Practice editorial censorship on idiot comments made by g**ks with insufferable intellectual pretensions. Otherwise you're just going to have a lot of shrill cranks drowning intelligent commentary in their din. I mean, look what happened to slashdot when Bruce Perens was allowed to create an account.
Dude, he beat Nigel Short 8 speed games to zip. Nigel Short in his turn held Kasparov to a 6-6 tie in their speed match.
Read this.
The final "proof" that Short was playing Fischer in cyberspace came when the Briton asked: "Do you know Armando Acevedo?" - an obscure Mexican player. The response was immediate: "Siegen 1970." Fischer had played Acevedo in the Siegen Chess Olympiad of 1970. "The guy was obviously trying to tell me something," said Short.
I dont know if its naive but i find it a bit depressing that someone with bobby's intellect has to exist anonyomously to avoid the public limelight and scrutiny just to survive...
depressing that freely available information means a loss of any right to privacy.
What the fuck does privacy have to do with Fischer? The guy is certifiably nuts. A paranoiac in the tradition of libertarians who see black UN helicopters around every corner. A lunatic. McVeigh on coke but without any firepower.
I could come up with a list of thing I wouldn't have liked from a Gore administration, and I'd be just as upset as you are about Bush.
Do you always rebut statements of fact with hypotheticals? Let me see how that works. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow, the ambient level of logic on earth will rise. Hey, that's pretty cool. I'm clever enough to be a g**k.
I must apologize to Mr. Ellison that I've never bought a single one of his works. Instead, I read em for free at the library. I've enjoyed them lots but never paid a dime (except maybe in late fees).
Good for you. Unfortunately, copyright transcends money and, in fact, the right of copy is much more important to the likes of Ellison than is money.
I'd like to thank all the Lionel Futz's on slashdot for an amusing law miseducation. You're all chumps - I mean champs. Isnt there an.xinitrc file you should be tweaking or something?
Excuse me, idiot, but there is a single FreeBSD distribution. Just one. Not even two. Just one. One userland, one kernel, one distribution. Its nothing like Linux with its, many versions, many distributions, many differences in user software.
Just the one. One ls. One cat. One ps. one set of libraries. One kernel. One. Uno. Ein. Enna, Un.
O N E
Do you understand or have you become so totally brain dead from exposure to that abortion of a program loader called linux?
Re:Anti-Mainstream Mainstream is the Mainstream.
on
The Pledge
·
· Score: 1
Hollywood is trying to co-opt the real rebellious, non-mainstream filmstyles for its own moneymaking schemes.
What do you mean trying? Its a done deal. It didnt help any that the "counter culture" turned out be much, much more venal than their daddy's culture.
The lesson to be gleaned from counter culture is simple: cliques sell.
Secure Audio Path, which scrambles output from a computer sound card so that music streams can't be tapped and copied at that point.
This is at the discretion of the content producer, as it should be. No one can have a legitimate contrary arguement to make. You (we), of course, have the right to not consume such content. If all content providers scrambled their signals, I'd be the first to offer an unscrambled service and make a proverbial killing.
Its a feature, not a bug.
anything that's coming out of the sound card itself is not going to be scrambled if you want anyone to be able to hear it through speakers.
Not true. If the audio isnt being streamed, the secure audio path can simply refuse to play it.
Again, nothing MS is doing here is objectionable. Streams are not broadcast, they travel in a point to point connection. If you object to the content provider's philosophy of ownership, do not make that connection.
As a content provider, I have every right to dispose of my content as I see fit. If I dont want you to have a record of my content, you wont have one. You may not like my terms, you may think them counter productive to my bottom line, even.
remember code is CODE, it's meant for a stupid machine, not an intelligent human), maintainability, etc.
This is bullshit. The best code is only very sparsely commented, relying instead on the clarity of its design, its data structures and it's use of the language, itself. Your principal form of documentation should be the CODE itself.
I loathe reading heavily commented source, especially in OSS projects which are rife with barely literate morons, endlessly cutting and pasting each other's code and further obfuscating it with every turn as they propagate subtle misunderstandings down the line.
You very rarely should have to tell someone what you're doing, merely showing it should be enough. If you have a clever algorithm, isolate it in a single source file, document it in words and psuedo code at the very top, then show me the money.
It is a mistake to comment for rank beginers begin they cant do shit with the code, anyway. Document for people who are in a position to actually use and modify your code. Over commenting also makes it harder to understand what the fsck it is you were trying to do when the comments fall out of synch with the code and/or contain various prose and typographical errors.
Again, comment sparsely, code well. A one or two sentence description of the function, its arguements, and an enumeration of the global variables it modifies. Most everything else belongs in a man page, in its _specification_ (something that is almost always an afterthought in Linux.)
If you cant do this with your functions, your code is badly designed and no amount of commenting will fix that.
As to the original question: The apache source is very cool. BSD userland is very good and very well laid out: one directory per command and right there, next to main.c in an ls, the man page source. Now _that_ is fucking class. Anyone who recommends the Linux kernel as a model of good style has a penguin up his ass. It is horrid in most places, a thing of beauty only rarely here and there. It is also terribly laid out in the filesystem and uses too many features that are particular only to the Gnu C compiler.
The best examples of style can be found in any book whose authors include: Ritchie, Kerninghan, Plaugher. (I'm sure I've butchered the spelling of their names.)
See moderator, you stupid git, you've just made a work of art unviewable to newbie slashdotters. Why? Did you think that a funny little "killroy was here" picture in the middle of 200 largely uninformed posts (some of which have been modded up) was corruptive, somehow?
Mod the anonymous coward up, please. He deserves to be seen.
Read more attentively. You are quoting Eric S. Raymond, not Perens. Perens has a bit more fucking class than to ask HP to dump HP-UX (an excellent operating system) for Linux (a thoroughly pedestrian work threatening to get a little better every year.)
Does this sound like Perens to you: Hello, I am Bruce Perens. Screw you, your OS, your employees, your customers, your money. Install Linux" -- of course it does not.
However, I don't see this happening. The reason for that is inertia. People like HTML. People know HTML. Web browsers support it. People hate change.
Luckily for people, HTML is already being replaced by XHTML+XML+XSLT+ECMA Script, a combination that LaTeX cannot compete with on merit.
An accurate translation of the topic's question would be:
Could LaTeX replace XHTML+XML+XSLT+ECMA, already partially supported in browsers with full support to follow sooner rather than later?
Long answer: In a world of infinite possibilities, I suppose there's a small but non zero chance that it could. Short answer: NO.
It's nice that the questioner learned LaTeX but, no offense, it would be nicer if he also spent some time reading and thinking about the content on http://www.w3.org/. I mean, the question was about the www, right?
(1) Beauty is in the eye of the ugly geek wearing coke bottles for eyeglasses.
(2) KDE 2 is fully themeable.
You know, KDE isnt that big that you cant install it along with X, Gnome, and serveral window managers.
My advice to everyone is: install helix-gnome, install kde, install a window manager, run gdm. The gdm login screen allows you to select whether you want a gnome session, a kde session, or a simple X session. This is the one aspect of the linux desktop that keeps me from rebooting into W2K more often than I normally would. I actually prefer the linux desktop because of it.
Sometimes you feel like kde, sometimes you feel like gnome, sometimes you feel like blackbox. You can have all 3. Looks good on a resume, too.
(Hopefully helix will smarten up and distribute non linux versions of their little gnome.)
That is completely off the mark. Completely.
Give Deep Blue the starting position of chess and no opening knowledge whatsoever. Any GM over 2600 would be able to trounce this machine.
First of all, any GM over 2600 is very few GMs, indeed. Comparing that number to the number of chess players is like comparing the orbit of an electron to pluto's. We are talking about an exceedingly small number of people. So, even if you were correct, its a small, temporary consolation. You cant know until such a thing is actually tried.
Second of all, you dont know that any super GM can beat Deep Blue without its use of the opening book. For example, it didnt work for Kasparov when he ventured off the beaten opening track in their match.
Thirdly, why should Deep Blue have to play without the book? Super GMs memorize openings to arrive at a playable middle game, why shouldnt Deep Blue?
Finally, what would happen if Deep Blue played without the book against a hypothetical super GM who was instructed to play d4 even though he only ever played e4?
Bottom line: You are inventing hypothetical matches while Deep Blue won a real match:-)
And seeing farther due to intuition, or a feel for the position, is something that will never be expressed by one of your "simple heuristics".
Until you come up with a rigorous demonstration of how you come by this "intuition" or "feel", we wont ever know that, will we? For all we know, "intuition" and "feel" is just brute force for a massively parrallel CPU, aka the brain.
Complex systems like Deep Blue develop all the characteristics of "intelligence." At least in chess, where the rules and scope of the game are limited. Deep Blue certainly fooled Kasparov, the greatest player at the time. I urge you to find stories of the match and to read what Kasparov had to say. Deep Blue literally sent him for an existential loop. If he didnt know he was playing against a machine, he would have guessed otherwise. That's a successful outcome for this particular limited Turing test.
Personally, I can't see the point of athletics. Cars have been able to outperform humans almost since cars were invented!
(1) Cars dont simulate atheletes. Chess software does simulate chess players. (2) Cars dont distill the essence of what humanity holds as its definitive triumph: intelligence. When intelligence is under threat of subsumption, its time to raise the barrier of entry:-)
What you have to realize also is that I am not talking about casual amateur games which are a lot of fun and which arent going away. I'm talking about a lifelong dedication and study to the game because it's some kind of noble, peculiarly human pursuit. It isnt that any longer. Well, IMO.
There's a reason Deep Blue's victory over Kasparov - the same Kasparov who bragged no computer would ever beat him - made every headline in the world:-) Kasparov was stupefied, absolutely stunned at the "human" quality of Deep Blue's wins. He called one particular move the most profound he ever witnessed. He was so incredulous that he quickly decided upon the false conclusion that the Deep Blue team was using a human mole to cheat on their behalf - but that's another story.
Have all the openings, combinations, and endgame strategies possible been explored?
Not even close. Btw, 'strategies' is such a loaded word under the circumstances:-)
No, the hostage thing happened before the match. The psychic was sitting front row for the match. Korchnoi complained and asked the organizers to move him out of psychic range. Chess players are, of course, world class lunatics. The incidence of madness and just plain wonky behaviour in world class players is astonishing.
Morphy, Steinitz, Alekhine, Fischer were all world champions and all quite insane. And that's just off the top of my head; the list is considerably longer.
Hardly surprising since it takes a special kind of reclusive personality to spend a lifetime pushing wooden pieces on a well defined board, using well defined rules, to the exclusion of life's random slings, arrows and rare triumphs. Wait a minute, that sounds a lot like programmers.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you ask us not to curse someone who's viewpoint we don't understand. Isn't that exactly what RMS is doing to this developer, instead of answering his question on how to implement the LGPL to allow him to use NDA'd mterial?
Dont be naive. The developer fully understood the ins and the outs of all the GPL licenses. This was simply an exercise in RMS baiting. I find it somewhat inethical but I cant say I'm unhappy with the results.:-) I think it shows once and for all that RMS is twice removed from normal people. Read the biography of Lenin sometime and marvel at the pathological tunnelvision (and writing style) both men share. Simply put, if you aint for the revolution, you're against it. If this is acceptable to you, I remind you (in the flimsiest allegorical reference possible) that even Trotsky found himself at the wrong end of an axe blow to the head.
RMS consistently urges people to NOT use anything but Free Software. RMS asked the crystal developer to NOT port to PS2. RMS asks that you follow his example and contravene non GPL licenses. RMS does, in fact, _wish_ people such as myself went as far away from software as possible. If he didnt wish that, there would be no need for a GPL in the face of the already existent BSD license. You were saying?
I have nothing against the GPL but RMS and his free software political clap trap is a blight on software.
Slashdot Mirror
Practice editorial censorship on idiot comments made by g**ks with insufferable intellectual pretensions. Otherwise you're just going to have a lot of shrill cranks drowning intelligent commentary in their din. I mean, look what happened to slashdot when Bruce Perens was allowed to create an account.
You dont want that.
I dont know if its naive but i find it a bit depressing that someone with bobby's intellect has to exist anonyomously to avoid the public limelight and scrutiny just to survive...
depressing that freely available information means a loss of any right to privacy.
What the fuck does privacy have to do with Fischer? The guy is certifiably nuts. A paranoiac in the tradition of libertarians who see black UN helicopters around every corner. A lunatic. McVeigh on coke but without any firepower.
1.
2. Bc4 a3
3. Qh5 b5
5. Qf7++
Fischer still has a way to go before it can beat me and my gnuchess.
Do you always rebut statements of fact with hypotheticals? Let me see how that works. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow, the ambient level of logic on earth will rise. Hey, that's pretty cool. I'm clever enough to be a g**k.
I must apologize to Mr. Ellison that I've never bought a single one of his works. Instead, I read em for free at the library. I've enjoyed them lots but never paid a dime (except maybe in late fees).
.xinitrc file you should be tweaking or something?
Good for you. Unfortunately, copyright transcends money and, in fact, the right of copy is much more important to the likes of Ellison than is money.
I'd like to thank all the Lionel Futz's on slashdot for an amusing law miseducation. You're all chumps - I mean champs. Isnt there an
In the process of looking for a job as a Java engineer,
What's the difference between a Java Engineer and an MSCE?
The Java Engineer takes a little longer to arrive at the incorrect answer.
OK. Mod me down as "plain stupid"
-1, Redundant.
This is counter-intuitive but you can always try make upgrade.
Excuse me, idiot, but there is a single FreeBSD distribution. Just one. Not even two. Just one. One userland, one kernel, one distribution. Its nothing like Linux with its, many versions, many distributions, many differences in user software.
Just the one. One ls. One cat. One ps. one set of libraries. One kernel. One. Uno. Ein. Enna, Un.
O N E
Do you understand or have you become so totally brain dead from exposure to that abortion of a program loader called linux?
Hollywood is trying to co-opt the real rebellious, non-mainstream filmstyles for its own moneymaking schemes.
What do you mean trying? Its a done deal. It didnt help any that the "counter culture" turned out be much, much more venal than their daddy's culture.
The lesson to be gleaned from counter culture is simple: cliques sell.
Secure Audio Path, which scrambles output from a computer sound card so that music streams can't be tapped and copied at that point.
This is at the discretion of the content producer, as it should be. No one can have a legitimate contrary arguement to make. You (we), of course, have the right to not consume such content. If all content providers scrambled their signals, I'd be the first to offer an unscrambled service and make a proverbial killing.
Its a feature, not a bug.
anything that's coming out of the sound card itself is not going to be scrambled if you want anyone to be able to hear it through speakers.
Not true. If the audio isnt being streamed, the secure audio path can simply refuse to play it.
Again, nothing MS is doing here is objectionable. Streams are not broadcast, they travel in a point to point connection. If you object to the content provider's philosophy of ownership, do not make that connection.
As a content provider, I have every right to dispose of my content as I see fit. If I dont want you to have a record of my content, you wont have one. You may not like my terms, you may think them counter productive to my bottom line, even.
Ok, bully for you. Next customer, please.
Is that the same as why cooperation with RMS is impossible?
remember code is CODE, it's meant for a stupid machine, not an intelligent human), maintainability, etc.
This is bullshit. The best code is only very sparsely commented, relying instead on the clarity of its design, its data structures and it's use of the language, itself. Your principal form of documentation should be the CODE itself.
I loathe reading heavily commented source, especially in OSS projects which are rife with barely literate morons, endlessly cutting and pasting each other's code and further obfuscating it with every turn as they propagate subtle misunderstandings down the line.
You very rarely should have to tell someone what you're doing, merely showing it should be enough. If you have a clever algorithm, isolate it in a single source file, document it in words and psuedo code at the very top, then show me the money.
It is a mistake to comment for rank beginers begin they cant do shit with the code, anyway. Document for people who are in a position to actually use and modify your code. Over commenting also makes it harder to understand what the fsck it is you were trying to do when the comments fall out of synch with the code and/or contain various prose and typographical errors.
Again, comment sparsely, code well. A one or two sentence description of the function, its arguements, and an enumeration of the global variables it modifies. Most everything else belongs in a man page, in its _specification_ (something that is almost always an afterthought in Linux.)
If you cant do this with your functions, your code is badly designed and no amount of commenting will fix that.
As to the original question: The apache source is very cool. BSD userland is very good and very well laid out: one directory per command and right there, next to main.c in an ls, the man page source. Now _that_ is fucking class. Anyone who recommends the Linux kernel as a model of good style has a penguin up his ass. It is horrid in most places, a thing of beauty only rarely here and there. It is also terribly laid out in the filesystem and uses too many features that are particular only to the Gnu C compiler.
The best examples of style can be found in any book whose authors include: Ritchie, Kerninghan, Plaugher. (I'm sure I've butchered the spelling of their names.)
See moderator, you stupid git, you've just made a work of art unviewable to newbie slashdotters. Why? Did you think that a funny little "killroy was here" picture in the middle of 200 largely uninformed posts (some of which have been modded up) was corruptive, somehow?
Mod the anonymous coward up, please. He deserves to be seen.
Read more attentively. You are quoting Eric S. Raymond, not Perens. Perens has a bit more fucking class than to ask HP to dump HP-UX (an excellent operating system) for Linux (a thoroughly pedestrian work threatening to get a little better every year.)
Does this sound like Perens to you: Hello, I am Bruce Perens. Screw you, your OS, your employees, your customers, your money. Install Linux" -- of course it does not.
However, I don't see this happening. The reason for that is inertia. People like HTML. People know HTML. Web browsers support it. People hate change.
Luckily for people, HTML is already being replaced by XHTML+XML+XSLT+ECMA Script, a combination that LaTeX cannot compete with on merit.
An accurate translation of the topic's question would be:
Could LaTeX replace XHTML+XML+XSLT+ECMA, already partially supported in browsers with full support to follow sooner rather than later?
Long answer: In a world of infinite possibilities, I suppose there's a small but non zero chance that it could. Short answer: NO.
It's nice that the questioner learned LaTeX but, no offense, it would be nicer if he also spent some time reading and thinking about the content on http://www.w3.org/. I mean, the question was about the www, right?
(1) Beauty is in the eye of the ugly geek wearing coke bottles for eyeglasses.
(2) KDE 2 is fully themeable.
You know, KDE isnt that big that you cant install it along with X, Gnome, and serveral window managers.
My advice to everyone is: install helix-gnome, install kde, install a window manager, run gdm. The gdm login screen allows you to select whether you want a gnome session, a kde session, or a simple X session. This is the one aspect of the linux desktop that keeps me from rebooting into W2K more often than I normally would. I actually prefer the linux desktop because of it.
Sometimes you feel like kde, sometimes you feel like gnome, sometimes you feel like blackbox. You can have all 3. Looks good on a resume, too.
(Hopefully helix will smarten up and distribute non linux versions of their little gnome.)
That is completely off the mark. Completely.
:-)
Give Deep Blue the starting position of chess and no opening knowledge whatsoever. Any GM over 2600 would be able to trounce this machine.
First of all, any GM over 2600 is very few GMs, indeed. Comparing that number to the number of chess players is like comparing the orbit of an electron to pluto's. We are talking about an exceedingly small number of people. So, even if you were correct, its a small, temporary consolation. You cant know until such a thing is actually tried.
Second of all, you dont know that any super GM can beat Deep Blue without its use of the opening book. For example, it didnt work for Kasparov when he ventured off the beaten opening track in their match.
Thirdly, why should Deep Blue have to play without the book? Super GMs memorize openings to arrive at a playable middle game, why shouldnt Deep Blue?
Finally, what would happen if Deep Blue played without the book against a hypothetical super GM who was instructed to play d4 even though he only ever played e4?
Bottom line: You are inventing hypothetical matches while Deep Blue won a real match
And seeing farther due to intuition, or a feel for the position, is something that will never be expressed by one of your "simple heuristics".
Until you come up with a rigorous demonstration of how you come by this "intuition" or "feel", we wont ever know that, will we? For all we know, "intuition" and "feel" is just brute force for a massively parrallel CPU, aka the brain.
Complex systems like Deep Blue develop all the characteristics of "intelligence." At least in chess, where the rules and scope of the game are limited. Deep Blue certainly fooled Kasparov, the greatest player at the time. I urge you to find stories of the match and to read what Kasparov had to say. Deep Blue literally sent him for an existential loop. If he didnt know he was playing against a machine, he would have guessed otherwise. That's a successful outcome for this particular limited Turing test.
Personally, I can't see the point of athletics. Cars have been able to outperform humans almost since cars were invented!
:-)
:-) Kasparov was stupefied, absolutely stunned at the "human" quality of Deep Blue's wins. He called one particular move the most profound he ever witnessed. He was so incredulous that he quickly decided upon the false conclusion that the Deep Blue team was using a human mole to cheat on their behalf - but that's another story.
:-)
(1) Cars dont simulate atheletes. Chess software does simulate chess players. (2) Cars dont distill the essence of what humanity holds as its definitive triumph: intelligence. When intelligence is under threat of subsumption, its time to raise the barrier of entry
What you have to realize also is that I am not talking about casual amateur games which are a lot of fun and which arent going away. I'm talking about a lifelong dedication and study to the game because it's some kind of noble, peculiarly human pursuit. It isnt that any longer. Well, IMO.
There's a reason Deep Blue's victory over Kasparov - the same Kasparov who bragged no computer would ever beat him - made every headline in the world
Have all the openings, combinations, and endgame strategies possible been explored?
Not even close. Btw, 'strategies' is such a loaded word under the circumstances
No, the hostage thing happened before the match. The psychic was sitting front row for the match. Korchnoi complained and asked the organizers to move him out of psychic range. Chess players are, of course, world class lunatics. The incidence of madness and just plain wonky behaviour in world class players is astonishing.
Morphy, Steinitz, Alekhine, Fischer were all world champions and all quite insane. And that's just off the top of my head; the list is considerably longer.
Hardly surprising since it takes a special kind of reclusive personality to spend a lifetime pushing wooden pieces on a well defined board, using well defined rules, to the exclusion of life's random slings, arrows and rare triumphs. Wait a minute, that sounds a lot like programmers.
1/2 of a working definition of the internet. The other half is, of course,
MAKE PENIS FAST!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you ask us not to curse someone who's viewpoint we don't understand. Isn't that exactly what RMS is doing to this developer, instead of answering his question on how to implement the LGPL to allow him to use NDA'd mterial?
:-) I think it shows once and for all that RMS is twice removed from normal people. Read the biography of Lenin sometime and marvel at the pathological tunnelvision (and writing style) both men share. Simply put, if you aint for the revolution, you're against it. If this is acceptable to you, I remind you (in the flimsiest allegorical reference possible) that even Trotsky found himself at the wrong end of an axe blow to the head.
Dont be naive. The developer fully understood the ins and the outs of all the GPL licenses. This was simply an exercise in RMS baiting. I find it somewhat inethical but I cant say I'm unhappy with the results.
RMS consistently urges people to NOT use anything but Free Software. RMS asked the crystal developer to NOT port to PS2. RMS asks that you follow his example and contravene non GPL licenses. RMS does, in fact, _wish_ people such as myself went as far away from software as possible. If he didnt wish that, there would be no need for a GPL in the face of the already existent BSD license. You were saying?
I have nothing against the GPL but RMS and his free software political clap trap is a blight on software.
Oops, sentence fart. I knew all that. Hopefully Nader will choose Moore as VP once people do the right thing and elect him.