Of course its true philanthropy. I can picture Gates and Ballmer reading the software news, misty-eyed, about school-children being forced to write homework assignments in EMACS, to do their math in octave, navigating an archaic command-line system, disoriented and trembling in their confusion, while the rival school-kids, using Windows, with their talking paper-clips to help them, are already finished with their schoolwork and playing polo out in the schoolyard with their chums.
Gates and Ballmer cannot but help digging into their pocketbooks at the sight of this. How grateful we should all be.
And then there's those third-world nations, fumbling around with chmod and tr while half their country is dying of AIDS...
Yes, we are lucky that in today's world a multi-billion dollar company can be spare so much without self-interest.:)
I'd say about 50-100 for me. Its not unmanageable to work with from a command-line by any means, so I'm wondering what advantages CMSs might have in this case?
It would appear from the replies I've read that CMS is beyond the needs of the average web developer, used primarily on large organization websites containing thousands of pages and that it seeks to allow large numbers of non-technical users to publish documents on the site.
Is this an appropriate definition? But then there's also mention of XML content management, which doesn't seem to fit my def. Can somebody explain what this is or how/if this technology can be leveraged by the average web developer? Does Apache's Cocoon fit into this in any way?
I was thinking the reasoning was more complicated than this, but I think you're right. I think its very simple! One reason I often hear to back up the multi-verse theory is that if one of our physical constants were slightly larger or smaller, then an entirely different universe would result where life as we know it would be impossible.
So if (is it alpha?) alpha were.001 larger, we wouldn't be here. Either there IS a god that set the constants exactly right, or we are extremely lucky, or there are many universes, each with a different value for alpha. I think the anthropic cosmological principal covers this extensively. There's a big (HUGE) book by John D. Barrow on the topic.
They won't go out of business. They'll just start selling disposable dvds instead. Both parties will get a cut off of every rental, but the rental place will never own the dvd. Now, when the price of the dvd or tape gets paid off, the rental company gets 100% of the rental fee. With the knew model, the movie industry gets a cut off of EVERY rental. Its better for the movie industry, but it won't kill the rental places.
Maybe geeks will evolve eight fingers?
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 1
Not only for the hexadecimal counting, but think of the emacs key combinations we could create! We could double or triple what we have now (this is eight fingers PER HAND right?)
I'm just saying we need to review our expectations for an AI machine. Do we want an intelligent human language search engine or do we want software that can recognize particular human faces out of a crowd of faces. Both are endeavors of AI research, but to me they seem like different fields of study entirely. Sure, there will be some common theory between the two fields, but I think the Turing Test isn't a practical metric and neither is the human mind. I think certain useful aspects of human intelligence can be replicated in software, but to attempt an exact replication should not be the goal, as a computer with wires and transistors is significantly different than a mushy mass of brain matter, just as a bird is different from an airplane.
Sorry to ramble but I'm at work and its hard to concentrate with these annoying people around me who keep wanting me to do stuff for them.:)
Re:Will we ever have *real* AI?
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is a valid assumption, but its not in the spirit of science. During the Loebner prize discussion, one/. poster noted how the AI field is comparable to the airplane industry a little over a hundred years ago. The poster said we should stop trying to build a bird and build something better.
To paraphrase, we need to stop trying to build a human mind and just build something which does what we want it to do.
The problem is deciding what we want the computer to do. The Turing test is unreasonable, because we can't make a computer describe its experiences and thoughts in the same way a human can. I mean, if YOU were trapped in a box sitting on someone's desktop your whole life, would YOU act anything like a human? Probably not. I think many people expect to see a machine they turn on and all of a sudden it acts 'alive,' sort of like Frankenstein's monster. I think the AI machine will be more like a baby, where it just spits out nonsense for awhile, until you 'grow' it into something more interesting.
And, I don't think the AI machine will really resemble a human mind, just as an airplane doesn't look much like a bird. We'll discover algorithms that will approximate the functionality of a bundle of millions of neurons, but obviously, like a plane doesn't maneuver as nicely as a bird, it won't be nearly as flexible as a human mind.
Its very complicated for a layman to understand, but I'll do my best:
The molecules in a light-bulb filament (called lightrodes) are ramp-shaped. When the electricity flows along the filament, some of the electrons hit this lightrodes and they fly out into the room. Hence, the light you see is simply dispersed electricity. It sounds crazy, I know, but, that's where static electricity comes from! How else would you explain electricity getting onto the carpet?
I would explain florescent lights, but you would need an advanced degree in science (30+ yrs of school) to even understand the basic concepts.
Did you hear Dylan pushed his book back to January 2005?! I was at the book-store at all 3 proposed release dates asking, is it in yet? is it in yet? Man, if its anything as good as his last couple albums & last 5 or so years of touring...
Another thought: Do you think Bob Dylan is even remotely aware of Linux?
I agree with the parent post after giving the problem a little thought. There may tools available, but I think what you need is to set up scripts for your experiments.
What comes to mind when I think about experiment management software is unit testing software. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you run empirical software experiments, you are essentially unit testing the software.
Something like Python, Perl, or TCL (probably Python-- powerful, easy to read) should suit you ideally. Other options include Make utilities like make or Ant (w/ JUnit would work great!).
With any of these you could make use of any existing command-line or scriptable utilities for conversion or producing data files or database data.
The reasons he gives are everything but specific. They are sweeping statements that remind me of 'selling out' complaints in the music industry. In fact, his 12 reasons are probably what ALMOST EVERYBODY thought in April 2001 when Java went from virtually unknown to an 'industry fad' in about 2 years' time. Nobody had ever seen that done before and EVERYONE was a little suspicious. The smart ones, however, had the sensibility to keep their mouths shut, at least until they've used it. And if the DoD is promoting Java, is that really a bad thing... just because they're not 'real' hackers? His only legitimate reason is that Sun might go under, but even then I'm almost certain the JCP will take over Sun's role.
LISP is a powerful and interesting language and as a language has its merits. I don't mean to pick on LISP. I DO mean to pick on Paul Graham because I believe he is short-sighted.
So far, Java seems like a stinker to me. I've never written a Java program, never more than glanced over reference books about it, but I have a hunch that it won't be a very successful language
This is from the Java Cover article. I don't think I need bother to defend Java against these accusations except to say that Java is a to-the-point OO language with which it is possible to create vastly complex OO structures in a very readable manner. As far as the Java culture, there is an enormous Java culture producing an enormous amount of code. The Java culture is full of serious and brilliant developers. If you want to build complex systems fast, nobody is going to turn to LISP for a solution. There isn't one. LISP is a beautiful language which I think any programmer would benefit to learn, but its not a language to get things done with.
What irks me is not that Paul Graham is saying this, but that he might get listened to, because his books are quite interesting and often used in classrooms. I don't think that the quote I posted above should ever be spoken by somebody with a reputation. He admits that the entire essay is based not on fact, but on his spooky 'Hacker's radar.' If he'd done any amount of research, and still said that Java was 'a stinker,' I would be quite content with that.
This is about as nice as a post can get while still being honest. But two things about the parent post... There is one language today that Paul Graham does not feel is 'stupid' and it is LISP. If you aren't familiar with Paul Graham's work, then you should be aware that he is the author of two popular LISP books, one of which I used in a computer science course in college.
It's no surprise that he feels future languages 'will be list-based' and 'arrays will be obsolete'. He wrote another article in 2001 which declared Java a 'bad technology,' and not because he knew Java or had ever used it, but because his 'Hacker's radar' detected it. Yes, he actually wrote an entire essay about this.
It frustrates me when these nuts get the attention they do. This guy publishes a couple of computer books and thinks he's Donald Knuth or Martin Fowler...
Really? That is surprising. Not only that MS did that, but that it wasn't publicized more (of course, unless the news is on Slashdot or a Java site, I wouldn't hear about it anyway...) But the question remains... will CLR and C# code be entangled so much with Windows-only code that it won't be useful anywhere else?
Obviously, I wouldn't expect MS to go to too much trouble to make their code portable, but I think the main advantage of having an ISO standard is that companies will not feel tied down to a specific vendor and that the man-hours invested in development would not be wasted if they switched to another server OS.
I think that is the real goal here, to have the freedom to layer your system with software from a variety of vendors.
I think its great that Microsoft is doing this and its what Sun should have done at the start, but it doesn't mean a thing. C# (on top of CLR) is still only available on one platform and the underlying virtual machine is still proprietary.
Because of its bindings with other MS technologies, C# code will never be fully portable to other platforms and so the ISO standard is meaningless unless you are already a Windows-only programmer. If you ARE a windows-only programmer, then you can at least be assured MS won't deprecate the entire language with their next version of.NET.
among the reviews on Amazon was that even for an intermediate level web designer, much of the material in this book is not entirely surprising or new. IMHO, I agree with this, but I think the book's contribution is mostly in its catalogue and well-written analysis of EA patterns. The GoF book contained some patterns that seemed almost like magic to me at first, whereas Fowler's patterns are less magic and closer to common sense.
I would recommend this book to anybody at least for the sake of having a common jargon to communicate with.
I've read a few articles or comments about SWT vs Swing and decided to stick with Swing. From what I gather, SWT is attractive to people who are overwhelmed by Swing's complexity and wish to write a standard UI fast. Swing is extremely flexible and well-designed. If you have the time, you can do just about anything you can think of.
I'd stay clear of SWT if you think there is ever a chance you'll want to merge your code into a Swing app or if you think SWT may be limiting in the future. However, if you need to build a semi-standard UI quickly for a project that will never be upgraded or won't be around long, then SWT might be viable.
Slashdot Mirror
its sarcasm ;) sorry, my humor can be a little dry!
Gates and Ballmer cannot but help digging into their pocketbooks at the sight of this. How grateful we should all be.
And then there's those third-world nations, fumbling around with chmod and tr while half their country is dying of AIDS...
Yes, we are lucky that in today's world a multi-billion dollar company can be spare so much without self-interest. :)
If the article weren't slashdotted, you'd know EKG is from the GERMAN spelling, which is ElectronungKardiohosserGrushheimerdunghosserdunghe imer!
This could make a great gnome toolbar applet. Then I could enjoy watching my heart race when I accidently type 'rm -rf *' in the wrong directory!
Great explanation!
I'd say about 50-100 for me. Its not unmanageable to work with from a command-line by any means, so I'm wondering what advantages CMSs might have in this case?
Is this an appropriate definition? But then there's also mention of XML content management, which doesn't seem to fit my def. Can somebody explain what this is or how/if this technology can be leveraged by the average web developer? Does Apache's Cocoon fit into this in any way?
So if (is it alpha?) alpha were .001 larger, we wouldn't be here. Either there IS a god that set the constants exactly right, or we are extremely lucky, or there are many universes, each with a different value for alpha. I think the anthropic cosmological principal covers this extensively. There's a big (HUGE) book by John D. Barrow on the topic.
They won't go out of business. They'll just start selling disposable dvds instead. Both parties will get a cut off of every rental, but the rental place will never own the dvd. Now, when the price of the dvd or tape gets paid off, the rental company gets 100% of the rental fee. With the knew model, the movie industry gets a cut off of EVERY rental. Its better for the movie industry, but it won't kill the rental places.
Not only for the hexadecimal counting, but think of the emacs key combinations we could create! We could double or triple what we have now (this is eight fingers PER HAND right?)
Fortunately MS makes good IDEs which they build into Office with debugging and code-completion. So far I haven't found anything like that for Python.
Sorry to ramble but I'm at work and its hard to concentrate with these annoying people around me who keep wanting me to do stuff for them. :)
To paraphrase, we need to stop trying to build a human mind and just build something which does what we want it to do.
The problem is deciding what we want the computer to do. The Turing test is unreasonable, because we can't make a computer describe its experiences and thoughts in the same way a human can. I mean, if YOU were trapped in a box sitting on someone's desktop your whole life, would YOU act anything like a human? Probably not. I think many people expect to see a machine they turn on and all of a sudden it acts 'alive,' sort of like Frankenstein's monster. I think the AI machine will be more like a baby, where it just spits out nonsense for awhile, until you 'grow' it into something more interesting.
And, I don't think the AI machine will really resemble a human mind, just as an airplane doesn't look much like a bird. We'll discover algorithms that will approximate the functionality of a bundle of millions of neurons, but obviously, like a plane doesn't maneuver as nicely as a bird, it won't be nearly as flexible as a human mind.
desktop background ever created :) Its sure worth the effort, however!
The molecules in a light-bulb filament (called lightrodes) are ramp-shaped. When the electricity flows along the filament, some of the electrons hit this lightrodes and they fly out into the room. Hence, the light you see is simply dispersed electricity. It sounds crazy, I know, but, that's where static electricity comes from! How else would you explain electricity getting onto the carpet?
I would explain florescent lights, but you would need an advanced degree in science (30+ yrs of school) to even understand the basic concepts.
Another thought: Do you think Bob Dylan is even remotely aware of Linux?
What comes to mind when I think about experiment management software is unit testing software. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you run empirical software experiments, you are essentially unit testing the software.
Something like Python, Perl, or TCL (probably Python-- powerful, easy to read) should suit you ideally. Other options include Make utilities like make or Ant (w/ JUnit would work great!).
With any of these you could make use of any existing command-line or scriptable utilities for conversion or producing data files or database data.
Just my 2 cents. Hope this helps.
Specific??
The reasons he gives are everything but specific. They are sweeping statements that remind me of 'selling out' complaints in the music industry. In fact, his 12 reasons are probably what ALMOST EVERYBODY thought in April 2001 when Java went from virtually unknown to an 'industry fad' in about 2 years' time. Nobody had ever seen that done before and EVERYONE was a little suspicious. The smart ones, however, had the sensibility to keep their mouths shut, at least until they've used it. And if the DoD is promoting Java, is that really a bad thing... just because they're not 'real' hackers? His only legitimate reason is that Sun might go under, but even then I'm almost certain the JCP will take over Sun's role.
This is from the Java Cover article. I don't think I need bother to defend Java against these accusations except to say that Java is a to-the-point OO language with which it is possible to create vastly complex OO structures in a very readable manner. As far as the Java culture, there is an enormous Java culture producing an enormous amount of code. The Java culture is full of serious and brilliant developers. If you want to build complex systems fast, nobody is going to turn to LISP for a solution. There isn't one. LISP is a beautiful language which I think any programmer would benefit to learn, but its not a language to get things done with.
What irks me is not that Paul Graham is saying this, but that he might get listened to, because his books are quite interesting and often used in classrooms. I don't think that the quote I posted above should ever be spoken by somebody with a reputation. He admits that the entire essay is based not on fact, but on his spooky 'Hacker's radar.' If he'd done any amount of research, and still said that Java was 'a stinker,' I would be quite content with that.
It's no surprise that he feels future languages 'will be list-based' and 'arrays will be obsolete'. He wrote another article in 2001 which declared Java a 'bad technology,' and not because he knew Java or had ever used it, but because his 'Hacker's radar' detected it. Yes, he actually wrote an entire essay about this.
It frustrates me when these nuts get the attention they do. This guy publishes a couple of computer books and thinks he's Donald Knuth or Martin Fowler...
Obviously, I wouldn't expect MS to go to too much trouble to make their code portable, but I think the main advantage of having an ISO standard is that companies will not feel tied down to a specific vendor and that the man-hours invested in development would not be wasted if they switched to another server OS.
I think that is the real goal here, to have the freedom to layer your system with software from a variety of vendors.
Because of its bindings with other MS technologies, C# code will never be fully portable to other platforms and so the ISO standard is meaningless unless you are already a Windows-only programmer. If you ARE a windows-only programmer, then you can at least be assured MS won't deprecate the entire language with their next version of .NET.
I would recommend this book to anybody at least for the sake of having a common jargon to communicate with.
Yeah, but its unpredictable at this point. Better to stick with a standard that rely on SWT's moving forward.
I'd stay clear of SWT if you think there is ever a chance you'll want to merge your code into a Swing app or if you think SWT may be limiting in the future. However, if you need to build a semi-standard UI quickly for a project that will never be upgraded or won't be around long, then SWT might be viable.