You did it again. Nobody would write papers on gender bias in postmodern literature, but plenty of people would still work on problems in number theory? Nobody at all? And plenty of which people? These are completely unfounded generalizations--maybe you wouldn't write papers on gender bias in postmodern literature in your spare time, and that's fine: neither would I. But I wouldn't want to work on problems in number theory. In fact I would rather, for example--and do--discuss gender bias in modern video games, for the intrinsic rewards of intellectual argument and, ideally, advancing the art. I can't see your assertion as anything but your own idea of what constitutes meaningful pursuits.
Feel free to give me a list of examples of landmark papers on gender bias in postmodern literature written by amateurs who were not paid to do so, in the way that Einstein was not paid to work on relativity.
That's a silly analogy as a paper on the postmodern ennui of electrons would be absurd.
The fact that it was absurd was kinda the point of the analogy. That doesn't mean it can't be done though - Alan Sokal wrote a paper containing 100% unadulterated nonsense about postmodernism and got it published in a prestigious journal. The paper wasn't "the postmodern ennui of electrons," but it wasn't too far off.
Still, I have to disagree with you for the very reasons you use to support your argument. Having a much broader range of what can be considered 'correct' doesn't make something easier, because that's not the case.
Literature is about interpretation, and there is usually no 'correct' interpretation. There are, however, persuasive interpretations, but more importantly enlightening interpretations: those that reveal something new and important about the human condition etc.
That's precisely what makes it easier than science; you can't get by in a science program by just being persuasive, nor will any professor with integrity let you get by for being persuasive. I personally have gotten away with the most unadulterated (but persuasive!:)) bullshit in literature classes that would never in a million years fly in the science classes I took. And I have never once read a Cliff's Notes or any other review of any classic text that revealed "something new and important about the human condition" - that is just absurd.
and after all I believe we're all ultimately trying to answer the same questions.
We are, but scientists are simply much, much better at it. The humanities are filled with elitism and rule by sycophants, since interpretations don't have to fit the data. Science is quite different - if you discover the (correct) Theory of Everything tomorrow, it will be accepted relatively shortly, no matter how many sycophants Steven Hawking or Roger Penrose or anybody with a competing theory has.
To see the difference more clearly, try telling a postmodern art critic that Josef Albers's paintings of squares-within-squares are meaningless, and that the reverence for them is elitist and completely misguided. You'll most likely be subject to an uninterrupted stream of bullshit from the art critic, who will retroactively defend the childish work, probably with nonsense about how squares within squares somehow "reveal something new and important about the human condition," or maybe just the time-honored staple of elitst art critics: multisyllabic gibberish. And why? Because everyone in his milieu tells him that square-era Josef Albers was a great artist, and he'd rather confabulate than use common sense, if common sense means standing up a large number of colleagues.
If, however, your "dead-on accurate" experience is a degree in physics and subsequent cinch degree in French literature, then more power to you.
Doesn't follow. My experience comes from taking classes in both science and the humanities from qualified teachers in both subjects - the humanities classes were much easier, without exception. The humanities classes would accept (and reward significantly) papers with an unbelievable proportion of bullshit in them, without exception. This is not true of any hard science course I have ever taken. You don't need to get a certification in Reflexology to know that that it's bullshit.
You're looking at the wrong issue. Plenty of people would write about the social effects of gender bias in media (e.g. literature) even if they weren't getting paid. Secondly, you're promoting the fantasy of a passionate scientist working alone with pencil and paper which, since around 1300, just ain't so. Modern-day contributions (after Galileo) to mathematics require institutional support. Everything is else is just amateurism.
The only way what you said could be true is if you defined "institutional support" only in the most trivial sense possible (e.g. "Kentucky Fried Chicken is the institution that supports my Playstation gaming career.") Einstein wasn't being paid by the patent office to work on relativity, as I recall.
So I can find nothing wrong with your argument, aside from the fact that every bit of evidence suggests the exact opposite.
The main point of the article is to do what you love.
The discussion point I was addressing was Graham's contention that the humanities are easier than the hard sciences, which was written in a different article entirely.
And while people most certainly love literature and many will write artistic criticism without being paid to do so (just look at how many offer unsolicited movie reviews on myspace), nobody would write papers on gender bias in postmodern literature unless they were eyeing the carrot of tenure or some other extrinsic reward. On the other hand, plenty of people would still work on problems in number theory regardless of whether or not they were getting paid.
Graham has knocked the humanities before, implying they have less worth than the sciences (French literature being intrinsically easier than the hard sciences, IIRC)--which I find odd coming from him especially, whose personal selling points include a mixed background in computers and painting.
You shouldn't find it odd - you should find it more convincing, being that he's someone saying "subject A is harder than subject B" when he has experience in both.
Graham's point seems to be that in the hard sciences there are definite answers for questions, a clear "right" and "wrong", whereas in subjects like literature there are not (except in the trivial sense of a grade-school-style quiz that simply tests whether or not you actually read the book). Hence, a college degree in literature is easier than one in the hard sciences because in literature you have a much broader range of what can be considered "correct."
I believe the comparison you're referring to is along those lines: that most Physics graduates could complete a degree in French Literature rather easily, while most French Lit grads would have considerably more difficulty completing a degree in physics. Based on my experience, that comparison is dead-on accurate.
To put it yet another way, imagine how far you'd get in a physics program writing papers on the postmodern ennui of electrons.
What a stupid reply. Thanks for taking the time to lower my IQ. Keyboard layout and programming languages. Yeah, totally the same thing. Oh wait, you must be one of the guys that's trying to sell one of these pieces of crap. My bad.
If you had put in the same amount of effort to read my post as you did in crafting your oh-so-eloquent response, you'd realize that the analogy answers both of your questions. People keep coming up with new keyboard layouts for the same reason they come up with new programming languages - because it's a project they want to accomplish in an area that they find interesting (see the fellow who set up an evolutionary algorithm to determine the best layout). This also answers the second question, although that could have been answered by looking at, oh, I don't know, just about every single post on slashdot about some guy making a rocketship out of old toast or putting his G3 mac into a Commodore 64 case and the inevitable dozen "but why on earth would someone do this?" replies.
By the way, if you had RTFA, you'd realize that nobody is selling anything - it's a free software keyboard layout. Keyboard and keyboard layout. Yeah, totally the same thing. Oh wait, you must be one of those guys who is so interested in posting a reply that you think is clever that you don't bother to read either the article or the post to which you are replying. My bad.
No offense, but my posts aside, I think you're doing just fine lowering your IQ on your own:).
1 - Why do people keep coming up with new programming languages when there's already only a few hundred million people with C/C++/Python/Perl/Lisp/BASIC committed to memory? It's not like they've come up with a new energy supply.
2 - And why does Slashdot keep posting about them? Have any geeks anywhere (other than the makers of these languages) actually sat around thinking of all the things they could have, it'd be a new "improved" programming language? If there's a good reason please let me know.
I was objecting to your statement that Joel "educate[s] interested and intelligent people about the software development process". The term "software development process" refers to a well-defined body of knowledge and skills, and Joel doesn't educate people about it (but he does write an entertaining blog).
You're right. That's what I think of when I read articles about testing applications under the Turkish version of Windows 98 SE and related issues - how unbelievably entertaining.
No, what I consider "shameless self-promotion" is hiring a documentary film-maker to film interns working on a software development project at your company and then selling the resulting DVDs.
Then you have no clue what "shameless self-promotion" is. Nobody who buys this DVD is interested in Fog Creek software - they want to see an actual documentary of the process of bringing a piece of software from idea to execution, of which there are no examples currently available (I've never seen 'Code Rush', but it's out of print, and no, startup.com doesn't even come close.) If he was so hell-bent on "shameless self-promotion", why on earth would he miss an opportunity to include Fog Creek demo software on the DVD??
Indeed. The quickest way to join the ranks of highly-paid self-proclaimed computer gurus is to pick a fight with the best of them, asserting that the latest silver bullet doesn't work. Bonus points if you do it eloquently.
No. The quickest way to become a highly respected computer 'pundit' is to write eloquently about topics that aren't being covered elswhere, or are being covered inadequately. Spolsky did this by giving readers an insight into what actually goes on with the day-to-day workings of a retail software developer. Of course, if you were at all interested in facts, you'd realize that his extreme programming critiques came well after he got popular. You can also feel free to compare how many of his columns are posted on slashdot versus how many of John C. Dvorak's are.
In both of your posts, you've failed to make one single solitary coherent argument, and you either live in a cave, or you simply wouldn't know "shameless self-promotion" if it kicked you in the nuts. But hey, the quickest way to get a +4 Funny is to pick a fight with a respected, knowledgeable columnist who provides burgeoning software entrepreneurs with more information on how to start their own business than any other columnist I know, and asserting something brainless so long as it contradicts what the public figure says and/or puts him down. Bonus karma points if it's eloquent. (No points deducted if it's completely devoid of rational argument).
How do you find out if someone is a genius or visionary in the course of an interview? I think a true genius or visionary would come off as a nut, or at least someone who is unable to work in a team, in an interview.
If he jumps on your desk, pulls down his pants, and starts drinking his own pee, he's a nut. If he purifies the pee with a filter he designed himself before he drinks it, he's a genius.
That statement presumes that his advice actually unconditionally works for the kind of software development most organizations need to do, which just isn't true. Neither his experience nor his products are representative of most software development.
I'm trying to find where a reasonable person (or hell, even an unreasonable one) would come to the conclusion that my statement presumes that his advice works 100% of the time, and I just can't see it, so congrats - nice troll.
But yeah, you're right - his advice doesn't work for a majority of software developers, so clearly his columns are shameless advertising. Flash embeds roaring across the screen imploring you to buy Mountain Dew have nothing on that damned Joel Spolsky and his eloquent Extreme Programming critiques!
Shameless my ass: Joel ingeniously created a way for him to educate interested and intelligent people about the software development process and unobtrusively promote his business at the same time. If he had advertised "shamelessly", nobody would have paid any attention. If anything, it's advertising as mutual exchange, something that is sorely missing in our society today, and isn't even anywhere near as shameless as a simple highway billboard.
I read the first few paragraphs of your fluoride conspiracy diatribe, and as far as I can tell, all of the results you're referencing (well, not referencing...you didnt really reference anything) describe situations where people or animals were given enormous amounts of fluoride, far in excess of what the ADA recommends. Would you be surprised if a study found ill effects in humans who swallowed 125 times the recommended dose of aspirin? You can believe this rubbish if you want, but at least be consistent - aspirin too should be condemned by your standards.
I guess the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the US Dept of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization are all in on it too, right? This conspiracy reaches much further than we thought!:P
I don't see the hypocrisy in that, but I'd like to inform you, since I stopped drinking fluoridated tap water and started using natural toothpastes (I recommend JASON products which can be found at www.jason-natural.com), my teeth, and not to mention my body, have been much healthier.
Wow. One instance of anecdotal evidence. I'm sold. WE MUST ATTACK THE EVIL FLUORIDE CONSPIRACY! We must remove this lethal toxin from our waters and toothpastes! I mean, nobody really dies from brushing their teeth properly with fluoride toothpaste, but it's lethal! And lethal is BAD! And Jason Toothpaste is natural, and natural is GOOD! Well, except for poison ivy...that's natural, and not so good. Oh and viruses - natural, not too good.
Here's an idea - switch to cheaper, fluoride-based toothpastes for a while, and use the money you saved from not buying expensive organic tea-leaf toothpaste to enroll in a science class and find out why one instance of anecdotal evidence does not a proof make. Have a nice day, you Rugged Iconoclast, you.
And once people realize it is crippled there will be a gsh (Gate Shell) and a bsh (Ballmer Shell) as equally handycaped as the msh. A legal suit will follow from Google for gsh but the bsh will last. bsh> developers developers
I for one am in favor of this law, as it allows me to finally realize my childhood dream of being a billionaire scientist astronaut who plays for the NBA.
During my studies in history I've learned that history _never_ repeats itself. Simply because if there's a situation _similar_ to one from the past there are a lot of factors that are simply completely different.
So if you put your hand on a hot stove at 3:00, you'd consider trying it again at 3:01 because the time of day factor is different?
Trends in history repeat themselves all the time - look at Marxism for an excellent example. No matter how often or horribly this fails, there are always some people somewhere who are aching to give it another shot. People see what happens to drug addicts and gamblers and then gamble and use drugs themselves, oblivious to what they've seen. Or as Nassim Taleb observed, doctors can be found smoking outside of a cancer hospital.
Apropos the topic, the historical trend "Big Company rests on its laurels; Small Hungry Company crushes it thoroughly and becomes a Big Company; years later, that new Big Company rests on its laurels..." repeats itself all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
You did it again. Nobody would write papers on gender bias in postmodern literature, but plenty of people would still work on problems in number theory? Nobody at all? And plenty of which people? These are completely unfounded generalizations--maybe you wouldn't write papers on gender bias in postmodern literature in your spare time, and that's fine: neither would I. But I wouldn't want to work on problems in number theory. In fact I would rather, for example--and do--discuss gender bias in modern video games, for the intrinsic rewards of intellectual argument and, ideally, advancing the art. I can't see your assertion as anything but your own idea of what constitutes meaningful pursuits.
Feel free to give me a list of examples of landmark papers on gender bias in postmodern literature written by amateurs who were not paid to do so, in the way that Einstein was not paid to work on relativity.
Until then, you may quietly depart.
That's a silly analogy as a paper on the postmodern ennui of electrons would be absurd.
:)) bullshit in literature classes that would never in a million years fly in the science classes I took. And I have never once read a Cliff's Notes or any other review of any classic text that revealed "something new and important about the human condition" - that is just absurd.
The fact that it was absurd was kinda the point of the analogy. That doesn't mean it can't be done though - Alan Sokal wrote a paper containing 100% unadulterated nonsense about postmodernism and got it published in a prestigious journal. The paper wasn't "the postmodern ennui of electrons," but it wasn't too far off.
Still, I have to disagree with you for the very reasons you use to support your argument. Having a much broader range of what can be considered 'correct' doesn't make something easier, because that's not the case.
You're begging the question.
Literature is about interpretation, and there is usually no 'correct' interpretation. There are, however, persuasive interpretations, but more importantly enlightening interpretations: those that reveal something new and important about the human condition etc.
That's precisely what makes it easier than science; you can't get by in a science program by just being persuasive, nor will any professor with integrity let you get by for being persuasive. I personally have gotten away with the most unadulterated (but persuasive!
and after all I believe we're all ultimately trying to answer the same questions.
We are, but scientists are simply much, much better at it. The humanities are filled with elitism and rule by sycophants, since interpretations don't have to fit the data. Science is quite different - if you discover the (correct) Theory of Everything tomorrow, it will be accepted relatively shortly, no matter how many sycophants Steven Hawking or Roger Penrose or anybody with a competing theory has.
To see the difference more clearly, try telling a postmodern art critic that Josef Albers's paintings of squares-within-squares are meaningless, and that the reverence for them is elitist and completely misguided. You'll most likely be subject to an uninterrupted stream of bullshit from the art critic, who will retroactively defend the childish work, probably with nonsense about how squares within squares somehow "reveal something new and important about the human condition," or maybe just the time-honored staple of elitst art critics: multisyllabic gibberish. And why? Because everyone in his milieu tells him that square-era Josef Albers was a great artist, and he'd rather confabulate than use common sense, if common sense means standing up a large number of colleagues.
If, however, your "dead-on accurate" experience is a degree in physics and subsequent cinch degree in French literature, then more power to you.
Doesn't follow. My experience comes from taking classes in both science and the humanities from qualified teachers in both subjects - the humanities classes were much easier, without exception. The humanities classes would accept (and reward significantly) papers with an unbelievable proportion of bullshit in them, without exception. This is not true of any hard science course I have ever taken. You don't need to get a certification in Reflexology to know that that it's bullshit.
You're looking at the wrong issue. Plenty of people would write about the social effects of gender bias in media (e.g. literature) even if they weren't getting paid. Secondly, you're promoting the fantasy of a passionate scientist working alone with pencil and paper which, since around 1300, just ain't so. Modern-day contributions (after Galileo) to mathematics require institutional support. Everything is else is just amateurism.
The only way what you said could be true is if you defined "institutional support" only in the most trivial sense possible (e.g. "Kentucky Fried Chicken is the institution that supports my Playstation gaming career.") Einstein wasn't being paid by the patent office to work on relativity, as I recall.
So I can find nothing wrong with your argument, aside from the fact that every bit of evidence suggests the exact opposite.
The main point of the article is to do what you love.
The discussion point I was addressing was Graham's contention that the humanities are easier than the hard sciences, which was written in a different article entirely.
And while people most certainly love literature and many will write artistic criticism without being paid to do so (just look at how many offer unsolicited movie reviews on myspace), nobody would write papers on gender bias in postmodern literature unless they were eyeing the carrot of tenure or some other extrinsic reward. On the other hand, plenty of people would still work on problems in number theory regardless of whether or not they were getting paid.
Graham has knocked the humanities before, implying they have less worth than the sciences (French literature being intrinsically easier than the hard sciences, IIRC)--which I find odd coming from him especially, whose personal selling points include a mixed background in computers and painting.
You shouldn't find it odd - you should find it more convincing, being that he's someone saying "subject A is harder than subject B" when he has experience in both.
Graham's point seems to be that in the hard sciences there are definite answers for questions, a clear "right" and "wrong", whereas in subjects like literature there are not (except in the trivial sense of a grade-school-style quiz that simply tests whether or not you actually read the book). Hence, a college degree in literature is easier than one in the hard sciences because in literature you have a much broader range of what can be considered "correct."
I believe the comparison you're referring to is along those lines: that most Physics graduates could complete a degree in French Literature rather easily, while most French Lit grads would have considerably more difficulty completing a degree in physics. Based on my experience, that comparison is dead-on accurate.
To put it yet another way, imagine how far you'd get in a physics program writing papers on the postmodern ennui of electrons.
So... Since Guido got an offer and Larry Wall didn't, does that mean that Google has tipped its hand in the debate?
If the debate you're referring to is "Python vs. mustachioed Christian", then yes, they've declared their preference.
What a stupid reply. Thanks for taking the time to lower my IQ. Keyboard layout and programming languages. Yeah, totally the same thing. Oh wait, you must be one of the guys that's trying to sell one of these pieces of crap. My bad.
:).
If you had put in the same amount of effort to read my post as you did in crafting your oh-so-eloquent response, you'd realize that the analogy answers both of your questions. People keep coming up with new keyboard layouts for the same reason they come up with new programming languages - because it's a project they want to accomplish in an area that they find interesting (see the fellow who set up an evolutionary algorithm to determine the best layout). This also answers the second question, although that could have been answered by looking at, oh, I don't know, just about every single post on slashdot about some guy making a rocketship out of old toast or putting his G3 mac into a Commodore 64 case and the inevitable dozen "but why on earth would someone do this?" replies.
By the way, if you had RTFA, you'd realize that nobody is selling anything - it's a free software keyboard layout. Keyboard and keyboard layout. Yeah, totally the same thing. Oh wait, you must be one of those guys who is so interested in posting a reply that you think is clever that you don't bother to read either the article or the post to which you are replying. My bad.
No offense, but my posts aside, I think you're doing just fine lowering your IQ on your own
Two questions:
1 - Why do people keep coming up with new programming languages when there's already only a few hundred million people with C/C++/Python/Perl/Lisp/BASIC committed to memory? It's not like they've come up with a new energy supply.
2 - And why does Slashdot keep posting about them? Have any geeks anywhere (other than the makers of these languages) actually sat around thinking of all the things they could have, it'd be a new "improved" programming language? If there's a good reason please let me know.
I was objecting to your statement that Joel "educate[s] interested and intelligent people about the software development process". The term "software development process" refers to a well-defined body of knowledge and skills, and Joel doesn't educate people about it (but he does write an entertaining blog).
You're right. That's what I think of when I read articles about testing applications under the Turkish version of Windows 98 SE and related issues - how unbelievably entertaining.
No, what I consider "shameless self-promotion" is hiring a documentary film-maker to film interns working on a software development project at your company and then selling the resulting DVDs.
Then you have no clue what "shameless self-promotion" is. Nobody who buys this DVD is interested in Fog Creek software - they want to see an actual documentary of the process of bringing a piece of software from idea to execution, of which there are no examples currently available (I've never seen 'Code Rush', but it's out of print, and no, startup.com doesn't even come close.) If he was so hell-bent on "shameless self-promotion", why on earth would he miss an opportunity to include Fog Creek demo software on the DVD??
Indeed. The quickest way to join the ranks of highly-paid self-proclaimed computer gurus is to pick a fight with the best of them, asserting that the latest silver bullet doesn't work. Bonus points if you do it eloquently.
No. The quickest way to become a highly respected computer 'pundit' is to write eloquently about topics that aren't being covered elswhere, or are being covered inadequately. Spolsky did this by giving readers an insight into what actually goes on with the day-to-day workings of a retail software developer. Of course, if you were at all interested in facts, you'd realize that his extreme programming critiques came well after he got popular. You can also feel free to compare how many of his columns are posted on slashdot versus how many of John C. Dvorak's are.
In both of your posts, you've failed to make one single solitary coherent argument, and you either live in a cave, or you simply wouldn't know "shameless self-promotion" if it kicked you in the nuts. But hey, the quickest way to get a +4 Funny is to pick a fight with a respected, knowledgeable columnist who provides burgeoning software entrepreneurs with more information on how to start their own business than any other columnist I know, and asserting something brainless so long as it contradicts what the public figure says and/or puts him down. Bonus karma points if it's eloquent. (No points deducted if it's completely devoid of rational argument).
How do you find out if someone is a genius or visionary in the course of an interview? I think a true genius or visionary would come off as a nut, or at least someone who is unable to work in a team, in an interview.
If he jumps on your desk, pulls down his pants, and starts drinking his own pee, he's a nut. If he purifies the pee with a filter he designed himself before he drinks it, he's a genius.
That statement presumes that his advice actually unconditionally works for the kind of software development most organizations need to do, which just isn't true. Neither his experience nor his products are representative of most software development.
I'm trying to find where a reasonable person (or hell, even an unreasonable one) would come to the conclusion that my statement presumes that his advice works 100% of the time, and I just can't see it, so congrats - nice troll.
But yeah, you're right - his advice doesn't work for a majority of software developers, so clearly his columns are shameless advertising. Flash embeds roaring across the screen imploring you to buy Mountain Dew have nothing on that damned Joel Spolsky and his eloquent Extreme Programming critiques!
Shameless my ass: Joel ingeniously created a way for him to educate interested and intelligent people about the software development process and unobtrusively promote his business at the same time. If he had advertised "shamelessly", nobody would have paid any attention. If anything, it's advertising as mutual exchange, something that is sorely missing in our society today, and isn't even anywhere near as shameless as a simple highway billboard.
Wrong. See WHO Monograph "Fluorides and Human Health", series 59 (1970).
Only had to read the first sentence that time :).
I guess the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the US Dept of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization are all in on it too, right? This conspiracy reaches much further than we thought! :P
Wow. One instance of anecdotal evidence. I'm sold. WE MUST ATTACK THE EVIL FLUORIDE CONSPIRACY! We must remove this lethal toxin from our waters and toothpastes! I mean, nobody really dies from brushing their teeth properly with fluoride toothpaste, but it's lethal! And lethal is BAD! And Jason Toothpaste is natural, and natural is GOOD! Well, except for poison ivy...that's natural, and not so good. Oh and viruses - natural, not too good.
Here's an idea - switch to cheaper, fluoride-based toothpastes for a while, and use the money you saved from not buying expensive organic tea-leaf toothpaste to enroll in a science class and find out why one instance of anecdotal evidence does not a proof make. Have a nice day, you Rugged Iconoclast, you.
You mean like the people who ramble on and on about a fluoride conspiracy and then wonder why their teeth are messed up and full of cavities?
Seeing as how the gum probably doesn't contain fluoride, I think we can say pretty safely that chewing it is not as good as brushing.
And once people realize it is crippled there will be a gsh (Gate Shell) and a bsh (Ballmer Shell) as equally handycaped as the msh. A legal suit will follow from Google for gsh but the bsh will last.
bsh> developers
developers
bsh> developers
developers
bsh> developers
YEAH!
Back in the days when crystal meth was legal, I had one secretary who had an uptime of 9 days, 13 hours.
That's all well and good, but does it have a hemi?
Curse you, water baron! We have no money for our daughter's dowry because of your predatory price-gouging!
NOW WE MUST DANCE!
I for one am in favor of this law, as it allows me to finally realize my childhood dream of being a billionaire scientist astronaut who plays for the NBA.
During my studies in history I've learned that history _never_ repeats itself. Simply because if there's a situation _similar_ to one from the past there are a lot of factors that are simply completely different.
So if you put your hand on a hot stove at 3:00, you'd consider trying it again at 3:01 because the time of day factor is different?
Trends in history repeat themselves all the time - look at Marxism for an excellent example. No matter how often or horribly this fails, there are always some people somewhere who are aching to give it another shot. People see what happens to drug addicts and gamblers and then gamble and use drugs themselves, oblivious to what they've seen. Or as Nassim Taleb observed, doctors can be found smoking outside of a cancer hospital.
Apropos the topic, the historical trend "Big Company rests on its laurels; Small Hungry Company crushes it thoroughly and becomes a Big Company; years later, that new Big Company rests on its laurels..." repeats itself all the time.
So wait - if "Learning Perl" is the "Camel Book", shouldn't this edition of Running Linux be known as the "Chapbook"?
Donald Knuth works standing up, and so should you.
You might also want to consider investing in a full-sized pipe organ.