Still, what I see people doing is jumping on this guy and saying that he's a kook, asshole, and various other derogitory words without a single shred of substantive argument against his points!I don't think anyone thinks he's a kook or an asshole. His book has some interesting ideas, but I found his delusions of grandeur - combined with a failure to support his thesis despite the heft of the book - to be hightly irritating and distracting. He repeats his claim that he's revolutionizing science over and over again, as if he's hoping that nobody will notice that he doesn't do anything of the sort. It would be like hearing Muhammed Ali shouting "I am the Greatest" but without ever having beaten anyone in the ring.
So, I think what your hearing is more like annoyance and disappointment over unfulfilled promises than an attack on his intelligence and ability (which are still substantial).
Wolfram is indeed a genius.He is up there with the likes of Stephen Hawking, just in a different field.
That's probably true by his own estimation. I'm surprised that you say you read the book. I did too, and while there are a few interesting things in there, for the most part it's a lot of chest thumping and self-promotion. He continually trumpets how "simple programs" - i.e., cellular automata - will surely explain all of the mysteries of the universe and that therefore he is the second coming of Isaac Newton. Fair enough; on an intuitive level I can see how this might be so, and I eagerly plowed through the book waiting for some solutions to physical problems that would illustrate his thesis. Nothing of the sort was to be found. All we get is, "Looky here! More pretty patterns from my simple rules!" It was as if Newton, instead of developing the Calculus and actually applying it to physical problems, had just waved his arms and said, "Surely there are mathematical equations that govern the Universe!" and left it at that. Now that's an important insight, but if that's all he did we probably wouldn't even know his name.
While I don't doubt Wolfram's contribution to CA and discrete mathematics, he's trying to join a club for which he hasn't (yet) paid his dues.
Quantum Mechanics is also commonly contributed to Albert Einstein
You're not a physicist, are you? That's just not true. Einstein resisted the ideas behind quantum mechanics for a long time; he couldn't accept that "God plays dice with the Universe". I'm not sure that he ever really accepted it.
And only stupid terrorists are likewise going to leave a trail of electronic crumbs to track.
Well, as you may recall, the 9/11 terrorists were behaving pretty obviously beforehand - learning to take off but not land, etc. - to the point where local FBI field agents were practically begging the home office to follow up. The top dogs in Quantico basically told them to shut the f__k up.
Does this remind you of the Challenger disaster, where top managers repeatedly ignored warnings from the the engineers? The more data dredging they do, the more noise and false-alarms there will be. The top people - mostly political hacks, probably - won't want to be bothered, especially if the warnings distract them from their current pet projects and obsessions, or the particular axes they have to grind.
This info will come in handy, however, when they want to go after particular individuals or groups, whether for legitimate or illegitimate reasons. During the Nixon administration, all it took to attract their emnity was to publicly oppose the Vietnam war or criticize the President. Now that we're being protected against "terrorism", we can expect things to get even worse.
Wrong. There are more TiVo subscribers now than there are Nielsen families. Therefore, along democratic lines, that makes TiVo far more representative than the 6,000 Nielsen homes. Let's try that again; 1 million + TiVos in homes vs. 6,000.
Wrong yourself. I didn't say the sample was too small, I said it wasn't likely to be representative due to sampling bias. It tends to be heavy on the technically adventurous, reasonably affluent folks, but light on the kind of people that make up most of the population at large. Despite its much smaller size, it's quite likely that the Neilsen sample is actually giving answers that are closer to the truth, because they take a lot of care to minimize this bias. That's the main difference between a "scientific" and an "unscientific" survey.
The famous example of this was the way the newspapers blew the headlines in 1948 when Truman beat Dewey. They got it the other way around because they did their polling by telephone, and back then telephones were still a luxury that most people couldn't afford. So basically all they found out was that Dewey was preferred by voters with phones, but that wasn't enough to win the election.
It'd be interesting if we could all redirect a small portion of our tax payments to programs of our choice, wouldn't it? They could receive some base level of funding, and the rest of their money would come from these "discretionary" contributions. The main problem would be with planning and budgeting, but it might not be much worse than what goes on now...
Throwing resources? What's a few tons of aluminum to the Earth? All the money stays right here.
Which is precisely why these missions could be funded by voluntary $10,000 contributions from right-minded individuals such as yourself, who alone understand that it doesn't really cost - it pays!
Re:Finally!
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I wish it wouldn't happen. This virus is painting the Linux community as a bunch of petulant adolescents - regardless of who's doing it.
I've been concerned about exactly the same thing. Regardless of where the virus really came from, the fact that SCO and MS were targeted may well have an impact on coming legal and public relations struggles that are important to the Open Source community. Don't think for a minute that this isn't understood completely by strategists at those two companies (as well as others that are threatened by the OS model). There is a lot at stake.
My books are mine, Goddamn it, and I'm intend to keep them that way.
Sigh... I graduated 25 years ago, and I still have most of my old textbooks. It's been years since I've opened any of them, and for almost all of them I'm pretty sure I never will. Yet they keep following me wherever I go. Somebody help me, please...
What Microsoft does is *exactly* what the free market is designed to avoid
Unfortunately, any completely "free" market will eventually eat itself, as certain players accumulate market power that is then used to exclude competition. This is guaranteed to happen simply because an unregulated monopoly always has greater value than the sum of the competing firms in an industry, and thus mergers and aquisitions will take place until it is achieved.
If a government does nothing else to regulate economic activity, it will at least have to impose limits to this natural process (e.g., through anti-trust laws). I've never seen a Libertarian address this issue, but I'd like to...
Seriously look at the above statement,now think about it. Can anyone tell me exactly how corporations pose even 1% the threat that Government does?
When corporations become so powerful that the government becomes their tool, that's how. Remember that Mussolini once defined fascism as the marriage of government and corporate power.
I'm currently serving in the US Army in Germany, and an online voting system would truly make life easier.
Plus, it would be so much cheaper and easier for authorities to get the required results. No more trucking bags of ballots off to secure & undisclosed locations for selective overnight spoilage, etc. The efficiency of military planning would be enhanced by the greater predictability of elections on the national level, and the American Empire would be strengthened as a result. It would also help protect against any possibility that liberals could take control of the government merely by voting.
I only hope they have the good sense to use closed-source software and avoid any kind of reliable vote confirmation or paper trail.
Say it with me everyone: THE DMCA WAS SIGNED IN 1998 BY YOUR BOY BILL CLINTON. The one called W had nothing to do with it... Silly me, I always forget that for the left the world started on Sept. 12th 2001
So Bill Clinton is "the left"? That's funny. Compared to who, exactly?
I hear you, Bro'. I'm gonna keep on sticking hot pokers up my butt, because there's folks that tell me I don't have to do that and they seem like snobs to me!
The point is: throwing a product out into the wild and soliciting bug fixes is NOT necessarily the best method of development. Contrary to some people's religion.
Well, thats your particular caricature, and I'd argue that things don't really work that way, at least with the more successful, well-known open source projects (which are much better managed than you assume). So exactly who is "throwing" junk into the wild, hoping that someone else cleans up the mess? In my experience it's hard to argue with the results, which are usually quite excellent.
If linux kernel and linux-style software developers know there will be a lot of people testing out their changes, they may code more quickly, hoping any bugs will become shallow due to the "many eyes" of early adopters.
Now there's logic turned on its head: Thorough testing is bad because it makes developers sloppy! I would argue just the opposite, because most developers have some (a lot of, actually) pride and will code more carefully knowing that their code is going be be closely scrutinized and reviewed by a lot of people. If you don't think that's true then I'd venture that you haven't done much programming yourself!
The culture simply tends to be one of always going for the latest 'n greatest stuff. This means getting the latest kernel as soon as it's released, then compiling and running it.
Yes, there is a large community of committed and technically savvy users who beat the hell out of every new feature that appears in Linux. We call this "testing". Over time it leads to a much more robust and capable OS. It this isn't happening with your favorite OS, then good luck, buddy... You're going to need it.
I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get something going. That doesn't mean I wont sit there and tinker with something if I want to; I just don't like ever having to tinker with it to get it going.
Well, you don't have to. I don't, for the most part. But I'm glad that others do!
I've seen people who download, compile, reboot, and repeat for EVERY single Linux kernel every released.
It's true that Linux attracts tinkerers. Of course it does; it's open source. That option doesn't even exist for closed-source operating systems. But if you're implying that this kind of tinkering is required to run Linux successfully, then you're just flat-out wrong. I don't recognize the picture you're painting here.
I can't count myself among them, but the people who jump on every new kernel, mess around with it, and look into its every nook and cranny perform a vital service in the open source world -- i.e., testing -- and this is a great strength, not a weakness of the Open Source model. As long as you yourself don't have to do it, why should it bother you that others do? You get a more reliable OS as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
So, I think what your hearing is more like annoyance and disappointment over unfulfilled promises than an attack on his intelligence and ability (which are still substantial).
That's probably true by his own estimation. I'm surprised that you say you read the book. I did too, and while there are a few interesting things in there, for the most part it's a lot of chest thumping and self-promotion. He continually trumpets how "simple programs" - i.e., cellular automata - will surely explain all of the mysteries of the universe and that therefore he is the second coming of Isaac Newton. Fair enough; on an intuitive level I can see how this might be so, and I eagerly plowed through the book waiting for some solutions to physical problems that would illustrate his thesis. Nothing of the sort was to be found. All we get is, "Looky here! More pretty patterns from my simple rules!" It was as if Newton, instead of developing the Calculus and actually applying it to physical problems, had just waved his arms and said, "Surely there are mathematical equations that govern the Universe!" and left it at that. Now that's an important insight, but if that's all he did we probably wouldn't even know his name.
While I don't doubt Wolfram's contribution to CA and discrete mathematics, he's trying to join a club for which he hasn't (yet) paid his dues.
Quantum Mechanics is also commonly contributed to Albert Einstein
You're not a physicist, are you? That's just not true. Einstein resisted the ideas behind quantum mechanics for a long time; he couldn't accept that "God plays dice with the Universe". I'm not sure that he ever really accepted it.
Assuming "we" wanted to know that, of course...
Well, as you may recall, the 9/11 terrorists were behaving pretty obviously beforehand - learning to take off but not land, etc. - to the point where local FBI field agents were practically begging the home office to follow up. The top dogs in Quantico basically told them to shut the f__k up.
Does this remind you of the Challenger disaster, where top managers repeatedly ignored warnings from the the engineers? The more data dredging they do, the more noise and false-alarms there will be. The top people - mostly political hacks, probably - won't want to be bothered, especially if the warnings distract them from their current pet projects and obsessions, or the particular axes they have to grind.
This info will come in handy, however, when they want to go after particular individuals or groups, whether for legitimate or illegitimate reasons. During the Nixon administration, all it took to attract their emnity was to publicly oppose the Vietnam war or criticize the President. Now that we're being protected against "terrorism", we can expect things to get even worse.
Wrong yourself. I didn't say the sample was too small, I said it wasn't likely to be representative due to sampling bias. It tends to be heavy on the technically adventurous, reasonably affluent folks, but light on the kind of people that make up most of the population at large. Despite its much smaller size, it's quite likely that the Neilsen sample is actually giving answers that are closer to the truth, because they take a lot of care to minimize this bias. That's the main difference between a "scientific" and an "unscientific" survey.
The famous example of this was the way the newspapers blew the headlines in 1948 when Truman beat Dewey. They got it the other way around because they did their polling by telephone, and back then telephones were still a luxury that most people couldn't afford. So basically all they found out was that Dewey was preferred by voters with phones, but that wasn't enough to win the election.
Except that Tivo owners aren't (yet) a very representative sample of the entire television-viewing public. Still useful info, though...
Well, Janet Jackson's nipple, for one thing. It's currently under "intensive investigation" by the FCC.
True, but you'll be able to modify and/or upgrade it any way you want, whenever you want, without worrying about the warranty (since there is none)...
It'd be interesting if we could all redirect a small portion of our tax payments to programs of our choice, wouldn't it? They could receive some base level of funding, and the rest of their money would come from these "discretionary" contributions. The main problem would be with planning and budgeting, but it might not be much worse than what goes on now...
Which is precisely why these missions could be funded by voluntary $10,000 contributions from right-minded individuals such as yourself, who alone understand that it doesn't really cost - it pays!
I've been concerned about exactly the same thing. Regardless of where the virus really came from, the fact that SCO and MS were targeted may well have an impact on coming legal and public relations struggles that are important to the Open Source community. Don't think for a minute that this isn't understood completely by strategists at those two companies (as well as others that are threatened by the OS model). There is a lot at stake.
Sigh... I graduated 25 years ago, and I still have most of my old textbooks. It's been years since I've opened any of them, and for almost all of them I'm pretty sure I never will. Yet they keep following me wherever I go. Somebody help me, please...
Reasonable expectation of privacy? These days, you forfeit that the moment you "agree" to be born...
Unfortunately, any completely "free" market will eventually eat itself, as certain players accumulate market power that is then used to exclude competition. This is guaranteed to happen simply because an unregulated monopoly always has greater value than the sum of the competing firms in an industry, and thus mergers and aquisitions will take place until it is achieved.
If a government does nothing else to regulate economic activity, it will at least have to impose limits to this natural process (e.g., through anti-trust laws). I've never seen a Libertarian address this issue, but I'd like to...
Or "Googleplex", maybe...
When corporations become so powerful that the government becomes their tool, that's how. Remember that Mussolini once defined fascism as the marriage of government and corporate power.
That song's been parodied a lot. I preferred "Walk With an Erection" myself...
Plus, it would be so much cheaper and easier for authorities to get the required results. No more trucking bags of ballots off to secure & undisclosed locations for selective overnight spoilage, etc. The efficiency of military planning would be enhanced by the greater predictability of elections on the national level, and the American Empire would be strengthened as a result. It would also help protect against any possibility that liberals could take control of the government merely by voting.
I only hope they have the good sense to use closed-source software and avoid any kind of reliable vote confirmation or paper trail.
9. Open Source drains all of our precious bodily fluids!
So Bill Clinton is "the left"? That's funny. Compared to who, exactly?
I hear you, Bro'. I'm gonna keep on sticking hot pokers up my butt, because there's folks that tell me I don't have to do that and they seem like snobs to me!
Well, thats your particular caricature, and I'd argue that things don't really work that way, at least with the more successful, well-known open source projects (which are much better managed than you assume). So exactly who is "throwing" junk into the wild, hoping that someone else cleans up the mess? In my experience it's hard to argue with the results, which are usually quite excellent.
Now there's logic turned on its head: Thorough testing is bad because it makes developers sloppy! I would argue just the opposite, because most developers have some (a lot of, actually) pride and will code more carefully knowing that their code is going be be closely scrutinized and reviewed by a lot of people. If you don't think that's true then I'd venture that you haven't done much programming yourself!
Yes, there is a large community of committed and technically savvy users who beat the hell out of every new feature that appears in Linux. We call this "testing". Over time it leads to a much more robust and capable OS. It this isn't happening with your favorite OS, then good luck, buddy... You're going to need it.
I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get something going. That doesn't mean I wont sit there and tinker with something if I want to; I just don't like ever having to tinker with it to get it going.
Well, you don't have to. I don't, for the most part. But I'm glad that others do!
It's true that Linux attracts tinkerers. Of course it does; it's open source. That option doesn't even exist for closed-source operating systems. But if you're implying that this kind of tinkering is required to run Linux successfully, then you're just flat-out wrong. I don't recognize the picture you're painting here.
I can't count myself among them, but the people who jump on every new kernel, mess around with it, and look into its every nook and cranny perform a vital service in the open source world -- i.e., testing -- and this is a great strength, not a weakness of the Open Source model. As long as you yourself don't have to do it, why should it bother you that others do? You get a more reliable OS as a result.