What, because anybody who's rich is in danger?
Or because now the CIA/NSA/Fed/Bavarian Illuminatus/Zeta Reticulans will "get" him or some such nonsense?
I believe, and have repeatedly said, that the supposed "scientific consensus" on CAGW is not a conspiracy but an error cascade.
With all due respect, human beings do not cascade errors, machines do. What you're suggesting is that hundreds, thousands of PhDs, all taking either their own measurements or analyzing a broad corpus of measurements collected by generations of researchers, of all manner of phenomena, are all arriving at the same erroneous conclusion, over and over, and that no one with the qualifications to catch the mistake is catching the mistake, for decades.
Yes, because political ideology makes everything else in a persons life irrelevant.
Ask ESR what he had for breakfast that morning and you're likely to get a lecture on Murray Rothbard. Everything he contributes is subsumed by his ideology, his politics, and his bizarre peccadilloes.
All he's arguing is historical accuracy--someone really did perform a ceremony that's pretty much a curse.
You're giving him quite a lot of credit, not only does he assert that the curse was real and effective, he also declares that he's a "third degree wiccan" and then identifies the deities he would have would invoked. There's no question that he believes the Haitian people actually invoked the santeria deity known as Ogun to liberate them from French domination, and that the earthquake may have been Ogun collecting on the debt.
- Do you still think anyone who opposed the Second Iraq War is an "Idiotarian"?
- Do you still think the scientific consensus on global climate change is a conspiracy?
- Are you still a scientific racist/"race realist"?
- Do you still believe that the 2010 Haitian Earthquake was caused by a Voodoo curse?
In all seriousness, why is this guy still a thing in the Open Source movement? He wrote a few books in the 90s, very good ones, but he's been irrelevant for years and he's a nut. He has nothing to offer.
I believe, but cannot prove, that global “AIDS” is a whole cluster of unrelated diseases all of which have been swept under a single rug for essentially political reasons, and that the identification of HIV as the sole pathogen is likely to go down as one of the most colossal blunders in the history of medicine.
You picked an extremely bad example there; Turing was atypical in a way that damages your case. If you examine the actual circumstances of Turing’s exposure, you’ll discover that he was remarkably and willfully self-destructive about it. Outed himself, under circumstances where he could easily have covered and (as I read it) the cop was trying to look the other way. Still, I’m not “pro” Turing’s suicide, just refusing to blame anyone else for it. He made his choice and died. End of story.
Do you still blame Alan Turing for his fate? So have you become a total crackpot since September 11th, or was it something that was always sorta brewing under the surface.
They're "dataflow" languages, you have boxes that transform data, and you wire them together in the order you want the transformation to happen. Everything's graphical. It's designed to be easy enough that someone with no computer background could use it– a composer or synth programmer will learn it for a few days and then off they go.
I've noticed some things:
- Code sharing almost never happens. You can't email a snippet of your "patch" (a program) as text, you can't post it in a text box at stackoverflow, it's almost impossible to communicate with other people about what you're working on without emailing the binary document. When you send someone a patch to look at, you're doing a lot of "look to the left of this," and "look for the red box."
- Code reuse can be difficult because boxes generally aren't typed in any way, so interfaces are difficult to verify and document.
- ... This leads the dev environments to only be as good as their templates and default libraries. People prefer Reaktor to Max not because it's easier for developing, but because it comes with a bunch of really useful default synths and sampler instruments, which people will tweak slightly.
- It's very difficult to talk about the algorithm itself, you have to spend all your time orienting yourself. If the program you're building is a simple pipeline, it's easy to see what's happening, but if you have loops and divergences it becomes very hard to understand what's going on in the abstract.
- Data types are a hack. You end up having to have different color wires that carry different things, type-tagging of binary data is routine, and you often have to do conversions because the environment runs different data connections at different levels of service. Trial and error is usually required to see if a box responds to a message in the way you want; I can write correct C without having to run the code, I would never try that in Reaktor.
- Execution order is a hack. If you connect one output to two inputs, which input will process the output first? There's conventions: In Max: the rightmost box will act first, and your graph is traversed depth-first right-to-left (this rule introduces ambiguity when dataflow is fed back). There are also boxes/modules that can make execution order explicit in various ways. (Note that in most cases we don't care about execution order, and the implicit multithreading is quite nice.)
- Doing N of anything is a pain. In Max, It's easy to build a sampler that can play one sample. It's easy to build one that can play two. It's basically impossible to build a sampler that can play N, without using the textual scripting language (ha!) to dynamically rewrite your patch based on creation arguments.
If I have something thats useful, I'll often conceptualize stuff in Max and then rewrite it in C with CoreAudio, because I know the Max code is basically a dead end for its usefulness.