I agree completely. However, I'd guess it's just a political move. People are largely unable to distinguish Google from the internet at large (particularly when it's in the form of Google representing trends that aren't easily observable to anyone who doesn't, say, have an extra copy of the net kicking around). So they blame Google when the internet contains something they don't like, hence Google tries to avoid it.
Just my $0.02.
I took one of my undergrad CS courses (intro to discrete math) from Ron Graham. Really basic class, but a great teacher. First instructor I've had who has his own Wikipedia entry...
I would think everyone with an interest in controlling access to controversial topics would want to be able to classify it as pr0n and take advantage of likely substantial pre-existing blocking (i.e., from schools, workplaces, etc) of the.xxx TLD.
Who gets to define what's pr0n? Want to ruin a commercial site? Get it classified as pr0n on the basis of some sexual content and force it into the.xxx TLD.
A.xxx TLD in an ideal world is a good and handy thing. A.xxx TLD in a world run by slimeballs isn't.
The problem is deciding who gets classified as "harmful to minors". Who makes that decision, and can they be trusted? (Regardless of who it is, they probably can't.)
I'm thankful I use Windows on my desktops because I don't have to worry about political shitfights about licensing and "software needs to be free as in speech" getting in the way of me and my PC use.
And instead you have to worry about Microsoft's own political shitfights. With Windows, you're depending on Microsoft not pushing its own agenda on you. No single entity has that kind of control over Linux (some might argue Linus does, but that's just from a social standpoint -- not legal). It's less susceptible to these kinds of things.
If there were Windows (or Apple), there would be no public debate.
The old Ambrosia games are still great. EV: Override and EV: Nova never captured me as much as the original Escape Velocity. I still remember that title song!
Buy an Argosy, put in a couple of mass expansions, some laser turrets and a missile launcher (or torps, if you're that kind of person), and take a tour around the rim worlds... mmm...
I'm sorry, I think this is a lousy idea. Other people have commented about the dangers of giving a schoolful of kids expensive laptops, but there's something else: it SUCKS to read tons of text on a screen.
I (obviously) like computers, and I read tons of technical documentation online, since it's usually extremely interconnected, and hyperlinks help. But if I'm reading something that's pretty much linear (TFA didn't mention the structure of these "online articles", so I may be wrong there), or when I don't need to have a terminal window open at the same time to try out commands and whatnot, I prefer a printed page.
It's easier to move around and get comfortable with any reasonably sized book than with a laptop. (It's not just weight I'm talking about -- consider availability of AC power, glare, etc.)
I'm taking a class over the summer, and it's annoying me that one of the books hasn't been printed up -- instead we just go to the author's web site and download the PDF. I'd have gladly paid printing costs to get a bound meatspace copy.
I just think printed copies should always be an option.
You are perceptive. I am a college student, and I was itching to disagree with someone.:) My gripe is with the general use of these words, rather than your specific post.
What I was trying to get at with the "artistic elements" comment was that I think it's just faulty to say "this is art", or "this is science". You can look at programs from an artistic perspective (and I'm not saying you'll necessarily find anything -- in most cases you won't), or art from a scientific perspective (mostly psychological stuff, I suppose; you could also look at use of perspective and whatnot in paintings).
It's definitely more useful to look at programs from a scientific perspective, because the artistic one is basically irrelevant to everyone except programmers with free time. So I'm certainly not saying both perspectives are equally valid for any given thing.
I just think pegging stuff as art and science is totally missing the point. Since they're pretty much arbitrary definitions anyway, and making labels doesn't affect whatever it is you're labeling, I think the labels are much more useful when applied to the process used to evaluate things, rather than the things themselves. The things themselves are neutral (though they may be much more interesting when evaluated from a certain standpoint).
My gripe is pointless in many ways, but it's no more pointless than asking "is programming art?", which is basically asking for a definition of art.
But programming is definitely a science. The thing is, that as programmers, we can recognize beauty in the design and implementation of a program.
As you say, all scientists can find beauty in their field. And isn't recognizing beauty making an aesthetic judgement that suggests there is an artistic element in what's being judged? E.g., the most efficient algorithms may not be the most elegant. (Define "elegance" -- it's a subjective aesthetic judgement, just like beauty. That's not to say that subjectivity necessarily == art, though. But the aesthetic element certainly suggests art.)
Furthermore, is science necessarily mutually exclusive with art? Remember, this art/science dichotomy is a fairly recent invention of western society. Sometime during the Enlightenment, I believe, we started deciding that they were separate things.
I found the whole article a little strange, because the author didn't spend nearly enough time trying to pin down a solid definition of art, which is what the entire thing depends on. I think we all agree on what programming is -- we just don't agree on what art is.
Regarding 'u' and '4': People should simply learn to type. It would take me much longer to find the less-often-used '4' key than simply type 'for'. I never use the 'u' and '4' shit, but it wouldn't save me any time even if I did.
In my opinion, people who use egregious spelling shortcuts are simply poor typists who are too lazy to make themselves understood. Typing's a useful skill, and one that's not likely to become unnecessary any time soon...
I said "Abracadabra."
should be
I said "Abracadabra".
This is not a mistake. The first way is American, the second way is British. (I don't know about other English-speaking countries, but I assume they follow the British style.) I agree that the second way makes more sense, but the first way is not incorrect.
This is a very good point. The OS itself isn't really an issue at all -- it's the visual interface, and how applications interact with it.
I think the OP is going down the wrong path by considering the OS. The real issue is the APIs used, and how consistently they are used by the application developers. If everyone plays by the rules, it should be much easier to translate their UIs into non-visual forms.
The problem being, of course, that this does not happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Google.cn launched in Jan 2006.
The Chinese gov't will just replace it (google.cn) with baidu.cn, which they already do on a regular basis.
I agree completely. However, I'd guess it's just a political move. People are largely unable to distinguish Google from the internet at large (particularly when it's in the form of Google representing trends that aren't easily observable to anyone who doesn't, say, have an extra copy of the net kicking around). So they blame Google when the internet contains something they don't like, hence Google tries to avoid it. Just my $0.02.
Don't forget Norwegian black metal!
You mean I can't use virii to hax0r people's boxen? :P
I took one of my undergrad CS courses (intro to discrete math) from Ron Graham. Really basic class, but a great teacher. First instructor I've had who has his own Wikipedia entry...
Wii, not so Wii, and friggin' huge!
Hear, hear! Yes, there are bad teachers, but good teachers work their asses off.
And he pronounces "Linux" as "Linux".
I would think everyone with an interest in controlling access to controversial topics would want to be able to classify it as pr0n and take advantage of likely substantial pre-existing blocking (i.e., from schools, workplaces, etc) of the .xxx TLD.
Who gets to define what's pr0n? Want to ruin a commercial site? Get it classified as pr0n on the basis of some sexual content and force it into the .xxx TLD.
A .xxx TLD in an ideal world is a good and handy thing. A .xxx TLD in a world run by slimeballs isn't.
The problem is deciding who gets classified as "harmful to minors". Who makes that decision, and can they be trusted? (Regardless of who it is, they probably can't.)
And instead you have to worry about Microsoft's own political shitfights. With Windows, you're depending on Microsoft not pushing its own agenda on you. No single entity has that kind of control over Linux (some might argue Linus does, but that's just from a social standpoint -- not legal). It's less susceptible to these kinds of things.
If there were Windows (or Apple), there would be no public debate.
I think that's only in Soviet Russia. :P
The old Ambrosia games are still great. EV: Override and EV: Nova never captured me as much as the original Escape Velocity. I still remember that title song!
Buy an Argosy, put in a couple of mass expansions, some laser turrets and a missile launcher (or torps, if you're that kind of person), and take a tour around the rim worlds... mmm...
...that was making these. Then they'd be cybernetically enhanced, nuclear-powered dogs. Welcome to Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong.
Both of you are missing something:
I'm sorry, I think this is a lousy idea. Other people have commented about the dangers of giving a schoolful of kids expensive laptops, but there's something else: it SUCKS to read tons of text on a screen.
I (obviously) like computers, and I read tons of technical documentation online, since it's usually extremely interconnected, and hyperlinks help. But if I'm reading something that's pretty much linear (TFA didn't mention the structure of these "online articles", so I may be wrong there), or when I don't need to have a terminal window open at the same time to try out commands and whatnot, I prefer a printed page.
It's easier to move around and get comfortable with any reasonably sized book than with a laptop. (It's not just weight I'm talking about -- consider availability of AC power, glare, etc.)
I'm taking a class over the summer, and it's annoying me that one of the books hasn't been printed up -- instead we just go to the author's web site and download the PDF. I'd have gladly paid printing costs to get a bound meatspace copy.
I just think printed copies should always be an option.
You are perceptive. I am a college student, and I was itching to disagree with someone. :) My gripe is with the general use of these words, rather than your specific post.
What I was trying to get at with the "artistic elements" comment was that I think it's just faulty to say "this is art", or "this is science". You can look at programs from an artistic perspective (and I'm not saying you'll necessarily find anything -- in most cases you won't), or art from a scientific perspective (mostly psychological stuff, I suppose; you could also look at use of perspective and whatnot in paintings).
It's definitely more useful to look at programs from a scientific perspective, because the artistic one is basically irrelevant to everyone except programmers with free time. So I'm certainly not saying both perspectives are equally valid for any given thing.
I just think pegging stuff as art and science is totally missing the point. Since they're pretty much arbitrary definitions anyway, and making labels doesn't affect whatever it is you're labeling, I think the labels are much more useful when applied to the process used to evaluate things, rather than the things themselves. The things themselves are neutral (though they may be much more interesting when evaluated from a certain standpoint).
My gripe is pointless in many ways, but it's no more pointless than asking "is programming art?", which is basically asking for a definition of art.
As you say, all scientists can find beauty in their field. And isn't recognizing beauty making an aesthetic judgement that suggests there is an artistic element in what's being judged? E.g., the most efficient algorithms may not be the most elegant. (Define "elegance" -- it's a subjective aesthetic judgement, just like beauty. That's not to say that subjectivity necessarily == art, though. But the aesthetic element certainly suggests art.)
Furthermore, is science necessarily mutually exclusive with art? Remember, this art/science dichotomy is a fairly recent invention of western society. Sometime during the Enlightenment, I believe, we started deciding that they were separate things.
I found the whole article a little strange, because the author didn't spend nearly enough time trying to pin down a solid definition of art, which is what the entire thing depends on. I think we all agree on what programming is -- we just don't agree on what art is.
Agreed.
Regarding 'u' and '4': People should simply learn to type. It would take me much longer to find the less-often-used '4' key than simply type 'for'. I never use the 'u' and '4' shit, but it wouldn't save me any time even if I did.
In my opinion, people who use egregious spelling shortcuts are simply poor typists who are too lazy to make themselves understood. Typing's a useful skill, and one that's not likely to become unnecessary any time soon...
This is a very good point. The OS itself isn't really an issue at all -- it's the visual interface, and how applications interact with it.
I think the OP is going down the wrong path by considering the OS. The real issue is the APIs used, and how consistently they are used by the application developers. If everyone plays by the rules, it should be much easier to translate their UIs into non-visual forms.
The problem being, of course, that this does not happen.