I agree 100%. "The Star Diaries" is the first book I read by Lem when I was 12. I've re-read it many times and each time I find more stuff in it that's great. I'm not sure whether all the Ijon Tichy stories were ever published as a single volume though...
the real ruling triumverate of scifi is Lem, PKD and Cordwainer Smith
It's kind of funny, because Lem thinks that most of Western SF is pure crap. The only writer he likes is Philip K. Dick. In Lem's book "Microworlds" he even has an essay titled: Philip K. Dick: A Visionary among Charlatans.
Actually Lem has stopped writing fiction. He has published several books (in Polish) that are collection of essays on science and technology. BTW, he doesn't like the Internet.
Here is a short review of one of these books I wrote last year:
Bomba Megabitowa S. Lem. Another book by Lem in Polish. The title means "The Megabit Bomb". It's about the information explosion,
Internet etc. It's hard to summarize this book. Lem feel pretty negative about the current Internet growth and the freedom that is gives people. He feels
that this tends to bring out the worst in people. From his comments on computer viruses and hackers I'm guessing he is stuck using Windows. He thinks
that the it's biotechnology and deeper understanding of evolution that will result in new ways of computing. He believes that AI is possible in principle,
but not any time soon, as we don't really understand how human reason/conscioussness works (this has become my own view also).
I don't agree with his opinions on the Net, but I think his predictions on biotech are more on the money. In fact he compares evolution to a large, massively parallel computation.
Actually have you read them all? There are several that set up the same situation - a small group of people isolated from the world, forced to deal with an unusual situation.
The Pirx stories start lighweight, but eventually get much deeper. In fact the novel "Fiasco" is sort of the last Pirx story.
Well, the money the theatre makes is not pure profit. Think, rent/morgage and insurance on the building. Paying the employees (pay plus benefits). The popcorn and drinks are not actually free. Then there is electricity, other utilities and so on.
Now if you add $500 cost per each showing, all of a sudden it may not be profitable to show the movie at all. Haven't you ever been in a theatre with only 10 people in the audience?
What use is picture quality, if the actual content sucks? Hollywood spends too much money on special effects and "stars" than on actual plots.
Just think of books - does it really matter what sort paper the book is printed on? Of course, it may matter at extremes - books on toilet paper probably wouldn't be readable and books on fancy paper can be really beatiful. But ultimately the contents is what's important.
Would "Blaire Witch Project" be any more effective on a digital screen?
But to be able to record shows of TV you'll have to sign some kind of agreement with the media cartels, to follow their "standards".
Look what happened to the free (!) DVD players for Linux. People are not allowed to write one without paying a licensing fee to the DVD secret holders.
Of course with DeCSS out you can build a DVD player for Linux, but try and sell players based on this code without paying the licensing fees and you'll see hordes of lawyers on your tail.
Also, nobody really needs a PVR. We'd be better off not watching TV at all (or less anyways).
Just a data point on recording expenses..
on
CDs Want To Be Free
·
· Score: 2
I recently read the book "Kind of Blue" which is about the recording sessions for the Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue" album (this album is a modern jazz classis, still selling after 40 plus years).
Anyways, the album was recorded in two three hour sessions at a NY studio. Each cut on the album is the first complete take (i.e. one without stupid mistakes).
How much does six hours in a recording studio cost?
The whole notion that pretend violance on TV or in computer games causes real violence. Dick Cavett once said "look at all the comedy on TV, does it cause comedy in the street"?
For a while I've felt that TV ads are just a complete waste of time and money. Next time you watch TV pick a random ad and ask your self "Am I going to buy this product?". Will seeing the ad 10,000 times change your mind? I didn't think so.
I suspect that the theory that enough people actually buy the specific product to make the ads pay for themselves is not right (at least in most cases). For example, why am I seeing ads for "International Paper" or IBM or SUN? Will my grandmother buy SUN servers because she saw the ad on TV? Come on!
I think that, just like Web banner ads, TV ads are not particularly effective, but unlike Web ads, it's impossible to measure effectiveness of TV.
This carpet bombing of people with advertisements makes everyone immune to the message after a while and as a result the ads do not have the desired effect.
A new model for marketing is needed and making people watch TV commercials is not it. Unfortunately I don't know what the new model should be...
Re:Why do these industries refuse to compete?
on
Reason Magazine on DRM
·
· Score: 4, Informative
They are cheap to reproduce, but producing the first one is an expensive process: factor in the cost of studio time, equipment, a producer and an engineer, let alone living expenses for the weeks/months it takes... all that has to come from somewhere.
Actually studio costs have been declining dratically due to digital technology. For example, an artist like Moby produces his recordings in his own house.
In any case the recording costs are charged to the artist and are not payed by record companies. True, record companies gamble on several acts hoping that at least one can produce a million seller that will cover their investment. But is this a necessary way to promote music?
Not all musicians can tour or play live.
Well, then you have to figure out a way to make money from other sources than selling CDs. Horse coach drivers were also put out of business by new technology. You have to adapt...
But what if there isn't an alternative business model for some artists?
I'm sure there is. They just have to figure it out. Screwing your customers works only so long...
I've been through all the arguments involving scientific method and repeatable experiments etc. But most people don't want to hear it. So now I have the following list:
I don't believe in psychics because you have make an appointment to see one.
Where were all the psychics on September 10th?
Why have I never seen a headline "Psychic wins lottery"?
Of course architecture counts. XP does not eliminate architecture or design. However, XP tries to get away from the "big design up front" - where you design for three months, before writing any code.
In XP you try to build pieces of the system that work on their own - but still within the overall design and architecture.
So, why would I choose XP over RUP?
XP is meant to be a lighweight method, one that does not get in developer's way. By the time your RUP developers are done writing use cases, the XP developers will have a partial system up and running and the users will be able to discover that their use cases were wrong. No expensive tools are needed - just whiteboards and index cards.:-)
No methodology/process will take place of smart developers, no matter what the vendors of fancy tools say.
Yes, but a programmer usually has little choice in such matters. A PHB will use a Hype-O-Meter to select
If you have bit of experience, you probably have more influence over PHBs, that some whipper snapper out of college. Except, you better be familiar with the technology that you are recommending or criticizing.
No, because the next group that hires you likely don't know your work.
But, again you should be able to come up to speed much faster since, hopefully, you understand the issues at a deeper level.
Also, newbies actually tend to be relatively fast at creating new systems because they are full of blind, hyper fire. Their virgin
fingers can copy-n-paste pretty quickly.
Unfortunately, people often mistake the appearance of working hard (like staying in the office for ungodly numbers of hours) for real working.
I've had to straighten newbies out after they tried to find/fix a bug late into the night, that took _me_ 30 seconds to fix in the morning.
IOW, the industry rewards the *appearence* of enthusiasm and the ability to return short-term results.
I'm temped to be more cynical and say that only *appearance* is rewarded. Failures are explained away...
I suppose you can argue that if you see a company building systems poorly, and you think you can do it better, you can start a new company and do it right. Too bad that technical excellence is not enough to win...
I like learning new things when I see *value* in them. However, it seems like that I.T. is becoming more like the clothing
fashion industry: it makes more money when styles change because people don't buy new clothes as often if styles don't
change. Thus, there is a built-in incentive to hype "new things" just for the sake of change.
I agree with you 100%. But if you have a bit of experience you should be able to easily sort out the crap from the real thing. Furthermore, as most things are just rehashing of old ideas, you should have little trouble picking up the new technologies (My latest favorite sequence: RPC, DCE, DOE, CORBA, RMI, Web Services).
The advantage with being a programmer that eventually you have to get something working. If you are consistently building systems in half the time and half the cost than others, then you should have no problems getting work...
Discriminating against people who are smart and get things done is just plain stupid.
it is more fair to release the software
under something closer to public domain like the BSD license, if not just putting it in the public domain. After all,
shouldn't publicly produced software be, well, public?
I attended a real good talk at NYLUG last week, where a lawyer talked about legal issues regarding open source software. He said that it is preferable to release a software with a license, rather than releasing it into public domain, because a license can protect the author from liability.
How about forgeting about grades? After all isn't the purpose of going to school learning things? If there were no grades, there would be no point in cheating - copying from someone else would make no sense. If you don't learn something yourself, what's the point?
Wouldn't it be nice if universities concentrated on teaching, rather than ratings...
Well I thought it was a great book, good story.
But I don't see how they could make it a miniseries.
You can't communicate the same sense of irrelevance on TV that you can in a book.
Oh, come on. Think how closely "Starship Troopers" followed the book.
One thing no one seems to be saying, is that this bill would prevent independent musicians/artists from publishing their own work. What if I want to give away my recordings? How can we trade free concert recordings if you have to pay a RIAA cartel for the priviledge of recording sound.
Look at DVDs today? Can you put your home videos on DVDs and play in all DVD players?
Slashdot Mirror
It's kind of funny, because Lem thinks that most of Western SF is pure crap. The only writer he likes is Philip K. Dick. In Lem's book "Microworlds" he even has an essay titled: Philip K. Dick: A Visionary among Charlatans.
Here is a short review of one of these books I wrote last year:
I don't agree with his opinions on the Net, but I think his predictions on biotech are more on the money. In fact he compares evolution to a large, massively parallel computation.
That's "Pirx the Pilot".
Actually have you read them all? There are several that set up the same situation - a small group of people isolated from the world, forced to deal with an unusual situation.
The Pirx stories start lighweight, but eventually get much deeper. In fact the novel "Fiasco" is sort of the last Pirx story.
At least these people could play music and worked hard to be heard (I mean they toured and played everywhere).
Now if you add $500 cost per each showing, all of a sudden it may not be profitable to show the movie at all. Haven't you ever been in a theatre with only 10 people in the audience?
Just think of books - does it really matter what sort paper the book is printed on? Of course, it may matter at extremes - books on toilet paper probably wouldn't be readable and books on fancy paper can be really beatiful. But ultimately the contents is what's important.
Would "Blaire Witch Project" be any more effective on a digital screen?
Look what happened to the free (!) DVD players for Linux. People are not allowed to write one without paying a licensing fee to the DVD secret holders.
Of course with DeCSS out you can build a DVD player for Linux, but try and sell players based on this code without paying the licensing fees and you'll see hordes of lawyers on your tail.
Also, nobody really needs a PVR. We'd be better off not watching TV at all (or less anyways).
Wahoo!!!! Wahoo!!! Wahoo!!!
Anyways, the album was recorded in two three hour sessions at a NY studio. Each cut on the album is the first complete take (i.e. one without stupid mistakes).
How much does six hours in a recording studio cost?
I suspect that the theory that enough people actually buy the specific product to make the ads pay for themselves is not right (at least in most cases). For example, why am I seeing ads for "International Paper" or IBM or SUN? Will my grandmother buy SUN servers because she saw the ad on TV? Come on!
I think that, just like Web banner ads, TV ads are not particularly effective, but unlike Web ads, it's impossible to measure effectiveness of TV.
This carpet bombing of people with advertisements makes everyone immune to the message after a while and as a result the ads do not have the desired effect.
A new model for marketing is needed and making people watch TV commercials is not it. Unfortunately I don't know what the new model should be...
Actually studio costs have been declining dratically due to digital technology. For example, an artist like Moby produces his recordings in his own house.
In any case the recording costs are charged to the artist and are not payed by record companies. True, record companies gamble on several acts hoping that at least one can produce a million seller that will cover their investment. But is this a necessary way to promote music?
Not all musicians can tour or play live.
Well, then you have to figure out a way to make money from other sources than selling CDs. Horse coach drivers were also put out of business by new technology. You have to adapt...
But what if there isn't an alternative business model for some artists?
I'm sure there is. They just have to figure it out. Screwing your customers works only so long...
Of course architecture counts. XP does not eliminate architecture or design. However, XP tries to get away from the "big design up front" - where you design for three months, before writing any code.
In XP you try to build pieces of the system that work on their own - but still within the overall design and architecture.
So, why would I choose XP over RUP?
XP is meant to be a lighweight method, one that does not get in developer's way. By the time your RUP developers are done writing use cases, the XP developers will have a partial system up and running and the users will be able to discover that their use cases were wrong. No expensive tools are needed - just whiteboards and index cards. :-)
No methodology/process will take place of smart developers, no matter what the vendors of fancy tools say.
If you have bit of experience, you probably have more influence over PHBs, that some whipper snapper out of college. Except, you better be familiar with the technology that you are recommending or criticizing.
No, because the next group that hires you likely don't know your work.
But, again you should be able to come up to speed much faster since, hopefully, you understand the issues at a deeper level.
Also, newbies actually tend to be relatively fast at creating new systems because they are full of blind, hyper fire. Their virgin fingers can copy-n-paste pretty quickly.
Unfortunately, people often mistake the appearance of working hard (like staying in the office for ungodly numbers of hours) for real working.
I've had to straighten newbies out after they tried to find/fix a bug late into the night, that took _me_ 30 seconds to fix in the morning.
IOW, the industry rewards the *appearence* of enthusiasm and the ability to return short-term results.
I'm temped to be more cynical and say that only *appearance* is rewarded. Failures are explained away...
I suppose you can argue that if you see a company building systems poorly, and you think you can do it better, you can start a new company and do it right. Too bad that technical excellence is not enough to win...
SSSCA wasn't killed. It was renamed to "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act [CBDTPA]". And now it's been introduced in Congress.
I agree with you 100%. But if you have a bit of experience you should be able to easily sort out the crap from the real thing. Furthermore, as most things are just rehashing of old ideas, you should have little trouble picking up the new technologies (My latest favorite sequence: RPC, DCE, DOE, CORBA, RMI, Web Services).
The advantage with being a programmer that eventually you have to get something working. If you are consistently building systems in half the time and half the cost than others, then you should have no problems getting work...
Discriminating against people who are smart and get things done is just plain stupid.
I attended a real good talk at NYLUG last week, where a lawyer talked about legal issues regarding open source software. He said that it is preferable to release a software with a license, rather than releasing it into public domain, because a license can protect the author from liability.
Wouldn't it be nice if universities concentrated on teaching, rather than ratings...
Oh, come on. Think how closely "Starship Troopers" followed the book.
Look at DVDs today? Can you put your home videos on DVDs and play in all DVD players?