The Donkey Kong and Pacman games weren't flawed in any meaningful
sense of the word, they just weren't precise clones of the arcade
originals. What in God's name was the reviewer expecting? Does he
think that the 2600 and Intellivision had some secret chip that
the developers could invoke when the world was in peril from
dodgy arcade conversions? Considering the disparity between
arcade and console hardware, I thought both titles were "good
enough".
My guess is these are things that the child has heard many, many
times in his/her life, and eventually forms a 'memory' around it.
Sort of how some people hear a story about something happening
and incorporate that into their stock of things they believe
happened to them.
Yes. No one would deny Stallman's contribution to Open Source,
I would. Stallman has nothing to do with Open Source, he's a
spokesperson for the Free Software movement.
but he is neither the creator of the free software movement nor
is he the driving force behind it.
So who was the creator of the Free Software movement then?
The prime strength of the open source movement is the lack of
centralization that your statement implies.
The topic at hand has nothing to do with Open Source. It's about
the freedom to develop without restriction. Open Source doesn't
address this, Free Software does.
Open source and free software doesn't require RMS to thrive (and
I'm sure he's glad for that).
I would agree with that. I wouldn't have mentioned RMS at all
except for the fact that you did in your original post. It's much
better and easier to talk about Free Software.
I think this "completely free Java platform" would have come
about without RMS the same way Linux, fetchmail, and Eclipse
would have.
RMS as an individual? Sure. I would agree. Without Free Software
as a concept? I doubt it. I suggest though, we don't persue this
particular avenue of discussion as it couldn't be proved either
way.
Do you not agree that the situation we are presented with today
(completely free Java platform) is better than the situation we
were saddled with yesterday (almost free Java platform)? Do you
think this situation would have come about if RMS et al, weren't
so "zealotous"?
Re:Negative review, but not (intentional) flamebai
on
LOTR: The Two Towers
·
· Score: 1
Pardon me, but I really don't understand the point of your
comment
There wasn't much of one:-) In a round-a-bout way, I was stating
what my objection to the film is -- that it's considered to be
"Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings". I'm not trying to say the film is
inferior because of the (rather liberal) alterations, just that
it is a very different beast to the books.
That being said, Duchamp's work was intended to be a attack on
the existing artistic establishment; say whatever you will about
Jackson's film (I'm not going to demand that you like it, just
strongly defend my own opinion), but no one can reasonably
believe that his goal is to undermine people's love of Tolkien's
books. If his work fails, it fails; but it's certainly not coming
from malicious, or even mocking, intent.
Although I used a dada-ist work as comparison, I wasn't trying to
say that Jackson is a Dada artist! I was merely attempting to
explain the rationale behind why I don't like the films being
referred to as Tolkien's LotR. It was unfortunate analogy as
drawing as moustache on the Mona Lisa (albeit a copy) would be
considered by most as vandalism -- I don't consider Jackson's
work to be vandalism.
Re:Negative review, but not (intentional) flamebai
on
LOTR: The Two Towers
·
· Score: 1
Oh no, another departure from "canon"
They aren't deviations from the canon, but deviations from the plot. Big difference.
You say the changes are improvements. Perhaps they are, but it's
not "J.R.R. Tolkien's, Lord Of The Rings" is it? To bill it as
such is like saying the Da-da painting, "She's got a hot arse" is
by Da Vinci. Whether or not you think the moustache and beard is
an improvement is purely subjective. However, the fact that
"She's got a hot arse" is not by Da Vinci, but by Duchamp, is an
objective fact. It is also an objective fact that the movies of
FotR and TTT are not by Tolkien, but by Peter Jackson (and pals).
the ruleset is whacked, they did NOT even get close to making it
3rd ED D&D.
The ruleset in the official campaign is whacked I agree, however,
you can change the ruleset as practically every rule in the game is
scripted. Have a look at the
hardcore ruleset for something that's closer to 3rd Ed rules.
But any actual character development or spontaneus roleplay is impossible in this game.
I disagree. Have you played this game with a good DM? If not, check out Neverwinter Connections
Re:Developed by Kubrick or Spielberg?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 1
I'm not overly familiar with Ian Watson: the only
book of his I've read being Book of the River, which
I thought was wonderfully imaginative. IIRC, he did
a lot of Warhammer 40k novels too, which was probably
where I first heard of him. Do you have any recommendations
as to which novels of his to try?
Re:Developed by Kubrick or Spielberg?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 1
The sentence "A.I. was not largely developed by Kubrick" is true.
Hardly. It's true that Kubrick didn't do anything past the
preproduction stage, but all the ideas and plot devices were
developed long before Speilberg inherited it. Speilberg made it
into a film, but the vision for the movie is definately Kubrick.
Unfortunately for the unsuspecting public, Kubrick hadn't
completed his vision, a fact that seems to have escaped
Speilberg.
Yes, but Brian Aldiss never went to anyone and said, "Hey, let's
make a movie out of this." The idea for the film originated with
Kubrick and Spielberg.
Not true. Aldiss wrote a single short story which Kubrick liked
and asked Aldiss to come up with a screenplay with him based on
that story. This was about 1982; Speilberg wasn't anywhere to be
seen.
Work on the screenplay continued (Aldiss and Kubrick working
together) on and off until 1990 when Aldiss was "removed" from
the screenwriting process. It's worth noting that the idea for a
flooded new york, the blue fairy and all that rot was in place by
this time; the problem was, there was no story. Arthur C. Clarke
of all people, also tried to come up with an acceptable screen
play but failed -- miserably.
When Kubrick died in 1999, Aldiss became interested in the
Supertoys story again and wrote a second story, "Supertoys When
Winter Comes" and a third, "Supertoys in Other Seasons". Also due
to Kubrick's demise, Speilberg inherited Kubrick's unfinished
works (Kubrick admired Speilberg ?!). In a nutshell, Speilberg
got copies of these two other Aldiss stories, ignored them and
went on to make A.I.
All of this is explained in great detail in the foreward of the
Brian Aldiss collection, "Supertoys Last All Summer Long: And
Other Stories Of Future Time".
Footnote 1: None of these plot devices are in the original story
incidentally. It's pure Kubrickism and the Aldiss' objection to
such things was the catalyst for his removal.
No, it's how I judge the effort and thought put into the GUI (there wasn't much put into the MorphOS desktop - it's Amiga + skinning)
What you seem to forget is that aesthetic is subjective. The fact
that you don't like it doesn't mean that no effort was put into
it. To think otherwise is indicative of gross arrogance IMO.
The GUI of course is the first thing ppl judge (whether they want
to or not), and NOPE, this fails to impress or seem innovative.
I don't think I've ever judged a GUI because of how it looks.
I've always considered functionality to be so much more
important.
I'm sorry, but the desktop looks dated and unprofessional. The
icons, while detailed, lack a unifying theme other than
photorealistic. OS9, OSX and BeOS have (about 99%) of their icons
under their respective unified look. Dare is say it, it looks
like a bunch of Linux icons I saw about 5 years ago.
And that's how you judge an operating system is it? By the icons?
Radix sort is also not very good at sorting strings.
It's the best. It's impossible to look at fewer characters than
what is possible with a radix sort.
Algorithm:
1. Put the strings into piles according to their first letter.
2. Subdivide each pile into further piles according to the second
letter.
3. Subdivide each of the new piles according to the third letter.
4. n
5. Collect piles together
You only ever look at each character once! The problem in
implementation is keeping track of all the piles, and everything
you've said by way of criticism (all perfectly valid) is really
criticism of an implemenation not the theory.
If you're interested, this
paper
suggests a good, efficient algorithm.
Also strcmp is not that slow over all. Since there are far far
more people not named John Smith then there are that are named
John Simth, strcmp() will complete the vast majority of it's
calls in just a few operations.
strcmp() itself isn't slow, but when you're checking the same
characters over and over again, performance is shattered.
Radix sort can not be done in place, thus requiring double the
memory to run (will at least for the pointers which for a large
list can still be quite a cost). If this addition memory needs to
be swapped in and out the performance penalty can be quite nasty.
Naive radix sort implementation don't sort in place, but it's
certainly possible. The American Flag algorithm described in the
paper linked to above just does that. Memory usage is still
problematic though, but it's nowhere near double.
Quicksort with a good pivot selection algorithm (to avoid the already sorted list problem) or Mergesort are still used quite often today.
They are, and they have their place, but that's not my argument.
My point was that it's dangerous to generalise quicksort as a
superior sort for everything. eg. shellsort is superior for small
data sets.
This applies to radix sort too of course: for very specific input
with very specific properties, radix sorting of strings may be
weaker than some other algorithm. In fact, the sorting stage
algorithm suggested in the original Burrows-Wheeler Transform
paper highlights this.
In fact the Java library sort uses a modified mergesort, and the standard C library has qsort()
qsort() isn't necessarily a a quicksort implementation (ie. the
ANSI standard doesn't require it to be) although it very often
is.
I did check Knuth about this, and radix sort can get around its
problems with a beefy machine.
Did you ask Knuth personally or did you simply check the Book?
That sounds really impertinant I know, but the reason I ask is
because most of the research on Radix Sort has been done since
the Book was written.
I guess it's a nice thing that shellsort is getting improved, and I do realize that this is great for genetic research, but, pardon me for being an uneducated ignorant bastard, does it have any practical value, seeing as quicksort is much faster than shellsort? Or am I wrong?
You're generalising, which is an easy mistake. Quicksort is good
but for many data sets, it is very likely suboptimal and another
alogorithm would perform better. Shellsort is good for small data
sets. In fact, a good quicksort implementation may use shellsort
once the divisions get small enough.
Another example:, quicksort is poor at sorting strings. This is
because you have to perform a full strcmp() (or equivalent) at
each comparison. For this reason, a modified radix sort is
often used.
Exactly! That money was stolen from me! I was planning to sell my
station wagon for $284,000. If anyone can just copy a car for
free that will cause hundreds of billions of dollars of harm.
How is the car worth $284,000 if it's possible to copy it for
free?
I have read it and RMS's personal site as well. It is what led me
to my opinions about him. If you think I'm wrong then go over it
point by point. I not unwilling to be convinced of my so called
errors.
With regards to payment, you are very wrong. This is a mantra of
almost biblical proportions by now, but I shall risk repeating
it: Free as in speech, not in beer.
Then why does he (RMS) care what I call Linux and why does he
insist that all works that derive from the original be GPL'd as
well?
He doesn't. There are many, many works that are GPL'd but are not
considered to be part of the GNU project.
The question of why he refers to "Linux" as GNU/Linux or
GNU+Linux, is answered in Stallman's various speeches (and I
presume, in this book). I shall endeavour to clarify.
Prior to the formation of the GNU project, the world of free
software, as Stallman knew it, was declining. Stallman alone
decided to rectify this. He began by writing the software which
would allow a "free" version of UNIX to exist. This software
consisted, amongst others: a text editor (GNU emacs), a compiler
(GCC), binary tools (binutils), and so forth.
Naturally, an entire Operating System written by one man would
take a great deal of time. So the GNU project, embraced that
software which would help complete the free version of UNIX that
the GNU project envisioned. Notably TeX and X11 -- both massive
projects that didn't need to be re-implemented because of the
licences which both where distrubuted under. ie. they were
"compatible" with the GNU philosophy. (I mention this because it
highlights that the GNU project doesn't lay claim to "ownership"
of these very important parts of the free operating system
Stallman initiated).
By 1991, a complete UNIX system existed except for the kernel.
Enter, Linus Torvalds: Linus' implementation of a UNIX kernel
fitted precisely the kernel shaped hole in the GNU project.
Initially, the GNU project didn't notice the Linux kernel, but
other people did, and saw that it was good. However, a kernel on
it's own is useless. For a working operating system, various
tools need to exist. So, when people started looking around for
tools and other software that they could use with this new kenel,
they found the GNU project. This is not a coincidence.
Whether or not you believe the Operating System is "Linux" with a
few GNU tools added on, or the GNU Operating System completed
with the Linux kernel is a matter of perspective. Personally, I
believe it is the latter. Stallman's suggestion that you refer to
the various operating systems that utilise Linux as GNU/Linux is
simply a request that you recognise my perspective -- the work of
the GNU projet.
I like the following analogy: The forest is populated by many
trees. One of those trees represents the compiler, another
represents the tools that manipulate binary files, or text files.
Yet another tree represents the kernel. The entire forest
however, is the GNU project. It is acknowledges that if this
forest didn't exist there would be a few unconnected copses or
individual trees representing non-proprietary software but the
forest as a whole wouldn't exist if Stallman hadn't planted it.
The request that you refer to the Operating System as GNU/Linux
is a suggestion that you see the forest and not that single tree
that represents the kernel. In other words, the people who reject
this request, metaphorically, can't see the forest because of the
trees.
If "ideas" are truly free and I wish to take an idea modify it
and profit from it how is the original owner HARMED?
He's not, and the GNU project never claims otherwise. However, to
take that idea, to modify it and then to deny other people to
view those moderations (as the BSD licence allows) can "harm"
original author as he is one of those people to which access has
been denied. Other people have benefited from his work, so why
shouldn't he (or more pertinently, society) benefit from the work
of others? Especially when their work has utilised his? The GPL
addresses this.
If I choose to be sellfish and keep all the benefits to myself,
how does that stop you from taking the original free material and
using IT anyway YOU want to?
It doesn't. But don't you consider the re-implementation of
something that someone else has already achieved as wasted
effort? Again, the GPL addresses this.
It isn't the fact that he gives away
the product that is a problem. It is the fact that he wants to
CONTROL the use of the product.
I don't see this as a fact. Please point out instances where
Stallman wants to control products that he isn't the copyright
holder of.
I assume USE is a typo and you meant U.S.A.
Of course it is; and looking at my keyboard, it astonishes me
that I that I managed it.:-)
The founding fathers put IP protection in the consitution. You
statement is unsported by the exsistance of that document. Please
clarify your point because I don't follow or agree with you.
The constitution of the USA doesn't include IP protection -- IP is a nonsensical term. It
does however, include the concept of copyright.
Copyright was intended to provide the creators of copyrightable works
with an incentive to create. It was never meant to be a mechanism
that granted ownership. The "for a limited time" statement
supports this. In other words, copyright is a meant to be a means
to an end, not an end in itself.
I'm really not the man though, to discuss this in any great
depth. I implore you to read the writings of Lawrence Lessig if you
wish to explore this subject further.
RMS is clearly a leftist. The product of a single person is not
something of interest to a communist. He has stated that he
doesn't believe we have a right to IP. ANY form of IP. His belief
is that an idea once it leaves the confines of your skull in any
form is free to be used by anyone in anyway.
a) Stallman never talks about "Intellectual Property", accept to
say that he dislikes the term. Instead he talks about patents,
copyrights and trademarks as distinct concepts. He even
recognises the differences between different sorts of
copyrightable works. So to say that he doesn't believe we have
any right to IP is plain wrong and downright mischeavious.
b) The belief that an idea is free once it "leaves the confines
of your skill" was first recognised by the founding
fathers of the USE. Would you describe them as "communist"?
The fact is, and this is the reason Stallman doesn't use the term
Intellectual Property, ideas (and expressions of those ideas) by
their very nature aren't property. The world isn't cheapened if I
share an idea or it's expression idea freely. In fact, the world
is enriched.
As others have pointed out the main problem with FREE software or
FREE music or FREE anything is that workers are exploited. Even
RMS on some level realizes this or why would he get so pissy
about insisting that Linux be called GNU/Linux. He wants to make
sure he gets the credit.(i.e. Please don't exploit me! I wrote
it. Waaah!) But for ideas to be truly free you've got to
surrender that right as well. RMS is a hypocrite. He finds the
idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because
he fears the power money brings. Money equals ownership and if
you don't want money then you can't have ownership. Yet he
doesn't like to surrender the power of being the author of GNU
gives him. At some level he owns GNU because he wrote it. But
when he gives it away you give that right away too. You can't
have it both ways.
This is so full of errors I can hardly bring myself to comment on
it. Nonetheless: the fact that you say "He [Stallman] finds the
idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because
he fears the power money brings" suggests to me that you haven't
even read the GNU website. Here's the link.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved
Well said. I would like to emphasise though, the quoted
extract.
What few people seem to realise is that Stallman doesn't advocate
a blanket application of copyright law to all kinds of works. He
states that functional works, computer software in particular,
should be treated very differently to works, such as this book,
that present the coherent thoughts of a single author. This is
why "verbatim" is quickly followed by "or with modification" in
the GNU GPL but not here -- to modify these articles would be to misrepresent the views of the
author.
The reasoning behind this conclusion is long and better described
by Stallman himself.
Re:The other way around
on
Equilibrium
·
· Score: 2
I don't dispute that Animal Farm and 1984 are
satires of the Soviet Union (as you point out,
the parallels are rife), I do however believe
that they were intended to be read in a wider context.
The problem with saying "the pigs aren't communists but fascists" is that Orwell beats the reader down with Soviet analogies.
I think we've confused each other.
For the record, I don't consider
the Soviet Union to be a communist regime but
a totalitarian one, probably fascist. To describe
it as communist merely perpetuates the Stalinist double speak that Orwell brilliantly satirises.
Paradoxically, the western world, the USA in particular, also used "communism" in a form of
double speak -- by equating an economic system with murder and oppression they effectively obliterated any possibility of opposition, whether
in thought or deed, to their own favoured econonmic system.
Re:The other way around
on
Equilibrium
·
· Score: 2
Well, perhaps the best way to look at this was to see what the
original source (Orwell's novels) actually contained. It is a
cliche to say "Orwell wasn't talking about the Soviet Union; he
was talking about where Western society was headed". But that
just isn't supported by the books.
Orwell himself said that Animal Farm was meant to be a satire of
revolution in general, and how the ideals of the original
founders of the revolt could be usurped by evil men.
"On 2 December, Dwight MacDonald, editor of the American journal
Politics, and a fried on Orwell's, wrote saying the
assumed Animal Farm applied only to Russia and that Orwell
was not making any larger statement about the philosophy of
revolution. Orwell replied that though Animal Farm was
'primarily a satire on the Russian Revolution' it was intended to
have wider applications." -- Peter Davison, Animal Farm foreword,
1987 Penguin Edition.
The problems of Western society, as real as they are, just didn't
enter into the equation.
You have to put the books in historical context. Western society
at that time (mid to late 40s) was not the society you see today.
Communist revolution in Britain for example, was a very real
possiblity...
It's important to realise that Orwell, if anything, was a
communist himself (he was certainly a socialist) and was not
attacking communism (in the Marxist sense of the word) *.
Although, the revolt at the start of Animal Farm is certainly a
communist revolt, it is quite plain that the villains of the
piece are the Pigs, who aren't communists but fascists. Animal
Farm then, is intended as a warning to the proletariats of
Britain that the revolution could go seriously wrong, as it had
in Russia.
Apart from anything else though, there is a very loud clue that
Orwell intended to highlight the possiblity of revolution gone
awry [Animal Farm] and future totalitarianism [1984] in Western
society -- he set both books in England.
* Read "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" for his thoughts on
materialism.
Does anyone really think that this will change the alleged minds of doubters?"
I doubt it. Simply because the conspiracy theory isn't whether or
not spaceships are on the moon but whether, to paraphrase JFK,
man was sent to the moon and bought back alive (during the
Apollo missions). Conspiracy theorists generally accept the
existence of moon rocks and so forth because they consider it
entirely plausible that unmanned spacecraft can help
fulfill the various missions -- and indeed they did, for many
years, before and after the Apollo missions and by several
nations.
To repeat myself, the conspiracy theory hinges on whether or not
it was/is impossible to send man to the moon and to
bring him back alive. I should also add that I have no
conspiritorial beliefs of my own on this subject.
This makes sense, since DOS wasn't written by microsoft: they
subcontracted it out.
They bought it lock, stock and barrel from a guy called Tim
Patterson. IIRC, it was called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating
System) and was a shameless CP/M "tribute". Patterson went to
work for MS and is wheeled out on special occasions -- you can
spot him shaking hands with Gates on videos of the Win95 launch.
Pine was around before version 2 of the GNU GPL would be a true
statement. Version 1 of the GNU GPL however, actually
appeared a whole 11 months before Pine.
Your reading of 1984 is a bit skewed as it is clearly not a
communist state. Communism is a theory of government that
advocates the absence of private ownership. Nothing more, nothing
less. Perhaps you meant to say Stalinism, of which 1984 (along
with Animal Farm) is a satire.
Also, citing terrorism as the cause of the surveillance state in
Brazil strikes me as odd. It seemed obvious, to me at least, that
the terrorists were supported by the government in order to
provide an excuse for the oppression of the people -- this
parallels 1984 almost exactly, where the perpertual war against
Eurasia/Eastasia was used to the same effect. No, the
surveillance state in both cases is a product of a desire by the
governemnt to remain in power, imperpituity. In fact, there is an
entire section in 1984 that discusses this concept (begins
chapter 9 in part 2).
Both Prince and Zappa were niche artists, albeit hugely
successful within their niches. The original poster mentions a
few names. The sort of names where losing ONE could make or break
a label...
"Niche" is a matter of perspective. Christine Aguilara is a niche
product IMO, it's just so happens that her niche is attractive to
a lot of horny teenagers (make up your own jokes) which is a
massive demographic. Upon reflection, I think the description
we're struggling to find is, "artists who make the record
companies an awful lot of money at this particular moment".
If RCA lost Aguilera *right now* (not 15 years from now when
she's back-catalog!) they might notice. I'm not so sure Atlantic
cares one way or another about Phil Collins, at least, not in the
sense that losing his support would lead to bankruptcy. Now,
maybe in 1985, Phil would have been a good example for this
argument. Or perhaps, Celine Dion leaving Sony in 1990 (NOT
now!!),
Slashdot Mirror
The Donkey Kong and Pacman games weren't flawed in any meaningful sense of the word, they just weren't precise clones of the arcade originals. What in God's name was the reviewer expecting? Does he think that the 2600 and Intellivision had some secret chip that the developers could invoke when the world was in peril from dodgy arcade conversions? Considering the disparity between arcade and console hardware, I thought both titles were "good enough".
false memory syndrome.
I would. Stallman has nothing to do with Open Source, he's a spokesperson for the Free Software movement.
So who was the creator of the Free Software movement then?
The topic at hand has nothing to do with Open Source. It's about the freedom to develop without restriction. Open Source doesn't address this, Free Software does.
I would agree with that. I wouldn't have mentioned RMS at all except for the fact that you did in your original post. It's much better and easier to talk about Free Software.
RMS as an individual? Sure. I would agree. Without Free Software as a concept? I doubt it. I suggest though, we don't persue this particular avenue of discussion as it couldn't be proved either way.
Do you not agree that the situation we are presented with today (completely free Java platform) is better than the situation we were saddled with yesterday (almost free Java platform)? Do you think this situation would have come about if RMS et al, weren't so "zealotous"?
There wasn't much of one
Although I used a dada-ist work as comparison, I wasn't trying to say that Jackson is a Dada artist! I was merely attempting to explain the rationale behind why I don't like the films being referred to as Tolkien's LotR. It was unfortunate analogy as drawing as moustache on the Mona Lisa (albeit a copy) would be considered by most as vandalism -- I don't consider Jackson's work to be vandalism.
They aren't deviations from the canon, but deviations from the plot. Big difference.
You say the changes are improvements. Perhaps they are, but it's not "J.R.R. Tolkien's, Lord Of The Rings" is it? To bill it as such is like saying the Da-da painting, "She's got a hot arse" is by Da Vinci. Whether or not you think the moustache and beard is an improvement is purely subjective. However, the fact that "She's got a hot arse" is not by Da Vinci, but by Duchamp, is an objective fact. It is also an objective fact that the movies of FotR and TTT are not by Tolkien, but by Peter Jackson (and pals).
The ruleset in the official campaign is whacked I agree, however, you can change the ruleset as practically every rule in the game is scripted. Have a look at the hardcore ruleset for something that's closer to 3rd Ed rules.
I disagree. Have you played this game with a good DM? If not, check out Neverwinter Connections
I'm not overly familiar with Ian Watson: the only book of his I've read being Book of the River, which I thought was wonderfully imaginative. IIRC, he did a lot of Warhammer 40k novels too, which was probably where I first heard of him. Do you have any recommendations as to which novels of his to try?
Hardly. It's true that Kubrick didn't do anything past the preproduction stage, but all the ideas and plot devices were developed long before Speilberg inherited it. Speilberg made it into a film, but the vision for the movie is definately Kubrick. Unfortunately for the unsuspecting public, Kubrick hadn't completed his vision, a fact that seems to have escaped Speilberg.
Not true. Aldiss wrote a single short story which Kubrick liked and asked Aldiss to come up with a screenplay with him based on that story. This was about 1982; Speilberg wasn't anywhere to be seen.
Work on the screenplay continued (Aldiss and Kubrick working together) on and off until 1990 when Aldiss was "removed" from the screenwriting process. It's worth noting that the idea for a flooded new york, the blue fairy and all that rot was in place by this time; the problem was, there was no story. Arthur C. Clarke of all people, also tried to come up with an acceptable screen play but failed -- miserably.
When Kubrick died in 1999, Aldiss became interested in the Supertoys story again and wrote a second story, "Supertoys When Winter Comes" and a third, "Supertoys in Other Seasons". Also due to Kubrick's demise, Speilberg inherited Kubrick's unfinished works (Kubrick admired Speilberg ?!). In a nutshell, Speilberg got copies of these two other Aldiss stories, ignored them and went on to make A.I.
All of this is explained in great detail in the foreward of the Brian Aldiss collection, "Supertoys Last All Summer Long: And Other Stories Of Future Time".
Footnote 1: None of these plot devices are in the original story incidentally. It's pure Kubrickism and the Aldiss' objection to such things was the catalyst for his removal.
What you seem to forget is that aesthetic is subjective. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean that no effort was put into it. To think otherwise is indicative of gross arrogance IMO.
I don't think I've ever judged a GUI because of how it looks. I've always considered functionality to be so much more important.
And that's how you judge an operating system is it? By the icons?
It's the best. It's impossible to look at fewer characters than what is possible with a radix sort.
Algorithm:
1. Put the strings into piles according to their first letter.
2. Subdivide each pile into further piles according to the second letter.
3. Subdivide each of the new piles according to the third letter.
4. n 5. Collect piles together
You only ever look at each character once! The problem in implementation is keeping track of all the piles, and everything you've said by way of criticism (all perfectly valid) is really criticism of an implemenation not the theory.
If you're interested, this paper suggests a good, efficient algorithm.
strcmp() itself isn't slow, but when you're checking the same characters over and over again, performance is shattered.
Naive radix sort implementation don't sort in place, but it's certainly possible. The American Flag algorithm described in the paper linked to above just does that. Memory usage is still problematic though, but it's nowhere near double.
They are, and they have their place, but that's not my argument. My point was that it's dangerous to generalise quicksort as a superior sort for everything. eg. shellsort is superior for small data sets.
This applies to radix sort too of course: for very specific input with very specific properties, radix sorting of strings may be weaker than some other algorithm. In fact, the sorting stage algorithm suggested in the original Burrows-Wheeler Transform paper highlights this.
qsort() isn't necessarily a a quicksort implementation (ie. the ANSI standard doesn't require it to be) although it very often is.
Did you ask Knuth personally or did you simply check the Book? That sounds really impertinant I know, but the reason I ask is because most of the research on Radix Sort has been done since the Book was written.
You're generalising, which is an easy mistake. Quicksort is good but for many data sets, it is very likely suboptimal and another alogorithm would perform better. Shellsort is good for small data sets. In fact, a good quicksort implementation may use shellsort once the divisions get small enough.
Another example:, quicksort is poor at sorting strings. This is because you have to perform a full strcmp() (or equivalent) at each comparison. For this reason, a modified radix sort is often used.
How is the car worth $284,000 if it's possible to copy it for free?
With regards to payment, you are very wrong. This is a mantra of almost biblical proportions by now, but I shall risk repeating it: Free as in speech, not in beer.
He doesn't. There are many, many works that are GPL'd but are not considered to be part of the GNU project.
The question of why he refers to "Linux" as GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux, is answered in Stallman's various speeches (and I presume, in this book). I shall endeavour to clarify.
Prior to the formation of the GNU project, the world of free software, as Stallman knew it, was declining. Stallman alone decided to rectify this. He began by writing the software which would allow a "free" version of UNIX to exist. This software consisted, amongst others: a text editor (GNU emacs), a compiler (GCC), binary tools (binutils), and so forth.
Naturally, an entire Operating System written by one man would take a great deal of time. So the GNU project, embraced that software which would help complete the free version of UNIX that the GNU project envisioned. Notably TeX and X11 -- both massive projects that didn't need to be re-implemented because of the licences which both where distrubuted under. ie. they were "compatible" with the GNU philosophy. (I mention this because it highlights that the GNU project doesn't lay claim to "ownership" of these very important parts of the free operating system Stallman initiated).
By 1991, a complete UNIX system existed except for the kernel. Enter, Linus Torvalds: Linus' implementation of a UNIX kernel fitted precisely the kernel shaped hole in the GNU project. Initially, the GNU project didn't notice the Linux kernel, but other people did, and saw that it was good. However, a kernel on it's own is useless. For a working operating system, various tools need to exist. So, when people started looking around for tools and other software that they could use with this new kenel, they found the GNU project. This is not a coincidence.
Whether or not you believe the Operating System is "Linux" with a few GNU tools added on, or the GNU Operating System completed with the Linux kernel is a matter of perspective. Personally, I believe it is the latter. Stallman's suggestion that you refer to the various operating systems that utilise Linux as GNU/Linux is simply a request that you recognise my perspective -- the work of the GNU projet.
I like the following analogy: The forest is populated by many trees. One of those trees represents the compiler, another represents the tools that manipulate binary files, or text files. Yet another tree represents the kernel. The entire forest however, is the GNU project. It is acknowledges that if this forest didn't exist there would be a few unconnected copses or individual trees representing non-proprietary software but the forest as a whole wouldn't exist if Stallman hadn't planted it.
The request that you refer to the Operating System as GNU/Linux is a suggestion that you see the forest and not that single tree that represents the kernel. In other words, the people who reject this request, metaphorically, can't see the forest because of the trees.
He's not, and the GNU project never claims otherwise. However, to take that idea, to modify it and then to deny other people to view those moderations (as the BSD licence allows) can "harm" original author as he is one of those people to which access has been denied. Other people have benefited from his work, so why shouldn't he (or more pertinently, society) benefit from the work of others? Especially when their work has utilised his? The GPL addresses this.
It doesn't. But don't you consider the re-implementation of something that someone else has already achieved as wasted effort? Again, the GPL addresses this.
I don't see this as a fact. Please point out instances where Stallman wants to control products that he isn't the copyright holder of.
Of course it is; and looking at my keyboard, it astonishes me that I that I managed it.
The constitution of the USA doesn't include IP protection -- IP is a nonsensical term. It does however, include the concept of copyright.
Copyright was intended to provide the creators of copyrightable works with an incentive to create. It was never meant to be a mechanism that granted ownership. The "for a limited time" statement supports this. In other words, copyright is a meant to be a means to an end, not an end in itself.
I'm really not the man though, to discuss this in any great depth. I implore you to read the writings of Lawrence Lessig if you wish to explore this subject further.
a) Stallman never talks about "Intellectual Property", accept to say that he dislikes the term. Instead he talks about patents, copyrights and trademarks as distinct concepts. He even recognises the differences between different sorts of copyrightable works. So to say that he doesn't believe we have any right to IP is plain wrong and downright mischeavious.
b) The belief that an idea is free once it "leaves the confines of your skill" was first recognised by the founding fathers of the USE. Would you describe them as "communist"?
The fact is, and this is the reason Stallman doesn't use the term Intellectual Property, ideas (and expressions of those ideas) by their very nature aren't property. The world isn't cheapened if I share an idea or it's expression idea freely. In fact, the world is enriched.
This is so full of errors I can hardly bring myself to comment on it. Nonetheless: the fact that you say "He [Stallman] finds the idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because he fears the power money brings" suggests to me that you haven't even read the GNU website. Here's the link.
GNU
Well said. I would like to emphasise though, the quoted extract.
What few people seem to realise is that Stallman doesn't advocate a blanket application of copyright law to all kinds of works. He states that functional works, computer software in particular, should be treated very differently to works, such as this book, that present the coherent thoughts of a single author. This is why "verbatim" is quickly followed by "or with modification" in the GNU GPL but not here -- to modify these articles would be to misrepresent the views of the author.
The reasoning behind this conclusion is long and better described by Stallman himself.
I think we've confused each other. For the record, I don't consider the Soviet Union to be a communist regime but a totalitarian one, probably fascist. To describe it as communist merely perpetuates the Stalinist double speak that Orwell brilliantly satirises.
Paradoxically, the western world, the USA in particular, also used "communism" in a form of double speak -- by equating an economic system with murder and oppression they effectively obliterated any possibility of opposition, whether in thought or deed, to their own favoured econonmic system.
Orwell himself said that Animal Farm was meant to be a satire of revolution in general, and how the ideals of the original founders of the revolt could be usurped by evil men.
"On 2 December, Dwight MacDonald, editor of the American journal Politics, and a fried on Orwell's, wrote saying the assumed Animal Farm applied only to Russia and that Orwell was not making any larger statement about the philosophy of revolution. Orwell replied that though Animal Farm was 'primarily a satire on the Russian Revolution' it was intended to have wider applications." -- Peter Davison, Animal Farm foreword, 1987 Penguin Edition.
You have to put the books in historical context. Western society at that time (mid to late 40s) was not the society you see today. Communist revolution in Britain for example, was a very real possiblity...
It's important to realise that Orwell, if anything, was a communist himself (he was certainly a socialist) and was not attacking communism (in the Marxist sense of the word) *. Although, the revolt at the start of Animal Farm is certainly a communist revolt, it is quite plain that the villains of the piece are the Pigs, who aren't communists but fascists. Animal Farm then, is intended as a warning to the proletariats of Britain that the revolution could go seriously wrong, as it had in Russia.
Apart from anything else though, there is a very loud clue that Orwell intended to highlight the possiblity of revolution gone awry [Animal Farm] and future totalitarianism [1984] in Western society -- he set both books in England.
* Read "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" for his thoughts on materialism.
I doubt it. Simply because the conspiracy theory isn't whether or not spaceships are on the moon but whether, to paraphrase JFK, man was sent to the moon and bought back alive (during the Apollo missions). Conspiracy theorists generally accept the existence of moon rocks and so forth because they consider it entirely plausible that unmanned spacecraft can help fulfill the various missions -- and indeed they did, for many years, before and after the Apollo missions and by several nations.
To repeat myself, the conspiracy theory hinges on whether or not it was/is impossible to send man to the moon and to bring him back alive. I should also add that I have no conspiritorial beliefs of my own on this subject.
They bought it lock, stock and barrel from a guy called Tim Patterson. IIRC, it was called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) and was a shameless CP/M "tribute". Patterson went to work for MS and is wheeled out on special occasions -- you can spot him shaking hands with Gates on videos of the Win95 launch.
No, no you're not. However, you areviolating copyright law. Big, big difference.
Pine was around before version 2 of the GNU GPL would be a true statement. Version 1 of the GNU GPL however, actually appeared a whole 11 months before Pine.
Your reading of 1984 is a bit skewed as it is clearly not a communist state. Communism is a theory of government that advocates the absence of private ownership. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you meant to say Stalinism, of which 1984 (along with Animal Farm) is a satire.
Also, citing terrorism as the cause of the surveillance state in Brazil strikes me as odd. It seemed obvious, to me at least, that the terrorists were supported by the government in order to provide an excuse for the oppression of the people -- this parallels 1984 almost exactly, where the perpertual war against Eurasia/Eastasia was used to the same effect. No, the surveillance state in both cases is a product of a desire by the governemnt to remain in power, imperpituity. In fact, there is an entire section in 1984 that discusses this concept (begins chapter 9 in part 2).
"Niche" is a matter of perspective. Christine Aguilara is a niche product IMO, it's just so happens that her niche is attractive to a lot of horny teenagers (make up your own jokes) which is a massive demographic. Upon reflection, I think the description we're struggling to find is, "artists who make the record companies an awful lot of money at this particular moment".
Point taken.