There is still one thing to remember though: when the One ring is broken, the Elven rings lose their power as well. Which is quite symbolic of the fact that all the rings of Power were derived in a certain way from the original Evil the Morgoth brought to middle earth.
Agreed. But now we are getting into the domain of geekhood.
I will reply still though: the kingship of the noldor was much more of a 'head of the pack' concept they had when they woke in Middle Earth. Orome 'chose' the three kings to come to valinor to see... he didn't make them kings: their people already wanted them to be their kings - in effect, they were elected.
As for the different 'clans' being banished, yes you are right.
This guy is irritating me so much, I have the urge to debunk more of his SHIT
Consider the rings. Those man-made wonders are deemed cursed, damning anyone who dares to use them, especially those nine normal humans who tried to rise up, using tools to equalize and then usurp the rightful powers of their betters -- the High Elves*.
The Rings were forged by Sauron - neither Elf nor Man. He is just a Maiar. A god-like spirit. And he's Morgoth's (the source of evil on Middle Earth) first Lieutenant.
The nine Ringwraiths [...] can be looked upon as cautionary figures, conveying the universal lesson that "power corrupts."
On that much we can all agree. But I think there's more to the Ringwraiths. To me, they distill the classical Greek notion of hubris [...] -- the idea that pain and damnation await any mortal whose ambition aims too high. Don't try putting on the trappings or emblems or powers that rightfully belong to your betters
The rings don't belong to anyone but Sauron himself. Hence even the Elven rings are under the rule of the One ring. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT: ANYONE who aspired to great Power in middle earth is subjected to the Evil that Morgoth/Sauron brought forth.
*Another point: the high elves were banished from 'valinor' the land of bliss because after Morgoth came, they tried to overtake the land for themselves, and in their arrogance, they were exiled.
Ugh... Fuck. I have to go punch a brick wall. This article is as stupid as the people who said the "Two Towers" were and allusion to WTC.
This yearning makes sense if you remember that arbitrary lords and chiefs did rule us for 99.44 percent of human existence. It's only been 200 years or so -- an eye blink -- that "scientific enlightenment" began waging its rebellion against the nearly universal pattern called feudalism
Not to break it to you Einstein, but democracy was invented in ancient Greece. That's not a couple of hundred years, it's a couple of thousand years... just about as old as christianity itself.
Timidly at first, guilds and townsfolk rallied together and lent their support to kings, thereby easing oppression by local lords.
Does he actually have proof of this, or is he using the LoTR as a template? It kind of reminds me of an essay I wrote (in my ignorant arrogance) about the beginnings of speech among Men when I was in high school.
Temblors began splitting a chasm between Romantics and Enlightenment pragmatists. The alliance that had been so formidable against feudalism began turning against itself. Trenches soon aligned along the most obvious fault line, down the middle -- between future and past.
In this conflict, J.R.R. Tolkien stood firmly for the past[...]
This fits the very plot of "Lord of the Rings," in which the good guys strive to preserve and restore as much as they can of an older, graceful and "natural" hierarchy, against the disturbing
See. This guy hasn't read the Silmarillion probably. The older state of affairs is that Elves and Men were born on a paradisiac earth, and there was no Evil. When evil came, heirlooms, and kingships became saught after. Before that, the peoples of Middle Earth dwelt in little pockets and were peaceful. Then with the evil of Morgoth (Sauron's master of old), ambitious Elves were made to become kings and want to rule all of Middle-Earth... And the reason for that is because Morgoth himself wanted to rule the earth, and the easiest way to achieve that was by having his enemies do the grunt work for him before hand...
I could go on for pages about this... but I won't. Anyone interested can just read the Silmarillion.
All in all though, I'm very irritated by this author. It seems to me he's the typical Hollywoodist he criticizes in his own essay: trying to attract attention by shock value.
I've met a tech, who works at a university called University of Toronto. They have public internet access stations at their library. And they have dozens if not hundreds of PCs running 'windoze' that students use to do their projects. They're all running 'windoze'.
What's your point? An improperly administered box is an improperly administered box.
See, I'm not anti-Moft biggot or anything... but this book was designed for the countless shops out there that have 'MCSE senior VB programmers'. (Not that in itself is bad - but most just leave it at that... whereas a true programmer should continue learning all their lives)
Software is Art, and one of the reasons why the industry is in such shit right now is because there's a bunch of Con Artists pretending to be programmers out there.
Re:It makes sense
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
On a funny note,
Porn is religiously 'evil', whereas cigarettes aren't.
It also reminded me of the scene in the simpsons 'trilogy of error', when lisa goes to the West Springfield Elementary, and enters in on a french class, and all the kids start laughing at her, and the teacher says "in french please", and they all start laughing 'a-la french' (and I marvel at the number of times I can fit 'and' in a single sentence).
My litterature teacher once told me a very interesting anecdote:
He said one day, he was visiting an old castle in France (made to be a museum), and as he was standing on a balcony, someone said "this is where so and so (from Balzac's novels) used to live". To which my teacher replied "you know, that person is ficticious", and the guy's answer was "what, you think the life of a real person from 200 years ago is anywhere nearly as interesting?"
My point is, there are many arguments about Tolkien's stories about how... lame they are or what not. But LoTR is just a part in a masterpiece that Tolkien dedicated his whole life to. He was a great author, among the Greats, and it's not to be taken lightly. Middle Earth is a complete realm from creation to the present. For all intents and purposes, this place actually existed. The details he put into this are astonishing.
As Tolkien himself says, he created Middle Earth because he felt the lack of a good Mythology that had a Celtic feel. He wanted something a-la Scandinavian, Greek, or Egyptian mythology, but for his homeland. And so, he friggin went ahead and created one. Take it as such: LoTR is a Myth of old. Like David and Goliath, or whatever...
Btw, I saw the first movie, and saw the trailer for the second, and I'm creaming my jeans (as filthy critic would say). But I must also add that they are only a shadow of the books.
And empirical estimates are being replaced by mathematical exactness
I'm not dissing the article completely yet (as I haven't finished reading it, and don't know if I'm completely interested), but I find it wonderful how ignorance among press still prevails.
There is no science, (apart from Math itself - which I consider more of an Art) that has mathematical exactness in it. The word science comes from the latin root of scientia, and means knowledge. Sciences are disciplines where as much knowledge about the existing (thus empirical) world is gathered as possible, and models are generated based on this data.
Mathematics on the other hand, derives from Axioms, and Logic. Both of which aren't derived from the empirical world. And I say it's much more akin to Art because it is a skill that you develop to be a mathematician: you forge out of simpleness new more complex theorems. You are 'creating' them... (in science, you are looking for them).
To make a long story short, there is no such thing as a mathematically exact science.
Wow, this soviet russia joke is starting to become phenomenal. At first, it annoyed me, but now, I just can't stop laughing... it's almost like haiku.
I'm definitely going to make myself a t-shirt with these jokes on it, and watch people's frowns of puzzlement as I walk by them.
There aren't good or bad guys. And in the same way, there isn't Good or Bad software. It's all shades.
So in that respect, you shouldn't be happy cause the GI Joes won, but rather because you have new found choice. A more granular choice than having a dual boot system, or VMWare running, or just having no choice at all and being on a single platform all the time.
I must agree with parent, to refute grandparent that this is not a win for the *NIX community. (no pun intended)
But, I just want to add that cross platform interoperation, regardless of between where and where, is *always* A Good Thing for the whole world of computing.
Your imagination is WAY too active. Microsoft doesn't need to buy this product to reverse engineer anything... the code is already there. If anything they probably reverse engineered it to look at the Elcomsoftware itself.
My guess is that this was bought by *some* guy at Redmond, and just happened to go through the cracks of the system unnoticed.
What is the next law which proves to be obsolete in our world
Free use of your property.
As seen in the trends of CAble modem modification (which, yes it's a service but blah blah), and the ever so imminent push of Mordor that is 'trusted computing', where the code that runs on your computer, Sauron wishes, will not be yours to control, but rather will be under the One Ring to Rule them all.
To me this sounds like you really do not understand
Be good. Instead of trying to win the argument by accusation, try to see what I'm talking about.
C++ is a strongly typed language. Yet it can be horribly prone to errors.
COM is *not* a source of security leaks. That's like saying DLLs and EXEs are a source of security leaks. Destroy them.
As I said earlier in anther post, all of what you mentionned above could have been achieved by simply enhancing/creating the two languages you mentionned: C#, VB. VB up till now didn't support proper object orientation. And it's compiler was pretty much crap (internals weren't thread safe etc.etc.etc)...
All the new Good Things (tm) you are talking about here have already been done with Java. Why not just use Java then?
And this comes back to a secular war between Java and C++ people. About how some people defend their right to use C++, which has templates, and some other people don't know what templates are and say C++ is a hack job.
Whatever your choice, you have to respect the others too... and saying "well, sorry, STL is gone, and templates supports are gone... because now you have an object model for your entire API" isn't gonna cut it for me.
What I mean by the kick in the balls towards IIS style security: it's quite a simple engineering concept really... the more complex your system, the easier for there to be bugs, flaws. It's that simple.
COM, is in it's essence, as broad and neutral a specification as PE, or ELF. It basically defines binary entry points in a binary file, defines method calling conventions, and memory allocation conventions through those method calls.
Last of all, if you've used ATL, and do not realize what a beautifuly useful library it is, I don't think we should be talking here... Have a good time using your.NET objects that you created via UltraEdit.
So can you explain to me the mechanics behind the 'self registration' that.NET promotes?
Aside from that, CoCreateInstance might in a windows implementation look up the registry... but it might in a linux implementation look up a flat file, and on a BSD imp look in a sql db... it wouldn't change the behaviour of CoCreateInstance... And so, CoCreateInstance as a definition is not tied to any specific platform.
common language runtime and a set of class libraries for acomplishing various kinds of tasks
So if I understand you correctly,.NET is kind of like the enhancement of what automation was set out to be: a common way for any COM object abiding to automation rules and specifications to be able to use the environment (such as data, variables etc) of the application without doing 'marshalling conversions' when switching between languages? (for example: using variants and safe arrays to access data both in C++ and VB).
I was aware of that, but still am not too clear on the full extent of this commonality.
See, I understand the noble intent, but these are my gripes:
Web Services could simply have been implemented as another 'standard interface' such as IMarshall... IWebService (or whatever...)
Automation could have easily been 'enlarged', or extended so that all said languages (SQL, VB, C#, unmanaged C++ - via libraries) could interoperate. It's not like.NET is backward compatible... all the implementations of the languages will have to be changed anyhow...
.NET, so far, is only more productive (IMHO), because of how good Moft's IDE is. And this has always been the case - Moft knows this very well, and has very well capitalized on the matter: the better your IDE and code generation suites are suited for RAD, the more market penetration you will get (because more programmers are programming for your platform)... Thus, ever since VC4, the capital focus has been on getting programmers to compile applications as fast as possible (hence all the wizards etc).
I see your good intent, Miguel, but I still don't think it's a good enough reason for me. (just because, for example: COM is so elegant that it can actually be used in a fully interuptible-fully pre-emptible environment which is the NT kernel). More cruft, means more breaking points... means more IIS style security breaches that span several modules of runtime support.
COM relies too much on windows APIs, it's not cross platform, it relies too much on the system registry and it only works on windows
Hmmm... Have you used COM before?
STDAPI CoCreateInstance( REFCLSID rclsid,//Class identifier (CLSID) of the object
LPUNKNOWN pUnkOuter,//Pointer to controlling IUnknown
DWORD dwClsContext,//Context for running executable code
REFIID riid,//Reference to the identifier of the interface
LPVOID * ppv//Address of output variable that receives
// the interface pointer requested in riid
);
Can you tell me where you see the registry in there? Even malloc is shielded behind an IMalloc interface for crying out loud. The implementation of the runtime happens to use the registry, but that is COMPLETELY hidden to the actual spec of what COM is.
COM is language independant. It's a binary format with a small number of runtime environment support routines... it is not platform dependant. Incidentally, COM objects interacting with only other COM objects are also platform independant.
Platform independance is not a reason to supercede COM.
Slashdot Mirror
There is still one thing to remember though: when the One ring is broken, the Elven rings lose their power as well. Which is quite symbolic of the fact that all the rings of Power were derived in a certain way from the original Evil the Morgoth brought to middle earth.
I will reply still though: the kingship of the noldor was much more of a 'head of the pack' concept they had when they woke in Middle Earth. Orome 'chose' the three kings to come to valinor to see... he didn't make them kings: their people already wanted them to be their kings - in effect, they were elected.
As for the different 'clans' being banished, yes you are right.
<hits ALT+F7 to see if it compiles now> =)
Consider the rings. Those man-made wonders are deemed cursed, damning anyone who dares to use them, especially those nine normal humans who tried to rise up, using tools to equalize and then usurp the rightful powers of their betters -- the High Elves*.
The Rings were forged by Sauron - neither Elf nor Man. He is just a Maiar. A god-like spirit. And he's Morgoth's (the source of evil on Middle Earth) first Lieutenant.
The nine Ringwraiths [...] can be looked upon as cautionary figures, conveying the universal lesson that "power corrupts."
On that much we can all agree. But I think there's more to the Ringwraiths. To me, they distill the classical Greek notion of hubris [...] -- the idea that pain and damnation await any mortal whose ambition aims too high. Don't try putting on the trappings or emblems or powers that rightfully belong to your betters
The rings don't belong to anyone but Sauron himself. Hence even the Elven rings are under the rule of the One ring. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT: ANYONE who aspired to great Power in middle earth is subjected to the Evil that Morgoth/Sauron brought forth.
*Another point: the high elves were banished from 'valinor' the land of bliss because after Morgoth came, they tried to overtake the land for themselves, and in their arrogance, they were exiled.
Ugh... Fuck. I have to go punch a brick wall. This article is as stupid as the people who said the "Two Towers" were and allusion to WTC.
To quote rage against the machine:
WAKE UP
KNOW YOUR ENEMNY
Not to break it to you Einstein, but democracy was invented in ancient Greece. That's not a couple of hundred years, it's a couple of thousand years... just about as old as christianity itself.
Timidly at first, guilds and townsfolk rallied together and lent their support to kings, thereby easing oppression by local lords.
Does he actually have proof of this, or is he using the LoTR as a template? It kind of reminds me of an essay I wrote (in my ignorant arrogance) about the beginnings of speech among Men when I was in high school.
Temblors began splitting a chasm between Romantics and Enlightenment pragmatists. The alliance that had been so formidable against feudalism began turning against itself. Trenches soon aligned along the most obvious fault line, down the middle -- between future and past.
In this conflict, J.R.R. Tolkien stood firmly for the past[...]
This fits the very plot of "Lord of the Rings," in which the good guys strive to preserve and restore as much as they can of an older, graceful and "natural" hierarchy, against the disturbing
See. This guy hasn't read the Silmarillion probably. The older state of affairs is that Elves and Men were born on a paradisiac earth, and there was no Evil. When evil came, heirlooms, and kingships became saught after. Before that, the peoples of Middle Earth dwelt in little pockets and were peaceful. Then with the evil of Morgoth (Sauron's master of old), ambitious Elves were made to become kings and want to rule all of Middle-Earth... And the reason for that is because Morgoth himself wanted to rule the earth, and the easiest way to achieve that was by having his enemies do the grunt work for him before hand...
I could go on for pages about this... but I won't. Anyone interested can just read the Silmarillion.
All in all though, I'm very irritated by this author. It seems to me he's the typical Hollywoodist he criticizes in his own essay: trying to attract attention by shock value.
Fuck it...
What's your point? An improperly administered box is an improperly administered box.
Software is Art, and one of the reasons why the industry is in such shit right now is because there's a bunch of Con Artists pretending to be programmers out there.
Porn is religiously 'evil', whereas cigarettes aren't.
Go figure.
You actually made me laugh.
It also reminded me of the scene in the simpsons 'trilogy of error', when lisa goes to the West Springfield Elementary, and enters in on a french class, and all the kids start laughing at her, and the teacher says "in french please", and they all start laughing 'a-la french' (and I marvel at the number of times I can fit 'and' in a single sentence).
sorry, spelled it in french. I wonder if you feel proud now.
He said one day, he was visiting an old castle in France (made to be a museum), and as he was standing on a balcony, someone said "this is where so and so (from Balzac's novels) used to live". To which my teacher replied "you know, that person is ficticious", and the guy's answer was "what, you think the life of a real person from 200 years ago is anywhere nearly as interesting?"
My point is, there are many arguments about Tolkien's stories about how... lame they are or what not. But LoTR is just a part in a masterpiece that Tolkien dedicated his whole life to. He was a great author, among the Greats, and it's not to be taken lightly. Middle Earth is a complete realm from creation to the present. For all intents and purposes, this place actually existed. The details he put into this are astonishing.
As Tolkien himself says, he created Middle Earth because he felt the lack of a good Mythology that had a Celtic feel. He wanted something a-la Scandinavian, Greek, or Egyptian mythology, but for his homeland. And so, he friggin went ahead and created one. Take it as such: LoTR is a Myth of old. Like David and Goliath, or whatever...
Btw, I saw the first movie, and saw the trailer for the second, and I'm creaming my jeans (as filthy critic would say). But I must also add that they are only a shadow of the books.
I'm not dissing the article completely yet (as I haven't finished reading it, and don't know if I'm completely interested), but I find it wonderful how ignorance among press still prevails.
There is no science, (apart from Math itself - which I consider more of an Art) that has mathematical exactness in it. The word science comes from the latin root of scientia, and means knowledge. Sciences are disciplines where as much knowledge about the existing (thus empirical) world is gathered as possible, and models are generated based on this data.
Mathematics on the other hand, derives from Axioms, and Logic. Both of which aren't derived from the empirical world. And I say it's much more akin to Art because it is a skill that you develop to be a mathematician: you forge out of simpleness new more complex theorems. You are 'creating' them... (in science, you are looking for them).
To make a long story short, there is no such thing as a mathematically exact science.
Wow, this soviet russia joke is starting to become phenomenal. At first, it annoyed me, but now, I just can't stop laughing... it's almost like haiku.
I'm definitely going to make myself a t-shirt with these jokes on it, and watch people's frowns of puzzlement as I walk by them.
So in that respect, you shouldn't be happy cause the GI Joes won, but rather because you have new found choice. A more granular choice than having a dual boot system, or VMWare running, or just having no choice at all and being on a single platform all the time.
I must agree with parent, to refute grandparent that this is not a win for the *NIX community. (no pun intended)
But, I just want to add that cross platform interoperation, regardless of between where and where, is *always* A Good Thing for the whole world of computing.
My guess is that this was bought by *some* guy at Redmond, and just happened to go through the cracks of the system unnoticed.
Free use of your property.
As seen in the trends of CAble modem modification (which, yes it's a service but blah blah), and the ever so imminent push of Mordor that is 'trusted computing', where the code that runs on your computer, Sauron wishes, will not be yours to control, but rather will be under the One Ring to Rule them all.
(can you tell I just can't wait for the TTT ? =)
That's definitely a worthy answer!
Very good points. With an answer like this, it's definitely worth investigating.
To me this sounds like you really do not understand
Be good. Instead of trying to win the argument by accusation, try to see what I'm talking about.
C++ is a strongly typed language. Yet it can be horribly prone to errors.
COM is *not* a source of security leaks. That's like saying DLLs and EXEs are a source of security leaks. Destroy them.
As I said earlier in anther post, all of what you mentionned above could have been achieved by simply enhancing/creating the two languages you mentionned: C#, VB. VB up till now didn't support proper object orientation. And it's compiler was pretty much crap (internals weren't thread safe etc.etc.etc)...
All the new Good Things (tm) you are talking about here have already been done with Java. Why not just use Java then?
And this comes back to a secular war between Java and C++ people. About how some people defend their right to use C++, which has templates, and some other people don't know what templates are and say C++ is a hack job.
Whatever your choice, you have to respect the others too... and saying "well, sorry, STL is gone, and templates supports are gone... because now you have an object model for your entire API" isn't gonna cut it for me.
What I mean by the kick in the balls towards IIS style security: it's quite a simple engineering concept really... the more complex your system, the easier for there to be bugs, flaws. It's that simple.
COM, is in it's essence, as broad and neutral a specification as PE, or ELF. It basically defines binary entry points in a binary file, defines method calling conventions, and memory allocation conventions through those method calls.
Last of all, if you've used ATL, and do not realize what a beautifuly useful library it is, I don't think we should be talking here... Have a good time using your .NET objects that you created via UltraEdit.
How do you think COM knows which IID relates to which interface
COM doesn't know that. IUnknown::QueryInterface (implemented by your object) knows that.
Aside from that, CoCreateInstance might in a windows implementation look up the registry... but it might in a linux implementation look up a flat file, and on a BSD imp look in a sql db... it wouldn't change the behaviour of CoCreateInstance... And so, CoCreateInstance as a definition is not tied to any specific platform.
So if I understand you correctly, .NET is kind of like the enhancement of what automation was set out to be: a common way for any COM object abiding to automation rules and specifications to be able to use the environment (such as data, variables etc) of the application without doing 'marshalling conversions' when switching between languages? (for example: using variants and safe arrays to access data both in C++ and VB).
I was aware of that, but still am not too clear on the full extent of this commonality.
See, I understand the noble intent, but these are my gripes:
Web Services could simply have been implemented as another 'standard interface' such as IMarshall... IWebService (or whatever...)
Automation could have easily been 'enlarged', or extended so that all said languages (SQL, VB, C#, unmanaged C++ - via libraries) could interoperate. It's not like .NET is backward compatible... all the implementations of the languages will have to be changed anyhow...
I see your good intent, Miguel, but I still don't think it's a good enough reason for me. (just because, for example: COM is so elegant that it can actually be used in a fully interuptible-fully pre-emptible environment which is the NT kernel). More cruft, means more breaking points... means more IIS style security breaches that span several modules of runtime support.
Hmmm... Have you used COM before?
STDAPI CoCreateInstance( REFCLSID rclsid, //Class identifier (CLSID) of the object
LPUNKNOWN pUnkOuter, //Pointer to controlling IUnknown
DWORD dwClsContext, //Context for running executable code
REFIID riid, //Reference to the identifier of the interface
LPVOID * ppv //Address of output variable that receives
);
Can you tell me where you see the registry in there? Even malloc is shielded behind an IMalloc interface for crying out loud. The implementation of the runtime happens to use the registry, but that is COMPLETELY hidden to the actual spec of what COM is.
COM is language independant. It's a binary format with a small number of runtime environment support routines... it is not platform dependant. Incidentally, COM objects interacting with only other COM objects are also platform independant.
Platform independance is not a reason to supercede COM.