Or the fact that gcc 3.0 is *still* to buggy to produce compliant code
Compliant with what?
I'm using gcc 3.0.3 for large (100K+ lines of code) without any problems. And at least it's closer than 2.9x.x to ANSI C99 and Standard C++...
Of course, my code is 100% Standard C++, which may be why I'm not having a problem. The kernel and many other projects use gcc-unique features that may be broken in version 3.0.x.
Granted, gcc does have bugs and some code-generation problems on some platforms. But it's worked well for me, so I guess I haven't any complaints.
"Frell" is a word used on the TV series Farscape; it has the nice ability to replace many different cuss words with on catch-all phrase. For example: "To frell with it!" or "Frell you." And using "frell" avoid those nasty negative moderations that can so bruise my tender ego.
As for "fuck", "hell", and other cursatives: I make sailors blush, youngster; I've been coding so long, I've had to invent or borrow new cuss words because I wore the old ones out. I'm bored with "fuck" the word "although not the act, mind you), and am looking for new, fresh alternatives.
I've been building my cluster from various remaindered/cast-off/refurbished machines I find. Computer Geeks is a good source.
Load balancing is frelling difficult, but I've been doing some solid parallel programming work that translates nicely to "real" clusters. I'd love to buy one of the Rocket Calc boxes -- but I can make a darned nice box for a lot less money with more processing power, if I'm willing to have cables and such all over the place.
The only real cluster-related problem I have is my lovely wife. She's one of those people who want things to "match" (so why in frell did she marry me?), and my "heterogenous" cluster just isn't very aesthetic. She just doesn't understand that the cluster's job is to compute, not to look pretty!
Then again, the Rocket Calc machines are attractive, and the color would go with the living room furniture...
...looks very good. Gentoo, like Sorcerer, builds an installation from source. It looks like I can create a fine-grained, very targeted installtion with Gentoo, so I'll try it out on a new box next week and see how it works.
Exactly my point. There is no testing by the kernel developers, which is why people like Alan Cox are involved. Essentially, Linus produces a raw kernel with his perview as kernel leader; it is up to distributors to make sure they created a reliable kernel from the raw material.
Which begs the question: Why were so many people upset with Alan about his stance on the VM? Alan's kernel is Alan's kernel (i.e., RedHat's kernel, among others); he is taking the repsonsibility for selling a kernel, and I don;t see why it should offend anyone that Alan wants to be absolutely sure of stability. Linus doesn;t *care* is the kernel is stable... that's not his job.
If we want Linux to succeed, then the community must take just as much responsibility for QA as the kernel hackers do for coding.
Is Linux 2.4 unstable? It depends on your perspective and luck. I'm running 2.4.8 and 2.2.19 (Debian potato) on my systems successfully; 2.8.9 thru.12 have been glitchy for me, especially when it comes to running big jobs that stress the VM. Haven't tried anything above.12 yet; I'm waiting for.18. My old cluster runs 2.2 simply because I have no reason to change.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
I do think that 2.4 has been managed poorly. People complain that Microsoft beta-tests software on thier customers -- yet that is precisely what the kernel team does to Linux users when they release a "stable" kernel with an entirely new VM. A couple months' (weeks'?) testing on developer workstations is not sufficient for an "enterprise" class operating system. Anyone who understands the least bit about complex systems knows that you don't replace critical architecture (the VM) without jeopardizing stability.
It's all water under the bridge now; I hope Linus and company have learned from the 2.4 battles. If 2.6 has the same kinds of problems and controversies... well, I prefer not to think about it. For my part, I plan to beat 2.5 beta kernels to death, to help the testing along. Testing is as important as kernel hacking -- even if it isn't as sexy.
...include newsgroups, public code archives, and books. Several times a year, I'll receive a note from some teacher who suspects that a student turned in code from one of my books! Spend any time on technical newsgroups, and you'll learn to identify the students who are looking for free help with their homework... ugh.
One fool actually asked me to translate one of my Java programs into C for him so he could use it in his class! What a yutz.
To make a "cheating detector" work, they'll need to compare student's work against the vast body of public domain, published, and open source code found in the wild. And that just isn't practical. With the current system, they're only going to catch those who cheat off each other, or those who copy from the same source.
An honest environment -- such as fostered by "free" software -- is both good and bad. On one hand, I (as a programmer) am comforted to read the kernel mailing list and other resources that let me know exactly what is happening with my tools. I don't need to wonder what's happening with "free" software -- and this is more comforting to an engineer like myself than is the closed-door, silence-is-golden, hide-the-bugs policy of a Microsoft.
On the other hand: Show this interview to an MIS manager who need 24/7/365 reliability, and she is going to be very nervous about deploying a Linux-based solution. You can talk until you're blue in the face about reliable distros and the open road to sofwtare quality -- what the MIS/corporate person sees is chaos and feels a lack of COMFORT.
"Out of sight, out of mind" is a philosophy many people adhere to, especially when dealing with complex issues they can not or do not want to grasp. From waste storage in Nevada to the the war in Afghanistan, most people lack the time and initiative to understand what is really happening; they go on appearances and marketing, and ignore complex and disturbing facts.
Technology is no different. The MIS manager doesn't want to hear about VM conflicts or file system bugs or different kernels -- such issues are beyond their capability and desire to understand. Buying Microsoft is (or was, until recently) comforting, because no one ever saw the internal debates and code battles and what-not that any development team expresses. Even recent security disclosures about WinXP are unlikely to shake the faithful -- but those same people will run in fear from the blunt honesty of Linux.
Ignorance may be bliss, but it can also get you killed. I know people whose lives depend on cars, but they have no knowledge of how to check the oil. Most MIS managers simply want to drive software; if it looks good (like a Jeep Liberty), they don't pay attention to whether it is safe (the Liberty performs poorly on crash tests).
I doubt, however, we're going to change human nature -- and I'd rather have spirited debate and even some nasty contention if it means that people are striving to make Linux the "best" it can be.
...because it makes writing programs easy. Steve Ballmer's "developer, developers, developers" rant is right on the money; people buy computers for the applications, not idealistic concerns. If Microsoft provides a clear, simple, productive path for application developers, developers will write for it and people will buy it.
It's all fine and dandy to be idealistic about freedom and the like, but a quick examination of society suggests that freedom means very little to your average consumer. What most people care about is convenience, the ease with which they can do their "thing." And Microsoft's CLR, while rough around the edges now, brings "convenience" to developer's lives.
I've developed a lot of code in the last couple of decades, and I gravitated to Java because it was an easy way to write GUIs. Sure, most of my work is the heavy lifting "under the hood" -- but it's the GUI that attracts users who buy product. You and I may love command-line environments, but that isn't what most people want or need. As one of my co-workers puts it, the GUI guys get all the glory -- and the CLR is a superior tool for GUI development.
Why use the CLR? Because unlike Java's Swing, GUI code written in the CLR is reasonably fast (through native widgets) and easy to use. The Visual Studio development environment takes most of the challenge out of GUI development -- and toys like NetBeans/Forte and KDevelop don't even come close to Visual Studio when it comes to easy development. The only advantage Java has now is portability...
The CLR has little or no affect on my engine development; I still write my code as portable C++/Fortran/whatever, and wrap it in a component architecture that can be dropped into a GUI. Microsoft has not made traditional compiled code obsolete -- what they've done is make MFC, ATL, and COM obsolete. In other words, Microsoft is creating a user-interface toolkit that can be used to wrap code that does heavy lifting. They're making it easy and efficient to write GUIs for Windows -- and that, my friends, is what is going to hurt Java and Linux.
The CLR isn't about getting rid of Intel, or platform independence; it's about attracting developers who write code that attracts user who sepnd money on Microsoft operating systems. The Linux developer community would be wise to spend more time on ease of use and less time tilting at windmills.
Let's put it this way... the editor I was working with wanted the book in Word, and he gave me a set of Word templates, and a couple of docs on how to use the templates. They weren't from the editor himself; in fact, he didn't know Word very well, and he got the templates and stuff from someone else at O'Reilly. Everything has the official "O'Reilly" stamp on it, so to speak.
Now, had I been given a choice, I'd probably have used TeX -- but I wasn't given a choice.
My book, BTW, is about C++, and has *nothing* to do with Windows per se.
RMS sometimes lives in a fantasy world, as evidenced by this quote from the article:
Most computer users use Microsoft Word. That is unfortunate for them, because Word is proprietary software, denying its users the freedom to study, change, copy, and redistribute it.
I hate to break it to you, Robert, but the vast majority of computer users couldn't program their way out of an "if" statement. And they don't want to program. You and I may have a grand time exploring code and writing software; most people just want to sit down, write a note to Aunt Emma, read the joke their kid sent them from college, or check the latest football score. They want to play Quake, not write it.
The freedom to examine a program's source code is meaningless to 99% of computer users. They'd rather spend a hundred (or two) bucks on an upgrade than learn C...
Now, as for getting rid of Word attachments, I totally agree. I also despise HTML e-mail. I'd love for them to go away -- but even some programmers I know can't send an e-mail unless it contains a dozen fonts and background images. And don't forget its easy to be on a religious crusade when you don't live in the real world. You may be able to tell people to stop sending Word attachments; I say such a thing to a potential client, and I guarantee they'll hire someone else.
I note that O'Reilly, supposed scion of Open Source, uses Word for all of its book publishing. I spent more time fiddling with their damned Word templates than I did writing a book (not yet printed)... but was I going to refuse a book contract because they kept mailing Word docs around? I think not...
It isn't just a few dissenters, and their voices began to be raised early in the 20 year time span...
How few people do you sacrifice for the good of the many? Programmers are certainly a minority in the world, and we scream bloody murder every time a patent or trademark intrudes on our work.
Using your logic, we should just shut up, since a patent may well "benefit" more people than will the "freedom to code" of a "few" disgruntled programmers!
If anything, I hope the non-Indian people of Nevada learn something from this: That stealing rights from anyone (the Shoshone, in this case) allows government to steal rights from us all. Sadly, most people only focus on "their" needs and "their" rights, failing to see that we are all in this together.
National interest be dam(n)ed; people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions instead of dumping problems -- like nuclear waste -- on the conveniently powerless.
I've been closely following the Yucca Mountain investigations since the mid-1990s; my garage has hundreds of thousands (really!) of pages generated by various parties involved in this effort. I doubt DOE will continue to be so free with its literature, in light of "security cenrcenrs" raised by September 11th.
But I digress.
In a nutshell: "Approval" of the storage facility has been a foregone conclusion since the studies first began. Yucca Mountain was the only site studied, and any "problems" discovered have been ignored or glossed over.
The real problem is a lack of planning -- it isn't just the "Internet generation" who can't think ahead. Back when we began building nuclear power plants, no one thought about what we would do with the waste -- and so it now sits in over a hundred locations around the U.S., in hardened canisters sitting next to power plants. Because no one looked ahead fifty years ago, we now have a crisis on our hands, and little chance to make a rational decision.
The problem at hand: Nuclear waste needs to be stored somewhere, and Yucca Mountain is the only site selected for study. There may not be a rational, safe solution to the problem of nuclear waste -- and so Nevada's residents may take it in the shorts because of short-sighted and selfish politicians and
I say "may" because Nevadans are unlikely to lie down and "accept the inevitable." They're a feisty bunch, especially the ones who don't live in Reno or Lost Wages -- er, Las Vegas. The Ages Brush Rebellion is gaining strength again in the American West; confrontations between federal officials and local residents continue to rise.
You don't think this issue affects you? If you really think freedom is important, you might want to consider that Nevadans will be hosting nuclear waste that they did not create, as dictated by the federal government on behalf of big, stupid corporations. (Note: I like lots of businesses, even big ones -- but I have great disdain for stupid companies and people who impose their mistakes on others.)
For a somewhat different perspective on the issue, consider this article about the people who actually own Yucca Mountain:
That article (which I am currently updating) has been published all over the world (search Google for it) in print and online. It won't make much difference, of course, because most people only care about right and wrong when it affects them directly. It's too bad, really; what the federal government is doing today with national IDs, intelletual property, and waste dumps is the direct result of letting them push other people around.
Good luck to those in Nevada, Shoshone, Paiute, and other-American alike. You need it...
...where clueless managers (and politicians) make technological decisions based on polls and headlines, this sort of lying is very troublesome and dangerous. Such polls are important because they influence small-minded people with the power to control the software that gets written.
Of course, the "powers that be" probably won't care that Microsoft cheated on this (or any other) poll. All they know is to bet on a winner -- Microsoft -- even if that winner is a lying, cheating scum-bag. After all, winning is all that matters in the U.S. today, isn't it?
I normally don't reply to anonymous cowards, since they aren't very credible...;} And if you'd follow the links I provided, you'd find plenty of citations and web links to "credible" sources of information.
I've been evolving algorithms for a long time now, using finite state machines (FSM) which can be easily moved across architectures and programming languages. Quite often, an FSM evolves to exhibit surprising behavior -- and given the complexity of the machines, it is impractical to understand why the FSM acts as it does.
Note that I said "impractical" -- given time, I could follow the FSM's logic and discern it's "thinking" (and I have done so with simpler machines).
If you want real, concrete information about genetic algorithms and artificial life, I suggest visiting ALife.org or the U.S. Navy's GA Archive.
Shameless plug: For five years, I've been developing a free (no ads) web site, Complexity Central, devoted to evolutionary algorithms, artificial life, and emergent behavior. I've posted several Java applets that demonstrate genetic algorithms, cellular automata, flocking behavior, and related subjects.
This is part of my Coyote Gulch web site, which contains lots of articles, web links, bibliographies, and free code in C++, Java, and Fortran(!).
...sometimes, you don't have a choice. I need to review movies I didn't create; while I agree that MPEG is "better" than QT, my opinion doesn't matter when someone sends me a QT video.
Linux may be "superior" to Windows in one or more ways -- but what matters is being able to get the job done. And if I can't view a client's QT movie under Linux, Linus doesn't get the job done. And that's why it's important that Linux support QT...
You've never actually written code as part of a large team using source control have you?
I dunno... 12 programmers at one shop, all using Source(un)Safe, working on a million-line e-banking app... seems like a "large team" to me.
I'm concerned with clarity of algorithm -- in other words, can I understand what the program is doing? That requires good comments, not curly-bracket placement.
You might have a point in regard to tabs/spaces, in that different people and systems have tabs set to different line positions. I've always specified hard spaces, so the code looks the same in everyone's editor and in print.
I'm not against programming standards -- I'm against getting into insane detail. I spend far more time trying to figure out someone's algorithm (or lack thereof!) than I do worrying about their brace style.
Too many coding standards get into issues that are, quite frankly, ludicrous. If the programmers I hire can't handle slight differences in C++ brace placement, I need to find better programmers! Sheesh, I've never had problems following code because someone places the open bracket on the same line as the if, while I put mine on a subsequent line.
Having written for publication, I've had quite some experience with the anal retentive crowd. For example, I was excoriated for having an algorithm with 1-character variable names -- the code was, however, an implementation of a specific mathematical formula, and my code precisely matched variables in the original notation. To change the names to longer "descriptive" ones would have broken the continuity between definition (in a math text) and implementation (C++). The short names were actually more descriptive and accurate!
And then we have the "goto" wars -- I actually use a single goto in one of my books, bringing down the ire of mypoic ninnies (usually pre-degree college students) who only know that "gogot is bad" without a clue as to why they've been taught that. A rare, judicious goto can make code faster and more readable! But try telling that to fools who only parrot dogma... if a programmer can't understand the rare usefulness of a goto, they probably can't think far enough "outside the box" to be useful in the real world.
This isn't to say that I'm against coding standards -- I'm all in favor of them! But a coding standard should by flexible in nature and open-minded where practical; the goal is readable code and ease of typing. Programmers have habits, a rhythm when they type, and so long as their code follows broad guidelines of style. I'll take a dozen good comments and a solid design document over the placement of curly brackets any day!
Slashdot Mirror
Compliant with what?
I'm using gcc 3.0.3 for large (100K+ lines of code) without any problems. And at least it's closer than 2.9x.x to ANSI C99 and Standard C++...
Of course, my code is 100% Standard C++, which may be why I'm not having a problem. The kernel and many other projects use gcc-unique features that may be broken in version 3.0.x.
Granted, gcc does have bugs and some code-generation problems on some platforms. But it's worked well for me, so I guess I haven't any complaints.
"Frell" is a word used on the TV series Farscape; it has the nice ability to replace many different cuss words with on catch-all phrase. For example: "To frell with it!" or "Frell you." And using "frell" avoid those nasty negative moderations that can so bruise my tender ego.
As for "fuck", "hell", and other cursatives: I make sailors blush, youngster; I've been coding so long, I've had to invent or borrow new cuss words because I wore the old ones out. I'm bored with "fuck" the word "although not the act, mind you), and am looking for new, fresh alternatives.
I've been building my cluster from various remaindered/cast-off/refurbished machines I find. Computer Geeks is a good source.
Load balancing is frelling difficult, but I've been doing some solid parallel programming work that translates nicely to "real" clusters. I'd love to buy one of the Rocket Calc boxes -- but I can make a darned nice box for a lot less money with more processing power, if I'm willing to have cables and such all over the place.
The only real cluster-related problem I have is my lovely wife. She's one of those people who want things to "match" (so why in frell did she marry me?), and my "heterogenous" cluster just isn't very aesthetic. She just doesn't understand that the cluster's job is to compute, not to look pretty!
Then again, the Rocket Calc machines are attractive, and the color would go with the living room furniture...
I don't know what testing you refer to.
Exactly my point. There is no testing by the kernel developers, which is why people like Alan Cox are involved. Essentially, Linus produces a raw kernel with his perview as kernel leader; it is up to distributors to make sure they created a reliable kernel from the raw material.
Which begs the question: Why were so many people upset with Alan about his stance on the VM? Alan's kernel is Alan's kernel (i.e., RedHat's kernel, among others); he is taking the repsonsibility for selling a kernel, and I don;t see why it should offend anyone that Alan wants to be absolutely sure of stability. Linus doesn;t *care* is the kernel is stable... that's not his job.
If we want Linux to succeed, then the community must take just as much responsibility for QA as the kernel hackers do for coding.
As I point out above, I *am* running a stable distribution on a system where stability matters, namely Debian potato on my cluster...
Is Linux 2.4 unstable? It depends on your perspective and luck. I'm running 2.4.8 and 2.2.19 (Debian potato) on my systems successfully; 2.8.9 thru .12 have been glitchy for me, especially when it comes to running big jobs that stress the VM. Haven't tried anything above .12 yet; I'm waiting for .18. My old cluster runs 2.2 simply because I have no reason to change.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
I do think that 2.4 has been managed poorly. People complain that Microsoft beta-tests software on thier customers -- yet that is precisely what the kernel team does to Linux users when they release a "stable" kernel with an entirely new VM. A couple months' (weeks'?) testing on developer workstations is not sufficient for an "enterprise" class operating system. Anyone who understands the least bit about complex systems knows that you don't replace critical architecture (the VM) without jeopardizing stability.
It's all water under the bridge now; I hope Linus and company have learned from the 2.4 battles. If 2.6 has the same kinds of problems and controversies... well, I prefer not to think about it. For my part, I plan to beat 2.5 beta kernels to death, to help the testing along. Testing is as important as kernel hacking -- even if it isn't as sexy.
One fool actually asked me to translate one of my Java programs into C for him so he could use it in his class! What a yutz.
To make a "cheating detector" work, they'll need to compare student's work against the vast body of public domain, published, and open source code found in the wild. And that just isn't practical. With the current system, they're only going to catch those who cheat off each other, or those who copy from the same source.
Dammed fine words to live by.
An honest environment -- such as fostered by "free" software -- is both good and bad. On one hand, I (as a programmer) am comforted to read the kernel mailing list and other resources that let me know exactly what is happening with my tools. I don't need to wonder what's happening with "free" software -- and this is more comforting to an engineer like myself than is the closed-door, silence-is-golden, hide-the-bugs policy of a Microsoft.
On the other hand: Show this interview to an MIS manager who need 24/7/365 reliability, and she is going to be very nervous about deploying a Linux-based solution. You can talk until you're blue in the face about reliable distros and the open road to sofwtare quality -- what the MIS/corporate person sees is chaos and feels a lack of COMFORT .
"Out of sight, out of mind" is a philosophy many people adhere to, especially when dealing with complex issues they can not or do not want to grasp. From waste storage in Nevada to the the war in Afghanistan, most people lack the time and initiative to understand what is really happening; they go on appearances and marketing, and ignore complex and disturbing facts.
Technology is no different. The MIS manager doesn't want to hear about VM conflicts or file system bugs or different kernels -- such issues are beyond their capability and desire to understand. Buying Microsoft is (or was, until recently) comforting, because no one ever saw the internal debates and code battles and what-not that any development team expresses. Even recent security disclosures about WinXP are unlikely to shake the faithful -- but those same people will run in fear from the blunt honesty of Linux.
Ignorance may be bliss, but it can also get you killed. I know people whose lives depend on cars, but they have no knowledge of how to check the oil. Most MIS managers simply want to drive software; if it looks good (like a Jeep Liberty), they don't pay attention to whether it is safe (the Liberty performs poorly on crash tests).
I doubt, however, we're going to change human nature -- and I'd rather have spirited debate and even some nasty contention if it means that people are striving to make Linux the "best" it can be.
It's all fine and dandy to be idealistic about freedom and the like, but a quick examination of society suggests that freedom means very little to your average consumer. What most people care about is convenience , the ease with which they can do their "thing." And Microsoft's CLR, while rough around the edges now, brings "convenience" to developer's lives.
I've developed a lot of code in the last couple of decades, and I gravitated to Java because it was an easy way to write GUIs. Sure, most of my work is the heavy lifting "under the hood" -- but it's the GUI that attracts users who buy product. You and I may love command-line environments, but that isn't what most people want or need. As one of my co-workers puts it, the GUI guys get all the glory -- and the CLR is a superior tool for GUI development.
Why use the CLR? Because unlike Java's Swing, GUI code written in the CLR is reasonably fast (through native widgets) and easy to use. The Visual Studio development environment takes most of the challenge out of GUI development -- and toys like NetBeans/Forte and KDevelop don't even come close to Visual Studio when it comes to easy development. The only advantage Java has now is portability...
The CLR has little or no affect on my engine development; I still write my code as portable C++/Fortran/whatever, and wrap it in a component architecture that can be dropped into a GUI. Microsoft has not made traditional compiled code obsolete -- what they've done is make MFC, ATL, and COM obsolete. In other words, Microsoft is creating a user-interface toolkit that can be used to wrap code that does heavy lifting. They're making it easy and efficient to write GUIs for Windows -- and that, my friends, is what is going to hurt Java and Linux.
The CLR isn't about getting rid of Intel, or platform independence; it's about attracting developers who write code that attracts user who sepnd money on Microsoft operating systems. The Linux developer community would be wise to spend more time on ease of use and less time tilting at windmills.
Let's put it this way... the editor I was working with wanted the book in Word, and he gave me a set of Word templates, and a couple of docs on how to use the templates. They weren't from the editor himself; in fact, he didn't know Word very well, and he got the templates and stuff from someone else at O'Reilly. Everything has the official "O'Reilly" stamp on it, so to speak.
Now, had I been given a choice, I'd probably have used TeX -- but I wasn't given a choice.
My book, BTW, is about C++, and has *nothing* to do with Windows per se.
Maybe I should join the Slashdot staff? ;)
RMS sometimes lives in a fantasy world, as evidenced by this quote from the article:
I hate to break it to you, Robert, but the vast majority of computer users couldn't program their way out of an "if" statement. And they don't want to program. You and I may have a grand time exploring code and writing software; most people just want to sit down, write a note to Aunt Emma, read the joke their kid sent them from college, or check the latest football score. They want to play Quake, not write it.
The freedom to examine a program's source code is meaningless to 99% of computer users. They'd rather spend a hundred (or two) bucks on an upgrade than learn C...
Now, as for getting rid of Word attachments, I totally agree. I also despise HTML e-mail. I'd love for them to go away -- but even some programmers I know can't send an e-mail unless it contains a dozen fonts and background images. And don't forget its easy to be on a religious crusade when you don't live in the real world. You may be able to tell people to stop sending Word attachments; I say such a thing to a potential client, and I guarantee they'll hire someone else.
I note that O'Reilly, supposed scion of Open Source, uses Word for all of its book publishing. I spent more time fiddling with their damned Word templates than I did writing a book (not yet printed)... but was I going to refuse a book contract because they kept mailing Word docs around? I think not...
It isn't just a few dissenters, and their voices began to be raised early in the 20 year time span...
How few people do you sacrifice for the good of the many? Programmers are certainly a minority in the world, and we scream bloody murder every time a patent or trademark intrudes on our work.
Using your logic, we should just shut up, since a patent may well "benefit" more people than will the "freedom to code" of a "few" disgruntled programmers!
If anything, I hope the non-Indian people of Nevada learn something from this: That stealing rights from anyone (the Shoshone, in this case) allows government to steal rights from us all. Sadly, most people only focus on "their" needs and "their" rights, failing to see that we are all in this together.
National interest be dam(n)ed; people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions instead of dumping problems -- like nuclear waste -- on the conveniently powerless.
Frell it! It's "Sage Brush Rebellion", not "Ages Brush Rebellion!" Arrrghhhh... I even proofed the dammed article twice!
Eh, I'll blame it on my dyslexia; I'm always typing things sdrawkcab...
I've been closely following the Yucca Mountain investigations since the mid-1990s; my garage has hundreds of thousands (really!) of pages generated by various parties involved in this effort. I doubt DOE will continue to be so free with its literature, in light of "security cenrcenrs" raised by September 11th.
But I digress.
In a nutshell: "Approval" of the storage facility has been a foregone conclusion since the studies first began. Yucca Mountain was the only site studied, and any "problems" discovered have been ignored or glossed over.
The real problem is a lack of planning -- it isn't just the "Internet generation" who can't think ahead. Back when we began building nuclear power plants, no one thought about what we would do with the waste -- and so it now sits in over a hundred locations around the U.S., in hardened canisters sitting next to power plants. Because no one looked ahead fifty years ago, we now have a crisis on our hands, and little chance to make a rational decision.
The problem at hand: Nuclear waste needs to be stored somewhere, and Yucca Mountain is the only site selected for study. There may not be a rational, safe solution to the problem of nuclear waste -- and so Nevada's residents may take it in the shorts because of short-sighted and selfish politicians and
I say "may" because Nevadans are unlikely to lie down and "accept the inevitable." They're a feisty bunch, especially the ones who don't live in Reno or Lost Wages -- er, Las Vegas. The Ages Brush Rebellion is gaining strength again in the American West; confrontations between federal officials and local residents continue to rise.
You don't think this issue affects you? If you really think freedom is important, you might want to consider that Nevadans will be hosting nuclear waste that they did not create, as dictated by the federal government on behalf of big, stupid corporations. (Note: I like lots of businesses, even big ones -- but I have great disdain for stupid companies and people who impose their mistakes on others.)
For a somewhat different perspective on the issue, consider this article about the people who actually own Yucca Mountain:
Stealing Nevada
That article (which I am currently updating) has been published all over the world (search Google for it) in print and online. It won't make much difference, of course, because most people only care about right and wrong when it affects them directly. It's too bad, really; what the federal government is doing today with national IDs, intelletual property, and waste dumps is the direct result of letting them push other people around.
Good luck to those in Nevada, Shoshone, Paiute, and other-American alike. You need it...
Of course, the "powers that be" probably won't care that Microsoft cheated on this (or any other) poll. All they know is to bet on a winner -- Microsoft -- even if that winner is a lying, cheating scum-bag. After all, winning is all that matters in the U.S. today, isn't it?
Damn, I'm getting cynical in my old age. ;)
...that old DecWriter II in the garage, which my wife keeps suggesting we toss. I *knew* text mode gaming wasn't dead!
;)
This is the most perverse, bizarre, absolutely *useless* thing I've seen in a long time. Damn, I wish I'd thought of it first...
I normally don't reply to anonymous cowards, since they aren't very credible... ;} And if you'd follow the links I provided, you'd find plenty of citations and web links to "credible" sources of information.
However, in this case, I'll make an exception.
Check out:
Complexity International (a refereed journal) Santa Fe Institute (assoc. with Los Alamos Nat. Labs) CiteSeer ResearchIndex of Scientific Papers
I've been evolving algorithms for a long time now, using finite state machines (FSM) which can be easily moved across architectures and programming languages. Quite often, an FSM evolves to exhibit surprising behavior -- and given the complexity of the machines, it is impractical to understand why the FSM acts as it does.
Note that I said "impractical" -- given time, I could follow the FSM's logic and discern it's "thinking" (and I have done so with simpler machines).
If you want real, concrete information about genetic algorithms and artificial life, I suggest visiting ALife.org or the U.S. Navy's GA Archive.
Shameless plug: For five years, I've been developing a free (no ads) web site, Complexity Central, devoted to evolutionary algorithms, artificial life, and emergent behavior. I've posted several Java applets that demonstrate genetic algorithms, cellular automata, flocking behavior, and related subjects.
This is part of my Coyote Gulch web site, which contains lots of articles, web links, bibliographies, and free code in C++, Java, and Fortran(!).
Linux may be "superior" to Windows in one or more ways -- but what matters is being able to get the job done. And if I can't view a client's QT movie under Linux, Linus doesn't get the job done. And that's why it's important that Linux support QT...
I dunno... 12 programmers at one shop, all using Source(un)Safe, working on a million-line e-banking app... seems like a "large team" to me.
I'm concerned with clarity of algorithm -- in other words, can I understand what the program is doing? That requires good comments, not curly-bracket placement.
You might have a point in regard to tabs/spaces, in that different people and systems have tabs set to different line positions. I've always specified hard spaces, so the code looks the same in everyone's editor and in print.
I'm not against programming standards -- I'm against getting into insane detail. I spend far more time trying to figure out someone's algorithm (or lack thereof!) than I do worrying about their brace style.
Too many coding standards get into issues that are, quite frankly, ludicrous. If the programmers I hire can't handle slight differences in C++ brace placement, I need to find better programmers! Sheesh, I've never had problems following code because someone places the open bracket on the same line as the if, while I put mine on a subsequent line.
Having written for publication, I've had quite some experience with the anal retentive crowd. For example, I was excoriated for having an algorithm with 1-character variable names -- the code was, however, an implementation of a specific mathematical formula, and my code precisely matched variables in the original notation. To change the names to longer "descriptive" ones would have broken the continuity between definition (in a math text) and implementation (C++). The short names were actually more descriptive and accurate!
And then we have the "goto" wars -- I actually use a single goto in one of my books, bringing down the ire of mypoic ninnies (usually pre-degree college students) who only know that "gogot is bad" without a clue as to why they've been taught that. A rare, judicious goto can make code faster and more readable! But try telling that to fools who only parrot dogma... if a programmer can't understand the rare usefulness of a goto, they probably can't think far enough "outside the box" to be useful in the real world.
This isn't to say that I'm against coding standards -- I'm all in favor of them! But a coding standard should by flexible in nature and open-minded where practical; the goal is readable code and ease of typing. Programmers have habits, a rhythm when they type, and so long as their code follows broad guidelines of style. I'll take a dozen good comments and a solid design document over the placement of curly brackets any day!