If he's the exception that proves the rule, let's hear some examples of the rule in action. Name any author in any genre and any medium who has come back to a series 20 years in its original media 20 years after he started it and done something good with it.
Every source I can find offhand agrees that Lucas wrote the prequel trilogy in the 90's. The general backstory was there from his work on Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, but definitely not in 1977 and he definitely did not "write" the movies in any meaningful way back then.
I look at it this way... if George Lucas himself can't come back a couple decades later and make another good Star Wars movie, why would you expect someone other than Douglas Adams to be able to revisit the series a couple decades down the road and do anything good with it?
The other thing is that an optimizing compiler can be imbued with perfect (modulo some assumptions, which can be made configurable so that the one area that the programmer has more knowledge than the compiler is covered) knowledge of the efficiency consequences of every decision it makes. And it can apply that knowledge nearly instantaneously. Hand-coding assembly other than to cope with things that cannot be written in a higher-level language (for instance, the switch from real mode to 64-bit mode in a boot loader or OS kernel) is obsolete in the same way that the horse-drawn buggy is: The modern replacement has become more efficient in every metric, faster, and (pun alert) more portable.
But I still think that the project is very cool. Writing something that big in assembly will make you a better programmer in other languages, just like writing something substantial in Lisp will have the same effect. It's probably also a testament to meticulous, clear documentation, if they did it right, and that's a skill that every one of us could stand to improve.
The really cool thing about this one is, at least as far as I can tell since I didn't bother checking any other than the one you linked to, every page is in fact an image. The AOL-Time Warner press release is 578x3201, for instance. That's the kind of thing that I believe Archimedes would have called "really fucking irritating."
If your inability to broadcast on channel 9 means that your local Fox station has a monopoly, then the butcher shop at 108 W. Main has a monopoly since I can't open my own butcher shop at that address.
Your inability to afford a license to broadcast is perhaps a valid criticism of the regulation framework that exists, but it does not mean that there is a monopoly on broadcast television any more than the barriers to entry for pharmacy, including licensing, mean that the place across from my office has a monopoly in the field.
You really aren't describing a monopoly at all, is the point. You're describing things that may be worth complaining about, but nothing truly exclusive.
I don't think broadcast stations have monopolies, really. Since they have to get their broadcast feeds from the networks, it's hard to imagine the networks granting more than one station franchise (or however it's administered) in a given geographical area. And as long as you have more than one network with a local station, it's not really a monopoly.
As to cable companies... sigh. I hate those bastards. Mine spent time and money mailing and broadcasting about how much my bill would go up if they gave in to the Fox affiliate's ridiculous demands for a penny per day more to keep Fox on their cable line-up that, if spent more appropriately, could have reduced my bill by quite a bit. Instead, I just canceled and am saving $75/month by having cable internet but no TV. I don't watch $75 worth of TV in a year, much less a month. And they recently sent out a flier advertising improved cable services with modestly increased prices... with about a 10% reduction in bandwidth at every level.
Yes. The Republican administration took regulatory action against Comcast's pervasive and dishonest traffic shaping, so it's very appropriate to snidely tell Republicans that they are idiots for... well, apparently for not regulating enough. I honestly can't figure out what the OP is trying to get at. It's either some deep magic breed of sarcasm I'm not fluent in, plain stupid, or both.
The other point is that I never mentioned absolute censorship. Just because I can start my own user-edited encyclopedia doesn't mean that what Wikipedia's editors do is not censorship. It's just less effective censorship. Just because it could be done more effectively does not mean it isn't being done.
If the only difference between right and wrong is who is taking the action, there is no difference at all. Also, may I please borrow your dictionary, in which censorship is a term that only applies to government? Surely I can learn many other useful--though incorrect--word meanings from it.
I've corrected spelling and had my changes reverted. I've reworded paragraphs so that they are coherent English and had the changes reverted. I've split a 2-page run-on sentence into proper sentences and paragraphs and been reverted. It's not about whether a change makes sense. Much more often, it's about someone having a pet article that only he can touch, no matter how poor of a writer he may be. That's why I quit editing Wikipedia. I got too sick of people not wanting their articles to be improved.
Perfection has two basic meanings. It can mean 'done' or it can mean 'flawless.' Wikipedia is definitely approaching the former, but will never attain the latter.
Let's leave defamation to the side - first off, to be defamatory, the facts stated must be false, so they don't belong in an encyclopedia anyhow. Other than that, though, who decides what content is "useless"? Why is some information so unimportant that it cannot be stored in Wikipedia?
Wikipedia's article on itself declares that it is an encyclopedia. Its article on encyclopedias defines the term as "a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Wikipedia is clearly not a subject-specific encyclopedia. It is therefore intended to be a compendium of knowledge.
What is the difference between Wikipedia editors deleting "useless" articles (that do in fact contain knowledge, albeit knowledge that they deem useless) and outright censorship?
A marriage is a relationship between two unique individuals. It is not a machine or a program that can be debugged and troubleshot by reading books. There will be times when you need outside advice, but only on specific problems. The top-down advice you get for a relationship is always going to be so vague and uniform as to be obvious in the telling and meaningless in practice: Be honest, communicate your feelings, be patient, etc. You don't need more cliches, so don't ask for them.
For those specific problems that can and will arise, though, you may occasionally benefit from others' advice. My advice in looking for such advice is this: Don't tolerate advice that is given with an eye toward either agreeing with your actions or telling you that you're always wrong. Look for advice that recognizes the root of the problem at hand and identifies one or, preferably, more possible solutions to it.
In doing so, and even when not looking to others for advice, try to separate yourself from your emotions (something that, as geeks, each of you is more likely able to do than the average person, who epically sucks at it) so that you can identify the actual problem and not get hung up on the emotional responses each of you has to the problem. If she's sad on every anniversary, don't try to make her feel better (well, you should, but consider that to be a work-around until you can identify the actual problem). Find out where those feelings are coming from and fix that. The same goes for you. If you have an emotional problem, identify the root cause. An idiopathic emotion is an exceedingly rare beast. Find the non-emotional cause and fix it.
All of this takes a greater level of self-awareness and self-control than most people, regardless of raw intelligence, possess. But, since you are geeks (especially true for computer and literature geeks), you probably have some experience putting yourself into others' shoes, whether through role-playing games or literature, and that gives you an advantage here.
That said, see the comment regarding 'not the time to be logical' and heed that warning, as well. Don't over-analyze things that don't need analysis. Not every quirk is a problem that needs solving. And, in that vein, remember that some stereotypes can be true regardless of background... specifically, when men talk about problems it usually means that they want you to help them fix those problems, whereas when women talk about problems it is usually just to vent. Don't try to fix her problems for her without an explicit request, no matter how great the temptation to interject with a solution, and help her learn to recognize when you are looking for her help to solve your own problems.
Slashdot Mirror
If he's the exception that proves the rule, let's hear some examples of the rule in action. Name any author in any genre and any medium who has come back to a series 20 years in its original media 20 years after he started it and done something good with it.
Every source I can find offhand agrees that Lucas wrote the prequel trilogy in the 90's. The general backstory was there from his work on Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, but definitely not in 1977 and he definitely did not "write" the movies in any meaningful way back then.
Your point is valid, although it's interesting to note that every one of your examples was a different media than the original.
I look at it this way ... if George Lucas himself can't come back a couple decades later and make another good Star Wars movie, why would you expect someone other than Douglas Adams to be able to revisit the series a couple decades down the road and do anything good with it?
I meant it in a relative sense. Most people never write more than 100 lines of assembly at a time.
If the Germans intercepted a morse transmissions of it, how long would it take them to crack the code and scupper our plans to retake mainland Europe?
A fortnight. Two, at most.
The other thing is that an optimizing compiler can be imbued with perfect (modulo some assumptions, which can be made configurable so that the one area that the programmer has more knowledge than the compiler is covered) knowledge of the efficiency consequences of every decision it makes. And it can apply that knowledge nearly instantaneously. Hand-coding assembly other than to cope with things that cannot be written in a higher-level language (for instance, the switch from real mode to 64-bit mode in a boot loader or OS kernel) is obsolete in the same way that the horse-drawn buggy is: The modern replacement has become more efficient in every metric, faster, and (pun alert) more portable.
But I still think that the project is very cool. Writing something that big in assembly will make you a better programmer in other languages, just like writing something substantial in Lisp will have the same effect. It's probably also a testament to meticulous, clear documentation, if they did it right, and that's a skill that every one of us could stand to improve.
The really cool thing about this one is, at least as far as I can tell since I didn't bother checking any other than the one you linked to, every page is in fact an image. The AOL-Time Warner press release is 578x3201, for instance. That's the kind of thing that I believe Archimedes would have called "really fucking irritating."
If your inability to broadcast on channel 9 means that your local Fox station has a monopoly, then the butcher shop at 108 W. Main has a monopoly since I can't open my own butcher shop at that address.
Your inability to afford a license to broadcast is perhaps a valid criticism of the regulation framework that exists, but it does not mean that there is a monopoly on broadcast television any more than the barriers to entry for pharmacy, including licensing, mean that the place across from my office has a monopoly in the field.
You really aren't describing a monopoly at all, is the point. You're describing things that may be worth complaining about, but nothing truly exclusive.
I don't think broadcast stations have monopolies, really. Since they have to get their broadcast feeds from the networks, it's hard to imagine the networks granting more than one station franchise (or however it's administered) in a given geographical area. And as long as you have more than one network with a local station, it's not really a monopoly.
... sigh. I hate those bastards. Mine spent time and money mailing and broadcasting about how much my bill would go up if they gave in to the Fox affiliate's ridiculous demands for a penny per day more to keep Fox on their cable line-up that, if spent more appropriately, could have reduced my bill by quite a bit. Instead, I just canceled and am saving $75/month by having cable internet but no TV. I don't watch $75 worth of TV in a year, much less a month. And they recently sent out a flier advertising improved cable services with modestly increased prices ... with about a 10% reduction in bandwidth at every level.
As to cable companies
Yes. The Republican administration took regulatory action against Comcast's pervasive and dishonest traffic shaping, so it's very appropriate to snidely tell Republicans that they are idiots for ... well, apparently for not regulating enough. I honestly can't figure out what the OP is trying to get at. It's either some deep magic breed of sarcasm I'm not fluent in, plain stupid, or both.
The other point is that I never mentioned absolute censorship. Just because I can start my own user-edited encyclopedia doesn't mean that what Wikipedia's editors do is not censorship. It's just less effective censorship. Just because it could be done more effectively does not mean it isn't being done.
If the only difference between right and wrong is who is taking the action, there is no difference at all. Also, may I please borrow your dictionary, in which censorship is a term that only applies to government? Surely I can learn many other useful--though incorrect--word meanings from it.
I've corrected spelling and had my changes reverted. I've reworded paragraphs so that they are coherent English and had the changes reverted. I've split a 2-page run-on sentence into proper sentences and paragraphs and been reverted. It's not about whether a change makes sense. Much more often, it's about someone having a pet article that only he can touch, no matter how poor of a writer he may be. That's why I quit editing Wikipedia. I got too sick of people not wanting their articles to be improved.
Perfection has two basic meanings. It can mean 'done' or it can mean 'flawless.' Wikipedia is definitely approaching the former, but will never attain the latter.
Or cite to the README.
Let's leave defamation to the side - first off, to be defamatory, the facts stated must be false, so they don't belong in an encyclopedia anyhow. Other than that, though, who decides what content is "useless"? Why is some information so unimportant that it cannot be stored in Wikipedia?
Wikipedia's article on itself declares that it is an encyclopedia. Its article on encyclopedias defines the term as "a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Wikipedia is clearly not a subject-specific encyclopedia. It is therefore intended to be a compendium of knowledge.
What is the difference between Wikipedia editors deleting "useless" articles (that do in fact contain knowledge, albeit knowledge that they deem useless) and outright censorship?
Extra extra! World's greatest opera sucks
Do you operate more like Dilbert or more like Get Fuzzy?
I was going to mod this up, but an example is more useful. Bill S. Preston, Esq.
People can't surreptitiously read personal identifying information from a bar code that's in your pocket.
Editors: Edit!
And don't forget to identify shared online accounts in your prenup.
A marriage is a relationship between two unique individuals. It is not a machine or a program that can be debugged and troubleshot by reading books. There will be times when you need outside advice, but only on specific problems. The top-down advice you get for a relationship is always going to be so vague and uniform as to be obvious in the telling and meaningless in practice: Be honest, communicate your feelings, be patient, etc. You don't need more cliches, so don't ask for them.
... specifically, when men talk about problems it usually means that they want you to help them fix those problems, whereas when women talk about problems it is usually just to vent. Don't try to fix her problems for her without an explicit request, no matter how great the temptation to interject with a solution, and help her learn to recognize when you are looking for her help to solve your own problems.
For those specific problems that can and will arise, though, you may occasionally benefit from others' advice. My advice in looking for such advice is this: Don't tolerate advice that is given with an eye toward either agreeing with your actions or telling you that you're always wrong. Look for advice that recognizes the root of the problem at hand and identifies one or, preferably, more possible solutions to it.
In doing so, and even when not looking to others for advice, try to separate yourself from your emotions (something that, as geeks, each of you is more likely able to do than the average person, who epically sucks at it) so that you can identify the actual problem and not get hung up on the emotional responses each of you has to the problem. If she's sad on every anniversary, don't try to make her feel better (well, you should, but consider that to be a work-around until you can identify the actual problem). Find out where those feelings are coming from and fix that. The same goes for you. If you have an emotional problem, identify the root cause. An idiopathic emotion is an exceedingly rare beast. Find the non-emotional cause and fix it.
All of this takes a greater level of self-awareness and self-control than most people, regardless of raw intelligence, possess. But, since you are geeks (especially true for computer and literature geeks), you probably have some experience putting yourself into others' shoes, whether through role-playing games or literature, and that gives you an advantage here.
That said, see the comment regarding 'not the time to be logical' and heed that warning, as well. Don't over-analyze things that don't need analysis. Not every quirk is a problem that needs solving. And, in that vein, remember that some stereotypes can be true regardless of background
I only read the first paragraph and a half, and I have to agree that attaching electrodes to your wife is always a good idea.
Bug summary: Forgot anniversary
Resolution: Could not reproduce