It's because they look at how huge the universe is, how much energy is in it, how long it's all been around, how long it will most likely continue to be around, then truly comprehend how small, short-lived, and insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things.
That kind of realization will humble anyone, no matter how smart they are.
One would hope they'd be smart enough to see through that platitude. When they look at how huge the universe is compared to them, how long it's been around and will continue, and truly comprehend how small and short-lived they are, they will see how the precious moments of their lives are even more short-lived, unique, and special. Forgot one a million, that's almost commonplace, you're more like one in 10^37 (probably a gross underestimate there).
The more rare something is, the more significant and special each is. These massive scales of space and time make us and our years small by comparison, but it does not decrease the significance of us and our short lives -- it does precisely the opposite. It highlights in the extreme just how special our lives really are, how significant, rare, and special each year of our lives really is. Sure, it won't matter in a million years. That's why it really matters now.
Only the vain, who hope their names will be spoken to the end of time, will be off-put by these things. For the rest of us, this realization does not humble us into mistakenly thinking we're insignificant -- we knew all along that in a million years no one will care (if anyone is even around to do so). We already knew that, but we might not have appreciated how unique and rare we are right here and now. In a world where it's easy to think you're just another statistic on a corporate consumption balance sheet, such scales of space and time, and our tiny place in them, makes it plain just how rare and special each of the tiny lives of us tiny people really is.
Or you could find that the theory is perfectly correct, and the two masses are accelerating away from each other for a different reason. In the real world, it's impossible to set up an experiment or make any observation that is unambiguous, that when the result is other than what you predicted, it can be certain that the reason is that the theory is wrong, rather than that there are other factors that were not accounted for, or other assumptions that are not part of the theory that are wrong, giving a different result. This has in fact happened in the past in science (just one quick example: the theory that light is transmitted by particles [photons] is one of the oldest theories about light, one that Newton advocated, however, over the next couple of centuries, it was eventually "disproven", only to be discovered later that the theory was correct, it was the assumptions behind the experiments that "disproved" it that were wrong [e.g. that if something exhibits characteristically wave-like behavior, it must not be a particle -- this turns out not to be true, but this "fact" underlied the experiments that finally "conclusively disproved" the particle theory of light by the 19th century]).
A theory cannot be tested in isolation. Any test or observation, and the interpretation of the results, depend on a number of assumptions and other theories besides the theory being tested. A negative result from the test proves that either the theory or those other assumptions are flawed, but you can't get any better than that. It's impossible to construct an experiment that disproves a theory, at best you can show that the theory is inconsistent with those other assumptions and theories.
Ha! Actually, you'd have been fine if you hadn't said anything, since both "sceptical" and "skeptical" are correct spellings. "Sceptical" is the traditional spelling, and also the more common in UK English, although "skeptical" has become more common in certain other large English-speaking countries. But either is correct.
So, you weren't an idiot... until you tried to "correct" an already correct spelling. XD
It is easier to use; alas, it does the opposite of what you say. It doesn't train users to be more careful with their finger placements, it actually allows them to be less accurate. On a standard keyboard, if part of your finger strays outside the zone of the key you're trying to press, you end up also depressing the next key over too. On this keyboard, you do not. That's a boon for people who aren't so accurate with the placement of their fingers, but it'll make it harder for them to migrate to a standard, less-forgiving keyboard.
... but until you are the number one choice for the desktop...
I care that my OS lets my programs share resources effectively and keeps my data safe. Why would I care whether 5%, 25%, or 95% of the other computer users in the world are running the same OS as me or not? It's not at all relevant what "the number one choice for the desktop" is, unless by "the desktop" you mean the computer on my desktop. It's incredibly important that the OS is the #1 choice for my desktop. As for other peoples... I know how different people are. It's a sign of a highly distorted market if any one choice has a majority of the userbase. If there's a goal to be shooting for, it's a world where NO operating system has over 50% of the desktop. Of course, even in such a world, there will still be a "number one choice", one that has 28% when the next most popular only has 24% or something like that. But this fact will be a bit of trivia. There's something wrong in the OS marketplace as long as it remains true that which OS is the #1 choice is something more important than an answer to a geek trivia question.
Linux is a server OS, only used on the desktop by enthusiasts.
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. People who run Ubuntu should do so because that's what they like. People who run Mac OS X should do so because that's what they like. People who run Windows should do so because that's what they like. If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Accept it, because the kind of standardized APIs that are needed are not going to happen with the attitudes that this community has.
Indeed. If we were to reject that attitude and simply standardize around a single way because it's best if everyone runs the same, we'd all run Windows. There's no logical argument that can be made for rejecting running Windows but advocating a standardized API for all Linux platforms. The argument for a standardized API is an argument against having multiple operating systems to begin with. Someone who thinks every Linux-based OS should have the same look, feel, toolkit, API (beyond the Linux kernel), etc. but accepts the notion that we shouldn't all just standardize around Windows is in a state of cognitive dissonance, holding logically imcompatible ideas to be simultaneously true. That's not so amazing as the fact that they've managed to maintain it for ten years...
Setting aside the logical contradictions of your point of view for the moment, and just out of curiosity, when you say "that are needed" -- needed for what? I'm unaware of any objective that an OS should have (keep my computer running, my multiple programs sharing resources effectively, my data safe, etc.) that would require other operating systems to run the same API as me. Why would it matter if my Debian desktop and your Fedora desktop are different? And why would it be more important and somehow more tragic that our two computers are different when it's not likewise tragic that my Debian desktop and my friend's Windows desktop are different? Why is one case of difference bad but the answer is not for all three of us to adopt the more popular standard, rather that for some reason two of us should and one should not?
At least Microsoft takes some responsibility for their mistakes
Actually, I'll take the process you described above over what occurs at Microsoft or other closed-source shops any day. They also have their fair share of stubborn, arrogant developers with the kind of attitude displayed above. The reason you don't see the kind of detailed analysis of what happened all the time like the one above is simply that it all occurs behind closed doors. Oh, and because of that, you don't see the kind of outcry that eventually leads to patches until after the product ships, if ever. Microsoft can say "we can't help it if a hardware crash corrupts your data" as well as anyone else.
Everything else in the post is right, it's just wrong in the implications that this is somehow unique to Linux, or indeed anything other than substantially less common in Linux than at Microsoft or other such corporate development communities. Frankly, it's more common where it's less likely to result in a public airing like the one above.
Why not develop a car normal people will actually buy and use?
The false dilemma strikes again!
(People ARE developing cars normal people will actually buy and use. They're also doing this. And they're researching cancer, working on making safer buildings, working on making tastier snack food, and a million other things too. The fact that they're doing all these other things does not mean they aren't working on normal electric cars. "People", being a large number of individuals, are capable of working on many different things at the same time.)
Okay, how did Captain Obvious here get modded as "insightful"?
There's no NEED for most of the things we buy. Things live on because people like and enjoy them, not because there's any need. Since the advent of modern firearms, there's no need for bows and arrows, and yet bow hunting remains a popular sport.
Although some hunt to support themselves, many hunt for sport. Although some people making a living as photographers, for many, photography is a hobby. Arguing that there's no need for Polaroids is like arguing there's no need for bows. It's absolutely true, and makes it clear just how clueless the person making the statement is, how badly they've missed the point.
Oh, and sorry for two replies, but this really burns me. The people who made these sacrifices didn't do so to be worshiped or even to be remembered (not that they should be forgotten, but remembrance wasn't their purpose), they did it so the rest of us could live our lives in the pursuit of happiness. I already did my Memorial Day ritual, using the flag the Air Force gave me at my mother's funeral when I was 13 after she died in the line of duty. Now I'm grabbing a towel and heading out to laugh and enjoy some of grilling and life with my neighbors and friends. That's exactly the way she celebrated Memorial Day when I was a kid (except for the towel part), and exactly what I continue to do, and that's exactly what she'd want me to do and why she did what she did -- so I and everyone else could do precisely that.
Sorry you don't get that, but don't lecture other people about the proper way to celebrate Memorial Day, because you clearly just don't have a fucking clue. I honor the wishes and hopes and dreams of those people who you reference in your title. Why do you wish to piss on them?
And you, sir, have done more to dishonor their sacrifice than anyone else I've seen on/. today. They did not die to that there would be a day where no one would be allowed to do anything else but think of them. You don't honor them by complaining that additional things besides honoring them are also being done on the same day. You more or less make a mockery of what they actually died for.
I never knew alcoholism was a big problem for mice. Nice to know we've developed a treatment. Some of Mickey's behavior was getting kinda embarrassing...
And someday we'll all understand the fact that interpreted languages stopped being interpreted a long time ago and are now compiled before execution,
This is well understood.
... rendering the only difference between a classic compiled language (like, say, C) and an interpreted language (like, say Lisp) is that there's a read-eval-print loop (REPL) interface to the latter.
That's the common misconception. It overlooks the fact that most compiled languages are slower than C, and C is slower than assembly, due not to the fact that one is compiled and one is interpretted, but to the fact that compiler-based guesswork is often sub-optimal to better-informed choices made by intelligent programmers when deciding exactly how to optimize a bit of code. Even C traditionally has the option of inline assembly because C programmers recognized that assembly is faster. It has nothing to do with one being interpreted vs. compiled. It has to do with whether the machine code was produced by an automated system or an intelligent agent, and the degree of closeness of that agent to the machine code. The further the agent abstracts away from it, the less optimal the output can be made.
Actually, there are things you can do with Java/C# that you can't do with C period.
Are you claiming C isn't Turing-complete, or just making patently false statements to troll?
C (and even assembly) can't realize that the same inputs to a routine always cause the same output, and therefore cache the return value and just return it (not without a lot of buggy, custom code anyway).
Ah, I see. You just know so little about C and assembly that such a preposteriously absurd statement seems possible...
In fact, this sort of thing tends to be done more reliably in C or assembly than in any other language, since it doesn't rely on the compiler's guesswork to try and estimate whether to engage in this sort of optimization or not, it instead relies on the programmer's knowledge, and any decent programmer is more knowledgeable than the machine he or she is programming.
Although, if you're a script-kiddie, what you say might be true for you.
Actually it was the Soviet Union that broke the back of the German army.
There is a point where oversimplification turns an essentially true idea into an utterly false statement. You passed that point a while back here.
And if you liberated us in 1945, then why are you still occupying the place with military bases.
Because you want us to. If you wanted us to leave, we would. There are numerous examples of this.
The price we are paying being the continued McDonaldization of the place..
Given that this is happening everywhere in the world along with modernization, even places where no American soldier has ever set foot, your statement linking the two is utterly absurd.
We do that on Nov 11, thanks. I don't see why we need to adopt your dates for the purpose.
But... but... Nov. 11th is a horrible date for outdoor grilling! That would ruin the holiday entirely. I don't think you really grasp what Memorial Day is all about...
A good system does both, since otherwise on failure the attacker can just try a different account (they're usually not concerned with hacking a particular account, they just want any old account). So, limit the number of attempts on a particular account, AND limit the number of attempts from a particular source.
Since when do judges get to decide who can be prosecuted?
Since when do pilots get to fly planes?
Since when to mechanics get to fix cars?
Who, pray tell, do you believe is supposed to judge who has a valid case or not? What would you call the person who you have the job of making that judgement?
I'd rather they create a tag to help ensure that stuff is off between the enclosing tags. This will help a lot for security.
Um, no, it wouldn't. Not in the slightest bit at all whatsoever. Please do not ever, ever do any kind of work professionally where security is a concern. Thanks.
When's the last time you laid out a site without a table element on every page?
None of the websites I've designed since 2005 have used a table element on every page. And I thought I was behind the times, adopting CSS layout as late as I did... you mean you're still doing this in 2009? Really?!
... There was not a single VLB (VESA Local Bus) accelerator on that list. As I recall, the VLB slot was made for video acceleration, so they rather missed the boat by omitting those cards. Starting at Voodoo (except they started with ViRGE) is not a very comprehensive history of 3d acceleration.
If memory serves, you're correct that VLB was made for video acceleration, but it predated the days of the 3D video accelerator, or for that matter, the GPU proper. IIRC, VLB enhanced the ability of the main CPU to work with video memory by getting around the ISA bandwidth bottleneck, so the main CPU could draw graphics more quickly. This is pretty much the antithesis of the design philosophy of the modern GPU-based accelerator.
Slashdot Mirror
It's because they look at how huge the universe is, how much energy is in it, how long it's all been around, how long it will most likely continue to be around, then truly comprehend how small, short-lived, and insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things.
That kind of realization will humble anyone, no matter how smart they are.
One would hope they'd be smart enough to see through that platitude. When they look at how huge the universe is compared to them, how long it's been around and will continue, and truly comprehend how small and short-lived they are, they will see how the precious moments of their lives are even more short-lived, unique, and special. Forgot one a million, that's almost commonplace, you're more like one in 10^37 (probably a gross underestimate there).
The more rare something is, the more significant and special each is. These massive scales of space and time make us and our years small by comparison, but it does not decrease the significance of us and our short lives -- it does precisely the opposite. It highlights in the extreme just how special our lives really are, how significant, rare, and special each year of our lives really is. Sure, it won't matter in a million years. That's why it really matters now.
Only the vain, who hope their names will be spoken to the end of time, will be off-put by these things. For the rest of us, this realization does not humble us into mistakenly thinking we're insignificant -- we knew all along that in a million years no one will care (if anyone is even around to do so). We already knew that, but we might not have appreciated how unique and rare we are right here and now. In a world where it's easy to think you're just another statistic on a corporate consumption balance sheet, such scales of space and time, and our tiny place in them, makes it plain just how rare and special each of the tiny lives of us tiny people really is.
Or you could find that the theory is perfectly correct, and the two masses are accelerating away from each other for a different reason. In the real world, it's impossible to set up an experiment or make any observation that is unambiguous, that when the result is other than what you predicted, it can be certain that the reason is that the theory is wrong, rather than that there are other factors that were not accounted for, or other assumptions that are not part of the theory that are wrong, giving a different result. This has in fact happened in the past in science (just one quick example: the theory that light is transmitted by particles [photons] is one of the oldest theories about light, one that Newton advocated, however, over the next couple of centuries, it was eventually "disproven", only to be discovered later that the theory was correct, it was the assumptions behind the experiments that "disproved" it that were wrong [e.g. that if something exhibits characteristically wave-like behavior, it must not be a particle -- this turns out not to be true, but this "fact" underlied the experiments that finally "conclusively disproved" the particle theory of light by the 19th century]).
A theory cannot be tested in isolation. Any test or observation, and the interpretation of the results, depend on a number of assumptions and other theories besides the theory being tested. A negative result from the test proves that either the theory or those other assumptions are flawed, but you can't get any better than that. It's impossible to construct an experiment that disproves a theory, at best you can show that the theory is inconsistent with those other assumptions and theories.
Ha! Actually, you'd have been fine if you hadn't said anything, since both "sceptical" and "skeptical" are correct spellings. "Sceptical" is the traditional spelling, and also the more common in UK English, although "skeptical" has become more common in certain other large English-speaking countries. But either is correct.
So, you weren't an idiot... until you tried to "correct" an already correct spelling. XD
It is easier to use; alas, it does the opposite of what you say. It doesn't train users to be more careful with their finger placements, it actually allows them to be less accurate. On a standard keyboard, if part of your finger strays outside the zone of the key you're trying to press, you end up also depressing the next key over too. On this keyboard, you do not. That's a boon for people who aren't so accurate with the placement of their fingers, but it'll make it harder for them to migrate to a standard, less-forgiving keyboard.
... but until you are the number one choice for the desktop ...
I care that my OS lets my programs share resources effectively and keeps my data safe. Why would I care whether 5%, 25%, or 95% of the other computer users in the world are running the same OS as me or not? It's not at all relevant what "the number one choice for the desktop" is, unless by "the desktop" you mean the computer on my desktop. It's incredibly important that the OS is the #1 choice for my desktop. As for other peoples... I know how different people are. It's a sign of a highly distorted market if any one choice has a majority of the userbase. If there's a goal to be shooting for, it's a world where NO operating system has over 50% of the desktop. Of course, even in such a world, there will still be a "number one choice", one that has 28% when the next most popular only has 24% or something like that. But this fact will be a bit of trivia. There's something wrong in the OS marketplace as long as it remains true that which OS is the #1 choice is something more important than an answer to a geek trivia question.
Linux is a server OS, only used on the desktop by enthusiasts.
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. People who run Ubuntu should do so because that's what they like. People who run Mac OS X should do so because that's what they like. People who run Windows should do so because that's what they like. If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Accept it, because the kind of standardized APIs that are needed are not going to happen with the attitudes that this community has.
Indeed. If we were to reject that attitude and simply standardize around a single way because it's best if everyone runs the same, we'd all run Windows. There's no logical argument that can be made for rejecting running Windows but advocating a standardized API for all Linux platforms. The argument for a standardized API is an argument against having multiple operating systems to begin with. Someone who thinks every Linux-based OS should have the same look, feel, toolkit, API (beyond the Linux kernel), etc. but accepts the notion that we shouldn't all just standardize around Windows is in a state of cognitive dissonance, holding logically imcompatible ideas to be simultaneously true. That's not so amazing as the fact that they've managed to maintain it for ten years...
Setting aside the logical contradictions of your point of view for the moment, and just out of curiosity, when you say "that are needed" -- needed for what? I'm unaware of any objective that an OS should have (keep my computer running, my multiple programs sharing resources effectively, my data safe, etc.) that would require other operating systems to run the same API as me. Why would it matter if my Debian desktop and your Fedora desktop are different? And why would it be more important and somehow more tragic that our two computers are different when it's not likewise tragic that my Debian desktop and my friend's Windows desktop are different? Why is one case of difference bad but the answer is not for all three of us to adopt the more popular standard, rather that for some reason two of us should and one should not?
At least Microsoft takes some responsibility for their mistakes
Actually, I'll take the process you described above over what occurs at Microsoft or other closed-source shops any day. They also have their fair share of stubborn, arrogant developers with the kind of attitude displayed above. The reason you don't see the kind of detailed analysis of what happened all the time like the one above is simply that it all occurs behind closed doors. Oh, and because of that, you don't see the kind of outcry that eventually leads to patches until after the product ships, if ever. Microsoft can say "we can't help it if a hardware crash corrupts your data" as well as anyone else.
Everything else in the post is right, it's just wrong in the implications that this is somehow unique to Linux, or indeed anything other than substantially less common in Linux than at Microsoft or other such corporate development communities. Frankly, it's more common where it's less likely to result in a public airing like the one above.
Why not develop a car normal people will actually buy and use?
The false dilemma strikes again!
(People ARE developing cars normal people will actually buy and use. They're also doing this. And they're researching cancer, working on making safer buildings, working on making tastier snack food, and a million other things too. The fact that they're doing all these other things does not mean they aren't working on normal electric cars. "People", being a large number of individuals, are capable of working on many different things at the same time.)
There's no need for instant film anymore.
Okay, how did Captain Obvious here get modded as "insightful"?
There's no NEED for most of the things we buy. Things live on because people like and enjoy them, not because there's any need. Since the advent of modern firearms, there's no need for bows and arrows, and yet bow hunting remains a popular sport.
Although some hunt to support themselves, many hunt for sport. Although some people making a living as photographers, for many, photography is a hobby. Arguing that there's no need for Polaroids is like arguing there's no need for bows. It's absolutely true, and makes it clear just how clueless the person making the statement is, how badly they've missed the point.
Oh, and sorry for two replies, but this really burns me. The people who made these sacrifices didn't do so to be worshiped or even to be remembered (not that they should be forgotten, but remembrance wasn't their purpose), they did it so the rest of us could live our lives in the pursuit of happiness. I already did my Memorial Day ritual, using the flag the Air Force gave me at my mother's funeral when I was 13 after she died in the line of duty. Now I'm grabbing a towel and heading out to laugh and enjoy some of grilling and life with my neighbors and friends. That's exactly the way she celebrated Memorial Day when I was a kid (except for the towel part), and exactly what I continue to do, and that's exactly what she'd want me to do and why she did what she did -- so I and everyone else could do precisely that.
Sorry you don't get that, but don't lecture other people about the proper way to celebrate Memorial Day, because you clearly just don't have a fucking clue. I honor the wishes and hopes and dreams of those people who you reference in your title. Why do you wish to piss on them?
And you, sir, have done more to dishonor their sacrifice than anyone else I've seen on /. today. They did not die to that there would be a day where no one would be allowed to do anything else but think of them. You don't honor them by complaining that additional things besides honoring them are also being done on the same day. You more or less make a mockery of what they actually died for.
I never knew alcoholism was a big problem for mice. Nice to know we've developed a treatment. Some of Mickey's behavior was getting kinda embarrassing...
Of course, this guy didn't benchmark against any modern performance kings, such as Nginx, YAWS, htstub or LightStreamer.
None of these are frameworks for small dynamic web content, so it wouldn't make sense to benchmark against them
There is no reason to believe this is the world's fastest webserver, and I'm sure as hell not holding my breath.
No one claimed it was the world's fastest webserver. Try reading entire sentences, rather than grabbing a phrase or two out of the middle of them.
I don't know what it is you're smoking to think that Java starts on a C basis but can you share?
He's probably basing that on the statements by the creators of the language, who acknowledge this and indeed state it was one of their design goals.
Depends on your definition of "high level". Most of the ones on that list older than LISP and Fortran wouldn't qualify...
... the first compiler for it was implemented in 1998.
Plankalkul may have been conceived first, but generally, the age of something is measured from the date of birth, not the date of conception.
And someday we'll all understand the fact that interpreted languages stopped being interpreted a long time ago and are now compiled before execution,
This is well understood.
... rendering the only difference between a classic compiled language (like, say, C) and an interpreted language (like, say Lisp) is that there's a read-eval-print loop (REPL) interface to the latter.
That's the common misconception. It overlooks the fact that most compiled languages are slower than C, and C is slower than assembly, due not to the fact that one is compiled and one is interpretted, but to the fact that compiler-based guesswork is often sub-optimal to better-informed choices made by intelligent programmers when deciding exactly how to optimize a bit of code. Even C traditionally has the option of inline assembly because C programmers recognized that assembly is faster. It has nothing to do with one being interpreted vs. compiled. It has to do with whether the machine code was produced by an automated system or an intelligent agent, and the degree of closeness of that agent to the machine code. The further the agent abstracts away from it, the less optimal the output can be made.
Actually, there are things you can do with Java/C# that you can't do with C period.
Are you claiming C isn't Turing-complete, or just making patently false statements to troll?
C (and even assembly) can't realize that the same inputs to a routine always cause the same output, and therefore cache the return value and just return it (not without a lot of buggy, custom code anyway).
Ah, I see. You just know so little about C and assembly that such a preposteriously absurd statement seems possible...
In fact, this sort of thing tends to be done more reliably in C or assembly than in any other language, since it doesn't rely on the compiler's guesswork to try and estimate whether to engage in this sort of optimization or not, it instead relies on the programmer's knowledge, and any decent programmer is more knowledgeable than the machine he or she is programming.
Although, if you're a script-kiddie, what you say might be true for you.
Actually it was the Soviet Union that broke the back of the German army.
There is a point where oversimplification turns an essentially true idea into an utterly false statement. You passed that point a while back here.
And if you liberated us in 1945, then why are you still occupying the place with military bases.
Because you want us to. If you wanted us to leave, we would. There are numerous examples of this.
The price we are paying being the continued McDonaldization of the place ..
Given that this is happening everywhere in the world along with modernization, even places where no American soldier has ever set foot, your statement linking the two is utterly absurd.
We do that on Nov 11, thanks. I don't see why we need to adopt your dates for the purpose.
But... but... Nov. 11th is a horrible date for outdoor grilling! That would ruin the holiday entirely. I don't think you really grasp what Memorial Day is all about...
A good system does both, since otherwise on failure the attacker can just try a different account (they're usually not concerned with hacking a particular account, they just want any old account). So, limit the number of attempts on a particular account, AND limit the number of attempts from a particular source.
Since when do judges get to decide who can be prosecuted?
Since when do pilots get to fly planes?
Since when to mechanics get to fix cars?
Who, pray tell, do you believe is supposed to judge who has a valid case or not? What would you call the person who you have the job of making that judgement?
I'd rather they create a tag to help ensure that stuff is off between the enclosing tags. This will help a lot for security.
Um, no, it wouldn't. Not in the slightest bit at all whatsoever. Please do not ever, ever do any kind of work professionally where security is a concern. Thanks.
When's the last time you laid out a site without a table element on every page?
None of the websites I've designed since 2005 have used a table element on every page. And I thought I was behind the times, adopting CSS layout as late as I did... you mean you're still doing this in 2009? Really?!
... There was not a single VLB (VESA Local Bus) accelerator on that list. As I recall, the VLB slot was made for video acceleration, so they rather missed the boat by omitting those cards. Starting at Voodoo (except they started with ViRGE) is not a very comprehensive history of 3d acceleration.
If memory serves, you're correct that VLB was made for video acceleration, but it predated the days of the 3D video accelerator, or for that matter, the GPU proper. IIRC, VLB enhanced the ability of the main CPU to work with video memory by getting around the ISA bandwidth bottleneck, so the main CPU could draw graphics more quickly. This is pretty much the antithesis of the design philosophy of the modern GPU-based accelerator.