This way he gets to read everything, consider his responses carefully, and post another article for yet another 15 minutes of slashdot fame. Moreover, he doesn't have to waste his life reloading this page every 10 minutes.
Back when Lighthouse was swallowed, I was trying to buy some licenses of a package from them, and didn't get any responses. The web pages for their products disappeared. If asked why the pages disappeared, people within the company would say that the person who ran the web server was gone and that nobody could figure out how to copy the pages into the right location. No joke. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Sun was trying to hamstring OpenStep, which as a portable object API was a competitor to Java.
I hope that StarOffice doesn't disappear, its programmers reassigned to writing an office suite in Java.
The abstract did not contain any incorrect information. Rather, it was the spin that displeased you. For some people, the word "stolen" is emotionally laden. For others, it is not. An absence of spin would be nice, but the presence of spin teaches spin-immunity. Either way is cool with me.
Of course I don't need your permission to psychoanalyze you, but I thank you for it anyway. I'm intrigued that you assume that I think your letter was not truthful. Rather, I assume that you are an honest individual. My hypothesis was that your reasons were not complete. That's a different matter. Comments?
There is also ejboss.org and dasein.org. The former has a very active developers list and everyone is really sharp. The latter is George Reese's baby (the author of the O'Reilly JDBC book) but he's working on the second edition and so the dasein project hasn't moved for a while. Recently the two projects got together for a brief exchange on the ejboss list. George seems interested in working together with them. (P.S. I've been following gamora with great interest, and like what I see. I don't think Scott is interested in making it an EJB container, though.)
I think you are right, and it makes me think that there may be additional factors that helped to fuel jamie's exodous: perhaps that there were enough architectural changes to make it so that he was no longer the one who was most-familiar with the code and/or gui toolkit. I think he would have a tough time not being alpha geek. That kind of thing often comes with the territory of being immensely talented.
I'm confident about mozilla; the milestones have been going by at a nice clip. I'm impressed by what I see, and know that I'll be using it soon. And, yes, the increased feedback from use will make a lot of difference.
This is something that I would really like to see. I surfed around, and found that this is something that is on cURL's wish-list. There is a reference implementation at real.com licensed under the GPL. The RTSP spec should be easy to find. I looked at the code; it doesn't look trivial.
In an ideal world, I would want these problems to be resolved first as well. Unfortunately, you won't get the food & education to the people so long as the governments are corrupt. It's better to empower those who are able to read and build from there.
This sounds like an excellent investment. I'm a little dismayed at some of the responses here in this forum, however. While the observations about government corruption in many African nations is true, the suggestion that the corruption/governments be fixed first is just plain silly. You can't fix a government without an informed citizenry or without putting the power of expression in the hands of the citizens.
As it happens, I'm in the middle of reading this book right now. While I've not reached the end of the book, and you have, my impression is completely opposite. I think Susan's book rocks. The worst thing that you've said about it is that it contains notions that you find difficult to comprehend, and a thesis which you find difficult to penetrate. This says more about you, Jon, than it says about the book. I don't think these concepts are as difficult as you're making them out to be. The idea that Memes'R'Us is compelling, and it's not difficult to resolve with the notion of "self": the self and the memeplex that creates the "illusion" of self are one and the same, seen on what Douglas Hofstadter would call "different levels of abstraction".
But then I've not finished the book so maybe I'm destined to be disappointed. Even if that's the case, though, you've not managed to mention any weakness in the book that isn't really a weakness in the reader.
How many people are there that are "like linus"? Your definition of "signifigant" is too steep to be useful. Few us will ever do anything signifigant by your requirements. Everybody genuflect. We're not worthy. I think we know this already.
You explained your position very well, and I agree with everything but the fear. There's a simple way to engineer the process of developing these things: don't hook up the outputs to anything important until you feel the odds of divergence from the simulation is small enough to be worth the estimated risk. In other words, don't give prototypes 1 through n control of the national power grid unless the benefits are worth the uncertainly imposed by unreadability of neural nets and our inability to enumerate the infinite space of nets in our simulations.
It's true, one ought tread carefully in this territory, but we've been denied guarantees in every other human endeavor I can think of. Caution has been the prudent tool for mitigating risk in those instances too.
We might also want to consider breeding nets that are good, on the average, at recognizing the appearance of potentially-unreadable, undesirable properties in other nets, and put their finger on the other's kill-switch. That's an awfully cruel way to treat a neural "slave" machine, I know, but it may be an effective average-case safety mechanism. And the blood would be confined to the hands of the slave's creator, as it should be.
What is your position on creating the same thing using inorganic units that function identically to the neurons? Is it the carbon that's freaking you out?
I've been reading a management book (don't laugh) by some folk at Gallup (my employer; forgive the plug) that has the basic premise that the immediate manager is the biggest determining factor in employee satisfaction. Red Hat should take the matter very seriously if they want to keep good talent around.
I disbelieve the rumor. Giving Win2000 the ability to run linux apps would be tantamount to inviting developers to ignore the Win32 API, the base of their power. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it pans-out.
We should give them tons of advice here. They could start each day with a chorus of "join us now and share the software, you'll be free, hackers, you'll beeeee freeeeeee". Seriously, though, I'm happy to hear this little tidbit. It means that Microsoft is joining the peer-review process, which can only strengthen the software in the long run.
I'm not surprised he's leaving. The open-source culture is heavily geared towards doing things the Right Way, largely because the participants are sick of crappy software. Jamie seems driven by shipping the veneer on time. His motivations are mismatched with the position.
Slashdot Mirror
To me, Abe clearly survived the trial-by-fire. I'm very pleased.
This way he gets to read everything, consider his responses carefully, and post another article for yet another 15 minutes of slashdot fame. Moreover, he doesn't have to waste his life reloading this page every 10 minutes.
I hope that StarOffice doesn't disappear, its programmers reassigned to writing an office suite in Java.
Hey, don't we have the right to innovate by bundling MS Jabs? It adds value to me, the slashdot end-user. 8^)
Wouldn't that be an ass-clashing suit?
How did you manage to figure that out from ~23 comments?
The abstract did not contain any incorrect information. Rather, it was the spin that displeased you. For some people, the word "stolen" is emotionally laden. For others, it is not. An absence of spin would be nice, but the presence of spin teaches spin-immunity. Either way is cool with me.
Pass the hat: buy a UPS for MS. 8^)
So long as the 2.0 servlet API suits your needs, you can use JServ with apache. I'm pretty happy with it so far.
Of course I don't need your permission to psychoanalyze you, but I thank you for it anyway. I'm intrigued that you assume that I think your letter was not truthful. Rather, I assume that you are an honest individual. My hypothesis was that your reasons were not complete. That's a different matter. Comments?
There is also ejboss.org and dasein.org. The former has a very active developers list and everyone is really sharp. The latter is George Reese's baby (the author of the O'Reilly JDBC book) but he's working on the second edition and so the dasein project hasn't moved for a while. Recently the two projects got together for a brief exchange on the ejboss list. George seems interested in working together with them. (P.S. I've been following gamora with great interest, and like what I see. I don't think Scott is interested in making it an EJB container, though.)
I'm confident about mozilla; the milestones have been going by at a nice clip. I'm impressed by what I see, and know that I'll be using it soon. And, yes, the increased feedback from use will make a lot of difference.
This is something that I would really like to see. I surfed around, and found that this is something that is on cURL's wish-list. There is a reference implementation at real.com licensed under the GPL. The RTSP spec should be easy to find. I looked at the code; it doesn't look trivial.
In an ideal world, I would want these problems to be resolved first as well. Unfortunately, you won't get the food & education to the people so long as the governments are corrupt. It's better to empower those who are able to read and build from there.
This sounds like an excellent investment. I'm a little dismayed at some of the responses here in this forum, however. While the observations about government corruption in many African nations is true, the suggestion that the corruption/governments be fixed first is just plain silly. You can't fix a government without an informed citizenry or without putting the power of expression in the hands of the citizens.
But then I've not finished the book so maybe I'm destined to be disappointed. Even if that's the case, though, you've not managed to mention any weakness in the book that isn't really a weakness in the reader.
How many people are there that are "like linus"? Your definition of "signifigant" is too steep to be useful. Few us will ever do anything signifigant by your requirements. Everybody genuflect. We're not worthy. I think we know this already.
It's true, one ought tread carefully in this territory, but we've been denied guarantees in every other human endeavor I can think of. Caution has been the prudent tool for mitigating risk in those instances too.
We might also want to consider breeding nets that are good, on the average, at recognizing the appearance of potentially-unreadable, undesirable properties in other nets, and put their finger on the other's kill-switch. That's an awfully cruel way to treat a neural "slave" machine, I know, but it may be an effective average-case safety mechanism. And the blood would be confined to the hands of the slave's creator, as it should be.
What is your position on creating the same thing using inorganic units that function identically to the neurons? Is it the carbon that's freaking you out?
I've been reading a management book (don't laugh) by some folk at Gallup (my employer; forgive the plug) that has the basic premise that the immediate manager is the biggest determining factor in employee satisfaction. Red Hat should take the matter very seriously if they want to keep good talent around.
I disbelieve the rumor. Giving Win2000 the ability to run linux apps would be tantamount to inviting developers to ignore the Win32 API, the base of their power. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it pans-out.
We should give them tons of advice here. They could start each day with a chorus of "join us now and share the software, you'll be free, hackers, you'll beeeee freeeeeee". Seriously, though, I'm happy to hear this little tidbit. It means that Microsoft is joining the peer-review process, which can only strengthen the software in the long run.
I don't care about freedom in software. I like open source software becuase I can do more with it, it's more useful to me.
I'm not surprised he's leaving. The open-source culture is heavily geared towards doing things the Right Way, largely because the participants are sick of crappy software. Jamie seems driven by shipping the veneer on time. His motivations are mismatched with the position.
We would all be better off if our citizenry were equipped with functioning bullshit detectors. Celebrating AFD is a great way to install them. :-)