on both of my cars, i was well in the running and made the championships, then the car "broke" at the wheels during each champ run. In one, they cracked down by the axels, the other the wheels got loose and so there was too much side-to-side movement increasing friction against the runner.
the price for the service really needs to reflect the cost of the service. obviously, $1 per page is too much, as are rediculous subscription rates like the $49.99 for access to the once-free Javaworld Archives. You'd think some of these places might make a survey of readers before bringing up such rediculously non-net-like price tags. Nobody who took micro-econ would have come up with such an overvalued view of such things (which can all be fetched by careful use of google caches anyways).
A question on that -- do the authors of old articles get any more compensation when their material is effectively "sold" a second time (which is certainly the case in JavaWorld). In England, Robert Fripp won a very significant lawsuit on the issue of artist compensation when the back catalog of EG was sold to Virgin and BMG without the bands getting a dime at first.
A comment I left in the "Future Is Wild" boards @ discovery.com:
That Darwin's theory explains why things are the way they are, with regards to survival, it doesn't explain the HOW, which is mutation. Mutations occur and natural selection drives the duplication of the mutated genes 'til a new species is differentiated from the old.
However, the nature of how mutations really happen, and how "good" ones that are "prefered" arrive (as we're very keyed in to hating anything "different" ourselves and often shun it in humans or kill it in animals) is what we as humans have not been able to truly see or test. Its hard to test, as mammals have too long a breeding period, and colonial insects (ants and bees) are usually dominated by the queen's genes. Most genes that change behaviours tended to have already been on the planet somewhere, and are only spreading now because we're accidentally spreading them (e.g., "africanized/killer" bees).
The show did a good job of suggesting what natural selection might do, given a set of mutations over X million years to produce said animals, but the fact is that the mutations themselves are what's utterly unpredictable...and truth be told, rather boring by comparison to the end-results we saw.
I consider evolution a fact, but not a law in the Newton/Einstein sense, because evolution can't be used to predict the future with any accuracy since evolution doesn't explain mutations; it only relies on them. It would be like trying to use Einstein to predict something in electrons without the use of calculus.
--
There's more of my commentary on the show in my journal @ slashdot, most of it influenced by talk from the same boards.
Re:These drones are way too expensive
on
Droning On
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Expensive yes, but the lawsuits that happen when people die in crashes are even more expensive. Statistics may say its safer than cars, but stats also say that in 1000 flights, you're gonna have a problem, and 1000 flights in a month is gonna be even more dangerous. Having drones handle high-turnaround flights like dumping water on forest/scrub fires in california seems like a good idea to me...Drones don't get tired of lots of little short-hop flights which can mentally fatigue humans to the point of potential carelessness.
I think a nice one to glance at might be one that uses excerpts from Joseph Plum Martin's autobiog on being a soldier in Washington's army during the Revolution...
I wonder if the Gutenberg people have a copy of that...
Well, Cringley always said (he repeats it with at least 3 examples throughout his book) that M$ is one of those companies that always tries to do things the way IBM does, unless it can do it better. IBM, according to him, isn't (or wasn't in 1992) in the business of making computers or software, it was mostly in the business of making managers -- personal empires meant everything, regardless of how much or who did the work. The designer of the PC was kicked out of his own division and moved to some "safe" place, because his job wasn't really to build the PC, it was to build the infrastructure (the "empire") needed to actually build a PC.
So now, M$ is in the same position -- it happens when you have divisions compared to and fighting themselves, which always happens when you run out of serious outside competition. Office competes internally for resources with Windows, competing with XBox, competing with the languages and Visual Studio, competing with.NET (until.NET gets eaten up by libraries, which results in it being divided up between Windows, Office, and VS). You aren't really judged within M$ by how well you do against the competition (outside of XBox, there really still isn't any -- M$'s press department, marketting, and legal teams and the board take care of that issue which isn't a technical issue to them, its a PR issue, and their PR is again IBM's -- nobody got fired for buying IBM, so now nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft).
Yes, M$ is competing within itself, because to them there's no other competition. And its been like that within the company for almost a decade now. And like IBM in the 70s and 80s, each division is in that tricky position of competing with other divisions in size, market share, and profit share, while at the same time doing nothing that potentially damages another core business (e.g., the Visual Studio team can't do anything that might break.NET or.NET integration, or come up with a better.NET than.NET does). Just like IBM crippled their PCs with no networking or terminal emulation, because doing so would have hurt their cash cow of a mainframe terminal business.
Please read before posting. I said, "its just all done in 3rd-party recollections and in appendix A", and go read the first main conversation between gandalf and denethor again.
Having seen TTT now, I have to followup my post here a bit. Yes, as a whole, Jackson's take on the Aragorn story is generally true to Tolkien, just bumped up to taking place during the war for the ring instead of before it...but some of the exagerations in TTT (falling off a cliff, and Arwen actually prepared to leave middle earth) i could have done without...
Well, I think many are misreading Jackson's take on the Aragorn story a bit. The development from young man who wants nothing to do with responsibility and kings and crowns and gondor and just wants to hang out in the north with his ranger buddies and occasionally come into rivendell and sweet-talk Arwen, into a mature responsible leader ready to fight the worst of the worst and rule the entire free world (in kindness) IS in the book...its just all done in 3rd-party recollections and in appendix A; that is, its already happened before Frodo meets him. It IS in Tolkien's story.
What is different in Jackson's is that instead of it having already taken place in the past, where the Aragorn they see at the Council of Elrond is all ready to take his place (with his only personal fault being the breaking of the fellowship at amon hen, quickly forgotten when Gandalf returns), the transition from loner to leader is taking place before us.
Had Jackson not done that, there would be no character development in him or most of the non-hobbits at all.
Read the book again, specifically looking at the words from Elrond and Denethor on him, and in appendix A, and you'll see that transition: Denethor's Aragorn is not the one the hobbits met in Bree. Aragorn in the books has already matured to leadership, where the Aragorn in the movie is actively maturing before us.
I for one think Jackson's version works just fine, as the alternative while a good book character would be a rather flat part in a movie.
Re:Not what you might think....
on
AOL Patents IM
·
· Score: 2
Hell, sounds like Bitnet to me...a network (the collection of school machines with bitnet or jnet software on them), a monitor (the o/s itself, actually, which was queried with the bitnet version of "finger"). all that's missing is the user communication "selector list" user interface...in bitnet days you just sent to them as-is through the command line. IM to me always just came across as a centralized version of bitnet "send" with a GUI. Had the internet software for unix systems a better, bitnet-send-like daemon for this sort of thing besides "talk", it would have standardized on it, windows would have picked it up to be compatible, and the fact of its distributed nature would have dropped costs and removed any need for central servers and advertisers except for a way to see who's on where since everybody's on their own machine nowadays (they weren't back then)...and basic naming registry servers are so common (CORBA, anyone) they shouldn't be patentable anymore...
It would be nice for CN to bring back Reboot, especially the season 4 that they only broadcast once and thus if your VCR screwed up, you'll never get to see it all...except you YTV Canadian types...
Whoever set that title, "Centenial of Flight" seemed to have forgotten that we'd been flying in baloons since 1783, and gliders within 50 years of that...
The worse thing about Mondale is his unrelenting, unbending opposition to the exploration of space.
Which had my mind reeling on the possibilities of what would have taken place had Mondale actually won in 1984 (yes, a near impossibility, but work with me here...). Had he won, he would have been President during the Challenger disaster, perhaps leading the U.S. to have killed the space shuttle program out entirely. That in turn would have practically killed Hubble (no humans in space to repair the broken lens) and all that we got from it, too...
Yeah, and as long as The Wizard of Oz keeps selling, and remains the exclusive property of AOL/TW, then WB has little significant incentive to really try hard to make something better.
When what you can get for free is truly better than what you pay for, nobody pays for anything. The incentive with making new is to make better than the soon to be free stuff in order to keep people paying for stuff. Now to be better, it has to be REALLY better (else mozilla would have killed I.E. even in its alpha stages), and in the entertainment industry, that's not easy to do as we've seen by all the junk that comes out in music and every summer in theaters...
My comment on being promoted to the highest "developer" rank in my company, where the next rank gets into management and architecture and dealing with customers and all that, is that this is my last chance to actually work for a living...
yeah, that was it. BBC Contracting for script editors generally states that the script editor can't write more than 1 story per season. Eric Saward had a similar thing in Colin Baker's first season, writing under a pseudonym for his rewrites of Attack of the Cybermen since he'd already committed to that season's dalek episode for himself.
However, as Saward had done, Douglas did write a number of other mini-scenes throughout his season to adapt to the casting and other situations, such as coming up with ways to explain K-9's absence in certain stories, the Romana body change, and so forth. He also rewrote some of the final scene in the previous season's Armegeddon Factor, including introducing the randomizer.
It all depends on the nature of the changes. A new feature here or there is one thing, but some of these are significant obsticles in that they are changes in what the design (and developers) originally thought to be constant and effect everything; its impossible to write code that is immune to that _one_ change that breaks everything...Sometimes you just have customers that want exactly that one change that they said would never change. Its good to "embrace change", but its another to have nothing constant to base any design on...
50% to 90% of software projects fail because of embracing fly-by-night "technologies" like this.
No. 50% to 90% of software projects fail because the requirements, problem domain, and customer expectations change at least 5 times during the course of a one year project. I've been on two failed projects in the last 3 years, both of which failed because the customers continually went back on their own decisions for which we had based our "written and documented plan", long after we had been heavily involved in the code. By the time the "final" decision was made, there was no time to actually implement it.
I'm not saying XP would have saved them (it likely wouldn't), but assuming that a well-documented design and plan will save a project from the curse of changes in requirements and expectations is self-defeating.
JBuilder rules because Sun's offering sucked, Microsoft's was tainted by the lawsuit and bad press (not against the product itself, but the company and the proposed future directions), IBM's was too expensive, and Symantec mismanaged and died a horrible death. Visual Cafe was the first decent product out there (especially in its debugger).
JBuilder also rules because its the first effecient and fast (well, fast enough givena complex Swing gui) product that's 100% java enough to run on Linux and Solaris as it runs on windows (Sun's 100% Java IDE was too damn slow and too featureless, and its first AWT stab was one of the reasons Java ditched AWT for Swing in the first place), which meant one could develop directly on the platform the product would be eventually deployed on (in the case of server-side products and J2EE) and not have to worry about write-once-test-everywhere.
Most of the text of this column was taken from his book, Accidental Empires, in the updated chapters from 1996's edition, including the comment on "IBM Layoffs". It all may still be the case, but its been the case for over 6 years now.
Actually, the language itself isn't the greatest. It won over c++ developers because of 3 reasons : a standard network library, closely tied to a (reasonably) well-designed, truly OO I/O library; a standard GUI api that worked across platforms, and considerable simplicity and code-readability over full-effect-templates in C++ (read Alexandrescu's Modern C++ Design recently?).
A fourth capability, in the first released version of java, but not used to its fullest capacity until Java2, was the use of "interface" over abstract base classes as a means of building frameworks in the newer library components such as JDBC, Collections, and XML. C++ always had this, but "interface" is a much simpler syntax and means of expression verbally over "abstract base classes with only pure virtual functions" (the C++ version of a Java interface). Also, newer C++ libraries and designs tend to rely on templates and traits to enforce an interface (ala generic programming) rather than class design, because its easier to just write a class than to design a hierarchy -- java's "interface" took the hierarchy out of places it didn't need to be).
Now, one of those ended up an utter failure (AWT), and its replacement (Swing) though amazingly more successful as far as design and power goes, is as noted dog-slow (though its something that does get faster as machines get faster; moore's law does help Swing considerably). I personally love swing just because (when used properly) the WORA DOES work (layout management is the #1 problem for almost every bad interface out there, and that's not unique to swing; i recall a lot of bad motif layouts too from windows programmers not used to Xt's approach); also, the power in using renderers for complex components and dividing up responsibility of showing the look vs managing the data, is something i miss in any other gui library out there.
The second, the standard networking library tied to the I/O library, remains its brilliant point and the basis for Java's most successful libraries and projects, including all its server-side work. Bjarne is most impressed that the standard socket + stream library that works on ALL platforms (its the one that's most reliable in that respect of WORA) that he's planning to propose a standard socket interface to C++, though I think its now too little too late. I'm not saying that java.net and java.io aren't flawed. The use of abstract base classes for Socket and URLConnection, which likely dates to before the interface keyword was introduced is a "bad thing"; java.util.Dictionary was like this as well, but at least that's been deprecated out. Similarly, java.nio addresses most of java.io's problems, but at the considerable cost of code simplicity; if you need java.nio, it'll take a lot of time and work to use it correctly, and few books and articles are really making it clear when you actually need it. In the early stages of new technology, the "how do i use it" well-buries the "when do i need it" question.
The language itself has remained simple, with only 2 partially-incompatible changes over the years (inner classes including anonymous, and assert), and this may be its one saving grace against C# (which has a more complex syntax, but currently a much simpler library based on a cleaner syntax to most of MFC -- that will change in the future as M$ will always code-bloat their products).
The "interface" syntax is to me still Java's most powerful feature; again not in that it provides any more capabilities over C++'s abstraction (as i worded it above), but by being so simple, did more to improve inexperienced developer's OO code than any other OO syntax out there (IMHO). I'm not suprised at all that C# also chose to keep the interface keyword.
So is this a sign of geek discrimination when l33tspeak is punished in schools but ebonics is rewarded? Should we contact the ACLU to protect our rights to type like idiots?
Read it at Safari for a month
on
Essential Blogging
·
· Score: 3, Informative
One option, since its one of those books you only need for a little while to select and set up your software, would be to "rent" the book online for a month from Safari at O'Reilly's website, then either unsubscribe from Safari or switch to a more interesting book later.
Which is why i've never understood the "one or the other" approach, which is utterly wrong since almost everything that happens is a result of combinations of things.
The weather change (end of the ice age) was greatly reducing the herds of mammoths, and man either 1) didn't recognize the dwindling numbers and finished them off, or 2) finished them off anyways because of so little other food to eat. Man's had a knack for increasing his hunting of a specific target when it becomes scarce (look at the great awk -- the last handful that were found weren't captured to try new protected breeding grounds; they were killed and stuffed to fill private museums).
BOTH had impact on the herds...the extinction question can only be specific if one comes down to what killed the LAST mammoth -- a man or natural causes.
Related to this is Gilliam's Brazil, where the American studio/distributor released their own edit that was almost an hour shorter than Gilliam's cut, substantially changing much of the mood and especially the ending. The criterion collection dvd is a 3 disc set that includes Gilliam's full cut, the documentary "The Battle of Brazil" on the fights with the studio, and the studio's 90 minute edit with commentary by the author of said documentary, describing how the edits changed the film.
Slashdot Mirror
on both of my cars, i was well in the running and made the championships, then the car "broke" at the wheels during each champ run. In one, they cracked down by the axels, the other the wheels got loose and so there was too much side-to-side movement increasing friction against the runner.
A question on that -- do the authors of old articles get any more compensation when their material is effectively "sold" a second time (which is certainly the case in JavaWorld). In England, Robert Fripp won a very significant lawsuit on the issue of artist compensation when the back catalog of EG was sold to Virgin and BMG without the bands getting a dime at first.
That Darwin's theory explains why things are the way they are, with regards to survival, it doesn't explain the HOW, which is mutation. Mutations occur and natural selection drives the duplication of the mutated genes 'til a new species is differentiated from the old.
However, the nature of how mutations really happen, and how "good" ones that are "prefered" arrive (as we're very keyed in to hating anything "different" ourselves and often shun it in humans or kill it in animals) is what we as humans have not been able to truly see or test. Its hard to test, as mammals have too long a breeding period, and colonial insects (ants and bees) are usually dominated by the queen's genes. Most genes that change behaviours tended to have already been on the planet somewhere, and are only spreading now because we're accidentally spreading them (e.g., "africanized/killer" bees).
The show did a good job of suggesting what natural selection might do, given a set of mutations over X million years to produce said animals, but the fact is that the mutations themselves are what's utterly unpredictable...and truth be told, rather boring by comparison to the end-results we saw.
I consider evolution a fact, but not a law in the Newton/Einstein sense, because evolution can't be used to predict the future with any accuracy since evolution doesn't explain mutations; it only relies on them. It would be like trying to use Einstein to predict something in electrons without the use of calculus.
--
There's more of my commentary on the show in my journal @ slashdot, most of it influenced by talk from the same boards.
Expensive yes, but the lawsuits that happen when people die in crashes are even more expensive. Statistics may say its safer than cars, but stats also say that in 1000 flights, you're gonna have a problem, and 1000 flights in a month is gonna be even more dangerous. Having drones handle high-turnaround flights like dumping water on forest/scrub fires in california seems like a good idea to me...Drones don't get tired of lots of little short-hop flights which can mentally fatigue humans to the point of potential carelessness.
I wonder if the Gutenberg people have a copy of that...
So now, M$ is in the same position -- it happens when you have divisions compared to and fighting themselves, which always happens when you run out of serious outside competition. Office competes internally for resources with Windows, competing with XBox, competing with the languages and Visual Studio, competing with .NET (until .NET gets eaten up by libraries, which results in it being divided up between Windows, Office, and VS). You aren't really judged within M$ by how well you do against the competition (outside of XBox, there really still isn't any -- M$'s press department, marketting, and legal teams and the board take care of that issue which isn't a technical issue to them, its a PR issue, and their PR is again IBM's -- nobody got fired for buying IBM, so now nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft).
Yes, M$ is competing within itself, because to them there's no other competition. And its been like that within the company for almost a decade now. And like IBM in the 70s and 80s, each division is in that tricky position of competing with other divisions in size, market share, and profit share, while at the same time doing nothing that potentially damages another core business (e.g., the Visual Studio team can't do anything that might break .NET or .NET integration, or come up with a better .NET than .NET does). Just like IBM crippled their PCs with no networking or terminal emulation, because doing so would have hurt their cash cow of a mainframe terminal business.
Please read before posting. I said, "its just all done in 3rd-party recollections and in appendix A", and go read the first main conversation between gandalf and denethor again.
Having seen TTT now, I have to followup my post here a bit. Yes, as a whole, Jackson's take on the Aragorn story is generally true to Tolkien, just bumped up to taking place during the war for the ring instead of before it...but some of the exagerations in TTT (falling off a cliff, and Arwen actually prepared to leave middle earth) i could have done without...
What is different in Jackson's is that instead of it having already taken place in the past, where the Aragorn they see at the Council of Elrond is all ready to take his place (with his only personal fault being the breaking of the fellowship at amon hen, quickly forgotten when Gandalf returns), the transition from loner to leader is taking place before us.
Had Jackson not done that, there would be no character development in him or most of the non-hobbits at all.
Read the book again, specifically looking at the words from Elrond and Denethor on him, and in appendix A, and you'll see that transition: Denethor's Aragorn is not the one the hobbits met in Bree. Aragorn in the books has already matured to leadership, where the Aragorn in the movie is actively maturing before us.
I for one think Jackson's version works just fine, as the alternative while a good book character would be a rather flat part in a movie.
Hell, sounds like Bitnet to me...a network (the collection of school machines with bitnet or jnet software on them), a monitor (the o/s itself, actually, which was queried with the bitnet version of "finger"). all that's missing is the user communication "selector list" user interface...in bitnet days you just sent to them as-is through the command line. IM to me always just came across as a centralized version of bitnet "send" with a GUI. Had the internet software for unix systems a better, bitnet-send-like daemon for this sort of thing besides "talk", it would have standardized on it, windows would have picked it up to be compatible, and the fact of its distributed nature would have dropped costs and removed any need for central servers and advertisers except for a way to see who's on where since everybody's on their own machine nowadays (they weren't back then)...and basic naming registry servers are so common (CORBA, anyone) they shouldn't be patentable anymore...
It would be nice for CN to bring back Reboot, especially the season 4 that they only broadcast once and thus if your VCR screwed up, you'll never get to see it all...except you YTV Canadian types...
Whoever set that title, "Centenial of Flight" seemed to have forgotten that we'd been flying in baloons since 1783, and gliders within 50 years of that...
Which had my mind reeling on the possibilities of what would have taken place had Mondale actually won in 1984 (yes, a near impossibility, but work with me here...). Had he won, he would have been President during the Challenger disaster, perhaps leading the U.S. to have killed the space shuttle program out entirely. That in turn would have practically killed Hubble (no humans in space to repair the broken lens) and all that we got from it, too...
Just some thoughts...
When what you can get for free is truly better than what you pay for, nobody pays for anything. The incentive with making new is to make better than the soon to be free stuff in order to keep people paying for stuff. Now to be better, it has to be REALLY better (else mozilla would have killed I.E. even in its alpha stages), and in the entertainment industry, that's not easy to do as we've seen by all the junk that comes out in music and every summer in theaters...
...after this, I go to meetings for a living.
However, as Saward had done, Douglas did write a number of other mini-scenes throughout his season to adapt to the casting and other situations, such as coming up with ways to explain K-9's absence in certain stories, the Romana body change, and so forth. He also rewrote some of the final scene in the previous season's Armegeddon Factor, including introducing the randomizer.
It all depends on the nature of the changes. A new feature here or there is one thing, but some of these are significant obsticles in that they are changes in what the design (and developers) originally thought to be constant and effect everything; its impossible to write code that is immune to that _one_ change that breaks everything...Sometimes you just have customers that want exactly that one change that they said would never change. Its good to "embrace change", but its another to have nothing constant to base any design on...
No. 50% to 90% of software projects fail because the requirements, problem domain, and customer expectations change at least 5 times during the course of a one year project. I've been on two failed projects in the last 3 years, both of which failed because the customers continually went back on their own decisions for which we had based our "written and documented plan", long after we had been heavily involved in the code. By the time the "final" decision was made, there was no time to actually implement it.
I'm not saying XP would have saved them (it likely wouldn't), but assuming that a well-documented design and plan will save a project from the curse of changes in requirements and expectations is self-defeating.
JBuilder also rules because its the first effecient and fast (well, fast enough givena complex Swing gui) product that's 100% java enough to run on Linux and Solaris as it runs on windows (Sun's 100% Java IDE was too damn slow and too featureless, and its first AWT stab was one of the reasons Java ditched AWT for Swing in the first place), which meant one could develop directly on the platform the product would be eventually deployed on (in the case of server-side products and J2EE) and not have to worry about write-once-test-everywhere.
Most of the text of this column was taken from his book, Accidental Empires, in the updated chapters from 1996's edition, including the comment on "IBM Layoffs". It all may still be the case, but its been the case for over 6 years now.
A fourth capability, in the first released version of java, but not used to its fullest capacity until Java2, was the use of "interface" over abstract base classes as a means of building frameworks in the newer library components such as JDBC, Collections, and XML. C++ always had this, but "interface" is a much simpler syntax and means of expression verbally over "abstract base classes with only pure virtual functions" (the C++ version of a Java interface). Also, newer C++ libraries and designs tend to rely on templates and traits to enforce an interface (ala generic programming) rather than class design, because its easier to just write a class than to design a hierarchy -- java's "interface" took the hierarchy out of places it didn't need to be).
Now, one of those ended up an utter failure (AWT), and its replacement (Swing) though amazingly more successful as far as design and power goes, is as noted dog-slow (though its something that does get faster as machines get faster; moore's law does help Swing considerably). I personally love swing just because (when used properly) the WORA DOES work (layout management is the #1 problem for almost every bad interface out there, and that's not unique to swing; i recall a lot of bad motif layouts too from windows programmers not used to Xt's approach); also, the power in using renderers for complex components and dividing up responsibility of showing the look vs managing the data, is something i miss in any other gui library out there.
The second, the standard networking library tied to the I/O library, remains its brilliant point and the basis for Java's most successful libraries and projects, including all its server-side work. Bjarne is most impressed that the standard socket + stream library that works on ALL platforms (its the one that's most reliable in that respect of WORA) that he's planning to propose a standard socket interface to C++, though I think its now too little too late. I'm not saying that java.net and java.io aren't flawed. The use of abstract base classes for Socket and URLConnection, which likely dates to before the interface keyword was introduced is a "bad thing"; java.util.Dictionary was like this as well, but at least that's been deprecated out. Similarly, java.nio addresses most of java.io's problems, but at the considerable cost of code simplicity; if you need java.nio, it'll take a lot of time and work to use it correctly, and few books and articles are really making it clear when you actually need it. In the early stages of new technology, the "how do i use it" well-buries the "when do i need it" question.
The language itself has remained simple, with only 2 partially-incompatible changes over the years (inner classes including anonymous, and assert), and this may be its one saving grace against C# (which has a more complex syntax, but currently a much simpler library based on a cleaner syntax to most of MFC -- that will change in the future as M$ will always code-bloat their products).
The "interface" syntax is to me still Java's most powerful feature; again not in that it provides any more capabilities over C++'s abstraction (as i worded it above), but by being so simple, did more to improve inexperienced developer's OO code than any other OO syntax out there (IMHO). I'm not suprised at all that C# also chose to keep the interface keyword.
So is this a sign of geek discrimination when l33tspeak is punished in schools but ebonics is rewarded? Should we contact the ACLU to protect our rights to type like idiots?
One option, since its one of those books you only need for a little while to select and set up your software, would be to "rent" the book online for a month from Safari at O'Reilly's website, then either unsubscribe from Safari or switch to a more interesting book later.
The weather change (end of the ice age) was greatly reducing the herds of mammoths, and man either 1) didn't recognize the dwindling numbers and finished them off, or 2) finished them off anyways because of so little other food to eat. Man's had a knack for increasing his hunting of a specific target when it becomes scarce (look at the great awk -- the last handful that were found weren't captured to try new protected breeding grounds; they were killed and stuffed to fill private museums).
BOTH had impact on the herds...the extinction question can only be specific if one comes down to what killed the LAST mammoth -- a man or natural causes.
Related to this is Gilliam's Brazil, where the American studio/distributor released their own edit that was almost an hour shorter than Gilliam's cut, substantially changing much of the mood and especially the ending. The criterion collection dvd is a 3 disc set that includes Gilliam's full cut, the documentary "The Battle of Brazil" on the fights with the studio, and the studio's 90 minute edit with commentary by the author of said documentary, describing how the edits changed the film.