The crazy book he ripped the speculation off from is called "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail."
And for anyone too lazy, or for any other reason uninterested in reading that book, just go play Gabriel Knight 3 (Blood of the Sacred; Blood of the Damned). The game was released in 1999. Dan's book was released in 2003. "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" was released in 1980.
Are you sure you're comfortable with the ramifications of throwing out a number like one human life = 1 million rat lives?
Hey, here is an idea. There are millions of people dying worldwide for reasons that could be prevented. Why don't you get your ass out of your chair and go help, lets say, the people dying from tuberculosis in Africa ? Or the people dying from cold/hunger in NYC ?
No ? Too much work ? Well, I guess you better just stay comfortable on your chair, complaining about people killing rats trying to save human beings. Or maybe you think all those human being that are dying gave their "informed consent" for it ? "Yes sir. I was informed. Here is my consent form, so please give me the tuberculosis now so I can die and save some rat from starving."... idiot.
Wouldn't it be/more/ humane to test on those creatures that can give informed consent?
I think you should volunteer yourself to take the place of a rat on one of those deadly experiments. Not only you will be saving one rat, but you will also help us clean our gene pool. It is a win-win situation.
Ok, I'm going to reply to the previous 2 posters on this one.
It is not a matter of "surviving to take care of them", actually. There were some studies on this one. Of course, if you ask them, they will tell you that or something else. It is only natural for human being to find an explanation for anything.
If you look at places with really, really rich people living in agrarian areas, even if they are highly educated (which sometimes they are), they will still have 3+ kids. Usually 4 or more.
As for a 500k population area, as far as this theory (it is not mine) goes, that is considered high population. Or high enough for people to not want kids.
Interesting enough, if you have someone living in a low population arena, but working on a high population area, they will be on that high pop area enough for it to trigger a lower desire for kids.
As I said, I have a kid. A daughter to be more precise. She makes me extremely happy, and on a conscious/rational level I know other kids would make me happy too, maybe even more happy than I am. However, on the gut level (instinct, subconscious, whatever), I just don't want more kids. I don't live on a really big city, but this area is populous enough to trigger it on me.
You live in a high population area, don't you ? If you do, you are only reinforcing my argument here.
As for:
to say one must have that 'traditional' home with wife and kids to be a complete person is just plain nonsense.
I'm sorry, but when did I say that ? I only talked about having kids. Even gay couples (mostly) want kids. Yes, I'm married and live with my wife, but I never mentioned anything about "traditional home, white fences" or anything like that.
It is not only attractive women. What you are saying here is actually known as a social disease. Urban centers, overpopulation etc will have the effect of making woman want to have less kids. If you get those same woman and leave them on less populated places for a few years (6+), they will start wanting to have kids again.
As a father, I can say this doesn't happen only to women. Having a child will actually completes you and make you happy. It is natural for men and women to want to have kids. All the other "career" bullshit (given as a reason for men/women not having kids) is a symptom of a social disease.
However, that is not the issue. If all you are doing is coding a routine, even to do a complex task (but only one), it really won't help you all that much.
However, if you have a project with 50000+ lines of code (which is a fairly small project, relatively speaking), it can make a huge, huge difference. If you have a mixed environment project, mixing platforms, languages, agent/manager modules etc, a good algorithm is KEY.
You see, I don't write algorithms for every piece of code I write. I mean, it makes no sense for me, at this point, to write a complete algorithm for a program with, let say, 500 lines of code. (It would if I were still learning algorithms or programming, of course). However, if you are involved in, let say, a 100000 lines of code project, with 30 other programmers, it is simply HUGE. Even a smaller project, let say 10000 lines of code, with 3 programmers, but with multiple platforms and different programming languages (something I experienced in the past), having a well written algorithm can make or break the project.
Ok, thank you for the hook. Going to make full use of it.
You just pointed there a big, big problem in CS courses these days: pseudo-code doesn't replace algorithms. They are not the same thing. However, most CS courses these days teach pseudo-code as if it were algorithms, which is just bull. Most people will graduate CS without any real knowledge of writing algorithms (let alone good ones). The advent of modeling languages made things a little less painful, since yeah, someone who knows UML (and is good at it) is much better than someone that writes pseudo-code. Both neither are as good as someone with good knowledge of writing algos (speaking from a project manager PoV here). Of course, someone who is good at algos AND UML (extremely rare) is even better.
Pseudo-code is crap. Useless. If you are going for pseudo-code, just teach them Pascal and be done with it. It will amount to the same thing in the end.
I have nothing against DRM, as long that was a choice by whoever is "selling" the stuff, and not something that was coerced by RIAA (etc). If Apple decided that THEY want to have DRM on their music, but, lets say, Amazon was free to see without DRM, for instance. is Metallica decides that they want all their music being released under a DBM scheme, and they were correctly informed on that subject (I'm not ok with FUD and misinformation), it should be their right. My only problem with how long copyrights last right now is because people can "sell" their rights. Again, on that note, I would be ok with Metallica having a 50 years copyright on their music, but I'm not ok with RIAA having a 50 years copyright on those songs. Oh, I think they (Metallica) should be free to sell the rights/ownership of their music to RIAA, but on that case, the copyright period should be automatically reduced to 5 years.
Also, not having the source code doesn't stop people from verifying the security of any application. You can decompile stuff, trace the execution path, monitor the network etc.
In any case, I m not defending either open source or closed source. I'm defending my write of releasing my code under any license I choose, including BSD, without some "holier-than-tho" fucktards telling me what to do. Just as I think you have the right to release your source under whatever license you choose, be it BSD, GPL, closed source, or a license that will automatically give Microsoft ownership of whatever you do with it. That is the problem I have with religious nutjobs like RMS. They forget that other people should have the same rights they do of choosing how they want to do things, and why I'm so in favor of Linus's approach (you can do whatever you want but, when you are dealing with my work, things will be the way I say), leaving everyone else alone.
How about teaching people to write algorithms ? You know, the kind we used to learn on the 60s-80s, which could be used to program in ANY language (from Assembly to Pascal/Cobol/Fortran), and not today's verbalized Pascal that people call algorithm ?
That was the first "language" I learned and, having learned 20+ languages after that (including some obscure ones lines Forth and Lua), even today I thank my teacher for giving me such a good understanding of programing without relying on any specific language's concepts.
Is a country that gives you the freedom to keep slaves more free than a country that doesn't?
Is a country that allows you the freedom to choose being a slave more free than a country that stops you from doing so ?
If you repackage my software and are better at marketing it than me, but you build vendor lock in into the code and a million people end up beholden to you as a consequence, did my code help bring people freedom?
Nope. Your software didn't affect their freedom in any way (either positive or negative).
Why do drug companies have to release their secret recipies, and car companies have to submit to stringent supervision, but software companies are allowed to release binary software onto billions of computers with absolutely zero oversight?
Neither is strictly true. They have to submit to tests and procedures, yes, but don't necessarily have to release all the details of the projects.
Releasing source should be required. It's a public safety concern that it is not.
What part of a text only (Notepad, for example) editor affect public safety ?
Slashdot Mirror
I find this odd, but my view is the exact opposite. As far as I can see, the GPL IS open, but not free.
Didn't we have a discussion about this a few days ago ?
Ok, I will take the bait.
Pray tell me how is Slackware a time saver when compared to, lets say, RedHat Enterprise 5.
Please consider you need to manage 40+ servers running it.
On a second exercise, compare it to Ubuntu running on 40+ workstations (regular, non-geek users, like accounting, PCP, HR etc).
Don't you mean "which not one of the competitors NEED" ?
The main reason IE needs that is because it is so integrated into the O.S.
Isn't "Slackware" a slang, meaning "My time is worth no more than US$ 0.01/hour, which is why I can waste it so" ?
Slackware is great if you want to know HOW Linux works. Otherwise, it is just a waste of time.
(For reference: I don't use either Ubuntu or Slackware)
And for anyone too lazy, or for any other reason uninterested in reading that book, just go play Gabriel Knight 3 (Blood of the Sacred; Blood of the Damned). The game was released in 1999. Dan's book was released in 2003. "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" was released in 1980.
So what ? You asked him what HE calls it.
I like to call it "Bob" myself.
This is partially true. Spamassassin uses a few of the things described on the article already.
Ah, so means to help those people get enough information to give informed consent.
I mean, surely he is not there, just sitting on his ass, saying this type of thing. He MUST be doing something productive.
Heck, contrast that to what happens to thousands of HUMANS outside the lab.
Hey, here is an idea. There are millions of people dying worldwide for reasons that could be prevented. Why don't you get your ass out of your chair and go help, lets say, the people dying from tuberculosis in Africa ? Or the people dying from cold/hunger in NYC ?
No ? Too much work ? Well, I guess you better just stay comfortable on your chair, complaining about people killing rats trying to save human beings. Or maybe you think all those human being that are dying gave their "informed consent" for it ? "Yes sir. I was informed. Here is my consent form, so please give me the tuberculosis now so I can die and save some rat from starving." ... idiot.
Not nearly enough.
MORE MEAT PLEASE!!!! I'M HUNGRY!!!!
I think you should volunteer yourself to take the place of a rat on one of those deadly experiments. Not only you will be saving one rat, but you will also help us clean our gene pool. It is a win-win situation.
We are saying exactly the same thing.
The population pressure (which you call overpopulation) is what causes what I mentioned as a "social disease".
You sound exactly like a friend of mine who lives in NYC.
You wouldn't live there too, by any chance, would you ?
The "project" (as you call it), is in itself its own reward.
I would like to see those too, specially if they have data on people living on different areas (high pop, middle pop, low pop, agrarian etc).
Ok, I'm going to reply to the previous 2 posters on this one.
It is not a matter of "surviving to take care of them", actually. There were some studies on this one. Of course, if you ask them, they will tell you that or something else. It is only natural for human being to find an explanation for anything.
If you look at places with really, really rich people living in agrarian areas, even if they are highly educated (which sometimes they are), they will still have 3+ kids. Usually 4 or more.
As for a 500k population area, as far as this theory (it is not mine) goes, that is considered high population. Or high enough for people to not want kids.
Interesting enough, if you have someone living in a low population arena, but working on a high population area, they will be on that high pop area enough for it to trigger a lower desire for kids.
As I said, I have a kid. A daughter to be more precise. She makes me extremely happy, and on a conscious/rational level I know other kids would make me happy too, maybe even more happy than I am. However, on the gut level (instinct, subconscious, whatever), I just don't want more kids. I don't live on a really big city, but this area is populous enough to trigger it on me.
You live in a high population area, don't you ? If you do, you are only reinforcing my argument here.
As for:
I'm sorry, but when did I say that ? I only talked about having kids. Even gay couples (mostly) want kids. Yes, I'm married and live with my wife, but I never mentioned anything about "traditional home, white fences" or anything like that.
It is not only attractive women. What you are saying here is actually known as a social disease. Urban centers, overpopulation etc will have the effect of making woman want to have less kids. If you get those same woman and leave them on less populated places for a few years (6+), they will start wanting to have kids again.
As a father, I can say this doesn't happen only to women. Having a child will actually completes you and make you happy. It is natural for men and women to want to have kids. All the other "career" bullshit (given as a reason for men/women not having kids) is a symptom of a social disease.
That is a nice question there. Thank you for it.
However, that is not the issue. If all you are doing is coding a routine, even to do a complex task (but only one), it really won't help you all that much.
However, if you have a project with 50000+ lines of code (which is a fairly small project, relatively speaking), it can make a huge, huge difference. If you have a mixed environment project, mixing platforms, languages, agent/manager modules etc, a good algorithm is KEY.
You see, I don't write algorithms for every piece of code I write. I mean, it makes no sense for me, at this point, to write a complete algorithm for a program with, let say, 500 lines of code. (It would if I were still learning algorithms or programming, of course). However, if you are involved in, let say, a 100000 lines of code project, with 30 other programmers, it is simply HUGE. Even a smaller project, let say 10000 lines of code, with 3 programmers, but with multiple platforms and different programming languages (something I experienced in the past), having a well written algorithm can make or break the project.
Ok, thank you for the hook. Going to make full use of it.
You just pointed there a big, big problem in CS courses these days: pseudo-code doesn't replace algorithms. They are not the same thing. However, most CS courses these days teach pseudo-code as if it were algorithms, which is just bull. Most people will graduate CS without any real knowledge of writing algorithms (let alone good ones). The advent of modeling languages made things a little less painful, since yeah, someone who knows UML (and is good at it) is much better than someone that writes pseudo-code. Both neither are as good as someone with good knowledge of writing algos (speaking from a project manager PoV here). Of course, someone who is good at algos AND UML (extremely rare) is even better.
Pseudo-code is crap. Useless. If you are going for pseudo-code, just teach them Pascal and be done with it. It will amount to the same thing in the end.
I have nothing against DRM, as long that was a choice by whoever is "selling" the stuff, and not something that was coerced by RIAA (etc). If Apple decided that THEY want to have DRM on their music, but, lets say, Amazon was free to see without DRM, for instance. is Metallica decides that they want all their music being released under a DBM scheme, and they were correctly informed on that subject (I'm not ok with FUD and misinformation), it should be their right. My only problem with how long copyrights last right now is because people can "sell" their rights. Again, on that note, I would be ok with Metallica having a 50 years copyright on their music, but I'm not ok with RIAA having a 50 years copyright on those songs. Oh, I think they (Metallica) should be free to sell the rights/ownership of their music to RIAA, but on that case, the copyright period should be automatically reduced to 5 years.
Also, not having the source code doesn't stop people from verifying the security of any application. You can decompile stuff, trace the execution path, monitor the network etc.
In any case, I m not defending either open source or closed source. I'm defending my write of releasing my code under any license I choose, including BSD, without some "holier-than-tho" fucktards telling me what to do. Just as I think you have the right to release your source under whatever license you choose, be it BSD, GPL, closed source, or a license that will automatically give Microsoft ownership of whatever you do with it. That is the problem I have with religious nutjobs like RMS. They forget that other people should have the same rights they do of choosing how they want to do things, and why I'm so in favor of Linus's approach (you can do whatever you want but, when you are dealing with my work, things will be the way I say), leaving everyone else alone.
How about teaching people to write algorithms ? You know, the kind we used to learn on the 60s-80s, which could be used to program in ANY language (from Assembly to Pascal/Cobol/Fortran), and not today's verbalized Pascal that people call algorithm ?
That was the first "language" I learned and, having learned 20+ languages after that (including some obscure ones lines Forth and Lua), even today I thank my teacher for giving me such a good understanding of programing without relying on any specific language's concepts.
Ok. So it is not ok for them to tell you what to do, but it is ok for you to tell them what to do ?
Anyway, your first paragraph killed your argument anyway.
Is a country that allows you the freedom to choose being a slave more free than a country that stops you from doing so ?
Nope. Your software didn't affect their freedom in any way (either positive or negative).
Neither is strictly true. They have to submit to tests and procedures, yes, but don't necessarily have to release all the details of the projects.
What part of a text only (Notepad, for example) editor affect public safety ?