10ren

Does anyone know what CPU/clock speed the kindle 3 has? Can't seem to find it with google. Thanks!

I'm interested in the possibility of programming on the unit itself. The low-power consumption makes you less dependent on mains power.

EDIT according to http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95968, it's an iMX35 (ARM11-based) http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=I... (probably iMX353 or iMX357: max speed... 532 MHz)

My old supervisor, an acm fellow, admonished me: stop thinking about the theory! Look at the data!

Henri Poincaré said, C'est par la logique qu'on démontre, c'est par l'intuition qu'on invente. (It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover) http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Printonly/Poincare.html

Implicit in this idea is that there is some kind of search going on - some way of thinking about the problem - which is not logic, and which is beyond notational reasoning; and indeed, mathematicians create new mathematics and notation at the drop of a hat (even if, or sometimes it seems, especially if, someone else's notation already exists. They are like Lispers - or, perhaps, lispers are like them.)

Now, the truth is that our thoughts and ideas are also constrained by a system - our own minds, by which I mean both the specific development of a particular mind at a given time; and also the biological constraints of our thought.

Obviously, there are thoughts which a specific person cannot yet conceive, because they simply don't have the background: consider great geniuses of the past, born before crucial mathematics had been invented, or before crucial facts about the world were known.

But are there thoughts that are biologically impossible for humans to think? I think so. For example, it is very difficult for humans to understand complex ideas without hierarchy. All our systems are founded on hierarchies, or layers of abstractions, because our short-term memory - even of the best of us - is limited. I'm sure this has been discussed academically, but I'm only aware of a couple of science-fiction writers who have mentioned this: Niven/Pournelle's Motie Engineers, who effortlessly improvised simple solutions that participated in solutions to many problems at once; and Vinge's Rider design (clearly of Transcendental origin, apparently simple, even mechanical operational, but with extraordinary emergent properties.)

As the old joke goes: any problem can be solved by another layer of abstraction, except for the problem of too many layers of abstraction.

So, friendliness and trust should also be contagious, as the proverbial smile.

Co-operating with someone to achieve something worthwhile - whether productively, as in work; or pleasantly, as in play - is a good building block.

Let this be a lesson to you edw519: you make a joke, and both your heroes attack you! Biff! Bam! Actually, I can't imagine a funnier response.

Lionhearted, it has struck me how often you live up to your name; but on that one isolated occasion, you shamed it.

I was thinking it would be hard for you to make amends. Removing the submission from HN is an excellent start, but it's still on your blog: http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/?p=251 I don't think Patrick should have to do or say a single thing in order for you do the right thing. If he asks you to restore it, then do so.

This isn't about your reputation.

EDIT like edw519, I (FWIW) also want you to stick around. It's OK to make mistakes, provided you fix them. So... fix it, quick! Of course I can't speak for Patrick, but remember what happened with _why.

This is commentary on industry gossip; not intellectually stimulating; not what good hackers would find interesting: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm commenting to educate, and also flagging. Sorry.

Another approach is to prevent these - which is how pg seems to describe his role at HN these days, at least for (3) gaming the system - leaving the field clear for the good stories. The flag link often takes care of (2) link-bait (though most people complain rather than click it). Well-known (3) author/domain probably isn't too bad, if the brand is justified, and even seems to be countered at times, eg. Seth Godin doesn't come up much anymore.

The big problem I see is industry gossip, within which I include: the crunchpad drama; iPhone/iPad dramas; Zuckerman's integrity; Bill Gates' integrity; Steve Jobs' integrity; Larry Ellison's integrity; today's psychoanalysis of one of our own members; even the Ring of Dark Angels/AngelGate. Now, industry gossip is relevant to people in the industry. But it's not Hacker News (at least, not according to the guidelines.)

If there is a clear perception of what HN is, and enough people resolve to flag stories that don't fit that perception, then this problem goes away. We deserve the HN we get.

EDIT here because too late to edit my above comment I just want to clarify, to distance myself from the recent genius/tragedy submission: I'm mocking the people who criticize the Diaspora guys for not being perfect. I'm pro release early, release often and anti perfectionism. IMHO, Patrick is doing exactly the right thing - helping to build something better. But my post could be interpreted as mocking Patrick - that's not what I meant, and I apologize for the ambiguity.

On reflection, I shouldn't have expressed this through mockery at all, but through helping. :(

What idiots those Diaspora guys are! All that excellent security consulting, for free! They don't know the first thing about software development! It makes me so mad, I'm going to write up a carefully researched and detailed account of other errors they've made! Then they'll see how clueless they are - again! Ha, what amateurs!

I did a similar thing on my CV/resume (when I still used one): for my interests, I'd just list everything I'd had some genuine interest in (shallow or deep), and added to it over months, so it was about 5-7 lines of words.

The purpose of this interests section was to form some non-work connection of interests with the interviewer. What happens if you look at a block of words like that is that your mind instantly picks out words that are meaningful to you.

It was an interactive, mind-reading resume.

Despite the name, rare earths are actually fairly common; they are expensive and seldom mined elsewhere because the processing equipment to separate them from the ore is expensive and because rare earths almost always occur naturally in deposits mixed with radioactive thorium and uranium. Processing runs the risk of radiation leaks [...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didymium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. - George Bernard Shaw,

You have a point about the passage as a whole.

And also, yes, clever wordplay intended to amuse the reader is not narcissistic.

I see what you mean now; you can see it as a point of view change (or as a value-system change.)

I feel I've been a bit callously analytical, like the "Life goes on, folks" post near the end of A Fire Upon the Deep, but I'm not happy about how Oracle is acting, or what it may do next. Like the Blight, it is very powerful.

OK, my mistake. I assumed Sun were still great at building processors (and they got killed only because they were disrupted, in the Christensen sense, like Digital were.)

I now make a further assumption that the remaining echo $((`wc -w`-6)) 315 words about the importance of technical talent are OK. :-)

Great question, thought-provoking answer.

Similar to what the article says, I think constraints can engage us more, by making our decisions more meaningful. We have "If we do X, it will overcome that constraint! How cool!", instead of "I guess we could do X."

I thought the article was going to say that constraints make the problem more concrete, and it's often easier to think about something concrete than something abstract. It's easier to grasp, easier to relate to existing knowledge and previous solutions, and it tends to engage our unconscious more, which is where creativity (apparently) resides.

BTW: please submit this blog post! It's fascinating, and many on HN would appreciate it. I just checked, and it hasn't been submitted before (or, at least, it accepted the submission - which I quickly deleted.)

Oracle has brilliant opportunities at the moment: they own a great processor (Sparc) that they could closely integrate with their database, application software and even Java... and (finally!) give IBM a run for their money. They have the cool and fast technology of both Sun's JVM and BEA's JVM (JRockit). They have acquired other brilliant technologies, and have in practice endless resources to acquire more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Oracle http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/acquisitions/index.html

But... although it's simple to appreciate the advantages of combining technologies, it's very very hard to actually do. For example, the IBM 360 project, of a series of machines of increasing power (and price), that were all compatible, so customers could upgrade, is a simple idea. But implementing this was a bet-the-company project, it was celebrated as an incredible, miraculous achievement, and the lessons learnt from it remain popular to this day (The Mythical Man Month, by the leader of the 360 project, Fred Brooks.)

To pull off these technical feats, you need the public superstar developers, but also the hidden superstar developers (the x100 coders; the people who, after working closely with them for a while, you observe, oh that guy's a genius); and then the x10 coders, who want to hang out with the geniuses and learn from them. It's places like HP used to be, where Woz wanted to work, at almost all costs (Woz himself being a x100 guy.)

If you only have x5 or x7 coders; and if you don't support them (with infrastructure, secretarial etc - not just compensation, adequate decision-making power, and some kind of recognition.), then, well, you can't do these technical feats. You may seek but not find; ask but it shall not be given; knock but it shall not be opened. Though this is not a disruptive issue, the same factors occur of the difficulty for an established successful company to change its culture and business architecture. And Oracle doesn't want to change anyway.

Don't worry, nostalgia or not, the whole thing still looks and feels amazing (IMHO). It's very easy pick apart a movie, and there's very little point in doing so. I think I might try to interpret it in your way. :)

TIL subaltern. It's true they were familiar, but it was just more colour (including funny lines like "fly casual"), and didn't have any effect (or did it? was there any point where they acted on info conveyed, and we saw the result, or it meant something to the plot? Even Han telling Chewie what to do? Maybe there was.)

Also, it's harder to show a relationship when only one side speaks - maybe if I thought of it more as a man-dog relation (a subaltern)? But it's still possible to influence the plot, eg lassie.

I don't know the details, but integrated software and hardware can give performance benefits not possible with modular architecture. eg. iPhone, consoles vs. PC with comparable CPU/GPU. Of course, a more appropriate comparison is with what IBM does.

Perhaps we can expect some proprietary extensions to java that will scream on that particular Sparc? Of course, that ruins Sun's dream... but the dreamer is no more. Or, closer to home for Oracle, that its database screams on it... Where they use this integration trick really depends on where they feel a little extra performance would beat the competition.

I saw Star Wars on TV recently - god it looks awesome, especially the early desert scene with red sand and gold c3po. Of course, it's probably because they adjusted the colour in later releases (a few times), but still. The added stuff looks gimmicky and unnecessary.

Chewbacca is an awesome name. I happened to need to burp while reading the article, and you know how I made it sound.

Although I'm sure the article is right about the sequence of early artwork and so on, it seems that the final creature was determined entirely at the end, by the practical matter of the guy wearing it, and that it needed to be friendly looking. He does look like a dog. All that remains from earlier is 1. ape-like; 2. bandolier

But he's right about chewie being a non-character. He's great, but just colour. It's unfortunate that there's no real relationship with Han - they 'talk", but there's no sense of anything there. While "side-kicks" were common (eg. watson, tonto, robin), there was always some friendship or connection, or even just meaningful cooperation, which isn't present with Chewie.

It's a great idea - grass-roots investment is very appealing - but unfortunately I think the main thing that angels bring is not money but contacts and experience.

This might work with YC-alumni, though they probably they probably don't have enough contacts/experience yet... but they definitely have quite a bit already, and it's growing, and will only continue to grow.

In fact, far from being a result of this meeting, this growing power is one of the causes of it (as noted in the article.)

For your reference, the other examples I gave were:

the elimination pun: [He passed maths] by a process of elimination, like a tapeworm

the parallel of temper and years: an elderly, crotchety lady of certain temper and uncertain years

Given the title, odd that they don't mention the singularity.

Interesting discussion of these habitability factors for Mars http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/planetary/mars.html

Mirah is arguably what he suggests: an attempt to redo java - though with Ruby-like syntax, so it wouldn't be particularly adoptable by the hoards of Java developers http://www.mirah.org/

But the alternative, of re-doing Java using the existing syntax with slightly different semantics, has serious dangers.

> solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.)

You omitted the beginning of that line, which was "A clever writer can easily get carried away with himself - " Is not clever wordplay disconnected from the external world? Is not indulging in one's cleverness narcissistic (BTW you misspelled it)?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsistic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcissistic

The quote I followed it with (if you come across a passage you think particularly fine, strike it out.) is from Samuel Johnson; the same basic idea is often expressed more concisely with "kill your darlings." http://everything2.com/title/Kill+your+darlings

Just to be clear: I didn't illustrate straightforwardness with that entire passage, but with one specific part: including this image: "scattering the town's 4,000 inhabitants before its terrific blast." Which I still really like, because it draws a metaphor between how humans respond to a fire and the physics of how small particles are pushed by the heated air of a fire. Maybe you disagree, but to me, a clean metaphor is a very straightforward communication.

On HN, if you suspect someone has "in general no clue", it's informative to check their comment history, rather than act on an assumption. It could be that their comment is a one-off, or that you have misinterpreted it.

Normally, I don't bother responding to snark. It's irritating, but being drawn in is just a second injury. And it's rare on HN anyway. But I'm puzzled when people are snarky, as it seems unrelated to the topic. So it's helpful that you have explained your thinking, and so I've taken the trouble to explain my original comment.

If snark comes easily to you, you might be more comfortable on reddit (though snark there is usually purely in fun.)

I wasn't thinking of anyone wasting time and money, but I see now that attendants might feel that (though these things are often more about networking.) Yes, it's (probably) good promotion for Oracle.

I'm thinking also that Oracle feels it is in a very powerful and dominant position, owning a whole stack, and they're letting everyone know it. It's not all bad though - like Apple and console makers, they can then integrate the stack to make a better whole product (and charge more for that greater value.) They can also charge more through lock-in, but doing that alone is a terrible long-term strategy, because it gives oxygen to new entrants.

Like "paranoia" Intel and "crown-stealing" Microsoft, I think Oracle well-understands that they won't keep their success automatically

The point I'm making is that Oracle probably measures the quality of its keynote in terms of profit, not in terms of how enjoyable or ethical it was. In these terms, perhaps the keynote was in fact good. An interesting thought experiment, no?

Of course, it's hard to measure whether this sales-pitching, partner-insulting keynote will result in greater profits, until those profits appear (and even then, hard to judge its causative role - if any.) I certainly don't approve or agree with it - I'm just saying that that is a fruitful (in a scientific sense) way to think about it. Whether it was enjoyable and/or ethical for a particular person is also important, but it's unlikely to aid understanding or prediction of Oracle, and very unlikely to make any difference.

We can however look at how Oracle has behaved in the past, and how that worked out for them. I've observed them be quite unkind and changeable, though pragmatic in providing working products etc - and to be profitable.

A keynote can only be assessed with respect to a value system.

It's impossible to understand or influence someone without knowing their value system.