Or have enemies in high places who want you put away. And if you do, they can surely find some law you're breaking. Or at the very least confiscate your property on the suspicion that you're a drug trafficker. (It's called civil forfeiture, and is on the books. Check it out folks.)
You would really have to try to make enemies like that. I advise not to put a message telling them to "Fsck the FBI" on your personal homepage on your official.gov site. Really very few people make enemies of the National government. Peole should never give themselves great ammounts of flattery.
Tempest works on both CRT and LCD screens, to answer to first poster.
pretty grim
The easiest way to foil Tempest is to cut the top 30% out of the picture - it doesn't affect image quality that much, although everything is a little more blurred than normal. The great thing is, you can put other information in the top 30% of the signal without affecting what the monitor shows to you - but to those monitoring you all they see is the top 30%. So run a simple screensaver type program that only writes to the top 30% of the signal, and plan your bomb making in the bottom 70% in perfect secrecy.
I think a great many people already do something to foil tempest monitoring now. I looked at the official military documentation on creation of tempest proof structures and constructs. If you have a shielded enough location you can get away with it.
Since most people are in fact (not all) work out of basements which usually are below ground and surrounded by high density concrete you can be pretty sure that unless the FBI is behind the door to your basement that you are safe.
No I really don't think so. Why raise prices to combat or prevent piracy? Most figures that are seen are projected analysis of possible revenue and nothing more at all. What should be said is that preventing piracy will encourage people to raise prices even further because there then isn't any other possible way to get what you are offering unless you or someone you want to sell that thing is offering it.
As a point of information, from what I can tell, the encryption and decryption is done in hardware. This being said, there would be absolutely *no* CPU cycle loss due to this process. Nonetheless, I see absolutely no purpose of this. Why in the hell do they want to encrypt the video signal? Anyone have any good reasons or are you all as bewildered as me?
Very simple to "prevent piracy" in their minds. This is because they want tight restricted control of content. Basically if you are a content author you should take the "secure" intel solution over your competitor's solution. That screws you if say you want to run anything other than Intel at all. Don't believe me just look at the DVD situation.
This is essentially just another means of control and appeasement of various veto groups nothing more.
Re:Reminds me of a very bright moon and a pompous
on
Full Moon
·
· Score: 1
... saying "sorry pals, I squandered your money"
Are you saying we wasted our money on the Apollo program? I think that getting important data about one of our celesital bodies in the solar system would be good enough.
You slashdot losers bitch and whine about Jon Katz making a far more relevant post here, yet no one gives a damn about this one??!?
I think that the real problem is that you can't see what this represents. The Apollo program was in fact a mission that involved a great deal of technical know how and was not really that easy to accomplish. I think that qualifies as something that nerds would like.
What does this have to do with ANY topic that is routinely covered by slashdot?
I asked for this book for xmas. It rocks. The pictures in it are so incredible. One of the coolest things about the moon pics is that you think they're a black and white photo until you catch a glimpse of a copper deposit in the dirt, or some red patch on a space suit. Its almost a color-less world on the moon.
Color photographs have been around for quite a while. Want something really impressive. There are photographs of the invasion of Iwo Jima that are all in color. Quite fascinating for the time.
Re:Can't open source without source
on
Full Moon
·
· Score: 2
NASA can't open source the Saturn V, because they lost the plans. We couldn't build another one if we wanted to.
Now I may be taking bait but please tell me how a large organization that can at least take photographs of plans or duplicate them could loose something that important? Or more likely is the data classified.
Well you know how it is, you get your photos back from developing, and there are always the shots with a bit of camera shake, or where you accidentally chopped off Auntie Mabel's head, or something... I would imagine that there are loads of near duplicates. You don't just take one photo - you take lots - then pick out the best. You only need one picture of an astronaut standing by the LEM, you don't need to see the other dozen(s) from the same shoot.
I for one wouldn't really care about that. Think about the collectibility of such things. A while back when slashdot had that link to the satellite imaging company I was intrigued and looked at the thing. For purely "scientific" purposes I thought that would be really cool. Problem is I can't justify a price tag of $1,000 (minimum) to get even a small ammount of data.
They could always use some of the benifits of linux and large disk drives (this could all be done for less than $30,000 total) and run servers with all their old data (flight reccords, images, telemetry) which is obviously releasable by now. I would love to look at the flight data of the first mission to the moon or perhaps the stuff from Apollo 13.
Re:Imaging and the camera
on
Full Moon
·
· Score: 2
Sorry, but your disagreement ain't valid. To take three very well aired examples: many of the greatest painters of the past few centuries have struggled with the central issue of how to represent 3 dimensions in 2 dimensions--from Egyptian art through to Picasso--how they have chosen to do so makes clear the issues involved (and the issue remains live with photography as well); the same example shows that people in different cultures still read images in very different ways (I wonder what proportion of the world has ever taken a photograph?); and finally, as someone famous said (anyone know who?), pictures never show you what's outside the frame, a key source of their artificiality--and you can extend the idea to the fact that they offer you only a moment in time, as well.
Well then by that reasoning your eyes and brain are in fact not representative of reality.
Photos are in fact slices of said reality. If I am driving down the street and get pulled over for speeding at the particular moment in time that the policeman was clocking my speed I was going over the speed limit and therefore I get a ticked. Is that fantasy?
Images that a camera can take are just about on par with what our eyes see. If you actually look at all the people who have glasses/contacts/blind in the world you start to understand that even the camera's limited ability to represent information is not that bad.
You can't see everything and are therefore not omniscient that makes you view of reality not possible in your eyes. I would possibly contend that what you see if of paramount importance to reality. All we have to do is increase our technology to sample more data faster then we have a better picture of reality. Think of this as a limit on the function of reality as x->infinity.
These aren't trivial issues, they're central to art and photography, and other fields like medicine. Ask any med student how long it takes them to learn to read X-rays, path specimens etc--we have to adapt to the picture as much as getting the picture to adapt to us.
This is a symptom of data representation and of trying to get something to actually be understood. This is not saying that the x-rays are of little gremlins but of data that isn't 100% perfect.
I cannot possibly think of anything more boring that photography of the moon. Well... at least after a while... youve seen it once, youve seen it a thousand times... Its doesnt change that often, you know.
Not all images of the moon are created equal and not all ideas are either. Future generations may wish to see the past and actually find out more about it. People in the past may have been more forgiving of what the see but take modern video games or images as an example. We supposedly had "good" imaging technology in the 1970's and 1980's with video games and instant cameras and the ever popular Poleroid camera. We increasingly want more out of our images and that's where things like this come in.
Huge masses of photograps and data is literally rotting away in old and hard to retrieve data formats that have betrayed us. I for one would welcome the possibility that perhaps this data will be left intact for over 100+ years without possible degradation.
However, the recent shots of the near earth asteroid were pretty interesting... At least there is a rock that I haven't seen before... Even had a white-spot to spruce things up and get you thinking!
Explain exactly how a spot of white will allow for creativity? Is that similar top the ink blot tests that psychs preform? I really don't get it. In the long term all that you see are images because we never hardly go anywhere any more. Our missions have all concentrated on Earth orbital/minor reconissance and construction attempts.
If you are refering to the possibility of earth impact with an asteriod I think that highly improbably however it's not totally unlikely. I can think of better things to spend world wide money on than acting like Fox Mulder.
When you guys said "full moon" I couldn't help but think of the pictures that appeared on slashdot during the last Comdex and a certain very important person from redmond.;)
A little immature however slightly funny nontheless.
What really I thought was interesting was this little quote from the adobe link further down:
Light says he uses Photoshop "as if it were a darkroom, not a fantasy lab." He did not "put material in or take material out, or move things around, or change a red to a blue." Even so, he notes, "photographs have never been reality anyway. Their veracity and objectivity have been a culturally shared fantasy from the start."
Well stemming from the obvious plug for adobe products I would have to disagree with his last statement. In all but the most technologically primitive cultures we have pretty much integrated that concept of the camera into almost everyone's mind. Look at national geographic. One of the most interesting magazines that is read in almost every country with people who can read or at least look at pictures. I see no compelling reason that pictures would be fantasy. When I see a picture I generally see reality. In fact there are mathmetical means of telling if said image is in fact real or not.
The trend to the obscure is not one that I am particularly fond of. Reality is ever present regardless of how we try to dilute it.
-------Yeah flame so sue me------ When I refer to NT or solaris I am not refering to the kernel I am refering to the kernel AND associated system components. While although technically feasible linux could be seperated from the wm it is not considered as part of the whole package that we expect. I guess English may not be your first language so let me state this formally and slowly: [The system we currently call] Linux [ and it's standard material that comes with it] is generally slow for me in condition x (ie running GNOME). I actually dare you to run a "linux system" with just a kernel and nothing else. Going to be a little difficult. Oh and by the way I ran linux with slackware 3.4-3.6 on a 80386sx 20mhz 4MB ram 80MB hd for at least 2 years. It gets real old real fast running in CLI mode for that long when I could run much better, much faster win3.x programs on the same machine. ---------Flame off-------- You know theory dosn't really matter all that terribly much for even natural human interfaces. Highlightig the fact that "linux" strictly speaking as being the kernel makes little difference to someone already ensconsed in the OS.
Then keep your file windows small and your browser windows large. Nobody's stopping you. No one's forcing you to type an internet URL in you file manager.
I think that the poster was trying to say that the implimentation of Win98 like features is a bad thing and should not be copied to the unix/linux envirnoment because they are in fact two entirely seperate things.
Unix design philosophy makes use of small tools linked together not large software programs doing everything at once.
I know this I have designed a number of shell scripts and am intrigued about how it is working. If you do any shell programming you know what I am talking about.
I remember poring over vols. 1 and 3 in college and grad school. Sometimes, I could grok the analysis but not the algorithm. I spent many hours untangling Knuth's unique style of presenting algorithms to come up with structured code that I could really understand. These are probably the densest books I've ever read. You can spend hours trying to work through a problem and understanding the five lines of solution in the back of the book.
They have updated versions of the books apparently using a RISC type machine. I was looking over the volumes and I thought he had released the others guess I was wrong. Exactly how many years has he been working on these things?
I also understand that he was a professor of CS for awhile at some big university has anyone ever taken a class from him?
Of for Heaven's sake drop the calculus requirements all together and just teach us REAL math when it comes to CS and nothing else... we need far more of it... I've heard many many people say that Knuths books are wonderful and should probably be required reading for CS majors.
Problem is that you do need calculus to understand the book at least some of the stuff I was seeing. Those little funny curly S things and those little ' marks sure don't look like calculus do they?
Most of the interesting things (unfortunately) have a shit load of math behind them. That's how they "protect" their profession from the "rabble" and keep it expensive and elite.
------Flame on------------- You know one of the reasons I even bothered with linux in first place was because it offered a plausible alternative to be being bludgeoned with the OS that is windows into upgradding PC hardware. Having something that works is at the core of what most humans think is a good idea. ---------Flame off-----------
In general I think that it's fine to increase power of whatever however there should be a system or a library that would be called libscale or whatever that impliments a series of usable features that could be scaled to whatever thing happened to be running. For example you can create open source quake that allows for dynamic AI routines or whatever with massive 128bit graphics rendered to whatever you want but you could also have (almost) the same thing with gameplay and such with no sound, low res graphics (maybe ascii) or perhaps something that would allow you to do more tweaking for the particular processor.
In short there really is not excuse to increase bloat just to make something spiffy or "modern"
I would hate to build anything on top of Gnome. I have used gnome in the past from time to time, but eventually something always happens that places Gnome in some wacked state from whence I can never return. Gnome resembles an M$ product -- sex appeal sans stability.
Darn it I tried I really tried. I guess the only reason I use anything GNOME related is because some apps can be run without the need of the whole things running. Mostly I use Gnome-terminal and the occasional other possibly useful app.
What really truely pains me is that it takes so much of my system with it.
486dx66/16MB ram/340MB hd/20MB swap.
I can barely get anything to actually work without a tremendous slowdown.
I have figured out one thing with linux which I think is accurate.
All the development on linux apps is going into what that theoretical computer in the sky will be able to do and not what the average or low end machine can do. The size of the disk space requirements, the size of programs, the need to compile almost everything yourself (and then spend 10+ hours banging your head against the wall getting the said features to work). It is intensely agraviating. I only use it because my machine isn't supported by the bastards in Redmond and never will.
Gnome could very well streamline it's use of memory and perhaps allow for a seamless use of things. Perhaps scale itself for whatever machine or system profile. Have graphics taken to vertain levels depending on the memory or disk space would be an excellent start.
These books are not meant for script-kiddie hedge wizards. They were written only for serious practitioners of The Art.
Very technically I have been programming for at least 3 years now. I spent 2 years learning that dieing language called pascal (ever seen any apps w/source that used pascal as a major effort). I have been learning C++ for about a year. Genuinely I wish to practice "The Art" as you call it.
However I cannot easily gain the equivelent of a Phd to read just one book (that is essentially unacceptable).
I will check out the other books that have been recommended to me from the replies and see what they can do.
I just get really ticked to be inferred that I am a script kiddie just because I can't program my version of the linux kernel in lisp or something.
Adults yes younger people no.
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 3
I watched the person who released the study and the leader of one of the major research groups on PBS (McNeil/Lehr Newshour).
They found that young people 16-22 were more likely to use the net socially and increase their social interaction and older people (read adults) were more likely to become isolated.
Generally this is because older people think in terms of mutually exclusive events.
After fighting through the/. Denial of service effect, I finally made it to the end of the interview. Honestly I had a hard time keeping up just with the interview, I haven't read any of his books but if this is any indication, I don't think I will. I know he has a brilliant mind, but the abstractness of the thinking approach is tough to keep up with and made the interview rather dry.
I am about 17 hops away from the actual web server. How close are you exactly? Could you post the article in text form?
Oh, but they look so lovely on the book shelf. Also they really, really intimidate project managers. Finally when all else fails; if you throw one at someone, they stay thrown!
Well you know you are intimidated when you can't even understand the symbols that are in the books.
When is The Art of Computer Programming going to be finished?
I took the time and looked at a couple of his books. However I noticed really fast that in fact I could hardly understand a fraction of what was therin contained.
Incidentally what level of math expertice are they assuming? I have taken up through differential calculus and still hardly know a damn thing contained.
I am all for information about computers but the trend I am seeing is that before you ever get a slight chance to learn anything cool you end up spending 20+ years studying the most dry uninteresting stuff imaginable.
In the first year of Java's release, we saw it used for stock tickers, buttons, and animation. Five years later, it's still the same damn thing.
The obvious things yes I would have to agree with that. Look at all the major linux applications out there little is being done in java regardless of how "good" it is. C/C++ are the languages of choice along with perl/python. I don't think there are any major programs that are written in java ther most average people use everyday (staple apps) that are actually java based on linux distributions. For that matter most of the things I use on windows platforms are not java based either.
Except on Windows NT, Java is slow. It's not open source, either. Interpreted languages that ARE open source generally kick it in the butt performance-wise, are easier to code, and are 100% portable.
I can't see NT as being fast at anything unless it's fast to anger the user.
Call me back when they figure out something for Java that's actually cool.
Dr. Dobbs has a number of what many would consider "cool" things with java. I have seen several games for java but nothing that has hit mainstream. Generally this is due to a lack of speed and bloat to the code. That may change however when we are all running processors 10x faster than now we might get 4% speed increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Or have enemies in high places who want you put away. And if you do, they can surely find some law you're breaking. Or at the very least confiscate your property on the suspicion
.gov site. Really very few people make enemies of the National government. Peole should never give themselves great ammounts of flattery.
that you're a drug trafficker. (It's called civil forfeiture, and is on the books. Check it out folks.)
You would really have to try to make enemies like that. I advise not to put a message telling them to "Fsck the FBI" on your personal homepage on your official
Tempest works on both CRT and LCD screens, to answer to first poster.
pretty grim
The easiest way to foil Tempest is to cut the top 30% out of the picture - it doesn't affect image quality that much, although everything is a little more blurred than normal. The
great thing is, you can put other information in the top 30% of the signal without affecting what the monitor shows to you - but to those monitoring you all they see is the top
30%. So run a simple screensaver type program that only writes to the top 30% of the signal, and plan your bomb making in the bottom 70% in perfect secrecy.
I think a great many people already do something to foil tempest monitoring now. I looked at the official military documentation on creation of tempest proof structures and constructs. If you have a shielded enough location you can get away with it.
Since most people are in fact (not all) work out of basements which usually are below ground and surrounded by high density concrete you can be pretty sure that unless the FBI is behind the door to your basement that you are safe.
No I really don't think so. Why raise prices to combat or prevent piracy? Most figures that are seen are projected analysis of possible revenue and nothing more at all. What should be said is that preventing piracy will encourage people to raise prices even further because there then isn't any other possible way to get what you are offering unless you or someone you want to sell that thing is offering it.
As a point of information, from what I can tell, the encryption and decryption is done in hardware. This being said, there would be absolutely *no* CPU cycle loss due to this
process. Nonetheless, I see absolutely no purpose of this. Why in the hell do they want to encrypt the video signal? Anyone have any good reasons or are you all as bewildered as
me?
Very simple to "prevent piracy" in their minds. This is because they want tight restricted control of content. Basically if you are a content author you should take the "secure" intel solution over your competitor's solution. That screws you if say you want to run anything other than Intel at all. Don't believe me just look at the DVD situation.
This is essentially just another means of control and appeasement of various veto groups nothing more.
... saying "sorry pals, I squandered your money"
Are you saying we wasted our money on the Apollo program? I think that getting important data about one of our celesital bodies in the solar system would be good enough.
You slashdot losers bitch and whine about Jon Katz making a far more relevant post here, yet no one gives a damn about this one??!?
I think that the real problem is that you can't see what this represents. The Apollo program was in fact a mission that involved a great deal of technical know how and was not really that easy to accomplish. I think that qualifies as something that nerds would like.
What does this have to do with ANY topic that is routinely covered by slashdot?
Perhaps the second part of the title of the site.
..Stuff that Matters
I asked for this book for xmas. It rocks. The pictures in it are so incredible. One of the coolest things about the moon pics is that you think they're a black and white photo until
you catch a glimpse of a copper deposit in the dirt, or some red patch on a space suit. Its almost a color-less world on the moon.
Color photographs have been around for quite a while. Want something really impressive. There are photographs of the invasion of Iwo Jima that are all in color. Quite fascinating for the time.
NASA can't open source the Saturn V, because they lost the plans. We couldn't build another one if we wanted to.
Now I may be taking bait but please tell me how a large organization that can at least take photographs of plans or duplicate them could loose something that important? Or more likely is the data classified.
Well you know how it is, you get your photos back from developing, and there are always the shots with a bit of camera shake, or where you accidentally chopped off Auntie
Mabel's head, or something...
I would imagine that there are loads of near duplicates. You don't just take one photo - you take lots - then pick out the best. You only need one picture of an astronaut standing by
the LEM, you don't need to see the other dozen(s) from the same shoot.
I for one wouldn't really care about that. Think about the collectibility of such things. A while back when slashdot had that link to the satellite imaging company I was intrigued and looked at the thing. For purely "scientific" purposes I thought that would be really cool. Problem is I can't justify a price tag of $1,000 (minimum) to get even a small ammount of data.
They could always use some of the benifits of linux and large disk drives (this could all be done for less than $30,000 total) and run servers with all their old data (flight reccords, images, telemetry) which is obviously releasable by now. I would love to look at the flight data of the first mission to the moon or perhaps the stuff from Apollo 13.
Sorry, but your disagreement ain't valid. To take three very well aired examples: many of the greatest painters of the past few centuries have struggled with the central issue of how
to represent 3 dimensions in 2 dimensions--from Egyptian art through to Picasso--how they have chosen to do so makes clear the issues involved (and the issue remains live with
photography as well); the same example shows that people in different cultures still read images in very different ways (I wonder what proportion of the world has ever taken a
photograph?); and finally, as someone famous said (anyone know who?), pictures never show you what's outside the frame, a key source of their artificiality--and you can extend the
idea to the fact that they offer you only a moment in time, as well.
Well then by that reasoning your eyes and brain are in fact not representative of reality.
Photos are in fact slices of said reality. If I am driving down the street and get pulled over for speeding at the particular moment in time that the policeman was clocking my speed I was going over the speed limit and therefore I get a ticked. Is that fantasy?
Images that a camera can take are just about on par with what our eyes see. If you actually look at all the people who have glasses/contacts/blind in the world you start to understand that even the camera's limited ability to represent information is not that bad.
You can't see everything and are therefore not omniscient that makes you view of reality not possible in your eyes. I would possibly contend that what you see if of paramount importance to reality. All we have to do is increase our technology to sample more data faster then we have a better picture of reality.
Think of this as a limit on the function of reality as x->infinity.
These aren't trivial issues, they're central to art and photography, and other fields like medicine. Ask any med student how long it takes them to learn to read X-rays, path
specimens etc--we have to adapt to the picture as much as getting the picture to adapt to us.
This is a symptom of data representation and of trying to get something to actually be understood. This is not saying that the x-rays are of little gremlins but of data that isn't 100% perfect.
I cannot possibly think of anything more boring that photography of the moon. Well... at least after a while... youve seen it once, youve seen it a thousand times... Its doesnt
change that often, you know.
Not all images of the moon are created equal and not all ideas are either. Future generations may wish to see the past and actually find out more about it. People in the past may have been more forgiving of what the see but take modern video games or images as an example. We supposedly had "good" imaging technology in the 1970's and 1980's with video games and instant cameras and the ever popular Poleroid camera. We increasingly want more out of our images and that's where things like this come in.
Huge masses of photograps and data is literally rotting away in old and hard to retrieve data formats that have betrayed us. I for one would welcome the possibility that perhaps this data will be left intact for over 100+ years without possible degradation.
However, the recent shots of the near earth asteroid were pretty interesting... At least there is a rock that I haven't seen before... Even had a white-spot to spruce things up and get
you thinking!
Explain exactly how a spot of white will allow for creativity? Is that similar top the ink blot tests that psychs preform? I really don't get it. In the long term all that you see are images because we never hardly go anywhere any more. Our missions have all concentrated on Earth orbital/minor reconissance and construction attempts.
If you are refering to the possibility of earth impact with an asteriod I think that highly improbably however it's not totally unlikely. I can think of better things to spend world wide money on than acting like Fox Mulder.
When you guys said "full moon" I couldn't help but think of the pictures that appeared on slashdot during the last Comdex and a certain very important person from redmond. ;)
A little immature however slightly funny nontheless.
What really I thought was interesting was this little quote from the adobe link further down:
Light says he uses Photoshop "as if it were a darkroom, not a fantasy lab."
He did not "put material in or take material out, or move things around, or change a
red to a blue." Even so, he notes, "photographs have never been reality anyway. Their
veracity and objectivity have been a culturally shared fantasy from the start."
Well stemming from the obvious plug for adobe products I would have to disagree with his last statement. In all but the most technologically primitive cultures we have pretty much integrated that concept of the camera into almost everyone's mind. Look at national geographic. One of the most interesting magazines that is read in almost every country with people who can read or at least look at pictures. I see no compelling reason that pictures would be fantasy. When I see a picture I generally see reality. In fact there are mathmetical means of telling if said image is in fact real or not.
The trend to the obscure is not one that I am particularly fond of. Reality is ever present regardless of how we try to dilute it.
-------Yeah flame so sue me------
When I refer to NT or solaris I am not refering to the kernel I am refering to the kernel AND associated system components.
While although technically feasible linux could be seperated from the wm it is not considered as part of the whole package that we expect.
I guess English may not be your first language so let me state this formally and slowly:
[The system we currently call] Linux [ and it's standard material that comes with it] is generally slow for me in condition x (ie running GNOME).
I actually dare you to run a "linux system" with just a kernel and nothing else. Going to be a little difficult.
Oh and by the way I ran linux with slackware 3.4-3.6 on a 80386sx 20mhz 4MB ram 80MB hd for at least 2 years. It gets real old real fast running in CLI mode for that long when I could run much better, much faster win3.x programs on the same machine.
---------Flame off--------
You know theory dosn't really matter all that terribly much for even natural human interfaces. Highlightig the fact that "linux" strictly speaking as being the kernel makes little difference to someone already ensconsed in the OS.
Then keep your file windows small and your browser windows large. Nobody's stopping you. No one's forcing you to type an internet URL in you file manager.
I think that the poster was trying to say that the implimentation of Win98 like features is a bad thing and should not be copied to the unix/linux envirnoment because they are in fact two entirely seperate things.
Unix design philosophy makes use of small tools linked together not large software programs doing everything at once.
I know this I have designed a number of shell scripts and am intrigued about how it is working. If you do any shell programming you know what I am talking about.
I remember poring over vols. 1 and 3 in college and grad school. Sometimes, I could grok the analysis but not the algorithm. I spent many hours untangling Knuth's unique style
of presenting algorithms to come up with structured code that I could really understand. These are probably the densest books I've ever read. You can spend hours trying to work
through a problem and understanding the five lines of solution in the back of the book.
They have updated versions of the books apparently using a RISC type machine. I was looking over the volumes and I thought he had released the others guess I was wrong. Exactly how many years has he been working on these things?
I also understand that he was a professor of CS for awhile at some big university has anyone ever taken a class from him?
The part on hypergeometic series has been mostly obsoleted by later work. See the book A=B (Amazon or FREE download).
Thanks for the link I am checking it out now.
Of for Heaven's sake drop the calculus requirements all together and just teach us REAL math when it comes to CS and nothing else... we need far more of it... I've heard many
many people say that Knuths books are wonderful and should probably be required reading for CS majors.
Problem is that you do need calculus to understand the book at least some of the stuff I was seeing. Those little funny curly S things and those little ' marks sure don't look like calculus do they?
Most of the interesting things (unfortunately) have a shit load of math behind them. That's how they "protect" their profession from the "rabble" and keep it expensive and elite.
------Flame on-------------
You know one of the reasons I even bothered with linux in first place was because it offered a plausible alternative to be being bludgeoned with the OS that is windows into upgradding PC hardware. Having something that works is at the core of what most humans think is a good idea.
---------Flame off-----------
In general I think that it's fine to increase power of whatever however there should be a system or a library that would be called libscale or whatever that impliments a series of usable features that could be scaled to whatever thing happened to be running. For example you can create open source quake that allows for dynamic AI routines or whatever with massive 128bit graphics rendered to whatever you want but you could also have (almost) the same thing with gameplay and such with no sound, low res graphics (maybe ascii) or perhaps something that would allow you to do more tweaking for the particular processor.
In short there really is not excuse to increase bloat just to make something spiffy or "modern"
I would hate to build anything on top of Gnome.
I have used gnome in the past from time to
time, but eventually something always happens
that places Gnome in some wacked state from
whence I can never return. Gnome resembles
an M$ product -- sex appeal sans stability.
Darn it I tried I really tried. I guess the only reason I use anything GNOME related is because some apps can be run without the need of the whole things running. Mostly I use Gnome-terminal and the occasional other possibly useful app.
What really truely pains me is that it takes so much of my system with it.
486dx66/16MB ram/340MB hd/20MB swap.
I can barely get anything to actually work without a tremendous slowdown.
I have figured out one thing with linux which I think is accurate.
All the development on linux apps is going into what that theoretical computer in the sky will be able to do and not what the average or low end machine can do. The size of the disk space requirements, the size of programs, the need to compile almost everything yourself (and then spend 10+ hours banging your head against the wall getting the said features to work). It is intensely agraviating. I only use it because my machine isn't supported by the bastards in Redmond and never will.
Gnome could very well streamline it's use of memory and perhaps allow for a seamless use of things. Perhaps scale itself for whatever machine or system profile. Have graphics taken to vertain levels depending on the memory or disk space would be an excellent start.
These books are not meant for script-kiddie hedge wizards. They were written only for serious practitioners of The Art.
Very technically I have been programming for at least 3 years now. I spent 2 years learning that dieing language called pascal (ever seen any apps w/source that used pascal as a major effort). I have been learning C++ for about a year. Genuinely I wish to practice "The Art" as you call it.
However I cannot easily gain the equivelent of a Phd to read just one book (that is essentially unacceptable).
I will check out the other books that have been recommended to me from the replies and see what they can do.
I just get really ticked to be inferred that I am a script kiddie just because I can't program my version of the linux kernel in lisp or something.
I watched the person who released the study and the leader of one of the major research groups on PBS (McNeil/Lehr Newshour).
They found that young people 16-22 were more likely to use the net socially and increase their social interaction and older people (read adults) were more likely to become isolated.
Generally this is because older people think in terms of mutually exclusive events.
After fighting through the /. Denial of service effect, I finally made it to the end of the interview. Honestly I had a hard time keeping up just with the interview, I haven't read any of his books but if this is any indication, I don't think I
will. I know he has a brilliant mind, but the abstractness of the thinking approach is tough to keep up with and made the interview rather dry.
I am about 17 hops away from the actual web server. How close are you exactly? Could you post the article in text form?
Oh, but they look so lovely on the book shelf. Also they really, really intimidate project managers. Finally when all else fails; if you throw one at someone, they stay thrown!
Well you know you are intimidated when you can't even understand the symbols that are in the books.
When is The Art of Computer Programming going to be finished?
I took the time and looked at a couple of his books. However I noticed really fast that in fact I could hardly understand a fraction of what was therin contained.
Incidentally what level of math expertice are they assuming? I have taken up through differential calculus and still hardly know a damn thing contained.
I am all for information about computers but the trend I am seeing is that before you ever get a slight chance to learn anything cool you end up spending 20+ years studying the most dry uninteresting stuff imaginable.
In the first year of Java's release, we saw it used for stock tickers, buttons, and animation. Five years later, it's still the same damn thing.
The obvious things yes I would have to agree with that. Look at all the major linux applications out there little is being done in java regardless of how "good" it is. C/C++ are the languages of choice along with perl/python. I don't think there are any major programs that are written in java ther most average people use everyday (staple apps) that are actually java based on linux distributions. For that matter most of the things I use on windows platforms are not java based either.
Except on Windows NT, Java is slow. It's not open source, either. Interpreted languages that ARE open source generally kick it in the butt performance-wise, are easier to code, and are 100% portable.
I can't see NT as being fast at anything unless it's fast to anger the user.
Call me back when they figure out something for Java that's actually cool.
Dr. Dobbs has a number of what many would consider "cool" things with java. I have seen several games for java but nothing that has hit mainstream. Generally this is due to a lack of speed and bloat to the code. That may change however when we are all running processors 10x faster than now we might get 4% speed increase.