Ok, everyone who believes that any network in this country makes their decisions based on "taste", raise their hands.
The networks have shown their dedication to profit-mongering through the shameless exploitation of just about every aspect of life you could imagine, so it would be logical for us to view WB's decision with that in mind. WB pulled the show to avoid souring its relationship with squeamish advertisers, and for no other reason.
Re:Good Open Source Citizens
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
the Windows install, is one of the most annoying, buggiest, most difficult, and most ass-backwards. Perhaps I'd rank it in a tie with Slackware, and just in front of Debian
Excuse me? Having installed Debian on three systems and windows on one, I can't see how Debian's install is worse. Of course, I did take the time to read the installation docs on Debian's website before plugging away... Still, no problems installing on three fairly different systems.
I think that there are engineers in the world who are at least, if not more, skilled working for Sun, CMU, Microsoft, DEC and suchlike whose work has proved Linus to be very wrong [about microkernels]. And as such, linux is crippled.
Where is the evidence that your claim is true? That Linux wouldn't be "crippled" if it used a microkernel?
Linus' chapter in Open Sources does an excellent job of explaining why Linux doesn't use a microkernel and why that is the correct decision. You would do well to go back and read the source you cite.
Due to the density of your commentary, excuse me if I don't continue the quote/retort technique. Briefly -
1. Yes, there certainly are other works on the influence of evolution on the mind. You miss the word comparable, however - I'm somewhat familiar with the Dennett and Churchland texts you cite, and they argue for quite different points.
2. OK, you got me there, I haven't read up on all of the dead people in the field, just the more prominent active members. I'll put Casti on my reading list, I promise.
3. Footnotes vs. unshakable proof - I agree that the presence of footnotes is not sufficient grounds for accepting a statement as fact. My recollection, however, is that HTWM, like the rest of Pinker's works, is well-supported, meaning that relevant studies are cited in intellectually honest ways, so that Pinker can reasonably point to support for his claims (and not everything in HTWM is a claim, to be sure; some of the content is clearly more speculative).
I think the problem you (and the other detractors here) are having is that HTWM is a higher-level text that explains aspects of Pinker's theories to a more general audience, and these theories are different than the ones you hold. Because the text aims to explain to a neutral audience, not win over a hostile one, you may find its rigor lacking; it does not have answers for all of your attacks. The same thing happens to me when I read stuff by the Churchlands.
Ok, so point us to a comparable text on evolutionary psychology. Whoops, there aren't any.
He didn't make any substantial claims
Pinker claims that the conditions present for evolutionary humans have a strong and direct causal link to our current psychological / cognitive reality, and that this link's explanatory power allows us to understand psychology / cognition more thoroughly than we could with out it.
didn't have any facts to back up his claims
Look at the copious footnotes to each chapter. I defy you to show one significant claim that isn't thoroughly defended. (note also that this complain contradicts your previous complaint)
Care to back that up? Pinker does have an easygoing & accessible writing style, but he's also got the credentials to back it up. You're not a closet Behavioralist, are you?
I was lucky enough to be in an undergrad linguistics class that reviewed the manuscript to HTMW over a couple months, and then met with Pinker for discussion. Having spent that much time and effort working through the material, I give it an unqualified thumbs-up. After 3 years of studying cognitive science, I was still able to learn tons from Pinker's work, yet it's accessible enough that my mother (an english major in college) was able to get into it.
For those whose interest is focused more on linugistics, Pinker's earlier work The Lanugage Instinct is also very highly recommended.
Tons of software is written for specific customers these days - the project I work on, for example, is a financial reporting analysis tool for a major corporation. The software is built specifically around the corporate financial structure, so it would be useless to anyone else; there's never going to be a GNU Financial Reporting package or whatever that would do the same job. But Free software would still improve this picture greatly. As it is, we do our development with bug-ridden proprietary software, and deploy the product on a bug-ridden proprietary OS. Using reliable & proven Free software products would make this sort of project better for user & developer alike, and there are thousands and thousands of these projects keeping programmers employed in the business world.
That is why the spread of Free software won't put programmers out on the street. There will always be a place for the programmer/analyst who can walk into a business situation, distill it to a logical system, and write a tool that will allow the customer to do more/faster/better. The only difference will be that programmers will have more hair, because they won't be pulling it out every time they get a random GPF and have to spend another 20 minutes rebooting their workstations.
I assumed SunOS was chosen because it is a very Serious and Important os that no one would ever pick if they were picking an os just for fun and games.
While you're at it, you can always go and take apart your car for fun too; you shouldn't be driving it if you can't break it down and fix it
Although you say this in jest, I think it's a great idea. Not to require every driver to understand every detail about how their car works, but at least have a general understanding of what's going on and what aspects are important for safe operation. I understand that non-US countries, ex. Germany, actually do have some requirements of this type involved in getting a driver's license - and I don't think I need to make an argument for the superiority of German drivers to American drivers.
Speaking as a member of my friendly neighborhood metrics team, LOC can be as good as any other measure. It depends how you use it, of course.
I agree completely that evaluating someone based on how many lines of code they have typed is really stupid. But I have trouble believing that many functioning companies use LOC in this manner. The correct use of metrics, such as size (indicated by lines of code or function points or whatever), is in generating estimates and tracking actual progress to those estimates, so that the project manager can tell if the project is on schedule. In this sort of application, LOC are generally counted based on the code affected by changes - that could include new code, modified code, or even deleted code. This number is then cross-referenced to historical data / estimated data (depending on use) to allow analysis.
using lines of code, or any other metric, to evaluate an individual is strictly forbidden by my organization, and hopefully most others. Once you start evaluating individuals based on metrics you can throw out all hope of gathering useful information, because everyone will be covering their asses.
. ..by the time someone gets worked up enough to entertain thoughts of premeditated physical harm it really doesn't make much sense to single out the gun owner vs. the non-gun owner...someone in that state is going to cause trouble regardless. It is absolutly trivial for anyone, anywhere to make, buy, improvise or steal any number of possible/potential deadly weapons. ..
I have to disagree. It is not absolutely trivial for anyone, anywhere to come up with weapons as deadly as guns. Take my dear old mother, for example. Even with her sharpest kitchen knife, she doesn't present a threat to any sort of healthy young person. With a gun, however, all she has to do is pull a trigger, and if she's close enough she can kill anybody. That's a huge difference. A non-gun owner who gets angry and wants to kill someone (using a gun) has to either find someone who has a gun and steal it from them, or find their local gun store and pass background checks and find the money to purchase the gun. These steps may not be difficult, but they make things different than for the person who has a loaded gun sitting in the drawer.
If you have a gun handy, it is easier to act on a violent impulse than if you do not have a gun handy. That is why I argued that Bruce was correct to be more concerned with a threat from an armed ESR than he would be with a threat from an unarmed ESR.*
*my main motivation was in debunking the AC's claim that such logic was bunk, when I believe it to be sound. It is the logic of the argument, rather than the conclusion that Bruce came to, that I was interested in. Fate of the philosophy major.
. . . it was a pretty damn yellow thing of Bruce to feel more fear about his safety just because ESR is a gun fan. This is the sort of bullshit "logic" that makes the most visible gun control advocates look like fools.
I seem to have missed your argument, mr. coward. If you could be so kind as to show us what's wrong with the following:
-----
Scenario 1 - someone who does not own any weapons is mad at me
Scenario 2 - someone who owns deadly weapons is mad at me
The 2nd scenario is more threatening, because, all else being equal, the person who is angry at me and has weapons could more easily act on his anger by harming me.
------- This doesn't lead me to say that Bruce is justified in fearing harm from ESR, but it does suggest that he is justified in being more afraid due to ESR's ownership of guns than he would be if ESR didn't own guns.
It is not the fault of the West that the third-world poor are poor.
Maybe 'fault' is too strong a word, but it would be unfair to ignore the impact of the West on the third world. Much of africa and asia were made into colonies by Western nations within the last few centuries. Typically this involved the total destruction of whatever ruling force had existed. Then, when the Western countries pulled out, a vacuum was left in the former colonies' power structure, leaving the way open for civil warfare. Sure, it would be great if nations currently mired in anarchy and lawlessness could somehow get their acts together, but it's not always that easy.
[I'd use the AOL tag, but now that it's in the Jargon file it would feel a little funny.]
All I can add is that sure, the guys in the article are losers... if they're playing the same game as mr. preppy asshole. If having lots and lots of girlfriendz and going to a good school and visiting mom and eating apple pie are the ultimate good, then these guys aren't doing so hot. But life is a little more complicated than that.
Also interesting to see where the immediate ancestors of this post are coming from: AC talks about how great he is, and Mr. Name says something honest and risky. Chalk another point for the user accounts.
What with comments like These two are the white trash of the computer world I had this writer pegged for a snotty ivy-leaguer, but look at its user bio and I see BIOS programmer / OS/2 advocate.
Reminds me of my last visit to officeplex, all those copies of 0S/2 lying unwanted in the bargain software bins...
Slashdot Mirror
WB was exercising their right to be tasteful
Ok, everyone who believes that any network in this country makes their decisions based on "taste", raise their hands.
The networks have shown their dedication to profit-mongering through the shameless exploitation of just about every aspect of life you could imagine, so it would be logical for us to view WB's decision with that in mind. WB pulled the show to avoid souring its relationship with squeamish advertisers, and for no other reason.
the Windows install, is one of the most annoying, buggiest, most difficult, and most ass-backwards. Perhaps I'd rank it in a tie with Slackware, and just in front of Debian
Excuse me? Having installed Debian on three systems and windows on one, I can't see how Debian's install is worse. Of course, I did take the time to read the installation docs on Debian's website before plugging away... Still, no problems installing on three fairly different systems.
I think that there are engineers in the world who are at least, if not more, skilled working for Sun, CMU, Microsoft, DEC and suchlike whose work has proved Linus to be very wrong [about microkernels]. And as such, linux is crippled.
Where is the evidence that your claim is true? That Linux wouldn't be "crippled" if it used a microkernel?
Linus' chapter in Open Sources does an excellent job of explaining why Linux doesn't use a microkernel and why that is the correct decision. You would do well to go back and read the source you cite.
Graphics drivers dont belong in the kernel, not now, not ever
Why not? How are graphics fundamentally different than, say, network cards?
I also note that the AMD machine that's as good as a pII at everything else is going to pay a _big_ penalty running Q3
What, no 3DNOW support? I thought that Q2 had been solid in that dept.
Due to the density of your commentary, excuse me if I don't continue the quote/retort technique.
Briefly -
1. Yes, there certainly are other works on the influence of evolution on the mind. You miss the word comparable, however - I'm somewhat familiar with the Dennett and Churchland texts you cite, and they argue for quite different points.
2. OK, you got me there, I haven't read up on all of the dead people in the field, just the more prominent active members. I'll put Casti on my reading list, I promise.
3. Footnotes vs. unshakable proof - I agree that the presence of footnotes is not sufficient grounds for accepting a statement as fact. My recollection, however, is that HTWM, like the rest of Pinker's works, is well-supported, meaning that relevant studies are cited in intellectually honest ways, so that Pinker can reasonably point to support for his claims (and not everything in HTWM is a claim, to be sure; some of the content is clearly more speculative).
I think the problem you (and the other detractors here) are having is that HTWM is a higher-level text that explains aspects of Pinker's theories to a more general audience, and these theories are different than the ones you hold. Because the text aims to explain to a neutral audience, not win over a hostile one, you may find its rigor lacking; it does not have answers for all of your attacks. The same thing happens to me when I read stuff by the Churchlands.
I didn't think his book was groudbreaking
Ok, so point us to a comparable text on evolutionary psychology. Whoops, there aren't any.
He didn't make any substantial claims
Pinker claims that the conditions present for evolutionary humans have a strong and direct causal link to our current psychological / cognitive reality, and that this link's explanatory power allows us to understand psychology / cognition more thoroughly than we could with out it.
didn't have any facts to back up his claims
Look at the copious footnotes to each chapter. I defy you to show one significant claim that isn't thoroughly defended. (note also that this complain contradicts your previous complaint)
Very weak bit of trolling.
completely clueless
Care to back that up? Pinker does have an easygoing & accessible writing style, but he's also got the credentials to back it up. You're not a closet Behavioralist, are you?
I was lucky enough to be in an undergrad linguistics class that reviewed the manuscript to HTMW over a couple months, and then met with Pinker for discussion. Having spent that much time and effort working through the material, I give it an unqualified thumbs-up. After 3 years of studying cognitive science, I was still able to learn tons from Pinker's work, yet it's accessible enough that my mother (an english major in college) was able to get into it.
For those whose interest is focused more on linugistics, Pinker's earlier work The Lanugage Instinct is also very highly recommended.
Intel hardware was not (IS not) sufficiently mature for MacOS
Care to back this up? It sure doesn't jive with what I've seen from Alan Cox on the topic.
I don't have more time to keep wading, but check out www-hppc.fnal.gov/farms/r2farms.html> and thereabouts
Tons of software is written for specific customers these days - the project I work on, for example, is a financial reporting analysis tool for a major corporation. The software is built specifically around the corporate financial structure, so it would be useless to anyone else; there's never going to be a GNU Financial Reporting package or whatever that would do the same job. But Free software would still improve this picture greatly. As it is, we do our development with bug-ridden proprietary software, and deploy the product on a bug-ridden proprietary OS. Using reliable & proven Free software products would make this sort of project better for user & developer alike, and there are thousands and thousands of these projects keeping programmers employed in the business world.
That is why the spread of Free software won't put programmers out on the street. There will always be a place for the programmer/analyst who can walk into a business situation, distill it to a logical system, and write a tool that will allow the customer to do more/faster/better. The only difference will be that programmers will have more hair, because they won't be pulling it out every time they get a random GPF and have to spend another 20 minutes rebooting their workstations.
I assumed SunOS was chosen because it is a very Serious and Important os that no one would ever pick if they were picking an os just for fun and games.
While you're at it, you can always go and take apart your car for fun too; you shouldn't be driving it if you can't break it down and fix it
Although you say this in jest, I think it's a great idea. Not to require every driver to understand every detail about how their car works, but at least have a general understanding of what's going on and what aspects are important for safe operation. I understand that non-US countries, ex. Germany, actually do have some requirements of this type involved in getting a driver's license - and I don't think I need to make an argument for the superiority of German drivers to American drivers.
work: PowerBuilder (and it makes me want to shoot myself)
PL/SQL (feels a bit more like programming)
home: C, once in a while
java, less often
Speaking as a member of my friendly neighborhood metrics team, LOC can be as good as any other measure. It depends how you use it, of course.
I agree completely that evaluating someone based on how many lines of code they have typed is really stupid. But I have trouble believing that many functioning companies use LOC in this manner. The correct use of metrics, such as size (indicated by lines of code or function points or whatever), is in generating estimates and tracking actual progress to those estimates, so that the project manager can tell if the project is on schedule. In this sort of application, LOC are generally counted based on the code affected by changes - that could include new code, modified code, or even deleted code. This number is then cross-referenced to historical data / estimated data (depending on use) to allow analysis.
using lines of code, or any other metric, to evaluate an individual is strictly forbidden by my organization, and hopefully most others. Once you start evaluating individuals based on metrics you can throw out all hope of gathering useful information, because everyone will be covering their asses.
Technical errors aside (you display ignorance of firearms)
If I am ignorant, then enlighten me. What am I missing out on here? You're saying there's more to firing a gun than aiming and pulling the trigger?
(Obviously there can be much more to it than that, but is there necessarily more?
. . .by the time someone gets worked up enough to entertain thoughts of premeditated physical harm it really doesn't make much sense to single out the gun owner vs. the non-gun owner...someone in that state is going to cause trouble regardless. It is absolutly trivial for anyone, anywhere to make, buy, improvise or steal any number of possible/potential deadly weapons. . .
I have to disagree. It is not absolutely trivial for anyone, anywhere to come up with weapons as deadly as guns. Take my dear old mother, for example. Even with her sharpest kitchen knife, she doesn't present a threat to any sort of healthy young person. With a gun, however, all she has to do is pull a trigger, and if she's close enough she can kill anybody. That's a huge difference. A non-gun owner who gets angry and wants to kill someone (using a gun) has to either find someone who has a gun and steal it from them, or find their local gun store and pass background checks and find the money to purchase the gun. These steps may not be difficult, but they make things different than for the person who has a loaded gun sitting in the drawer.
If you have a gun handy, it is easier to act on a violent impulse than if you do not have a gun handy. That is why I argued that Bruce was correct to be more concerned with a threat from an armed ESR than he would be with a threat from an unarmed ESR.*
*my main motivation was in debunking the AC's claim that such logic was bunk, when I believe it to be sound. It is the logic of the argument, rather than the conclusion that Bruce came to, that I was interested in. Fate of the philosophy major.
. . . it was a pretty damn yellow thing of Bruce to feel more fear about his safety just because ESR is a gun fan. This is the sort of bullshit "logic" that makes the most visible gun control advocates look like fools.
I seem to have missed your argument, mr. coward. If you could be so kind as to show us what's wrong with the following:
-----
Scenario 1 - someone who does not own any weapons is mad at me
Scenario 2 - someone who owns deadly weapons is mad at me
The 2nd scenario is more threatening, because, all else being equal, the person who is angry at me and has weapons could more easily act on his anger by harming me.
-------
This doesn't lead me to say that Bruce is justified in fearing harm from ESR, but it does suggest that he is justified in being more afraid due to ESR's ownership of guns than he would be if ESR didn't own guns.
It is not the fault of the West that the third-world poor are poor.
Maybe 'fault' is too strong a word, but it would be unfair to ignore the impact of the West on the third world. Much of africa and asia were made into colonies by Western nations within the last few centuries. Typically this involved the total destruction of whatever ruling force had existed. Then, when the Western countries pulled out, a vacuum was left in the former colonies' power structure, leaving the way open for civil warfare. Sure, it would be great if nations currently mired in anarchy and lawlessness could somehow get their acts together, but it's not always that easy.
"I think the detail we give is significantly higher than our competitors, particularly for Windows 2000," Muth said.
There's no way that Muth is talking about competitors on the desktop - not with Apple's recent open source efforts.
So who is he talking about? commercial unicies?
And here I'd been remembering it for years as NMP*. Drat.
*Not My Problem
because I hate to think about someone sitting and doing it by hand.
[I'd use the AOL tag, but now that it's in the Jargon file it would feel a little funny.]
All I can add is that sure, the guys in the article are losers... if they're playing the same game as mr. preppy asshole. If having lots and lots of girlfriendz and going to a good school and visiting mom and eating apple pie are the ultimate good, then these guys aren't doing so hot. But life is a little more complicated than that.
Also interesting to see where the immediate ancestors of this post are coming from: AC talks about how great he is, and Mr. Name says something honest and risky. Chalk another point for the user accounts.
What with comments like These two are the white trash of the computer world I had this writer pegged for a snotty ivy-leaguer, but look at its user bio and I see BIOS programmer / OS/2 advocate.
Reminds me of my last visit to officeplex, all those copies of 0S/2 lying unwanted in the bargain software bins...