I used to dabble in scifi until I started hitting the general fiction/nonfiction shelves and found that in general, the quality of writing is much higher when there isn't a pixie or a dragon or a robot on the book's cover.
That's because too many scifi/fantasy authors think all they need to do is have a pixie, dragon or robot. This trend isn't limited to these genres. You can find shallow works in mystery, action/adventure and romance as well.
But there are numerous exceptions. You would do well to seek them out. This is what the poster is asking: what are the exceptions for this current crop of authors?
I am looking for the new RAH/Piers Anthony/Roger Zelazny/Weis & Hickman etc..., of the world.
Okay, RAH may be old school. Maybe PA and RZ are nearing the that state. But Weis and Hickman? I remember when they first started mass producing tripe and wondering to myself what the state of scifi was coming to.
Old School is Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Clement, Smith, Niven, etc. Remember, the world didn't start the day you were born.
Re:Do companies do research anymore?
on
Dealers of Lightning
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Seems to me that most big corporations have gutted their research budgets - especially when it comes to pure research like PARC was doing.
I'm with Siemens Ultrasound Division (formerly Acuson), and we still lead the way in the medical ultrasound technology. We invented computed sonography, doppler imaging, native tissue harmonic imaging, etc. We still have a research group that does nothing but come up with new amazing stuff. Like PARC, we won't develop all of the ideas into a marketable product, but we have some stuff in the pipeline that will amaze the medical world when it's released.
Enough about me. A lot of big corporations have pure research departments. As long as the tech corporation hasn't been taken over by the "stock price is everything" mentality of the dot.bombs, it will still have a research department. Think IBM, BASF, etc.
He was talking about user preferences in Mozilla, not the damn wallpaper.
Each group may need different preferences for their homepage, as an example. Making everyone have the main corporate fluff page as their homepage is counterproductive.
I've got a friend who is a hardcore P2P pirate. If he is any indication, then you won't find any free software because it's legally free. They don't want legally free, they want to steal. They judge the value of software on its retail price.
Quote one: "No I don't want to borrow your Linux CD, it's free you idiot! Why would I want it if it's free?"
Quote two: "What do you mean you don't want a ripped Photoshop? It's $500 in stores you idiot!"
p.s. Yeah, we really are friends. I call him an idiot just as often. It's how we show each other that we care.
People who argue that obscurity has "some" value miss a very important point: it's worse than no security at all, because it leads you to believe that you're doing something, when actually you're not.
In our case, we are very much aware that we have an extremely weak link. I made sure the bosses above me knew this. We are certainly not pretending that we have a secure system.
If the customer calls in to register their product, and the only piece of information you're basing your "security" on is the serialnumber, what's to stop the user from registering it, then passing that registration key (and the serial number) on to someone else?
In our case we use time limited keys and user IDs, with logging of all authentication attempts.
But rest assured that we don't consider this adequate security any more than putting a deadbolt on a screen door would be. We've managed to keep out flies and dumb mammals.
Our reason for the "security" system is not so much for the protection of our IP (although the IP guys glommed onto it as well), but to protect the warranty.
"Security through obscurity" makes an inutitive kind of common sense, unless you think about it for awhile, or are exposed to the flaws
Almost, but not quite. There is a value to obscurity, albeit extremely low.
I was forced to use it in a recent project. I cannot say what the project is, but I can give you an analogy. It's not even close to the real situation, but the security implications are nearly exact. Imagine a shrinkwrap box containing a software application. In order to prevent "piracy", you require the customer to call in for a key to unlock the software during installation.
You cannot rely on your customer having remote access to your key server. You can't ship dongles in the box because of resource limitations. And of course it's not feasible to send out customer support personnel to turn on the software. The final limitation is that all CD's are identical, differing only in the serial number stamped on them. How do you secure it?
The weak link is the algorithm. The scheme requires a hash. Once you know the hash algorithm and the necessary data to generate a key, it's broken. All you need is the source code (or the key generation program itself) and you're in.
In the above situation "security through obscurity" is your only choice. It's sucky security but it's still marginally better than no security at all.
"Would you like live or dead spiders for your breakfast sir?"
You're asking why a convicted child molester shouldn't be allowed to run a daycare center: "All sorts of other people can - what's so special about Mr. Child Molester?"
But that's exactly what the ruling means! Sun complained that Microsoft molested its kid, and now Microsoft is sentenced to community service at the day care center. Huh?
It's not about preinstall. It's about the fact that M$ deliberately includes an outdated & mangled (something like 5 years now) version of Java
Then why sentence the fox to guard duty at the henhouse?
Wouldn't a better solution be to forbid Windows from shipping Java at all? That why we can be sure that it CANNOT be b0rked by Billy Boy. Or why not rule that they have to ship free upgrades to a working Java to all their existing customers.
How, exactly, does Microsoft include Debian as part of the standard install?
Easy. They install as a loopback with an icon on the desktop. This has been done before many time by "demo" distributions. It would be stupid, of course, but it could be done.
You MS astroturfers really are a bunch of whiners.
I'm not an not an MS astroturfer. I don't use Windows. But I do have an ability to see beyond my dislike of Microsoft and catch a fleeting glimpse of the big picture.
The precedence that this brings will apply not to just Microsoft. It's a poor excuse for a stay, and if it stands as part of the final judgement, it would be a poor excuse for a penalty. Is there any precedence for this type of judgement? I am not aware of any. The job of the courts isn't to be creative.
This is an attempt to resolve a real case of damage. It's fair. The penalty matches the crime.
The penalty should match the crime. If this were a case about Microsoft reneging on a contract to ship with Java, then it would be appropriate. But that's not what this is about. It's about Microsoft sabotaging Java. Do you really want to sentence a child molester to community service at a kindergarten?
Well, what else? Who in his right mind would like to have his brain fondled by a MS product?"
What! Only two choices? What makes michael and hherb think WIndows and Linux are the only two operating systems available for embedded surgical devices?
Given a choice, I would much rather have a robosurgeon with QNX working on me than one with Linux. I've had Linux crash once on me in two years. That's fine for my desktop, but when it comes to scalpels and my brain, I just don't like those odds. If you can't even get a consensus from the major developers on what VM is best, then I sure as hell don't want it in robosurgeon.
Okay then, look at it from the opposite direction. How would you like if the court ordered Microsoft to include Debian as part of the standard install? What if they had to include *every* Linux distro? And the BSDs? And every potential competing product in existance, free, open or otherwise?
This ruling requires a company to ship its competitors product. This is bad juju, plain and simple. Don't let your hatred of Microsoft destroy your rationality.
while missing the insight that it's largely makework, either not essential or in very many cases capable of being done by the author.
The biggest task the publisher performs is marketing. Sure you could publish your work online, or use a vanity press, but if you desire to profit off the work, or heaven forbid try to make a living as an author, you need to sell it. Do you really want to sit in meetings all day with Barnes and Noble, Waldenbooks, Amazon, Ingram, Booksellers, etc? Or would you rather be writing? Frankly, the book distributors don't want to be in negotiations with a million individual authors either. So they choose to deal with a mere dozens of publishers instead.
Obviously there are people who use it and like it, and there has to be some basis in fact for its reputation as a good newbie distro
Mandrake is a good newbie distro. But that's precisely the problem. You're not a newbie forever. Eventually most users will graduate into the "somewhat experienced" class. Some will move on to the "moderately experienced" class. A few will make it to "expert" or even "guru" level.
But Mandrake sux for the expert and guru, and can be very annoying for the moderately experienced. "Centrist" distros like SuSE and Redhat are still easy enough for the newbie to install and configure, but not so dumbed-down that people are forced to graduate to other distros.
In short, Mandrake does not progress with the user.
able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or restraint
Sounds like a fine definition to me. I only used a different definition for the purposes of my parody.
The FSF likes to pretend that there are only two definitions of "free" in the English language: "no-cost" and "libre". This is not the case. You yourself say you had to go all the way to the third definition to find "no-cost". Looking up on www.m-w.com, I find fifteen definitions, not counting numerous subentries.
Does the "libre" in "Libreware" mean "not fastened", "not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being", "having no obligations or commitments", or "not literal or exact"?
"Free as in speech" is just too simplistic. "Free as in press" might have been a better choice. But it still goes beyond that. Which is why I prefer the term "Open Source Software".
Even though it is still a limited definition, it is at least slighly more precise, and less apt to cause confusion.
You have get to the 3rd definition before it starts talking about no-cost.
My parody/sarcasm used this definition. But it doesn't mean that's what I meant in my postscript. Most people outside of the Free Software Movement(tm) associate "free" software with "no cost". This is why no one gets confused when download.com offers "free software" for download.
The point of my parody was to point out in a sarcastic manner that "Free Software" is more easily misunderstood by those uninitiated into the Movement(tm) than "Open Source Software".
Slashdot Mirror
I used to dabble in scifi until I started hitting the general fiction/nonfiction shelves and found that in general, the quality of writing is much higher when there isn't a pixie or a dragon or a robot on the book's cover.
That's because too many scifi/fantasy authors think all they need to do is have a pixie, dragon or robot. This trend isn't limited to these genres. You can find shallow works in mystery, action/adventure and romance as well.
But there are numerous exceptions. You would do well to seek them out. This is what the poster is asking: what are the exceptions for this current crop of authors?
I am looking for the new RAH/Piers Anthony/Roger Zelazny/Weis & Hickman etc..., of the world.
Okay, RAH may be old school. Maybe PA and RZ are nearing the that state. But Weis and Hickman? I remember when they first started mass producing tripe and wondering to myself what the state of scifi was coming to.
Old School is Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Clement, Smith, Niven, etc. Remember, the world didn't start the day you were born.
Seems to me that most big corporations have gutted their research budgets - especially when it comes to pure research like PARC was doing.
I'm with Siemens Ultrasound Division (formerly Acuson), and we still lead the way in the medical ultrasound technology. We invented computed sonography, doppler imaging, native tissue harmonic imaging, etc. We still have a research group that does nothing but come up with new amazing stuff. Like PARC, we won't develop all of the ideas into a marketable product, but we have some stuff in the pipeline that will amaze the medical world when it's released.
Enough about me. A lot of big corporations have pure research departments. As long as the tech corporation hasn't been taken over by the "stock price is everything" mentality of the dot.bombs, it will still have a research department. Think IBM, BASF, etc.
Oh yes. I remember way back in the day seeing a PARC workstation with an actual GUI, mouse and 17" monitor.
Now I use fancy 48x48 truecolor SVG icons from Everaldo, but they're conceptually no different from those 16x16 black and white icons on the PARC.
It's harder for old people because they're "set in their ways", not because a GUI in inherently childish.
My dad was never able to set the clock on the VCR, yet he was a whiz with the internal combustion engine.
I suspect that old hunter-gatherers marvelled at their kids ability to do that agriculture stuff.
He was talking about user preferences in Mozilla, not the damn wallpaper.
Each group may need different preferences for their homepage, as an example. Making everyone have the main corporate fluff page as their homepage is counterproductive.
4.8 will be out in a month. But don't tell Slashdot!
I've got a friend who is a hardcore P2P pirate. If he is any indication, then you won't find any free software because it's legally free. They don't want legally free, they want to steal. They judge the value of software on its retail price.
Quote one: "No I don't want to borrow your Linux CD, it's free you idiot! Why would I want it if it's free?"
Quote two: "What do you mean you don't want a ripped Photoshop? It's $500 in stores you idiot!"
p.s. Yeah, we really are friends. I call him an idiot just as often. It's how we show each other that we care.
Shhhh! If we're lucky, we might actually get a release announcement before some Slashdot editor shoots his wad all over FreeBSD's bandwidth.
sensible defaults...
...for an ex-windows user.
I just laughed Dr. Pepper up my nose! Ow ow ow Ooooh what a rush...
Where was I? Oh yeah.
Glad you tagged on that modifier. For ex-Windows users, automatically booting into passwordless root accounts could very well be a sensible default.
"Write once, run anywhere" is a great goal. I wish all the applications I wrote did that.
But it is not the only goal. You also want speed and smallness. Java doesn't cut it in the speed department for GUI applications.
A lot of developers give execution speed and UI latency a higher priority than "write once, hope it runs on the platform I never tested."
People who argue that obscurity has "some" value miss a very important point: it's worse than no security at all, because it leads you to believe that you're doing something, when actually you're not.
In our case, we are very much aware that we have an extremely weak link. I made sure the bosses above me knew this. We are certainly not pretending that we have a secure system.
If the customer calls in to register their product, and the only piece of information you're basing your "security" on is the serialnumber, what's to stop the user from registering it, then passing that registration key (and the serial number) on to someone else?
In our case we use time limited keys and user IDs, with logging of all authentication attempts.
But rest assured that we don't consider this adequate security any more than putting a deadbolt on a screen door would be. We've managed to keep out flies and dumb mammals.
Our reason for the "security" system is not so much for the protection of our IP (although the IP guys glommed onto it as well), but to protect the warranty.
"Security through obscurity" makes an inutitive kind of common sense, unless you think about it for awhile, or are exposed to the flaws
Almost, but not quite. There is a value to obscurity, albeit extremely low.
I was forced to use it in a recent project. I cannot say what the project is, but I can give you an analogy. It's not even close to the real situation, but the security implications are nearly exact. Imagine a shrinkwrap box containing a software application. In order to prevent "piracy", you require the customer to call in for a key to unlock the software during installation.
You cannot rely on your customer having remote access to your key server. You can't ship dongles in the box because of resource limitations. And of course it's not feasible to send out customer support personnel to turn on the software. The final limitation is that all CD's are identical, differing only in the serial number stamped on them. How do you secure it?
The weak link is the algorithm. The scheme requires a hash. Once you know the hash algorithm and the necessary data to generate a key, it's broken. All you need is the source code (or the key generation program itself) and you're in.
In the above situation "security through obscurity" is your only choice. It's sucky security but it's still marginally better than no security at all.
"Would you like live or dead spiders for your breakfast sir?"
"Ummm, dead please..."
You're asking why a convicted child molester shouldn't be allowed to run a daycare center: "All sorts of other people can - what's so special about Mr. Child Molester?"
But that's exactly what the ruling means! Sun complained that Microsoft molested its kid, and now Microsoft is sentenced to community service at the day care center. Huh?
Besides, if you read the fucking article, you'd learn that MS and Sun had an agreement where MS would ship Java.
"The fucking article", being the one at the top of this story, says no such thing.
It's not about preinstall. It's about the fact that M$ deliberately includes an outdated & mangled (something like 5 years now) version of Java
Then why sentence the fox to guard duty at the henhouse?
Wouldn't a better solution be to forbid Windows from shipping Java at all? That why we can be sure that it CANNOT be b0rked by Billy Boy. Or why not rule that they have to ship free upgrades to a working Java to all their existing customers.
How, exactly, does Microsoft include Debian as part of the standard install?
Easy. They install as a loopback with an icon on the desktop. This has been done before many time by "demo" distributions. It would be stupid, of course, but it could be done.
You MS astroturfers really are a bunch of whiners.
I'm not an not an MS astroturfer. I don't use Windows. But I do have an ability to see beyond my dislike of Microsoft and catch a fleeting glimpse of the big picture.
The precedence that this brings will apply not to just Microsoft. It's a poor excuse for a stay, and if it stands as part of the final judgement, it would be a poor excuse for a penalty. Is there any precedence for this type of judgement? I am not aware of any. The job of the courts isn't to be creative.
This is an attempt to resolve a real case of damage. It's fair. The penalty matches the crime.
The penalty should match the crime. If this were a case about Microsoft reneging on a contract to ship with Java, then it would be appropriate. But that's not what this is about. It's about Microsoft sabotaging Java. Do you really want to sentence a child molester to community service at a kindergarten?
Well, what else? Who in his right mind would like to have his brain fondled by a MS product?"
What! Only two choices? What makes michael and hherb think WIndows and Linux are the only two operating systems available for embedded surgical devices?
Given a choice, I would much rather have a robosurgeon with QNX working on me than one with Linux. I've had Linux crash once on me in two years. That's fine for my desktop, but when it comes to scalpels and my brain, I just don't like those odds. If you can't even get a consensus from the major developers on what VM is best, then I sure as hell don't want it in robosurgeon.
Of course, Debian isn't an abusive monopoly
Okay then, look at it from the opposite direction. How would you like if the court ordered Microsoft to include Debian as part of the standard install? What if they had to include *every* Linux distro? And the BSDs? And every potential competing product in existance, free, open or otherwise?
This ruling requires a company to ship its competitors product. This is bad juju, plain and simple. Don't let your hatred of Microsoft destroy your rationality.
while missing the insight that it's largely makework, either not essential or in very many cases capable of being done by the author.
The biggest task the publisher performs is marketing. Sure you could publish your work online, or use a vanity press, but if you desire to profit off the work, or heaven forbid try to make a living as an author, you need to sell it. Do you really want to sit in meetings all day with Barnes and Noble, Waldenbooks, Amazon, Ingram, Booksellers, etc? Or would you rather be writing? Frankly, the book distributors don't want to be in negotiations with a million individual authors either. So they choose to deal with a mere dozens of publishers instead.
Obviously there are people who use it and like it, and there has to be some basis in fact for its reputation as a good newbie distro
Mandrake is a good newbie distro. But that's precisely the problem. You're not a newbie forever. Eventually most users will graduate into the "somewhat experienced" class. Some will move on to the "moderately experienced" class. A few will make it to "expert" or even "guru" level.
But Mandrake sux for the expert and guru, and can be very annoying for the moderately experienced. "Centrist" distros like SuSE and Redhat are still easy enough for the newbie to install and configure, but not so dumbed-down that people are forced to graduate to other distros.
In short, Mandrake does not progress with the user.
able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or restraint
Sounds like a fine definition to me. I only used a different definition for the purposes of my parody.
The FSF likes to pretend that there are only two definitions of "free" in the English language: "no-cost" and "libre". This is not the case. You yourself say you had to go all the way to the third definition to find "no-cost". Looking up on www.m-w.com, I find fifteen definitions, not counting numerous subentries.
Does the "libre" in "Libreware" mean "not fastened", "not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being", "having no obligations or commitments", or "not literal or exact"?
"Free as in speech" is just too simplistic. "Free as in press" might have been a better choice. But it still goes beyond that. Which is why I prefer the term "Open Source Software".
Even though it is still a limited definition, it is at least slighly more precise, and less apt to cause confusion.
You have get to the 3rd definition before it starts talking about no-cost.
My parody/sarcasm used this definition. But it doesn't mean that's what I meant in my postscript. Most people outside of the Free Software Movement(tm) associate "free" software with "no cost". This is why no one gets confused when download.com offers "free software" for download.
The point of my parody was to point out in a sarcastic manner that "Free Software" is more easily misunderstood by those uninitiated into the Movement(tm) than "Open Source Software".
Nah, I still prefer "open source", because so far no one has managed to warp its meaning to any great extent.
to be more explicit, is khtml licensed under the gpl, lgpl or some other license which the free software foundation agrees is fully free
Unpacking the source to double check... LGPL, as are most components of kdelibs.
Oh please please yes!