Oh yeah, what I really meant to finish with was that...
So, if I never paid any attention to Jimi Hendrix or EVH, but I tried to learn all the techniques from more recent guitarists what I would be doing is essentially learning Jimi Hendrix or EVH through a more recent guitarist - with his twist on the original. Nothing wrong with that. And you can do fine without knowing the origins. But sooner or later, you are bound to discover the origins.
People that know about Knuth simply know of the origins of the programming 'techniques' (algorithms, really) that are used everywhere.
P.S. yeah, Knuth is the Hendrix and EVH of programming.
I, too, have been playing guitar for longer than 20 years now (not that I can play anything worth a damn - but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it). For the longest time, I really didn't care for Jimi Hendrix music. I liked EVH slightly better and Satriani and Vai much better. Then, one day, it suddenly hit me - had Jimi Hendrix not played the way he did EVH wouldn't have happened. I don't much like 'Eruptions' (people these days can play far more intricate things) but without it 'shredding' wouldn't have happened.
Well, it probably would have happened eventually.. but the genius of Jimi Hendrix and EVH are that they did something that hadn't been though of before.
Before the day I got it I felt that newer guitar players didn't quite get the recognition they deserved since they played much "better" than Jimi Hendrix or EVH. (listen to Vito Bratta sometime for what EVH evolved can sound like). But since that day I realized that the reason people revere Jimi Hendrix and EVH is that they opened eyes/minds to what other things the guitar could do - apart from just being a rhythm/strummed instrument. Sure the world has embraced those styles and evolved it/improved it since their days but without them we might not even have thought to see the guitar as a shredding instrument.
I still don't like Jimi Hendrix music much. But I sure as hell can see his importance.
after close to about 12 years of developing for the web - from perl CGI scripts to PHP, Java JSP - JSF, python, RoR and various other related things I've finally given up on browser based apps. I do use HTTP/JSON for an interface between the server side and the client side. That allows the server side to be used from AJAX frontend or from a Java desktop app or what have you. But a strict browser based software - never again.
For a 'rich' client app I would use either: Qt (python/ruby/c++ in order of preference), Java or even VisualWhatever (if I were tied to windows - I try to keep it cross platform).
If you mean "pro-science" as in For science - I can't speak for everyone but I am certainly for it. If you're talking about "professional-science", that I have issues with. That pun seems to fit well with the gist of what's going on here...
If, to be scientific, you have to be blessed with a degree, and that amateurs have better yield to the coat-ed ones - fuck that. If it weren't for the amateurs, their wouldn't even be a "science". In every scientific field, you'll find that amateurs beat a path that the "science" guys then walk on and ask the amateurs to get the hell off of. Prime example: rocketry. If the amateurs had never started down that path, none of the scientists would dare bet their careers on something so "unworthy" of their knowledge. It takes someone with more curiosity than existing wisdom to start something that then goes on to become "science".
In my mind, given the way "scientists" are choosing to distance and differentiate themselves from the rank amateurs, just means that the word scientist has evolved to mean "a career guy that cannot afford curiosity" and "amateur" to mean "a scientist with more curiosity than knowledge".
Morons with beer hats paved the way precisely because they were moronic enough to start chasing twisters long before the dudes in white coats figured it was a legitimate scientific endeavor worthy of their time and reputation.
See rocketry, flight etc. Not that the Wright brothers were "moronic". But the point I'm trying to make is that almost any field *becomes* a "science" only after someone with no knowledge explores it enough to establish some information that the science types can then study and then become scientists in the field.
So, in essence, curiosity and the sheer determination to explore something in the face of ridicule - something a proper modern "scientist" rarely would risk their reputation for - is something, most of the time, is better done by amateurs. Which becomes the foundation for the science that then follows. So, at least in my mind, the amateurs are discoverers of science. The "scientists" just study the science.
For the scientist to claim that they are the ones doing important work - f that. The most important work was done when someone decided to chase the storm just for the hell of it.
And wasn't curiosity an essential part of science?
If an amateur develops a safer way to get closer to the storm - is that development any less scientific?
And please don't forget, the scientists and the doctors - if "life-saving" is the only dimension of human endeavor - have all failed miserably: every single human being dies.
I will agree with you IF you concede that it's hypocritical to argue for "small government" and "free enterprise with no government oversight" and then ask for government to respond to a man made - or rather, enterprise made - disaster.
Katrina was a natural disaster. The federal government is supposed to have a plan in place. Who else is going to deal with it?
Gulf oil spill is a disaster created by free enterprise. Are you seriously arguing that every disaster created by any enterprise is the responsibility of the government? And you expect the government to not grow? Are they supposed to be prepared to clean up after every business that might make a mess?
I'm not saying that the federal government isn't responsible. I've responded elsewhere in this thread that I'm quite outraged that the government oversight failed. A massive failure of the government. But you can't even argue that if you also argue for "completely free enterprise" and "free market knows best". It's quite obvious it doesn't.
So, why the double standard? One was a natural disaster - something where the government is the only one with any responsibility. The other is a company fucking up - I don't want a government big enough to handle every company's fuck-ups. Can you imagine the size of the government that would be required to be able to handle the fuck-ups of every chemical, bio, construction, nuclear and what have you?
What if I wanted to create a company that was somehow going to extract energy from dormant volcano by tapping into the heat. Now should the government scale up in case I somehow manage to blow the top off of the volcano and unleash the lava? If you're saying yes.. imagine the government needing to be prepared in everything that any private enterprise engages in. And retaining people that are better equipped/trained in all those fields to be able to respond where the private enterprise failed. Do you realize what you're asking for? What I'm asking for is for government to maintain strict oversight so that I don't manage to unleash the lava and if I do, that I have the capacity to contain the situation. And if it appears that I couldn't, I shouldn't be allowed by the government.
Also, I pay taxes to keep the government running. If those tax dollars go towards the government preparedness for private enterprise fuckups, I will expect my share of the profits from every private enterprise. You can't have a private company that reaps the profits and then leaves the mess for the government (general publics tax dollars) to deal with.
What I want is free market with strict oversight - something this administration failed at. The response to the oil spill is BP's responsibility. Response to Katrina was a government responsibility. Hence the perceived dual standards.
You do realize the the words "bush" and "competent" don't belong in any other sentence than this. although, technically you didn't put those two words on the same sentence. so you should be ok.
Not implying that i support Obama. most people naturally assume that. i consider it my responsibility to criticize government - regardless of who's in power. no one forced them to get on the ballot.
Bemusingly, people that preach "government should be small" and "let the free-market take care of itself" and "businesses are more efficient at anything compared to government so get the government out" somehow seem to see no disconnect in complaining about how obama is handling the spill. shouldn't they rally for obama to get out of the way and let BP do it's thing? oh yeah, they're busy at another rally chanting "drill baby, drill".
on one hand, people want the government to act. on the other, they want to let free-enterprise "do it's thing". you can't have both.
Me?
I'm disappointed the oversight agency was in bed (turns out, literally) with whom it was overseeing. Massive failure of government.
The same company that had the resources and technology to drill that far below the sea level is now citing the fact that the reason it's hard to contain the damage is, well, it's so far below the sea level. If they saw necessary to create the tech to create a hole so far down, it's their responsibility to create the tech to plug that hole - depth perception, great depths etc. certainly didn't stop them when drilling. Massive irresponsibility of "free enterprise".
uh.. hate to burst your bubble there but aac and h.264 aren't exactly open-source. aac is an 'open' standard, sure. but not 'open-source'. h.264 is nowhere near open source. haven't you witnessed the flurry of back-and-fourths between the h.264 and the theora camps? on/.?
I see this as more of an opportunity to teach kids that something isn't true just because a book says so. What better way to learn to question. Do some research. Corroborate. Go to the library. Online. Figure it out. Ultimately books are written by an individual (or a small group). What makes them 'right'? Just because they wrote the book? I plan to make sure that I teach my kids to cite at least 3 different sources if they want to cite something for any arguments they make.
Ideally, it would be nice if people didn't politicize education. But they do. Don't matter which side. This is just overt. But then, it provides a really solid reason to question books. Any book.
And the best part is, if you are yourself and it doesn't work out, you probably wouldn't have been happy there anyhow. The depressing job market may make you feel like getting a job is the greatest thing ever - keeping a job you're happy at is probably a better thing in the long run. And you won't be happy unless you can be yourself.
Sadly, last I remember, they were looking to quicken the pace too due to people flocking to Ubuntu and generally complaining about Debian being "too old". I loved it the way it was. I switched to Ubuntu just to see what the hullabaloo was all about. I'm slowly switching back my workstations to Debian again. I've always been on Debian for servers just for that reason. I develop software. I need a stable target. Debian is it. And it's solid.
Some fifteen years ago, I was one of the three "foreign" students in our dorm. I'm brown. The other was Hispanic. Our dorm was more nerdy than most. More social than nerdy really. Most of us hung out in the lounge, played piano, etc.. But for most of the year, there was a guessing game going on as to who the third foreigner was. No one could figure it out. Towards the end of the year, it came to light that it was this girl - who was hanging out with us ALL THIS TIME when we were trying to guess who it was. Now, the ONLY difference between me and this girl (apart from the anatomical differences between a dude and a dudette) was that I'm brown and she was nordic. Neither of us had an accent or other tell-tale signs of 'foreign-ness'. Yet, people pegged me as a foreigner without blinking. No one - and I mean no one - guessed her.
I'm now a citizen. I would imagine by now she is too. If both of us are driving down a highway in Arizona guess who will be stopped? Guess who has to carry documentation on his/her person at all times. "Papriska, please?" (think Red-October)
Fine. If Arizona is just enforcing the fed law, tell me how they can enforce it EQUALLY and I mean non-racially. Would they ever stop this girl and ask for her papers? Would they ever stop me and ask me for mine? On what basis? If your answer is anything other than the perma-tan-age of my epidermis... The point of the above anecdote is that people start out with the assumption that I'm a foreigner (btw, my son isn't. but he isn't going to fare much better.) Yet no one "sees" other foreigners just like me if they don't look quite like me.
I know it's a bunch of hypotheticals (would they? who knows). But the point is that as a minority I already have to tread carefully. In AZs case, I have to not only avoid drawing suspicion, I have to carry docs - just in case I get pulled over. Midnight run to taco bell? Umm... where's the passport honey? Fuck that noise. And fuck AZ. Hide behind the justification of "it's the law" all you want. All kinds of things have been "the law" at some point or another. Don't mean it's right.
Well, this is not entirely without precedent. Even the field of Physics employes this method of specifying things that are complex enough that warrant a "model" which is highly dependent on what the model chose to include or exclude. For example, in tracking satellites, you would think that you should be able to use Physics and the myriad of formulas alone to come up with the position of satellites. But because real world physics (think drag, friction, N-body G forces etc) is too hard to figure out and are often hand-waved away (thus the model), NASA had to devise a set of algorithms to communicate a way to track satellites. They then publish the telemetry at regular intervals which are then run through those algorithms to find out where any of the satellites are at any given time. Last I worked on it, I was looking at Fortran programs which was used as the spec for the algorithm. Now, think about it, how better to describe an algorithm than an actual working program?
Slashdot Mirror
man said, "man sed". that's what.
Oh yeah, what I really meant to finish with was that...
So, if I never paid any attention to Jimi Hendrix or EVH, but I tried to learn all the techniques from more recent guitarists what I would be doing is essentially learning Jimi Hendrix or EVH through a more recent guitarist - with his twist on the original. Nothing wrong with that. And you can do fine without knowing the origins. But sooner or later, you are bound to discover the origins.
People that know about Knuth simply know of the origins of the programming 'techniques' (algorithms, really) that are used everywhere.
P.S. yeah, Knuth is the Hendrix and EVH of programming.
I, too, have been playing guitar for longer than 20 years now (not that I can play anything worth a damn - but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it). For the longest time, I really didn't care for Jimi Hendrix music. I liked EVH slightly better and Satriani and Vai much better. Then, one day, it suddenly hit me - had Jimi Hendrix not played the way he did EVH wouldn't have happened. I don't much like 'Eruptions' (people these days can play far more intricate things) but without it 'shredding' wouldn't have happened.
Well, it probably would have happened eventually.. but the genius of Jimi Hendrix and EVH are that they did something that hadn't been though of before.
Before the day I got it I felt that newer guitar players didn't quite get the recognition they deserved since they played much "better" than Jimi Hendrix or EVH. (listen to Vito Bratta sometime for what EVH evolved can sound like). But since that day I realized that the reason people revere Jimi Hendrix and EVH is that they opened eyes/minds to what other things the guitar could do - apart from just being a rhythm/strummed instrument. Sure the world has embraced those styles and evolved it/improved it since their days but without them we might not even have thought to see the guitar as a shredding instrument.
I still don't like Jimi Hendrix music much. But I sure as hell can see his importance.
I agree. A little spill should not cause us to stop doing something. I mean, just considering the millions of jobs lost...
after close to about 12 years of developing for the web - from perl CGI scripts to PHP, Java JSP - JSF, python, RoR and various other related things I've finally given up on browser based apps. I do use HTTP/JSON for an interface between the server side and the client side. That allows the server side to be used from AJAX frontend or from a Java desktop app or what have you. But a strict browser based software - never again.
For a 'rich' client app I would use either: Qt (python/ruby/c++ in order of preference), Java or even VisualWhatever (if I were tied to windows - I try to keep it cross platform).
Well then don't flout your superior command of the English language.
If you mean "pro-science" as in For science - I can't speak for everyone but I am certainly for it. If you're talking about "professional-science", that I have issues with. That pun seems to fit well with the gist of what's going on here...
If, to be scientific, you have to be blessed with a degree, and that amateurs have better yield to the coat-ed ones - fuck that. If it weren't for the amateurs, their wouldn't even be a "science". In every scientific field, you'll find that amateurs beat a path that the "science" guys then walk on and ask the amateurs to get the hell off of. Prime example: rocketry. If the amateurs had never started down that path, none of the scientists would dare bet their careers on something so "unworthy" of their knowledge. It takes someone with more curiosity than existing wisdom to start something that then goes on to become "science".
In my mind, given the way "scientists" are choosing to distance and differentiate themselves from the rank amateurs, just means that the word scientist has evolved to mean "a career guy that cannot afford curiosity" and "amateur" to mean "a scientist with more curiosity than knowledge".
Morons with beer hats paved the way precisely because they were moronic enough to start chasing twisters long before the dudes in white coats figured it was a legitimate scientific endeavor worthy of their time and reputation.
See rocketry, flight etc. Not that the Wright brothers were "moronic". But the point I'm trying to make is that almost any field *becomes* a "science" only after someone with no knowledge explores it enough to establish some information that the science types can then study and then become scientists in the field.
So, in essence, curiosity and the sheer determination to explore something in the face of ridicule - something a proper modern "scientist" rarely would risk their reputation for - is something, most of the time, is better done by amateurs. Which becomes the foundation for the science that then follows. So, at least in my mind, the amateurs are discoverers of science. The "scientists" just study the science.
For the scientist to claim that they are the ones doing important work - f that. The most important work was done when someone decided to chase the storm just for the hell of it.
And wasn't curiosity an essential part of science?
If an amateur develops a safer way to get closer to the storm - is that development any less scientific?
And please don't forget, the scientists and the doctors - if "life-saving" is the only dimension of human endeavor - have all failed miserably: every single human being dies.
> The Long Road to Nowhere really does lead to him...
Now, that's just being Paranoid.
I will agree with you IF you concede that it's hypocritical to argue for "small government" and "free enterprise with no government oversight" and then ask for government to respond to a man made - or rather, enterprise made - disaster.
Katrina was a natural disaster. The federal government is supposed to have a plan in place. Who else is going to deal with it?
Gulf oil spill is a disaster created by free enterprise. Are you seriously arguing that every disaster created by any enterprise is the responsibility of the government? And you expect the government to not grow? Are they supposed to be prepared to clean up after every business that might make a mess?
I'm not saying that the federal government isn't responsible. I've responded elsewhere in this thread that I'm quite outraged that the government oversight failed. A massive failure of the government. But you can't even argue that if you also argue for "completely free enterprise" and "free market knows best". It's quite obvious it doesn't.
So, why the double standard? One was a natural disaster - something where the government is the only one with any responsibility. The other is a company fucking up - I don't want a government big enough to handle every company's fuck-ups. Can you imagine the size of the government that would be required to be able to handle the fuck-ups of every chemical, bio, construction, nuclear and what have you?
What if I wanted to create a company that was somehow going to extract energy from dormant volcano by tapping into the heat. Now should the government scale up in case I somehow manage to blow the top off of the volcano and unleash the lava? If you're saying yes.. imagine the government needing to be prepared in everything that any private enterprise engages in. And retaining people that are better equipped/trained in all those fields to be able to respond where the private enterprise failed. Do you realize what you're asking for? What I'm asking for is for government to maintain strict oversight so that I don't manage to unleash the lava and if I do, that I have the capacity to contain the situation. And if it appears that I couldn't, I shouldn't be allowed by the government.
Also, I pay taxes to keep the government running. If those tax dollars go towards the government preparedness for private enterprise fuckups, I will expect my share of the profits from every private enterprise. You can't have a private company that reaps the profits and then leaves the mess for the government (general publics tax dollars) to deal with.
What I want is free market with strict oversight - something this administration failed at. The response to the oil spill is BP's responsibility. Response to Katrina was a government responsibility. Hence the perceived dual standards.
You do realize the the words "bush" and "competent" don't belong in any other sentence than this. although, technically you didn't put those two words on the same sentence. so you should be ok.
Not implying that i support Obama. most people naturally assume that. i consider it my responsibility to criticize government - regardless of who's in power. no one forced them to get on the ballot.
Bemusingly, people that preach "government should be small" and "let the free-market take care of itself" and "businesses are more efficient at anything compared to government so get the government out" somehow seem to see no disconnect in complaining about how obama is handling the spill. shouldn't they rally for obama to get out of the way and let BP do it's thing? oh yeah, they're busy at another rally chanting "drill baby, drill".
on one hand, people want the government to act. on the other, they want to let free-enterprise "do it's thing". you can't have both.
Me?
I'm disappointed the oversight agency was in bed (turns out, literally) with whom it was overseeing. Massive failure of government.
The same company that had the resources and technology to drill that far below the sea level is now citing the fact that the reason it's hard to contain the damage is, well, it's so far below the sea level. If they saw necessary to create the tech to create a hole so far down, it's their responsibility to create the tech to plug that hole - depth perception, great depths etc. certainly didn't stop them when drilling. Massive irresponsibility of "free enterprise".
uh.. hate to burst your bubble there but aac and h.264 aren't exactly open-source. aac is an 'open' standard, sure. but not 'open-source'. h.264 is nowhere near open source. haven't you witnessed the flurry of back-and-fourths between the h.264 and the theora camps? on /.?
I see this as more of an opportunity to teach kids that something isn't true just because a book says so. What better way to learn to question. Do some research. Corroborate. Go to the library. Online. Figure it out. Ultimately books are written by an individual (or a small group). What makes them 'right'? Just because they wrote the book? I plan to make sure that I teach my kids to cite at least 3 different sources if they want to cite something for any arguments they make.
Ideally, it would be nice if people didn't politicize education. But they do. Don't matter which side. This is just overt. But then, it provides a really solid reason to question books. Any book.
And the best part is, if you are yourself and it doesn't work out, you probably wouldn't have been happy there anyhow. The depressing job market may make you feel like getting a job is the greatest thing ever - keeping a job you're happy at is probably a better thing in the long run. And you won't be happy unless you can be yourself.
Sincerely,
Another Software Development Manager.
" ... and everyone believed Microsoft at its word ..."
Well, no one should have believed Microsoft at its word. Or Excel. Or powerpoint.
Use Debian?
Sadly, last I remember, they were looking to quicken the pace too due to people flocking to Ubuntu and generally complaining about Debian being "too old". I loved it the way it was. I switched to Ubuntu just to see what the hullabaloo was all about. I'm slowly switching back my workstations to Debian again. I've always been on Debian for servers just for that reason. I develop software. I need a stable target. Debian is it. And it's solid.
Here's an interesting story for you:
Some fifteen years ago, I was one of the three "foreign" students in our dorm. I'm brown. The other was Hispanic. Our dorm was more nerdy than most. More social than nerdy really. Most of us hung out in the lounge, played piano, etc.. But for most of the year, there was a guessing game going on as to who the third foreigner was. No one could figure it out. Towards the end of the year, it came to light that it was this girl - who was hanging out with us ALL THIS TIME when we were trying to guess who it was. Now, the ONLY difference between me and this girl (apart from the anatomical differences between a dude and a dudette) was that I'm brown and she was nordic. Neither of us had an accent or other tell-tale signs of 'foreign-ness'. Yet, people pegged me as a foreigner without blinking. No one - and I mean no one - guessed her.
I'm now a citizen. I would imagine by now she is too. If both of us are driving down a highway in Arizona guess who will be stopped? Guess who has to carry documentation on his/her person at all times. "Papriska, please?" (think Red-October)
Fine. If Arizona is just enforcing the fed law, tell me how they can enforce it EQUALLY and I mean non-racially. Would they ever stop this girl and ask for her papers? Would they ever stop me and ask me for mine? On what basis? If your answer is anything other than the perma-tan-age of my epidermis ... The point of the above anecdote is that people start out with the assumption that I'm a foreigner (btw, my son isn't. but he isn't going to fare much better.) Yet no one "sees" other foreigners just like me if they don't look quite like me.
I know it's a bunch of hypotheticals (would they? who knows). But the point is that as a minority I already have to tread carefully. In AZs case, I have to not only avoid drawing suspicion, I have to carry docs - just in case I get pulled over. Midnight run to taco bell? Umm... where's the passport honey? Fuck that noise. And fuck AZ. Hide behind the justification of "it's the law" all you want. All kinds of things have been "the law" at some point or another. Don't mean it's right.
Well, this is not entirely without precedent. Even the field of Physics employes this method of specifying things that are complex enough that warrant a "model" which is highly dependent on what the model chose to include or exclude. For example, in tracking satellites, you would think that you should be able to use Physics and the myriad of formulas alone to come up with the position of satellites. But because real world physics (think drag, friction, N-body G forces etc) is too hard to figure out and are often hand-waved away (thus the model), NASA had to devise a set of algorithms to communicate a way to track satellites. They then publish the telemetry at regular intervals which are then run through those algorithms to find out where any of the satellites are at any given time. Last I worked on it, I was looking at Fortran programs which was used as the spec for the algorithm. Now, think about it, how better to describe an algorithm than an actual working program?
see: SGP4 and this in particular.
You could have the exploit install something into the host OS and have it run when the regular stuff is back on and connected.
> Film at 11.
You're off by 1. The film is actually at 10.
1997:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
2009ish:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090623/0415565326.shtml
Are we there yet?
Ah.. the ZX Spectrum. That was my first computer. The most fun I had programming... Oh "Harrier Attack" was the bees knees...
Good old days..
> They are basically made up of mostly autonomous units.
Apparently not autonomous enough to call themselves something other than Sony.
try this::
mv backup.0 backup.1
rsync -a --delete --link-dest=../backup.1 source_directory/ backup.0/
see this