Some software is analagous to mathematics, certainly. But to describe all as no more than mathematics is absurd.
Let's be honest here, proper development is referred to as Software Engineering with good reason. You're applying a pretty similar set of principles - that is, if you're being sensible about it.
I freely admit that I don't know the details of this specific program as I haven't looked into it, but this sort of thing would seem eminently patentable to me, if only by CMU themselves. The idea of patents, after all, is to reward successful R&D. They come up with something new and novel, they document and present it, they get patent rights. Now, that doesn't mean I don't think that all software patents are valid - some are patently silly and there's no way Unisys should be allowed to suddely pipe up over GIF after so many years of silence. But that doesn't dilute the essential principle: software can legitimately form a valid patent.
I wondered whether this might happen, but decided to experiment a little.
I'm a Windows user:) Nothing against Linux (though I'm not a huge Unix fan), just no reason to run it for what I need. Too much effort to set it up, not enough return. I'll probably set up a *nix box of some description when I've got the space for more than one, but right now I'm a Windows user.
Anyway. I can't really test Worker out over here:) but it does look nice. So much of DOpus was in the little things it could do which I can't really comment on from screenshots but, based on what I've seen, it would appear worth looking at.
Don't let this discourage anyone from working on DOpus though. It's probably going to be very difficult to port (if at all possible - it may well prove to be too OS dependent) but it's a good program and the computing world could benefit from using is as an example. Linux and Windows:)
While I'm here, how on earth did my original post generate a 4? I mean, it's not a troll and it's fairly early, but...
I've got moderator points right now, too. Pity I can't post and moderate in the same thread - I'd moderate myself back down.
v5 - Especially Magellan - is a VERY different product. Pretty much a complete new desktop with an integrated filemanager. It's a lot more powerful but I know not everyone prefers it. I use both, personally, as the effort required to make 5 perform as 4 did is substantial and 4 is sometimes faster.
Whatever, 4 is still a VERY cool product and worth looking at. I agree it may well be more than a little difficult to port due to being very Amiga specific, but it's a start. And anything that helps produce a better file manager is good.
This was announced last week and, not wishing to be smug, but I submitted almost exactly this story the day it was released. Rejected VERY quickly.
Oh well...
For anyone who hasn't used this, do. It's fantastic and would be a real asset to the GNU community. Even if it means downloading UAE and using that just to try it out. This program could convince almost anyone to move away from CLIs for file management and was Amiga Format's highest rated product until Lightwave 3.5 came along - 97%.
The Problem with the "T&A" for me was the fact that the Dizzy wasn't in the book!!!
"...80% 'Bug Hunt', 20% book..." was what someone descibed the movie as...
Again, not having read the book really doesn't help in this bit but...
I don't care. It was perhaps politically unfortunate to name the movie Starship Troopers and suggest that it was an adaptation of Heinlein, but that doesn't alter the fact that the film certainly stands on its own two feet. Forget the book for one moment - when we're discussing how good the film is, it shouldn't matter.
Dizzy is a well rounded charater (no, not like that...) who makes sense and serves a dramatic purpose other than simply taking her top off. She has every right to be in the film
I don't agree with your opinions in case you hadn't guessed:) but there's one particularly glaring error in your post.
Paul Verhoeven's Dutch. As in from the Netherlands. I think the chance of him refusing to accept anything other than the US as valid is rather low.
Anyway, on with the post.
It sunk far below just a cheap action flick with T&A by not only not getting the ideas, but mocking them, and by doing so, showing that the director is Nazi obsessed.
Erm...
T&A? OK... I don't dispute that there's nudity in the film (I'm not blind) but T&A sort of implies it's gratuitous. Now, think back to the two scenes concered. The showers and Johny and Dizzy in the tent. Would you have objected to the shower scene at all if it were all male? No, probably not - there's plenty of similar scenes in other films. And a big point in this film is that gender barriers just aren't there. Pilots tend to be female, but that's because they're better. Now, the main reason we don't see this most of the time is that there's a collective hangup about mixed nudity. I'm not saying that's bad, but why is single-sex nudity acceptable but mixed isn't? It's a perfectly sensible scene, helping to establish the parameters for the society.
Now, think back to the tent scene. Do we see every last sordid detail in slow motion? No. It's just another part of the story and a fairly understandable one, under the circumstances. I wouldn't describe it as gratuitous.
Instead of presenting the same questions to the characters, letting people watch them decide what's important enough to make them risk their lives, the director simply shows the whole society as war-obsessed nuts.
No...
If you remember, Johnny's parents were rather opposed to the whole thing. What we saw was a standard society - BUT one where military service had been decided was necessary for voting rights. I wouldn't go for that idea myself but I can see why others would, especially in that situation.
Look at when Johnny's about to leave the military. He stay in after his parents are killed. He'd originally decided it was worth it to try and keep Carmen, but changed his mind. He then changed it back again, presumably desiring revenge against the bugs.
We are seeing why the individuals concerned are choosing this course of action over another. For goodness' sakes, we even get them discussing their motives with each other! In the main, they're not psychopaths. They simply accept that military service has its perks in their society and feel that it's worth it. Describing the whole society in this film as war-obsessed nuts is simply inaccurate and unsupportable.
Where did the scene with the soldiers handing the kids the guns come from? The nazi uniforms? All creations of the moron directing it.
You may not like those elements, but we're not discussing how accurate an adaptation the film is here, we're discussing whether it's any good.
In this society, I agree soldiers handing kids guns is a little tasteless. But this is speculative social SF and we're not talking about this society. The military are an accepted, everyday part of life in this society. In that context, how is this any different from (for example) sitting kids in a police car and letting them try on helmets? The fact that they're guns is irrelevant - the soldier is just another part of this society and the gun is his tool.
Nazi uniforms though? I don't dispute Carl's uniform was a little suspect, but anyone else's? No, not really. And given that he was pretty much at the top by the time he started wearing that trenchcoat, he could choose what he wanted to a degree.
If the deep thoughts aren't appropriate for a movie, then rip them out and leave the action, but don't distort them, twisting them to preach instead of to ask. That's the worst possible at all levels.
Oh, come off it. This film isn't preaching.
You may well perceive criticism, but how can you support that? You can't, it isn't there. It may come across as critical but at no point are they even indirectly criticised as a society. It's merely that our framework for the film generates implied criticism. Show the film to another society and I suspect the reaction could be different.
There's then the questing of how the original was intended... I've heard it argued with fair conviction both ways, so to use this against the film as an adaptation strikes me as odd.
And they end it with a ST:TNG-ism straight from Deanna Troy "I feel fear" "Its afraid!"
Your point being?
They ended on a victory, showing the humans taking out their commander. Entirely sensible and in keeping with the style throughout.
I can see that you don't like the film and that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinion. But you seem to be letting your dislike of the film cloud your judgment excessively here. Stand back, stop thinking of the original as tightly as you seem to be and look at it again. It's a lot better than you give it credit for.
No, sorry, It really is a grievous insult to any sentient being. Having not read the book, you cannot begin to comprehend how true this is. BTW, it's a short book, you could prob. tear it off in one evening.
I appear to have hit a nerve:)
I'll probably read the book one of these days - I've liked the other Heinlein I've read - but it really isn't relevant to this discussion. A film can be perfectly good on its own despite being a travesty of an adaptation. For example - I liked Blade Runner. But read the original and you realise how bad it is as a rendering of that story. Now, that doesn't diminish the quality of Blade Runner as a film, it merely makes it a poor retelling of the original story.
You appear to regard the film as an example for us to follow, too: perhaps unfortunate, given the level of debate as to exactly what Heinlein actually meant. Never mind.
Verhoeven is a shameless hack, he lied to the Heinlein estate, and he just made a poor movie. That doesn't mean he can't make entertaining films, just not that one.
You may not have enjoyed the film, but that doens't mean it wasn't entertaining. Equally, while it's not a nice thing to do (assuming it's true - I've not heard this said elsewhere), the quality of the movie is not affected by the truthfulness or otherwise of his dealings with the estate.
You didn't like this film. Too bad - there's plenty of films I don't like either. I'm remarkably picky. But I did like it, along with several friends, some rather well read in SF.
An earlier poster made a comparison between ST and Plato's Republic - that is what all good political SF aspires to be - a fictional exploration of alternative political ideas.
Not having read Plato's republic doesn't help here, but...
That strikes me as far too broad a generalisation. I can see what you're getting at but that doesn't make it any truer.
Some good political SF will be taking the form of a fictional exploration of alternatives, sure. But I've always enjoyed the what if? side of SF, and that then provides possibilities you haven't got there. What if we could demonstrate sentience of other races - how would their rights now be defined? What if we were in a Star Trek-style environment and were having to shape a system of interaction between groups who have no common roots and very few common values?
Political SF can take many forms. I don't dispute you've identified a major form, but there's more to it than that by a long way.
Bottom line: you like the book but not the film, I like the film but haven't read the book. I'm told by others the film isn't an especially close rendering of the book but I don't care. It stands on its own two feet, both as entertainment and thought-provoking SF. Whether it provokes the same thoughts as the original is only relevant in the context of comparison with the original, and to refuse to look at it in any other light is monumentally short-sighted.
Any short story(or collection thereof) by Philip K Dick. Not the novel's though, they are generally not worth the effort, short story's are what he's good at.
I quite like his novels personally, but I'd wholehearteldy recommend his shorts. Well-written philosophical SF in the main.
Even better, they're available (in the UK, at least) as a 5 volume collected works, complete with comments on each story from Phil in the back to place it in context.
Thoroughly recommended.
Incidentally, if you've watched Blade Runner and enjoyed it, read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the story it's based on. Not too long but a much better, fuller story IMHO.
The movie, on the other hand, is a grievous insult to any sentient being.
Oh come on, that's not fair.
I'm told the film was rather different in some ways to the book (which I haven't read) but to describe it in those terms is silly.
Not being Paul Verhoeven it's difficult to say exactly what he was trying to get across, but I've always taken it as pretty much political satire, having a go at right-wing militarists. Which isn't to say that all right-wingers are militaristic or vice-versa. But it's not exaggerating unfairly and it's not even overtly judging. Any judgments are entirely perceived due to our social context.
I'm not saying it's the best film ever. I'm not comparing it to the book as I haven't read it. But to describe it as you did is ludicrous.
The point, though, is fairly simple. In the horizontal plane we perceive stereoscopically, due to the alignment of our eyes. In the vertical, we don't. Now, it's not difficult to see that the need is lower, but there should be an advantage for creatures operating properly in three dimensions having a third eye, out of vertical alignment with the other two. So why don't any have such an eye?
I actually have very little perception of time. I've worn a watch pretty much constantly since I was 7-8 (no, not the same watch...) and have little or no ability to tell HOW MUCH time has passed without reference to clocks or watches. No way of knowing if the two are linked, but I'm not giving any kids of mine watches so young.
Couldn't I call vision two senses because I have two eyes?
A little off-topic I'm afraid, but...
Does anyone have a good explanation why birds only have two eyes? We can only effectively perceive depth in one plane due to the orientation of our eyes. Not a problem as we're land bound. But birds could take advantage of three in a triangular formation. So why don't any have three eyes?
My Dad's pretty reliable at this, too, but with a small amount of practice and thought it's possible to do this from the sun and stars. So if neither are even slightly visible - and on a cloudy day you're potentially going to get one horizone lighter than the other due to the position of the sun - you could test it pretty reliably.
There have been some reported eye problems. Imagine you're in a VR world, wandering round. Imagine you walk up to the edge of a cliff and look over it. Ordinarily your eyes would have to refocus, but you're in VR so the screen is still the same distance from your eyes. Which has apparently caused some problems, as the eye was actually tricked well enough to try and refocus...
I think what we really need is some patents with a licence that allows free use for non-profit purposes, and free use to all organisations who own no patents.
ISWYM, but...
You seem to want to limit their free use to companies who aren't getting silly with patents. So surely the system you actually want is not to check whether they have patents but how they license their patents. There are plenty of companies out there who patent stuff to stop others patenting their work and then using is as a weapon, but don't actually charge for the licensing. Which is essentially what you seem to be trying, and is to be applauded.
Speaking personally, I'm looking forward to this sort of thing for racegames. It doesn't quite feel real enough playing on a steady chair even with a car - with a bike it's dreadful.
I suspect, as normal, the first people to REALLY pick this up will be the pornographers. We've already got the bodysuits to give passable VR sex - this could make it all rather more interesting. Imagine the market if they program this to a zero-gravity effect model, somehow...
Because it may be easier than the alternative, or produce faster programs. Given that, why not? A language should make is easy to follow good programing guidelines, but it shouldn't force you to do anything. The compiler/language are a tool, and if that tool doesn't best fit the job, use something else. Ideally the language will have extensions to let you easily use something else for parts instead of having to write a completely external module.
I must admit I can't see how coding something in Assembler could be regarded as simpler than doing the same in Pascal - and allowing for that possibility makes compilation much harder, as you have to make sure that the hardcoded section doesn't muck up everything else, which is going to slow it all down a bit.
As a general principle though, I agree. There's plenty of things which could be more easily accomplished in (for example) Miranda or Prolog, much as I may dislike them:) So an interface for this is certainly a good idea. I admit I haven't a clue how easy this is in general - not something I've needed - but I'm guessing it should be possible with Delphi.
For example, write a rot13 filter... A trivial app. But, if you ended up needed to pipe a big file through it, a badly programmed inner loop could cause problems.
But how cack-handed could a compiler make this? I mean, it's not like this has all that many lines of ANY code in it.
I see your point absolutely, but I just can't see that this is the case.
It's been a while since I've used Pascal but I remember having to call a function to turn characters into numbers...
Which is a good thing! Y'see, this is all to do with the typing which makes error trapping so much easier it's silly.
You and I both know that when the compiler actually gets down to it, it just throws that function call away and does it directly. But by requiring the user to do it that way - hardly onerous - it makes for more reliable code that's easier to bugfix, as a VERY common error - incorrect type assignments - is trapped. Good Thing.
IMHO nearly everything written could use a little optimizing. Just because we've got fast computers is no reason to waste cycles, especially since with multitasking, every cycle wasted is one stolen from another app. And with d.net and seti@home, conceivably every cycle can be used.
But think cost-benefit. Most of the time the cost of rewriting in assembler and then hand-optimising would be better spent on more testing - which would enhance the use experience far more.
Ther's also then the issue that modern CPU design means that the assembler that runs the fastest is rarely that which looks the fastest to us... Compilers (when written properly) know what's sensible to pump out and what isn't. For us to try and remember all those rules would just get silly.
And, as for the comment about nobody using Pascal... I meant, nobody that I see. Delphi (visual pascal basically) gets some use, but mainly for prototyping of one-off jobs. Everything I see is in C/C++ for speed/portability, Java/Perl for extreme portability and ease of coding, or VB because the coder is clueless. I realize some people do use Pascal, but nowhere near as many as use other languages.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you there:(
I can see that C/C++ is good for some jobs, but its present ubiquity seems undeserved to me. And a likely contributing factor to code instability as (IME, anyway) it's far harder to debug than Pascal. Java's basically a cleaned up C++ from what I see so not a lot better, Perl is rather specialised to say the least:) And VB should be shot. Silly idea.
I accept I'm a stick-in-the-mud here, but Delphi really is a wonderful tool. No harder than VB - in many ways easier, it would appear - and with almost all the power of VC++. Plus with the gloriously easy debugging:) Wish it was used more...
Languages that restrict you, that prevent you from being specific when you know something the compiler doesn't, are bad. That's why nobody uses Pascal.
You really think? Oh well...
Seriously, how often is that an issue? If you're writing a kernel module, sure. If you're writing a 3D engine, sure. But what percentage of code is actually speed-critical? Pretty low. And what other reason is there to do this, assuming we're not having to work round a whopping great compiler bug?
I like Pascal BECAUSE it's simple. I don't have to worry about stuff I don't actually need to control - what always slows me down in C - and there's so much error trapping that bugfixing is lovely and easy. YOU try corrupting memory with Pascal:)
I'm happy enough to accept that I'm in a minority here, but I've never understood why. It's so rare that Pascal can't do what I want that it's not worth thinking about. Whereas the number of silly things I've had to do to get C code to work properly are crazy, because it's so finicky.
This may well have been a relevant issue across the board 20 years ago, but I'm typing this on a decidedly aged P100. Turning in, what, 150-ish MIPS? At this level of basic CPU performance, most apps just aren't time-critical. So why should I want to dip out of the nice, easy to work with world of Pascal into assembler. To reduce my productivity and reliability?
I agree absolutely that size is a big difference, but...
Firstly, the basic principles hold no matter what size you're developing. They may not actually save time on a 100 line project, but once you clear a few hundred LOC you need them IME.
Secondly, how on earth would we have the time to develop anything that large? We're taught using examples and the principles scale.
One major problem is that the developers are not trained in writing software in the first place. They are either trained in computer science, or some totally unrelated field.
UK CS undergraduate here, for reference.
The second year here (Reading) is basically the bits the department have to put in to get course accreditation from the British Computer Society. It includes Software Engineering and Formal Methods.
I don't know what US courses are like and that's certainly not the whole course, but it's a decent percentage and it's effectively requred over here.
One more example: my sister. Favourite games AFAIK are Freecell, Tetris and Transport Tycoon. In other words, fundamentally puzzle games with an element of strategy.
Key phrase: the compatibility is very important for closed source software but unimportant for open-source type where you can easily recompile. You really expect the average user to recompile their software? Not going to happen, sorry.
I agree, StrongARM would be a good one if they could find a way of getting it into this sort of market. They don't seem to know how to yet, though.
I'd have to agree, here. AMD could win very nicely in the desktop arena on this one.
Why? Intel are pushing IA64, which ISN'T compatible. It can pretend, but not by default. AMD, OTOH, are pushing x86-64, which is a superset of IA32. You just plug it in and use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, come off it.
Some software is analagous to mathematics, certainly. But to describe all as no more than mathematics is absurd.
Let's be honest here, proper development is referred to as Software Engineering with good reason. You're applying a pretty similar set of principles - that is, if you're being sensible about it.
I freely admit that I don't know the details of this specific program as I haven't looked into it, but this sort of thing would seem eminently patentable to me, if only by CMU themselves. The idea of patents, after all, is to reward successful R&D. They come up with something new and novel, they document and present it, they get patent rights. Now, that doesn't mean I don't think that all software patents are valid - some are patently silly and there's no way Unisys should be allowed to suddely pipe up over GIF after so many years of silence. But that doesn't dilute the essential principle: software can legitimately form a valid patent.
Greg
I wondered whether this might happen, but decided to experiment a little.
:) Nothing against Linux (though I'm not a huge Unix fan), just no reason to run it for what I need. Too much effort to set it up, not enough return. I'll probably set up a *nix box of some description when I've got the space for more than one, but right now I'm a Windows user.
:) but it does look nice. So much of DOpus was in the little things it could do which I can't really comment on from screenshots but, based on what I've seen, it would appear worth looking at.
:)
I'm a Windows user
Anyway. I can't really test Worker out over here
Don't let this discourage anyone from working on DOpus though. It's probably going to be very difficult to port (if at all possible - it may well prove to be too OS dependent) but it's a good program and the computing world could benefit from using is as an example. Linux and Windows
While I'm here, how on earth did my original post generate a 4? I mean, it's not a troll and it's fairly early, but...
I've got moderator points right now, too. Pity I can't post and moderate in the same thread - I'd moderate myself back down.
Greg
v5 - Especially Magellan - is a VERY different product. Pretty much a complete new desktop with an integrated filemanager. It's a lot more powerful but I know not everyone prefers it. I use both, personally, as the effort required to make 5 perform as 4 did is substantial and 4 is sometimes faster.
Whatever, 4 is still a VERY cool product and worth looking at. I agree it may well be more than a little difficult to port due to being very Amiga specific, but it's a start. And anything that helps produce a better file manager is good.
Greg
This was announced last week and, not wishing to be smug, but I submitted almost exactly this story the day it was released. Rejected VERY quickly.
Oh well...
For anyone who hasn't used this, do. It's fantastic and would be a real asset to the GNU community. Even if it means downloading UAE and using that just to try it out. This program could convince almost anyone to move away from CLIs for file management and was Amiga Format's highest rated product until Lightwave 3.5 came along - 97%.
Please, can someone port it?
Greg
I don't care. It was perhaps politically unfortunate to name the movie Starship Troopers and suggest that it was an adaptation of Heinlein, but that doesn't alter the fact that the film certainly stands on its own two feet. Forget the book for one moment - when we're discussing how good the film is, it shouldn't matter.
Dizzy is a well rounded charater (no, not like that...) who makes sense and serves a dramatic purpose other than simply taking her top off. She has every right to be in the film
Greg
Paul Verhoeven's Dutch. As in from the Netherlands. I think the chance of him refusing to accept anything other than the US as valid is rather low.
Anyway, on with the post.
Erm...
T&A? OK... I don't dispute that there's nudity in the film (I'm not blind) but T&A sort of implies it's gratuitous. Now, think back to the two scenes concered. The showers and Johny and Dizzy in the tent. Would you have objected to the shower scene at all if it were all male? No, probably not - there's plenty of similar scenes in other films. And a big point in this film is that gender barriers just aren't there. Pilots tend to be female, but that's because they're better. Now, the main reason we don't see this most of the time is that there's a collective hangup about mixed nudity. I'm not saying that's bad, but why is single-sex nudity acceptable but mixed isn't? It's a perfectly sensible scene, helping to establish the parameters for the society.
Now, think back to the tent scene. Do we see every last sordid detail in slow motion? No. It's just another part of the story and a fairly understandable one, under the circumstances. I wouldn't describe it as gratuitous.
No...
If you remember, Johnny's parents were rather opposed to the whole thing. What we saw was a standard society - BUT one where military service had been decided was necessary for voting rights. I wouldn't go for that idea myself but I can see why others would, especially in that situation.
Look at when Johnny's about to leave the military. He stay in after his parents are killed. He'd originally decided it was worth it to try and keep Carmen, but changed his mind. He then changed it back again, presumably desiring revenge against the bugs.
We are seeing why the individuals concerned are choosing this course of action over another. For goodness' sakes, we even get them discussing their motives with each other! In the main, they're not psychopaths. They simply accept that military service has its perks in their society and feel that it's worth it. Describing the whole society in this film as war-obsessed nuts is simply inaccurate and unsupportable.
You may not like those elements, but we're not discussing how accurate an adaptation the film is here, we're discussing whether it's any good.
In this society, I agree soldiers handing kids guns is a little tasteless. But this is speculative social SF and we're not talking about this society. The military are an accepted, everyday part of life in this society. In that context, how is this any different from (for example) sitting kids in a police car and letting them try on helmets? The fact that they're guns is irrelevant - the soldier is just another part of this society and the gun is his tool.
Nazi uniforms though? I don't dispute Carl's uniform was a little suspect, but anyone else's? No, not really. And given that he was pretty much at the top by the time he started wearing that trenchcoat, he could choose what he wanted to a degree.
Oh, come off it. This film isn't preaching.
You may well perceive criticism, but how can you support that? You can't, it isn't there. It may come across as critical but at no point are they even indirectly criticised as a society. It's merely that our framework for the film generates implied criticism. Show the film to another society and I suspect the reaction could be different.
There's then the questing of how the original was intended... I've heard it argued with fair conviction both ways, so to use this against the film as an adaptation strikes me as odd.
Your point being?
They ended on a victory, showing the humans taking out their commander. Entirely sensible and in keeping with the style throughout.
I can see that you don't like the film and that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinion. But you seem to be letting your dislike of the film cloud your judgment excessively here. Stand back, stop thinking of the original as tightly as you seem to be and look at it again. It's a lot better than you give it credit for.
Greg
I'll probably read the book one of these days - I've liked the other Heinlein I've read - but it really isn't relevant to this discussion. A film can be perfectly good on its own despite being a travesty of an adaptation. For example - I liked Blade Runner. But read the original and you realise how bad it is as a rendering of that story. Now, that doesn't diminish the quality of Blade Runner as a film, it merely makes it a poor retelling of the original story.
You appear to regard the film as an example for us to follow, too: perhaps unfortunate, given the level of debate as to exactly what Heinlein actually meant. Never mind.
You may not have enjoyed the film, but that doens't mean it wasn't entertaining. Equally, while it's not a nice thing to do (assuming it's true - I've not heard this said elsewhere), the quality of the movie is not affected by the truthfulness or otherwise of his dealings with the estate.
You didn't like this film. Too bad - there's plenty of films I don't like either. I'm remarkably picky. But I did like it, along with several friends, some rather well read in SF.
Not having read Plato's republic doesn't help here, but...
That strikes me as far too broad a generalisation. I can see what you're getting at but that doesn't make it any truer.
Some good political SF will be taking the form of a fictional exploration of alternatives, sure. But I've always enjoyed the what if? side of SF, and that then provides possibilities you haven't got there. What if we could demonstrate sentience of other races - how would their rights now be defined? What if we were in a Star Trek-style environment and were having to shape a system of interaction between groups who have no common roots and very few common values?
Political SF can take many forms. I don't dispute you've identified a major form, but there's more to it than that by a long way.
Bottom line: you like the book but not the film, I like the film but haven't read the book. I'm told by others the film isn't an especially close rendering of the book but I don't care. It stands on its own two feet, both as entertainment and thought-provoking SF. Whether it provokes the same thoughts as the original is only relevant in the context of comparison with the original, and to refuse to look at it in any other light is monumentally short-sighted.
Greg
Even better, they're available (in the UK, at least) as a 5 volume collected works, complete with comments on each story from Phil in the back to place it in context.
Thoroughly recommended.
Incidentally, if you've watched Blade Runner and enjoyed it, read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the story it's based on. Not too long but a much better, fuller story IMHO.
Greg
I'm told the film was rather different in some ways to the book (which I haven't read) but to describe it in those terms is silly.
Not being Paul Verhoeven it's difficult to say exactly what he was trying to get across, but I've always taken it as pretty much political satire, having a go at right-wing militarists. Which isn't to say that all right-wingers are militaristic or vice-versa. But it's not exaggerating unfairly and it's not even overtly judging. Any judgments are entirely perceived due to our social context.
I'm not saying it's the best film ever. I'm not comparing it to the book as I haven't read it. But to describe it as you did is ludicrous.
Greg
My apologies, badly worded.
The point, though, is fairly simple. In the horizontal plane we perceive stereoscopically, due to the alignment of our eyes. In the vertical, we don't. Now, it's not difficult to see that the need is lower, but there should be an advantage for creatures operating properly in three dimensions having a third eye, out of vertical alignment with the other two. So why don't any have such an eye?
Greg
I actually have very little perception of time. I've worn a watch pretty much constantly since I was 7-8 (no, not the same watch...) and have little or no ability to tell HOW MUCH time has passed without reference to clocks or watches. No way of knowing if the two are linked, but I'm not giving any kids of mine watches so young.
Greg
Does anyone have a good explanation why birds only have two eyes? We can only effectively perceive depth in one plane due to the orientation of our eyes. Not a problem as we're land bound. But birds could take advantage of three in a triangular formation. So why don't any have three eyes?
Greg
... or test on a cloudy night.
My Dad's pretty reliable at this, too, but with a small amount of practice and thought it's possible to do this from the sun and stars. So if neither are even slightly visible - and on a cloudy day you're potentially going to get one horizone lighter than the other due to the position of the sun - you could test it pretty reliably.
Greg
This isn't the only problem with VR gear, though.
There have been some reported eye problems. Imagine you're in a VR world, wandering round. Imagine you walk up to the edge of a cliff and look over it. Ordinarily your eyes would have to refocus, but you're in VR so the screen is still the same distance from your eyes. Which has apparently caused some problems, as the eye was actually tricked well enough to try and refocus...
Greg
You seem to want to limit their free use to companies who aren't getting silly with patents. So surely the system you actually want is not to check whether they have patents but how they license their patents. There are plenty of companies out there who patent stuff to stop others patenting their work and then using is as a weapon, but don't actually charge for the licensing. Which is essentially what you seem to be trying, and is to be applauded.
Greg
Speaking personally, I'm looking forward to this sort of thing for racegames. It doesn't quite feel real enough playing on a steady chair even with a car - with a bike it's dreadful.
I suspect, as normal, the first people to REALLY pick this up will be the pornographers. We've already got the bodysuits to give passable VR sex - this could make it all rather more interesting. Imagine the market if they program this to a zero-gravity effect model, somehow...
Greg
As a general principle though, I agree. There's plenty of things which could be more easily accomplished in (for example) Miranda or Prolog, much as I may dislike them
I see your point absolutely, but I just can't see that this is the case.Which is a good thing! Y'see, this is all to do with the typing which makes error trapping so much easier it's silly.
You and I both know that when the compiler actually gets down to it, it just throws that function call away and does it directly. But by requiring the user to do it that way - hardly onerous - it makes for more reliable code that's easier to bugfix, as a VERY common error - incorrect type assignments - is trapped. Good Thing.But think cost-benefit. Most of the time the cost of rewriting in assembler and then hand-optimising would be better spent on more testing - which would enhance the use experience far more.
Ther's also then the issue that modern CPU design means that the assembler that runs the fastest is rarely that which looks the fastest to us... Compilers (when written properly) know what's sensible to pump out and what isn't. For us to try and remember all those rules would just get silly.Unfortunately I have to agree with you there
I can see that C/C++ is good for some jobs, but its present ubiquity seems undeserved to me. And a likely contributing factor to code instability as (IME, anyway) it's far harder to debug than Pascal. Java's basically a cleaned up C++ from what I see so not a lot better, Perl is rather specialised to say the least
I accept I'm a stick-in-the-mud here, but Delphi really is a wonderful tool. No harder than VB - in many ways easier, it would appear - and with almost all the power of VC++. Plus with the gloriously easy debugging
Greg
Seriously, how often is that an issue? If you're writing a kernel module, sure. If you're writing a 3D engine, sure. But what percentage of code is actually speed-critical? Pretty low. And what other reason is there to do this, assuming we're not having to work round a whopping great compiler bug?
I like Pascal BECAUSE it's simple. I don't have to worry about stuff I don't actually need to control - what always slows me down in C - and there's so much error trapping that bugfixing is lovely and easy. YOU try corrupting memory with Pascal
I'm happy enough to accept that I'm in a minority here, but I've never understood why. It's so rare that Pascal can't do what I want that it's not worth thinking about. Whereas the number of silly things I've had to do to get C code to work properly are crazy, because it's so finicky.
This may well have been a relevant issue across the board 20 years ago, but I'm typing this on a decidedly aged P100. Turning in, what, 150-ish MIPS? At this level of basic CPU performance, most apps just aren't time-critical. So why should I want to dip out of the nice, easy to work with world of Pascal into assembler. To reduce my productivity and reliability?
Greg
I agree absolutely that size is a big difference, but...
Firstly, the basic principles hold no matter what size you're developing. They may not actually save time on a 100 line project, but once you clear a few hundred LOC you need them IME.
Secondly, how on earth would we have the time to develop anything that large? We're taught using examples and the principles scale.
Greg
The second year here (Reading) is basically the bits the department have to put in to get course accreditation from the British Computer Society. It includes Software Engineering and Formal Methods.
I don't know what US courses are like and that's certainly not the whole course, but it's a decent percentage and it's effectively requred over here.
Greg
Hey!
You get plenty of kids asking for the earth for their birthdays, but on mine I get a moon! Not bad for a start, is it?
:-)
Greg
One more example: my sister. Favourite games AFAIK are Freecell, Tetris and Transport Tycoon. In other words, fundamentally puzzle games with an element of strategy.
Greg
No, I don't touch anything anywhere near that strong.
I couldn't if I wanted tom, though - I'm British (in case the e-mail address and URL weren't enough of a giveaway...) and that's not legal over here.
Greg
Key phrase: the compatibility is very important for closed source software but unimportant for open-source type where you can easily recompile. You really expect the average user to recompile their software? Not going to happen, sorry.
I agree, StrongARM would be a good one if they could find a way of getting it into this sort of market. They don't seem to know how to yet, though.
Greg
I'd have to agree, here. AMD could win very nicely in the desktop arena on this one.
:)
Why? Intel are pushing IA64, which ISN'T compatible. It can pretend, but not by default. AMD, OTOH, are pushing x86-64, which is a superset of IA32. You just plug it in and use it.
Which would you bet on?
Greg