular with people who don't want to do this. Its syntax reflects this. Python has a lot of influence from the desire to make it easy for nonprogrammers to learn, hence a lot of things (whitespace) that others don't like. But Guido is doing all he can to make sure Python 2.0 (whenever it comes out!) will be newbie-friendly, and I'm sure Perl will never lose its roots either.
The mathematics of the book are not a problem...that's what algorithms are generally all about when you come down to it. But the authors would often say something to this effect:
...
You perform algorithm X as follows:
[30 lines of pseudocode]
Lines 1-3 do this.
Lines 4-10 do this.
Lines
This is not a good way to introduce something. At least I don't think so. They would then usually go back and explain things more simply or with pictures, when they should have started with that.
I must disagree with the person who suggested C, though. The book would be 5000 pages long and have even more errata than it already does if they had to produce working code.
Well, I'm sure it's a completely different ISA (no idea what, though) more tuned to the things a PythonVM can do than an actual machine. Like I doubt there is a load word per se, since Python doesn't really have pointers or anything. The point, I think, isn't to reimplement, say x86 instructions and assemble them into python bytecode, but to take the lower-level ideas from Python, turn those into instructions, and assemble those.
Correct
Python is also compiled into "bytecode" in the same way that Perl is. And it's run by something called a "virtual machine". Of course, this VM is much more abstracted from the actual computer than the JavaVM, so you don't get as good performance. And if that's not enough, someone has recently written a python assembler!
It may be a cheap way to get karma, but it's not that bad. I think everyone needs to ignore the whole karma thing. The post is informative. The guy may not deserve 4+ karma for posting it, but the moderators are correct in that many of us would like to see it. It was nicer when karma was hidden, I think. Let's hope Rob never implements a "Top 10 By Karma" list or anything.
/. in trouble, but this seems ok.
I do have a problem with people posting copyrighted material and getting moderated up for that, since it only gets