And given that our first flight involved a simple "up and down" -- no real orbits -- for Alan B. Shepard, and that Cooper's flight was the sixth flight of the U.S. program -- let's just say I wouldn't be ringing those bells of arrogance quite yet.
The Russians managed three full orbits on their first try. We didn't do that until Glenn, our third flight.
The Chinese, as always, have a plan for future exploration. What plan does NASA have?
And let's hope the Chinese do better than NASA, the latter having killed their astronauts with stupid bureaucratic decisions.
For those who question the need for protection from lawsuits, consider that you can be sued for publishing the truth. Also, a distributed system is less vulnerable to destruction than is a central-storage system.
Opengov intends to illuminate of the dark corners of government where nasty things hide, by collecting information from a contributors. Done properly, it will combine information from all sides of the political spectrum to produce a coherent picture of our government. I have high hopes for its success.
Having a platonic fondness for ducks, I was intrigued by Dr. Moeliker's report. Reading the paper left me pondering the nature of a universe in which:
A scientist spends 75 minutes watching one dead animal rape another's corpse.
Said scientist collects and dissects the deceased victim, producing a six-page report (with citations!)
I actually read this report when I really should be doing something else with my time.
Perhaps Dr. Moeliker's work stands as a monument to the curiosity of the human mind, and the need to laugh even as we ponder insane questions. At least he didn't duck the issues...
For the most part, you're correct: the problem with ebooks isn't the concept, its the current implementation. However, ebooks do suffer from serious limitatiosn by nature:
Technical obsolescence. Store an ebook on a CD, and try to read it in a crystal-matrix read five years from now.
Format obsolescence. Buy an ebook in "X" format today, and then try to read it in five years when the developer of "X" is no longer in business.
Power. Ebooks require electricity to use; I can read a peper book without anything other than my eyes (at least during the day or bright-moon nights).
Those issues are less technological and more social; I have books in my collection that date back hundreds of years. Will someone be able to read your 2003 ebook in 2153?
I'm not saying ebooks are bad, or wrong, or unethical, or impossible. I am saying that they have a very long way to go before they are as good or better than paper books -- particularly for fiction and other non-technical topics.
I've looked into it seriously for the last couple of years, and so have other authors of my acquaintance; with a few exceptions, eBooks just don't pay the bills.
From the consumer standpoint, reading an eBooks is unpleasant. I get a nasty headache reading for sustained periods from even the best displays. Handheld devices are too small, large screens aren't portable -- and an "old fashioned" paper book doesn't require power, nor will a "real" book become unreadable because of changing formats and hardware standards.
I see ebooks as a suplement to -- and not a replacement for -- paper books. Audio books have found a very comfortable place in the market; ebooks, I'm sure, will find their own niche.
When I first started working on an OpenMP extension to gcc, I bristled at the FSF copyright assignment process.
I was wrong. I now see the value in FSF copyright assignments, which create a paper trail for documenting contributions to free software.
While the SCO attack dogs are extortionists, their greedy actions have shown weaknesses in the free-wheeling process of Linux development.
The "free" and "open" software communities can argue, until they are blue in the face, about the validity of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other forms of owning ideas. Under existing law and practice, however, those concepts do exist, with the weight of law and tradition behind them -- and ignoring that reality is foolhardy.
Think of copyright assignment as akin to virus protection. I shouldn't have to protect myself against malicious software, but I am wise to do so. By the same principle, tracking contributions to the kernel is excellent protection from the desperate shakedown tactics of a company like SCO.
The bright age of science and technology rode a wave of optimism and hope. We'd split the atom, attained flight, done the impossible -- the first 3/4s of the 20th Century can be defined by a long list of extraordinary accomplishments and advancements.
And then it all fell apart, in a blaze of disappointment.
The flying cars never appeared; the human condition didn't improve; lunar landings brought back a few rocks that were more important politically than scientifically. We found that our technologies had dark sides -- nuclear waste, ozone holes, deforestation, (maybe) global warming -- and the bright future of science faded.
Science fiction, even in its darkest forms, is a result of optimism, an assumption that humanity could conquer anything. Once that dream was perceived as myth, science was no longer trendy, or fun, or even desirable. Education (in the U.S., at least) has deteriorated, and a pervasive malaise spread across the world.
The state of science fiction reflects a deep, world-wide depression. We've retreated into fantasies; we find more comfort with swords and magic than we do in beakers and machines. Even our science fiction is anti-technology, with frightening futures underlying the Matrix, Terminator, and other SF "icons."
Much as I have loved science fiction, I lament more the passing of human adventure, the can-do spirit, the desire to break rules, to reach beyond our boundaries and discover. Without those fundamental desires, humanity walks an increasingly tired road.
Close, but not quite correct. It is the U.S. corporations who wish to quash the rights of U.S. citizens. The government is just their mercenaries.
Indeed.
Capitalistic governments are little more than agents for transnational corporations. There's nothing wrong with business, or profit -- the problem is greed and gluttony. A case in point: profiteering in Iraq by companies associated with Bush's cronies (Cheney and Haliburton, for example).
And don't get me started on corporate-controlled WTO policies in regard to generic medicines for "developing" nations...
Let me get this straight -- if I go to a public library, my browsing is censored by mandate of the U.S. government (unless the librarians are rebels, of course).
But an Iranian can browse the web free of government-imposed censorship?
Aarrrgggghhhhhh!
Actually, the dichotomy makes sense: the U.S. government wants to control its own populace while mucking about in the politics of other countries. The U.S. government doesn't care about the freedoms of the Iranian people; it just wants to undermine the Iranian government.
Well, I hope those Iranians enjoy their freedom now; as soon as the U.S. trumps up enough false data to "liberate" Iran, they'll be in the same boat we are in terms of censorship and spying.
I wasn't surprised by much of the CAIB report said; it serves as an excellent history of how we came to be where we are, and it states what needs to be done for a successful future. There's a lot of "good stuff" in the report, applicable to anyone involved in creating complex systems.
I found two paragraphs particularly apropos to any engineering endeavour (including computer programming):
Many accident investigations do not go far enough. They identify the technical cause of the accident, and then connect it to a variant of operator error -- the line worker who forgot to insert the bolt, the engineer who miscalculated the stress, or the manager who made the wrong decision. But this is seldom the entire issue. When the determinations of the causal chain are limited to the technical flaw and individual failure, typically the actions taken to prevent a similar event in the future are also limited: fix the technical problem and replace or retrain the individual responsible. Putting these corrections in place leads to another mistake the belief that the problem is solved.
The Board did not want to make these errors. Attempting to manage high-risk technologies while minimizing failures is an extraordinary challenge. By their nature, these complex technologies are intricate, with many interrelated parts. Standing alone, the components may be well understood and have failure modes that can be anticipated. Yet when these components are integrated into a larger system, unanticipated interactions can occur that lead to catastrophic outcomes. The risk of these complex systems is increased when they are produced and operated by complex organizations that also break down in unanticipated ways.
In those words lie the roots of most technical failures.
..., the truth is, SCO's campaign is spreading fear, undertainty, and doubt about Unix, Linux, GNU, and any software that does not originate in Redmond. Microsoft benefits by default, whether they orchestrated the situation or not.
Traditional corporate structures already distrusted 'free' and 'open' software as alien concepts; SCO's tactics only reinforce the underlying feeling that 'free' software is associated with communists, heretrics, and software pirates.
Free software is one of several forces trying to force changes in the religion of Capitalism; it is a new Reformation. Companies like Microsoft will fight back, tooth and nail, by whatever means they can find -- including surrogate wars waged by SCO.
...not for serious data analysis. The graphing modules are weak, and it still tends to crash at in opportune moments. Try sorting a table containing forty columns, for instance, and see how the dialog box refuses to list all the column headings.
And Gnumeric's greatest weakness -- it is, for the most part, a direct clone of Excel. No real innovation, no new ideas, just an imitation that conveniently runs on my Linux systems. Convenience is nice, but I'd like to see some serious attempts at improving the spreadsheet model.
...is that they have one solution for everyone. And one size just doesn't fit all, no matter how good your marketing campaign.
I'm experimenting with my diet to improve my health; I find that caffeine stabilizes my moods and helps me sleep. But that's my whacked-out biochemistry; I certainly don't expect others to have the same reaction.
Everything we consume can be viewed as a drug; individual metabolisms and lifestyles determine what is "good" or "bad" for our bodies. We need freedom of individual choice, not dictates from ideologues.
For the purposes of home schooling, I use Python. The interactive nature of Python resembles the old MBasic and GBasic interpretters; immediate feedback is terrific for learning.
Python's capabilities scale nicely between simple "hello world" and complex applications; my daughters can gradually learn concepts and techniques.
All of these tools address different aspects of numerical computing. A mixture of languages and tools will generally produce the best results.
I've been experimenting with a number of scientific programming packages, ranging from traditional languages like Fortran 95 to new developments like SciPy. Of the "new" approaches, I like SciPy the best, given its support for MPI and ease of linking to traditional languages.
Support for NUMA and SMP architectures is severely lacking in most "free" packages. This may, in some respects, be due to the lack of parallel support on gcc (although there is an effort underway (gomp) to add OpenMP support to gcc).
Parallelism is important to any large-scale numerical application -- and PDL, as yet, does not appear to support SMP, NUMA, or cluster architectures. I know there are attempts at adding parallel support to Perl, but haven't seen much activity with them.
GSL does not implement any parallel algorithms; according to this post by Brian Gough (), GSL is not designed to support parallelism.
I program Java for several customers, from scientific to business apllications.
Autoboxing is yet another way of hiding overhead; the wrapper classes still exist, but are now a big "secret" masked by autoboxing.
Why add autoboxing to make containers look more "natural with POD types, then ignore the crying need to operator overloading in scientific and engineering applications? Why one piece of syntactic sugar as opposed to another?
Overall, I'm not terribly impressed. The new generics seem weak; I don't see an emphasis on fixing bugs, stability, or independent standardization. Much as I like Java, 1.5 does not address most of my needs.
Oddly enough, I was involved in a discussion of this very topic today!
My mother is an office manager for a "Safety Council"; my wife is an administrator in the American Red Cross. I also worked for a compnay the designed a SQL Server-based databank for the Red Cross.
Both organizations are tied tightly to Microsoft, in part because of the freebies, and in part because of corporate culture. They'd be silly to turn down millions in free software, especially hwne it is the same software they already use.
Do I take the free (as in beer) software that I know, or the free (as in leberty) software that I'll need to retool and retrain my staff for? Add in data conversion and other factors to see why the non-profits drink the Microsoft beer.
I'd rather the Red Cross take free software from Microsoft than have them lay off disaster personnel so they can retrain and retool for "free" software. People don't give a flip about Linux-vs.-Microsoft when their house is spread across three counties.
As for non-profits being "lucrative" -- no organization that relies on donations is lucrative; non-profit means limited budgets.
That's not to say that Microsoft doesn't recognize the benefits of "giving." Perhaps someone at Microsoft gets a warm fuzzy feeling from donating software, and I'm certain that their accountants like the associated tax write-off. But I'm sure it hasn't been lost on Microsoft that giving software to non-profits is both good advertising and good training.
Is Microsoft being Machiavellian? Yes. Does it matter? Probably not.
Spiders and lizards and fuzzies, oh my!
on
Ant Farm PC
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I've found all sorts of strange critters living in my systems. Back about ten years ago, I opened a 386 to find a Black Widow merrily tending her egg sacks in a web built around the power supply.
I had a system offline for a couple of months; When I started it up last week, I heard something inside. Upon examination, I found an anole (small lizard) inside the case. Those dang things get in everywhere... they even move in with my Uromastyx sometimes. Must think he's their big brother or something.
But I can't see building a specific house for ants in my computer. After all, I live in Florida, and wage war against fire ants almost daily...
I know it was an OEM copy. Why should Microsoft care where I install it? The OEM paid Microsoft (actually, I did, by paying the OEM), so where does Microsoft lose anything by allowing me to install a purchased product where I want it?
I've been moving my work onto Linux, gradually, for several years now. I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, ten years ago, I was very pleased with many products coming out of Redmond. But as time has passed, Microsoft's products have bloated while their business practices leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Their licensing policies are the last straw; their greedy stupidities drive me nuts. Example: I bought a machine recently that came with a new copy Windows XP. I installed Linux on that machine, wanting to put the XP on one of my other boxes. But this copy of XP won't upgrade an existing installation of Windows 2000! Microsoft's reponse: I can only install the XP on a the machine it is "assigned" to!
Can someone please explain to me how Microsoft loses anything by my installing a "new" XP over an existing installation? Why do they care what machine I install the product on, so long as I've paid for it? Their arrogance is amazing; it is the result of corporate feudalism. I, for one, do not wish to be their peasant or peon.
As it is, I do 90% of my work on Linux now; I have only one Windows machine in my office, and it is used to simplify my interface with the MS world. But my next book is being written on Linux using AbiWord, LyX, and TeX, and I no longer take jobs that require MS products. A minor financial hit, to be sure, but a choice I can survive.
Microsoft lost me as a customer because of their attitude, not their product.
Slashdot Mirror
Kudos to Larry McVoy, owner of BitKeeper, who caught this little piece of interesting skullduggery.
And given that our first flight involved a simple "up and down" -- no real orbits -- for Alan B. Shepard, and that Cooper's flight was the sixth flight of the U.S. program -- let's just say I wouldn't be ringing those bells of arrogance quite yet.
The Russians managed three full orbits on their first try. We didn't do that until Glenn, our third flight.
The Chinese, as always, have a plan for future exploration. What plan does NASA have?
And let's hope the Chinese do better than NASA, the latter having killed their astronauts with stupid bureaucratic decisions.
For those who question the need for protection from lawsuits, consider that you can be sued for publishing the truth. Also, a distributed system is less vulnerable to destruction than is a central-storage system.
Opengov intends to illuminate of the dark corners of government where nasty things hide, by collecting information from a contributors. Done properly, it will combine information from all sides of the political spectrum to produce a coherent picture of our government. I have high hopes for its success.
Having a platonic fondness for ducks, I was intrigued by Dr. Moeliker's report. Reading the paper left me pondering the nature of a universe in which:
Perhaps Dr. Moeliker's work stands as a monument to the curiosity of the human mind, and the need to laugh even as we ponder insane questions. At least he didn't duck the issues...
For the most part, you're correct: the problem with ebooks isn't the concept, its the current implementation. However, ebooks do suffer from serious limitatiosn by nature:
Those issues are less technological and more social; I have books in my collection that date back hundreds of years. Will someone be able to read your 2003 ebook in 2153?
I'm not saying ebooks are bad, or wrong, or unethical, or impossible. I am saying that they have a very long way to go before they are as good or better than paper books -- particularly for fiction and other non-technical topics.
Theft of ebooks has been almost non-existent. The issue isn't "copyright" or "control" -- it's the fact that not enough people are buying ebooks.
I've looked into it seriously for the last couple of years, and so have other authors of my acquaintance; with a few exceptions, eBooks just don't pay the bills.
From the consumer standpoint, reading an eBooks is unpleasant. I get a nasty headache reading for sustained periods from even the best displays. Handheld devices are too small, large screens aren't portable -- and an "old fashioned" paper book doesn't require power, nor will a "real" book become unreadable because of changing formats and hardware standards.
I see ebooks as a suplement to -- and not a replacement for -- paper books. Audio books have found a very comfortable place in the market; ebooks, I'm sure, will find their own niche.
When I first started working on an OpenMP extension to gcc, I bristled at the FSF copyright assignment process.
I was wrong. I now see the value in FSF copyright assignments, which create a paper trail for documenting contributions to free software.
While the SCO attack dogs are extortionists, their greedy actions have shown weaknesses in the free-wheeling process of Linux development.
The "free" and "open" software communities can argue, until they are blue in the face, about the validity of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other forms of owning ideas. Under existing law and practice, however, those concepts do exist, with the weight of law and tradition behind them -- and ignoring that reality is foolhardy.
Think of copyright assignment as akin to virus protection. I shouldn't have to protect myself against malicious software, but I am wise to do so. By the same principle, tracking contributions to the kernel is excellent protection from the desperate shakedown tactics of a company like SCO.
The bright age of science and technology rode a wave of optimism and hope. We'd split the atom, attained flight, done the impossible -- the first 3/4s of the 20th Century can be defined by a long list of extraordinary accomplishments and advancements.
And then it all fell apart, in a blaze of disappointment.
The flying cars never appeared; the human condition didn't improve; lunar landings brought back a few rocks that were more important politically than scientifically. We found that our technologies had dark sides -- nuclear waste, ozone holes, deforestation, (maybe) global warming -- and the bright future of science faded.
Science fiction, even in its darkest forms, is a result of optimism, an assumption that humanity could conquer anything. Once that dream was perceived as myth, science was no longer trendy, or fun, or even desirable. Education (in the U.S., at least) has deteriorated, and a pervasive malaise spread across the world.
The state of science fiction reflects a deep, world-wide depression. We've retreated into fantasies; we find more comfort with swords and magic than we do in beakers and machines. Even our science fiction is anti-technology, with frightening futures underlying the Matrix, Terminator, and other SF "icons."
Much as I have loved science fiction, I lament more the passing of human adventure, the can-do spirit, the desire to break rules, to reach beyond our boundaries and discover. Without those fundamental desires, humanity walks an increasingly tired road.
Indeed.
Capitalistic governments are little more than agents for transnational corporations. There's nothing wrong with business, or profit -- the problem is greed and gluttony. A case in point: profiteering in Iraq by companies associated with Bush's cronies (Cheney and Haliburton, for example).
And don't get me started on corporate-controlled WTO policies in regard to generic medicines for "developing" nations...
Let me get this straight -- if I go to a public library, my browsing is censored by mandate of the U.S. government (unless the librarians are rebels, of course).
But an Iranian can browse the web free of government-imposed censorship?
Aarrrgggghhhhhh!
Actually, the dichotomy makes sense: the U.S. government wants to control its own populace while mucking about in the politics of other countries. The U.S. government doesn't care about the freedoms of the Iranian people; it just wants to undermine the Iranian government.
Well, I hope those Iranians enjoy their freedom now; as soon as the U.S. trumps up enough false data to "liberate" Iran, they'll be in the same boat we are in terms of censorship and spying.
"May you live in interesting times", indeed.
Beautifully said.
I wasn't surprised by much of the CAIB report said; it serves as an excellent history of how we came to be where we are, and it states what needs to be done for a successful future. There's a lot of "good stuff" in the report, applicable to anyone involved in creating complex systems.
I found two paragraphs particularly apropos to any engineering endeavour (including computer programming):
In those words lie the roots of most technical failures.
Traditional corporate structures already distrusted 'free' and 'open' software as alien concepts; SCO's tactics only reinforce the underlying feeling that 'free' software is associated with communists, heretrics, and software pirates.
Free software is one of several forces trying to force changes in the religion of Capitalism; it is a new Reformation. Companies like Microsoft will fight back, tooth and nail, by whatever means they can find -- including surrogate wars waged by SCO.
Too bad the U.S. government lacks the balls to apply organized crime laws against companies like SCO.
And Gnumeric's greatest weakness -- it is, for the most part, a direct clone of Excel. No real innovation, no new ideas, just an imitation that conveniently runs on my Linux systems. Convenience is nice, but I'd like to see some serious attempts at improving the spreadsheet model.
I'm experimenting with my diet to improve my health; I find that caffeine stabilizes my moods and helps me sleep. But that's my whacked-out biochemistry; I certainly don't expect others to have the same reaction.
Everything we consume can be viewed as a drug; individual metabolisms and lifestyles determine what is "good" or "bad" for our bodies. We need freedom of individual choice, not dictates from ideologues.
For the purposes of home schooling, I use Python. The interactive nature of Python resembles the old MBasic and GBasic interpretters; immediate feedback is terrific for learning.
Python's capabilities scale nicely between simple "hello world" and complex applications; my daughters can gradually learn concepts and techniques.
All of these tools address different aspects of numerical computing. A mixture of languages and tools will generally produce the best results.
I've been experimenting with a number of scientific programming packages, ranging from traditional languages like Fortran 95 to new developments like SciPy. Of the "new" approaches, I like SciPy the best, given its support for MPI and ease of linking to traditional languages.
Support for NUMA and SMP architectures is severely lacking in most "free" packages. This may, in some respects, be due to the lack of parallel support on gcc (although there is an effort underway (gomp) to add OpenMP support to gcc).
Parallelism is important to any large-scale numerical application -- and PDL, as yet, does not appear to support SMP, NUMA, or cluster architectures. I know there are attempts at adding parallel support to Perl, but haven't seen much activity with them.
GSL does not implement any parallel algorithms; according to this post by Brian Gough (), GSL is not designed to support parallelism.
I program Java for several customers, from scientific to business apllications.
Autoboxing is yet another way of hiding overhead; the wrapper classes still exist, but are now a big "secret" masked by autoboxing.
Why add autoboxing to make containers look more "natural with POD types, then ignore the crying need to operator overloading in scientific and engineering applications? Why one piece of syntactic sugar as opposed to another?
Overall, I'm not terribly impressed. The new generics seem weak; I don't see an emphasis on fixing bugs, stability, or independent standardization. Much as I like Java, 1.5 does not address most of my needs.
Oddly enough, I was involved in a discussion of this very topic today!
My mother is an office manager for a "Safety Council"; my wife is an administrator in the American Red Cross. I also worked for a compnay the designed a SQL Server-based databank for the Red Cross.
Both organizations are tied tightly to Microsoft, in part because of the freebies, and in part because of corporate culture. They'd be silly to turn down millions in free software, especially hwne it is the same software they already use.
Do I take the free (as in beer) software that I know, or the free (as in leberty) software that I'll need to retool and retrain my staff for? Add in data conversion and other factors to see why the non-profits drink the Microsoft beer.
I'd rather the Red Cross take free software from Microsoft than have them lay off disaster personnel so they can retrain and retool for "free" software. People don't give a flip about Linux-vs.-Microsoft when their house is spread across three counties.
As for non-profits being "lucrative" -- no organization that relies on donations is lucrative; non-profit means limited budgets.
That's not to say that Microsoft doesn't recognize the benefits of "giving." Perhaps someone at Microsoft gets a warm fuzzy feeling from donating software, and I'm certain that their accountants like the associated tax write-off. But I'm sure it hasn't been lost on Microsoft that giving software to non-profits is both good advertising and good training.
Is Microsoft being Machiavellian? Yes. Does it matter? Probably not.
I've found all sorts of strange critters living in my systems. Back about ten years ago, I opened a 386 to find a Black Widow merrily tending her egg sacks in a web built around the power supply. I had a system offline for a couple of months; When I started it up last week, I heard something inside. Upon examination, I found an anole (small lizard) inside the case. Those dang things get in everywhere... they even move in with my Uromastyx sometimes. Must think he's their big brother or something. But I can't see building a specific house for ants in my computer. After all, I live in Florida, and wage war against fire ants almost daily...
I know it was an OEM copy. Why should Microsoft care where I install it? The OEM paid Microsoft (actually, I did, by paying the OEM), so where does Microsoft lose anything by allowing me to install a purchased product where I want it?
Actually, my final solution is the same as yours: I'm sticking with Win2K. I just can't stomach Microsoft's activation policies and other nonsense.
I've been moving my work onto Linux, gradually, for several years now. I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, ten years ago, I was very pleased with many products coming out of Redmond. But as time has passed, Microsoft's products have bloated while their business practices leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Their licensing policies are the last straw; their greedy stupidities drive me nuts. Example: I bought a machine recently that came with a new copy Windows XP. I installed Linux on that machine, wanting to put the XP on one of my other boxes. But this copy of XP won't upgrade an existing installation of Windows 2000! Microsoft's reponse: I can only install the XP on a the machine it is "assigned" to!
Can someone please explain to me how Microsoft loses anything by my installing a "new" XP over an existing installation? Why do they care what machine I install the product on, so long as I've paid for it? Their arrogance is amazing; it is the result of corporate feudalism. I, for one, do not wish to be their peasant or peon.
As it is, I do 90% of my work on Linux now; I have only one Windows machine in my office, and it is used to simplify my interface with the MS world. But my next book is being written on Linux using AbiWord, LyX, and TeX, and I no longer take jobs that require MS products. A minor financial hit, to be sure, but a choice I can survive.
Microsoft lost me as a customer because of their attitude, not their product.